REMIC Trustee Must Sign Tax Return Form 1066

This could get interesting. It’s complicated but it looks like the administration is closing in on the so-called REMIC Trusts. I personally doubt if anyone is going to be willing to sign the REMIC Tax Reports. The reason is simple: the REMIC Trusts never operated and never received any investments dollars or any startup funds. They exist only on paper. Writing a trust instrument does not create a trust. It is only when there is property transferred into the Trust that the Trust is created and becomes a legal entity.  The blizzard of paperwork, forged and fabricated assignments, endorsements, backdating, etc. was meant to distract judges from the truth. It worked — up until now.

If the Trustee has some fool robo-sign the Tax reports, it is subjecting the person and the Company (frequently US Bank) to multiple Federal criminal and civil liabilities. If they say the Trust did operate when in fact it was not operating, they are cooked. If they admit that the Trust was not operating, then they are admitting that all those foreclosures past, present and future were a scam on borrowers, the courts and the economy. But that is not all there is.

The investors are in for a rude awakening when they find out that the “pass-through” characteristics of the REMIC Trust might not be operating either. That COULD mean that the investors are going to be hit with ordinary income taxes on every penny they received, whether it was principal, interest or anything else.

This is the natural consequence of fraud. As you will see when the movie “The Big Short” comes out in December, the phrase used is “fraud always goes south” meaning that at the end of the day everyone knows everything. The Banks and maybe even the Trustees may argue that they treated the money as though it was was a trust asset and that they should be treated as qualifying “REMIC” Trusts even tough the Trust had nothing in it. The case law is against them on that.

But the practice pointer suggested here is to ask for the tax return of the REMIC Trust in whose name “collection” or “enforcement” is sought. This is why I have been strongly suggesting that Accountants look at the mortgage crisis as an opportunity for them. With the help of a report from an accountant the demand in discovery for the REMIC Tax return is likely to produce some fireworks that end up in settlements. I would expand the request to include the financial statements of the REMIC Trust and the names of the parties who created them. You probably will never see either one. But when a judge says they do have to show their financial information and tax returns, it might just be that you have their backs up against the wall.


90 Responses

  1. Reblogged this on Mario Kenny.

  2. 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

  3. On May 15, 2012, Ally put the company into bankruptcy. ResCap posted a $402 million loss in 2011 and had missed a $20 million payment on unsecured debt on April 17, 2012. ResCap listed $10.9 billion in mortgages on December 31, 2012, after wiping $22 billion in mortgages off its books in 2009, 2010 and 2011. The company had booked a substantial number of subprime mortgages. The bankruptcy was seen as a step by Ally to exit the mortgage business to focus on its profitable auto loan and direct banking business.[1][2]

  4. Charge offs are taken only when the servicer has determined that it has received all
    payments or cash recoveries which the servicer reasonably and in good faith expects to be finally
    recoverable with respect to any mortgage loan.

    ok does this statement say what i think it says. that once a servicer of your mortgage loan deems a charge off on there balance sheets. they are saying we are all done trying to collect on this bad debt.

    so let say , my servicer in 2008/2009/2010/ charge off 22 billion dollars of mortgages off there balance sheets.

    then they said . we are not going after the mortgages , we are done.

    PAYMENTS ON THE MORTGAGE The certificates represent interests only in the trust. The
    LOANS ARE THE PRIMARY SOURCE certificates do not represent an ownership interest in or
    OF PAYMENTS ON YOUR obligation of the depositor, the seller, the servicer or any of
    CERTIFICATES. their affiliates. If proceeds from the assets of the trust are
    not sufficient to make all payments provided for under the
    pooling and servicing agreement, investors will have no recourse
    to the depositor, the seller, the servicer or any other entity,
    and will incur losses.

  6. Interesting titles G

  7. a google search of doctoral candidates’ thesis within the past year on the topic of foreclosure…

  8. google “p938” and “20xx” (the year of your alleged REMIC trust)

    you will get a hit on the PDF report with contact info for your so-called trust, including CUSIP#, etc.

    save it to your PC

    you may need to lookup and save the following year’s report if it was executed late in the year…

    just search the document for your specific trust (e.g. 2004-he8)

    now you know who to contact for information on proof that your mortgage is really in there and when it allegedly was placed there

    read the instructions for requesting info on pages 1-2

    example ––2004.pdf

  9. i think there is a clause in the documents by which the homeowner unknowingly grants a POA power of attorney to the alleged lender to act on its behalf…

    we should do an absolute cancellation/rescission of ANY and ALL POAs, nun pro tunc (from the beginning) for failure to disclose

  10. I agree L using language from deed, PSA to make look legit.

  11. David, this looks like a very convoluted CYA letter. Actually, INMHO, it makes no sense and is trying to use an assignment as a document of satisfaction of mortgage. Maybe I am crazy, but so far that is what I see.

  12. iv) such assignment is at the request of the borrower under the related
    Mortgage Loan.

    so were did we say this is ok, and were did we sign the request , for changing our mortgage s, and notes. by .25% ?? that is allot of money difference in
    interest charges on 300,000 dollar mortgage. at lets say 6.75 that would mean about 400,485.94 now lets take 6.50 and that would be about,380,000.

    that’s a big difference. more than 35.00 dollars, tila/respa

    now lets take further , shell we, 35000 x 10 loan 350,000 x100 loans, 3.5 million, 1000 loans 35 million . right off the top. now x that by millions of trust. that’s trillions

  13. this would say that they changed the mortgages by .25 percent in interest rates, without our permission or knowledge,
    this would also make a difference in the calculation for disclosures that needed to be given to homeowners, tila/respa.
    they made changes to our mortgages and notes,

    I would say they would be void, the borrower never sign the new mortgage and note stating the .25 % change in interest being charged.
    no meeting of minds.

