For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

This is not a legal opinion. It is for general information only. Seek legal advice before acting or making any decision.



8 years ago the Fordham Law Review published an article entitled “Will the Real Holder in Due Course Please Stand Up?” They had studied the securitization and correctly predicted that there was no holder in due course nor any creditor in the scheme of “Securitization”. This mystifying conclusion was completely ignored by virtually every court (except for a few decisions in New York and California). It was dismissed as preposterous. Among the points raised was that the certificate holders were to be paid in accordance with their contract (Certificate) with a REMIC Trust and not with the borrower. If they were being paid, even for a while, and even as “Servicer advances” it had nothing to do with whether borrowers on “loans” made payments or not. The problem is that the REMIC Trust never existed as an operating entity and the payments were therefore “volunteer” payments tendered on behalf of a nonexistent trust. So the very basic problem is starting to emerge —

The premise is simple and the tax courts and bankruptcy courts are starting to piece the story together. According to the banks, they received payments from the borrowers and third parties and paid the certificate holders acting as banks and for the REMIC Trust. There is a safe harbor provision that caused the BKR judge in Illinois to dismiss one of the 6 courts filed by the US Trustee seeking to force the “bank” to disgorge payments that were not subject to safe harbor.

They were all re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic as it went down. The simple fact is that the boat had already sunk and the US Trustee WAS RIGHT FOR EVEN MORE REASONS THAN THE TRUSTEE KNEW. THE US TRUSTEE FILED A STATEMENT THAT CHALLENGED THE ASSUMPTIONS BY THE JUDGE. FIRST AMONG THEM THAT THE SAFE HARBOR PROVISION APPLIED ONLY TO BANKS — AND THAT THE PARTY RECEIVING THOSE PAYMENTS WAS NOT A BANK, BUT AN AFFILIATE OF A BANK.  The court reversed and sustained the complaint and now Lucy (the Master Servicer) has some “splaining” to do.

As they dig deeper they will find that the REMIC Trust never went operational, never had any assets or liabilities, never had any income or expenses, never had any investment dollars from the Sale of REMIC TRUST securities supposedly issued by the Trust and sold by the broker who was an “Affiliate” of the Master Servicer. A Trust without a res (something in the Trust) is an inchoate inactive and meaningless document with no real existence. In this case since the Trust never became operational, NONE of the presumptions about it apply. And those include

  1. The contractual connection between the REMIC Trust and the subject loan in foreclosure is completely nonexistent — not just broken.
  2. The payments received by those whom Wall Street bank lawyers assert are the “creditors” were volunteer payments unrelated to the presumed liability of the borrower.
  3. Consummation of the loan contract is thus negated by two facts — (a) consideration never flowed from the “lender” on the note and mortgage (or deed of trust) and (b) the ultimate creditor never accepted the proposed loan contract with borrowers.
  4. The Pooling and Servicing Agreement applies only to assets that were put in the Trust — not assets claimed by the Trust.
  5. The Trust was never operational and therefore it is impossible that the REMIC Trust acquired any loan. The fact that some third party conjured or fabricated a document allegedly transferring an interest to the REMIC Trust only means that there was a passive offer of assignment and endorsement that the Trustee of the REMIC Trust and the Trust itself could never accept — except as a representative of some OTHER real party in interest that would qualify as either a Holder in Due Course (HDC) or a creditor.
  6. This is why the REMIC Trust is never claimed to be the HDC. It never paid for the loan and it was never operational. In addition even if it had become operational, the transaction in which the assignment and endorsement allegedly took place resulting in the Trust owning the loan never took place and certainly not within the “Cutoff period” (which is irrelevant since there was no beginning and therefore no end).. All presumptions to the contrary are wrong.
  7. It follows that any authority claimed by the Trustee of the REMIC Trust is derived from a PSA (Trust Instrument) for a non-existent Trust and is therefore moot, void and meaningless.
  8. It also follows that any servicer, master servicer, sub-servicer, attorney in fact or agent is derived from a PSA (Trust Instrument) for a non-existent Trust and is therefore moot, void and meaningless.
  9. It also follows that any payments to the “creditors” under the ruse of the non-existent REMIC Trust is subject to disgorgement and clawback both in and out of bankruptcy court.
  10. And it also follows then that whether the foreclosure proceeding (whether judicial or nonjudicial) is a sham initiated by entities who are claiming powers from organizational documents of a non-existent entity which obviously means none of them have any legal standing to pursue or defend anything in any court.
  11. My final conclusion is that the remedy, if any, should flow to the “investors” who thought they were buying shares of an operating entity — but that remedy is an equitable remedy that excludes foreclosure since there is no loan contract with a nexus between the investors and the borrowers. This was not some trick created by the borrowers. It was an illegal table funding process that violated public policy depriving the consumer of the knowledge as to the party with whom the borrower was induced to believe was lending him money.

see ALSTON AND BIRD ADVISORY- REMIC TRUST PAYMENTS ADRIFT 7f56b8f6-cb39-4137-9d5c-184d41bb4318

46 Responses

  1. a reminder that there is a follow up call to Neil tonite…
    Garfield’s Goose & Friends with your host, greg (episode 7)
    (every Thursday night starting 15 minutes right after Neil’s show)

    Call in at (724) 444-7444 (then use Call ID: 139335) then “0” for guest
    and/or use your computer to blog/type at
    6:45 PM Eastern Thursdays (for 60 min)

    please use the phone line to speak and ask questions
    computer access will only allow you to hear and type into the blog…
    all welcome

  2. a gentle reminder that there is a follow up call to Neil tonite…

    Garfield’s Goose & Friends with your host, greg

    (every Thursday night starting 15 minutes right after Neil’s show)

    Call in at (724) 444-7444 (then use Call ID: 139335) then “0” for guest
    and/or use your computer to blog/type at
    6:45 PM Eastern Thursdays (for 60 min)

    please use the phone line to speak and ask questions
    computer access will only allow you to hear and type into the blog…

  3. see the bryllaw blog for a discussion of Jesinoski…

  4. test

  5. bob – write to Justice Scalia and ask him to indorse your interpretation of his ruling and bring that letter back to us – or just SHUT UP!

  6. etolle:

    Clearly you don’t understand Scalia or TILA rescission. Scalia wrote that dictum in the context of a TILA breach. Thus, the terms “Exercise” and “Effect” mean “initiate” in the context of rescission IFF a TILA breach really occurred.

    Jesinoskis claimed in trial that they only got one disclosure of right to rescind, but not two. Now they will argue that in the remand trial court which declined to discuss it last time because they sued later than 3 years after consummation. I have predicted that the judge will toss their rescission because they did in fact admit receiving disclosure of their right to rescind; obviously, I see their rescission effort as a flimflam. We’ll see what happens, possibly in March 2016.

    The main point: if the breach did not occur, then sending notice of rescission does NOT initiate rescission and has no legal effect greater than does breaking wind in the barn while milking the family goat.

    I don’t believe any of the destroyed note stories. The note is, after all, the debt. Creditors just didn’t want to send the notes through the lawyer to the court because such documents can so easily get lost in the fog of litigation.

  7. Hey Bob, you’re so right! I am an idiot! Watching that ballooning blood vessel thumping away on the side of your cranium, faster and faster, larger and larger, just ripe for bursting, makes me frightened of enraging you in the least for fear of seeing your head explode like some poor zombie schlep from The Walking Dead! My bad! I PROMISE TO TONE IT DOWN FOR YOUR SAKE!

    Of course you’re right when you say, “Florida law requires a verified complaint in which the plaintiff attests to owning and holding the note. MANY borrowers facing foreclosure have challenged that assertion, and that has caused the creditors to scramble for proof. Eventually, they come up with it.”

    And I now know better than to speak of irrelevant hearsay, like this letter from the Florida Banker’s Association to the Florida Supreme Court:

    The reason many firms file lost note counts as a standard alternative pleading in the complaint” is because the physical document was deliberately eliminated to avoid confusion immediately upon its conversion to an electronic file.

    And Bob, when you say, “The court will NOT order rescission unless:

    1. The borrower proves creditor violations justify TILA rescission within the scope of the law.

    2. The borrower can tender what the court’s arithmetic shows necessary to settle the debt.”

    I swear not to bring up Justice Scalia’s words ever again:

    <b<The Jesinoskis mailed respondents written notice of their intention to rescind within three years of their loan’s consummation. Because this is all that a borrower must do in order to exercise his right to rescind under the Act, the court below erred in dismissing the complaint.

    Now Bob, lie down and rest your little head. Take a pill.

  8. On… Escrow Impoundment Agreement… Borrower, NOT Lender, may rescind!

    Please ignore and forgive obvious typos and deficient grammar.

  9. BOB YOU SAID THIS, YOUR SERVICER will get stuck with NOBODY paying the taxes and insurance, and a disaster could wipe out the collateral, making it impossible to collect the debt. THAT’s why they insert themselves, LAWFULLY THROUGH THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT WHICH YOU SIGNED, into your tax and insurance affairs.

    and a disaster could wipe out the collateral, making it impossible to collect the debt. WELL 2008 WAS THAT DISASTER, BOB.




  10. bobhurt, on October 27, 2015 at 7:17 pm said:


    Nobody argues that the creditor DOESN’t EXIST or have RIGHTS TO DEFEND?

    You have become an instant idiot with those words. Creditors argue it every day in court and as a consequence, judges order the sale the house of DEADBEAT BORROWERS. That pretty much proves the existence and rights of the creditors.

    you can’t read?
    i wrote the opposite of what you interpreted…

    just the actual creditor (a person who loaned /risked money of its own) has never appeared…

  11. dandiener1, Very interesting story. I like it a lot. I am also requesting your TILA Affidavit & letters. I am presently in Court of Appeals & will be filing a supplemental record on appeal. I have been fighting for eight years.

  12. …no party, including me.

  13. Bob H..

    You just don’t get it! For four years I’ve been trying to prevent Ocwen (or anyone else) from paying my taxes when they have no authority to do so! Ocwen insinuated themselves into my financial affairs (as they do for millions of homeowners) by lifting data information from the MERS “securitization involvement”…. then they send a data file to all local tax offices with property and owner information along with a letter claiming the owner has authorized an escrow impound account appointing their company as “escrow agents”.

    Without verifying this “agency agreement” with anyone, the county tax offices send a copy of the owners’ tax bills to Ocwen…. then there us a “race” with the homeowner of record to pay the taxes.

    Ocwen has never had “a right to pay my taxes”! I “discovered” their “invasion into my affairs” when I arrived at the tax office to pay my taxes and found that my tax bill had been partially paid. I protested, paid my full taxes, and demanded the tax office record that I paid my own taxes in full and to “refund” the interloper’s “voluntary contribution.” They complied, but that did not prevent Ocwen from using the pretense that my late payment justified their initiating foreclosure proceedings in this “non-judicial foreclosure state.”

    Short story… after my written response to the attorney of the bank’s foreclosure mill with some very specific “promises” of legal actions, the “advertising stopped and the courthouse auction of my home was stopped… for a season.”

    One of the documents I provided to the tax office was the “Escrow Impound Agreement” from my closing with Fremont Investment and Loan, my “pretender lender”. That document clearly stated that any escrow agreement was voluntary and could be rescinded by the lender at any time… the document also clearly indicated my option that my taxes and insurance were *NOT” to be escrowed.

    Since Fremont was my “pretender lender ” and Ocwen was not a party to my closing, even fraudulent “assignments” cannot convey to “successors” what is not an interest created by Fremont.

    When that document was shown to the “banksters” attorney, his immediate response was “The security deed you signed waived the terms of this document!” One of the reasons I was smiling when I left him is that (even if he was correct – I haven’t reviewed the wording,) was the expression I saw on his face as he was reading my TILA Rescission letter… no doubt, the phrase mentioning the now void security deed and note…. and his parting comment about “looking into this Jesinoski decision.”

    This automatic escrow payment scheme also existed with my homeowners policy with Ocwen using the same methodology to insinuate themselves in to my financial affairs if I was late on a payment for my policy. In this case, they kept trying to reestablish themselves as “loss payee” because (they claimed my insurance was “escrowed.”

    I’ve resolved this issue by exercising my rights as policyowner, “insured,” and payor under firmly established insurance law.

    I pay my policy on a monthly basis by bank draft and (even if my bank account overdrafts on a given month,) a statutory “grace period” is evoked that prevents loss of coverage (and would frustrate any effort to “forceplace” a high-premium “bankster protection” coverage.

    The recurring automatic direction by Ocwen to name them as loss payee has been stopped by a mutual agreement with my insurance company to designate me, by name, as the “irrevocable loss payee.” No party, incurring me, the insurance company, the state insurance commissioner (or an escrow agent) can revoke that designation absent a court order from a judge who has ajudicated the pertinent issues of contract law, real estate law, and insurance law.

    It should be apparent that I desire to pay (without outside assistance) taxes, insurance, or indebtedness I legally owe. What I abhor is the idea that I should willingly remit ANY payments of any kind to parties who refuse to prove a payment is due from me. Since I’m a resident and homeowner in a “non-judicial foreclosure state,” I’M refusing to deal with a “bank collection agency” unless I receive a judge’s direction to do so after a HIDC is legally determined.

    Bob H.. You (with minimal knowledge of the many elements of my personal affairs,) are attempting to continue to “volunteer” your unsolicited “expertise ” in reference to my posts. Thanks, but no thanks.

    Despite my previous acknowledgement of your “obviously superior” intelligence, I took issue with your obnoxious manner of presenting your opinions (and case law)…. and of your unbridled insults to others in this forum and suggested you “back off.”

    I ignored your following “personal apology” because you immediately (in your response) began “justifying” your vilification of others in this forum.

    When your behavior continued unabated, I bid you adieu.

    In deference to your publicly-displayed intelligence, Bob, what element of my parting comment “Goodbye, Bob H.” did you not understand?


  15. DanDiener1,

    I’ve been fighting a fraudulent foreclosure with Ocwen/US Bank NA for over 12 years … could you please email to me your “Affidavit of TILA Rescission”???

    My email is:

    Much Appreciation,

  16. June 26, 2013

    Chadbourne & Parke represented court-appointed examiner Arthur J. Gonzalez in his investigation and evaluation of a wide array of potential state and federal law claims and causes of action that were proposed to be released by Residential Capital, LLC and its parent, Ally Financial, Inc., including the proposed broad and nonconsensual release of claims against Ally and its affiliates held by third parties, arising from dozens of prepetition transactions involving many billions of dollars in value.

    The Examiner’s Report is the product of an exhaustive analysis of almost nine million pages of documents produced by twenty-three different parties as well as ninety-nine formal interviews of eighty-three witnesses. The Report consists of nine sections, totaling over 1,800 pages, and an appendix.

    The Examiner in this matter was Arthur J. Gonzalez, Professor and Senior Fellow at New York University School of Law and former Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

    Examiner’s Report:

    Section I – Summary of the Examiner’s Principal Findings and Conclusions

    Section II – Procedural Background

    Section III – Chronological Presentation of Transactions and Events Relevant to the Issues Investigated by the Examiner

    Section IV – Board of Director and Management Issues

    Section V – Affiliate Transactions

    Section VI – Examiner’s Assessment of ResCap’s Financial Condition

    Section VII – Review and Analysis of Estate Causes of Action Implicated by Affiliate Transactions and the Relationship and Course of Dealing Among ResCap, AFI, Ally Bank, and Cerberus

    Section VIII – Third-Party Claims Against the AFI Defendants

    Section IX – Evaluation of Consideration for Releases


    The Chadbourne team that worked on the case included bankruptcy partners Howard Seife, David LeMay, and Ted Zink and litigation partners Thomas McCormack and Robin Ball. Please direct any inquiries regarding the Examiner Report to Head of Communications David Schaefer at




    ResCap Examiner Report | Chadbourne & Parke LLP

    Chadbourne & Parke

    Jun 26, 2013 – The Examiner’s Report is the product of an exhaustive analysis of almost nine million pages of documents produced by twenty-three different …

    US Bankruptcy Court …

    US Bankruptcy Court Releases ResCap Examiner Report …

  19. bobhurt, on October 27, 2015 at 9:28 pm said:
    mn is DEAD wrong about DEADBEATS intentionally missing payments. Intention has nothing to do with it. A person who doesn’t pay his debts timely for whatever reason is by definition a deadbeat.

    Who cares, anyway? A person should feel ashamed for not keeping his financial commitments. Deadbeat is a shameful term. It fits. So what? Step one in rehabilitation and recovery: Confess who you are and what your problem is. Missing payments is NOT the fault of the lender. It is the fault of the borrower.

    oh you must mean these scum bags dead beats, right.

    The case is In re Residential Capital LLC, 12-bk-12020, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

    NEW YORK (AP) – The government is hoping that Monday’s bankruptcy filing by Ally Financial’s troubled mortgage business will help the company repay its government bailout faster.

    Sponsored Links

    Residential Capital, or ResCap, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in New York, unable to make payments on debt taken out to finance soured home mortgages.

    The filing will separate the money-losing ResCap subsidiary from Ally’s auto loan and banking businesses, allowing those other businesses to grow and speed repayment of Ally’s bailout loans from 2008 and 2009, Ally said.

    Ally also said Monday that it is exploring the possible sale of its international operations, a move that also should help strengthen its finances and make payments to the government. International businesses include auto loan, insurance and banking operations in Canada, Mexico, Europe, England and South America.

    Ally, which is 74% owned by the U.S. government, was the financial arm of General Motors until the banking industry meltdown in 2008. It needed a $17.2 billion bailout to survive the downturn.

    Ally has repaid about $5.5 billion, and it still owes the government just under $12 billion. The government is hoping to get the rest of the money back through a public stock offering by Ally, or perhaps sale of its remaining businesses.

    When the bankruptcy and potential sale of international operations are finished, Ally expects to repay two-thirds of its bailout, or about $11 billion. The additional payments could come by year’s end, the company said.

    “We believe that this action puts taxpayers in a stronger position to continue recovering their investment in Ally Financial,” Assistant Treasury Secretary Timothy Massad said.

    ResCap is a separate company, and the government does not hold any debt or equity in it, the government said. The ResCap board decided to seek bankruptcy protection on Sunday.

    Ally’s statement said ResCap has reached agreements with key creditors for a speedy bankruptcy. But Ally has to put up $150 million for bankruptcy financing and pay $750 million to ResCap to make the deal work.

    Ally also will make the first bid on up to $1.6 billion worth of troubled mortgages that will be auctioned. The agreements made before the filing have milestones for ResCap to come out of bankruptcy protection by the end of the year, Ally said.

    ResCap also has agreements with big investors in mortgage-backed securities to support the bankruptcy reorganization, Ally said.

    Ally makes loans to GM and Chrysler customers and finances dealer inventories. The government first bailed out the company, then known as GMAC, in late 2008 as part of the Bush administration’s aid to the auto industry. The Obama administration provided additional funding in May and December 2009.

    But ResCap has been a drain on Ally’s finances for years, struggling to make payments on its heavy debt ever since the bottom fell out of the U.S. housing market in 2007. In regulatory filings before the bankruptcy, Ally said deterioration in the U.S. housing market has led to fewer sources of money for ResCap, which is suffering due to mortgage defaults.

    Without the bankruptcy filing, ResCap would have needed billions of dollars from Ally to pay its debts “which would have substantially delayed Ally’s plans to repay the remaining capital investment to the U.S. Treasury,” Ally’s statement said.

    In the filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York, ResCap lists $15.7 billion in assets and $15.3 billion in debt. The filing says ResCap has reached a deal for companies funded by private equity firm Fortress Investment Group to buy ResCap’s assets.

    ResCap’s net worth dropped below limits required by its loan agreements in the fourth quarter last year, but it was saved because Ally forgave some of the debt that it was owed by ResCap. But Ally said in its most recent quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it may not help ResCap any more.

    ResCap also is close to defaulting on a $20 million interest payment due April 17. The payment, on $473 million in unsecured loans, can be made within 30 days of the due date, but it doesn’t look as if ResCap can pay.

    The mortgage unit remains heavily reliant on Ally for funding “and there can be no assurance that Ally or its affiliates will continue such actions,” the filing said.

    ResCap also owes Ally roughly $1.9 billion, with $500 million of the debt unsecured. Ally said in the filing that may lose the money it loaned to ResCap as a result of the mortgage company’s bankruptcy filing.

    Detroit-based Ally anticipates taking an approximately $1.3 billion charge in the second quarter related to the ResCap filing

    Welcome To The ResCap RMBS Trustee Website

    This website ( has been established by:







    In their several capacities as trustees or indenture trustees (collectively, the “RMBS Trustees” and each, an “RMBS Trustee”), to the holders of Certificates, Notes or other securities (the “Certificateholders”) under certain residential mortgage-backed securitization trusts (collectively, the “Settlement Trusts” and each a “Settlement Trust”), to provide public access to information of interest to Certificateholders under the Settlement Trusts, and to other persons potentially interested in the Settlement Trusts.

    On May 14, 2012, Residential Capital, LLC, and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively, “ResCap”) filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) (In re Residential Capital, LLC, Case No. 12-12020 (MG) and related cases) (collectively, the “Chapter 11 Cases”).

    This website concerns, among other things, proposed settlements of claims of the Settlement Trusts against ResCap and others in the Chapter 11 Cases. These claims include, without limitation, certain claims relating to the origination and sale by ResCap of mortgage loans and to certain aspects of ResCap’s servicing of those mortgage loans. The current proposed settlements (which have superseded prior proposed settlements in the Chapter 11 Cases) have been approved by the Court and bind that Settlement Trust and related Certificateholders. Accordingly, the proposed settlements and related Court approval procedures materially affect the interests of the Certificateholders, and the RMBS Trustees respectfully request that all Certificateholders and other persons potentially interested in the Settlement Trusts read all notices and related information posted to this website from time to time carefully in consultation with their legal and financial advisors.

    Acceptance by any Settlement Trust of the related Proposed RMBS Trust Settlement
    Agreement would, however, resolve disputes with ResCap and other parties in interest to the
    Chapter 11 Cases as to the amount and general unsecured claim status of any claims such
    Settlement Trust may have with respect to the Proposed Settled Claims.

    my fake trust.
    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    Exhibit A1
    Page 3 of 3
    GMAC 2006-J1


    12-12020-mg Doc 2967 Filed 02/19/13 Entered 02/19/13 16:43:45 Main Document

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


  20. I had an interesting day. On my way to the county tax office to provide them with a certified copy of my Affidavit of TILA Rescission and attached TILA letters, I had an unscheduled meeting with a bank closing attorney (who informed me he had “over 30 years of experience”…. his arrogance was almost visibly dripping off him.)

    I gave him a non-certified copy of the document (s) I was carrying, and mentioned the January US Supreme Court Jesinoski decision.

    His first response was “SCOTUS decisions don’t matter in Ga… our state real estate law trumps the Supreme Court. ..I’ve never heard of Jesinoski!”

    After glancing over my document (as I was leaving his office,) his parting words were “I’m going to have to look into this.” 🙂

    Me? Less than thirty minutes later, I was reading a copy of a “screen-shot” of my tax-file – a “Special Note” stating “Taxpayer has provided a certified copy of his TILA Rescission from the county land records as evidence he has rescinded the Security Deed, Note, associated escrow agreement, etc. relative to this tax parcel. Only taxpayer is responsible for paying the property taxes.”

    A good day, indeed.

  21. That’s my point Bob…. It makes no sense.

    But you would need to understand Trust Law & Estate Law in addition to Contract Law.

    Lets put the wheels in Reverse shall we?

    As a benificary owning 50% interest in the Estate.

    Some one may transfer assign or sell their interests…yes!
    But I see no HDC status…claims.

    Any hoot.. I said No!

  22. John Gault, Florida law requires a verified complaint in which the plaintiff attests to owning and holding the note. MANY borrowers facing foreclosure have challenged that assertion, and that has caused the creditors to scramble for proof. Eventually, they come up with it. When the trustee holding the blank-indorsed sues for foreclosure, you know that the “trust” (the trustee for the benefit of investors) has entitlement to enforce the note.

  23. E. Tolle, I have found that the best way to deal with Bob H. is not to deal with him at all. I do not read his mind-polluting posts. I agree with you that one way or the other he is a bank and attorney shill.

  24. Nei close down the comment section it’s scaring off the winners

    Bad energy is no good

  25. Bob got caught with his pants down according to this link!topic/lawmen/0XqUUEcgciM

    He’s looking for attention and you guys and girls are the only ones giving it to it.


  26. Ok Bob….I did not sign a note. I offered full payoff to release an encumbrance.

    So please explain why I am not entitled to a payoff?
    Yet the guarantor ?

    When you are able to answer those questions..I will put you in contact with those who truly understand these unconventional mortgages.

    Until then…your just one skin a cat.

  27. To bob,
    The creditor no longer exiists. Nor does the ‘trust’.
    Where now, Bob?

  28. Greg:

    Nobody argues that the creditor DOESN’t EXIST or have RIGHTS TO DEFEND?

    You have become an instant idiot with those words. Creditors argue it every day in court and as a consequence, judges order the sale the house of DEADBEAT BORROWERS. That pretty much proves the existence and rights of the creditors.

  29. Its Deadly Clear…
    .Non Disclosure..
    Inducement ..

    Non conventional is an understatement .

    Greg..try again. It must be the server.

  30. Deadly Clear:

    And regarding the patented loan application, who cares about that? A borrower either fills it in and signs it or doesn’t get the loan. Pretty simple and Deadly Clear, right?

  31. Bob’s a bank shill regardless of whether he gets paid by the criminals or not. Have you noticed that his line of reasoning is exactly what B of A argued to the Supreme Court? Straight down the line….the borrower MUST tender, and/or that there needs to be a judicial decree. Never any mention of the bank ending up with an unenforceable deed.

    And forget deadbeat borrowers….anyone with even a slight knowledge of the banking industry knows the term deadbeat couldn’t fit anyone better than Countrywide itself. I have a few other names for them I won’t print here.

    And don’t forget, his partner in crime works in an office full of giggling mortgage industry folks in Reston, Va. Hmmm. I wonder what entity that could be. Hint: It’s not Middle East Respiratory Syndrome.

    Bob falls under the spell of decades of bad statute bending as practiced by courts across the land….a rearrangement of what was statutorily intended, such as:

    – The borrower sends the notice
    – The borrower returns what he or she received
    – The lender releases the mortgage
    No matter that the statute never read that way. The banks had a really good run at that twisted logic while it lasted. How many millions of folks were tossed to the curb due to banksters getting their way thanks to judge’s willingness to bend over for them? Too many is the correct answer.
    Bob’s desperate attempt at convincing borrowers to give up on any thoughts of going after fraud, perjury, bogus notes and assignments would be laughable if in fact he and that idiot Rock he hangs with hadn’t littered the internet with posts attempting to rewrite the post-Jesinoski landscape. Do a search….there LL-knock off site is everywhere telling people it’s hopeless to attempt anything other than contract discrepancies.

    He’s not an idiot, but he is a fool.

  32. To bob,
    Who should we pay?
    Where is the accurate accounting?

  33. mn

    thank you for all the effort you put into that last reply…
    you invested much more time and thought and precision in addressing our mutual “golem” than i ever was willing to do…

    maybe someday we could speak as comrades on this journey

    thank you

  34. Tuesday 27 October 2015

    Apologies for the duplicate post from another post. My fault for misplacing it when It was intended for here.

    Tuesday 27 October 2015
    Your relentless and unforgiving attack on “deadbeat borrowers” becomes
    more and more nauseating every time you post, which is endless and
    so unnecessary, but you persist in pimping the service you hypocritically
    claim not to sell.

    There may be some deadbeat borrowers, but not all who find themselves
    facing foreclosure intended to default or be in breach of their note. Why
    don’t you back off from categorizing all in foreclosure as “deadbeats and
    mind you own f’n business. Almost all of them have waived most of
    the defenses that would help them. Mortgage foreclosure attack, as you
    just as relentlessly choose to throw in everyone’s face is not the end all
    and only/best solution. If that were true. there would be many more
    smart people creating blogs and trying to get as much business as
    possible, and there would be a sharp increase in the number of those in
    foreclosure that have winning records against the banks who foreclose
    based mostly upon deceit, false records, and courts more than willing to
    bend the law to ensure banks win, regardless of their lack of legitimacy.
    You then turn around and pretend you are everyone’s friend and just
    trying to “help” by guiding them to the promised land If you are so right,
    you should not have any time to be trolling for business on this site, and
    who knows how many others, because people would be flocking to you
    with your pristine track record of countless wins. What? No record?
    You even have an excuse for that, too.

    Most people in foreclosure are symptomatic of a dirty mortgage environment purposefully created by the banking system, BY DESIGN!
    Think MERS, for one, and always think of the judicial system, first and
    foremost more than protective of the corruption rampant in the banking
    and mortgage industry.

    You imply, to the nth degree that lenders/creditors are flawless in their
    lending practices and it is only the “deadbeat morons/idiots” who are to
    blame. If there were honesty in the banking system, and there never
    has been since the private banking Rothschild Ponzi scheme created
    the Federal Reserve that unlawfully took over this country’s banking
    system, totally against the no longer effective organic Constitution, and
    replaced by a corporate de fact UNITED STATES federal government.

    You still have no clue what lawful money is/means, and I note you have
    never provided an answer that justifies what you promote. For as
    phoney as you portray Neil Garfield, for me, you are worse.

    There are no known cures for people like you who keep pointing the
    accusatory finger at everyone else who does not believe in your own
    brand of kool-aid. Does it have merit? Yes. So do many other defenses.
    You rely totally upon case law which has been created by the banking
    system and fully abetted by the equally crooked judges who use their
    own form of dogmatic sophistry to screw the public. Yes, there are
    exceptions, but most people have to deal with the prevailing rule.

    It is apparent from many of your detractors, who could not write a proper
    pleading to save their ass, let alone their home, and I would challenge
    all of them to post their own briefs that prevailed in court that reflect the
    emotionally-driven “arguments” they think will fly in court, you have had your say.

    Those who argue against you on this site do not make convincing
    rebuttals against you, for the most part. I understand the vitriolic attacks
    by many toward you. In many ways, it is deserved by virtue of your
    finger-pointing attacks and your endless pointing to existing but
    questionable case law that favors the creditors you favor defending as
    though they were flawless.

    I read many, many cases, looking for pluses and minuses, and so many
    have flawed arguments against questionable plaintiffs, but through
    either procedures, where the ill-equipped borrower cannot defeat for
    lack of knowledge, and too, too, many arguing from the “heart” and no
    case law as backup, and more reasons, the losses are more the fault
    of incompetent defenses and even some very competent ones were
    simply trashed by the judge, forcing a loss agains the borrower.

    The”plaintiff/bankers clearly have the edge, and their overwhelming
    wins against borrowers is not due to their intelligence, and most often,
    not due to their bogus pleadings.

    It is a stacked deck, and you do nothing to contribute in a positive
    manner, yet you cannot believe it when people react so negatively
    against you. You are the common denominator to those who post
    against you, including me, and I have an appreciation for some of
    what you post. In many ways, you are just like the creditors who
    foreclose with faulty paperwork, which you defend by virtue of the
    fact that the “deadbeat morons” breached their contracts.

    You are your own worst enemy. Why you choose to be an ongoing
    source of aggravation on this site remains a mystery, when you have
    been told how unwanted your advice is, regardless of much “faith” you
    have in it.

    You call out Neil Garfield. You call out all the “deadbeat morons/idiots,”
    yet when you are called you, all you care about is being “right” and
    shoving your method down everyone’s throat.

    Show a bit of character and walk away. If you have such a wonderful
    service, find an audience that is more receptive to your dogmatic ways.

  35. yo, bob: the word you’re looking for is seriatim (or maybe you thought everyone else was too unlearned). I will agree with you fwiw on one thing: there has never been any evidence that investors’ funds were used to fund loans and the assertion that they were does get old. IT may be that the loans never made it to the trusts, tho, as evidenced at least by all the alleged assgts purporting to just now transfer them. In the absence of delivery, however, the trusts or their trustees would, however, have a security interest created by operation of law when one pays but doesn’t receive. That creates quite a mess of its own.
    for everyone else here who maybe doesn’t have the wherewithall like some here should and maybe don’t: 12-24676.

  36. shadowcat…

    the email you gave me and has previously worked just kicked out as undeliverable…
    what’s up?

  37. as i said before… if you marry a woman with the intention of consummating the marriage with her – but her intention is to substitute her sister for herself, and you unknowingly consummate with her sister, there is no contract… there is no marriage!

  38. bob-

    nobody argues that an actual creditor does not have rights to defend
    nobody argues that an actual creditor does not exist

    what the various people, lawyers, accountants, and financial forensic investigators and even judges are finally getting access to is the underlying information about the organic transaction to which a borrower may be liable

    they are finding “smoking guns” that the actual creditor, which does exist, has never been expressed in the note or mortgage documents, and has never appeared in court in person or by proxy

    that instead, a (pronoun) “placeholder”; “sales agent”; “temporary substitute” was put there to facilitate the packaging and future sale of the product (note and/or mortgage) and that at the time the homeowner signed the instruments, there was no other party on the other side of the table – literally or figuratively)

    these entities functioned not as lenders, but rather as “sales agents” or “futures brokers”, “matchmakers”; with no intention to directly consummate a deal with the homeowner

    that IF, there was a need to rapidly provide an asset to a former lender to close the old note, they provided advanced funds from short term bank-to-bank loans or credits from their accounts AS ADVANCES ON FUTURE RECEIPTS from the yet unnamed purchasers of the deal

    what is coming to light are 3 possibilities of actual creditor identity, open for investigation…

    a) the actual creditor is the United States Treasury – by way of leveraged debt notes floated through their licensed banking franchisees
    b) the actual creditor are the PRIVATE owners of the International Monetary Fund by way of the PRIVATE owners of the Federal Reserve System
    c) the actual creditor is the man/woman who created a fungible note (legal cash) by way of their organic value and being the organic source of the full faith and credit of the United States of America

    before you criticize, please examine the possibilities…
    Even Agent Skully would do that…

  39. Anybody, including you Bob, that doesn’t know that these were not traditional “LOANS” (Sheila Bair, Bull By the Horns – NTMs) and the procurement of the collateral was for a pre-existing securities scheme to which the homeowner (issuer) had no disclosure is living in a fantasyland. I don’t know where to begin to tell you to research – maybe start with the Fannie Mae 1003 loan application and dissect its patent and all of the related media stories, etc. This was a seamless automation for the purpose of procuring collateral for pre-existing agreements. This capture of the collateral, which includes the homeowners social security numbers (mandatory of the collateral data entry fields) was never for a traditional loan, but meant for a securities transaction from the get go.

    Neil can advise you better on when a “contract” is void. So, that would explain why it would be difficult to breach something that never truly existed.

  40. The Power of Now | Rabbi Raleigh Resnick
    (13 min)

  41. Our democracy no longer represents the people. Here’s how we fix it | Larry Lessig
    (20 min)

  42. To bob,

    Our creditor went out of business eight long years ago.
    We signed a DOT with that now defunct lender.
    Five years and two servicers later we were informed it was placed into a ‘trust’.
    The trustee claiming to be the holder in due course has yet to prove the note nor could any of the servicers.
    The trustee whom we had never heard of nor have any signed agreement with to this day cannot produce the note nor ANY accounting nor could the servicers. This so called ‘trustee’ has spent months stonewalling.

    So bob, who should we pay? There is virtually no accounting as to where years of payments went. Fifteen years.

    To add insult to injury, this trustee is not even named in the PSA of the trust which no longer exists.

    No wonder there is no accounting.

  43. Seems Judge Cox straddles the fence and does not “want to be the one” who provides a definitive ruling upon which others may cite.

    “Whether Judge Cox’s reasoning on the second element—that REMIC trust payments can qualify as payments made in connection with a securities contract—can be relied on is unclear. A logical reading of the April 2015 and September 2015 opinions would be that had the master servicer been a financial institution, Judge Cox would hold that such payments would be protected from avoidance. This can be deduced by noting that the only change between the April 2015 opinion (that found the payments protected from avoidance) and the September 2015 order (vacating the prior opinion and holding that the payments are in fact subject to the trustee’s avoidance claim) is that the master servicer was alleged to be a financial institution in April, and was determined to not be a financial institution in September. However, the value of citing these opinions for that proposition is unclear, given that the court vacated the April 2015 order entirely (depriving the trustee of the ability to appeal the aspect of the April 2015 order that held that the payments were made in connection with a securities contract) and declined to issue a further ruling.”

  44. Baltimore,

    What kind of attorney’s would bill you for five years without some form of either guaranteed results or partial payment upon winning your case?
    Have you thought of reporting the foreclosure mill and his friend to the FBI? You can also submit a request from the DOJ and the SEC and you won’t be charged a dime.
    A mortgage CEO in our city was tried and convicted for mortgage fraud. Five years in prison and ordered to pay restitution. The investigation was conducted by the FBI.
    At some point I hope Neil or other attorneys will address billable hours and what is reasonable for both homeowner and the attorney.

  45. Fraud all the way through.

  46. Great information – now getting a judge to re-examine is a whole other ball of wax. Good for this alert trustee. The fallout from the bank fraud will be years coming. There is nothing we can do about the abuse we suffered – after five years we simply ran out of money. Money that could have been paid to investors instead went into legal fees to fight the fraud that we had blatant proof of. In the end none of that mattered – they took my house and waterfront property and gave to to the only bidder – a friend of the foreclosure mill.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: