For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.
This article is not a substitute for getting the advice I’m an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located.
==========================
see http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/03/jpm-wamu/
The banks are counting on the fact that the claims of securitization are so complex and convoluted that nobody will be able to state a claim with clarity. Foreclosure defense lawyers across the country are seeing constant fabrications, forgeries, uttering false instruments (assignments, Powers of Attorney), and perjury. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of J.P. Morgan Chase claiming rights in connection with it’s acquisition of certain assets and liabilities of Washington Mutual (WAMU).
At this point J.P. Morgan Chase has taken so many different positions that are inconsistent with each other that you can find a brief or pleading from J.P. Morgan Chase to support virtually any position that you want to take.
You really need to drill down into these articles and decisions in order to see the fundamental error and illegality of the reporting by the major banks and their actions seeking to enforce defective mortgages despite blatant irregularities at closing and nonexistent transactions where JP Morgan Chase, like other banks, claims to have acquired a particular loan or that a nonexistent or nonperforming trust somehow acquired a loan.
If you look at this article in the link above you will see that JP Morgan Chase has taken multiple inconsistent positions on exactly the same issues. Despite clear language to the contrary, they wish to escape liability for the defective and predatory loan practices directed at unsuspecting homeowners and borrowers; and despite clear language to the contrary, they wish to assert ownership over loans that were already sold into the secondary market and then subjected to claims of securitization that in most cases were false claims.
Josh Rosner wrote an article asking whether the false claims of securitization and violations of the prospectus and PSA would make might dwarf the “Lehman weekend.” The answer is yes. From my perspective it appears that most of the money that went through the banks that were too big to fail, was it illegally and fraudulently collected and then hidden offshore. Many trillions of dollars have been advanced to these Banks that are too big to regulate.
TARP was initially created to prevent massive Bank closings related to losses on mortgage loans. But that didn’t work out because the losses on mortgage loans were not sustained by the mega banks. So they expanded the definition to include mortgage-backed securities. But those losses were not sustained by the mega banks either. So they expanded the definition to include virtually anything in an excuse to pump money into the same banks that had caused the crisis; very few critics were allowed to speak. The critics knew that pumping money into banks that were falsely reporting losses what is going to cause an even greater negative impact on the economy. The economy is driven mostly by consumer spending. This was not rocket science. Countries like Iceland simply reduced household debt and threw the bankers in jail. The result was a robust economic recovery. The cost of reducing the household that would simply accomplished by forcing the banks to absorb the loss that they themselves had created.
The problem we have in our country is that the banks have purchased the government. And those politicians who have not been purchased, Have been scared to death with the prospect a complete failure of government, society and economies. The entire premise of such a crash is completely wrong. While the immediate impact of such a policy inevitably leads to volatility in the securities markets, those movements even out as the outcome becomes clear. More than 7000 Banks and credit unions currently use the exact same backbone four electronic funds transfer and payments; all the banks use the same technology and all of them have access to that technology right now. The fall of the mega banks would simply result in a correction in the marketplace where certain banks have become too large to regulate at had become far too influential with people who call the levers of power in all three branches of government.
The other part of the problem is that we seem to hold those with his enormous wealth in high estimation without regard to their actual character. Most of the people in the mega banks are completely contemptuous of the citizens of our country and the politicians that we have elected. In my opinion, it is urgent that we begin to separate normal commercial depository functions of a bank from the risks taken by investment banking departments. And when those risks turn to wrongful, illegal or criminal behavior the individuals, not just their companies, should be held strictly accountable.
Taking down the mega banks is much simpler than it might appear. The extent of our continuing economic problems is equal to the liability of these banks for damages and to repurchase both loans and alleged mortgage-backed securities that were neither securities nor were they backed by mortgages. If the securities and bank regulators actually performed the due diligence and audits that they were supposed to perform, It would be obvious that the mega banks do not have the assets that they claim to have, and that’s the mega banks have liabilities that are far in excess of what they have reported. In short, the mega banks are insolvent which is exactly why we have the FDIC. An orderly transition of the function of the mega banks to smaller banks that are more susceptible to regulation would end our current crisis and ensure a recovery of our economy.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: FDIC, JPM CHASE, WAMU |
What gives OBAMA & his “ADMINISTRATION” the right legal or otherwise to espouse GAY LIBERALISM like it’s law?
That’s LAWLESSNESS & the epitome of evil because it relies upon we the people don’t know what GAY LIBERALISM even is.
Moreover, GAY LIBERALISM gives demon worshippers the easy way to PERSECUTE CATHOLICS & other religious believers by paying homage to its own religious indignation by telling lies like truth.
Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal.
“We need to all look in the mirror, as we have only ourselves to blame”. Yup, in many ways yes, you are correct, E.
I was guilty too, lavishing myself with guilty pleasures, for wants, not needs and loosing sight of the degradation and demise of fellow citizens, that I could care less, if I related to.
“They will do this to others, they will certainly do unto us, the same”
I still believe guilty pleasures are sometimes a break from “insanity”; however, the reality is: they are coming for all of us, no longer quasi-military; but effective tanks, squads of militia, authorized officials (by whom I beg) with altered states of mind, believing their mission is warranted. Horse Shit!
The theft and imposition is grave…and devouring everything thing we toiled for; land, speech, barter, travel, …the bane of our freedom and very existence. Pathetic, it goes unnoticed by most!
My case: transfers of “debt” in Idaho, by Ocwen to Brock & Scott, sold they say! in 2012 from 2007….the play book gets larger each day!
Good Luck to all here, you are hero’s, no matter whether I agree or disagree, FIGHT ON
Therefore, maybe we should carry some garlic with us wherever we go because the law doesn’t matter to them.
It’s VEDIC SANSKRIT VOODOO in FRAUDCLOSURE which is high level DEMON WORSHIP.
They think they’re the law & they’re greater than God.
Dwight…LISTEN TO YOUR COUNCIL.
TRUST ME …
To many people here had a hard time finding someone to represent them because they tried to tell attornies how to do their jobs.
STATE LAWS VARY
Please talk to your council about taxes and HOA and Ins.
@ DwightNJ [an OPINION]:
The 2007 rescission based on the TILA provisions needs to be asserted by affidavit/declaration in all further filings/pleadings & briefs in the superior court to ensure that the key “evidence” in support of your position is included in the superior court record, and preserved for an appeal, which is critical.
If you must, to preserve your position for an appeal, file an independent affidavit/declaration with exhibits in support of an objection to the granting of the opposition’s MSJ, and insert into the record a notice of intent to file a noticed motion for reconsideration, a noticed motion to vacate the MSJ, and most importantly, a peremptory challenge to the judge that issued the adverse ruling.
In any and all further filings, including the foregoing motions, please make sure you lay the evidentiary and record foundation for building your claim for the merits of an appeal.
I don’t knw where the pur came from in my previous comment but they’re one pure evil this bunch of BANKSTER HOODLUMS.
The ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION is SIGNATURE EXTORTION by the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
AKA CAP & TRADE by OBAMA & his BANKSTER cohorts & minions who want to DIGITIZE their FRAUD to FRAUDULENTLY INDUCE their STATE RUN MiCROCHIPPED FASCIST REGIME
under HITLERCARE.
They want to make every one wards to their FRAUD.
Pur
Correction to 2) e. on the issue of “Lender”:
…WaMuBank FA as the [purported] successor lender, creditor, beneficiary and real party in interest.
@ DwightNJ:
1) “The loan originated with Commerce Bank on Oct. 2004”
2) “They endorsed it over to Washington Mutual Bank upon closing”
3) “Washington Mutual Bank was who we paid from 2004-2007”
4) “We always thought Washington Mutual owned our loan.”
5) “Wells Fargo is my servicer since 2007”
6) “Fannie Mae claims they have owned the loan since Dec. 2004”; “Nobody ever told us that Fannie Mae immediately purchased the loan in Dec. of 2004 .. a month after we closed with Commerce Bank”; “But we have never been told if our loan was sold to a trust …”
7) “But Fannie Mae is who apparently funded this and used the banks as their pawns in the Ponzi scheme ..”; “if they cannot produce the trust, this would explain why Fannie Mae told Wells Fargo to foreclose as the servicer?
Comments & Opinions; NOT ADVICE:
1) In all likelihood, the Subject Contract (Promissory NOTE & DOT) was an undisclosed “conduit loan” whereby Commerce Bank induced the execution of the Subject Contract with the intention of “originating” it for the sole purpose of packaging, pooling and selling the whole Subject Contract into a FNMA RMBS REMIC trust securitization scheme, including the “releasing” (selling) of the servicing which purports to bring a higher profit (as opposed to “retaining” the servicing, sold at a lower profit).
2) What was ‘endorsed’ to Washington Mutual Bank in 2004?
a. Point of fact, ‘Washington Mutual Bank’ did not exist until sometime in April 2005, after the mysterious demise of Washington Mutual Bank, FA, which ceased to exist on or about April 4, 2005.
b. Take a close look at the documentation and identify with specificity which WaMu entity is ‘endorsed’, and whether the ‘endorsed’ entity is on both the NOTE &/or DOT.
c. Within its own documentation, FNMA states it is not a “lender”, so it could not and did not fund any purported loan with its own monies; rather, it acted as an issuer of RMBS bonds derived from packaged and securitized NOTES.
d. The presumption would be that a WaMu entity purchased only the servicing, but from whom, what, where, when & how is the unknown that needs discovery applied. Did Commerce Bank “retain” servicing, then sell it to a WaMu entity, at that time in existence WaMuBank FA, who was engaged in originating and servicing to RMBS? Meanwhile, FNMA was packaging and pooling NOTES into securities purchased as bonds.
e. Despite labels as a “Lender” on any recorded instrument, without further proof through discovery, neither Commerce Bank, WaMuBank FA, FNMA, nor WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., loaned any of its own monies in order to consummate the Subject Loan, which should be forcefully asserted in light of the “conduit” loan funding scheme.
3) Payments were made in good faith.
4) The representation was made and relied upon that Commerce Bank, as “Lender”, conveyed, transferred, negotiated and delivered for value any and all of its interests, if any at all, to WaMuBank FA as the successor lender, creditor, beneficiary and real party in interest.
5) In 2007, a pattern and practice exists where it appears that a WaMuBank (not FA) “assignment” instrument of the DOT is recorded in the county land records to other servicers, including WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. The unanswered question is: What viable right, title, estate, lien or interest in the Subject Contract did WaMuBank (not FA) have to “assign”?
6) FNMA RMBS trust securitization is the definition of misprision. It must be forced through discovery.
7) See 2) e.; and, if WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. is merely a successor servicer for an undisclosed RMBS trust, then an instrument should have been recorded showing a proper chain-of-title for authority on same.
Also, “elexquisitor” and “johngault” have pointed out important contributions to procedural consideration on the motion to vacate the MSJ. In light of the fact that a final judgment has not yet been entered, consider a few pre-judgment options (that exist in Kalifornia): 1) a noticed motion for peremptory challenge to that judge hearing any further matters; 2) a noticed motion for reconsideration of the order granting the MSJ, along with then 3) the motion to vacate the MSJ. Post-judgment, a noticed motion for a new trial, at minimum. The foregoing procedural mechanisms will provide further opportunity to develop the record; critical to preserving arguments and evidence referred to on appeal.
Agreement in support of investing the $300.00 on the consultation referenced, but offer and negotiate for more time beyond the initial consultation to volley corroborating evidence so they’ll know you’re a credible person and there is merit to your matter.
Lastly, since 2007, you’ve overcome tremendous legal adversity and made it this far, so: DO NOT GIVE UP!
The battle is a marathon, not a sprint.
The BANKSTER fix for COUNTERFEITING CREDIT & pocketing our cash is to say their COUNTERFEITS were LEASE CONTRACTS. Well that fraud doesn’t fly either because they took down payments from us & we paid for the lots too, in many cases.
So there is the PROOF OF INTENT to DESTROY OUR TITLES by the TITLE COUNTERFEITERS.
Clearly renters don’t buy the land & make down payments on rentals.
Maybe the BANKSTERS should be suing the TITLE COMPANIES for not producing the SECURITIES instead of trying to POISON us with their DRUGS to cover up their NAZI PLOT is RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION because they’re demons from hell.
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff who brought the fraud suit to cover up their nazi plot.
Their hope is they can kill off their intended targets so they can steal our TITLES & let their evil comrades move in our properties to DESTROY EVIDENCE of their crimes & continue to carry out their evil plans for their comrades on WALL STREET.
They have their BLACK BANKING OPERATIVE TERROR GROUPS hidden in strategic positions to hold our TITLES hostage for the sell out TRAITORS from within.
No doubt they have been promised kings ransoms under many guises like INSURANCE FRAUD because AIG is hiding the TOTALITARIAN SPY RING of CORPORATE murderers.
If the banks claim to be insolvent when they have received well over $60 TRILLION in U.S. TAXPAYER MONEY since 2008 reported RICK SANTELLI of CNBC, with no AUDITS by the FEDERAL BANKING REGULATORS, & the value of our property funded by us UPFRONT was estimated to be $12 trillion then the BANKSTERS need to go to prison.
What’s the tax money they owe on $60 TRILLION?
How could CHASE have been fined BILLIONS with no FEDERAL AUDITS?
Someone is cleary lying & obviously those BILLIONS have been slated for some other purpose other then stated because no one seems to be getting justice in FRAUDCLOSURE.
Moreover, with PROVE UP HEARINGS being willfuly ignored by the JUDGES is EVIDENCE of them being complicant with the cover up.
Its retro active …
Wells Fargo is my servicer since 2007
Fannie Mae claims they have owned the loan since Dec. 2004
The loan originated with Commerce Bank on Oct. 2004
They endorsed it over to Washington Mutual Bank upon closing
Washington Mutual Bank was who we paid from 2004-2007
Nobody ever told us that Fannie Mae immediately purchased the loan in Dec. of 2004 .. a month after we closed with Commerce Bank
We always thought Washington Mutual owned our loan.
But Fannie Mae is who apparently funded this and used the banks as their pawns in the Ponzi scheme ..
But we have never been told if our loan was sold to a trust …
if they cannot produce the trust, this would explain why Fannie Mae told Wells Fargo to foreclose as the servicer?
POINT 1 in the Brief below .. has a mistake
he wrote that the plaintiff accelerated the loan on Feb. 2008 ..
he needs to change that , they accelerated on Sept 25, 2007 the date the complaint was filed .. in the complaint they elect and declare the full sum due because they point out the acceleration clause is being used
the assignment also claims that the assignee should collect the entire full sum .. the assignment was allegedly fabricated on Oct 8, 2007
The point is .. in NJ Notes are governed by the NJ-UCC and the statute says that once you accelerate a note to a new maturity date, you only have six (6) years to enforce it, or it becomes void.
NJ wrote a conflicting FFA statute after the mortgage meltdown to help protect banks .. it stretched the statute on foreclosing mortgages out to 20 years … it states that they can foreclose 20 years from default, OR six (6) years from maturity date ..
The NJ Federal Bankruptcy Judge gave the Borrower the Free House because he said that when a plaintiff accelerates, they are infact creating a new maturity date on the Note , and they only get 6 yrs.
In my case the 6 years has already run … since Sept 2007 when they first accelerated.
If Wells didn’t have standing…the successor got nothing.
You need to follow directions.
No one is forcing you to read my posts. And since you do….without a doubt…I can diagnose you with a reading comprehension disability .
No once have I ever made the statement…
“Who do I owe?” That’s a question for the borrower.
I ask….
HOW MUCH DOES KC OWE?
A reasonable question … Considering they sued me.
PS. .. If you had followed directions you would be setting where Kris is right now.
Below is the Brief that my paralegal prepared for me … I could not find a competent attorney willing to do the work, so this paralegal did it ..
In the Exhibits he shows the Fannie Mae website pages that confirms they own my loan .. The MERS website also says Fannie Mae owns.
He is saying that Wells Fargo never established Standing …
To appease me, he included the TILA rescission against his wishes.
He says that I can now add or subtract from what he wrote, but says I should just leave it be.
I want to definitely add a lot more to the rescission argument.
But does anyone here have any suggestions regarding the Fannie Mae connection, where they continue to say they own the loan ..yet the plaintiff Wells Fargo is saying they have the assignment of mortgage that says they own the loan? The paralegal is saying that WF is claiming they own the loan by way of the assignment , is that true?
I’m confused …
He says a servicer can foreclose as a holder, but they must prove they received the original note before the complaint was filed in NJ .. and they rely on the assignment that they fabricated in 2007
But Fannie Mae and MERS says that Fannie Mae is still owner?
*** Motion to Vacate the Summary Judgment Order ***
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This case concerns a plaintiff who claims to be the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage. The plaintiff is the servicer according to Fannie Mae and MERS. The plaintiff has no evidence that Fannie Mae delivered the original Note to it. The assignment was prepared and executed by the plaintiff to itself to make it appear that it purchased subject loan. Fannie Mae and MERS documents shows Fannie Mae as the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage, which demonstrates there was no intent to transfer the rights of the Mortgage to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pled the defendants defaulted, but submits no evidence that shows payments were made up to a certain date and cease thereafter. The plaintiff mailed the defendants each a Notice of Intention to Foreclose misrepresenting itself as the lender. Fannie Mae states it is at all times the owner and possesses the Note. As for the enforcement of the Note, the plaintiff is out of time according to NJUCC’s Statue of Limitations. The originator did not give the defendants the required disclosures at closing; Notice of Right to Rescind. As a result, the defendants exercised their right to rescind.
II. STATEMENT OF LAW
Litigants facing foreclosure should be able to confirm that a complaint is properly filed by an individual or entity with the authority to proceed. Bank of New York v. Raftogianis, 418 N.J. Super. 323, 13 A.3d 435 (Ch. Div. 2010). The governing authorities are clear. The three elements need to be established for a lender to prevail in a foreclosure action: (1) the validity of the loan documents (note, mortgage and assignment); (2) the alleged default, (including the amount of the indebtedness); and (3) the right of the mortgagee to resort to the mortgaged property. Great Falls Bank v. Pardo, 263 N.J.Super. 388, 394, 622 A.2d 1353 (Ch.Div.1993), aff’d, 273 N.J.Super. 542, 642 A.2d 1037 (App.Div.1994). See Central Penn Nat’l. Bank v. Stonebridge, Ltd., 185 N.J.Super. 289, 302, 448 A.2d 498 (App.Div.1982); Thorpe v. Floremoore Corp., 20 N.J.Super. 34, 37, 89 A.2d 275 (App.Div.1952).
In Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517, 25 A.3d 1080 (2011), the Supreme Court held interlocutory orders are always subject to revision in the interests of justice. It stated when attorneys fail to advance the best case possible the first time around, and judge later sees or hears something that convinces him that a prior ruling is not consonant with the interests of justice, he is not required to sit idly by and permit injustice to prevail; in such an exceptional case, the judge is empowered to revisit the prior ruling and right the proverbial ship.
The basic purposes of the statute of limitations as noted in Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U.S. 135, 139, 25 L.Ed. 807, 808 (1879), statutes of limitations embody important public policy considerations in that ‘they stimulate activity and punish negligence’ and ‘promote repose by giving security and stability to human affairs.’
In Wood on Limitations of Actions, supra, sec. 4, pages 8-9 we note:
‘The statute of limitations is a statute of repose, enacted as a matter of public policy to fix a limit within which an action must be brought, or the obligation be presumed to have been paid, and is intended to run against those who are neglectful of their rights, and who fail to use reasonable and proper diligence in the enforcement thereof * * *. The underlying purpose of statutes of limitations is to prevent the unexpected enforcement of stale claims concerning which persons interested have been thrown off their guard by want of prosecution.’
Kyle v. Green Acres at Verona, Inc., 44 N.J. 100, 108, 207 A.2d 513, 517-18 (1965).
The date when a cause of action is deemed to have accrued, as date from which six-year statute of limitations period is to be measured, is the date upon which the right to institute and maintain a suit first arises. Holmin v. TRW, Inc., 330 N.J. Super. 30, 748 A.2d 1141 (App. Div. 2000) aff’d, 167 N.J. 205, 770 A.2d 283 (2001). Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 12A:3-118(a), an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay a note payable at a definite time must be commenced within six years after the due date or dates stated in the note or, if a due date is accelerated, within six years after the accelerated due date.
III. ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
Federal National Mortgage Association’s (Fannie Mae) website provides a process by which individuals can check whether Fannie owns their mortgage using their name, property address and last 4 digits of their Social Security Number. See the link here > knowyouroptions.com/loanlookup. The website also provides its Servicing Guides. See the link here > fanniemae.com. The results of such the searches are admissible and fits within an exception to the hearsay rule. It is admissible under N.J.R.E. 803(17) because the website is highly reliable and used widely by the general public. Furthermore, the result is admissible under N.J.R.E. 902 because on September 6, 2008, the US Government through the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) used its authorities to place Fannie Mae into conservatorship, thus giving it full control over the entity. See Exhibit X (FHFA Conservatorship).
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s (MERS) serves two important functions. First, it maintains a database or registry of mortgage loans, which keeps track of changes in servicing rights and beneficial ownership interests over the life of the loan. Second, it can be designated by its members to serve as the mortgagee, or the holder of the mortgage lien, in the public land records. This designation is what enables MERS to maintain its accurate database. MERS also maintains a website, which serves as a resource for borrowers. MERS is a means by which the borrower can easily identify the note-owner using their name, Mortgage Identification Number (MIN) on the first page of the mortgage, and their Social Security Number. See the website link here.(web link) The results of such a search is admissible and fits within an exception to the hearsay rule. It is admissible under N.J.R.E. 803(17) because the website is highly reliable and used widely by the general public. See Exhibit Y (MERS Testimony).
IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT
POINT 1 – THE NOTE IS UNENFORCEABLE.
If the default is upon an installment, the statute will begin to run at once in respect to that particular installment. Holmin v. TRW, Inc., 330 N.J. Super. 30, 748 A.2d 1141 (App. Div. 2000). To refuse to allow the statute to run unless the mortgagee elects is a violation of the policy of the statute, a policy which is directed at clearing up claims before the years succeed in dimming the evidence. This appears to be the general rule. See also Note, 159 A.L.R. 1077 (1945); C.J.S., Bills and Notes § 251c.). It was stated in the complaints that the note provides that the whole of the principal sum shall become due at the election of the mortgagee upon default. Mortgagees are required to make the election for the purpose of the running of the statute of limitations. The election began in July 2007 by way of default. An election once made cannot be withdrawn by the mortgagee. An election made by bringing a suit, as it generally is, the action is sometimes abandoned, and in that case the statute will run on the note as well as on the mortgage. Courts should proceed on the theory that if the mortgagee is not willing to take advantage of his acceleration clause, there is no reason why the mortgagor should not be allowed to do so. Otherwise, it will be inconsistent that the note should fall due for one purpose and not for another. Plaintiff stated in the Complaint that it accelerated the Note to mature on February 1, 2008; the default date. The Complaint filed in 2007 demonstrates Plaintiff’s intent to accelerate the Note. Plaintiff is time-barred from enforcing the Note; therefore, the Mortgage is void.
Plaintiff may argue under the Fair Foreclosure Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56.1), the Statue of Limitations is 20 years from default. The Act states an action to foreclose a residential mortgage shall not be commenced twenty years from the date on which the debtor defaulted.
Equity follows the law. Bank of New York v. Raftogianis, 418 N.J. Super. 323, 13 A.3d 435 (Ch. Div. 2010). Under New Jersey law, the enforcement of a promissory note that is secured by a mortgage is governed by the UCC. In re Kemp, 440 B.R. 624, 630 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2010). Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 12A:3-118(a), an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay a note payable at a definite time must be commenced within six years after the due date or dates stated in the note or, if a due date is accelerated, within six years after the accelerated due date. In the event of default, the mortgagee may elect whether or not the mortgagee will exercise the right to mature the entire mortgage debt, since the acceleration clause is entirely for the benefit of the mortgagee.
The problem with the FFA argument is, it talks about the Mortgage not the Note. A “mortgage” secures a debt; without an obligation to secure there can be no valid mortgage. Gotlib v. Gotlib, 399 N.J. Super. 295, 944 A.2d 654 (App. Div. 2008). N.J.S.A. 12A:3-118(a) voids the Note.
POINT 2 – THE ASSIGNMENT TO PLAINTIFF IS INVALID.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines forgery as a false document made to look genuine by someone with the intent to deceive. Where an assignment of a bond and mortgage has been forged, it is void. N.J.S.A. 25:2-3. Under a forged assignment of a bill, the assignee can acquire no legal right of action. McCausland v. Drake, 3 Stew. 344, 351 (1831). The assignee of a mortgage and note assigned as collateral security is the real party in interest; he holds the legal title to the mortgage and note and he, not the assignor, is the proper party to file a suit to foreclose the mortgage. An assignee of a mortgage has no greater rights than the assignor; he succeeds to the rights and privileges, as well as to the disabilities of the assignor. Gotlib v. Gotlib, 399 N.J. Super. 295, 944 A.2d 654 (App. Div. 2008).
A mortgage assignment must be in writing and “any such assignment shall pass and convey the estate of the assignor in the mortgaged premises, and the assignee may sue thereon in his own name.” EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Chaudhri, 400 N.J. Super. 126, 141, 946 A.2d 578, 588 (App. Div. 2008) citing N.J.S.A. 46:9-9; Byram Holding Co. v. Bogren, 2 N.J.Super. 331, 336, 63 A.2d 822 (Ch.Div.1949). The assignment of a mortgage, without the assignment of the note secured, confers no right on the assignee. Johnson v. Clarke, 28 A. 558 (N.J. Ch. 1894). “A valid assignment must contain clear evidence of the intent to transfer the person’s rights and ‘the subject matter of the assignment must be described sufficiently to make it capable of being readily identified.’ Tirgan v. Mega Life & Health Ins., 304 N.J. Super. 385, 390, 700 A.2d 1239, 1241 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1997); Berkowitz v. Haigood, 256 N.J. Super. 342, 346, 606 A.2d 1157, 1159 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1992); Transcon Lines v. Lipo Chem., Inc., 193 N.J. Super. 456, 467, 474 A.2d 1108, 1113 (N.J. Dist. Ct. 1983) all citing Williston, Contracts § 404 at 4 (3 ed. 1957). It is necessary that the assignor manifests an intent to transfer his rights in the contract to the assignee. Here, the record is devoid of any such fact. Such a presumed assignment is thus without foundation in fact. In order to have the existence of an assignment, there must have been an intent to make an assignment. [citing K. Woodmere Associates, L.P. v. Menk Corp., 316 N.J. Super. 306, 314, 720 A.2d 386, 391 (App. Div. 1998) (held: a valid assignment must contain evidence of the intent to transfer one’s rights, and “the subject matter of the assignment must be described sufficiently to make it capable of being readily identified” (citing 3 Williston, Contracts (3 ed. Jaeger 1957) Section 404 at 4; Transcon Lines v. Lipo Chem., Inc., 193 N.J.Super. 456, 474 A.2d 1108 (Cty.Dist.Ct.1983)); In re Jason Realty, L.P., 59 F.3d 423 (3d Cir. 1995) citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 317 (held: an assignment of a right is a manifestation of assignor’s intention to transfer it by virtue of which assignor’s right to performance by the obligor is extinguished, and assignee acquires right to such performance.); Berkowitz v. Haigood, 256 N.J.Super. 342, 346, 606 A.2d 1157 (Law Div.1992) (held: in order for such an assignment to be valid, it must contain clear evidence of the intent to transfer the person’s rights and the subject matter of the assignment must be described sufficiently to make it capable of being readily identified.)] Here, there was no intent to assign the rights in the Note and Mortgage to Plaintiff because Fannie Mae is still the owner, holder and controller of the mortgage instruments.
POINT 3 – PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FILE THE COMPLAINT.
One of the issues here concerns plaintiff’s standing to bring this lawsuit. The question of whether a plaintiff has the right to sue must be addressed. In Tirgan v. Mega Life & Health Ins., 304 N.J. Super. 385, 389, 700 A.2d 1239, 1240-41 (Ch. Div. 1997), the Court held one may not ordinarily claim standing to assert the rights of a third party under a contract (citing Jersey Shore Med. Center-Fitkin Hosp. v. Estate of Sidney Baum, 84 N.J. 137, 144, 417 A.2d 1003 (1980)). One who is not a party to a contract may not sue to enforce it merely because he or she happens to receive a benefit from it. See Model Jury Charges 4.18 (citing Brooklawn v. Brooklawn Hous. Corp., 124 N.J.L. 73, 11 A.2d 83 (E. & A.1940) and First Nat’l State Bank v. Carlyle House, Inc., 102 N.J.Super. 300, 246 A.2d 22 (Ch.Div.1968), aff’d, 107 N.J.Super. 389, 258 A.2d 545 (App.Div.1969), certif. denied, 55 N.J. 316, 261 A.2d 359 (1970)). Rather, for a third party to enforce a contract, it must clearly appear that the contract was made by the parties with the intention to benefit the third party and that the parties in the contract intended that he or she receives a benefit enforceable in court. Id. “The contractual intent to recognize a right to performance in the third person is the key.” (citing Broadway Maint. Corp. v. Rutgers, State Univ., 90 N.J. 253, 259, 447 A.2d 906 (1982)). “If that intent does not exist, then the third person is only an incidental beneficiary, having no contractual standing.” Ibid.
“To show standing in a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must show that it is the holder of the note and the mortgage at the time the complaint was filed.” Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214, 224-25 (App. Div. 2011). The holder of a note is entitled to enforce it, notwithstanding the sale of the note to another party. In re Kang Jin Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 67 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 319 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008). A plaintiff requesting the equitable remedy of foreclosure, to force the sale of a defendant’s property to obtain payment of a debt, is required to establish that it had possession of the original note as of the date the complaint was filed. It is not presumed to have had possession at that time based upon its ability to produce the original note at the time of argument and trial; if that cannot be established, the complaint may be subject to dismissal, without prejudice to the filing of a new action. Bank of New York v. Raftogianis, 418 N.J. Super. 323, 13 A.3d 435 (Ch. Div. 2010) citing N.J.S.A. 12A:3–301. Having a copy of the Note is not the same as having possession of the instrument. In re Investors & Lenders, Ltd., 156 B.R. 145 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1993) (held under New Jersey law, creditor’s possession of copies of promissory notes, underlying mortgages of which he was the assignee, did not satisfy notice purpose of requirement that security interest in notes can only be perfected by taking possession of notes, where possession of copies of notes would in no way prevent the transfer of originals without notice of creditor’s interest to transferee or provide notice of creditor’s interest to such a transferee (citing N.J.S.A. 12A:1-201(20), 12A:3-104(2)(d), 12A:3-201(1), 12A:3-202(1), 12A:3-301, 12A:9-105(1)(g), 12A:9-304(1))).
The standing issue is of substantial importance because it involves a “threshold determination,” which governs the ability of a party to initiate and maintain an action before the court. Triffen v. Somerset Valley Bank, 777 A.2d 993 (2001). Plaintiff must have “standing” to bring this foreclosure action. Standing to sue is a threshold issue critical to the proper functioning of the judicial system. New Jersey Citizen Action v. Riviera Motel Corp., 296 N.J.Super. 402, 410, 686 A.2d 1265, 1269 (N.J. Super. A.D., 1997) citing Watkins v. Resorts Int’l Hotel & Casino, Inc., 124 N.J. 398, 424, 591 A.2d 592 (1991). A plaintiff with standing may cross the threshold and seek judicial redress. If a plaintiff lacks standing to sue, it may not proceed in this foreclosure action because standing goes to a court’s authority to resolve litigation. Standing as an element of justiciability cannot be waived or conferred by consent. In re Baby T., 160 N.J. 332, 734 A.2d 304 (1999). Furthermore, New Jersey law does not recognize any distinction between the concepts of standing and the real party in interest. New Jersey Citizen Action v. Riviera Motel Corp., 296 N.J. Super. 402, 413, 686 A.2d 1265, 1270 (App. Div. 1997). Consequently, a plaintiff must have standing to qualify as a real party in interest. Id. at 686 A.2d 1271.
POINT 4 – THE CERTIFICATION TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS INSUFFICIENT.
A certification will support the grant of summary judgment only if the material facts alleged therein are based on personal knowledge. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 418 N.J. Super. 592, 15 A.3d 327 (App. Div. 2011) citing R. 1:6–6. Allegations in certification that assignee is the holder and owner of note, and mortgage are not based on personal knowledge, and thus, the certification was insufficient to establish that assignee had standing to pursue foreclosure action, precluding summary judgment in favor of the assignee in foreclosure action. Id. Summary judgment affidavits in which the affiant fails to identify specifically her position, or explain the source of her personal knowledge of the facts to which she attests, or attempts to authenticate attached documents without explaining precisely what each is and how it came into the affiant’s hands should be rejected. New Century Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Oughla, 437 N.J. Super. 299, 98 A.3d 583 (App. Div. 2014) citing R. 1:6–6.
Alissa Doepp says all the things you have to say to satisfy the business record exception to the Hearsay Rule. See Exhibit Z (Doepp Certification). Then she says, in connection with making this certification, she have acquired personal knowledge of the matter stated herein by examining the business records. She cannot acquired personal knowledge because if she talks about her personal knowledge without the documents or the business records it is hearsay. She did not look at the Note, Mortgage, Assignment, Notice of Intent or Payment History. She has not seen neither document nor she personally did not see the Note as of any certain date. To her credit, she does not certify she saw those documents. She says, “I personally reviewed certain business records of Wells Fargo.” See paragraph #8 of Exhibit Z (Doepp Certification). She then says, “Based upon my review of that record, Wells Fargo was in physical possession of the Note on May 9, 2014, the date the Complaint for Foreclosure was filed, and prior thereto.” See paragraph #19 of Exhibit Z (Doepp Certification). Reading Fannie Mae’s Servicing Guide it is believe that she is referring to constructive possession, because it states:
In order to ensure that a servicer is able to perform the services and duties incident to the servicing of the mortgage loan, Fannie Mae temporarily gives the servicer possession of the mortgage note whenever the servicer, acting in its own name, represents the interests of Fannie Mae in foreclosure actions, bankruptcy cases, probate proceedings, or other legal proceedings.
This temporary transfer of possession occurs automatically and immediately upon the commencement of the servicer’s representation, in its name, of Fannie Mae’s interests in the foreclosure, bankruptcy, probate, or other legal proceeding.
See page 102-39 of Exhibit U (Fannie Mae Guide).
This proposition is not sustainable in light of the actual possession required under the New Jersey UCC. In re Kemp, 440 B.R. 624, 631 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2010) citing N.J.S.A. 12A:1–201(20).
POINT 5 – THE NOTICE OF INTENT IS DEFECTIVE.
The Notice of Intention is a central component of the FFA, serving the important legislative objective of providing timely and clear notice to homeowners that immediate action is necessary to forestall foreclosure. N.J.S.A. 2A:50–56(a) requires lenders contemplating foreclosure to give defaulting homeowners “notice of such intention at least 30 days in advance of such action as provided in this section.” Therein, the lender must be disclosed to defaulting homeowners. US Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 38 A.3d 570 (2012) (holding the Fair Foreclosure Act requires that a Notice of Intention to foreclose includes the name and address of the actual lender, in addition to contact information for any loan servicer who is charged by the lender with the responsibility to accept mortgage payments and/or negotiate a resolution of the dispute between the lender and the homeowner; citing N.J.S.A. 2A:50–56(c)(11).). The Notice misstates Plaintiff as the lender, and Plaintiff provided no evidence to prove it had mailed the Notice to Defendants.
POINT 6 – THE ALLEGED DEFAULT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.
A foreclosure process begins with the occurrence of an event of default pursuant to the loan documents creating the obligation. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, a mortgagee has the right to insist on strict compliance with the provisions in the loan documents relating to acceleration of the sums due in the event of a default of any kind, unless the default is the result of the mortgagee’s own conduct. Eisen v. Kostakos, 116 N.J. Super. 358, 366, 282 A.2d 421, 425 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1971). Plaintiff pled Defendants defaulted, but cannot produce a payment history that identifies Defendants’ history to support the assertions.
POINT 7 – THE MORTGAGE IS VOID UNDER TILA
In Sherzer v. Homestar Mortgage Servs., 707 F.3d 255, 257 (3d Cir. 2013), borrowers Daniel and Geraldine Sherzer sent a letter to the lender of two loans secured by mortgages on their home, along with the lender’s assignee (together, the “lenders”), asserting they had not received the disclosures required under TILA and exercising the right to rescind the loans. The letter was sent about two years and nine months after closing on the loans. The lenders agreed to rescind one loan, but denied the asserted TILA violation to the other, much larger loan. The Sherzers filed suit more than three years after their closing date, asking for a declaration of rescission among other remedies. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for the lenders, ruling the suit time-barred under Section 1635(f).
The question presented was the following: does an obligor exercise his right to rescind a loan subject to TILA by so notifying the creditor in writing, or must the obligor file suit before the three-year period expires? In the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion, the text of §1635 and its implementing regulation (Regulation Z) supports the view that to timely rescind a loan agreement, an obligor need only send a valid notice of rescission. Id. at 258. In determining what the Sherzers had to do to rescind their loan agreement pursuant to §1635, the Court of Appeals began with the statutory text. United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989). When “the statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms.” The language of the statute provides that an obligor exercises his right of rescission when he sends notice to the creditor; it says nothing about a court filing. Id. Sections 1635(a) and (b) explicitly address both how the right of rescission is exercised and when the rights and corresponding obligations flowing therefrom are incurred by the parties to the loan. Section 1635(a) provides that “the obligor shall have the right to rescind the transaction … by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, of his intention to do so.” 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a). Regulation Z specifies that the obligor must notify his lender “by mail, telegram, or other means of written communication.” 12 C.F.R. §§ 1026.15(a)(2), 1026.23(a)(2). Neither §1635(a) nor Regulation Z states that the obligor must also file suit; both refer exclusively to written notification as the means by which an obligor exercises his right of rescission. Id. Section 1635(b), which describes the “[r]eturn of money or property following rescission,” suggests that rescission occurs automatically when the obligor validly exercises his right to rescind. It states, in relevant part:
When an obligor exercises his right to rescind under subsection (a) of this section, he is not liable for any finance or other charge, and any security interest given by the obligor, including any such interest arising by operation of law, becomes void upon such a rescission. Within 20 days after receipt of a notice of rescission, the creditor shall return to the obligor any money or property given as earnest money, down payment, or otherwise, and shall take any action necessary or appropriate to reflect the termination of any security interest created under the transaction.
Id. 258-59. Here, Defendants mailed Plaintiff their Rescission Notice and Plaintiff ignored it. Plaintiff should have simply cancelled the loan, but did not.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons mention hereinabove, Defendant requests this Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grant this cross-motion for dismissal with respect to the above-referenced matter.
* Any suggestions are welcomed to bolster this Motion up before I submit it for a return in late October .. is he wrong about the Fannie Mae connection, arguing that Fannie Mae is the owner while Wells Fargo is also claiming to own it by way of assignment?
Here are my questions to the paralegal and his answers below …
QUESTION (((When is a servicer allowed to foreclose?))))
ANSWER > When it becomes an assignee and have physical possession of the note. The problem is there must be an intent to transfer the rights to the servicer. They can’t say I’m the assignee, but I don’t own the loan because it’s stated in the assignments that the assignee purchased the loan.
QUESTION ((((Wells Fargo says they are Holders of the note and mortgage .. isn’t that enough?))))
ANSWER > WF needs evidence (computer record and the original Note at the time the complaint was filed).
QUESTION ((((Even if Fannie Mae owns the loan, can’t they give the note to the servicer to foreclose as a “Holder”?))))
ANSWER > Yes. WF must make a written request the physical note.
QUESTION (((The Fannie Mae guidelines say that they will send the note to the servicer if needed for foreclosure litigation, doesn’t it? Isn’t this common? The servicer forecloses?)))
ANSWER > Some states allow constructive possession where possession changes without delivery, not NJ.
It’s ROSICRUCIANISM by the commie fascist neo nazis who hijacked the STATES to fraudulently conceal their crimes.
That’s why they’re ignoring the laws is FRAUDUENT CONCEALMENT of the fact everything is COUNTERFEITED by them.
Their cure for running their DRUG RACKEToff of our backs is NAZISM.
It’s the GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT. This bunch of crooks wants lesbian entertainment & free sex change operations for their criminal comrades.
Well scew them.
If they’re coming for ROMAN CATHOLICS that means they want everyone dead & that is no laughing matter.
Affirmative defenses if not presented in the first responsive pleading may be deemed waived as a matter of law. A surviving aff defense 86’s the mtn for sj or to dismiss.
Rocko liked to argue there are no absolute defenses. Yes, there are (and I personally would call notice of rescission one such defense = game over as to foreclosure. It’s the bankster who is subject to a finding of no juris or a rule 12 ‘get out of here’ if he pursues f/c on a rescinded loan). Other names for absolute defenses are “real” and I forget. Google
“real defenses v personal defenses” and keep hacking away at hits
lay opinions
dwight, it might have been helpful to submit a sworn affidavit about sending the rescission. However, since app you didn’t, esp if the court *accepted that you had sent the letter re: rescission, I would (me, not anyone else) argue the court had no jurisdiction. If a court has no juris, it doesn’t matter what it or anyone says in support of any other position. My own focus would be on supporting the lack of juris and what it means (me: void ruling) when a court rules without juris. But I’m not an attorney. Banksters like to distract from the real law with all manner of bs arguments TO distract and they’re quite good at it.
The court’s argument that you needed to accompany your rescission with an offer of tender imo is majorly errant, as it’s the lender who must act first upon rescission by doing x,y, and z. Did someone give you a figure to tender after doing x, y, and Z? Of course not. Your rescission was summarily ignored. Opposing council’s argument is all red herring (whether you got a notice of ROR or not) and is no more than inadmissable hearsay. But concentrating on error won’t get you what you want. Lack of jurisdiction might (should imo). “Error” is somthing else and it’s what you’re try to argue. But, one may list alternatives for relief. I’m not sure I’d even do that (your litany of sins of the bankster’s in regard to the contract itself, abbreviated). I might try to preserve them somehow without major discussion (major discussion can be distracting and takes valuable energy). People imo often make the mistake of saying “Joe didn’t paint the house” or who knows what. When Joe didn’t paint the house, what doctrine, law, or whatever was violated? What right of one’s or duties of the other’s was breached or violated? (see affirmative defenses for clues)
IF the court acknowledged your letter of rescission, imo, it’s further an admission the court had no jurisdiction to hear a f/c case against you.
These are strictly lay opinions and not advice. Ask a qualified lawyer.
SC, in the real world, things are not as simple as your mind.
The current Minnesota Practice Manual states:
The essential allegations of the complaint (quiet title) include only the fact of possession, or that the land is vacant, and that the defendant is claiming some adverse estate or interest in or lien upon it. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to allege his title in detail, nor to state or exhibit the nature of the defendant’s adverse claim. 6A Minn. Prac. § 54.15 (3d ed.). Again, the effect of a properly pled quiet title claim is to shift the burden of proof to the defendant. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to allege his title in detail, nor to state or exhibit the nature of the defendant’s adverse claim.” (Id.). It is for an answering defendant to disclose the nature of his adverse claim in his answer.
And you, SC, said, “Its their job to meet the elements of standing as they have the burden of proof.”
And just how will you get there….how do you argue that….how can you even address the issue given a 100% rate of tossed quiet title cases due to a Rule 12(b)(6)? The judges call quiet title cases “show me the note” attempts, when in reality this is based on tried and true legal practice going back to grandpa’s day.
That’s the problem with you SC on LL. You sit here day after day, hour after hour, tossing out crap that has absolutely no bearing on real world experiences, all in an effort at appearing knowledgeable. You say, “Who does KC owe?”….over and over again, as if it’s some key phrase that will magically open the gates of the courtroom to victory.
In actuality, KC owes everyone who’s ever visited this blog and had to read the constant drivel a huge apology.
What is being hidden in these properties that they gave no one loan mods even if they were not disclosing pertinent facts? They don’t in FRAUDCLOSURE either.
Have they been building nuke devices or what becsuse I see nothing but DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE by these crooks.
Clearly the NAZI JESUIT CONTROLLERS think the law doesn’t matter when it comes to DRUG CARTELS.
Attack the Contract!
Its not your job to prove who PETE is…
Its their job to meet the elements of standing as they have the burden of proof.
They have a capacity issue …..
My legal situation and outcome, although with different arguments, could be considered identical to DwightNJ’s, in that the judge went out of his way to make the case for the opposition. Also like DNJ’s, my opposition wasn’t a lightweight team. As a matter of fact they’re the same duo who argued and lost Jesinoski. And yet, the judge had to intercede on their behalf, ruling on issues that had never been submitted to the court. Only in my case, it wasn’t a wink flashed towards the opposition’s table, but a cupped microphone as he explained to the bank’s legal team why he was forcing me to withdraw evidence without so much as a single motion proffered in that direction by my opponents. They got a free pass on the house. My house.
This is the reality in pro se defense/offense in America…. it’s exactly as I used to read about how things were/are in banana republics across the globe or in pre-glasnost Russia. And it’s not just the pro se arena, as in many jurisdictions foreclosure defense attorneys take their careers to the very edge (or over) arguing against the banks and their high-powered system of campaign contributions (for judges and legislators) and out and out graft.
In March of 2011 the Federal Judicial Center conducted a study comparing pre-bailout “financial instrument” claims with post-bailout “financial instrument” claims. At page 14 of the study, the Center’s statistics show that in 2006 47 percent of a plaintiff’s claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim. In 2010, notwithstanding the Bailout Banks’ admissions in OCC Orders above, federal courts dismissed an astonishing 91.9 percent of plaintiff’s financial instrument claims for “failure to state a claim.” The reason for this change is a case called Ashcroft v. Iqbal. Federal judges appear to believe that this case empowers them to clear their docket with impunity and without regard to the due process rights of the litigants.
http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/motioniqbal.pdf/$file/motioniqbal.pdf
Christine used to give me a hard time every time I mentioned MN’s Bill Butler J.D., but I’ll still bring up his stance as being a correct one, that of quiet title being a totally legitimate way of arguing PETE issues by forcing the “real” mortgagee to prove standing. And yet, like the rest of us, he was never allowed to see any discovery on these issues. Why? Because TPTB will see Heaven turned into Hell before they’ll allow their system to be upended. Otherwise, all that they’ve fought for….unlimited bank bailouts, deregulation, pay to play campaign contributions….it’s all been adjusted to perfection for their system to haul off the spoils to islands across the globe. It’s working perfectly for them. They now have red hotels on all the properties. Welcome to the United Rentier States.
All of the carnage is possible only because we allow it. We’re the ones who sit idly by without shaking the gates of the fortress, without demanding answers from so-called representatives, or in the alternative, threatening heads on pikes. It’s the same exact message as:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
In case you aren’t aware, that piece was written by a German Lutheran pastor as he and everyone else in Germany watched as the newly minted Nazi’s goose-stepped their way towards purging the land of anything that moved in the wrong direction, wrong according to their compass, of course. The times we live in are no different, so long as we don’t recognize the same impediments to freedom and the usurping of basic rights occurring all around us. I, along with fellow Occupy folks, was threatened with drawn night-sticks and felony arrest for trying to see that a family with children was treated with dignity while being tossed to the curb by a fully armed paramilitary sheriff squad who looked like something from an Orwellian novel. In my mind a scenario like that is in no way different from the Germany the pastor was warning about.
We need to all look in the mirror, as we have only ourselves to blame.
What exact type of PERFORMANCE do these wantoned criminals want from their victims?
These mobsters issued innumerable COUNTERFEITS & now they want their victims to to do what? PERFORM STUPID PET TRICKS? Become hookers, drugees, pimps, or become invalids or just drop dead from drinking their fraudulently induced NAZI KOOL AID?
That’s what these crooks call OPERATIONS OF LAW?
I think they’re NAZI MURDERERS carrying out MURDER HITS under the guise of FRAUDCLOSURE.
Ok…Property taxes are redeemable .. Check your state laws on redemption .
But I would not make it a contingent to a settlement.
There is a SOL.
I warn people not to fall for that trap.
They don’t listen
In reverse loan products the settlers maintain ownership until the body expires. They deposit title into trust but never get it back. Its an irrevocable transaction.
That’s where the problem lies.
we pay the association monthly dues ..it is not part of the mortgage .. as far as the property taxes being paid by the servicer Wells Fargo, this is no big surprise .. and if we can win the case I would be more than willing to pay for those taxes for the past 7 years in needed ..
The money they put out in legal fees must already be above and beyond the value of this 230,000 townhouse mortgage right??
The legal expenses they have poured out into trying to take my old townhouse is beyond reason .. After they were forced to request the court to Vacate the Judgment and Dismiss the Complaint last time, the lead attorney Diane Bettino asked me on the telephone if I would be willing to accept a modification .. I was so angry at that point , after they had just dismissed their complaint, I thought “why should I agree to pay these people anything?” .. They refused to present a witness after the judge asked them to .. I countered Diane’s offer with my own ,, she asked what I was looking for .. I told her “a clear title and we’ll go our separate ways” .. she said there was no way they would agree to that.
Even reverse mortgages are not safe from foreclosure.
Any guesses why?
Who is paying the HOA?
Listen to what you just said…
Paid by the pmi under the escrow set up in the contract?
Aghh. .. So now you want to use the contract as a defense at the same time you claim its void?
I live in a townhouse community with a HOA … the property is maintained , we live in the house , we pay homeowners insurance , and the property taxes (around 4000 year) have all been paid by the PMI … our refinance contract had PMI included in , where the taxes are paid from an escrow .. which the servicer Wells Fargo has been paying probably due to the PMI ??
@DwNJ – IANAL, (I am not a lawer) but rumor has it you can raise the issue of jurisdiction of the court (standing) even in an appeal. There have been a couple of cases since Jesinoski, and I believe one of them referenced tender. But you would likely need to walk the court through the statutory provisions – the 3 days (doesn’t apply), the 3 years (does apply), the 20 days (does apply), and the 1 year (does apply). You might try to avoid presenting whether the lender had to file an action within 20 days of receipt of your rescission letter, because the 1-year following the 20 days is in effect.
The opposition is trying to draw you into the agent / servicer / MERS trap to flush your case in the judicial toilet. And without review of the recorded docs, it’s impossible to determine if the statute of frauds was observed correctly by agents referring to the principal’s name, your loan number, and your name. That’s the crap they pulled on me in state appellate court. For that reason you might well consider your appeal as a writ in federal court on diversity due to the TILA rescission issue.
Here they can condemn and take the property for not having running water and sewer.
Lets just say for the moment you had a valid rescission and the bank servicer honored it …..
Did you pay the taxes and insurance , occupy and maintain ?
Just Answer the Question!!!!!!
In my answer to the foreclosure complaint, I denied that a valid or legal loan contract was ever completed at the origination, asserting that the pretender lender performed a table-funded loan, which is considered predatory per say according to TILA Reg. Z
Jesinoski determined that the rescission is effective upon mailing.
The 1 year to file an action to enforce the rescission doesn’t speak to whether the rescission was effected upon mailing, it already was.
The 1 year to enforce pertains to whether the borrower wants to collect the payments and/or monetary damages for the violations.
You don’t have to collect the payments of damages, its an option.
Your rescission still stands regardless of suing to collect the money.
Go back on this feed and read everything Kalifornia posted.
Read it over and over until you figure it out.
The money…..The collateral.
Went where?
KC council asked what do you want?
KC answered … The house.
How much does KC owe?
If they or you did not file suit within 1 year.
You both waived your rights.
Did you pay the taxes and INS ?
SC … Please explain what you mean when you say ..
“or you can enforce the contract that they can’t honor”
How? Give us an example of how you would assert that argument !
“The Unsustainable “
SC … Very good !!! The plaintiffs inaction caused the harm ..
We did offer tender during the telephone conversation afterward , they rejected the TILA statutory procedures and remedies, they waived their remedies provided in the statute and decided to try and foreclose on a void mortgage security instrument instead.
Now…its to my understanding there is nothing to rescind if the loan was never consummated naming the original creditor.
Or…. You can enforce the contract they can’t Honor..
Never had any intentions to in the 1st place.
Neil knows dag gone well … Recession still does not get us back our TITLES. Like Kalifornia posted….they liquidated them and leveraged
them against the national debt….the unstainable
JG … I have been told by everyone that my TILA rescission argument is weak because I didn’t use return receipt certified mail back in 2007 when I sent it … I mailed it regular mail to Wells Fargo who was my servicer at the time .. in the letter I requested that they forward it to the owner of the loan if it was not them.
So most people tell me that my rescission cannot be accepted by any court because I have no proof that I mailed it .. I only have a copy of the letter I mailed dated July 1, 2007 ..signed and dated by myself and my wife..giving notice that we are exercising our right to rescind under TILA due to disclosure violations by lender regarding not being given our Notices of Right to Rescind ..also APR discrepencies found, etc.
* My response is that nowhere in the TILA statute does it say that a borrower must use certified mail .. nowhere.
The statute or Board commentary only says that you should mail it, fax it, send it electronically or other means of communication …
So I say .. that my use of the United States Postal system is a valid and acceptable form of giving notice as per the TILA statute.
During the hearing the judge said that he doesn’t really believe that I sent it in 2007 ..but he went on to make a decision as if I did anyway . he must have read the statute and seen that all it says is “mail it” ..
So the record shows that he accepted the fact that I mailed it and gave notice .. and the record shows that the plaintiff claims that they have phantom documents showing that we had signed acknowledgments that say we did receive our Notice of Right to Cancel .. and the Judge backed up the plaintiffs weak argument about phantom docs by saying that the defendants rescission was not effective because we never tendered at the time we rescinded .. so in essence the judge was accepting that we had given notice, but was denying it due to us not tendering the money when mailed the letter ..he mentioned that the letter of rescission makes no mention of us offering to tender back.
For that reason .. he denied that our rescission was effective.
I submitted the Jesinoski decision and the Judge told me that I “was wrong ..that it only decided whether a borrower needed to file a lawsuit to make rescission effective, that’s all jesinoski was about” .. the Judge argued with me about what Scalia said .. I am a construction worker who never went to college, and here I am in court with no legal rep and being forced to school a Judge and two top shelf attorneys about what a federal statute really means … I was trying to tell this judge that Scalia did mention tender in his decision .. I got nowhere ..this judge had just been re-assigned to this court from criminal court where he was a known “hanging judge” ..past 10 years sending people away to prison for long terms .. since my other old judge just retired, this one took over the bench and swiftly disposed of my case while winking at the female bank attorney wearing the short skirt …
He would look up at me when I would beat him in an argument about rescission , and he would say sarcastically ” So that’s your story?”
Rod Ciferri said that we all risk invoking the courts jurisdiction when we raise TILA rescission in our foreclosure defense .. it allows the judge in your foreclosure case to believe he has jurisdiction due to the simple fact that you have raised it in your case ..
so i’m not sure what we’re supposed to do , you have to raise it and argue it in order to assert that you had rescinded years prior.
The big question, will this judge acknowledge that Scalia did say that these lower courts should not apply common law rescission? the issue of tender doesn’t come into play when a borrower mails the notice.
If he does see his error upon this motion ..will he call us back in and allow the bank to submit the document we signed saying we had not rescinded after 3 days ..? I believe this might be a doc they have you sign before dispersing the money ..but they don’t give you a copy .. this is why Kellie kept insisting we had to have signed in order to get the money after 3 days … its probably an acknowledgment that says that you agree 3 days have passed and you have not rescinded and were given the opportunity to do so ..yada yada yada .. but if it is, it falls short of being the proper notice that you should have been given for your own records .. them having it in their file doesn’t meet the definition of them giving you the proper disclosures that you need for your file as a consumer .. they probably have you sign it after 3 days have passed and take it away from you because they know the danger of it being in your possession.
So we might still have a chance on appeal ..
And the other point this judge failed to understand .. the mortgage is void by operation of law … he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on an action brought on a void instrument ..
he ended up allowing the foreclosure on a mortgage that the federal law says was void by operation of law in 2007 when I mailed in the rescission letter.
His story is that the old caselaw that he cited says a court can play around with the issue of tender and deny rescission based on the ability to tender .. but we all know now from Scalia that this is wrong.
This judge was defiant and basically disregarded Scalia ..saying that Jesinoski only decided the issue of a borrower needing to file a complaint.
Where is your MSJ?
Motion for Summary Judgment?
Their failure to perform has caused my client harm…
Oh look…. Stating a Claim!
Yes your Honor my client offered full tender but they failed to clear title and provide a payoff.
They never learn…..
Do not dwell on their councils qualifications .
She likes to brag..so what?
She is being used and it will come back and bite her in the grr. .ass.
Elex .. 95% of my affirmative defenses and 100% of my counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice at the outset of this case, before the discovery was ever granted. The foreclosure mill was substituted out, and Wells Fargo brought in their big guns again from Reed Smith, the law firm who represented them back when NJ froze foreclosures back in 2010 due to the Robo-signer scandal , The female lead attorney and managing partner of the Princeton, NJ office, Diane Bettino, wrote the brief for Wells Fargo promising the state of NJ that her “client should not have their foreclosure cases dismissed due to faulty documents and they should not be fined for wasting the courts time and resources in these matters because the bank has identified the problems and have corrected them” .. this is my adversary , she and one of her other top female litigators from that office, Kellie Lavery, have been directly involved in handling my case since 2010 when I raised the issue of fraudulent docs , fabricated note with a stamp added after the fact, forgery of the notary signature on the fabricated assignment, etc .. here I am, a Pro se with a background in construction , facing these two top shelf litigators who were brought in to replace the foreclosure mill in my case. When the Judge granted them the summary judgment and denied my TILA rescission , as he was reading his decision he looked up and winked at them … this is the crap I face in court as a Pro se.
From the REED SMITH website … my 2 adversaries in court
1) “Diane is the managing partner of the Princeton Office, and a member of the Financial Industry Group. She practices in the area of Financial Services Litigation and concentrates her practice in complex state and federal litigation, including residential mortgage lending. She has defended such consumer based claims in class actions, mass actions, government investigations and single consumer claims. Her experience also includes assisting the firm’s financial services clients in achieving settlements of numerous cases involving the Option ARM product, recovering substantial sums wrongfully taken through fraudulent mortgage schemes, and obtaining favorable closure in matters involving numerous claims of alleged fraud. Diane has authored numerous amicus briefs on behalf of various trade associations on issues such as the interpretation of overlapping regulatory schemes. She also regularly lectures on topics pertaining to the consumer financial services industry. Diane is an avid skier, runner and earned her Black Belt in Tae Kwon Do.”
2)”Kellie is a seasoned litigator with a focus on financial services litigation. She handles litigation in both federal and state courts, as well as in arbitration proceedings.
Kellie has extensive experience arguing dispositive motions in the trial courts, taking and defending complex depositions, and has substantial trial experience, acting as lead counsel and trying cases through verdict in bench and jury trials.
Kellie has a depth of experience defending class actions, and was part of the team recognized by the New Jersey Law Journal as New Jersey’s class action firm of the year for 2014.
Kellie defends numerous companies against individual and class claims brought under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and other state statutes. Kellie has developed a unique familiarity with these statutes and the defenses applicable to each that have been developed through legislative, regulatory and judicial decisions.
Kellie defends banks and lending institutions in litigation arising out of mortgage lending, credit card lending, auto-financing, and other banking transactions. She has developed an expertise with claims brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and other state and federal statutes, as well as a strong familiarity with the policies and practices of clients in these industries.”
During the summary judgment hearing .. I had cross-motioned for Reconsideration of the court denying my TILA rescission … Kellie was trying to spin duck and weave in an attempt to confuse the judge about the 3 days … she kept arguing that “the defendant didn’t rescind in the 3 days allowed, so this is a moot point, why are we even having this discussion, we know he didn’t rescind because the 3 days passed and a week or so later the check was dispersed” and the judge had to intervene and clean her confusion up by telling her “I think what the defendant is saying, is that he is allowed up to 3 years to rescind” .. she replied “well he had no right to, because he was given all of the disclosures.. we have the document saying HE IS NOT RESCINDING, he signed it after the 3 days passed, he acknowledged that he was given the right to rescind when he signed the acknowledgment .. we have that paper in the file .. I can get it for you if you would like”
*(Rod Ciferri says that she should not have been allowed to give testimony about a phantom piece of evidence that has never been submitted as part of the court record)
As if this was pre-planned , ex-parte violation, where the judge and the plaintiff worked out a strategy beforehand .. The judge allowed her to make statements about the phantom document ..which he later used in his decision against me (which is when he quickly looked up at Kellie and winked .. I just happened to be staring right at the judge while he was reading his decision and caught the wink towards Kellie) ..right as he was reading HIS PREPARED DECISION (how did he know the plaintiff would refer to this document if the long decision was written before the hearing was conducted? The decision was so long, and he read it verbatim from pages ..I guess he knew they would refer to this phantom document?)
** Also .. the Judge intervened after her “phantom document” testimony and he then committed a violation by offering her an alternative way to argue against my rescission … this is why I think they planned their strategy on how to overcome my rescission letter from 2007 .. when he allowed her to place on the record that the defendants had indeed signed acknowledgments that they had received their Notices of Right to Cancel .. the judge took over and began prosecuting her case for her, he committed a violation called “PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE” when he cleaned up her failure and helped her with his own knowledge about TILA rescission , interjecting after she had spoken, he says “well what about the tender? the defendant never offered any tender !! ”
Somebody told me that a judge is not allowed to help either side by interjecting his own personal knowledge into a case ..it is up to the plaintiff to state their own case , their own cause of action ..if they do not say it and assert it ..the judge should not be asserting it for the plaintiff .. I don’t know if that’s true or not.
So the Motion to Vacate is based on this same judge’s decisions .. he will be the one who receives the motion .. of course we all know that this is just an opportunity to prepare my case better for appeal. Nobody believes this judge will agree with anything in the motion, but we need to try and make sure my case is deemed acceptable for appeal, due to my Pro se mistakes in regards to procedural law .. etc. .
The Summary Judgment was granted March 2015…
No application for Final Judgment has been entered since …
In NJ you need a Final Judgment before you can take the property..
The paralegal has been buried in foreclosure defense cases , and has told me that “you have time” because they never applied for the Final Judgment .. now after 6 months his motion is finally ready, but his main argument seems to be that Fannie Mae and MERS both claim that Fannie Mae owns the loan .. and he says that Wells Fargo has no standing to foreclose if Fannie Mae is claiming they own the loan..
I’m not even sure about that argument .. anyone? can Fannie Mae claim they are the owners of your loan .. and yet the servicer Wells Fargo filed the complaint in Wells Fargo’s name .. is this okay ??
Does WF need to prove how Fannie Mae granted them the right to foreclose?
all WF shows is an old fabricated, forged assignment made in 2007
The paralegal says that Fannie Mae consistently says that they own the loan .. even still today as reflected on their website and by MERS
Does Wells Fargo need to say that they are foreclosing for FNMA ?
Because WF identifies themselves as “the lender” in the NOI
During the SJ hearing I was telling the judge that Fannie Mae owns the loan .. Kellie Lavery objects and says that Wells Fargo own the loan
I’m so confused and burned out ..I have been fighting this since 2007
I told my wife .. after this motion to vacate is submitted, we’ll pay the 300 dollars for a consultation with this NJ Law Firm created by the two women who used to fight foreclosures for NJ Legal Aid .. now NJ no longer provides legal aid for foreclosure victims in NJ, saying it is too much work, too many foreclosure cases, etc .. so these two ladies who have a lot of experience opened their own foreclosure defense firm
http://www.jurowandschore.com/about-us.html
What OPERATION OF LAW is this court testifying to that makes FRAUD the norm? What PARTICULAR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION is the JUDGE invoking regarding these cases because I don’t recognize it.
sorry, dwight, incomplete sentence last comment. if notice to the servicer is notice to the lender / creditor/ note owner and therefore a rescission was properly noticed……..etc.
dwight, if you actually rescinded your loan within the 3 years and gave that notice to your servicer (et al?) and if the law says notice to the servicer (in any capacity, agent, whatever, or no capacity other than just servicer), do you think a court has jurisdiction to entertain a foreclosure action out of anybody at all? What does the law say about decisions reached when a court lacked jurisdiction?
Therefore, not withstanding, but TO WIT, NO CREDIT FOR PEOPLE OR PEOPLE FOR CREDIT, the U.S. SUPREME COURT shoud rename itself the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE because there’s FRAUD IN THE PROCUREMENT of their WITCHES BREW.
LIBOR is GPS TRACKING & that means LAWS don’t matter to the GAY ELITE.
That’s why you’ve got the BLACK PANTHERS in the WHITE HOUSE holding our TITLES hostage for the SHEIK of GOSMOKEADOOBEE.
@DwNJ – I might suggest you lead with your big guns, a copy of the rescission letter attached to complaint and a copy of the Jesinoski ruling. Remind the court the Supreme Ct sez tender is not required unless the lender complies with the conditions listed in the 20-days, and that SCOTUS supercedes and obsoletes court’s. This denies admission of the note as evidence, if you state the actions in response to your letter. But that puts you in the ‘gray zone’, forcing you to assert the right to rescind because you met all the conditions, the lender’s agent (servicer) did not respond (but reacted by showing the date of letter in your loan history), and a year has since passed, voiding the note. Since the mortgage follows the note, you request declarative relief that both the note and mortgage are void, the loan is satisfied, and that title be reconveyed to you. As this is statutory in nature, the court has to resolve questions of law before issues of equity.
I think this is the point of your greatest vulnerability and counsel is indicated. You might be tempted to provide your cause for requesting rescission, and the court may press you for it. Whether it is advantageous for you to provide the cause for sending the rescission letter or not is not a call to be taken lightly, and it is especially dangerous for you to listen to any advice from the clowns on this forum (I’ve been following a lot of Trump coverage). Expect to go to appeal, and construct your complaint accordingly.
You might request that since the note is void that the alleged lender surrender the original note and DOT to the court so it can be returned to you.
Then you might alternatively plead the sideshow as suggested by your legal aid.
CULTUS DIABOLICUS : http://www.rense.com/political/nwoagenda.htm
K alifornia gets it!
At 11:48 pm..he said…….
DwightNJ, YOU MUST AS FOR , IN LIGHT OF THE NEW SUPREME COURT DISC ION ON RESCISSION. I WOULD SAY TO THE COURT. THIS COURT AND ALLOT OF OTHER COURT ACCROSS THIS COUNTRY . HAS JUST BEEN TOLD. BY THE US SUPREME COURT. THAT YOU ALL HAVE BEEN WRONG, AND TO STOP IT, AS THIS COURT IS IN VIOLATION OF ITS DUTY , TO UP HOLD WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID. AND AS I DID RECIND THIS IN THE 3 YRS, THIS COURT MUST COMPLY TO WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAY MUST BE DONE.
No liens on the land…Nope!
Liens attached to the body.
Under a lifelong a Lease Agreement?
If so … You open access .
Nobody owns anything….except that fact.
Trespass Unwanted!
Its a Thrill telling it … Its Trespassing !!!!
Maintain Insure Pay Taxes…duties you agreed to take responsibility for.
I see it day in and day out….
Did you abandon your trustee duties you accepted to take over when granted the land by deed?
Smart person. I would follow her directions if I were you.
Except for the recession card .she told you not to play.
PS, IT IS NOT TRESPASSING if you did not comply with your trustee duties when granted the land.
Okay ..so my paralegal guy has my motion to Vacate ready and says I can review it and add things if I want to . .. Remember, the Judge in my case granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo , while dismissing all of my defenses regarding .. No Standing… 6 YR SOL time-bars plaintiff… The TILA rescission mailed within 3 yrs voids the mortgage … The NJ UCC statutes voids the note 6 years after its been accelerated …etc.
The paralegal tells me that my refinance loan is listed on Fannie Mae website as owned by them …he had me call them and pretend I was in need of info for a bank modification and that they needed to know when Fannie Mae aquired the loan ..the FM rep looked it up and told me they acquired the loan on Dec. 1, 2004 …
I re-financed with pretender lender Commerce Bank Oct. 2004 …
Prior to closing they endorsed the Note “Pay to the order of Washington Mutual Bank” and signed by Commerce Bank V.P. .. Oct. 2004
Mortgage says Commerce Bank is my Lender …
Commerce names MERS as nominees in the Mortgage
Paid my mortgage payments to WAMU from 2004-2007
Never received notice that Fannie Mae had acquired my loan
My homeowners insurance policy listed “first mortgagee” as a Trust Bank of Cleveland Ohio? Did Fannie Mae place my loan into REMIC? MBS? If so, they have never told me, why?
2007 Wells Fargo became my Servicer … I mailed rescission letter inside the 3 yr extended time for TILA disclosure violation ..They ignored the rescission letter mailed July 1, 2007 … They filed the Foreclosure Complaint Sept. 25, 2007 saying I defaulted July 2007 when I stopped paying (that’s when I rescinded)
Wells Fargo fabricated an Assignment of Mortgage to themselves, using LPS robo-signers as MERS employees ..the Notary signature was a blatant forgery when compared against the true signature.
Wells Fargo seeks to foreclose on my property saying they are the Holders of the note and mortgage ..and support it with the MERS assignment ..the assignment says that Commerce Bank assigns the note and mortgage to Wells Fargo thru MERS as nominee..
But the Note they submitted had no stamp endorsement from the Washington Mutual Bank who was the last known HIDC..
After my objection in 2010, they produced a second version of the Note that now had the stamped endorsement in blank added to it by WAMU
But WAMU had been out of business since 2008
So I demanded to know when the stamp in blank was added, it had no date near the stamp …it was endorsed in blank by the WAMU. V.P.
Wells Fargo requested the Final Judgment be Vacated and that the complaint be Dismissed .. Oct. 2011 (complaint filed Sept. 2007)
May 2014 … Wells Fargo files another FC..same note with stamped endorsement in blank ..no date of when endorsement was made
Fannie Mae website and MERS website both confirm that Fannie Mae is the owner of the loan .. Fannie Mae guidelines says they always retain possession of the note ..but will sometimes use Service’s to foreclose, etc.
So my paralegal says that Fannie Mae says they own the loan since 2004 … Their website confirms they still own it ..so does MERS
But we have seen no evidence of WAMU selling it to Fannie Mae, other than the note endorsed in blank by WAMU … does it matter?
Maybe WAMU never owned the loan? How did Fannie Mae aquire the loan in 2004 if the note was endorsed to WAMU in 2004? Can a party aquire a loan by just having WAMU give them the note stamped in blank? …without having paid anything for it? Or did Fannie Mae always own it using investors money? And used pretender lenders to sign the docs and notes? Is any of this relevant to winning my case?
Can Wells Fargo prove standing if Fannie Mae is the owner ??
Wells Fargo doesn’t mention Fannie Mae ..even in the Notice of Intent, Wells Fargo names itself as the Lender ..never mentions Fannie Mae
Who really owns my loan? Why did they never reveal the Trust ??
The certification for Summary judgment shows no history of my monthly payments made from 2004-2007 ..it only shows the payment history from when Wells Fargo took over in 2007 ..
So the paralegal is motioning to Vacate the summary judgment for…
1) Plaintiff lacks standing .. Fannie Mae and MERS websites both claim that Fannie Mae owns the loan..plaintiff did not possess original note when complaint was filed.
2) Fraudulent assignment of mortgage was fabricated by plaintiff to itself. And has a forged notary ..it is a void .
3) 2 versions of the alleged original note ..no date on The blank endorsement by WAMU ..
4) 6 yr SOL has run on the note after being accelerated ..the note is deemed unenforcable as per NJ UCC regarding Notes …after 6 yrs of acceleration , note becomes unenforceable ..we argue that if the note is unenforceable, the mortgage attached to the note becomes void. The mortgage should not continue to exist if the note is gone, right?
5) The TILA rescission letter was mailed inside the 3 year extended window for disclosure violations ..the judge denied my rescission based on me not offering to tender in my 2007 letter ..he said Jesinoski had no bearing on whether I needed to tender..he said it only dealt with whether a borrower needed to file a lawsuit ..and he was thus denying my rescission because I didn’t offer the tender to the bank when I sent my letter in 2007 .. He cited old caselaw based on borrowers need to tender first before rescission is deemed effective.
The biggest concern I have is ..is The paralegal barking up the wrong tree trying to claim Fannie Mae owns my loan ??
Isn’t a servicer allowed to foreclose in their own name?
Does the servicer need to foreclose in the name of the owner?
If they claim they are Holders ..they don’t need to mention that Fannie Mae owns it? Or that it is in a Trust ??
Do they have to prove when they received the note possession?
They still rely on the old assignment from 2007 ..But the paralegal says there is no way Fannie Mae allows them to hold the note all this time since 2007 .. Thoughts?
Thank you
It was a lien against the Living Estate.
Hello….Here I AM!!! Can you see Me Now?
Mirror Mirror ….
I can still fog a Mirror….until death do us part.
Yours Truley
One Half of Living Estate Trust
Law of the Land
Common Law
Many Blessings to All!
Irrevocably Yours
Them Turkeys didn’t put me on the grant deed that was filed without the trustees agreement from sellers estate … Yet had US grant a WD to the capital asset funding party…who then extended a line of credit on my behalf.
Then came back on the warrantors for faulty grants….like ..you can’t convey what you do not have. K C went to the sellers estate. ..
Wants WD. .. KC responsibility to file…unless KC granted another party a duty to file on her behalf.
Bad Trustee!!!!
Mortgage Lien My Gr’@as!
Then their is the damages and harm …
Reliance on their representations in writings….
Now…I hear tell ..if their is no conversion …their is no harm to me.
Round 1 … Mortgage Lien…fc on note
Round 2 … A Trust fc for advances on things KC pay…
They are dropping like flies,,,,,,
Where did KCs money go?
They are foreclosing on the Living Estates ….
. …
creditors and debtors…..
How much does KC owe?
Creditors gave up their rights …?
Nobody tells KC anything.
Everybody has a want of knowledge.
Nobody knows nuttin. …
Yes TU, …. We are the creditors, I did not take kindly to being used, I can speak up for myself and those who tried to speak for me found out that I have another who speaks legaltise for me,
They release the estates of liability in settlement because the estate is Innocent……
I am not a debtor and no man has a right to speak for me and say otherwise.
AND THAT IS WHY MY HUSBAND AND I REQUIRED SSEPARATE COUNCIL .
LIVING TRUSTS will be the death of me … Sooner or later we all get called back home.
Many bLessings to All!
Apparently, there’s still hope for some people who already filed bk and have gotten behind again on their house payments:
“If you received a discharge under Chapter 7, you will not be eligible to file another Chapter 7 case in which you will receive a discharge until 8 years after the first case was filed. To receive a discharge under Chapter 13, you must wait 4 years after filing for Chapter 7 before you file the new case. If you received a discharge under Chapter 13, you must wait 2 years from the date that you filed the first case before filing a new Chapter 13 case in which you will be eligible for a discharge.
Even if the time limitations above prevent you from receiving a discharge, a Chapter 13 personal reorganization can still help save your house from foreclosure. Both your current mortgage payments and any arrearage can be scheduled in a new Chapter 13 plan. The moment your case is filed, you are protected by the automatic stay. This will prevent foreclosure, garnishment, harassment, or any other collective action against you while your case is active.”
http://www.bondnbotes.com/2012/12/21/facing-foreclosure-after-bankruptcy-discharge/
ask a seasoned bk attorney
And then, amongst the weeds, there exists the issue of Defeasance of a “Conduit Loan.”
As explained from: Commercial Mortgage Conduit Loans – Defeasance
https://www.venable.com/03-01-20061/
For what ever the reason, the source was not posted, to wit:
http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/mbs/pdf/mbsenger_0713.pdf
Residential Conduit Lending, post 1 [source 1=”http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/mbs/pdf/mbsenger_0713.pdf” language=”:”][/source]
Providing Liquidity to the Market — Fannie Mae’s Single-Family Whole Loan Conduit (a.k.a. The Cash Commitment Window)
Fannie Mae’s Single-Family whole loan conduit (also known as the Cash Commitment Window) is designed to provide liquidity to the mortgage market while offering investors diversified pools of mortgages to meet their needs. Fannie Mae purchases loans from a large, diverse group of lenders and then securitizes them as Fannie Mae Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS), which may be sold to the market. These pools are backed by Fannie Mae’s guaranty of full and timely payment of both principal and interest. In 2012, through the whole loan conduit, nearly 1,100 lenders delivered loans to Fannie Mae in exchange for cash.
The whole loan conduit allows Fannie Mae to provide market liquidity
through short-term use of the balance sheet while not interfering with the mandated reduction of the retained mortgage investment portfolio.
By offering competitive pricing and flexibility in committing, Fannie Mae
has made execution favorable to these lenders. The whole loan conduit
also offers lenders the unique opportunity to retain servicing rights for the loans they have delivered.
Whole loan conduit issuance has become a larger percentage of Fannie Mae MBS issuance over recent years, particularly following the credit crisis, as lenders sought liquidity and several large aggregators scaled back, or exited altogether, their correspondent business.
In this edition of Fannie Mae’s MBSenger, we discuss:
• why lenders use the conduit,
• how Fannie Mae manages the conduit and monitors performance, and
• how to identify pools created out of the conduit.
Lender benefits
Fannie Mae addresses the scalability and capacity needs of small and
mid-size lenders by offering them flexible arrangements on whole loan
execution elements in an operationally easy format.
• Committing – Fannie Mae’s whole loan conduit provides a web based
interface with customized commitment periods, pricing independent
of volume, and the ability to manage funding and pricing by choosing
settlements on a daily basis. Lenders have the option to commit on a
mandatory or best efforts basis.
• Immediate funding – lenders are funded the day after a good delivery.
• Flex range commitments – mandatory commitments allow for a 50 basis point delivery range, offering the lender greater flexibility in the
event of changes to the rate on originally committed loans.
• Extensions – the ability to extend a whole loan commitment offering an alternative to utilizing the roll market.
• Remittance – the whole loan conduit allows for both Scheduled/Scheduled and Actual/Actual remittance options.
• Pricing – whole loan pricing is considered “live,” is based on MBS pricing, and moves throughout the day offering a competitive execution option. The pricing is constructed on a whole loan pass-through basis (gross note rate minus servicing) eliminating the need to buyup or buydown the note rate and thus eliminating excess servicing.
• Delivery Tolerance – the whole loan conduit offers a delivery tolerance of 2.5% or $10,000, whichever is greater, assisting lenders when accounting for the unexpected in their deliveries.
…continued…
“Conduit Loan” — post 5 (which, for the moment, jumps beyond and omits the form language of the proposed Promissory Note):
Drafting Comments:
Section 8. This section sets out certain rights of and waivers by the parties, including a right of the borrower to change the payment date, a right of the lender to modify the note, a waiver by both parties of jury trial, and a right of the lender to participate the loan. Note: jury trial waivers are not currently legal in California, so this subsection should be omitted unless there is a change in the law.
Section 9. This provision is intended to allow the lender to limit the personal liability of the borrower on the debt. In doing so, the lender generally agrees to look to the real property security for the recovery of its debt. This provision is of diminished importance in California where, for practical purposes, lenders are restricted by Code Civ. Proc. §§ 580a, 580b, 580d, and 726 from obtaining deficiency judgments against a borrower except where the lender conducts a judicial foreclosure and subsequently holds a “fair value” hearing. However, borrowers often request and lenders frequently agree to limit the personal liability of the borrower. This provision is typically referred to as a “nonrecourse” provision.
Section 10. This provision allows the lender to recover any attorney fees incurred in connection with the collection of the note. A provision allowing for the recovery of attorney fees does not affect the negotiability of the Note. [Cal. U. Com. Code § 3106] Absent a provision allowing the lender to recover attorney fees, the lender is generally not entitled to recover them. However, if the Note provides for the recovery by the lender of attorney fees, Civ. Code § 1717 subd. (a) requires that the prevailing party be entitled to attorney fees whether or not the contract permits that party to recover attorney fees.
In drafting and interpreting attorneys’ fees provisions, counsel should be aware that any attempt to grant only one party the right to legal fees will in fact result in each party having the right to recover their attorneys’ fees. In Wong v. Thrifty Corp., 97 Cal. App. 4th 261, 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 276 (1st Dist. 2002), the court held that an attorneys’ fees provision in a lease which provided that “only” the landlord could recover its attorneys’ fees conflicted with Civ. Code § 1717, and therefore, the tenant was also entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees.
While some borrowers have sought to preclude awards of attorney’s fees based upon California anti-deficiency statutes [see Code Civ. Proc., § 580d], courts have found that such statutes do not prohibit the award of prevailing party attorney’s fees. [Jones v. Union Bank of California, 127 Cal. App. 4th 542, 25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 783 (2d Dist. 2005), as modified on denial of reh’g, (Mar. 11, 2005) and review denied, (June 8, 2005)]
Even though contained in a contract, a broadly worded attorney’s fee provision can give rise to an attorney’s fee award for a tort action arising out of the contract. Drybread v. Chipain Chiropractic Corp., 151 Cal. App. 4th 1063, 60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 580 (3d Dist. 2007), as modified, (June 12, 2007) (holding that an attorneys fee provision in a sublease gave rise to an attorneys fee award in a tort action for unlawful detainer); Cruz v. Ayromloo, 155 Cal. App. 4th 1270, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 725 (2d Dist. 2007) (holding that the broadly worded attorney’s fee provision sufficient to award attorney fees where the tenant prevailed on a tort action arising from the contract).
Signature Blocks. Parties to a contract should take particular care to ensure that the person signing the contract actually has the authority to bind the party to the contract. Elias Real Estate, LLC v. Tseng, 156 Cal. App. 4th 425, 67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 360 (2d Dist. 2007), review denied, (Feb. 13, 2008) (holding that where a contract to sell property was not in the ordinary course of the owners’ business a sale contract signed by only one owner did not bind the other owners to the contract).
…continued…
“Conduit Loan” — post 4 (which, for the moment, jumps beyond and omits the form language of the proposed Promissory Note):
Drafting Comments:
Section 3. This particular loan does not permit prepayment, but does permit the borrower to obtain release of the real property security through defeasance, i.e. the substitution of cash or cash equivalents as collateral. In order to assure the originating lender that the loan can be transferred to the REMIC in compliance with tax code requirements, the documents prohibit any defeasance until one year after the transfer of the loan to the REMIC. To protect the borrower, however, in the event the loan is not transferred to the REMIC, either because the REMIC is not formed or because of some problem with the loan itself, the document should provide that defeasance may occur within a specified period after the original loan, in this case, three and a half years. The requirements for the defeasance are set forth in this section.
Section 3(b). Upon funding the Defeasance Deposit, the property is released from the loan and the sole source of payment under the Note is the Defeasance Deposit. Defeasance does not relieve the borrower of its obligations under the Note – the borrower remains obligated – however, the sole source of payment will be the Defeasance Deposit.
Section 3(c). Securitized lenders customarily require that the borrower form a special purpose entity (“SPE”) as the borrowing entity. The SPE will have no other assets except for the property, and its activities with respect to related entities will be restricted to protect the independence of the SPE. All of this is designed to protect the REMIC and the investors from the effects of a bankruptcy by the borrower. This section provides that if, notwithstanding earlier arrangements, after a defeasance the borrowing entity might hold other assets besides the Defeasance Deposit, the borrower is required to create yet another separate SPE which will be the “Successor Borrower” under the Note.
Section 3(e). If after the Note has been paid in full any of the Defeasance Deposit remains, the funds will be returned to the borrower or the Successor Borrower.
Section 4. This section deals with involuntary prepayments. While voluntary prepayment is prohibited, in the event of a condemnation, major casualty, foreclosure, or bankruptcy, it is possible payments will come to the lender in respect of the Note. This section defines such payments as prepayments and requires the computation and payment by the borrower of a Prepayment Consideration except in certain specified cases. The Prepayment Consideration is calculated to provide the lender with a yield essentially equivalent to the yield the lender would have received had the loan been paid to maturity. This particular form bases the yield maintenance formula on the Treasury Rate. Other indices that might be used would be the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the Federal Funds Rate.
Section 5. This provision gives the lender the option to accelerate the entire unpaid balance of the loan, including accrued interest, on the occurrence of certain events. The first event is the failure of the borrower to pay when due any sum payable under the note. The borrower should make certain that if the deed of trust provides a cure period on monetary default, that the cure period is reflected in this provision. The second event allows the lender to accelerate upon the occurrence of a condition or event which otherwise allows the lender to accelerate as provided in the loan documents.
Section 6. Notes covering loans secured by real property security typically include a charge for late payments. This charge is generally either a fixed amount or is computed based on a percentage of the overdue payment. The late charge is intended primarily to compensate the lender for the administrative burden involved in collecting past due
payments. The enforceability of late charges is governed by Civ. Code § 1671 subd. (b), which provides that a provision in a contract liquidating the damages for the breach of the contract is valid unless the party seeking to invalidate the provision establishes that the
provision was unreasonable under the circumstances existing at the time the contract was made. The California Supreme Court has addressed the enforceability of late charges in Garrett v. Coast & Southern Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 9 Cal. 3d 731, 108 Cal. Rptr. 845,
511 P.2d 1197, 63 A.L.R.3d 39 (1973). In Garrett, the Court found that a charge for the late payment of a loan that is measured against the unpaid balance of the loan was void as a penalty. The Garrett Court found that in order to be enforceable, late charges must comply with Civ. Code §§ 1670 and 1671, as the statutes then existed. Following the
Garrett decision, the Legislature repealed Civ. Code § 1670 and amended Civ. Code § 1671. The Garrett decision, however, remains good law, and lenders should avoid late charges that are computed based on the then outstanding balance of the loan, rather than the amount of the overdue payment. While a late payment may be adequate to compensate the lender for the administrative costs involved in collecting overdue payments, it may be inadequate to compensate the lender if the loan balance is accelerated and the borrower fails to pay the loan when it becomes due. For this reason, lenders typically include a default interest rate that is higher than the stated interest rate to compensate the lender during the period following a default and prior to the collection of the loan.
When crafting a “late charge” provision, counsel should take care in its wording. Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC, 152 Cal. App. 4th 1106, 62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 59 (3d Dist. 2007), as modified, (July 24, 2007) (holding that a final balloon payment did not constitute an “installment” and thus a late charge could not be assessed).
…continued…
“Conduit Loan” — post 3 (which, for the moment, jumps beyond and omits the form language of the proposed Promissory Note):
Drafting Comments:
Section 1. This Note contemplates an initial period during which interest only is payable by the borrower, followed by a period in which monthly payments of principal and interest are made. This Note further contemplates that payment would be made on the 6 of each month. These terms may need to be revised to reflect the deal. Securitized lenders frequently require payments on a date other than the first of the month to give them time to collect and process payments so that they can, in turn, make payments to their investors as of the first of the following month. Note that Section 8 of this Note gives the borrower a one-time right to change the payment date.
Section 1(b). This provision contains a standard structure for the timing and nature of payments under the promissory note. It specifically provides for a series of equal fixed payments of principal and accrued interest payable in regular installments throughout the term of the loan. It requires the payment of all interest accruing each month, with an
excess payment over and above the accrued interest being applied to principal. The effect of this structure is to slowly reduce the principal and decrease the amount of accrued interest while increasing the amount of payment applicable to the principal.
Section 1(c). This provision also provides for a final maturity date on which all outstanding principal and interest is due. If the loan is “fully amortizing,” the final payment on the loan should roughly equal or be less than the other installments under the loan. However, if the loan is a “balloon” note, the installments payable under the note will amortize only a portion of the principal based on a longer loan term. At the end of the loan term, the borrower will owe a significant amount of the principal, together with any accrued interest. This structure is used to maximize the cash flow available to the borrower. At that time, the borrower usually either sells the property, negotiates with the lender to refinance the loan for an additional period of time, or obtains another loan to pay off the final “balloon” payment.
Section 1(d). This provision also provides that interest will be calculated on the basis of a 360-day year. This form of calculation assumes twelve equal months of thirty days each. If the lender fails to spell out that the interest is to be computed on the 360-day year in its
initial interest-rate disclosure, the lender may be required to use a 365-day year. [See Chern v. Bank of America, 15 Cal. 3d 866, 127 Cal. Rptr. 110, 544 P.2d 1310 (1976)] By calculating the interest on the basis of a 360-day year, the lender nets an increase in the
effective interest rate, which could, if the loan is not otherwise exempt from usury, result in a breach of the usury laws. In determining the rate of interest to charge on the loan, the lender should be aware of the restrictions of California usury law. The law regarding usury is complicated and has evolved over a significant period of time. In general, unless a transaction is exempt from usury, nonconsumer loans made by a nonexempt lender can bear interest at the maximum of either ten percent per annum or the federal discount rate plus five percent. The federal discount rate is the highest rate established by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco on advances to member banks on the twenty-fifth day of the calendar month preceding the earlier of (1) the date the loan contract is executed; or (2) the date the loan was made. Although not defined, the date of making the loan is
presumably the date the loan proceeds are funded to the borrower.
Section 2. This provision establishes that the note is secured by the deed of trust, and that the holder of the note is entitled to the benefits of the deed of trust. The borrower should make certain that if the note is secured by real property, it states that on its face, to avoid an assignee of the lender’s position from inadvertently attempting to sue on the note
in contravention of Code Civ. Proc. § 726.
“Conduit Loan” — post 2 (which, for the moment, jumps beyond and omits the form language of the proposed Promissory Note):
Drafting Comments:
Preamble. This provision establishes the obligation of borrower to lender to repay the principal of the debt with interest. It also sets forth the form of payment. Of particular importance to this paragraph are the words “or order.” These words are required in order to comply with Cal. U. Com. Code § 3104 and make the promissory note negotiable. In
addition to this requirement, for a note to be negotiable, it must (a) be in writing; (b) be signed by the maker or drawer; (c) contain an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in money; (d) be payable on demand or at a definite time; and (e) be payable to “order” or
“bearer.” [Cal. U. Com. Code § 3104(a)] Also, the note must not be limited in its sources of repayment to a particular fund or source. If the note is negotiable, it will allow a third party who takes the note for value, in good faith, and without notice of default, to be a “holderin-
due-course” and, thus, free of certain personal defenses that the payor might raise against the original lender.
Furthermore, this provision provides for a fixed interest rate. In many cases, however, fixed rate loans have become unpopular due to the severe fluctuations in interest rates. As an alternative, lenders often use a variable interest rate that allows the rate to fluctuate with changes in a designated reference. Commonly used reference rates include the prime rates of certain banks, the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), the Federal Funds Rate, United States T-bill Rate, and the average cost of funds of members of the Federal Home Loan Bank of the district in which the property is located.
Attribution to and paraphrasing Trespass Unwanted: Words matter.
Hence, a “conduit loan,” which has been previously written and represented by a “SERVICER” as having no “LENDER” involved in the Subject Contract:
https://www08.wellsfargomedia.com/assets/pdf/commercial/financing/real-estate/Conduit_Loan_Servicing.pdf
Deviating from the esoteric commentaries heretofore, in a secondary source for Kalifornia, a posting in parts for the edification of everyone and all of us, post 1, to wit:
Real Property Financing Transactions
Forms
Conduit/Securitized Loan Documentation
§ 3:20. Promissory note—Conduit loan
Use of Form. The primary instrument used in a real property secured loan is the promissory note. This form of promissory note is for use with a commercial real estate secured loan. It differs from a note used for a residential real property secured loan in that it lacks many of the consumer protection provisions required by state and federal law.
Typically in a securitized loan, the lender presents the borrower with a nonnegotiable note form.
This promissory note does not necessarily comply with any specific requirements of any regulatory agency or any secondary market. The lender should review appropriate state and federal regulations, together with any requirements of loan insurers or purchasers on the secondary market, if the lender anticipates the loan being regulated, insured, or sold. Also, this promissory note is for a permanent loan, as compared to a construction loan. Typically, a permanent loan is for a longer term, contemplates a single disbursement of the loan funds, and provides for an amortization of the principal balance over the life of
the loan. Permanent loans are also more likely to have a fixed rate of interest, rather than a variable rate of interest. The Promissory Note sets out the principal terms with respect to repayment of principal and interest as well as prepayment options and defeasance. For additional resources see http://www.calrealestateforms.com.
PROMISSORY NOTE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1. Payments of Principal and Interest.
Section 2. Security; Loan Documents.
Section 3. Defeasance.
Section 4. Prepayment; Prepayment Consideration.
Section 5. Events of Default; Acceleration.
Section 6. Late Charges; Additional Interest After Event of Default.
Section 7. Lawful Interest.
Section 8. Certain Rights and Waivers.
Section 9. Limitation on Recourse.
Section 10. Attorneys’ Fees, Costs of Collection.
Section 11. Applicable Law.
Section 12. Cost Reimbursement.
Neil,
Written like a true attorn-ee
The extent of our continuing economic problems is equal to the liability of these banks for damages and to repurchase both loans and alleged mortgage-backed securities that were neither securities nor were they backed by mortgages. If the securities and bank regulators actually performed the due diligence and audits that they were supposed to perform, It would be obvious that the mega banks do not have the assets that they claim to have, and that’s the mega banks have liabilities that are far in excess of what they have reported. In short, the mega banks are insolvent which is exactly why we have the FDIC.
Liability vs. do not have assets
repurchase goth loans and alleged mortgage-backed securities vs insolvent
Wow Neil, written like a true attorn-man
the oxymoron of the what they owe and what they have.
We are the creditors, but when we show up, they make the debtor appear as the creditor and the creditor appear as the debtor.
Unless the court recognizes our true status, we will always appear as the debtor, and it will always appear that the true creditor did not come into the court, and the pretend creditor is represented by someone testifying to what their client claims without having first hand knowledge of the transaction (or ignoring it at best).
Can’t lie if you don’t show up, so get represented, and let the law firm lie for you. They are licensed to lie anyway.
Never mind. Universe knows how to clean house.
Does the universe recycle these people back in?
I can think of many ways, a lawyer will not be born, again.
Or many ways from what I see now, that a lawyer for as much as he sought riches at the economic demise of another, places on this planet where people live in economic demise.
There has to be a universe that former lawyers go where they are either unborn, or living like some of the lowest of the low places we are aware of here on this planet.
There can’t only be here.
There has to be a place where ‘they’ go.
I didn’t truly comprehend lawyer jokes until my home was stolen.
Now all of the lawyer jokes make sense. all of them
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
TY Greg, TY DEB,
To Greg’s recipe I would add Mother Theresa’s thoughts on “Do it anyway”, Kipling’s poem, “If”, John Adam’s thoughts on real property, this thing my wife tricked me into while we were dating (I’m not at liberty to say), Robert Hunter’s lyrics (in general; but, specifically as regards the banks: “whichever way your pleasure tends, if you plant ice you’re gonna harvest wind”.), “Jump you F&c@ers”, by Gene Burnett…
With regard to the phony patriots and PIGS from FOX news I would also add: I wish you the fate of Lee Atwater.
In the meantime, John Boehner, I believe, has seen his eternal damnation as projected by a soft-spoken humanitarian, and, suddenly, his jaundiced condition now embraces full cowardice.
Good riddance.
This country is only so strong as the weakest among US.
This country is now and forever was a foil to the disgrace and cowardly, criminal deceit that is central banking.
Once, upon a time, in my neck of the woods, the “Wolf”, Lord Stirling, knew how to treat with cowardly English hirelings even as Captain Samuel Allen made it his business to hang these filth from trees.
Ah, the good old days…
My opinion is there are men ( means women too ofcourse) that get it and they will step into their power because they will not be able to help doing so because it is their fate, being who and what they truely are.
Fixed typos ( worth getting it right)
” the greatest want of the world is the want of men- men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their innermost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name,
Men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right through the heavens fall.”
aside from the horrible spelling (lol)_ i get it
Call me sentimental… Just found a publication in my mailbox that i never asked for and no idea who sent it to me, the back page says
” the greatest want of the workd is the want of men- men who will nkt be bought ir sold, men who in theur innermost souls are true and honest, men who do nit fear to call sin by its right name,
Men whoes conscience is a trye to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand fir the right through the heavens fall.”
Its a song
… And a little bit of monica
Couldnt help it
greg’s recipe for success…
1 cup Tom Jefferson
8 oz Ayn Rand
4 TBSP Mohandas Gandhi
Francis of Rome to taste
puree well and strain out the solids
simmer with 1 tsp butter and 1 tsp honey until thickened
pour over the world…
MK
(((((hugs)))))
Ladies and Gentlemen! Boys and Girls! Children of all ages!
Jesus, Mary and Joseph.
THE BANKS ARE INSOLVENT!!!!!
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE ANY OF US OWE ANYTHING BEYOND CONTEMPT TO THESE LYING THIEVING SCUMBAGS.
JAIL WALL STREET.
END CITIZENS UNITED- CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE AND I AM NOT YOUR FRIEND!!!!
End the intentionally mislabeled, “Federal Reserve- neither federal, while owned by an international, criminal, privately-owned cartel, nor possessed of ANY reserves; our money is created out of thin air!!!!
DID YOU STOP BREATHING TODAY????
IF YOU DID, WE THE PEOPLE HAVE RUN OUT OF THE SUBSTANCE THAT BACKS CENTRAL BANKING CURRENCY::::::: THIN AIR!!!!
How can anyone on the planet still believes these lying filth represent anything of substance to Humanity????
Jail Them.
Return the rule of law.
Senator Sanders for President 2016.
Good Grief- Wake up!
what we have is a complete failure and corruption of the bureaucratic functions of the government we pay for…
fire them all!
have a constitutional convention without democrats or republicans!
make parties illegal!
revisit this:
http://www.vice.com/read/this-former-bank-regulator-quit-his-job-to-fight-for-his-house-518
https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/superior/aurora.pdf
According to material at the link above, in 2011, Cheryl R. Marchant, who identified herself as a vp of Aurora Loan Services, claimed ALS was the servicer for many identified trusts (see them in the link material). She did not, however, tell the court that Aurora routinely used its own employees in MERS’ hats to yet assign the loans to ALS and then posture as the real party in interest to invoke the jurisdiction of the court as if those trusts didn’t exist.
Greg… Right on!
“It’s not ‘complex’, it’s simple, stupid! “… should be our rallying cry!
We have the best government that money can buy. Mark Twain
correction -never renewed
besides… congress ever renewed the Federal Reserve Bank franchise and i still don’t understand why they are still around and why we care what they say… the US Treasury can set interest rates now…
all banks are franchisees of the federal government
their charter includes a clause to operate within the law and do no harm to the people…
on that basis alone the us treasury could freeze all their accounts, terminate their franchises, and divvy up the spoils to all the small federal and state banks…
there would be no economic collapse – there would only be a collapse of the leaches… it might be a tad confusing at first but not a penny should be lost…
The banks should have been broken up or removed back at the beginning of 2008 or late 2007. They own the government. Get rid of them.
Not really off topic
http://www.ascotadvisory.com/Incorporations_Directory/Bank_Insurance_FDIC.html