    _____, 20__
    Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc.
    8400 Normandale Lake Boulevard
    Suite 250
    Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437

    Wells Fargo Center
    Sixth and Marquette Avenue
    Minneapolis, Minnesota 55479-0113

    Attention: Corporate Trust Services–GMACM 2006-J1
    Re: GMACM Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
    2006-J1 Assignment of Mortgage Loan

    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    This letter is delivered to you in connection with the assignment
    by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the “Trustee”) to (the “Lender”) of
    (the “Mortgage Loan”) pursuant to Section 3.13(d) of the Pooling and Servicing
    Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”), dated as of February 27, 2006
    among Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., as seller (the “Company”), GMAC
    Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer, and the Trustee. All terms used herein and
    not otherwise defined shall have the meanings set forth in the Pooling and
    Servicing Agreement. The Lender hereby certifies, represents and warrants to,
    and covenants with, the Servicer and the Trustee that:

    (i) the Mortgage Loan is secured by Mortgaged Property located in a jurisdiction
    in which an assignment in lieu of satisfaction is required to preserve lien
    priority, minimize or avoid mortgage recording taxes or otherwise comply with,
    or facilitate a refinancing under, the laws of such jurisdiction;

    (ii) the substance of the assignment is, and is intended to be, a refinancing of
    such Mortgage Loan and the form of the transaction is solely to comply with, or
    facilitate the transaction under, such local laws;

    (iii) the Mortgage Loan following the proposed assignment will be modified to
    have a rate of interest at least 0.25 percent below or above the rate of
    interest on such Mortgage Loan prior to such proposed assignment; and

    (iv) such assignment is at the request of the borrower under the related
    Mortgage Loan.

    Very truly yours,

  14. 26 CFR 1.860F-4 – REMIC reporting requirements and other administrative rules.



    Authorities (U.S. Code)


    prev | next
    § 1.860F-4 REMIC reporting requirements and other administrative rules.
    (a) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, for purposes of subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code, a REMIC is treated as a partnership and any holder of a residual interest in the REMIC is treated as a partner. A REMIC is not subject, however, to the rules of subchapter C of chapter 63 of the Internal Revenue Code, relating to the treatment of partnership items, for a taxable year if there is at no time during the taxable year more than one holder of a residual interest in the REMIC. The identity of a holder of a residual interest in a REMIC is not treated as a partnership item with respect to the REMIC for purposes of subchapter C of chapter 63.

    (b) REMIC tax return

    (1) In general. To satisfy the requirement under section 6031 to make a return of income for each taxable year, a REMIC must file the return required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section. The due date and any extensions for filing the REMIC’s annual return are determined as if the REMIC were a partnership.

    (2) Income tax return. The REMIC must make a return, as required by section 6011(a), for each taxable year on Form 1066, U.S. Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit Income Tax Return. The return must include—

    (i) The amount of principal outstanding on each class of regular interests as of the close of the taxable year,

    (ii) The amount of the daily accruals determined undersection 860E(c), and

    (iii) The information specified in§ 1.860D-1(d)(2) (i), (iv), and (v).

    (c) Signing of REMIC return

    (1) In general. Although a REMIC is generally treated as a partnership for purposes of subtitle F, for purposes of determining who is authorized to sign a REMIC’s income tax return for any taxable year, the REMIC is not treated as a partnership and the holders of residual interests in the REMIC are not treated as partners. Rather, the REMIC return must be signed by a person who could sign the return of the entity absent the REMIC election. Thus, the return of a REMIC that is a corporation or trust under applicable State law must be signed by a corporate officer or a trustee, respectively. The return of a REMIC that consists of a segregated pool of assets must be signed by a person who could sign the return of the entity that owns the assets of the REMIC under applicable State law.

    (2) REMIC whose startup day is before November 10, 1988

    (i) In general. The income tax return of a REMIC whose startup day is before November 10, 1988, may be signed by any person who held a residual interest during the taxable year to which the return relates, or, as provided in section 6903, by a fiduciary, as defined in section 7701(a)(6), who is acting for the REMIC and who has furnished adequate notice in the manner prescribed in § 301.6903-1(b) of this chapter.

    (ii) Startup day. For purposes of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, startup day means any day selected by a REMIC that is on or before the first day on which interests in such REMIC are issued.

    (iii) Exception. A REMIC whose startup day is before November 10, 1988, may elect to have paragraph (c)(1) of this section apply, instead of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, in determining who is authorized to sign the REMIC return. See section 1006(t)(18)(B) of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 3426) and § 5h.6(a)(1) of this chapter for the time and manner for making this election.

    (d) Designation of tax matters person. A REMIC may designate a tax matters person in the same manner in which a partnership may designate a tax matters partner under § 301.6231(a)(7)-1T of this chapter. For purposes of applying that section, all holders of residual interests in the REMIC are treated as general partners.

    (e) Notice to holders of residual interests

    (1) Information required. As of the close of each calendar quarter, a REMIC must provide to each person who held a residual interest in the REMIC during that quarter notice on Schedule Q (Form 1066) of information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) (i) and (ii) of this section.

    (i) In general. Each REMIC must provide to each of its residual interest holders the following information—

    (A) That person’s share of the taxable income or net loss of the REMIC for the calendar quarter;

    (B) The amount of the excess inclusion (as defined insection 860E and the regulations thereunder), if any, with respect to that person’s residual interest for the calendar quarter;

    (C) If the holder of a residual interest is also a pass-through interest holder (as defined in§ 1.67-3T(a)(2)), the allocable investment expenses (as defined in § 1.67-3T(a)(4)) for the calendar quarter, and

    (D) Any other information required by Schedule Q (Form 1066).

    (ii) Information with respect to REMIC assets

    (A) 95 percent asset test. For calendar quarters after 1988, each REMIC must provide to each of its residual interest holders the following information—

    (1) The percentage of REMIC assets that are qualifying real property loans undersection 593,

    (2) The percentage of REMIC assets that are assets described insection 7701(a)(19), and

    (3) The percentage of REMIC assets that are real estate assets defined insection 856(c)(6)(B), computed by reference to the average adjusted basis (as defined in section 1011) of the REMIC assets during the calendar quarter (as described in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section). If the percentage of REMIC assets represented by a category is at least 95 percent, then the REMIC need only specify that the percentage for that category was at least 95 percent.

    (B) Additional information required if the 95 percent test not met. If, for any calendar quarter after 1988, less than 95 percent of the assets of the REMIC are real estate assets defined in section 856(c)(6)(B), then, for that calendar quarter, the REMIC must also provide to any real estate investment trust (REIT) that holds a residual interest the following information—

    (1) The percentage of REMIC assets described insection 856(c)(5)(A), computed by reference to the average adjusted basis of the REMIC assets during the calendar quarter (as described in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section),

    (2) The percentage of REMIC gross income (other than gross income fromprohibited transactions defined in section 860F(a)(2)) described in section 856(c)(3)(A) through (E), computed as of the close of the calendar quarter, and

    (3) The percentage of REMIC gross income (other than gross income from prohibited transactions defined insection 860F(a)(2)) described in section 856(c)(3)(F), computed as of the close of the calendar quarter. For purposes of this paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(B)(3), the term “foreclosure property” contained in section 856(c)(3)(F) has the meaning specified in section 860G(a)(8).

    In determining whether a REIT satisfies the limitations of section 856(c)(2), all REMIC gross income is deemed to be derived from a source specified in section 856(c)(2).

    (C) For calendar quarters in 1987. For calendar quarters in 1987, the percentages of assets required in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) (A) and (B) of this section may be computed by reference to the fair market value of the assets of the REMIC as of the close of the calendar quarter (as described in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section), instead of by reference to the average adjusted basis during the calendar quarter.

    (D) For calendar quarters in 1988 and 1989. For calendar quarters in 1988 and 1989, the percentages of assets required in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) (A) and (B) of this section may be computed by reference to the average fair market value of the assets of the REMIC during the calendar quarter (as described in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section), instead of by reference to the average adjusted basis of the assets of the REMIC during the calendar quarter.

    (iii) Special provisions. For purposes of paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, the percentage of REMIC assets represented by a specified category computed by reference to average adjusted basis (or fair market value) of the assets during a calendar quarter is determined by dividing the average adjusted bases (or for calendar quarters before 1990, fair market value) of the assets in the specified category by the average adjusted basis (or, for calendar quarters before 1990, fair market value) of all the assets of the REMIC as of the close of each month, week, or day during that calendar quarter. The monthly, weekly, or daily computation period must be applied uniformly during the calendar quarter to all categories of assets and may not be changed in succeeding calendar quarters without the consent of the Commissioner.

    (2) Quarterly notice required

    (i) In general. Schedule Q must be mailed (or otherwise delivered) to each holder of a residual interest during a calendar quarter no later than the last day of the month following the close of the calendar quarter.

    (ii) Special rule for 1987. Notice to any holder of a REMIC residual interest of the information required in paragraph (e)(1) of this section for any of the four calendar quarters of 1987 must be mailed (or otherwise delivered) to each holder no later than March 28, 1988.

    (3) Nominee reporting

    (i) In general. If a REMIC is required under paragraphs (e) (1) and (2) of this section to provide notice to an interest holder who is a nominee of another person with respect to an interest in the REMIC, the nominee must furnish that notice to the person for whom it is a nominee.

    (ii) Time for furnishing statement. The nominee must furnish the notice required under paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section to the person for whom it is a nominee no later than 30 days after receiving this information.

    (4) Reports to the Internal Revenue Service. For each person who was a residual interest holder at any time during a REMIC’s taxable year, the REMIC must attach a copy of Schedule Q to its income tax return for that year for each quarter in which that person was a residual interest holder. Quarterly notice to the Internal Revenue Service is not required.

    (f) Information returns for persons engaged in a trade or business. See § 1.6041-1(b)(2) for the treatment of a REMIC under sections 6041 and 6041A.

    [T.D. 8366, 56 FR 49516, Sept. 30, 1991, as amended by T.D. 8458, 57 FR 61306, Dec. 24, 1992; 58 FR 8098, Feb. 11, 1993; T.D. 9184, 70 FR 9219, Feb. 25, 2005]

  15. The review, however, is a sign that the widespread bank misdeeds in home foreclosure cases are spilling over to threaten the interests of investors in mortgage-backed securities. The banks originated the mortgages and packaged them into securities.

    These banks’ transgressions, confirmed in court decisions and through recent action by federal bank regulators, include the failure to formally transfer ownership of mortgages to the trusts that invested in them and the subsequent creation of fraudulent mortgage assignments and other false documents.

    These investment trusts already have suffered big drops in income because of vast numbers of mortgage defaults after the housing boom collapse. They have been hurt too because in an increasing number of instances they have been blocked by courts from foreclosing on defaulted mortgages. The courts ruled that because the trusts never received the required documents establishing that they owned the mortgages, they have no standing to foreclose

  16. Residential Asset Mortgage Products ..the seller.

    Who deposited the Assets with the ASSET FUNDING COMPANY?

  17. People are waking up….. and realizing ….. They come to court representing you….acting for you.. Helping you beat yourself up.

    This person…said..NO.
    I am Not a borrower! And made NO such a request!

    As one half of the Estate …. The Plaintiffs Note!
    How much does KC owe?

  18. Here’s something real basic people can do on a free service like weebly

  19. Phrase from “jurisdiction…satisfaction”.
    99 showing all local indie theatre in LA/Pasadena gonna try to catch it.

  20. Hammertime. … What IS “phrase jurisdiction”?

  21. Has anyone on this blog actually seen “99 Homes”? In what city and state?

  22. Although phrase jurisdiction requires assignment in lieu of satisfaction is pretty bizarre. This could be key conflict of what we understood what happened at closing and what their shady financial dealings are. Not a matter of right words matter of what we understood, meeting of minds. If this is all gibberish how could there be a valid contract? Valid debt or claim?

  23. David I keyed on I where theu claim to minimize/evad tax and comply w law.III looks like change in terms possibly or not a new loan as presented and iv claim that it’s borrower ‘s request. Interesting shows what we’re raising is relevant besides dates etc imo.

  24. More proof of selective enforcement when it comes to law and homeowners

  25. i “accidentally” met an older experienced lawyer yesterday while helping his sister….
    he is a real estate specialist and does titles… etc.
    we started talking – i shared my whole story – he did not dismiss me as a nutcase or un-salvageable – rather he saw the merits of my position…
    i was honored by his candor and knowledge
    he was kind enough to invite me to share my stuff…
    i’ll let you all know if this goes somewhere




    _____, 20__

    Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc.
    8400 Normandale Lake Boulevard
    Suite 250
    Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437

    Wells Fargo Center
    Sixth and Marquette Avenue
    Minneapolis, Minnesota 55479-0113
    Attention: Corporate Trust Services–GMACM 2006-J1

    Re: GMACM Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
    2006-J1 Assignment of Mortgage Loan

    Ladies and Gentlemen:

    This letter is delivered to you in connection with the assignment
    by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the “Trustee”) to (the “Lender”) of
    (the “Mortgage Loan”) pursuant to Section 3.13(d) of the Pooling and Servicing
    Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”), dated as of February 27, 2006
    among Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., as seller (the “Company”), GMAC
    Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer, and the Trustee. All terms used herein and
    not otherwise defined shall have the meanings set forth in the Pooling and
    Servicing Agreement. The Lender hereby certifies, represents and warrants to,
    and covenants with, the Servicer and the Trustee that:

    (i) the Mortgage Loan is secured by Mortgaged Property located in a jurisdiction
    in which an assignment in lieu of satisfaction is required to preserve lien
    priority, minimize or avoid mortgage recording taxes or otherwise comply with,
    or facilitate a refinancing under, the laws of such jurisdiction;

    (ii) the substance of the assignment is, and is intended to be, a refinancing of
    such Mortgage Loan and the form of the transaction is solely to comply with, or
    facilitate the transaction under, such local laws;

    (iii) the Mortgage Loan following the proposed assignment will be modified to
    have a rate of interest at least 0.25 percent below or above the rate of
    interest on such Mortgage Loan prior to such proposed assignment; and

    (iv) such assignment is at the request of the borrower under the related
    Mortgage Loan.

    Very truly yours,




  27. What we’re up against. No duty to report fraud. Focus on lender interest not harm to borrower.

  28. Thx for posts Greg, DB Hope to be in that courtroom. Good advocate groups here that can target that case, others, my own.

  29. That’s It… Words mean things! Greg!

    Homeowners . .right to challenge standing
    Yes Yes!!

    Borrower ..No No!!

    Choose your words wisely!

  30. I often wonder in how many reinstatement s and redeemptions were court ordered to the wrong party by down right misrepresentations to the me…to the borrower .the insurer. The warrantor,,the surety..the benificaries …the investors..

  31. greg, on October 31, 2015 at 7:19 pm said:

    [audio src="" /]

  32. greg, on October 31, 2015 at 8:14 pm said:

    U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Kosterman, 2015 IL App (1st) 133627
    helpful… 2/3 decision in favor of homeowner to challenge plaintiff standing

    including… (trial court judge browbeaten for going against 5 previous appellate court opinions that insure challenges to standing)

    This is a mortgage foreclosure case in which the trial court dismissed defendants’ affirmative defenses, entered summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, and entered an order of possession in plaintiff’s favor. The trial court erred in finding that lack of standing is not an affirmative defense. Moreover, defendants were improperly denied the opportunity to mount a meaningful defense because plaintiff failed to produce the records relied upon by its affiant and refused to produce the affiant for a deposition. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this order.

    …also includes dissenting opinion of Justice Liu – useful in understanding why most judgements go the other way

  33. mn … You’re the one who showed up pissing and moaning and criticising people here who don’ t perfectly state their legal defenses and arguments … You claim that all the good caselaw is already out there, but you don’t post it to show us what you’re talking about, instead you whine and complain that nobody else sees what you see. Well then share it like a big boy and stop acting like a selfish, arrogant little jerk taunting anyone who isn’t as brilliant as you are. Are you here to help ..or here to blow your own horn? This site might not be the right forum for you if your only goal is to brag about how “you get it” and taunt all the loser homeowners who haven’t won their cases in Court. Why are you here? To tell us all how smart you are? The rest of us are here to share information that might help each other in our battle against the banks and their fraudulent foreclosures .. You say we should find all the great cases from existing caselaw? This is why we are here, the existing caselaw has been badly slanted in favor of the banks, we are here reading Neil Garfield strategies on overcoming those problems in the Court rooms … Jesinoski showed us how unfair the courts have been regarding the TILA laws … Years of bad caselaw on the books … Years of biased judges denying due process and discovery …plaintiffs with no standing stealing homes … Thats what’s in the mountains of caselaw that you want us to weed our way thru …well Many of us don’t have the luxury of time and are trying to help each other the best ways we can by sharing the strategies , the templates, the arguments ..and why this upsets you only raises questions about who you are, and why you care.

  34. o be argued on Wednesday, December 2, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., in Los Angeles.

    Supreme Court Case: S218973
    Court of Appeal Case(s): Second Appellate District, Div. 1
    Case Category: Review – Civil Appeal
    Start Date: 07/02/2014
    Case Status: scheduled for argument
    Issues: Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: In an action for wrongful foreclosure on a deed of trust securing a home loan, does the borrower have standing to challenge an assignment of the note and deed of trust on the basis of defects allegedly rendering the assignment void?

    to be argued on Wednesday, December 2, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., in Los Angeles.


  35. There are two Trusts in PPM agreements.

  36. So Neil….Please do tell.
    “Why when some mortgages are satisfied ..the borrower never really has clear title?”

  37. Here is the problem as I see it. Under TILA rescission both parties are set back before they were as if the transaction had never occcured

    Having control..monopolizing the market…they know the borrower will get a heck no…on a refi. Guarrenteed Win Win for them…knowing you don’t have CASH! Oh and the mod fraud. Never mind..I never went there.
    Here is where things get tricky….when another party with an interest in the estate wants to payoff the debt because they don’t do business with..Con Artist & THIEVES.

    Don’t blame the courts …. Our ignorance and Trust got us here.

    Nobody buys anything with useless paper money backed by nothing and printed at will !!!

    Other countries who bought our US debt instruments knew this and wanted them backed by Land!
    MERS was not designed with an exit door….is n irrevocable grant for life.

  38. Monday 2 November 2015

    Get a life Dwight. You miss the point entirely, and you have no clue about anything legal.

    One, I have no judicial system, so stop talking out of your ass like you
    know something. Two, I have no legal school training. None.

    Because you fail to understand simple English, let me spell it out for you.
    I have nothing against sharing knowledge on this site. It is the whole
    purpose, and if you could comprehend what I say, you would realize I
    applaud this site for all the information provided. The problem is people
    like you who do not know good information when it bites them in the ass,
    and you ask to be spoon-fed even more, looking to coattail on someone
    else’s work instead of thinking for yourself and drawing upon the myriad
    case law examples found here, which are exactly what you blindly seek …examples of how to compose a response and make it specific to your
    own case.

    If you recall, I offered some advice to you for your own case. Maybe it
    had no value to you, that is okay. You do a lot of complaining about the
    corrupt and unjust system, like so many others have done and continue
    to do. If you want to be another lemming, that is your choice. If you
    want to make a difference for yourself, start taking responsibility to
    collect all the information you can garner from this site. Almost all of your
    answers can be found here. Instead, you prefer to piss and moan about
    that which you can neither change nor understand.

    If it makes you feel better to point an accusatory finger at me, instead of
    looking in the mirror, by all means, do so. I could care less. Calling me
    a bank shill does nothing more than put your ignorance center stage.

    You draw inane conclusions from nothing, accomplish nothing and just
    spin wheels. You have a loser mentality under the guise faux learning.

    Good luck with that.

  39. Can anyone tell me how I can view 99 Homes. If it was at theaters in my area, it was not reviewed or effectively advertised.

    I thought, because, I’m so interested in these matters and read the local newspaper every day, that a simple mention of 99 Homes in my reading would alert me to possible local showings. Obviously, my “alert mechanism” is malfunctioning.

    Maybe the movie’s distribution effort was compromised by “outside parties” ? 🙂

    Will someone please tell me where I might be able to order a DVD?

  40. The borrower only holds title via a trust deed at recorders office…one W/O a trustee agreement from sellers estate. Having…No Effect!

    Everything that follows …. Has No Effect!
    Especially the GWD granted and deposited with the CAC. ..


  41. How much does KC et al. .. The Estate …. Owe?

  42. Ahhh yes……the Special Warranty Deeds vs the General Warranty Deeds.
    Although the General Warranty Deeds are MIA. … the tax bills come to the Estate….due by the Estate held in Trust.
    Not just the borrower.

  43. mn is annoyed that any homeowners would be here on this site where Neil Garfield is all about “sharing knowledge” in order to overcome the corrupt, biased courts. Why would mn waste his time trolling this site if it bothers him so much that he wastes board space complaining about victims of injustice “sharing knowledge” in order to overcome the corrupt and biased courts ??

    It obviously strikes a nerve with mn when he reads about how corrupt and biased his own judicial system is , especially when the criticism is coming from Pro se homeowners who have never had any law school education like he apparently has had.

    This site and this fight is all about “sharing” .. Sharing by Neil Garfield is the whole reason any of us understand the issues and travesty of the injustice we face in this broken system. Most of the caselaw created in this travesty is tainted.

    This is an ever evolving battle that keeps changing quickly as new issues are found and exposed … I think mn’s complaining about us being here sharing knowledge with each other is stupid and shows a lot about his own low moral character. He’s sounding more like a bank shill with every post he makes. Why would he care if we share strategy and templates with each other? You don’t think the banks attorneys are here watching these discussions? Think again.

  44. Good points MN and TU. We shouldn’t just focus on court cases. Garfield’s been talking about bias and alot of us have dealt with it. He’s also talked about public policy being violated. With only a small percentage of homeowners fighting back somehow were isolated and don’t have an impact. With the 99 Homes movie and campaign could be the right time if we could get it together without all the back and forth or trolls.

  45. It’s not a court of law.

    Its a Dunn and Bradstreet corporation.
    some are owned by the sheriff or some other entity in the town.
    They are ‘open for business’, and they are corrupt businesses.
    Most don’t care if they violate due process because the odds of the average male or female will not ‘fight’ them, being peaceful and all,
    so they get away with warring with us.
    Those that do fight them, keep it in a closed look, using their system to tell on them, and they all ‘keep it under the covers’ or ‘keep it in the closet’.

    I HAVE been most effective in stripping their immunity.
    There are countless people who abruptly retire or other means based on the fact, I shine a light into their corrupt structure.
    They are all leeches and parasites and they have oaths and allegiances to each other, and not the public, although they bring things to us claiming to represent the interest of the public.

    When the light is shone on them, they clear and scatter like roaches.
    But each has to go their own way.
    My home has a warranty deed that is not removed.
    The thieves issued a ‘special warranty deed’, indicating no clear title when they allowed someone else to live there so they can collect rents while they made me leave and claimed my property abandoned; and the people who got into the home, cannot claim any ownership without the ‘warranty deed’.
    Without me settling with that mortgage settlement, and without me signing any new contracts playing with their modifications, I am a victim of a foreign force on the land who has dispossessed me from peaceable enjoyment of my property under color of authority.

    Pure Federal violations, and many misprision of felony helpers who sold out the country and it’s inhabitants for trinkets, and colored beads. Insurrection is rampant in this country and all one has to do is audit the county records, find the clouded titles, find the names of the people who clouded them, and those are the criminals. Find the businesses behind the majority of those, and those are the criminals, find the judges and figure out how many wins-to-losses in their courts and those are the criminals, find the appellate courts who claim, if you didn’t bring up you were robbed in the original court, you can’t bring it up later, and those are the criminals.
    It’s not easy to clean house.
    Mere man will never clean house because these people are his brothers and sisters.
    Divinity will clean house.
    If I stole property in a past life and karma had mine stolen in this one, I am satisfied to know the gain they claim is short and their karma is still to be paid.
    It’s only property.
    I am glad I am not them.

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

  46. Sunday 1 November 2015

    Why is it necessary for anyone to share their complaint? Those who ask
    are not doing enough due diligence to help their own cause. There
    have been many, many examples of specific court cases over the
    years, on this site, at least in reference, that should be more than ample
    for anyone to use either as a model or a reference aiding in constructing
    their own case.

    Further, the amount of information in articles, and even from some of the
    radio shows, together with supporting cases mentioned is more than
    ample to provide a very strong and compelling response, even with an
    ability to more effectively attach back. If anyone is stymied by not
    knowing how to construct a response, he/she will never survive in court.

    Instead of expending so much [wasted] energy arguing how crooked
    the courts and banks are, devote that energy more constructively toward
    creating a response to what one’s plaintiff has presented. There are
    many here who will be in for the shock of their lives to discover what
    they “believe” about the court system and banks does not translate well
    when they attempt to “argue” those [often baseless or unfounded]
    believes in a court of law.

    There has been more information disseminated on this site, some stellar,
    some useless, that gives participants here an incredible edge that
    apparently many fail to see when it is presented in front of them.
    Instead, it is supposed to be presented in the form that is “response-
    ready” so no effort has to be expended as they fight for their home.
    Those who take the time and put in the effort will discover a form of self-
    empowerment as they make the fight more personal arising from
    greater self-involvement. Not saying it is easy, just necessary.

    Just my opinion…

  47. Excellent Trespass Unwanted.
    KC is not a borrower.
    How much does KC owe?

    One of these days Neil is going to admit I had a Good Lawyer!
    & Great Friends!

    Bad Trustee!!!

  48. DwightNJ,
    I’m glad to see you still doing; not giving up.

    What you say is true, no one shares their complaints.
    I didn’t share mine, because mine were not effective for me to keep my home.
    I never knew the best complaint has to get past the corporation court, or you are standing to appeal, and then appeal that.
    Can you imagine finding good complaints and case law, and having someone still, steal your home, on some technical issue, or playing around to make you miss a deadline or something.
    It’s unfair and unfortunate.
    I have found people who read every aspect of the procedures, and have things written to a T, and cannot move the court to any decision, and then some code enforcer or someone paying the taxes before they get the bill, gets in the way and is the alternative way, they steal.

    Because of that, I stopped playing ‘their game’.
    They make the rules and their rules say they can change them anytime they think they are losing.
    Who is ‘they’?
    A man or a woman, who has no power except what the man or woman does when he or she walks into a brick and mortar building and writes on papers and pushes them around as if the ‘business of court’ was doing it; at the end of their day, they go home and for the men, shower, shite, and shave, like any other man. No special abilities, except what they do in that business. Time wasters and energy vampires, and property thieves.

    My writings are cryptic to people with public education.
    I do not speak of persons, I speak of people, the people, a people, one people, because I know what person is.
    I do not use certain words, I know when to use with, by, in, to, of, for, the, a. I also learned a complete thought ends with a period.
    Seeing how some courts take one thing and stop and then never consider the ‘other things’, I learned to use semi-colons.
    But no one wants what I write, even I barely comprehend it, but for me it’s like trying to write in another language without any formal training.

    I use my writings on complain.
    I point them out to the authorities.
    Hoping upon hope that my complaint is not the only one.
    Hoping enough people have pointed them out for them to be identified as violating the ‘peace and dignity’ of the state. Just like when they file complaints on us with traffic tickets and stupid law suits, I file complaints on them now.
    Two can play that game.

    I apologize, my stuff is useless for anyone, it is before anyone knew what we know now, and at most, I answered with a lot of FDCPA violations and then stated in the jurisdiction section, the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff was suing the wrong party.

    It got me nowhere. The judge said she was not going to read it.
    I didn’t know their language or rules, I was having peaceable enjoyment and was forced to leave by strangers.

    My CFPB complaint made it clear the Plaintiff loaned no principal nor interest, the trustee was still available. The trustee did not initiate the foreclosure, the DOT gave the trustee authority to appoint a substitute trustee. The trustee did no such thing. The substitute trustee is self appointed. The substitute initiated stealing the home before they filed the document to be substitute trustee. The property was paid in full when the theft was initiated. I paid the principal in full, and the Plaintiff expressed that they wanted the interest, but showed no proof of obligation.

    Seeing I had complained to the state AG, I saw in their response that they provided their answer to the state AG, to which I disputed that their answer proves they rejected my notice of rescission.

    So I kept something back from my initial complaint, cause I had enough stuff to fill a book, and then I used what they provided against them.

    If you look, there is always a way to use what they provide against them.
    They never had standing.

    I also reported them to the DOJ when they were looking for evidence of bid rigging. Odds are, a home for sale, is for auction, and to get exactly what you are asking, on a credit bid, from the one doing the auction, to pay in full the one who auctioned off, and all those people standing there do not bid at all, as if there is a prior agreement not to, well the DOJ was interested in that.
    I was a witness to that because I was there. I saw it with my own eyes and could detail what happened.
    My complaints are criminal complaints.
    I strip them of their immunity.
    Since I could not stop them from hurting me, I may have stopped them from hurting someone else.
    When I did my initial complaint, I named the attorneys, it was before they stole the home, and when I recomplained, I named everyone who signed a document to steal my home.
    total of 7 attorneys, and one notary.
    Criminality for that many people to close a contract that is supposed to be legitimate.

    Keep up the fight, Dwight.
    Everyone is doing the right thing for what they decide to do.
    That’s my opinion.

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

  49. Well then share it with other homeowners please.

  50. BLD, Trust Assignment Fraud letter sent by Lynn Szymoniak.

  51. BLD, having trouble downloading complaint but I got the letter with all the defendants including Deutsche, BofA, etc.

  52. Louise

    Homeowners across the nation need to see the LONG list of defendants.

  53. Google the complaint and yes I have it. It is easily downloaded.

  54. Do you have the original complaint on Szmoniak v. Ace?

  55. Lynn Szimoniak v. Ace Securities et al…a must read for anyone in this fight. She has won millions of dollars in damages and is an attorney.
    Read the entire case to date as she and her legal team are excellent.

  56. Just trying to be helpful but has anyone thought of reading case law? I google them regularly and re read them and study them. They are easily googled and they are filled with what judges and juries are weighing in on and how they are ruling in favor of the homeowner.
    I also read cases where they rule in favor of the banks.
    It is all public information to homeowners who can do their own homework without outrageous billable hours.
    I’m not advocating pro se, but there are literally thousands of cases you can read and some you can use as precedent.

  57. I started something like that about a year ago. No one really got it or bad timing. After my next round of court or with list I compiled may give it another shot or share/publicize my ongoing experience.

  58. Dwight, this is a very good idea, but we may have to set up a website where the documents can be uploaded to which are put in categories and subcategories like complaints and the sub heading lack of standing, letter and documents related to rescission, etc.

  59. Trespass … One of the problems is that very, very few people share their complaints and strategies so that others can use them as a template to write their own complaints. After 8 years of this you would think there would be a list compiled of sample complaints and a brief outline explaining the strategy so that everyone else can understand and do the same.

    There are millions of citizens who are facing foreclosure, yet most do not have the time to research and read volumes of literature to catch up to those who have been in this fight for 8 years running. It would be a beautiful thing if those with the knowledge would share it and lay it out in easy to understand steps, with samples, with short explanations of what and why they are filing the complaints, etc.

    Those who have gotten traction with anything should share the strategy with others. The reason to share is to build up the numbers quickly so that we overwhelm the enemy on all fronts. I have tried to ask simple questions about procedural law when I was facing a 20 day window and was told I should go read a book and learn about it, well that’s fine and is something I should have some a long time ago, but I don’t see very much real sharing going on amongst borrowers except for a few.

    After 8 years we should have by now created a list of all the things we have all learned from our own individual battles …

    1) The Do’s & Don’ts of Answering a foreclosure complaint. What things to include as affirmative defenses and counter claims.

    2) TILA Rescission …consummation…standing…creditor

    3) Motions ..samples ..reasons ..interlocatory appeals ..arguments

    4) Filing your own Complaints ..against who? …why? …samples

    5) Recording your Rescission in the Land Records Office ..why ..samples …how to overcome the nasty clerk

    6) Creating your own Affidavit ..regarding the facts in your case.. regarding your TILA rescission …samples..templates

    7) Important things to say in Court to create a record for appeal …the vital exhibits to submit into the record ..the vital arguments to raise

    8) Compel Discovery ..the reasons and arguments ..samples

    9) Things you should NEVER say in Court or in your papers.

    10) A game-plan that explains your strategy and how to react to the judge trying to destroy your case. A step-by-step guide to how The typical case unfolds in Court, and exactly what your quick response will be when confronted with the problem.. So that your stategy and your responses are ready before you walk into the judges biased kangaroo court …samples of motions for interlocatory appeal ..etc.

    I understand all cases can differ from each other, but the general guide and approach can still be of value if we had an organized place where the most important information learned by everyone can be sorted out and compiled into a useful warfare command center to wage war against the banks and their friendly minions the judges.

  60. Reuters reports BOFA settles for $335 million for risky mortgages and Mers…

  61. My attorney filed complaints with everyone of those agencies,
    They know…but the private right of action is yours to take.

  62. Theft… Exactly!
    You Nailed it Trespass Unwanted.

    How much does KC owe?

  63. you’re right on that one, louise.

  64. What really frosts my balls is that the bankruptcy trustee lawyers all turn a blind eye to the pleading of non-existent entities as foreclosure plaintiffs. They have been informed multiple times of the REMIC fraud occurring under their noses, and not one of them has even raised an eyebrow to these fraudulent claims filed in bankruptcy courts everywhere.

  65. Louise,
    I see what you are saying, the piece that is missing is how many complaints did the IRS have about the REMIC trust that they ignored.

    My guess would be, they had none, or one, as everyone saw someone mention it on a board, but waited on someone else to expose it.

    My home was not tied to a REMIC so I didn’t complain.
    I didn’t know what to do, but I didn’t sit still, I wrote back everytime I got correspondence, and I filed FTC, DOJ, and CFPB complaints.

    Nothing happened, but then as time when by, I was able to point those agencies to the earlier complaint, especially when the servicers settled and were trying to offer me $300 for their theft.

    No one got my permission to settle for me, and $300 was hardly anything I would consider making stealing the home, a settled issue.

    After disputing the credit report and getting the Paid in Full notice, I jumped in and pointed to that complaint again.

    The servicer even provided evidence of my fight against them to answer CFPB, but could they answer why they wanted payment on a paid in full loan.
    Yes, they went back and modified the credit report and stuck foreclosure on there, to which I called ‘tampering with a witness’ since I had called out the fraud, and now they were using the credit report to attack me. They removed their foreclosure credit report.
    They were never my mortgage company, so my complaint extended and I wrote one against the credit reporting company for allowing a company I never did business with to manipulate information about me in the public.
    Boy did they have to answer.
    The remedies are there.
    If people say everything is corrupt, the rest of the people won’t contact them cause they let someone tell them ‘their truth’.
    Neil exposes that when the right information passes the desks of these businesses, they can ‘take action’, but they do not go digging into anything without a witness and a complaint.

    Any of use are witnesses.
    When I stopped listening to the people saying they don’t do nothing, I contacted those businesses and found out they do listen and the complaint ‘gives them power’ to investigate.

    The CFPB is still under investigation after I re-reminded them I had a complaint when the fraud first began, and later on the business proved the fraud.

    If something is paid in full and someone is coming after you, and all they say is, they want interest in the property, then they are collecting the interest on what was paid in full. Excuse me! Who said you can collect interest only with no principal? Who says? BTW, the contract had no penalty for early payment, so how can someone pick an amortization table and expect to collect interest for later years that they calculated in their accounting, when the principal is gone.
    First level accounting would show the fraud, all that other stuff is just smoke, fog/clouds to hide what can be seen if you look harder.

    There are so many ways to get them, so many, and so many of us who can be a witness, we’d all get our property or disgourge them of all the securities they are hiding and still making money off of.

  66. Im talking about that metaphorical stick again
    ” cant pick up one end without picking up the other” however i understand arguing in court is another matter
    Just saying not legal advice

  67. Relate that 1066 to 1099a is issued in my case ( and probably a hell of a lot more cases) by the servicer im telling you to compare it with the parties in court and their posture as having standing to take the collateral home ( and sell it after clouded title up the yaz and new owner never having legal right to possesiin either… But for a rocket docket mock hearing and all) i have asked the irs about the 1099a i have asked where is the 1099c i have told them i am fighting in court and raised the matter,
    Would you not think they might be interested in such issues … Well, apparently not
    Irs all coming out isnt it cant stop it because it is supposed to, in divine order

  68. I will support Senator Sanders.

    Get Hillary out of here!

    Martin O’Malley would like to spit the marbles out of his mouth, he just doesn’t know how.

    In the debates he took a run at Clinton’s wife over “Glass-Steagall” but he failed to mention HillBillary’s husband conspired with three Republican senators to destroy the financial centers of the entire financial universe.

    HillBillary is a Wall Street STOOGE!

    Facing impeachment, Slick Willy Clinton acquiesced to the demands of three Republican Senators and together they destroyed Glass-Steagall through the “Act” that will forever Bear their name: “Graham, Leach, Bliley”.

    The G,L,B Act, through suppression of Glass-Steagall, opened the door to epic FRAUD perpetrated through the mortgage industry, brought to We The People courtesy of the criminals on Wall Street.

    In the wake of subprime lending, the criminal banking industry speculated on cdos and cds, more commonly known as “derivatives”.

    Currently, those “derivatives” represent an international financial shortfall to the system described as in excess of 682 Trillion Dollars- that We The People know of…

    It is also said an additional 600-plus Trillion is not recorded as part of the public record.

    600 Trillion is 10 times the GDP of every country on the planet and those Trillions are described as “Notional Derivatives” that are best described as bogus bets predicated upon foreclosures that are, in turn, predicated upon FRAUD.

    There are MILLIONS OF AMERICANS that have been defrauded in foreclosures based on criminal intent.
    The “quadrillion” – look it up- of dollars “owed” to “NOTIONAL DERIVATIVES” based on foreclosures that are based on FRAUD have created a voter base of MILLIONS and those millions are waiting for someone to tell it like it is and spit the marbles out of their mouths.

    Senator Sanders is likely the best candidate to do so.

    Michael Lewis’, “The Big Short”, is due out in theatres around Christmas; watch it and WAKE UP!


    HillBillary is a national security threat… but, not because of Benghazi… Instead, it is because she and her husband and the international, central banking SET are fixing to destroy the American Dollar as the international RESERVE CURRENCY!

    Put these criminal pigs in jail.

  69. … Of course, after a trial and chance to defend themselves…

    After all We The People are better than they will ever be.

  70. “Possession is 9 – tenths of the law.

    Don’t leave the house.

    If they come and jail you. Go back when you get out.

    I have cut their locks off.

    These are criminals… Can You say death sentence???

  71. hillBillary Clinton or Donald Trump???

    These are the choices???

    I prefer death, brought on by boredom and sepsis from an over-extended shoulder tendon after decades of pulling the handle on the guillotine as bankers of every way, shape and form come squealing while pulled into the restraints, prior to their heads falling into the baskets.

  72. It is past time the banks are kicked to the curb and their playmates, the paid-for politicians join them.

  73. A very small part of our country has a gambling addiction called “the Stock Market”.

    The rest of US are being held hostage by this small segment.

  74. The RULE OF LAW has been abandoned because law enforcement has been punked by the bankers.

  75. The banks are holding the government hostage using the intentionally mislabeled “Federal Reserve”.

  76. The banks are NOT the government.

  77. I went to a three day seminar in Newark, NJ. My wife went with me.

    The people that put it together claim they will help you put your case and complaint in manageable form and then ask you to tell your neighbors you are in foreclosure.

    I tell strangers I am in foreclosure all the time.


    The banks are using American Mortgages to launder drug cartel money.

    Call Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf at 415-396-7018 and tell him to save Yolanda’s home!
    View this email in your browser

    Hundreds of Home Defenders across the country have signed the petition to Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf to work with Yolanda and her husband Hosea to stop the foreclosure on their home.

    TODAY, members of NJ Communities United will personally deliver Yolanda’s petition to Wells Fargo – and we need your support to make sure John Stumpf hears our demands!

    Call Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf NOW at 415-396-7018 and tell him to save Yolanda’s home!

    Together we can save the Yolanda’s home just like we saved Paulette McQueen’s home!

    Thank you for supporting Yolanda’s fight and thank you for making this important call to John Stumpf today!

    In Solidarity,
    Roger Schwartz
    NJ Communities United
    Copyright © 2015 NJ Communities United, All rights reserved.
    You are receiving this email because you are a member, donor or supporter of NJ Communities United.

    Our mailing address is:
    NJ Communities United
    30 Clinton St, Newark, NJ, United States
    2nd Floor
    Newark, NJ 07102

    Add us to your address book

  78. The IRS is in on the scam. Do we have any cases where a REMIC trust was nailed by the IRS or by any other entity for not adhering to the rules?

  79. maybe Neil could compose a boilerplate complaint we could all use?

  80. we should each be filing a federal complaint with the FBI and IRS for fraud and tax evasion against every trust claiming to be a REMIC trying to foreclose…

    imagine 45 million independent complaints!

  81. Give the tax man a tip w nice fraud settlement. Halloween ‘s tomorrow no fear of tax or other boogeyman.

  82. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear.

  83. the 1) county clerk and the 2) clerk of the county assessor and 3) clerk of the county court are the BANKERS for their respective entities…

    they have the ability to negotiate notes and bonds into wall street etc.

    perhaps you submit a negotiable bonded promissory note [redemption longer than 9 mos] (with instructions) to one of them via a notary administrative presentment and go through the entire 4 step process…

    attach the instrument and its value to a UCC3 in favor of the clerk
    file a form 56 indicating the clerk is the trustee of the funds/trust created by the issuance and assignment

    they either do as told or dishonor…

    if not returned with alleged defects i 3 days or not honored, is theft of funds, money laundering, etc.

  84. Investors have been suing the banks for misrepresentation of these ‘trusts’ and are winning. Our AG sued several big banks as well for the lossess incurred by federal workers and won a sizeable amount for damages.

  85. All of this assumes that the defendant will be provided the opportunity to conduct discovery. Similar to the entire collateral corridor, what looks good on paper does not fly in reality.

    “Judge, i demand to see the 1066 Filing.”
    The Judge strikes a quick look of disgust at the pro se defendant, and quickly responds… “We are deciding the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment today”

    The pro se defendant meekly suggests ” I have a right to see how the Trust accounted for the alleged loss through my default on the loan”

    “Mr pro se defendant” snaps the Judge. “You told this Court that no Trust exists,and that your loan was not part of any assets conveyed to any non-existent Trust.” “How could a Trust take a loss on an asset it never owned?”

    “Ugh, your honor this is all stated on information and belief.”

    “Oh, Ok it has been noted for the Court that you THINK that the Trust was not created, but you want to see the Form 1066?” “To establish what.”

    I could go on and on, but you get the flow of things. What makes matters worse… you could easily replace the hypothetical pro se with a hypothetical licensed attorney, and the same hypothetical conversation would ensue.

    You can have the best case in the world, and if the wrong guy is out in front of the Judge, the results will ultimately not be in your favor.

  86. I have BOA as loan originator and Servicer. Freddie Mac as investor. And some Trust on the fraudclosure paperwork. It’s all a bunch of BS !!! And don’t forget about those 1099A !!!

  87. You have their backs up against the wall… 😄
    People gotta pay those taxes..
    ALL OF THEM .. So sayath my accountant friend .
    Investor and borrower alike.
    The Tax Man.. Come a knocked at your door.



  89. NEIL finally gets Trust Law!
    The questions in the contract beg to be enforce d …
    One way or the other. Can’t have it both ways.

Contribute to the discussion!