When is the Consummation of a Loan Contract?

Hat tip to Patrick Giunta, Esq. for sending me this article. Very interesting that it was written in 2011.

ANALYSIS: It seems fair to say that the Courts are not willing to find a contractual obligation exists under State Law until a true and actual lender is identified. “Pretender lenders” – as Neil Garfield calls them – and intermediary “originators” who make false representations to the effect that they are “lending money”and are your “lender” should not be sufficient to set the three year TILA rescission clock in motion.  Until the real Wall Street entity, or Wall Street Investor, or true source of the table funded loan is identified, the loan should not be deemed “consummated” under TILA and the three year right to rescind should remain open until such disclosure is made.  That is TRUTH IN LENDING WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF TILA IN THE FIRST PLACE.

see http://www.foreclosuredefenseresourcecenter.com/2011/01/when-does-the-3-year-right-to-beging-start-when-is-a-loan-consummated-is-there-equitable-tolling-of-the-tila-right-to-rescind/

214 Responses

  1. shadowcat

    please be specific regarding only one spouse signing documents. i didn’t sign either, thank you

    ps, nevada is community property state

  2. This free site is still up – http://foreclosureintelligence.weebly.com/index.html

    It’s been a while but ive applied the concepts in one way or another it seems. The goal was to try the services I Iink to and review them but never got there. The data approach looks like has possibilities with what’s happening in LA area and my issues with city. First stab may be at a California overall complaint with some of the people that have contacted me. If interested try out the contact tab or I’ll post link later.

    I may have the other site available if still on the server and I get it going again.

  3. @ Hammertime

    Thank you for the link to the examination.

    Is your old site, or any of the links, still active?

  4. @ Shadowcat

    Sorry, but you are incorrect in the belief that “they technically own the property” — they don’t.

    “They” are in fact nothing more than a BAILEE of the MAKER’s executed Promissory NOTE. The MAKER is the BAILOR of his personalty (personal property): the Promissory NOTE.

    The BAILOR/MAKER has a right to know the whereabouts of his/her personalty: the NOTE.

    By operation of law, “they” have to return the original Promissory NOTE to the MAKER, regardless of whether there was either a default, or a satisfaction, of the NOTE.

    No one owns the NOTE, ever, except the MAKER.

  5. Looks ok. Will download this file pub-ch-cc-respa-worksheet check ur download folder or prompt to save. At least a goodchecklist

  6. H, the link is not working for your own attack t mortgage form. Thanks

  7. SC it doesn’t make sense tgat they technically own the property and then they just borrowed it. All they have is an interest IF thry held up their end of the agreement on purported LOAN

  8. Bob, you’re clearly not an ignorant man, but maybe you think other readers are? You claim not to be selling anything, yet you don’t spill here what you think you know with your “attack the contract” stuff. I’ve pointed to a few things, recoupment, the language in the note itself re: who may enforce, state laws against predatory lending which may be helpful. You seem to think you have a silver bullet, but are saving it for…. what? Only those who’ll call you and benefit thereby…. because you’re lonely? Looking for the ‘right’ case to implement this phantom “attack”? Those are the only things I can think of which prevent you from doing more here than making a vague reference to a contractual attack.

  9. David Bob has left the building we’ve moved on focused on OP

  10. Technically its their property during the duration of the loan. .
    BIt who in tarnations gave them permission to liquidate and collaterize it against their own debts?

    Oh…and after borrowing/stealing it… Returning it Damaged.
    Ins help them cover up the theft…partners in crime under the umbrella of MERS.

    BAD TRUSTEE! !!!

  11. When the other party defaulted…that’s it!!!!
    Now do tell about the undisclosed risk to the Estate.

  12. David.
    Have you been talking to my friends? 😎

    Don’t lower yourself to such a low level….
    Everyone is born Ignorant …
    Stupidity is learned.

    Be Nice!



    41. Release of Liens. Except as otherwise provided in the Plan or in any contract,
    instrument, release, or other agreement or document created pursuant to the Plan, on the
    Effective Date and concurrently with the applicable distributions made pursuant to the Plan and,
    in the case of any Secured Claim, satisfaction in full of the portion of the Secured Claim that is

    Allowed as of the Effective Date,

    all mortgages, deeds of trust, Liens, pledges, or other security
    interests against any property of the Estates shall be fully released and discharged, and all of the
    right, title, and interest of any holder of such mortgages, deeds of trust, Liens, pledges, or other
    security interests shall vest in the Liquidating Trust.





    Notes: [1] For all litigation settlements, the counterparty’s attorney is listed as addressee.

    [2] General Trade Payable claims are based on balances in the Debtors’ Accounts Payable system as of close of business May 11, 2012.

    [3] Estimated amount of claim for unsecured bonds represents principal balances as of 5/9/12 and does not include accrued interest or fees.

    [4] As of Indenture dated June 24, 2005 between Residential Capital Corporation and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Indenture Trustee (amended on June 24, 2005, November 21, 2005, and May 16, 2008). A $20.1 million semi-annual interest payment due in April 2012 for the senior unsecured note maturing in April 2013 was not made.

    [5] Estimated amount of claim for EUR notes is based on an exchange rate of 1.29480 on May 11, 2012. [6] Estimated amount of claim for GBP notes is based on an exchange rate of 1.61418 on May 11, 2012

  15. General Information:

    On May 14, 2012, each of the fifty-one Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). The cases are jointly administered under Case No. 12-12020 (collectively, the “Bankruptcy Cases”) before the Honorable Judge Martin Glenn in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

    Pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code (specifically including, but not limited to, 11 U.S.C. § 362), a debtor is afforded certain protection against its creditors; the Bankruptcy Code prohibits creditors from taking certain actions related to debts that may have been owing prior to the commencement of the Bankruptcy Cases. If you believe that you might be a creditor of the Debtor(s) based upon debts arising prior to May 14, 2012 and you are considering taking action based upon your status as a creditor, you may wish to seek legal advice. The staff of the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court and the staff of KCC are not permitted to give legal advice.

  16. Active Cases

    KCC Precedent

    Client Login

    Case Home
    Proof Of Claim Form
    Submit an Inquiry
    Adversary Proceedings
    Claim/Creditor Search
    Claims Register
    Court Documents
    First Day Motions
    First Day Orders
    Monthly Service List
    Plan and Disclosure Statement
    Prepetition Credit Documents
    Press Releases
    Sale Documents
    Voluntary Petitions
    Bankruptcy Industry Links
    Residential Capital, LLC et al.
    Case Number: 12-12020

  17. https://www.kccllc.net/

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

    In re:
    Case No. 12-12020 (MG)
    Chapter 11
    Jointly Administered

  19. Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal and commented:
    Neil Garfield blog post that discusses when exactly a loan contract is considered consummated.



  21. 1099A. The lies on that one little postcard, should tell everyone , what the fraud is REALLY.

  22. David B
    Could you please post links of where you got that info from
    Its no good otherwise, and a copyright issue, thanks.

  23. (iii). Impact of Monoline Insurance and “Recognized” Claims

    31. Insured RMBS Trusts32 (other than those insured by FGIC and Ambac) have

    received, and in the future are assumed to receive, payment of their losses to the extent necessary

    to pay the principal and interest due to the insured tranches of such trusts directly from the

    applicable Monoline, which in most cases eliminates the need for any distribution to those

    RMBS Trusts given the structure of the Plan and the inter-related settlements contained in the

    Plan.33 In such cases, the “recognized” claim of the RMBS Trust is set to zero, or is reduced, to

    take into account the full or partial payment of claims by the applicable Monoline, unless an

    exception applies.34 The rights of Insured RMBS Trusts are reserved in the event that the

    applicable Monoline does not honor its obligations.35

    Section 2.04 Representations and Warranties of the Depositor as to the Mortgage


    The Depositor hereby represents and warrants to the Trustee and the NIMS Insurer with

    respect to the Mortgage Loans or each Mortgage Loan, as the case may be, as of the date hereof

    or such other date set forth herein that as of the Closing Date:

    (i) Immediately prior to the transfer and assignment contemplated herein, the

    Depositor was the sole owner and holder of the Mortgage Loans. The Mortgage Loans

    were not assigned or pledged by the Depositor and the Depositor had good and

    marketable title thereto, and the Depositor had full right to transfer and sell the

    Mortgage Loans to the Trustee free and clear of any encumbrance, participation interest,

    lien, equity, pledge, claim or security interest and had full right and authority subject to

    no interest or participation in, or agreement with any other party to sell or otherwise

    transfer the Mortgage Loans.

    (ii) As of the Closing Date, the Depositor has transferred all right, title and

    interest in the Mortgage Loans to the Trustee on behalf of the Trust.

    (iii) As of the Closing Date, the Depositor has not transferred the Mortgage

    Loans to the Trustee on behalf of the Trust with any intent to hinder, delay or defraud

    any of its creditors.

  24. Creditor
    The CFPB broadly defines the lender as a creditor. Note: for the purpose of the new rules and to remain consistent with the current rules under the Truth-in-Lending Act, a person or entity that makes five or fewer mortgages in a calendar year is not considered a creditor.

    Disclosures required under 12 CFR 1026.20(d) must also include these items, among others: 10 Creditors, assignees, and servicers are all subject to the requirements of this section (12 CFR 1026.20(d)). Creditors, assignees, and servicers may decide among themselves which of them will provide the required disclosures. Establishing a business relationship when one party agrees to provide disclosures on behalf of the other parties does not absolve the other parties from their legal obligations

    Notification of Sale or Transfer of Mortgage Loans—12 CFR 1026.39 Notice of new owner: No later than 30 calendar days after the date on which a mortgage loan is acquired by or otherwise sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred22 to a third party, the “covered person”23 shall notify the consumer clearly and conspicuously in writing, in a form that the consumer may keep, of such transfer and include • identification of the loan that was sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred; • name, address, and telephone number of the covered person; • date of transfer; • name, address, and telephone number of an agent or party having authority, on behalf of the covered person, to receive notice of the right to rescind and resolve issues concerning the consumer’s payments on the mortgage loan; • location where transfer of ownership of the debt to the covered person is or may be recorded in public records or, alternatively, that the transfer of ownership has not been recorded in public records at the time the disclosure is provided; and • at the option of the covered person, any other information regarding the transaction. 22 The date of transfer to the covered person may, at the covered person’s option, be either the date of acquisition recognized in the books and records of the acquiring party or the date of transfer recognized in the books and records of the transferring party. 23 A “covered person” means any person, as defined in 12 CFR 1026.2(a)(22), that becomes the owner of an existing mortgage loan by acquiring legal title to the debt obligation, whether through a purchase, assignment, or other transfer, and who acquires more than one mortgage loan in any 12-month period. For purposes of this section, a servicer of a mortgage loan shall not be treated as the owner of the obligation if the servicer holds title to the loan or it is assigned to the servicer solely for the administrative convenience of the servicer in servicing the obligation. See 12 CFR 1026.39(a)(1). Introduction > Subpart E—Special Rules for Certain Home Mortgage Transactions Comptroller’s Handbook 64 Truth in Lending Act This notice of sale or transfer must be provided for any consumer credit transaction that is secured by the principal dwelling of a consumer. Thus, it applies to both closed-end mortgage loans and open-end HELOCs. This notification is required of the covered person even if the loan servicer remains the same. Regulation Z also establishes special rules regarding the delivery of the notice when there is more than one covered person. In a joint acquisition of a loan, the covered persons must provide a single disclosure that lists the contact information for all covered persons. If one of the covered persons is authorized to receive a notice of rescission and to resolve issues concerning the consumer’s payments, however, the disclosure may state contact information only for that covered person. In addition, if the multiple covered persons each acquire a partial interest in the loan pursuant to separate and unrelated agreements, they may provide either a single notice or separate notices. Finally, if a covered person acquires a loan and subsequently transfers it to another covered person, a single notice may be provided on behalf of both of them, as long as the notice satisfies the timing and content requirements with respect to each of them. In addition, there are three exceptions to the notice requirement to provide the notice of sale or transfer: • The covered person sells, assigns, or otherwise transfers legal title to the mortgage loan on or before the 30th calendar day following the date of transfer on which it acquired the mortgage loan. • The mortgage loan is transferred to the covered person in connection with a repurchase agreement that obligates the transferring party to repurchase the mortgage loan (unless the transferring party does not repurchase the mortgage loan). • The covered person acquires only a partial interest in the mortgage loan, and the agent or party authorized to receive the consumer’s rescission notice and resolve issues concerning the consumer’s payments on the mortgage loan does not change as a result of that transfer.

  25. Kali I tried a couple of ways to get homeowners to work together, share info but couldn’t really get it going when things escalated. One was a data, information approach and other was a file sharing, membership site. I may approach those who contacted me for some type of group complaint, approach.

  26. IS a borrower who was given a loan she couldn’t possible repay (teaser rate, say) actually a dead beat? I’ve mentioned impossibility of performance before in ref to contracts in general. How, actually, is a predatory loan any different? The borrower can’t pay 11% even if she wanted to. You just can’t get blood from a turnip, and imo, like the turnip, the borrower who wasn’t properly qualified by the “lender” can’t give what she was known to not have, that is, the wherewithall to make an absurd payment after its increase based on some index and a ridiculous margin.

  27. lender is not the creditor
    servicer is not the creditor
    When the creditor of the transaction is revealed, the consummation clock starts ticking. To ask someone to sign a document indicating a loan is consummated without ‘full disclosure’ should include a statement that the signer has a right to demand debt validation at any time to determine if the ‘purported’ creditor has changed.
    In my opinion, not legal advice.

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

  28. if we keep our conversation here then maybe we will be done with BH unless he renigs?

  29. @ Hammertime

    In the past, I recall reading a website originating out of Kalifornia. Did you ever have a separate website in the past?

  30. Now we won’t have anything to talk about lol

  31. If u allow urself to be bullied into only thinking of urself as a renter or borrower there’s no way u can accurately state ur claims, damages or rights. Question of equity destroys renter simplification. We need to assert our rights and hold banksters and government accountable w settlements etc. The Independent Foreclosure Review framework recognized title issues and lost equity before it was scrapped, corrupted.

  32. Wait a minute, the village simpleton is “signing out of this topic” after entirely failing to address the issue, and ranting off on irrelevant tangents?

    Guess that unclear water in Clearwater, Florida caught up to him.

  33. The reference below is from Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition.

  34. BANKING A DEAL. Means making to one who
    wishes to consummate a deal a loan of money on
    collateral for a consideration which may consist of
    interest, a fee, or a part of the securities or property
    involved in the deal. Cray, McFawn & Co.
    v. Hegarty, Conroy & Co., D.C.N.Y., 27 F.Supp. 93,

  35. BH et. al. try to fight the tertiary jurisdiction which may occur after unlawful presumptive surrender of unalienable rights…

    i fight the primary fight that unalienable rights were never surrendered and franchisee’s of the state must serve man (we the people) or, if causing harm to man, must be cancelled by operation of law…

    no details from me now… go google & read for yourself… you would not believe it anyway even with 10,000 pages of references…

    it would make you consider things which i do not indorse…

  36. Lets talk about risks….
    Technically the mortgagee owns the property during the term of the loan.
    Ok…but was it disclosed that the were gambling with them on Wall Street…a 30 year PI commitment ?

    So what about prepayment and rescission rights?

  37. always insist on a deed which says you paid the seller (20) twenty dollars in lawful money [and other considerations] for the transfer of their land grant and NOT (10) ten dollars [and other considerations]

    for this one thing moves it to federal jurisdiction

  38. One more feeding inspired by Greg earlier. What we have are DEADBEAT BANKERS. They deliberately destroyed our economy, DELIBERATELY made it impossible to honor any contract, DELIBERATELY stole from investors,the government and deliberately harm us. And even DELIBERATELY had borrowers miss payments. The bully doesn’t even understand he insults every one of us and millions of others just like banksters that want us on our knees begging for forgiveness. What a crock of ###$#!

  39. Dwight, if you drive a Ford Pinto where only a Hummer in 4WD can go, the Pinto will not get through. You simply must have the equipment and skill and knowledge to do the job. And if you don’t you must hire someone who has it. And if you cannot do that while supporting your lifestyle, you have to work smarter to make more money, CUT EXPENSES, and reduce your lifestyle, and GET the money, or prepare yourself for DEFEAT.

    It’s that simple. I have learned that no matter how much money you have, you never have enough, and no matter how little money you have, you always get by.

    So get your priorities straight. Stop killing yourself with your ridiculous defense and frivolous arguments. Hire a competent professional to examine your mortgage. THEN YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT without hiring a lawyer.

    WHACK YOURSELF upside the head, Dwight. You have put yourself into a nose dive into a concrete pool with no water. Come out of it. Make the decision. Act on it.

  40. What does a deadbeat borrower who does not pay rent do with their money…..

    Pay taxes insurance maintain and attorney?

    Watch Your Tounge! !!

  41. Kalifornia. .point well taken. Agreed. The wiring instructions are very telling of a different version.

  42. Can’t convey something you don’t have …in a security instrument or a Warranty Deed.

    Perhaps you don’t understand that ..

  43. … and only a simpleton would make a post about RENT, when the issue is whether or not the named entity provided its own consideration for the execution of the Putative Contract.

    Galileo is spinning on the imbecile’s distracting, irrelevant tangents.

  44. Agree w Kali TILA is law period, posts on contract should be required reading before posting. Only discussion should be on its procedure and evidence of consummation. And courts working against the law so no one is blind sided.

  45. actually ill take that point Bob makes although purposefully directed at the two on here he knows are pro se ( BOb once again do not need your help so stop sulking)
    regarding the term ” vexacious” – just because a person uses the word it does not make it so, and so long as the pleading is factual and written well with respect im not sure how that applies. Next.

  46. UGH!

    Stay on point:

    …there was never a production of the contemplated consideration by the entity, as purported lender in name only, on the disclosure document, thus no consummation of the Putative Contract.

    No consummation = no running of TILA’s 3-year statute of limitations.

  47. IMF
    World Bank
    World Global Debt Facility

  48. How many wars in the last 10 years alone?
    Kennedy was shot and what he signed was immediately repealed.

    The reset is coming ….

  49. consider the secret service which is supposed to protect the president is an arm of treasury – which is an arm of the international monetary fund… and you might get an insight

  50. every bit of land owned by a man/woman [Spanish Land Grants, etc., US Land Grants etc.,Treaties, etc. ] that a private owner [or their estate] owned before “the civil war”, or was subsequently arrived upon by lawful transmittal after said war and the implementation of the Lieber Code, is truly theirs, BUT for security reasons, is HELD IN ABEYANCE by a trustee of the US until such time that the US president does declare that the rebellion is over and that all parties agree to the peace…

    this never happened after said war…

    every president who has tried to implement this declaration has been shot

  51. @ Shadowcat

    The Realty and Personalty you own are assets of your Estate, both Real and Personal.

  52. shadow –
    please restate your question so that others beside you and me get it


    can’t wait

  53. Their own Estate held in Escrow for their own futures.

  54. So Greg. Is the unrecorded liens against real estate or Real property ?

    The rents being the. ………. ?

  55. instead of arguing tertiary legal mumbo-jumbo… lets get down to primary loss of rights…. (yeah you BH)

    commie pigs need not apply… lol

  56. time to terminate the war of 1861

  57. until people wake up that they are all “owners in abeyance” under the settlement acts of “the war” [Lieber Code] and that until the rebellion is declared OVER by the president of the united states (not USA) [petitioned for and to the president by the USA Senate annually since 1865 without a response], the president claims, in the name of the District of Columbia, all lands, north and south, formerly owned by the people and the states, as booty of the civil war… and has assigned management thereof to the various legs of the executive branch, operating under nom de guerre titles of claim under said Lieber Code, further codified to resemble the original republics since under siege… and [within this fractal “legal system” of wartime dispossession] can only provide “rents” for their own estates, held in escrow for their own futures…

    hey – what marvelous Kool-Aid – provided by 100 history books that no dancing-with-the-stars American would ever read!

  58. Most people facing foreclosure cannot afford laying out 5000 dollars for an examination of their mortgage. The industry has priced their product too high. The industry should offer it for between 300-500

    During the national mortgage settlement of 25 billion dollars, the victims should have had representation at the table, it should have been stipulated that all future borrowers facing foreclosure could have access to a mortgage examination paid for with funds from the settlement. Furthermore, every foreclosure defendant should have a mandated legal representation in a court of law, again..paid for with the settlement monies ..third, every court of law should have high-tech video recording with a cameras on both parties and the judge the whole entire time .. I have had to fight with the girl transcribing my case into transcripts from a half-assed recording that has her making mistakes about what was said …example: I told the judge that “we are NOT admitting to a default in this case”

    The transcripts state: we are admitting to a default in this case

    I had to argue with this girl ..she didn’t believe me..finally she pulled the tape and listened while I stood there .. I was right, so she had to change it for me ..

    This is the kind of crap I’m dealing with …the whole system stinks

    We have renegade judges making a mockery of due process in these foreclosure court rooms …where are the videos of all the travesty going on? Where is the supervision and accountability? There is none.

    It goes all the way up the chain…the corruption and bias against the foreclosure victims of faulty and illegal mortgages goes all the way to the appeplate courts …to the District Courts of Appeal …its completely out of control …Most of the case law is bad law in foreclosure cases.

  59. Excuse me Dwight for having had an attorney.
    I admit my legal knowledge on procedure is nil….

    At least I didnt play lawyer! And Lose!
    You were to far gone when you finally admitted you had not paid re taxes and HOA dues since 2007. So my friends tell me..
    No one could help you anyway .Its a fact..some are just to far gone to help.

    Truth Hurts!

  60. There is a difference between real estate and real property
    I know the difference…what did you grant irrevocably ?

  61. Shadowcat … With each post you write, you show us more proof of your own lack of understanding. You are a very confused individual and each time you try to add to our discussion you only expose your ignorance.

    I don’t have time to play this game with you … You are either a very low I.Q. individual ..or you are here to spread disinformation for the banks.

    But you clearly have no business talking about TILA rescission with your obvious lack of understanding. Try and stay out of our discussions and read our posts. Read what we are posting and try to learn, okay?

    Sorry ..but none of us have time to play your silly games.

    Thank you

  62. @ Shadowcat

    You are the owner of your real property, not a renter. Stop drinking the unclear water from Clearwater, Florida.

    Stop it. He is clouding your cognition. Discipline your self, take a break, take a walk, get some rest, then come back and think about it before agreeing with that village simpleton’s idiocy.

    Just sayin’.

  63. That cloud on title to real property…
    It can separate you or bond you for life.
    It depends on how you look at it….

  64. Until people wake up and realize we own Nothing…we are all Renters…
    Then and only then will you realize how we were all used.

    Bob…I am still waiting for you to explain your Free Rent comments.
    And no…I don’t want you to explain it in private on the phone.

    They flourished on our Ignorance.
    Stupitidy is scorning their victims for their Ignorance.

    I just wanted to clarify that for the record .

  65. @ Shadowcat

    Sorry to disappoint you, ma’ am.

    Do not drink the unclear water from the gutter of Clearwater, Florida.

    Doing so will only cloud your cognition; intended to separate you from the cloud on the title to your real property that you own.

  66. Lets all be Nice!
    Kalifornia. .Bob is right, even in a proper rescission .

    You need to state a claim that can be litigated ….
    Contract Law & Common Law Rescission get you that.
    Not TILA rescission.

  67. @ greg

    My deepest condolences to you and yours.

    Your presence and return here is highly welcomed, appreciated and valued.

    Oh, and please do not feed and ignore that certain pigeon/know-it-all **cough**/village simpleton. Doing so will only lead to a return for more food.

  68. Discovery Responses….for Proof of Claims.

    “Want of Knowledge” affidavits.

    Game Over!

  69. Damages..Losses
    Claims that can be litigated.
    Its a 2 way street!

    Do not accuse unless you can prove.

    “Proof of Claim”

  70. Dwight..they never discussed tender and it has been remanded back to the lower court. Now..I suspect they will settle. The defendants have been caused substantial harm at this point. Legal fees, damage to credit history affecting their ability to borrow at a rate they would have otherwise been entitled to. The slander of title..the application and appraisal fraud….I could go on and on.
    Its the damages…..to offset the payoff.

    Yikes…Am I sounding like Hurt?

  71. Deb … Okay …thank you !!!

    The discussions get confusing because a couple people disagree with Jesinoski and TILA… and when we respond to their posts about cases they cite it throws the discussion into other directions …but as for me, I believe in TILA rescission and what the Supreme Court said in Jesinoski .. I will keep fighting to overcome the defiant judges who disagree with the Supreme Court.

  72. Dwight
    Not agreeing or disagreeing i have not read everything on here or know your case to have opinion, my opinion is just re jesinoski ruling if judge mishaprehended material points of fact and law and failed in consideration of the security and uniformity of jesinoski – then i agree with you and im telling you to keep fighting just keep hitting back, 90 % of it is to keep getting back up.

  73. just back from mom-in-laws funeral weekend…

    hundreds of family & friends…

    reminded of what and whom really matters to get my soul back to center…

    BH, et. al. are now just as much a concern to me as 200 miles of harvested barren fields along the highway at 75 MPH on cruise control…

    if you ain’t on the tractor or combine – what you say doesn’t matter…

    i intend to refocus on the material at hand and ignore the crows… they always show up at the end to eat the remnants…


  74. Kali
    Sorry, and apologies to all. Its just frustrating to see a person on here where its more counterproductive than anything else, if he just posted case law and not get mean about pro se litigants faltering along as best they can –

  75. Deb …you agree with what I’ve been saying?

    Or are you disagreeing with something I posted ???

  76. OOPS!


  77. @ Deborah wynn

    Please don’t feed the pigeon. That will cause it to stay around and it will return regularly to look for more food.

    Besides, it against the municipal code.

  78. So heres bobs redaction

    bobhurt, on October 25, 2015 at 4:46 pm said:
    Deborah Wynn
    Regarding the True Grit comment, why misconstrue and worsen what I write? I simply made the point that the teenager in the movie role showed profound knowledge of contract law and negotiation, which she learned from her father. The people having trouble with their loans needed such knowledge and STILL need it. Like I said, the film should inspire people to STUDY AND LEARN BEFORE they have problems in the future.

    Uhmm – what future, viva jesinoski

  79. Qualified in recognizing piss n vinegar artists

  80. No need to re invent the wheel re Jesinoski
    Its simply this and the case should be remanded ( then you argue im sure no one thinks for one minuite its really that easy after what we have endured in court since 2008!- ya feel me)
    I keep saying this because the rest is whatever,
    ” because that is all a borrower must do in order to exercise his right under the act” …. “The court below erred in dismissing the complaint, ACCORDINGLY ( caps mine) we reverse the judgement of the eighth circuit and remand the case for FURTHER proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Unquote
    So Dwight – The jesinoski case is the standard now and any court must ensure in its consideration must ecure and maintain the uniformity of the SCOTUS ruling. ( and i say that with regards to the above)
    And Bob the problem is you are happy to piss n vinegar folks to death thats my point, why you do that, you are not the smarty pants you think you are. NO ONE is THAT mean if intentions are helpful, you have motives to be undermining and right all the time, i would never ever hire anyone with such personality traits, and i aM qualified.


    Exhibit 10.1
    THIS TWENTY FIRST MODIFICATION AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made as of the 31st day of May, 2005, by
    and among E-LOAN, INC. (the “Borrower”), and GMAC Mortgage Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation (“GMACM”), as
    successor to all rights, title, interest and obligations under that certain Master Warehouse Loan Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as
    of September 24, 2003 (“Purchase Agreement”), by and among GMACM and GMAC Bank, a federal savings bank (the “Lender”).
    The Borrower and the Lender entered into a Warehouse Credit Agreement, dated as of November 1, 2001, as amended (as so
    amended, the “Warehouse Credit Agreement”) pursuant to which the Lender agreed to make advances (the “Advances”) to the
    Borrower in accordance with the provisions of the Warehouse Credit Agreement. All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise
    defined shall have the meanings set forth in the Warehouse Credit Agreement.
    The Advances are evidenced by the Borrower’s Fourth Amended and Restated Note, dated as of May 6, 2003 (the “Note”) in
    the stated principal amount of $155,000,000 and secured by, among other things, a Warehouse Security Agreement dated as of
    November 1, 2001, as amended (as so amended, the “Warehouse Security Agreement”) between the Borrower and the Lender
    granting the Lender a security interest in certain of the Borrower’s assets.
    Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, GMACM is the successor of all rights, title, interest and obligations of Lender under the
    Warehouse Credit Agreement and Collateral Documents.
    The Borrower has requested that GMACM make certain modifications to the terms of the Warehouse Credit Agreement, and
    GMACM has agreed to such modification, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
    NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:
    1. Warehouse Credit Agreement. The Warehouse Credit Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
    (a) The definition of “Commitment” contained in Section 1.01 of the Warehouse Credit Agreement shall be amended to
    read in full as follows:
    “”Commitment” shall mean the obligation of the Lender to make Advances in an aggregate principal amount
    outstanding at any time not to exceed $10,000,000, or such other amount as Lender, in its sole discretion, may determine
    from time to time.”
    (b) The definition of “Expiry Date ” contained in Section 1.01 of the Warehouse Credit Agreement is revised as follows:
    ““Expiry Date” shall mean the earlier of (i) May 31, 2006, as such date may be extended upon mutual agreement
    between the Borrower and the Lender from time to time, and (ii) the date that is 120 days after the date on which the Lender
    shall have given the Borrower the notice referred to in Section 9.13 hereof.”
    (c) Section 2.01 of the Warehouse Credit Agreement is amended to read in full as follows:
    “2.01 Commitment. Subject to and upon the terms and conditions set forth herein, the Lender agrees, at any time
    and from time to time prior to the Expiry Date (or such earlier date as the Commitment shall have been terminated pursuant
    to the terms hereof), to make an advance or advances (each an “Advance” and, collectively, the “Advances”) to the Borrower,
    which Advance: (i) shall be made at any time and from time to time in accordance with the terms hereof on and after the
    Effective Date and prior to the Expiry Date; (ii) shall bear interest as provided in Section 2.07; (iii) may be prepaid and
    reborrowed in accordance with the provisions hereof; and (iv) shall be made against the pledge by the Borrower of Eligible
    Mortgage Loans, Eligible Nonconforming Mortgage Loans, Eligible HELOCs/Second Mortgage Loans or Liquid Assets as
    Collateral for such Advance as provided herein and in the Warehouse Security Agreement; provided, however, that (1) the
    aggregate principal amount of Advances outstanding at any time shall not exceed the lesser of (1) the aggregate principal
    amount of Advances outstanding at any time shall not exceed the lesser of (x) the Commitment and (y) the Borrowing Base,
    at such time, (2) the aggregate principal amount of Advances outstanding at any time secured by Mortgage-backed Securities
    shall not exceed 0% of the Commitment, (3) the aggregate principal amount of Wet Advances outstanding at any time shall
    not exceed 40% of the Commitment, (4) the aggregate principal amount of Advances outstanding at any time secured by
    Jumbo Loans shall not exceed 40% of the Commitment, (5) the aggregate principal amount of Advances outstanding at any
    time secured by Eligible Nonconforming Mortgage Loans shall not exceed $1,000,000 (the “Nonconforming Commitment”),
    (6) the aggregate principal amount of Advances outstanding at any time secured by Credit A– Loans shall not exceed 100%
    of the Nonconforming Commitment, (7) the aggregate principal amount of Advances outstanding at any time secured

  82. @ DwightNJ

    Ignore the village simpleton seeking your and everyone’s validation.

    Everyday, throughout the universe, the man-made laws are expanded, contracted, clarified and even newly created.

    The village simpleton’s perceptions are static, rigid and akin to the wholly erroneous geocentric philosophy of the earth’s status during Galileo’s period.

    Eventually, as in Jesinoski, the high court’s will correct the errors in the lower court’s perceptions and presumptions as to the failure disclose the truth that a “straw man” never provided its own consideration (its own monies) in order to consummate a contract.

    Meanwhile, if it makes sense, press rescission.

  83. “Truth In Lending”

    The first layer of the simple inquiry:

    1) Were there disclosures executed in the collateral documentation of the Putative Contract? It’s a simple yes or no answer.

    2) Was there an entity in the disclosure documentation of the Putative Contract that represented itself as a lender/creditor/real party in interest? It’s a yes or no answer.

    3) Was the disclosure documentation prepared by the entity representing itself as a lender/creditor/real party in interest? It’s a yes or no answer.

    4) Did that entity lend any of its own monies as consideration for execution of the Putative Contract? It’s a yes or no answer.

    5) Did an undisclosed separate entity not named in the disclosure documentation actually fund the Putative Contract? It’s a yes or no answer.

    6) If the answer to 4) is no, there is/was no truth in the disclosure documentation of the Putative Contract. Was there deception and concealment as to whom is/was the true lender/creditor/real party in interest? It’s a yes or no answer.

    7) If the answer to 5) is yes, there is/was no truth in the disclosure documentation of the Putative Contract. Was there deception and concealment as to whom is/was the true lender/creditor/real party in interest? It’s a yes or no answer.

    8) If the answer to 7) and/or 8) is yes, 1) is part and parcel of a FRAUD AT THE INCEPTION/EXECUTION. [Despite the simpleton’s assertion to the contrary, true and accurate representations for TILA disclosure(s) are not waived by the execution of those disclosures. The simpleton’s arguments that this is so is contrary to the very wrongs and public policies TILA is Legislatively intended to protect against. So, once again, wisdom dictates to never argue with an idiot.]


    10) The argument is that because the named entity falsely represented itself as the named lender in the disclosure documentation, but never lent any of its own monies nor funded the transaction, consequently THAT entity failed to provide its own consideration for the execution of the Real Property Instruments. Thus, THAT entity was a “straw man” who failed to consummate the Putative Contract, and deceived and concealed whom is/was the true lender/creditor/real party in interest in order to gain the undisclosed and concealed profitable benefits from their inducement of the execution of the Putative Contract.


    WHAT ON EARTH DO THEY PUT IN THE WATER THAT IS UNCLEAR for the simpleton domiciled at “Clearwater” Florida????

  84. The Kieran opinion doesn’t fit this argument because the borrower did not rescind .

    The borrower defaulted first.

    And then the lender filed a foreclosure based on the default.

    And after that, the borrower attempted to rescind.

    See ??? Different circumstances not relevant to my argument.

    In my case I rescinded first.

    There was no default and no foreclosure complaint when I rescinded and voided the loan.

    The Supreme Court says my rescission was effective ..unilateral ..it happened by the single action of the borrower mailing the letter.

    There was no litigation going on when I rescinded.

    Go back and read Kieran ..it doesn’t apply to my case.

  85. Bob i cant believe you actually said this
    “Go watch the film True Grit and notice how 14-year-old Mattie manages her contractual affairs. That should inspire borrowers to take more responsibility and stop acting like putty in the lender’s hands.”

    My god Bob – thats your job isnt it – to piss and vinegar everyone to death.

  86. We wouldn’t have that problem if lenders had provided All the early disclosures required by law . And of most of the peleminary disclosures that were provided were much farther off than the final disclosures. There is a requirement for new peleminary disclosures to be provided if its off my a certain percentage. And its not to be done at the closing table!

    As for the loss of escrow on a purchase loan,, .
    Exactly..throw in the threat of the fees (illeagaly) you will incur not signing…
    And of course the infamous..If you don’t sign now the finds will not be available tomorrow and you have to start the process all over again.

  87. Galileo Galilei faced an inquisition and was placed under indefinite house arrest for arguing heliocentrism: that the earth was a sphere rotating on it own axis which orbited around the sun; as opposed to geocentrism: the earth being the center of the universe with heavenly bodies revolving around it, as authority commanded the masses to believe.

    In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.” The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth’s movement “receives the same judgement in philosophy and… in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.”

    The men wearing robes issued an order upon Galileo: … to abandon completely… the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.

    In July 1633, Galileo was being threatened with torture if he did not tell the truth, but he maintained his denial despite the threat.

    Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions.

    He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition. On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.

    His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

    Galileo was allowed to return to his villa at Arcetri near Florence in 1634, where he spent the remainder of his life under house arrest.

    It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he dedicated his time to one of his finest works, Two New Sciences. This book has received high praise from Albert Einstein. As a result of this work, Galileo is often called the “father of modern physics”.

    It is believed that having been accused of weakness in defending the church, Pope Urban VIII reacted against Galileo out of anger and fear.


    Conceptually, doesn’t this sound strangely familiar to the ruling of “heresy” regularly and broadly declared throughout the lower federal and state courts of this country?

    Doesn’t it also sound like that certain know-it-all **cough** who cries “heresy” and “vapor money theory” on the issue of consideration as consummation of a the Putative Contract?

    Well then, although I could never supplant them, I will at least stand in Galileo’s shoes, laugh and point at the simpleton’s geocentrism, and re-declare: “And yet there was no consummation!”

  88. I thought of Bob Hurt when I read this science article on Google News just now:

    Compensating: Loudest howler monkeys have the tiniest balls

    That goes a long way towards explaining his outsized wails towards anyone who bothers to quote the Supremes in their Jesinoski opinion. He has great difficulty wrapping his mind around the fact that this law isn’t meant to protect (alleged) creditors against uppity borrowers….it’s in fact in place solely for the protection of those borrowers. And as distasteful as he and the Mortgage Banker’s Association find that circumstance, it’s still an undeniable fact.

    On another note (literally and figuratively), Bob said this past week:

    “More ad hominems and NO supporting proof feom [sic] E. ToLLe.

    Show me a valid note that does not bear the lender’s identity.”

    To which I respond:

    Your question is a trick. “….show me a valid note that does not bear the lender’s identity”. Of course there’s no such thing as a valid note that does not show the lender’s true identity. First semester stuff that. Even Shadowcat might understand that legal issue. Not sure about that.

    Now quit changing the subject and explain this note’s validity/invalidity (just happens to be my note) in answer to your query:

    America’s Wholesale Lender, A New York Corporation

    Is the simple fact that AWL was never incorporated, never a legal entity, enough to fulfill your threshold demand, that of showing you an invalid note?

    Bonus question: When was this note consummated?

    Will you ignore these questions and start howling even louder?

  89. TILA states … “or 3 years from consummation”

    This language leaves no room for debate, it takes away a courts discretion to rely on its own presumptions.

    Anytime a TILA case is in front of any court, that court must first determine the point of Consummation in order for it to rule on any other aspect of a TILA case. You can’t skip this first fundamental criteria and element of TILA.

    The issue of Consummation needs to be proven and established in order for a lender to contest or challenge a TILA rescission.

    Why? .. Because TILA says so.

  90. As for any of the small minority of “good Judges” out there who have a soul and believe in the God of the Bible … we can only wonder about the reasons that they continue to deny justice to borrowers.

    Their misguided views must include the following …

    – I don’t want to be known as the judge who gave the “free house”

    – my reputation amongst my peers in the legal profession is more important to me than allowing justice for a foreclosure defendant

    – I like what the Supreme Court said in Jesinoski, but I’ll wait for some other judge to take the lead in following it .. I don’t want to be seen as the judge who opened the can of worms by following Jesinoski

    – these are people who defaulted ..well the loans may not be legal and valid ..but that’s the way things were done back then ..but I cannot rule in the defaulting deadbeats favor …the rest of us paid our mortgage

    These are a few examples of the misguided views of our judges that we must overcome in court.

  91. who lost money bob h. only one that was losing money was, investors and insurance companys. not one bank lost a penny

    (iii). Impact of Monoline Insurance and “Recognized” Claims
    31. Insured RMBS Trusts32 (other than those insured by FGIC and Ambac) have
    received, and in the future are assumed to receive, payment of their losses to the extent necessary
    to pay the principal and interest due to the insured tranches of such trusts directly from the
    applicable Monoline, which in most cases eliminates the need for any distribution to those
    RMBS Trusts given the structure of the Plan and the inter-related settlements contained in the
    Plan.33 In such cases, the “recognized” claim of the RMBS Trust is set to zero, or is reduced, to
    take into account the full or partial payment of claims by the applicable Monoline, unless an
    exception applies.34 The rights of Insured RMBS Trusts are reserved in the event that the
    applicable Monoline does not honor its obligations.35

    Section 2.04 Representations and Warranties of the Depositor as to the Mortgage
    The Depositor hereby represents and warrants to the Trustee and the NIMS Insurer with
    respect to the Mortgage Loans or each Mortgage Loan, as the case may be, as of the date hereof
    or such other date set forth herein that as of the Closing Date

  92. California …great information and useful arguments in your posts, thank you for posting ..keep them coming. We need all weapons and strategy available.

    The issue of Consummation argument is vital and goes hand-in-hand with the issue of standing in a mortgage litigation.

    The old case law that Bob and the judges relied upon was wrong, it never wanted to address the reality of the mortgage scam that was uncovered by the 50 states Attorney General.

    Jesinoski proved how the courts were getting it wrong and how and why we now have had case law on the books that serves no justice.

    The fact that TILA uses the words “from consummation” is a good enough reason that the issue should be allowed in. Full Discovery should be granted to any borrower raising TILA rescission. Since TILA is the federal statute which protects borrowers from lenders, then it only makes sense that the Courts need to stop denying us Due Process when we raise TILA rescission against the lender.

    TILA is the one telling the Court that “consummation” is the starting point. This isn’t a wild theory being asserted by the borrower. Its required by TILA as the criteria for defining what constitutes a valid loan. A valid loan needs to have as a legal ingredient and requirement an actual valid and legal consummation.

    So it makes perfect sense that a court should want to start at that point

    But it’s obvious the Court and bank does not want to start at the consummation. They both fight to deny it at all costs. Their actions seem to indicate that they know the problems at consummation, they know it will open a can of worms and favor the borrowers, they know it will lead to the truth being revealed. So the Court provides cover for the bank and denies the importance or relevance of the consummation.

    We need to argue that TILA requires that a real creditor needs to be determined in a TILA rescission case. This needs to be one of our main arguments in order for any TILA violation to stand up in court.

    Even in a case where borrowers claim the notices were missing from the closing documents .. It should be required as a fundamental first step in a litigation before the Court that the consummation be opened up to full Discovery and inspection, so that all parties including the Court can determine if a valid consummation took place. Also to determine if the chain of title has proper transfers and purchases in order to establish who the current creditor really is. This goes to the issue of standing.

    So both consummation and standing needs to be established in any TILA litigation ..if it lacks either consummation or standing ..it Should be decided in the borrowers favor.

  93. SC…you seem to struggle with your lack of reading comprehension. And when you write a post based on your own lack of comprehension, your post makes no sense.

    Let me break it down for you, your posts only add confusion to the discussion because you don’t understand the issues or facts.
    You struggle to understand the basic concept of rescission.

    The borrower rescinds the loan.

    The Supreme Court affirmed that the rescission took place with the letter from the borrower. No law suit needed. No Judges order needed.
    It is a unilateral action that needs nothing else for its accomplishment. The borrowers letter alone effects the rescission and voids the loan. The loan is no longer valid at that point, no payments are due.

    If this was not true, the Supreme Court could not have ruled so in the Jesinoski decision …the Court would have had to change their opinion and would have had to say that the rescission needs to be litigated in a law suit ..but they did not say that, they said the borrowers letter made the rescission effective. Period. Done.

    Bob and shadow seem to disagree with the ruling and the TILA law. That’s fine, but they need the legislators to change the law, not the judges. The judges are the ones who have been requiring borrowers to jump thru hoops that are not in the plain language of TILA.

    Shadowcat apparently disagrees with the Supreme Court that a TILA rescission makes the loan VOID… well that’s just the way it is.

    Sorry Charlie

  94. Like building/constructing a foundation for the support of a physical low/high rise structure, all starting points for assessment and analysis of these Putative Contracts begins at the foundation including, but not limited to:

    (1) the Inception/Execution of the Real Property Instruments,

    (2) the collateral documentation executed at inception,

    (3) the representations and intentions of the named parties in the Putative Contract,

    (4) the consideration offered and accepted in support of the Putative Contract, and

    (5) the full good-faith disclosure and accurate representation of the Putative Contract’s effect upon its execution so that the named parties are able to have a ‘meeting of the minds’.

    Just as when a physical structure’s foundation is not square, plumb and true, the equivalent in a Putative Contract is bad-faith non-disclosure and concealment, which infects every aspect of the contractual structure and adversely affects its ability to withstand strict scrutiny.

  95. @ johngault

    Respectfully, in no way have I made inferences of idiocy toward or “in your general direction.” (Quoting a line from a Monte Python movie.)

  96. It appears that a certain know-it-all **cough** repeatedly and deliberately rambles off on a tangent that is not at issue in the article.

    A question of law exists on a TILA rescission as a remedy for unlawful non-disclosure and concealment of whom the true and actual lender/creditor/real party in interest was at the inception/execution of the Putative Contract.

    A question of material fact exists when there is an averment of an unlawful non-disclosure and concealment by a “straw man” who inserted itself upon the Putative Contract as a lender in name only, without having lent any of its own monies as consideration.

    If that “straw man” falsely represented that it was the lender/creditor, when it fact it provided no consideration, that “straw man” consummated nothing at the inception/execution of the Putative Contract — ever — and intentionally deceived and unlawfully concealed whomever the true and actual lender/creditor/real party in interest is/was.

    Although the effect may fit a certain know-it-all’s **cough** perception of ‘vapor money theory’, the facts and the law define the unlawful deception and concealment of the actual and true lender/creditor/real party in interest in the transaction as ground for rescission of the Putative Contract based upon the theory of Fraud in/at the Inception/Execution, whether it be under TILA or a state’s equitable remedies.

    SCOTUS has affirmed TILA rescission.

    Kalifornia Supreme Court has affirmed equitable rescission on the ground of Fraud at the Inception/Execution.

    That certain know-it-all **cough** will never learn to take and proselytize his perceptions of a vapor money theory elsewhere.

    So I will heed my grandmother’s advice: You can’t fix stupid.

    Just sayin’.

  97. Until the anti-trust suit is filed, refuse to sign a “mers mortgage”.

  98. bobhurt@11: something 10/23:

    1) Well, one of the readers here went to his AG with beefs, and I’ll bet a dollar to a donut the AG (Michigan) was statutorily charged with prosecuting the beef and yet sent said reader on his way. And I know of another case where in fact the AG was charged with prosecution and sent the complaining borrower on his way. AG’s could do what they’re paid to do. For instance.

    2) TILA was and is a stab at forcing the lending industry to police itself, at least to make accurate disclosures of loan terms as expressed in the Regulation Z form and allowing the remedy of rescission for violations.

    3) If true diligence were done by rating agencies before forking over a triple A rating, that would be “helpful”.

    4) the agencies could do actual diligence and more spot audits and 86 lender approval when repeated violations are found.

    5) Loans should be seasoned before being securitized, at least 12 mos. This is the biggie to me. We do NOT need securitization to make legit loans, that is, loans for which people truly qualify. It’s bs and what led to unrecedented predatory lending. (“Here, take this turkey”)

    6) Get rid of MERS.

    7) States do have anti-predatory laws which aren’t being called upon by borrowers generally. Far as I know, as to the time to avail oneself of those laws, they can at least be used indefinitely in recoupment / counterclaims, affirmative defenses.

  99. Below, I’ve posted my own opinion as to why a consummation of the Putative Contract has never occurred: because there was only a third party “straw man” who broker involved in the bargaining who falsely represented themselves as a lender in name only on the documentation, but never in fact lent any of its own monies, at all.

    In fact, that “straw man” pledged the Real Property Instruments, in advance of the execution, for securitization transactions into REMIC trusts, and collected an undisclosed profit from doing so — that was all it did.

    Therefore, at its inception that Putative Contract had/has no consideration from a true and actual lender/creditor. This is not to suggest that some funding may have been derived from somewhere or someone, but it definitely was not lent from the entity on the documentation. Consequently, the deception was in the form of the executed Putative Contract, which had a substantively and materially different contractual effect that was intentionally neither disclosed nor truthful.

    As opined by the Kalifornia Supreme Court, and cited in the post below: “… mutual consent is not present, as a matter of law, in fraud in the execution or inception cases because the defrauded party is deceived as to the nature of the act of forming the contract and actually does not know what contract is being signed.” Rosenthal v. Great W. Fin. Sec. Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 415

    Because the named “straw man” provided no consideration for the execution of the Putative Contract, e.g, it did not lend any of its own monies, there was no consummation of the Putative Contract.

    Hence, any execution and acknowledgement of TILA disclosures is further evidence of the deception at the inception by the third party “straw man” and, when combined with a failure to consummate, supports a claim for a rescission, whether under Federal TILA, or a state’s equitable remedy, while also averring that the statute of limitations is tolled/tolling.

    This is the very definition of a “conduit” loan, that even WELLS FARGO admits has no lender. See https://www08.wellsfargomedia.com/assets/pdf/commercial/financing/real-estate/Conduit_Loan_Servicing.pdf

    Apparently, a certain know-it-all **cough** should, but does not know the foregoing. Instead, he misleads readers about some vapor money theory — dog defense #(XX): LOOK at the dog biting at itself and dragging its arse across the carpet for relief from its afflictions.

  100. Sigh…

    To repeat, the issue of the article is when did a consummation of the putative contract occur, if at all, in order to trigger the running of the 3-year statute of limitations on a TILA rescission.

    However, TILA is not the only ground for a rescission of the putative contract, but a certain know-it-all poster **cough** doesn’t address Fraud at the Inception, to wit:

    Kalifornia law distinguishes between fraud in the “execution” or “inception” of a contract and fraud in the “inducement” of a contract. Most cases involving fraud relating to real property involve fraud in the inducement. In these cases, the defrauded party knows that a contract is being signed, but the consent to that contract is induced by the fraud of the other party. Rosenthal v. Great W. Fin. Sec. Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 415. However, mutual consent is not present, as a matter of law, in fraud in the execution or inception cases because the defrauded party is deceived as to the nature of the act of forming the contract and actually does not know what contract is being signed. (Ibid.)

    Fraud in the inducement makes the contract voidable, and fraud in its execution or inception makes the contract void. Rosenthal, supra. Rescission is an option to the defrauded party in fraud in inducement cases and is unnecessary in fraud in execution or inception cases (Ibid.), although rescission or reformation has been allowed. (Security-First Nat’l Bank v. Earp (1942) 19 Cal.2d 774, 777.)

    Because the remedies for fraud ultimately depend on the type of fraud committed, it is imperative that counsel know the definitions of and the relationships among the types of fraud and the remedies available for each. See, e.g., Loken v. Century 21-Awards Props. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 263, 271.

    Tort damages for fraud (Stout v. Turney (1978) 22 Cal.3d 718, 723 n6, 725, 730 (intentional misrepresentation); Gagne v. Bertran (1954) 43 Cal.2d 481, 487 (negligent misrepresention)).

    It can be fatal to the outcome of a case if the fraud allegations are not aligned with the statutory definitions and the remedies associated with each. See Crogan v. Metz (1956) 47 Cal.2d 398, 404; but see Eatwell v. Beck (1953) 41 Cal.2d 128, 130 (motion to reopen to present further evidence on proper measure of damages should have been granted).

    That said, once again, that certain know-it-all poster **cough** pulls out of his arse some nonsense about a ‘vapor money theory’?

    WTF is he smoking in his apartment in FL? What ever it is, it is not Kalifornia Kush, that’s for sure.

  101. Deb. …Agreed.
    Proof of Claim can be challenged in State & Federal courts.
    Not just in rescission.

    PS. ..its not your job to prove who the creditor is…or the accounting.
    Not Ever!
    Excepts when they lie …… Then it gets interesting.

  102. Dwight. Just out of curiosity .. In the case dropped in 2011…
    Was your rescission made part of the record? No?

    You defaulted on the RE taxes and HOA dues…..
    No Way around that.
    Unreasonable for some one with a Valid rescission to assume the contract is both void and valid at the same time.
    Almost as unreasonable as the Bond..the Note..the MBS…all existing at the same time.

  103. Bob … The case you posted in the link is flawed and is not similar to the facts in my case.

    (your linked case) – the borrowers defaulted …the bank filed foreclosure .. a year later after they defaulted and in response to the foreclosure the borrowers finally decided to send a rescission letter and filed a complaint to collect damages. They invoked the courts jurisdiction to make a determination regarding their right to rescind.

    (DwightNJ case) – We were current on payments ..No Default …when we mailed the rescission letter in 2007 … We stopped paying July 2007 as per TILA … Servicer Wells Fargo filed the complaint in 2014 alleging we Defaulted in 2007 , they filed the complaint, not us. We are simply stating that the loan was already rescinded in 2007 and that no default occurred because under TILA we are NOT to continue payments, so there is no default in our case. We rescinded before they filed the Foreclosure Complaint. See the difference? In your case the borrowers defaulted and a year later while facing a foreclosure complaint sent a letter rescinding …much different than my case.

    In my case there is no default because I rescinded first.

    The Bank responded to my rescission by filing a foreclosure that they dismissed in 2011.

    They filed a second foreclosure attempt in 2014 ..

    They are attempting to foreclose on a void mortgage that was rescinded in 2007 …

    They have no standing to bring a foreclosure complaint against a void mortgage that was rescinded back in 2007

    The court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate my void mortgage

    In your case Bob, that court was already involved, the bank had already filed foreclosure ..and then those borrowers decided to rescind.

    Do you see the big major difference between our cases?

    The Supreme Court says my loan was rescinded before the complaint was filed.

    In your case the borrowers attempted to rescind in the middle of a foreclosure case ..that judge had jurisdiction to rule on the alleged TILA violations because they tried to rescind after the complaint was filed.

    I believe in my case I shouldn’t prevail ..my rescission was effected prior to the complaint, therefore the complaint is based on a default that could not happen, TILA rescission protects the borrower from being accused of defaulting, because TILA instructs the borrower to stop making payments. The plain language of the statute explains that the borrower is not responsible for any more charges.

    If the bank disputes the rescission, they are too late at that point to file a foreclosure based on a default that TILA says didn’t happen.
    A foreclosure filed after a rescission is the wrong action and must be Dismissed. The plaintiff in a foreclosure action needs to establish that a default happened on a valid loan.

    But in my case neither is true.

    The loan was already void by operation of law and per the Supreme Court.

    And the alleged default in the complaint is not true because my rescission went into effect while my loan was still current.

    The judge in my case should not even be hearing this foreclosure matter because of the points explained above. The plaintiff is here trying to foreclose on a complaint filed in 2014. .. and the rescission went into effect in 2007

    They are out of time …they waived their remedies and defenses to my rescission .

  104. Arguing tila is great – payoff amount, accounting, dispersements, equitable setoffs and of course the party the rescission is pertinent to will stand up in court – hence they did not,…thus far.

  105. Don’t confuse Ignorance with Stupity!
    They underestimated me ……..

  106. I don’t care what you believe about me Bob!
    Those who care…know and love me matter.
    The records speak for themself. There was no default at the time they claimed one…my banking records don’t lie…got an affidavit from my local bank….
    We both know who creates fictitious banking records.

    Now..lets assume as a non borrower…I asserted just those claims..
    You assert a borrower should make….
    Except prior to a lawsuit.

  107. SC,

    One more thing: competent attorneys tend to shy away from representing what a competent attorney friend of mine calls “emotional and irrational certifiable nucking futs”. Plenty of that out there… 🙂

  108. This post is about definition of contract, consummation what crazy theory?

  109. Yes Kalifornia. . the Brokers did all but come short of breaking legs to get those signatures. Signing Agents/Notarys were encouraged to get them…or else no pay. After 2 couples who did not sign at closing contacted me about getting default notices from the wanna be lender while current with the current lender.
    That gave me a wake up call…
    I did much pro Bono (without pay at my own expense)..
    LPS…took it to a whole new level of document and deed and Jurat forgeries.

    Christine..most people don’t take their records ..timeliness..and evidence of triable causes like us….Agreed!

  110. SC,

    Competent Attornies keep on top of things….
    They don’t bilk their clients to pay a paralegal to research it…
    They know what they are looking for and go right to it.
    The legal fees are for responses motions and appearances.

    Actually, you are incorrect. Competent attorneys do not trust clients who have not done their homework ahead of time and they won’t represent anyone on hearsay and off-the-cuff, shoot-from-the-hip theories proven inadmissible for 8 years and yet still pushed by peddlers and tried by morons.

    Competent attorneys ask the client for the totality of the documents and a timeline (the very rare times they meet a smart one, savvy enough to have documented everything, already zeroed in on the admissible legal issues at hand and highlighted the supporting documents). When they meet an LL brainwashed idiot, and once they are satisfied that the would-be client would still make a reasonable witness on his/her behalf with appropriate coaching, they either go through every page by themselves (costs mucho dinero to client) or ask their paralegal to do it, which is cheaper but still very expensive.

    People unable to study their own docs and make a stand-alone timeline will have to pay, either to get one drafted by the attorney or to get one written by a truly competent mortgage fraud analyst.

    There are no shortcuts to winning. Incidentally, competent attorneys don’t accept Soliman or LL’s analyses. So either people understand the issues and do their homework or they don’t and they go to those who do and have proven records of helping winning attorneys… win!

  111. @ Shadowcat

    To clarify:

    Brokered in advance by the straw man for the gainful profit to be captured by already pledging to a REMIC trust the PROMISSORY NOTE before it was EXECUTED.

    Having already processed the application, they knew that the only step left was to execute the stack of documents which included a NOTE and DOT.

  112. Already Pledged to the REMIC before the loan closed.


  113. Competent Attornies keep on top of things….
    They don’t bilk their clients to pay a paralegal to research it…
    They know what they are looking for and go right to it.
    The legal fees are for responses motions and appearances.

    Go Jump off a Rock.
    Rock knows…but Rock got thrown off the cliff because he was bad for business here.

    Right Neil?

  114. Below, in the previous posting on the issue of Consummation of the Putative Contract and Fraud at Its Inception:

    The FACTUAL BACKGROUND, below, intends to illustrate a common fact that exists in many if not most instances where, at the inception of the Putative Contract, in actuality there is a third part straw man who is profiting from acting as a “conduit” (the originator/purported “lender”) by brokering in advance the eventual execution PROMISSORY NOTE already pledged into a REMIC trust.

    That third part straw man did not lend a single penny in consideration of, and as an exchange for, the execution and BAILMENT of the PROMISSORY NOTE. Consequently, by operation of law there was no consummation of the Putative Contract with the straw man, let alone a true lender/creditor/beneficiary/real party in interest.

    This is the primary and foundational issue.

    The Fraud at the Inception language below is an older draft which needs and will receive a tune up.

  115. Table funded loans are Legal.
    Provided there was full disclosure of All the risks..
    And who the Original Creditor is……

  116. When u engage a pretender lender thru cfpb, addressing settlement guidelines they will tell u black is white so fraud isn’t strong enough. And you don’t even have to pay a lawyer or guru!

  117. I agree Kalifornia. ..under a common law senerio of contract law.
    Conversion and Torts under trust law.

    I think that’s it…

  118. That’s why I brought my attornies in on it ….
    Someone tried to bully me..and my reliance …

    I know nothing legal.
    My prior experience is in the classroom..not the courtroom.
    I sure picked a bad time back in 2007 for a career change.

  119. 1. Exectory contract adhesion
    2. Implied Contract adhedions
    Dag gone it I forgot the word. ….

  120. @ Shadowcat

    There are factual instances where both a rescission of the putative contract occurs as well as various grounds for damages existing as a result of the acts and omissions of a party.

  121. Or assert all 3 prior to a legal action by either party.

  122. @ Shadowcat

    At least in Kalifornia, the best practice is to aver the elements in support of all three causes of action, and then elect the remedy at trial.

    Waivers are like bullies…

  123. You can not negotiate damages in a rescission .

  124. Kalifornia, at our age ..we were to old to start over again .
    Options 1 and 2 work for us.
    Settled for 1 and waived 2.

    On advice of council.

  125. Although Bob DOESN’T get TILA PROCEDURE.

  126. @ Shadowcat

    If a putative contract is breached, a party may sue (1) to enforce the terms/conditions/performance, (2) for damages, and/or (3) for rescission.

  127. Completely agree Kalifornia focus should be on post. The other focus is consummation as to what defines a contract. Parties, consideration, meeting of minds. Like w TILA rescission were coming full circle how banksters and their stooges manipulated signature and 4 corners trap.

  128. Yes..Your Honor, I signed what I thought was a mortgage and was represented as a mortgage…but evidence shows otherwise.

  129. The dispute with Bob is he misrepresents TILA rescission and Garfield’s positions in support of homeowners and corrupt courts. He actually says we should CONFESS. TILA rescission is the ultimate mortgage attack IF it applies and especially if there’s fraud involved. Garfield has said for years don’t admit anything but lawyers ignored the fraud and judges prejudged homeowners going along w banksters INTERPRETATION of TILA procedures. Bob may get the procedure right but he’ll serve ur head on a silver platter.

  130. “[Plaintiffs’/Defendants’] intentionally misrepresented to [Plaintiff/Defendant] that [Plaintiffs/Defendants] are entitled to exercise the Power of Sale provision contained in the DOT.”

    “In fact, [Plaintiffs/Defendants] are not entitled to exercise the Power of Sale and have no legal, equitable or actual beneficial interest whatsoever in the Subject Property.”

    “[Plaintiffs/Defendants] misrepresented that they are the “OWNER” of the Promissory Note and the beneficiary of the DOT.”

    “However, this is not true and is a misrepresentation of a material fact.”

    “Plaintiff/Defendant] was and is attempting to collect a payment to which they have no legal, equitable or pecuniary interest and this conduct is outrageous, especially in light of the fact that they have full knowledge of the facts as contained herein.”

    “[Plaintiffs/Defendants] failure to disclose that the Promissory Note was sold to a REMIC and the Promissory Note and DOT were severed from one another, making the security instrument void, fraudulently induced [Plaintiff/Defendant] to pay [Plaintiffs/Defendants].”

    “[Plaintiffs/Defendants] were aware of the misrepresentations and profited from them.”

    “As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations and concealments, [Plaintiff/Defendant] was damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, including, but not limited to, damage to [Plaintiff’s /Defendant’s] financial security and credit, costs expenses, and attorney’s fees.”

    “[Plaintiffs/Defendants] are guilty of malice, fraud, perjury and/or oppression.”

    “[Plaintiffs’/Defendants’] action were and are malicious and done willfully in conscious disregard of the rights of [Plaintiff/Defendant] in that the actions were calculated to injure [Plaintiff/Defendant].”

    “The [Plaintiff/Defendant] engaged in a pattern and practice of defrauding [Plaintiff/Defendant] during the life of the mortgage Transaction, the [Plaintiff/Defendants] recorded knowingly false Instruments, failed to properly apply payments made on the Transaction, and accepted payments that they were not entitled to.”

    “At all relevant times, [Plaintiff/Defendants], and each of them, had actual knowledge that [Plaintiff’s/Defendant’s] payments did not accurately reflect actual payments made to that account by or on behalf of [Plaintiff/Defendant].”

    “By and through the aforesaid inaccurate accounting, [Plaintiffs/Defendants] made misrepresentations of material fact by the inclusion within said accounting of fees, charges, penalties and interest for which there was no justification, asserting thereby that the said charges and accounting entries were true and accurate.”

    “At the time, and at all relevant times, [Plaintiffs/Defendants], and each of them, knew that the said representations of material fact were false, and made those misrepresentations with the intent to defraud [Plaintiff/Defendant].”

    “At the time, and at all relevant times, [Plaintiff/Defendant] did not know that the said representations of material fact were false but believed to be true, and relied thereon to his detriment.”

    [Plaintiffs/Defendants] further concealed material facts know to them but not to [Plaintiff/Defendant] which, as a matter of law, [Plaintiffs/Defendants] were duty-bound to disclose regarding payments, notices, assignments, transfers, late fees, changed beneficiaries, and charges.”

    “[Plaintiffs/Defendants] concealed the said material facts with the intent to defraud [Plaintiff/Defendant] by causing him to act in ignorance of facts which he was entitled to know, the knowledge of which would have necessarily altered [Plaintiff’s/Defendant’s] decisions and actions in respect to the subject matter of the within dispute.”

    “[Plaintiffs/Defendants] made the above-alleged false representations, and engaged in the above-alleged concealments and non-disclosures willfully and with the intention of thereby inducing [Plaintiff’s/Defendant’s] reliance on said representations and on the mistaken belief that he had full, complete, and accurate information from [Plaintiffs/Defendants].”

    “[Plaintiff/Defendant] did, in fact, justifiably rely on the completeness and accuracy of [Plaintiff’s/Defendant’s] accounting and claims of ownership.”

    “As a direct and proximate result of [Plaintiff’s/Defendant’s] justifiable reliance on the completeness and accuracy of [Plaintiffs’/Defendants’ ] accounting and claims of ownership, [Plaintiff/Defendant] suffered loss, damage and harm including, but not limited to, damage to his credit standing, costs and potential future loss of the Subject Property.”

    “As a direct and proximate result of [Plaintiffs’/Defendants’] fraudulent conduct, as herein alleged, [Plaintiff/Defendant] has suffered loss, damage, and actual harm, and is entitled to an award of damages on account thereof in such sum as may accord with proof at trial.”

    “As an unavoidable consequence of [Plaintiffs’/Defendants’] fraudulent conduct as herein alleged, [Plaintiff/Defendant] has incurred and accrued substantial cost and expense in reasonable, prudent and justified efforts to mitigate damage wherefore [Plaintiff/Defendant] is entitled to an award of special and/or consequential damages as may be allowable by law and as may accord with proof at trial.”

    “[Plaintiffs’/Defendants’] fraudulent conduct, as herein alleged, was wanton, willful, malicious, and unconscionable, wherefore Plaintiff is further entitled to imposition upon [Plaintiffs/Defendants] of exemplary damages in such sum as the court may deem sufficient to dissuade [Plaintiffs/Defendants] and others similarly situated from engaging in identical or similar conduct in the future.”

    “[Plaintiffs’/Defendants’] false representation or concealment of a ‘material fact’ would be deemed a ‘material’ fact if a reasonable person would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in determining his choice of action in the transaction.”

    “[Plaintiffs/Defendants] made the representations with knowledge of its falsity or with superior knowledge of the subject to warrant a misrepresentation.”

    “[Plaintiffs’/Defendants’] representation was made with the intent to induce [Plaintiff/Defendant] to act upon it.”

    “[Plaintiff/Defendant] entered into the Transaction in ‘justifiable reliance’ upon the representation.”

  131. Fraud is such a harsh word ….
    Misrepresentations are are more easily proven.

  132. If the Plaintiff/Defendent is in breach of the contract …
    A reasonable person would sue for breech of contract to enforce it right?

    But then you learn the mortgage is an encumbrance and there are no liens. The unrecorded liens come into play in foreclosure.

    Kalifornia. ..Please continue about the misrepresentations and inducement to sign the “contract”.

    I like this part!

  133. To all whom have been commonly victimized by the these corporations, I sincerely apologize for my participation in going off track to call out a bullying poster.

    Re-tracking the article, the looming question is whether or not there was a consummation of a mortgage?


    “[insert BOA/WELLS/JPM/CITI/etc.] knowingly and intentionally concealed the fact of its actual status and intent: as a third party “straw man” and/or “conduit” engaged in brokering [insert Plaintiff’s/Defendant’s] imminent execution of [his/her] NOTE in advance, for separate securitization transactions into REMIC trusts—not as a lender of its own monies as publicly and falsely represented to consumers, e.g., [Plaintiff/Defendant].”

    “On [insert date, 20XX], [Plaintiff/Defendant] induced [Plaintiff/Defendant] by its false representation to execute a NOTE and DOT (collectively hereafter, “Putative Contract”) prepared by [Plaintiff/Defendant] setting forth a monthly sum of $XX,XXX.00 (hereafter, “NOTE Payment”) for a 30-year duration.”

    “By operation of law [Plaintiff/Defendant] was the MAKER and BAILOR of a NOTE in the amount of $XX,XXX,000.00, as [his/her] personal property in a BAILMENT with [Plaintiff/Defendant] as BAILEE.”

    “Despite the fact that it did not lend any of its own monies, on or about [insert date, 20XX], [insert Plaintiff/Defendant] recorded a DOT in the land records of the Recorder’s Office in [insert] County identifying itself as a “Lender” as well as “the beneficiary under this security agreement”; with [insert trustee] named as Trustee. (See Ex. XX.)”

    “In fact, because [insert Plaintiff/Defendant] did not lend any of its own monies in consideration for [Plaintiff’s/Defendant’s] execution of the Putative Contract, the Real Property Instruments that [Plaintiff/Defendant] executed were/are invalid, and [insert Plaintiff/Defendant] was never a holder of a beneficial interest in [his/her] NOTE.”

    “Because [insert Plaintiff/Defendant] did not lend any of its own monies in consideration for [Plaintiff’s/Defendant’s] execution of the Putative Contract, [Plaintiff/Defendant] never consummated the transaction by lending any of its own monies at either the inception of the transaction, nor at any time thereafter.”

    The foregoing opinion lays a foundation to build upon for refuting the purported “lender’s” putative consummation of the mortgage contract, and presents a possible footing for arguing that the 3-year statute of limitations for a TILA rescission is tolling.

    Of course everyone should seek competent legal advice on the issue.

    Just sayin’.

    Fraud in the Inducement to follow…

  134. It must be pretty lonely over there on your website……
    I can not imagine why….can you?
    You sure spend a lot of time here….just an observation .

  135. UKG… What is your opinion on a borrower raising the defense that they had already timely rescinded under TILA within the 3 years allowed, before the servicer received the assignment and filed its foreclosure complaint?

    Would the borrower be supported by Jesinoski that the mortgage was void before the complaint was filed against the void instrument?

    Did the creditor allow too much time to pass by failing to bring an action inside 1 year? 4 years? 6 years?

    Should it matter who the real creditor is in this type of case?

    Just wondering what your take is on this. Thank you.

  136. Ignorance can be cured with Education.

    Arrogance is Stupidity ..
    There is No cure for Stupidity !

  137. With a perspective like that … You must be a miserable old coot!

    Many Blessings to All!

  138. David, Very Good!!!

    UKG…SOLs run on Both Parties for Failure to Prosecute a claim.

  139. You can not redirect the Master of Redirection Bob.
    I have not tried to silence you….
    I tried to point out that being NICE is how to get people to listen to you.

    Again..your Selective Reading is a Failure.

  140. Here’s a case of classic “I waited too long”.
    34-2-8055 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Amico, App. Div. (Rothstadt, J.A.D.) (18 pp.) Defendants Mark and Kelley Amico appealed from the Chancery Division’s order denying their motion to vacate a previously entered default judgment of foreclosure and for a stay of a scheduled sheriff’s sale of their home. In support of their motion, they argued that they were never properly served with the foreclosure complaint and various required notices, that they established excusable neglect for not responding to the complaint because of the lack of service and that plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., made numerous misrepresentations in its application and violated federal law because plaintiff never owned the subject note. In a written statement of reasons filed with the order, Judge Hansbury explained that the court denied defendants’ motion because they took no action to defend against this foreclosure for an extended period of time and did not establish excusable neglect. The court also found plaintiff established proper service of the complaint and subsequent applications, standing to bring the action, and entitlement to the relief demanded. On appeal, defendants contended that the judge erred by not finding plaintiff’s various frauds barred it from relief, by conflating the issue of standing with whether plaintiff was entitled to equitable relief of foreclosure, by finding plaintiff established ownership of defendants’ loan and by not determining that plaintiff failed to appropriately and accurately establish the chain of title to defendants’ loan. The appellate panel affirmed, concurring with the Chancery that assignment of defendants’ note and mortgage to plaintiff was valid and executed prior to the filing of the complaint, establishing plaintiff’s standing to pursue the foreclosure action. The assignment was executed in recordable form before the litigation commenced. Its recordation four months later did not affect its validity because an assignment is effective on the date of execution. Because plaintiff established it possessed the note at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed, the trial court was correct in concluding plaintiff had standing to pursue the action against defendants. Any complexities caused by Fannie Mae’s involvement in the loan did not undermine plaintiff’s ability to seek and obtain relief in a foreclosure action.

    @bob hurt: I’m going to agree with you, Bob, that all the securitization fail arguments are for naught. This has been a wild goose chase for going on seven years. They bushwhacked us, and the government has been 100% complicit in the scam.
    We can be “right as rain” on the facts, but those facts don’t convince the judges that we’re “victims”. Your points are well taken as to “attacking the mortgage” versus “defending the foreclosure”.
    We must “attack the pleadings”, though, at the outset if you have been served with a foreclosure action. The statement of the plaintiff that they’re “owner and holder” can be refuted, and it’s likely that the judge will try to poo-poo your argument. Attack the claims and support it with case decisions. The servicers are getting the dreaded “free house”. The homeowner never had a chance to pay when the LIBOR was manipulated to force these defaults, and the fact that the “servicer” in not the “creditor” won’t fly either, even though there has never been any “loss” suffered by the plaintiff.
    Unendorsed notes, unrecorded mortgages, lack of standing, they are all valid points, but we’re dummies in the eyes of the court.
    The fact that you issued a “security” with your new partner bank at the closing table can be illustrated with the note, but all the judge will see is your DEFAULT. Sad but true.

  141. Sadly enough I was one of 3 supporters of your attack the mortgages.
    You no longer have my respect so that has changed.

  142. What you did Bob was go all psycho on me because I didn’t call…
    I don’t need your help. . Get It?

  143. She didn’t have to…I keep good records and I did the leg work.
    I also paid a hell of a lot of money….time and Life….

    Sit on it and Spin!!!!

  144. The amount of fraudulent documents and forgeries is positively amazing and very obvious. You do not need to be over 8 to figure them out. Fraud on the court so blatant that opposing counsel actually put the statement in a pleading filed with the clerk of court that he was meeting with the judge ex parte. That says it all.

  145. Lets start here….My Lawyers are LTAO@ you!!!!
    I never waste my time pointing fingers at the court or judges.
    You must have missed that over 100 times with your selective reading skills!!!


    State Laws Vary….
    I will finish ripping you a new ass…after I feed the Grandkids lunch!

  146. bob hurt, we know the truth hurts and yes we have all been deceived one way or the other by the banksters and the foreclosure court game is old. However, I am interested in the appraisal fraud, and where our payments went which no lazy attorney I had was interested in digging into the root of the problem and why would he when he is getting the same pay and does not have to work any harder. I saw the scam of the mthly payment to the attorney for foreclosure defense and they knew they could get it because the borrower was not paying the mtg. After a while the borrower does look like a deadbeat in the courts eye and maybe the judge is thinking well if they can afford to pay an attorney, they can afford to pay the mortgage. Well wouldn’t we all (the borrower) have rather been paying the mortgage instead of paying worthless defense attorneys that were part of the scheme anyway. when I lost my job, right away I ask for help from my bank, but since I was not yet in default, they said no and I had to be 3 mths behind. When I could no longer afford my payment, the bank put me on forebearance and from there, a loan mod and then when I got the permanent loan mod, the bank reneged and the rest is history. I have been a part of several class action suits besides the national mtg settlement which chase has wormed it way out of any criminal charges. The banks did many more wrongs than the borrower did. All we wanted was a home to live our normal lives in. Who overinflated the values and made the loan knowing at some point we would default. The banks completely set us up to fail. They had a planned way to get out of their criminal acts. I believe I speak for the most of us and we are victims here of their calculating and manipulating criminal acts to deceive the borrower. All I ever did and continue to do is pay my mortgage debt and the banks have tried every stall tactic including the foreclosure process to keep that from happening and I am the corrupt one. I am ready to lay my facts on the table anytime. I am not a victim of my own circumstance. Thank you

  147. Have to agree with you there, SC. Trolling for dollars is apparently what is going on. Some of you old timers may recall a dangerous liar and scammer by the name of Maher Solimon. He bamboozled several people on this blog for considerable amounts of money. He did not follow through. We do not need anymore trollers for dollars. MS has actually shown up on my FB feed on posts about foreclosure and banksters. I am pointing this out for any newbies. Be careful out there! Most of us are posting here to learn something and to help others. But there are some who are not similarly motivated.

  148. (iii). Impact of Monoline Insurance and “Recognized” Claims
    31. Insured RMBS Trusts32 (other than those insured by FGIC and Ambac) have
    received, and in the future are assumed to receive, payment of their losses to the extent necessary
    to pay the principal and interest due to the insured tranches of such trusts directly from the
    applicable Monoline, which in most cases eliminates the need for any distribution to those
    RMBS Trusts given the structure of the Plan and the inter-related settlements contained in the
    Plan.33 In such cases, the “recognized” claim of the RMBS Trust is set to zero, or is reduced, to
    take into account the full or partial payment of claims by the applicable Monoline, unless an
    exception applies.34 The rights of Insured RMBS Trusts are reserved in the event that the
    applicable Monoline does not honor its obligations.35

    Section 2.04 Representations and Warranties of the Depositor as to the Mortgage
    The Depositor hereby represents and warrants to the Trustee and the NIMS Insurer with
    respect to the Mortgage Loans or each Mortgage Loan, as the case may be, as of the date hereof
    or such other date set forth herein that as of the Closing Date:
    (i) Immediately prior to the transfer and assignment contemplated herein, the
    Depositor was the sole owner and holder of the Mortgage Loans. The Mortgage Loans
    were not assigned or pledged by the Depositor and the Depositor had good and
    marketable title thereto, and the Depositor had full right to transfer and sell the
    Mortgage Loans to the Trustee free and clear of any encumbrance, participation interest,
    lien, equity, pledge, claim or security interest and had full right and authority subject to
    no interest or participation in, or agreement with any other party to sell or otherwise
    transfer the Mortgage Loans.
    (ii) As of the Closing Date, the Depositor has transferred all right, title and
    interest in the Mortgage Loans to the Trustee on behalf of the Trust.
    (iii) As of the Closing Date, the Depositor has not transferred the Mortgage
    Loans to the Trustee on behalf of the Trust with any intent to hinder, delay or defraud
    any of its creditors.
    (iv) Each Mortgage Loan is a “qualified mortgage” within the meaning of
    Section 860G(a)(3) of the Code and Treasury Regulation § 1.860G-2.
    It is understood and agreed that the representations and warranties set forth in this
    Section 2.04 shall survive delivery of the respective Mortgage Files to the Trustee or a Custodian
    on the Trustee’s behalf and shall inure to the benefit of the Certificateholders.
    Upon discovery by any of the Depositor, the Master Servicer, the Securities
    Administrator or the Trustee that any of the representations and warranties set forth in this
    Section 2.04 is not accurate (referred to herein as a “breach”) and that such breach materially
    and adversely affects the interests of the Certificateholders in the related Mortgage Loan, the
    party discovering such breach shall give prompt written notice to the other parties; provided that
    a breach of the representation that each Mortgage Loan is a “qualified mortgage” within the
    meaning of Section 860G(a)(3) of the Code shall be deemed to materially and adversely affect
    the interests of the Certificateholders. Within 90 days of its discovery or its receipt of notice of
    any such breach, the Depositor shall cure such breach in all material respects or shall either
    (i) repurchase the Mortgage Loan or any property acquired in respect thereof from the Trustee at
    a price equal to the Purchase Price or (ii) if within two years of the Closing Date, substitute for
    such Mortgage Loan in the manner described in Section 2.02; provided that if the breach relates
    to the representation that each Mortgage Loan is a “qualified mortgage” as defined in
    Section 860G(a)(3) of the Code, any such repurchase or substitution must occur within 90 days
    from the date the breach was discovered. The Purchase Price of any repurchase described in this
    paragraph and the Substitution Adjustment Amount, if any, shall be remitted to the Master
    Servicer for deposit to the Master Servicer Custodial Account. It is understood and agreed that,
    except with respect to the second preceding sentence, the obligation of the Depositor to
    repurchase or substitute for any Mortgage Loan or Mortgaged Property as to which such a breach
    has occurred and is continuing shall constitute the sole remedy respecting such breach available
    to Certificateholders, or to the Trust and the Trustee on behalf of Certificateholders, and such
    obligation shall survive until termination of the Trust hereunder.

    Section 3.04 Access to Certain Documentation.
    The Master Servicer shall provide, and the Master Servicer shall cause each Servicer to
    provide in accordance with the related Servicing Agreement, to the OCC, the OTS, the FDIC and
    to comparable regulatory authorities supervising Holders of Certificates and the examiners and
    supervisory agents of the OCC, the OTS, the FDIC and such other authorities, access to the
    documentation required by applicable regulations of the OCC, the OTS, the FDIC and such other
    authorities with respect to the Mortgage Loans. Such access shall be afforded without charge,
    but only upon reasonable and prior written request and during normal business hours at the
    offices designated by the Master Servicer and the related Servicer. In fulfilling such request for
    access, the Master Servicer shall not be responsible to determine the sufficiency of any
    information provided by such Servicer. Nothing in this Section 3.04 shall limit the obligation of
    the Master Servicer and the related Servicer to observe any applicable law and the failure of the
    Master Servicer or the related Servicer to provide access as provided in this Section 3.04 as a
    result of such obligation shall not constitute a breach of this Section 3.04.

  149. In this day and age, if a comparison were to be made, say, to a disease afflicting the human race, I would suggest it is presently, best defined as Greed.

    For example, if law enforcement and the judiciary and the lawyers in our current, life threatening dilemma could be compared to a Jonas Salk, our families and children would be crippled, awaiting the day their final breath is forced from their bodies.

    These are the types of people that think to themselves, while watching our country, and the middle class throughout the world degrade daily, “Hey look at that suffering family, before I go to try and help them, I wonder what type of extortion I can employ first… ? After all, what’s in it for me?”.

    I look forward to the day We The People round them up and give them a good, old-fashioned @ss kicking.

  150. Just jumping in here, with no JD…How can one judge in the same court, Delaware, dismiss a claim (New Century), write a memorandum in 2011, stating: “notice was insufficient” the same judge then reversing that same memorandum in 2013, saying “notice was sufficient”, then the earlier memorandum of 2011, vanishing into thin air? Then the case removed to be heard by another judge, same jurisdiction…and an appeal with the appelate judge finding for the homeowner, notice was insufficient, appealed by Defendants to the Third Circuit, subsequent reversal by the Third Circuit, remanded back to the lower appelate court, with a settlement (confidential), to the homeowner, after signing an agreement to dismiss his appeal? Judges are “corrupt” in some cases….it is happening. Some people are making mistakes, others got it right. Depends on court, IMHO. Every case has a face and identity….100% of homeowners are NOT wrong!

    IMHO opinion, where many of us lose is in procedure…this is the most difficult piece. Even incompetent lawyers have a wide birth here. Homeowners get slammed, even though the courts have ruled to give pro se’s the largest “platform” to present the case…that is not happening! And I am not suggesting “all” judges-courts are corrupt, maybe just woefully inadequate, uneducated. The banksters have had years to perfect the fraud…my best guess, 90% of all foreclosures are the wrong party….no standing, but try and get canceled checks, documents purporting to have assigned-sold-transferred assets “legally” and “timely”…just not going to happen, unless the judge demands it!

    If any of us came into court with paperwork, like these idiots present we would be charged, forthwith and remanded to trial or jailed and put on bond…that’s a fact!

    Just an observation here.

  151. Goodbye, Bob H.

  152. I concur

  153. @ bh

    Putatively, you’re old enough to know that you know nothing about me. Conversely, I know I am not an expert in or on anything at all — defined as humility — so go look it up. But, I do know a bully when I see one.

    Moreover, you’ve heard someone tell you more than once or twice in your life to never argue with an idiot: I’ve learned that lesson in my adolescence, so I will not do so here, with … you.

    And for the record, I’ve owned my home for a very long time, but the difference between you and I is that I refuse to standby and watch anyone be victimized, regardless of whether the thug is a national corporation or a sycophant/sympathizer such as you; nor will I stand by idly and witness you bullying people under the auspices of “helping” them and then begging those people to isolate themselves by a proselytizing phone call.

    If you have any arrows of victory in your quiver, then, as I’ve urged you before, either put them up on the table of transparency for everyone to analyze, or else shut up.

    Just sayin’.

  154. It took my attorney a whole 60 seconds to do my mortgage & title evaluation.

    Your friends must be slow or impaired. ..you know…charging $5000.00 for a few seconds work.

    Its about as ridiculous as paying for a Neil’s rescission package.

  155. Enough Bob!!!
    You don’t get it!!!
    Its not what you say….but how you say it!!
    Like a Bully!!

    If people don’t want your help, leave them alone and Stop trying to shove it down their throats by bullying them!!!

  156. Thu Oct 22, 2015 at 01:36 PM PDT
    Iceland sentences 26 bankers to a combined 74 years in prison

  157. @ dc

    Sorry, and please forgive me, but I must insist that you no longer respond to the hurt troll: bob.

    For your consideration, you should expected to be baited, but do not allow him to set the hook on you.

    Just sayin’.

  158. But I did just get stung three times by a mosquito and it hurts.

  159. Point being that takes a lot to get to a place where one even has those thoughts.I have been lucky to have never ever been in a fist fight in my 50 years on this planet and if I can go to my grave this way it will all be good.

  160. Like you said these are frustrating events and can be crazymaking.

  161. Yes of course I would never hurt my fellow man or women and these are feelings not actions.

  162. @ dc

    I am a witness of your natural human experience of frustration in the circumstances that everyone of the readers suffer, one way or another.

    Unless you state otherwise, I do not believe you would physically harm either yourself or anyone else, so you should clarify your preceding post accordingly as expression of your natural feelings, but without intent of nothing more.

    That is all.

  163. Ive said this before and still believe it,if you werent unlucky enough to get caught up in it then you cant even comprehend the crap that these folks are capable of,
    I did 15-20 home loans with the same broker who looking back stalked the shit out of me on this one and finally I went with it as a way of showing my loyalty and giving her some business and this was what I got for my loyalty.
    Was at Wells Fargo for 14 years with past loans paid on time and in full when after ignoring my requests for a streamline refi, as they offered premiere clients such as myself online went to the branch to get a strange “NO” from the in house broker,many types of accounts,my IRA,my adviser,my sons accounts,my mothers accounts ,her loan,all at Wells Fargo .
    They could give a flying fuck and started taking money from other accounts when I told them to eat shit,so I moved my accounts elsewhere but non of these thing are origination issues and as you clearly see Im angry man.
    Things were very good in my world then and I am so sick of this crap if I had to do it again I would have sucked it the fuck up and refi’d but no I wanted to take a stand for those who had already lost their homes.
    Destroying my perfect credit and my way of making a living was with my credit just so I could see just what the real world is like,the one where lawyers are scammers and judges are cunts who have been paid for by those same banks that I am sure were saying “who does this guy think he is” running his mouth to the CFPB,OCC,FDIC and the rest of the cunts.

    This whole thing is a crock of shit,I actually contemplated doing violence to some of these assmonkies and that goes against everything I know and love,not to mention people love and depend on me.
    Just some harsh realities of modern life,what makes people mean and ugly,Im on my 5th garbage lawyer and 60k down the drain,one case pending appeal,and another that put off the sale until dec 1st and all these fucks want is loan mod docs but I refuse to sign away my rights to go again so if I dont sell or a miracle doesnt happen then let the revolution began.

  164. Following greg’s lead:

    bob hurt his self because…

    “In the simplest terms, bullying means one person, or group of persons, being deliberately cruel to another person or group, for any reason. Although childhood bullies are usually quite easy to spot, adult bullies can be sly, subtle, and difficult to expose. A life-long bully has had years of practice. Some have learned to be very cunning indeed. Some hide behind masks of authority, superior knowledge, money or other type of power. Some are good at finding plausible excuses to justify their cruelty. But all bullies have one thing in common: they want to hurt someone. Being the victim of a bully can be a devastating experience, and can affect every aspect of a person’s life long after the bully has moved on to another victim.”

    “Frequently, bullying behaviour is obvious, even if the victim feels he or she can do nothing about it. Physical, verbal or sexual assaults are hard to mistake. But identifying someone as a bully is not always as easy as it sounds. The cruelty meted out by bullies can be subtle, insidious, and cloaked in the most plausible of disguises. If you know someone, perhaps even someone you love and respect, who usually leaves you feeling worse for having been in his or her company (even if you can’t put your finger on the exact reason), you may be the victim of bullying. It is well worth examining the situation closely to find out.”

    “Do you recognise yourself as a bully? Most bullies have, in fact, been victims of bullying in the first place. Bad experiences from the past are not valid excuses for subsequent bad behaviour; nevertheless, such experiences are often the causes of bad behaviour. Understanding the cause of one’s own bullying behaviour is the beginning of change. If an honest personal assessment tells you that you need to adjust the way you treat others, now is the time to discover the joys of a cruelty-free life. Read everything you can find about the causes and consequences of bullying. Talk to someone about it. Ask your G.P. to help you obtain therapy, if necessary. You will be giving yourself and your children a real chance for happiness and future success.”

    Adult Bullying: Perpetrators and Victims (Peter Randall)

    ISBN: 0415126738

    Beat the Bully: A Guide To Dealing With Adult Bullying (Alex Gadd)

    ISBN: 0955989914

    Bullying at Work: How to Confront and Overcome it (Andrea Adams)
    ISBN: 185381542X

    Bullying from Backyard to Boardroom (Paul McCarthy)
    ISBN: 1862873925

    Controlling People: How to Recognize, Understand and Deal with People Who Try to Control You (Patricia Evans)
    ISBN: 158062569X

    Insight into Child and Adult Bullying: Waverley Abbey Insight Series (Helena Wilkinson)

  165. I could care less about appraisals but see how they could mess you up but personally find them to be a weak argument except that they lead to more sinister shit down the road,more lies,more fraud.

  166. My non-loan was a no doc,interest only,that has Wells Fargo as the “lender”but WF tells me we dont own your loan,four years and 250k in interest only,so and so owns it.
    So and so is in BK and disputes WF’s claims listing them as unsecured,non priority creditor and cancelling servicing agreements.

    WF sends me copies including a full doc application that I never did,Hud -1,stating they paid 130k to Chase for my 2nd,that I paid 2 months prior to closing and have cancelled checks,and even Chase said they are full of bull,and 10k in fees that I would have never agreed to.
    So these things didnt happen in the origination or closing,these are brazen lies and fabricating of documents,also forging,notary Nov,14 2005,signed on the 9th, 5 days after signing when after WF sent me a letter saying “you signed the application nov 9”,and I said why is it notarized on the 14th,they re sent another and put 14th,all this went to CFPB who could care less as did the judge.

    These are also not origination issues these are fraud.

  167. Following greg’s lead:

    How does bob hurt –> himself…

  168. in bob hurt’s own words he is a [Rico-added]
    noun: raconteur
    rac·on·teur ˌrakˌänˈtər,-ən-/ noun

    a person who tells anecdotes in a skillful and amusing way.
    synonyms: storyteller, teller of tales, spinner of yarns, narrator;

    does not sound like an authority figure to me… does it to you?
    sounds like a writer of fiction and mythology – a Mark Twain so-to-speak…

    but we should heed and beat a path to this door for ticket sales for is animated soliloquies are dwindling?

    a frustrated rock star undiscovered?

    and then of course there is the plagiarized bastardized website to try to counteract the great work done here – stealing the heart of the name and concatenating it… http://livingliesthetruth.com/about/ (which it certainly is only in the mind of its wily creator)

    a thief does his best work in the daylight with full cooperation of his victim…

    right bob?

  169. Like a feigned marriage that must be annulled due to ulterior motives and false intent, these so-called relations that followed after being swept up and carried across the threshold of the proverbial doorway were not a “consummation,” but in fact a RAPING by a predator who had done the same to others before doing it to any one of us.

    Thus, these same predators continued to do the same to others while simultaneously doing it to us, and then sought other victims to “consummate” with after violating and victimizing each one of us in all sorts of deviate ways possible.

    Sorry BH, but in my humble opinion, your bizarre generalizations, indifference, lack of empathy and righteous indignation while acknowledging that there are innocent victims in these scenarios, and your perverse accolades on behalf of the predators, will be your eventual downfall, if it hasn’t been already.

    Just sayin’: Unless you believe otherwise, check your self.

  170. Is there a bankster demon exorcist in the house lol

  171. is bob hurt?
    does bob hurt?
    bob hurt whom?
    does bob hurt all?
    does bob hurt at all?
    does bob hurt me?
    does bob hurt you?
    whom does bob hurt?
    does he have nerves enough to cause pain to make bob hurt?
    does bob hurt for pleasure?
    does bob hurt for profit?
    does bob hurt in the name of a master?
    does bob hurt in the name of himself?
    who has bob hurt?
    why has bob hurt”
    when has bob hurt?
    where has bob hurt?
    what has bob hurt?
    who is bob?
    shall we bob for french fries?
    does bob hurt because he hurts?
    does bob hurt in hopes to be put out of his misery?

    (add at will…)

  172. LOL!!
    Sarcasm …. !!!
    I Love It!!

    Now..if you want people to listen to you…
    BE NICE!!!!!

    My Wings are in for repair and I am flying a broomstick..
    I have already rear ended one cocky jackass this week..
    Be Very Careful!

  173. To be a smartass. .you must first be smart and have an ass!

    Smart is..knowing .no one hear likes you and certainly is not going to take your advise. A smart person would take the hint and run with it.

    Oh..and Smart people hire Real Attornies and Not…someone acting like one!!!

  174. I think a light bulb just went off in Bobs head,

    Let your Light SHINE

  175. Is anyone go n g to tell be to behave?
    I’m a firm believer you treat others as you would have them treat you.
    Some people like it rough,….


  176. If I had a Deed of Trust.. I would!
    The trust deed ..I refer to,..is from the deceased sellers estate.

    You don’t want to bite me….I bite back hard!!!-

  177. Except Neil doesn’t stoop to your level.!!!–

  178. You seem to be the one dodging questions.

    Just like Neil…only telling half the story.

  179. I don’t write on this blog to demoralize people and call them childish names …. Lets leave it at that..shall we?

  180. File the deeds or give me my money back.
    Its that simple!

  181. I say it is when the deeds are filed …
    A trust deed without a trustee agreement has no effect.


  183. so when is consummation? up to now, i say, it is when you say it is – when you know, first hand, the party with whom you are consummating, and when the terms promised have been delivered by the mutually agreed upon and disclosed parties… not one moment sooner – and not by presumptions by outside third parties with no firsthand knowledge…

    be real – if both sides don’t agree that there is consummation, it is like crying rape and must be proven by evidence…

  184. i recall that when Pharaoh, ignited with rage against Moses and his people for the demand to be let go to go home, cast upon them a curse that all their first born children should die, that the curse was reversed and all first born of Egypt perished instead…

    be careful whom you curse…

    Life is a karmic boomerang!

  185. Bob…I don’t need to call you. That’s what my friends are for.
    Prosecutors..Judges..Lawyers…Accountants / retired IRS lawyer.

    I already paid the taxes on the discharged debt the estate was stuck with.

  186. greg, on October 23, 2015 at 3:35 pm said:

    i’m sure glad that the word of g0d has been burned upon my chest by “The Prophet Pope Bob Hurt” – to let me know that i am just, “a kool-aid drinking bozo and myth monger who vomits stupid nonsense”… and… “write like an idiot on hallucinogens…”

    and he recently added… (must have forgotten): “A Christmas turkey isn’t as full of crap as you.” and “…you are a bozo who cannot understand plain English.”

    evidently i have sinned against the Church of Bob… seems like he has something to lose … i guess i should just die and go to hell now… anyone want to come with?

    anyone else want to have a kick at my head and insult me or are you all gonna let bob do all the work?

  187. Now Bob…you know I don’t need to call you.
    I agree with most of what you say … Except when it comes to title and deeds.
    They played my husband and I against each other whilst trying to rob us blind.

  188. Some more crazy common sense! Love it!

  189. IRS is the organization which is designed to help man learn who he really is by giving him the opportunity to pretend he is something else…

  190. Shadow – agree on Vatican bank but not on g0d pretenders….

    Pope (and others) function as Trustee and Vizier – regardless of how many morons feel he has exclusive right to pick-pocket g0d

    his role becomes null when the heirs to that kingdom (their princes and princesses) command their roles and duties – that would be all of us awakening to the fact that g0d made us all with the miracle of being able to perceive the existence of g0d… and our duty to care for creation and not consume it

    until then the bank holds our assets in abeyance…

    to date, no other plant or animal has showed up in our world that can do so…

    the whole purpose of life may be nothing more than to recognize and care for life

  191. There is only one man I know of who proclaims to be the profit of God.
    He calls himself the Pope.
    The Vatican is the biggest bank in the world…
    All those Charitable donations make it possible.

    Now lets talk about the IRS and the tax implications ..
    Whilst we await Bobs answer.

  192. i sure hope there are some smarter aliens out in space that will keep us corralled here for eternity – or until we blow ourselves up

  193. in the end – only g0d/creator is right – the rules of the universe were set down long ago and man can do nothing to change them… and would do well to obey them…

    however, man keeps trying to pretend he is g0d and imitates the creator at every possible opportunity –

    yet not once has man brought new matter or energy into existence in the universe by his will alone – he just re-conforms the existing materials which g0d left behind…

    in general – man, when concluding he is the master of the universe instead of g0d, is an egocentric sociopathic virus and plague upon nature which consumes more than it needs at the expense of all other things – including other men…

    sooner or later everyone will see that man is nothing more than g0d’s own reality show put here for his entertainment… because the universe is a large and boring place for a supreme being to hang out without at least a little TV…

  194. Still Waiting …..

  195. greg, on October 23, 2015 at 2:18 pm said:

    from my perspective bob – i have come to recognize that you are (as we all are) limited to your particular view of self and world view… i will not get preachy with you because i know i can’t teach an old dog new tricks…
    i know you are trying your best and i know, aside from universal facts, we will never agree

  196. Or those loans of sellers estate not being paid off?
    Or the contract for deeds…?
    I am still waiting on you to explain..the Free Rent.

  197. I’ll teach them to steal the title to my estate …using our pension to do it…and gamble with it on WS!

  198. Or perhaps liquidating the titles to our estate for an excess amount and keeping it tied up the next 30 years?

  199. Greg…that is exactly what the bankster does in court!!!!

    Behave Bob!!!!

  200. Bob..we had a full doc application.
    We had a bad appraisal.
    Despite the underwater conditions. ..I was still able to tender and cover the difference.
    So do tell … About the titles and deeds.
    Or perhaps you should look into it more before you stick your foot into your mouth again. Be Nice!!!!

    Tell us Why MERS can not be removed from title with full tender and SOM?

    Please do tell…….

  201. I couldn’t use my own Jurat…
    Had to hire another Notary.

  202. Excellent Greg!


  203. conditional acceptance video

  204. DC

    Debt Validation and Conditional Acceptance Upon Proof of Claim are 2 things which do work with unsecured 3rd party debt collection hounds – many who are chasing alleged debts beyond statutes of limitation from when people were kids in high school or college…

    this doesn’t work as well for secured debts – but certainly can buy time while showing good faith effort to stay in communication and honor… and force the alleged collector to prove up to your satisfaction before you send any money

    an example:

  205. The scam did not start with the Whitehouse. The scam was put into place around 1995 when MERS was invented. They, the banksters added more and more to the scam as it went along. Then, the scammers starting scamming each other. Our titles are a mess, & it will take generations to fix it.

  206. That sounds like the rest of the people in Amerika who think that a bank would never screw you,lawyers dont lie,or make documents in order to win.
    You know they 100% lie steal,cheat,and bill you for it,now I know why judges mad nothing in the past,they lie steal and cheat also,wtf its a fad I know this,starts at the top with the actor in the blackhouse.

    Thats not a racist thing and if it was,come scoop me up Im ready,but thats a funny take on it all,I would have said the same thing had I not been seeing it first hand over the past 4 years and I thought this was all done by now but NOT.
    Its only going to get stranger here in the territory formerly known as America.
    Now theres people charging to do so called debt set off,or setting off debt with something I dont recall sounds like a scam.

  207. oh… and since the banks use this huge profit to fund campaign funds and line the pockets of candidates (layer 2 of the greed machine)… yes, HOW can any legislature ever change this?

  208. bob – re your comment on October 23, 2015 at 11:24 am…
    finally a fundamental issue upon which we agree 100%

  209. @ bobhurt – the legislature can have people like you join them, and help to craft future laws. You and Neil can run on the same ticket. Now go form a SuperPac and get going, and stop wasting time here unless you have something to sell, just like Neil and Consumer Defender something or another bullshit.

    Glad all the naysayers were allowed back in – makes for a much more interesting blog.

  210. Most people…including myself as a non borrower would have never signed the document that on its face said mortgage, that I was induced into signing under false representations. As a result ….

    3rd party harm ….

  211. I made phone call to this atty firm approx 2 weeks ago after I read this document. I was told they no longer do RE litigation. They are much too busy with other cases.

  212. I have read all this before. Theory is good, but a win is great. And again, I am in Wisconsin and we need lawyers for Tila to work.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: