Holland and Knight Published General Information on Securitizations

While I was researching securitization of BOAT LOANS I came across the following apparently published by Holland and Knight. Several of their statements could prove helpful especially where one is confronting that law firm as an adversary. I copied some of the more relevant statements.

I also stumbled across this PowerPoint presentation from the American Securitization Forum in 2009 which is available on the Internet. Securitization101ASF2009

see http://mx.nthu.edu.tw/~chclin/Class/Securitization.htm


The major “players” in the securitization game, all of whom require legal representation to some degree, are as follows (this terminology is typical, but different terms are used; for example the “originator” is often referred to as the “issuer” or “seller”):

Originator – the entity that either generates Receivables in the ordinary course of its business, or purchases and assembles portfolios of Receivables (in that sense, not a true “originator”). Its counsel works closely with counsel to the Underwriter/Placement Agent and the Rating Agencies in structuring the transaction and preparing documents and usually gives the most significant opinions. It also retains and coordinates local counsel in the event that it is not admitted in the jurisdiction where the Originator’s principal office is located, and in situations where significant Receivables are generated and the security interests that secure the Receivables are governed by local law rather than the law of the state where the Originator is located.

Issuer – the special purpose entity, usually an owner trust (but can be another form of trust or a corporation, partnership or fund), created pursuant to a Trust Agreement between the Originator (or in a two step structure, the Intermediate SPE) and the Trustee, that issues the Securities and avoids taxation at the entity level. This can create a problem in foreign Securitizations in civil law countries where the trust concept does not exist (see discussion below under “Foreign Securitizations”).

Trustees – usually a bank or other entity authorized to act in such capacity. The Trustee, appointed pursuant to a Trust Agreement, holds the Receivables, receives payments on the Receivables and makes payments to the Securityholders. In many structures there are two Trustees. For example, in an Owner Trust structure, which is most common, the Notes, which are pure debt instruments, are issued pursuant to an Indenture between the Trust and an Indenture Trustee, and the Certificates, representing undivided interests in the Trust (although structured and treated as debt obligations), are issued by the Owner Trustee. The Issuer (the Trust) owns the Receivables and grants a security interest in the Receivables to the Indenture Trustee. Counsel to the Trustee provides the usual opinions on the Trust as an entity, the capacity of the Trustee, etc.

Investors – the ultimate purchasers of the Securities. Usually banks, insurance companies, retirement funds and other “qualified investors.” In some cases, the Securities are purchased directly from the Issuer, but more commonly the Securities are issued to the Originator or Intermediate SPE as payment for the Receivables and then sold to the Investors, or in the case of an underwriting, to the Underwriters.

Underwriters/Placement Agents – the brokers, investment banks or banks that sell or place the Securities in a public offering or private placement. The Underwriters/Placement Agents usually play the principal role in structuring the transaction, frequently seeking out Originators for Securitizations, and their counsel (or counsel for the lead Underwriter/Placement Agent) is usually, but not always, the primary document preparer, generating the offering documents (private placement memorandum or offering circular in a private placement; registration statement and prospectus in a public offering), purchase agreements, trust agreement, custodial agreement, etc. Such counsel also frequently opines on securities and tax matters.

Custodian – an entity, usually a bank, that actually holds the Receivables as agent and bailee for the Trustee or Trustees.

Rating Agencies – Moody’s, S&P, Fitch IBCA and Duff & Phelps. In Securitizations, the Rating Agencies frequently are active players that enter the game early and assist in structuring the transaction. In many instances they require structural changes, dictate some of the required opinions and mandate changes in servicing procedures.

Servicer – the entity that actually deals with the Receivables on a day to day basis, collecting the Receivables and transferring funds to accounts controlled by the Trustees. In most transactions the Originator acts as Servicer.

Backup Servicer – the entity (usually in the business of acting in such capacity, as well as a primary Servicer when the Originator does not fill that function) that takes over the event that something happens to the Servicer. Depending upon the quality of the Originator/Servicer, the need and significance of the Backup Servicer may be important. In some cases the Trustee retains the Backup Servicer to perform certain monitoring functions on a continuing basis.


Credit enhancements are required in every Securitization. The nature and amount depends on the risks of the Securitization as determined by the Rating Agencies, Underwriters/Placement Agents and Investors. They are intended to reduce the risks to the Investors and thereby increase the rating of the Securities and lower the costs to the Originator. Typical forms of credit enhancement are:

1. Over-collateralization – transferring to the Issuer, Receivables in amounts greater than required to pay the Securities if the proceeds of the Receivables were received as anticipated). The amount of over-collateralization (usually 5% to 10%) is determined by the Rating Agencies and the Underwriters/Placement Agents, and this in turn will depend upon the quality of the Receivables, other credit enhancement that may be available, the risk of the structure (such as the possible bankruptcy of the Originator/Servicer), the nature and condition of the industry in which the Receivables are generated, general economic conditions and, in the case of foreign-based Securitizations, the “Sovereign risk” (see discussion below under “Foreign Securitizations”). If all goes well, it is repurchased at the end of the transaction (see “Anatomy of a Securitization”)or returned as part of the residual interest. This form of credit enhancement is required in virtually all Securitizations.

2. Senior/subordinated structure – issuance of subordinated or secondary classes of Securities, which are lower-rated (and bear higher interest rates) and sold to other Investors or held by the Originator. In the event of problems, the higher rated (senior) Securities receive payments prior to the lower rated (subordinated) Securities. It is not uncommon for there to be a number of classes of Securities that are each subordinated to the more highly rated, resulting in a complex “waterfall” of payments of principal and interest. In the common structure described above, senior and subordinated classes of Notes would be paid, in order of priority, prior to classes of Certificates, and Certificates prior to any residual interest in the Issuer. This form of credit enhancement has become routine, but cannot be used in a grantor trust structure, which is why the owner trust has become most common.

3. Early amortization – if certain negative events occur, all payments from Receivables are applied to the more senior securities until paid. Very common.

4. Cash collateral account – the Originator deposits funds in account with Trustee to be used if proceeds from Receivables are not sufficient. Adjustable depending upon events. May be in the form of a demand “loan” by the Originator to the account. (e.s.)

5. Reserve fund – subordinated Securities retained by the Originator or Trustee and pledged for the benefit of the Trust (and, therefore, the Investors).

6. Security bond – guarantee (or wrap) of all payments due on the Securities. Issued by AAA-rated monoline insurance companies (if available).

7. Liquidity provider – in effect, a guarantee by the Originator (or its parent) or another entity of all or a portion of payments due on the Securities. (e.s.)

8. Letter of credit (for portion of amounts due on Securities) – not used much anymore because of costs. These were common in the late 1980’s when issued by Japanese banks at low rates.


Legal opinions are very important documents in every Securitization and result in considerable negotiations among counsel for the Originator, Underwriter/Placement Agent and Rating Agencies. The opinions given by the Originator’s counsel are the most extensive, frequently running 50 or more pages because of the need for reasoned opinions, as courts have not ruled upon many of the underpinnings of the Securitization structure. In addition to the usual opinions regarding due organization, good standing, corporate power, litigation, etc, others deal with the validity and priority of security interests, true sale vs. secured loan, substantive consolidation in bankruptcy, fraudulent transfer, tax consequences and compliance with securities laws and ERISA. Opinions are also given by counsel for the Trustees and frequently by counsel to the Underwriter/Placement Agent in regard to tax and securities matters. As indicated above, local counsel opinions may be required as well.

For reasons of structuring and such opinions, in addition to attorneys who are experienced in Securitizations, expertise is required in the areas of securities law, tax law, bankruptcy and the UCC. Expertise is also required in many instances in the substantive laws relating the business of the Originator and the nature of the Receivables.

103 Responses

  1. Kalifornia, on November 18, 2015 at 9:23 pm said:

    New Link for Wolf v. WELLS FARGO. Other than the Third Amended Petition, the balance should be in the general chronological and procedural order.


  2. A gentle reminder – please make an appointment for yourself to join us for Episode [9] of “Garfield’s Goose & Friends” on TalkShoe with your host, greg; on Thursday evening at 6:45 PM Eastern.

    This is right after Atty Neil Garfield’s weekly Thursday Night LIVING LIES – FORECLOSURE DEFENSE & ATTACK call which starts at 6:00 PM Eastern, and goes till 6:30 Eastern.

    Our call is a 1+ Hour follow-up Q&A call which allows you to ask and answer questions stimulated by Neil’s show; or your own Foreclosure Defense experience…

    i think we’ll start with the Paatalo case…

    Details follow:

    1) Neil’s Living Lies Call at 6:00PM Eastern (347) 850-1260… on Blogtalk Radio

    2) Our interactive Q&A call, “Garfield’s Goose & Friends” on TalkShoe – begins every Thursday night at 6:45PM Eastern, 15 minutes after the conclusion of Neil’s show

    Call in at (724) 444-7444 (then use Call ID: 139335) then “1#” for guest
    and/or use your computer to blog/type at http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/139335
    6:45 PM Eastern Thursdays (for 60 min)

    [Our Calls and Chat Board are recorded for review and sharing…]

    Please use the phone line TO SPEAK; ASK QUESTIONS AND CONTRIBUTE…
    Note that computer access will ONLY allow you to hear and type into the blog (Not Speak)…

    all are welcome!

    if you; or one of your friends; would like to be added and receive email reminders of the call…
    please email the host at: [lawman@gmx.us]
    with the subject line: “please add me to the goose!”

    If you would like to be REMOVED from the group…
    please email the host at: [lawman@gmx.us]
    with the subject line: “please pluck my goose”

    thank you.

  3. Who else other than the SECRET SOCIETIES would use THANKSGIVING to FORCE DRUG the U.S. population with DRUGGED TURKEYS?

  4. Correct typo: donkeys in _pig_rodeos.

  5. To be more succinct, they’re covering up GAMBLING DEBTS of their WALL STREET CREDIT EXCHANGE BROKERS who manipulate the RATES OF EXCHANGE on FRAUDULENT CREDIT REPURCHASES like donkeys in pog rodeos.

  6. Kalifornia. … That’s good to know… the bitter stuff is medicinal and will eventually provide longterm relief…. gastronomicaly and politically.

    I have a week coming when I’ll spend Thanksgiving wirh ardently liberal inlaws.

    I look forward to the look of surprise on their faces when I applaud both Sanders and the Democrat from Maryland….. *NOT* Hillary and spouse for repealing Glass-Stegall

    What do you suggest I ingest to settle my stomach other than stress-inducing silence? 🙂

  7. DD the pig/goat scenario fits too well. My property was under attack from lender and city as incompetent u might say and me as having no credibility. I know homeowner where city, other agencies have used incompetent tactic. This is way beyond “securitization”, legal argument etc. In strange way going through this I went from agnostic back to faith.

  8. 22. Defendant made the Transfer with the intent to defraud KC.

    21. Defendant knew at the time of making the transfer that the purported mortgage was not enforceable , but did not disclose this fact to the Grantor and Plaintiff.

    19. The CWHLINC wire amount was moved off balance sheet, meaning it was lifted off the title to the estate.

    18. Countrywide Home loans Inc provided Plaintiff with a conventional sold as an enforceable contract and agreement. The fact the deed of trust security was sold for its payoff demand , as a forward looking agreement , the note became lost to the annuitants investment scheme having accelerated to a call provision expected to surface as a Due On Date as early as the 5th year of the mortgage life of the loan.

    16. This in essence provided BofA with KCs mortgage receivable a n d also. COWHOME LOAN INC receivable for the amount held in an uninsured domestic and combination of domestic and off shore depositors accounts .

    15. KC did not learn until 2012 that from …./…/..through…../…/…that KCs mortgage to have benifitted from a wire for matching funds that were equal to the outstanding balance set forth on the Final HUD 1 settlement statement.

    More Later.

  9. @ dandiener1


    “it will not be so bitter” is stated in the experience of ingesting wheatgrass, or an herbal concoction: It is bitter to the taste, but has a positive affect.

    Having said that, socialists, communists, and fascists are wholly and unpalatably bitter as the polar opposites of our constitutional republic.


  11. One last comment on this NG thread..

    Today, I was reading my 3 sources for daily inspiration:

    1 My NLT “Red Letter Version” of the Bible
    2 NG’s Blog
    3 The Comics section of the AJC

    Source #3 had adjacent strips, “Pearls Before Swine” and “Peanuts.”

    Pig: Why would someone try to get someone else declared incompetent?
    Goat: Well, sometimes it’s to get that person’s money and get them put in a mental institution.”

    Charlie Brown asks the pseudo-psychologist, Lucy, escounsed under her “Psychiatric Help – 5 Cents” shingle, if she would offer help to a dog (Snoopy. )

    Lucy: “Of course, I’m very broadminded….I’ll treat any patient who has a problem and a nickel.”

    Flash of inspiration: Is there a way we can declare certain attorneys incompetent who charge all comers “with a legal proplem” arbitrary fees for service, then (most times) start “practicing law on their ‘client’s nickel’ and either “guide the client into bankruptcy
    and/or premeditated foreclosure” or in the alternative, begin “learning foreclosure defense” on the fly while faithfully billing the unsuspecting homeowners?

    The state bar *should do this*, but is there someway a trusting legal client of such charlatans can recoup the very real losses that occur when this happens?

    Comittment to a legal institution or execution by beheading is probably “overkill” (pun barely intended) but there should be some viable monetary and professional reprimand for “legal professionals” of Lucy’s ilk.

    BTW, Kalifornia. .. Spoken like a true advocate of atheist Ayn Rand!

    Sign me a former agnostic, a paying member of the Nathaniel Brandon Institute, and an advocate of the Markham poem “Man With a Hoe” (My college speech class and professor liberally heaped praise upon me as I shouted “I am the master of my fate; *I am the captain of my soul!”

    I learned differently later, as most rebels eventually do.

  12. @ dandiener1

    …swallow that bitter pill like a man, as I have been for decades.

    Once you get use to it, it will not be so bitter, but unacceptable nonetheless.

  13. @ Shadowcat

    Although I perceive your paragraph 17 as instructive and relevant, others may view it as cryptic.

    Because your post is very important for readers to comprehend, please explain the foundation.

  14. 17. Defendants are held to a savvy set of improprieties and unethical procedures that included creating two wires from one loan as well as the Estate using the Stripped Title as a transfer and sale into trust and by substituting out the original agreements and note with purchaser seller installment sale contract.

    Turkeys didn’t disclose these facts to Grantor/Plaintiff.

  15. @ dandiener1 & all

    Sorry to disappoint, but no one serves me, at all.

    In fact, I am but a lowly public servant to whomever I may be blessed to provide service for.

  16. It’s bitter to read my words and know that socialists, communists, and fascists agree with me.

  17. Kalifornia. … Let’s observe that David decapitated Goliath with Goliath’s own sword…. and that that massive sword was regarded as a relic of a deposed giant for centuries afterward.

    May a similar weapon of the TBTF Banks be “remembered” in a similar way…

    Maybe by reinstating the Glass-Stegall Act which served admirably against TBTF Banks for almost 70 years.


  18. The PPM securities holders who are the registrations security issuer were allowed to construct a New York indenture holding fractional shares of the Estate transferred and conveyed irrevocably into trust.

    Therefore Plaintiff alleges facts establishing a basis for a claim for facts constituting ground for rescission of the underlying transaction making instrument avoidable and for exemplary damages, whereas the defandents claims are for a transferred asset the Plaintiffs loan sold on or about…../…./…. for value.



  19. I’m not a cryptographer…. intelligence analysts get paid for that, I don’t – never dId – I just relied upon them…. the analysts, that is.

    Please do not dwell on my “cryptic” remark(s). We’re both 4-6 postings beyond that… I’ve been trying to pay tribute to your obvious research skills… and others’ skills.

    I was only asking you to expand on your observations, rather than being drawn into the personal disagreements of others who (may not) be blog participants. I truly value your contributions *and* those of others.

    For twenty years, I’ve recognized the shortcomings of trying to reason with others using emails, texts, or blogs…. but still I persevere in my efforts. Lengthy posts, illustrations, poor attempts at humor, off-topic examples high-lighting similar behaviors, and my sometimes bungled attempts to gently rebuke, reprove, and encourage reconciliation, are my efforts to continue focused communication separated from personal invective, are my only continuing efforts towards this end.

    We all have recognizable strengths we can bring to this table…. Yours are considerable.

    If I’ve offended you, please accept my abject apology. I assure you I’ve had no intent to do so. Let’s please put all misunderstandings behind us and both do what we can to carefully and gently persuade and encourage others as we all (plural for y’all) wage this mutual confrontation with the “giants in our midst,” the TBTF Banks who are the arrogant Goliath(s) all of us are individually confronting.

    Your Servant and Friend,
    Dan Scarborough
    678 234-9107

  20. FYI:

    The fact that the Kalifornia AG’s office had to file a petition for writ of mandate in order to gain access aunt Fannie’s PPM is instructive.

    According to the Register of Actions, there were no further pleadings, oppositions, objections, etc., whatsoever.

    According to Kalifornia’s statutes, that case is still alive, for at least 5-years since its filing and service of process (which never occurred), which the public record affirms.

    Hmmmm… a CPRA request appears to be in order….

  21. @ dandiener1

    I confess that the post(s) I make may be construed as a bit cryptic. However, none will cause harm to anyone, other than the intentional physical separation at the neck of a Goliath, e.g., guillotine.

    [the extent of my French]

  22. Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
    Case Number: CPF 11 511771
    Cause of Action: OTHER CIVIL PETITIONS


  23. Slinging stones at Goliaths:

    Hello… is anyone there…? How can I help you…?

    People of Kalifornia v. aunt FANNIE

    3. FANNIE MAE is a private corporation chartered by· Congress. Like other corporations, it has shareholders, a board of directors, and a CEO. Its stock is publicly traded. FANNIE MAE and its counterpart, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FREDDIE MAC), collectively own over 60% of the mortgages in California.

    13. Respondent FANNIE MAE is an investor-owned corporation th~t does business in California. It is deemed for purposes of jurisdiction to be a District of Columbia corporation. It has shareholders, directors and a CEO. Its stock is publicly traded. FANNIE MAE’s charter expressly provides that it can be sued in state court. On September 6, 2008, FANNIE MAE’s regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Authority, placed FANNIE MAE into a temporary conservatorship. However, FANNIE MAE remains a private corporation and continues as an ongoing business as it did before the conservatorship.

    30. The conservator also claims that its own governing legislation bars the Attorney General from investigating it. But the INVESTIGATIVE INTERROGATORIES are not addressed to the conservator. They are addressed to FANNIE MAE and only seek information from FANNIE MAE. FANNIE MAE is not a governmental agency and did not become one by virtue of being placed in a temporary conservatorship. It is a private corporation and its records
    remain private corporate records.

    Did any prospectus, prospectus supplement, OR private placement memorandum concerning any SECURITY issued, sponsored, sold, marketed, OR underwritten by YOU that was purchased by a CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT AGENCY contain any false, untrue,
    inaccurate OR erroneous statements OR representations? If so, IDENTIFY the SECURITY at issue, list each such statement OR representation, AND describe how it was false, untrue, inaccurate OR erroneous,

    Did any prospectus, prospectus supplement, OR private placement memorandum concerning any SECURITY issued, ‘sponsored, sold, marketed, OR underwritten by YOU that was purchased by a CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT AGENCY omit any facts that would have been necessary to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances in which they were made, not misleading? If so, IDENTIFY the SECURITY at issue, AND list each such omitted fact.

    Did any prospectus, prospectus supplement, OR private placement memorandum concerning any SECURITY issued, sponsored, sold, marketed, OR underwritten by YOU contain any false, untrue, inaccurate OR erroneous statements OR representations? If so, IDENTIFY the SECURITY AND list each such omitted fact.

    Did any prospectus, prospectus supplement, OR private placement memorandum concerning any SECURITY issued, sponsored, sold, marketed, OR underwritten by YOU omit any facts that would have been necessary to make the statements made therein, in light of the
    circumstances in which they were made, not misleading? If so, IDENTIFY the SECURITY AND list each such omitted fact.


  24. UGH! Everyone be careful out there:

    GSE/Private-Placement securitization transactions are not required to publicly report loan-level data to the SEC. However, we utilize a proprietary banking platform to identify what Private Placement Memorandum (PPM) Investment Vehicle a client’s loan has been sold to via securitization.



  26. Kalifornia…

    Now you are speaking my language!

    Isaiah 14: 3-27


    David and Goliath (1st Samuel 17)

    I enjoy these Biblical references far more than legal reference annotation. 🙂

    … The scene, not a courtroom, but the Valley of Elah, lined on both sides with mighty warriors… Israel v. Philistines. A long, protracted war… both sides weary of battle at a “stalemate “.

    Goliath, of the Philistines, a 9’9” warrior issues a challenge to Israel, a way to end the conflict. ..Each side will choose a “champion” to fight each other to the death – the winner of this “war of surrogates” will determine the future of these nation-foes. (Of course he volunteers himself as “champion of the Philistines.”)

    Goliath comes forth to the field of battle, a riverbed, for 40 days seeking a “volunteer” to step forward from Israel’s demoralized ranks. Suddenly a mere shepherd boy appears, without armor, nearly naked, carrying nothing but a sling to hurl stones, a shepherd’s staff, and wearing a bag with 3-5 rocks.

    (David knew Goliath had some other brothers who were also giants….. Sound a bit like those TBTF Banks? )

    BUT this “naive” teenager had “sass”! I like the KJV version of David’s assessment of the “giant” before him…. Goliath was large, but a man… He was *not* a god (as some might adjudge the TBTF Banks.)

    (Read the Biblical passage yourself..verses 43-47 – Below. These words will encourage you if and when you and/or your attorney go before a lowly judge.)

    The results of this confrontation of “weakness against fearsome strength” are well known “to those who have an ear to hear ” and may also be “replicated again” in some “legal valley” or “field of juristic war” in Oregon. …”in the valley of the Chattahoochee in Georgia,”or elsewhere in America.

    Kalifornia, you’re right… we need to find out what was necessary and effective for “Wolf” to get past preliminary hearings and how we can get positioned before a judge AND a jury of our peers.

    Greg… we need to find a few effective “legal stones” to place in our “bag of tools” chosen for our attorneys’ presentation to the Jury…. A post-6 year, post-Jesinoski, TILA observation from an Oregon judge (or at least Paatola’s arguments) should do nicely… As would a recent, personal “TILA Rescission Letter(s) Affidavit” from the records of our local land office.

    Kalifornia. …thanks for the multiple documents from Wolf… but a select few, accompanied by your cogent analysis of their underlying strategy would be even better.

    A clear discussion of the differences between pre-Jesinoski “common law rescission” vs. an understanding of Scalia’s SCOTUS 2015 ruling con-joined with the Oregon US District Court’s judge’s decision in Paatola would seem to be most helpful when making our cases before jurys.

    Again, Kalifornia, your focus on the $$$ and the arguments supporting this issue *must* be clearly made!

    Only when the TBTF Banks are facing the prospects of tens of thousands of homeowners winning lawsuits mandating multimillion dollar judgements, will the drip-drip-drip of “affordable and profitable settlements” be abandoned. Class action and mass joiner suits must be eschewed by homeowners and their attorneys.

    What would be most helpful would be a “path to funding” competent foreclosure defense attorneys’ fees on behalf of the millions of homeowners who cannot afford the attorneys who they drastically need…. And, no…. Tax-payer-funded Legal Services Corporations and/or the CFPB are not the answer to this issue. The “answer” should be one employing market-driven incentives benefitting homeowners and small, specialized law offices in every local community in America.

    The TBTF Banks “deserve” nothing less.. and they can afford it. 🙂


    “43 And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods.

    44 And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field.

    45 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.

    46 This day will the Lord deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.

    47 And all this assembly shall know that the Lord saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the Lord’s….”

  27. Hmmm…

    Financial Asset Securitization Investment Trust (FASIT): A REMIC-like tax structure intended to permit the securitization of a wide variety of asset classes, including mortgages. This new vehicle expands and improves upon the existing REMIC rules. With respect to CMBS, it permits the replacement of pre-paid loans after initial sale of the security, permits the inclusion of hedging investments and permits the pooling of mixed asset types. The legislation was passed in 1996 as part of the “Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996” (HR 3448).

  28. A GSE definition:

    Fannie Mae, (Federal National Mortgage Association – FNMA): A government sponsored enterprise (GSE) or a “corporate instrumentality” of the government. Fannie Mae is a quasi-private corporation, with stock that trades. It does not receive a government subsidy or appropriation and is taxed like any other corporation.
    Fannie Mae purchases and pools conventional mortgages, i.e., those not insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Veteran’s Administration (VA), or the Farmer’s Home Administration (FmHA), but also buys mortgages from FHA, and then issues securities using the pool of mortgages as collateral. Fannie Mae was the first agency to pool mortgages backed by adjustable-rate mortgages and created the first pass-through collateralized by multifamily mortgages through a swap program. Holders of Fannie Mae certificates are guaranteed full and timely payment of
    principal and interest.

  29. WARNING: This [part 2] post is relevant, but ABSTRACT!!!!

    By Helen Parry, Thomson Reuters Accelus regulatory intelligence expert. The views expressed are her own.

    LONDON, May 16 (Thomson Reuters Accelus) –

    “The first private placement memorandum disclosed the possibility that new investors may help pay distributions to old investors but this was not a risk; it was a certainty.” (US Securities and Exchange Commission v Bravata 2011 WL 339458.)

    “This disclosure indicates that GSI may invest in securities that are ‘adverse to’ the Hudson investments … Goldman had already determined to keep 100 per cent of the short side of the Hudson CDO.” U.S. Senate Investigations Subcommittee Levin-Coburn Report on the Financial Crisis.

    The fact that investors in the Billionaire Boys Club property investment Ponzi scheme, the subject of the Bravata case quoted above, blithely handed over their hard-earned cash, despite the fact that the private placement memorandum disclosed that it may be just that, is a striking example of the dangers that may befall unwary investors who fail to check the small print.

    Nevertheless, although disclosing the fact that one might be operating a Ponzi scheme or a conflicted interest may not suffice to protect one from potential liability for misrepresentation or fraud if one has already determined to engage in such a course of action, disclosing such matters when one is yet to make such a determination and the statement is, therefore, true, may do the trick, at least in the case of the collateralized debt obligation (CDO).



  30. WARNING: This [part 1] post is relevant, but ABSTRACT!!!!

    On the issue of Private Placement Memorandum (“PPM”):

    A PPM applies to the GSE’s: aunt FANNIE MAE (“FANNIE”) & uncle FREDDIE MAC (“FRED”), i.e., UNCLE SAM

    “Private Placement Memorandum” means a private placement memorandum of a GSE relating to the GSE Securities.


    Section 3. Delivery of Closing Documents; Duties of the Parties.

    (c) On or prior to noon, New York time, on December 18, 2009, Treasury (or Treasury’s Financial Agent on Treasury’s behalf) shall do all things necessary to register the GSE Securities with DTC and make the GSE Securities DTC FAST-eligible, including without limitation: (i) paying all required fees and (ii) delivering the Private Placement Memorandum and entering all other required information into the DTC system, including without limitation, delivering the DTC Eligibility Questionnaire, or any other data requested by DTC in the form of a questionnaire or any other form.

  31. So now the OBAMA WITCH COVEN figures they got the upper hand on the U.S. CITIZENRY because CRIME PAYS ON WALL STREET SO NO WE CAN’T.

    They can’t recant COUNTERFEITS they issued FRAUDULENTLY, so they pretend they’re RECKLESS, & broast their opponents in the MERILL LYNCH BULL.

  32. I never knew WALL STREET is one vast butcher shop & deli of butchers of humanity.


    His FISA JUDGE compadres have sewn up their COVER UP by CRIMINALIZING the innocent for WALL STREETS CRIMINAL DEBAUCHERY.

    They’re enjoying their own personal LET THEM EAT CAKE VENDETTA in the RECORDER OF DEEDS OFFICES NATIONWIDE everyday since 2008.

  33. BY THE WAY:

    In my humble opinion, because, as the adage says, “there is more than one way to skin a cat” (not literally), the entire focus should be pivoted to the jury verdict of $,$$$,$$$5.3 million in the Wolf v. WELLS case in Texas; not on the Oregon ruling denying Goliath’s motion to dismiss.

    Questions to be studied:

    (1) How was the build up of David’s case accomplished?

    (2) What did Goliath strike at David with?

    (3) David defeated Goliath with the support of whom and in what way?

    (4) Why was the jury persuaded to tip the scales of justice on David’s behalf so strongly as to award $5.3 MILLION?

    The answers are cryptically contained in the previous link:


    Put down the “smart phone” and put on the thinking cap.

    Go to the Harris County Court Website (attribution) and review the register of action/docket (hint: images).

    An answer/roadmap is there for all the world to study.

    Just sayin’…

  34. Respectfully, as usual, in this instance greg astutely points to the second layer of meritorious pursuit for a proverbial David once a federal court, or any lower court, is disabused by Jesinoski.

    @ greg:

    I admit I am either too dumb to learn and know font size changes here, or else I am too immersed in research, and in answering in length factual questions asked.

    Please shoot me now, greg, for being so dumb.

  35. let’s not be so juvenile in our newly perceived position of power that we want to “run down the hill and ‘fork’ ONE of the cows”… rather let us take a deep breath and be like the ‘old bull’ and “walk down the hill and fork them all…”

  36. how do i make this 48 point type?

    “Although it has been six years since the trustee’s sale, plaintiff promptly filed suit after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Jesinoski. Had he made the arguments he now makes at the time of the trustee’s sale, they would have been foreclosed by Ninth Circuit precedent.” (p. 17.)

  37. SC- where are we to find PPM? In the PSA?

  38. @ dandiener1

    We can agree that the facts are not mine, that I’ve had no relations or participations with either of the individuals, and that the federal ruling out of Oregon should unnerve the “straw-lenders” and interlopers as to the force and effect of a simple notice of rescission under TILA as affirmed by the Jesinoski opinion.

    However, we can also agree that there seems to be nothing that has put the opposition either in check, or an equitable “self-enforcement” mode, for a variety of reasons, the first being greed. And we can agree that another critical factor, among the many, is the fortitude and perseverance necessary to stand in the proverbial shoes of David in the fight to defeat Goliath opposition.

    On the speculative issue of a prospective appeal of the Oregon ruling on the issue of notice and effect of a TILA rescission, Jesinoski stands tall and will be a dead end for the opposition.

    Whether the trustee’s sale of the property can/will be unwound on the ground of a wrongful foreclosure because the NOTE and Deed of Trust were rescinded under TILA (voided), and whether there will be an objection to a claim for damages based upon a statute of limitations interpretation is still to be determined, to wit:

    “Although it has been six years since the trustee’s sale, plaintiff promptly filed suit after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Jesinoski. Had he made the arguments he now makes at the time of the trustee’s sale, they would have been foreclosed by Ninth Circuit precedent.” (p. 17.)

    Those two sentences in the Oregon ruling explode my mind, as it likely does for the likes of every other reader here, particularly for DwightNJ and maybe david belanger, who have recently received notice of some sort along the lines of the opposition wanting to withdraw a favorable ruling or action against each of them.

    The question in the minds of everyone, including the courts is: What is the process/procedure, and how does one unwind the wrong and injury following Jesinoski, assuming delivery of a notice of rescission? As the Oregon ruling illustrates, even the courts are faced with the administrative/judicial nightmare and implications:

    “Jesinoski revealed the majority of federal courts had “misinterpreted the will of the enacting Congress,” Rivers, 511 U.S. at 313 n.12, in allocating to borrowers the burden to go to court to enforce their statutory rescission rights under TILA. Further factual development is
    necessary to determine what effect that revelation should have on
    the property rights of subsequent buyers of the property. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied with leave for defendant to renew its arguments about the effect of the trustee’s sale.”

    Where does this leave the putative TILA rescinder? Damages? Set off(s)? Tender? No doubt, further litigation.

    What is the cross-over relevance in my mind: According to the Oregon ruling, it appears BPaatato is another proverbial David who’s fortitude and perseverance to finish the fight is now nationally acknowledged: win, lose, or draw. Further, according to his website, he’s also got the Montana courts bound up and paused on the issue of foreign business trusts (REMICs) failing to register in the state as a valid business entity in order to hold a legal interest in property.

    We can agree to disagree about everything else.

  39. Also to blaming homeowners and the bias part which is a pretty big part of all this, including by lawyers and government.

  40. Only partly, Greg. If everyone made their claim judges aren’t waiting for all of us with open arms.

  41. hammer
    you just said what i said in your own words

  42. Greg, I’d say people and courts were brain washed to blame homeowners and that banks are above the law. As someone posted somewhere else as to recent case where there were duplicate notes that homeowners have shown this fraud over and over again but have been ignored just as TILA was ignored. Judges aren’t waiting some are brainwashed, some are corrupt and some are telling us where we’ve gone wrong when the LAWYERS have ignored our claims.

  43. people and courts have been brainwashed into thinking that banks have some sort of magical power to assert their interpretation of law as being irrefutable and without remedy for the people when nothing could be further from “that which is true”…

    it is only the intimidation affect (by being large and having the entire law profession boondoggled) which causes men and women to collapse under fear of this paper tiger…

    stand up in the proper jurisdiction and MAKE A CLAIM and the banks have no salvation… judges have been hinting for years and are waiting for you to “hit the nail on the head” to remove their handcuffs and allow them to return to constitutional law to defend the people…


    Shadowcat, on November 15, 2015 at 4:08 pm said:

    Private Placement was to avoid SEC regulations.
    If your mortgage was not registered with the SEC. ….
    You will defiantly want the PPM!
    “Private Placement Memorandum”

  45. Kalifornia…

    You’ve clarified the intent of your remark.

    Thank you… if necessary, I can deal with that.

    What I want to know, in your mind, does the court’s decision stand separately from your facts (on it’s own merit), or do these additional details re NG and Paatola enter into the validity of the District Court’s decision?

  46. Private Placement was to avoid SEC regulations.
    If your mortgage was not registered with the SEC. ….
    You will defiantly want the PPM!
    “Private Placement Memorandum”

  47. The SECURITIES don’t exist & of course they don’t, because their DRUG RACKET couldn’t RACKETEER criminal things in secret if they registered their fake ID’s in their own names.

    To say there’s NOTES & MORTGAGES but no SECURITY is RACKETEERING with criminal things they won’t reveal.

    If they did reveal those SECRET PLEDGES, who made them & why their GLOBAL CRIME SYNDICATE would be hung.

  48. @ dandiener1

    That post was merely factual, and admittedly vague:

    (1) Apart from defeating JPMCB’s MTD with a TILA recission pleading, Mr. BPaatalo offers information and support services to other victims of “straw-lenders.”

    (2) Apparently, Mr. BPaatalo and Mr. NGarfield were engaged in some sort of related transaction(s) in the past that required judicial enforcement for services rendered. A public record of the judgment exists.

    That is all.

    Stating facts is not sniping at anyone, but you’re entitled to your opinion. I respect that.

  49. so the question becomes , if all mortgages are not securities, and could not be used as a security ,

    then it would be impossible for a secrutized mortgage trust, to foreclose on anyone . as it would be security fraud to have any mortgage part of any wall street game.

    as 99 percent of mortgage and notes are 30 plus yr contracts.

  50. nice post david

  51. Why a Mortgage Note is Not a Security

    You might believe that a mortgage note or a deed of trust is a security, but here is your proof to the contrary:

    The EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff v. TOUCHE ROSS & CO, 544 F.2d 1126 (1976)

    The 1934 Act says that the term “security” includes “any note . . . [excepting one] which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months,” and the 1933 Act says that the term means “any note” save for the registration exemption in § 3(a)(3). These are the plain terms of both acts, to be applied “unless the context otherwise requires.” A party asserting that a note of more than nine months maturity is not within the 1934 Act (or that a note with a maturity of nine months or less is within it) or that any note is not within the antifraud provisions of the 1933 Act[18] has the 1138*1138 burden of showing that “the context otherwise requires.” (Emphasis supplied.) One can readily think of many cases where it does—the note delivered in consumer financing, the note secured by a mortgage on a home, the short-term note secured by a lien on a small business or some of its assets, the note evidencing a “character” loan to a bank customer, short-term notes secured by an assignment of accounts receivable, or a note which simply formalizes an open-account debt incurred in the ordinary course of business (particularly if, as in the case of the customer of a broker, it is collateralized). When a note does not bear a strong family resemblance to these examples and has a maturity exceeding nine months, § 10(b) of the 1934 Act should generally be held to apply.[19]

    Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 US 56 – Supreme Court 1990

    “See Exchange Nat. Bank, supra, at 1138 (types of notes that are not “securities” include “the note delivered in consumer financing, the note secured by a mortgage on a home, the short-term note secured by a lien on a small business or some of its assets, the note evidencing a `character’ loan to a bank customer, short-term notes secured by an assignment of accounts receivable, or a note which simply formalizes an open-account debt incurred in the ordinary course of business (particularly if, as in the case of the customer of a broker, it is collateralized)”);Chemical Bank, supra, at 939 (adding to list “notes evidencing loans by commercial banks for current operations”).”

    For an explanation, read this first part of the Reves opinion. The law does not always mean what it says.


    494 U.S. 56 (1990)


    No. 88-1480.Supreme Court of United States.

    Argued November 27, 1989Decided February 21, 1990CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT58*58 John R. McCambridge argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs wereGary M. Elden, Jay R. Hoffman, and Robert R. Cloar.

    Michael R. Lazerwitz argued the cause for the Securities and Exchange Commission asamicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Starr, Deputy Solicitor General Merrill, Daniel L. Goelzer, Paul Gonson, Jacob H. Stillman, Martha H. McNeely, Randall W. Quinn, and Eva Marie Carney.

    John Matson argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Carl D. Liggio, Kathryn A. Oberly, and Fred Lovitch.[*]

    JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

    This case presents the question whether certain demand notes issued by the Farmers Cooperative of Arkansas and Oklahoma (Co-Op) are “securities” within the meaning of § 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. We conclude that they are.


    The Co-Op is an agricultural cooperative that, at the time relevant here, had approximately 23,000 members. In order to raise money to support its general business operations, the Co-Op sold promissory notes payable on demand by the holder. Although the notes were uncollateralized and uninsured, they paid a variable rate of interest that was adjusted 59*59 monthly to keep it higher than the rate paid by local financial institutions. The Co-Op offered the notes to both members and nonmembers, marketing the scheme as an “Investment Program.” Advertisements for the notes, which appeared in each Co-Op newsletter, read in part: “YOUR CO-OP has more than $11,000,000 in assets to stand behind your investments. The Investment is not Federal[sic] insured but it is. . . Safe . . . Secure . . . and available when you need it.” App. 5 (ellipses in original). Despite these assurances, the Co-Op filed for bankruptcy in 1984. At the time of the filing, over 1,600 people held notes worth a total of $10 million.

    After the Co-Op filed for bankruptcy, petitioners, a class of holders of the notes, filed suit against Arthur Young & Co., the firm that had audited the Co-Op’s financial statements (and the predecessor to respondent Ernst & Young). Petitioners alleged, inter alia, that Arthur Young had intentionally failed to follow generally accepted accounting principles in its audit, specifically with respect to the valuation of one of the Co-Op’s major assets, a gasohol plant. Petitioners claimed that Arthur Young violated these principles in an effort to inflate the assets and net worth of the Co-Op. Petitioners maintained that, had Arthur Young properly treated the plant in its audits, they would not have purchased demand notes because the Co-Op’s insolvency would have been apparent. On the basis of these allegations, petitioners claimed that Arthur Young had violated the antifraud provisions of the 1934 Act as well as Arkansas’ securities laws.

    Petitioners prevailed at trial on both their federal and state claims, receiving a $6.1 million judgment. Arthur Young appealed, claiming that the demand notes were not “securities” under either the 1934 Act or Arkansas law, and that the statutes’ antifraud provisions therefore did not apply. A panel of the Eighth Circuit, agreeing with Arthur Young on both the state and federal issues, reversed. Arthur Young & Co. v. Reves, 856 F. 2d 52 (1988). We granted certiorari to address 60*60 the federal issue, 490 U. S. 1105 (1989), and now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.



    This case requires us to decide whether the note issued by the Co-Op is a “security” within the meaning of the 1934 Act. Section 3(a)(10) of that Act is our starting point:

    “The term `security’ means any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit, for a security, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or in general, any instrument commonly known as a `security’; or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; but shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker’s acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is like-wise limited.” 48 Stat. 884, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78c(a)(10).

    The fundamental purpose undergirding the Securities Acts is “to eliminate serious abuses in a largely unregulated securities market.” United Housing Foundation, Inc. v.Forman, 421 U. S. 837, 849 (1975). In defining the scope of the market that it wished to regulate, Congress painted with a broad brush. It recognized the virtually limitless scope of 61*61 human ingenuity, especially in the creation of “countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits,”SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U. S. 293, 299 (1946), and determined that the best way to achieve its goal of protecting investors was “to define `the term “security” in sufficiently broad and general terms so as to include within that definition the many types of instruments that in our commercial world fall within the ordinary concept of a security.’ ” Forman, supra, at 847-848 (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 85, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1933)). Congress therefore did not attempt precisely to cabin the scope of the Securities Acts.[1] Rather, it enacted a definition of “security” sufficiently broad to encompass virtually any instrument that might be sold as an investment.

    Congress did not, however, “intend to provide a broad federal remedy for all fraud.”Marine Bank v. Weaver, 455 U. S. 551, 556 (1982). Accordingly, “[t]he task has fallen to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the body charged with administering the Securities Acts, and ultimately to the federal courts to decide which of the myriad financial transactions in our society come within the coverage of these statutes.”Forman, supra, at 848. In discharging our duty, we are not bound by legal formalisms, but instead take account of the economics of the transaction under investigation. See, e. g., Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U. S. 332, 336 (1967) (in interpreting the term “security,” “form should be disregarded for substance and the emphasis should be on economic reality”). Congress’ purpose in enacting the securities laws was to regulate investments,in whatever form they are made and by whatever name they are called.

    62*62 A commitment to an examination of the economic realities of a transaction does not necessarily entail a case-by-case analysis of every instrument, however. Some instruments are obviously within the class Congress intended to regulate because they are by their nature investments. In Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth, 471 U. S. 681 (1985), we held that an instrument bearing the name “stock” that, among other things, is negotiable, offers the possibility of capital appreciation, and carries the right to dividends contingent on the profits of a business enterprise is plainly within the class of instruments Congress intended the securities laws to cover. Landreth Timber does not signify a lack of concern with economic reality; rather, it signals a recognition that stock is, as a practical matter, always an investment if it has the economic characteristics traditionally associated with stock. Even if sparse exceptions to this generalization can be found, the public perception of common stock as the paradigm of a security suggests that stock, in whatever context it is sold, should be treated as within the ambit of the Acts. Id., at 687, 693.

    We made clear in Landreth Timber that stock was a special case, explicitly limiting our holding to that sort of instrument. Id., at 694. Although we refused finally to rule out a similar per se rule for notes, we intimated that such a rule would be unjustified. Unlike “stock,” we said, ” `note’ may now be viewed as a relatively broad term that encompasses instruments with widely varying characteristics, depending on whether issued in a consumer context, as commercial paper, or in some other investment context.” Ibid. (citing Securities Industry Assn. v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System, 468 U. S. 137, 149-153 (1984)). While common stock is the quintessence of a security, Landreth Timber, supra, at 693, and investors therefore justifiably assume that a sale of stock is covered by the Securities Acts, the same simply cannot be said of notes, which are used in a variety of settings, not all of which involve investments. Thus,63*63 the phrase “any note” should not be interpreted to mean literally “any note,” but must be understood against the backdrop of what Congress was attempting to accomplish in enacting the Securities Acts.[2]

    Because the Landreth Timber formula cannot sensibly be applied to notes, some other principle must be developed to define the term “note.” A majority of the Courts of Appeals that have considered the issue have adopted, in varying forms, “investment versus commercial” approaches that distinguish, on the basis of all of the circumstances surrounding the transactions, notes issued in an investment context (which are “securities”) from notes issued in a commercial or consumer context (which are not). See, e. g., Futura Development Corp. v. Centex Corp., 761 F. 2d 33, 40-41 (CA1 1985);McClure v. First Nat. Bank of Lubbock, Texas, 497 F. 2d 490, 492-494 (CA5 1974);Hunssinger v. Rockford Business Credits, Inc., 745 F. 2d 484, 488 (CA7 1984);Holloway v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 879 F. 2d 772, 778-779 (CA10 1989), cert. pending No. 89-532.

    The Second Circuit’s “family resemblance” approach begins with a presumption that anynote with a term of more than nine months is a “security.” See, e. g., Exchange Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Touche Ross & Co., 544 F. 2d 1126, 1137 (CA2 1976). Recognizing that not all notes are securities, however, the Second Circuit has also devised a list of notes that it has decided are obviously not securities. Accordingly, 64*64 the “family resemblance” test permits an issuer to rebut the presumption that a note is a security if it can show that the note in question “bear[s] a strong family resemblance” to an item on the judicially crafted list of exceptions, id., at 1137-1138, or convinces the court to add a new instrument to the list, see, e. g., Chemical Bank v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 726 F. 2d 930, 939 (CA2 1984).

    In contrast, the Eighth and District of Columbia Circuits apply the test we created in SECv. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U. S. 293 (1946), to determine whether an instrument is an “investment contract” to the determination whether an instrument is a “note.” Under this test, a note is a security only if it evidences “(1) an investment; (2) in a common enterprise; (3) with a reasonable expection of profits; (4) to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others.” 856 F. 2d, at 54 (case below). Accord,Baurer v. Planning Group, Inc., 215 U. S. App. D. C. 384, 391-393, 669 F. 2d 770, 777-779 (1981). See also Underhill v. Royal, 769 F. 2d 1426, 1431 (CA9 1985) (setting forth what it terms a “risk capital” approach that is virtually identical to the Howey test).

    We reject the approaches of those courts that have applied the Howey test to notes;Howey provides a mechanism for determining whether an instrument is an “investment contract.” The demand notes here may well not be “investment contracts,” but that does not mean they are not “notes.” To hold that a “note” is not a “security” unless it meets a test designed for an entirely different variety of instrument “would make the Acts’ enumeration of many types of instruments superfluous,” Landreth Timber, 471 U. S., at 692, and would be inconsistent with Congress’ intent to regulate the entire body of instruments sold as investments, see supra, at 60-62.

    The other two contenders — the “family resemblance” and “investment versus commercial” tests — are really two ways of formulating the same general approach. Because we 65*65 think the “family resemblance” test provides a more promising framework for analysis, however, we adopt it. The test begins with the language of the statute; because the Securities Acts define “security” to include “any note,” we begin with a presumption that every note is a security.[3] We nonetheless recognize that this presumption cannot be irrebutable. As we have said, supra, at 61, Congress was concerned with regulating the investment market, not with creating a general federal cause of action for fraud. In an attempt to give more content to that dividing line, the Second Circuit has identified a list of instruments commonly denominated “notes” that nonetheless fall without the “security” category. See Exchange Nat. Bank, supra, at 1138 (types of notes that are not “securities” include “the note delivered in consumer financing, the note secured by a mortgage on a home, the short-term note secured by a lien on a small business or some of its assets, the note evidencing a `character’ loan to a bank customer, short-term notes secured by an assignment of accounts receivable, or a note which simply formalizes an open-account debt incurred in the ordinary course of business (particularly if, as in the case of the customer of a broker, it is collateralized)”);Chemical Bank, supra, at 939 (adding to list “notes evidencing loans by commercial banks for current operations”).

    We agree that the items identified by the Second Circuit are not properly viewed as “securities.” More guidance, though, is needed. It is impossible to make any meaningful inquiry into whether an instrument bears a “resemblance” to 66*66 one of the instruments identified by the Second Circuit without specifying what it is about those instruments that makes them non-“securities.” Moreover, as the Second Circuit itself has noted, its list is “not graven in stone,” 726 F. 2d, at 939, and is therefore capable of expansion. Thus, some standards must be developed for determining when an item should be added to the list.

    An examination of the list itself makes clear what those standards should be. In creating its list, the Second Circuit was applying the same factors that this Court has held apply in deciding whether a transaction involves a “security.” First, we examine the transaction to assess the motivations that would prompt a reasonable seller and buyer to enter into it. If the seller’s purpose is to raise money for the general use of a business enterprise or to finance substantial investments and the buyer is interested primarily in the profit the note is expected to generate, the instrument is likely to be a “security.” If the note is exchanged to facilitate the purchase and sale of a minor asset or consumer good, to correct for the seller’s cash-flow difficulties, or to advance some other commercial or consumer purpose, on the other hand, the note is less sensibly described as a “security.” See, e. g., Forman, 421 U. S., at 851 (share of “stock” carrying a right to subsidized housing not a security because “the inducement to purchase was solely to acquire subsidized low-cost living space; it was not to invest for profit”). Second, we examine the “plan of distribution” of the instrument, SEC v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp.,320 U. S. 344, 353 (1943), to determine whether it is an instrument in which there is “common trading for speculation or investment,” id., at 351. Third, we examine the reasonable expectations of the investing public: The Court will consider instruments to be “securities” on the basis of such public expectations, even where an economic analysis of the circumstances of the particular transaction might suggest that the instruments are not “securities” as used in that transaction. Compare Landreth Timber,471 67*67 U. S., at 687, 693 (relying on public expectations in holding that common stock is always a security), with id., at 697-700 (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (arguing that sale of business to single informed purchaser through stock is not within the purview of the Acts under the economic reality test). See also Forman, supra, at 851. Finally, we examine whether some factor such as the existence of another regulatory scheme significantly reduces the risk of the instrument, thereby rendering application of the Securities Acts unnecessary. See, e. g., Marine Bank, 455 U. S., at 557-559, and n. 7.

    We conclude, then, that in determining whether an instrument denominated a “note” is a “security,” courts are to apply the version of the “family resemblance” test that we have articulated here: A note is presumed to be a “security,” and that presumption may be rebutted only by a showing that the note bears a strong resemblance (in terms of the four factors we have identified) to one of the enumerated categories of instrument. If an instrument is not sufficiently similar to an item on the list, the decision whether another category should be added is to be made by examining the same factors.


    Your post was very cryptic. … Even more the URL you posted. What’s your point other than sniping at NG? And what does it have to do with the November 12, 2015 Oregon District Court Paatola decision?

  53. What was consummated is the question because I never did business with FOREIGN THIRD PARTIES, their AGENTS or AGENCIES they work for.


  54. We’ll see who’s left on banksters side

  55. I would say we’re nailed to the property owner’s side of the fence…

  56. So…are we supposed to choose sides or something? 😉

  57. FYI: Bill Paatalo and NGarfield have crossed paths in the past. NGarfield lost.

    Just sayin’…


  58. Other point I picked up on was it doesn’t rule out consummation could be contested.

  59. In support of what greg, on November 13, 2015 at 10:41 pm said (in another post):

    Re: Wolf v. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. ($5.3 Million Judgment)

    Below is the link to all of the relevant filings for study:


  60. Dwight u gotta read the case DD posted. Just got thru about half
    Looks like they sued much later but sent rescission notice within 3 yrs. The fact rescission was in effect and everything else was void is clear. Even where bank was “right” court found dismissal was not warranted from what I read.

  61. I don’t know where they’re dredging that criminal crud up from Greg.

    Maybe from the DRUG RUNNERS snorting stuff that’s floating in the SUEZ CANAL or they’ve got AGENT ORANGE from the VIETNAM WAR.

    I don’t consider the CORPORATE DRUG CARTEL the government & whoever does is doing criminal things.

  62. That’s the biggest lie ever told Greg.

    If that were true, that would mean we have no U.S. CONSTITUTION.

    If that’s the case, it’s war & what goes on in the COURTROOMS DOES NOT MATTER because AXIOMATICALLY the courts rulings have NO LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE OF ACTION & would be considered ACTS OF WAR UPON WE THE PEOPLE, & therefore, NULL & VOID & of NO LEGAL FORCE OR EFFECT.

  63. Dwight, sure sounds like it. I would review rules of court for yourself and research other cases as to answer to motion. I was researching motion to vacate on unlawful detainer in CA. My understanding is their needs to be an answer. Could this be blessing in disguise to enforce rescission? Could be interesting but ur case gets more and more unbelievable.

  64. Okay …thank you Hammer …. My paralegal help just pointed out that Wells Fargo just submitted a notice of motion to amend complaint.

    This was in response to my recent motion to vacate …

    Paralegal emailed me saying this case will need to start over and that all orders will be thrown out. …. Whaaaaat?????

    They had been granted summary judgment already ..and what are they up to trying to amend their complaint now …after they read my Motion to Vacate their SJ… My motion was showing proof that their assignment was a misrepresentation because Fannie Mae and MERS were both still claiming that Fannie owns the loan ..

    Paralegal never explained further …he had to go somewhere.

    Any thoughts on this? It is odd that Wells Fargo is wanting to amend their complaint at the end of the case after they already have SJ

    Are they trying to clean up something that my Motion is onto?

  65. DD I thought I saw it but need to go over. Then again if difft other case commentary was that innocent buyer issue was still open. Name reminds me of someone I talked to with extreme case up there. Homeowner was a techy and we talked about some of these info sharing ideas a while back. Would be awesome if it’s her. Lots of good stuff coming out! We can’t let them change TILA and sweep this under the rug again.

  66. But with these difft groups and if we get coordinated we could fight back at all levels. It’s not about changing the world but blowing away their house of cards.

  67. Dwight what I’m trying to say is our cases are extreme when the bias outside the foreclosure process works against us or individuals with bias within the foreclosure administrative or court process works against us. I’m fighting to keep my home and my rights. In my case a hearing officer attacked me when I brought up unlawful FC as wanting a bailout. When I presented recording of hearing to city officials she was supposedly demoted. Like the one study Garfield posted there is HOSTILITY in courts against rescission although it’s the letter of the law. If ur caught in a court w a hostile judge u either have to get out of that court or put pressure outside the process like Keane I think was talking about. Like Lvent saying u need to change the venue or like FDIC guy did separate action on harm done. At same time the other fight is to not tolerate the bias. Hope that makes sense each of us is at a different point with a different version of the fight.

  68. posted on The Lou Bridges Show this evening….

    “a man” (american) can ‘state a claim’ (not complaint) on his own behalf (sui juris, not PRO SE) in court and can only BE THERE (as in English ‘first person’) and cannot “appear” – because he is real – (even though the judge ignores him)

    However, an ENTITY CORPUS must whine (complain) through an attorney and cannot BE or appear in court without one

    every american should learn how to separate the presumed joinder between themselves and their government appointed ENTITY CORPUS, so that they might proceed at law OR equity with firm footing on the land and not be treated like a CORPORATION…

    this causes all actions against “man” by ENTITIES CORPUS, to fail, because there is then no level playing field between the parties, which justice requires…


  69. All that remains seems to be SOL issue.

  70. Hammertime,

    Have you re reviewed Paatola v. JP Morgan Chase, et al… 3 days ago, Nov 12, 2015, Oregon District Court, Federal appeals, I believe.

    It addresses post-Jesinoski TILA Rescission, a post-Trustee sale retitle-ing issue, and the disputed 3-yr plus, TILA Rescission Letter controversy.

    The bank lost on all points!

  71. Hammertime …I thought you were fighting foreclosure too …are you saying you are not? You’re calling our cases “extreme” because we are fighting foreclosure …not sure I follow what you’re saying brother.

  72. There’s fraud on the mod, the court, the govt, with the govt pick ur poison.

  73. There’s FRAUD IN THE PROCUREMENT Hammertime.

  74. Dwight, Lvent both ur cases are what I would call extreme cases. Any one that has had their home stolen or suffered needlessly can be considered extreme. But I’m talking about where the “lender”, court, gov’t is going the extra mile to deny us due process and property. In my case city took rental income and Chase dumped the loan to PennyMac to do illegal sale and now eviction attempt. I’m working with small focused group to figure out best approach and effectively share information and work together. I may have ur emails or will post to contact me if interested. We don’t want to keep rehashing things or bring in off topic issues. All we can do is try as we try to stay afloat. If it cones together we can review w Garfield/Greg’s group and other contacts/advocates. But this is to be completely homeowner independent and secure as possible.

  75. Is it lawful, moral, or ethical to steal your means of PRODUCTION because they can, & then FRAUDCLOSE UPON THE PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED with that ACT?

    It’s clearly not only immoral, but unlawful DEBAUCHERY of my LEGAL RIGHTS.

  76. I said to JUDGE PRICE WALKER in open court one day that I did not recognize this OPERATION OF LAW.

    To which he said nothing.

    The fact they violated my LEGAL RIGHTS by the CROSS-COLLATERALIZATION with my PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE without my knowledge or consent, & placed me in DOUBLE JEOPARDY & in danger of LIFE & LIMB by violating the 5th AMENDMENT TAKINGS CLAUSE of THE U.S. CONSTITUTION by doing so, does not phase them.

    The business property was the FAMILY BUSINESS which they wiped out to steal my house & I can prove it.

  77. It really seems like they’re trying to BRAINWASH PRO SE DEFENDANTS DwightNJ.

    RE-ENTER, RE-FILE & RE-RESPOND is what I did for the past 5 years defendng 2 FRAUDCLOSURES myself, PRO SE.

    Oneis my business property which FIRST MIDWEST BANK CROSS-COLLATERALIZED MY PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE without my knowledge or consent.

    The other is my roof over my head.

    Clearly they’re MUSLIM EXTREMISTS who worship ALLAH by how they operate.

    Well, I’m CATHOLIC & I don’t worship ALLAH & furthermore, I don’t PRAY or ATTONE for the sins of others.

  78. i did my research on whether I should file the COUNTERCOMPLAINT or CROSSBILL. I read judges wont rule on COUNTERCOMPLAINTS because that implicates them.

    One ATTORNEY for PLAINTIFFS DU JOUR, JILLIAN COLE from ARONBERG, DAVIS & GARMISA said to me in court one day in front of the bench to FILE A COUNTERCOMPLAINT.

    I ignored her because I found that remark to be highly improper.

  79. I agree that no valid legal loan ever took place .. That is exactly what my answer stated … Somehow when we end up in Court, most of us get taken down these other rabbit holes by the judge who acts as the attorney for the lenders. He deliberately steers clear of the issues we all want to focus on ..and he creates the court record most favorable to his clients the lenders.

    As a pro we , I just don’t know how you overcome the judge and get to the point of the fraud …we need full discovery to prove our case don’t we?

    Give us a brief short example if you can of how you think we should argue these cases… I want to know how to do what you’re saying!

    this is why I keep asking people to share their cases with each other …Ivent should try and share with us some of her pleadings so we can all learn from each others experiences.

  80. The focus on 3 days, 6 days is completely WRONG. You all keep trying to fix what they’ve done and goong down rabbit holes. Lvent is nailing it as to the scum they are. They will say any payment is “benefit” and that’s all there is to it. But it can actually be years or never that we find there was no consummation due to fraud. misrepresentation if you discover terms were changed, pretender lender, fake loan and were lied to for years. Their new trick is to get borrower to sign waiver at signing. Why would tgey feel the need to do that. Sounds like they tried that trick with Dwight. We need to focus on the fraud and quit being on the defensive. And quit signing our lives away and tell them to put their fake lians where the sun don’t shine.

  81. I got no HUD 1 SETTLEMENT STATEMENT so clearly it’s one big fat INSIDE JOB.



    The judges response to my MOTION was HE IS THE JUDGE & DO YOU THINK YOU’RE OWED MONEY? I said yes, of course.

    He replied re-enter your AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES & FILE your COUNTERCOMPLAINT because he didn’t think my CROSSBILL that I entered months previously, was proper.

    Clearly the problem is MASS CORRUPTION & I chose not to respond to that.

  82. Greg is correct …it is another case of where the banks and shadow have applied their own set of terms and interpretations to the TILA statute.

    A refinance where the borrow receives money too, should not be deemed consummated until they actually receive that money disbursment.

    All of these slight of hand and smoke and mirrors schemes used by the lenders to allow themselves the right to violate the disclosure requirements is exactly why TILA was written to begin with.

    They bamboozled me at the closing where I did not receive anything.
    I did not receive my notices of right to cancel, nor the money.

    A week later I met their notary closing agent who has you sign more documents ..this is what shadow is talking about …now the 3 days has passed and they trick you into signing acknowledments saying you received your 3 day right to cancel notices (but you never did) and they now have you sign that you are not rescinding ..and they mail you the check a few days later. This is an end-around and a violation of the true intent of TILA.

    You were never given your proper notices of right to cancel in a proper time frame…and when you were given them to sign they kept them. The consummation should start from the disbursment of money. You should receive your notices at consummation and be allowed to change your mind in 3 days for any reason …3 years if you didn’t receive your right to cancel notices. This only makes sense. Like purchasing a pair of big underpants at Wal-Mart …if Shadowcat takes them home and she doesn’t like them…her receipt informs her that she has 3 days to cancel the deal. You don’t expect her to pay for her large underwear and then come back to pick them up as a disbursement 3 days later after her right expired.

  83. Only WALL STREET could delete the BILL OF SALE unlawfully by portending THE LETTER OF CREDIT is the recipe for BEEF JERKY.

    The entire context in fact, is the recipe for disaster because when the BILL OF SALE gets waxed the entire operation gets the bad reputation that it deserves.

  84. In fact they should rename DERIVATIVES LUNAR LANDERS & try to give their BROTHELS some dignity.


  85. Looks like their PROSTITUTION RULE BOOK.

    Where is the PSA that governs these PIRATE SHIPS?


    That’s why WALL STREET STRUCTURED FINANCE looks like the house that jack built on some pirate ship up in MARS.

  86. shadow

    i agree that is a “presumption” but as we are learning with Scalia’s help – that when it comes to statutes (not god’s; or common; or equity; law)…

    “the ‘expressed’ letter of the law cuts like a knife”

    congress did not express in the statute that the specific term of rescission for that purpose is 3 days (a presumption) AND both terms are cited as periods of rescission AND even in equity, the benefit of the argument goes to the lesser powerful… (homeowner)

    if i am correct, then we might be looking at yet another tool…

    that’s all i’m saying, ok?

    and no, i have never seen anyone else take this tack –
    and yes, it might be inspired…

  87. Yes SC there is no defined timeframe for consummation or sale which is criteria in statute. Did Congress screw up w 20/30 yr statute of limitations or non judicial foreclosure?

  88. Greg..they are referring to the 3 day RTC. before they disperse in refinances. Cash Outs. . when you get cash back…you wait 3 days.
    The 3 year extended period only applies under certain conditions..
    where as the 3 day you can cancel for any reason.

  89. the point i was trying to make on this is:
    per 12 CFR 226.23 – Right of rescission. (c)

    if “no money shall be disbursed… until the rescission period has expired” – how in the heck can the transaction be deemed consummated until then? it appears to me that only after disbursement has the consideration promised in the agreement been executed…

    did congress screw up and leave us an open barn door to turn a 3 year right of rescission into a 6 year right of rescission?


  90. now contemplate this…https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/226.23
    12 CFR 226.23 – Right of rescission.

    (c) Delay of creditor’s performance. Unless a consumer waives the right of rescission under paragraph (e) of this section,

    no money shall be disbursed other than in escrow, no services shall be performed and no materials delivered until the rescission period has expired and the creditor is reasonably satisfied that the consumer has not rescinded.

    Could this mean that the funds could not be disbursed (except escrow) until 3 years after the closing table signature or appearance of the so-called funder… when the extended rescission period ended? AND would that mean the loan could not be fully consummated until that date? AND would that indicate that another 3 year clock began ticking at that time?

    it does NOT say the initial 3 day rescission period, only the rescission period

    your thoughts?

  91. OCOC7S6-000339S CN16P OCI



    P.o. 4025




    Notification Date:


    January 02, 2014


    P.O. BOX 188

    MONTPELIER, vT 05601-0188

    RE: Attached report of loans paid in full

    Please delete the interest of Loan Servicing, LLC for the attached referenced policies.

    These loans paid off effective with the date on the attached report. All future premium notices should be sent directly to the insured.

    If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call (800) 256-9962. Thank you.

    Customer Service Department

    Mortgage Loan Servicing


    P.o. BOX 188

    MONTPELIER. VT 05601-0188




    HOI 2027702


    HOI 2315731










    HOI 2297529










    OF 13084394







    PO BOX 1828

    NORTH CONWAY, NH 03860-1828



    ROSLINDALE, MA 02131-4715




    16-18 BEACH STREET

    REVERE, MA 10000


    46 WEST AVE

    ESSEX. CT 06426-1138



    MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945-2484



    FRANKLIN, MA 02038-1370



    126 SHOVE STREET; STE 202 FALL RIVER, MA 02724-2039



    DANVERS, MA 01923-2127



    SCITUATE, MA 02066-3920


    DRACUT, MA 01826-1545


    284 ALLEN ROAD

    POWNAL, ME 04069-6040



    UNIT 1005

    ATLANTA, GA 30309-1899



    CONROE, TX 77302-8409

    Pagel of 2

    VRMOO 5901

    January 02, 2014








    01/01/2014 01/01/2014




    01/01/2014 01/01/2014 01/01/2014

    61CCE 5658

  92. now remember they tried to foreclose 2 times in 14 then 2 times in 15, then I sent them the rescission in march 2015. and they accepted that rescission.. but never did anything about it. sent them letter from attorney to comply to the statue. should be hearing something this week or next week on that. as we gave them 15 days to com ply.

    and I will have my lawyer put that on registry of deeds alone with the suit, and rescission. I would say as to the letter to insurance company and the acceptance of the rescission go hand and hand. as the letter to ins company said the mortgage loans were paid in full, as of jan, 2014

  93. so all what does all this mean, what would make them say this.

    well all I got a surprise in , from my homeowners insurance company yesterday, it’s a letter to the ins. company from, Customer Service Department, Ocwen Mortgage Loan Servicing.

    re: Attached Report of Mortgage Loans Paid in Full.

    Please delete the INTEREST OF OCWEN LOAN SERVICING,LLC for the attached referenced policies.

    These loans paid off effective with the date on the attached report., All future premium notices should be sent directly to the insured.

    effective date 01/01/2014. and my mortgage number is one of them.

    now ain’t that something. hum

  94. A fine gentleman asked me to post this, as follows:


    BEFORE ME the undersigned authority, duly authorized to administer

    oaths, personally appeared NAME, to me well known, or who

    identified self to me with Georgia Driver’s License #______________, who,

    after being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

    1. That I am a legal adult over the age of eighteen (18) years, and that I

    make this affidavit for the purposes expressed herein.

    2. That I am the fee simple owner of certain real property, located in

    _______ County, Georgia and legally described as Lot 9, Block 62 of

    City____, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 18

    of the Public Records of ______ County, Georgia, also known as 1413 North

    Andrews Avenue, City_____, Georgia 33311.

    3. That I own the property by virtue of a Warranty Deed issued to me at the

    time I purchased the property.

    4. That on June 1, 2015 I rescinded the mortgage on the subject property

    pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, a Federal law, and that the Note and Security

    Deed has been rescinded and is null and void.

    5. By recording this Affidavit of Rescission in the Public Records of

    _____ County, Georgia, I hereby put all parties and the public on notice that the

    Security Deed recorded on said property has been rescinded and is null and void.

    6. Pursuant to Federal law, all parties notified of said rescission who were

    sent and received said notice, had twenty (20) days from their receipt of the

    rescission letter notice to dispute said rescission. By operation of law, said

    rescission becomes final if not disputed within the time period set forth above.

    7. That I make this affidavit of my own personal knowledge of the facts

    as set forth in this affidavit.

    8. That I make this affidavit under oath and under penalty of perjury.


    SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, the undersigned authority,

    this ______day of June, 2015.

    ________________________________ _________________________
    Witness Witness

    ________________________________ _________________________
    Printed name of witness Printed name of witness

    ________________________________ _________________________
    Notary Public, State of Florida At Large Name _______________, Affiant

    My commission expires:

    Notary Seal

  95. Debt is a potent rallying issue because of its ubiquity and its psychological gravity. Unlike climate change, which is easy to relegate to theoretical importance when, after all, the supermarkets are still full of food and the air conditioner is still running, debt affects the lives of growing numbers of people directly and undeniably: a yoke, a burden, a constant constraint on their freedom. Three-quarters of Americans carry some form of debt. Student debt stands at more than $1.3 trillion in the United States and averages more than $33,000 per graduating student. Municipalities around the country are cutting services to the bone, laying off employees, and slashing pensions. Why? To make payments on their debts. The same is true of entire nations, as creditors—and the financial markets that drive them—tighten their death grip on southern Europe, Latin America, Africa, and the rest of the world. Most people need little persuading that debt has become a tyrant over their lives.

    “Won’t pay” is a form of protest easily accessible to the atomized digital citizen.
    What is harder for them to see, though, is that they could ever be free of their debts, which are often described as “inescapable” or “crushing.” That is why even the most modest challenges to debt legitimacy, such as the aforementioned citizen audits, have revolutionary implications. They cast into question the certainty of debt. If one debt can be nullified, maybe all of them can—not only for nations but for municipalities, school districts, hospitals, and people too. That’s why the European authorities made such a humiliating example of Greece—they needed to maintain the principle of inviolability of debt. That’s also why hundreds of billions of dollars were used to bail out the creditors who made bad loans in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, but not a penny was spent bailing out the debtors.

    Not only does debt have the potential to be a rallying point of near-universal appeal, it also happens to be a unique political pressure point. That’s because the results of mass debt resistance would be catastrophic for the financial system. The Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008 demonstrated that the system is so highly leveraged and so tightly interconnected that even a small disruption can cascade into a massive systemic crisis. Moreover, “won’t pay” is a form of protest easily accessible to the atomized digital citizen who has been sundered from most forms of political association; arguably, it is the only form of digital action that has much real-world impact. No street protests are necessary, no confrontations with riot police, to stop payment on a credit card or student loan. The financial system is vulnerable to a few million mouse clicks. Herein lies a resolution to the dilemma posed by Silvia Federici in the South Atlantic Quarterly: “Instead of work, exploitation, and above all ‘bosses,’ so prominent in the world of smoke stacks, we now have debtors confronting not an employer but a bank and confronting it alone, not as part of a collective body and collective relation, as was the case with wage workers.” So let’s organize and spread awareness. We needn’t confront the banks, the bond markets, or the financial system alone.

    What should be the ultimate goal of the debt resistance movement? The systemic nature of the debt problem implies that none of the policy proposals that are realistic or reachable in the present political environment are worth pursuing. Reducing rates on student loans, offering mortgage relief, reining in payday lending, or reducing debt in the Global South might be politically feasible, but by mitigating the worst abuses of the system, they make that system slightly more tolerable and imply that the problem is not the system—we just need to fix these abuses.

    please read the entire article at rogerrinaldi dot word press

  96. — TONIGHT —
    A gentle reminder – please make an appointment for yourself to join us for Episode [8] on our 1 Hour follow-up Q&A call TONIGHT – Thursday evening at 6:45 PM Eastern – This is right after Neil’s weekly Thursday Night 30 Min call at 6 PM Eastern.
    [Calls and Chat Board are recorded for review and sharing…]
    Details follow:

    1) Neil’s Living Lies Call at 6:00PM Eastern (347) 850-1260… on Blogtalk Radio

    2) Our interactive Q&A call, “Garfield’s Goose & Friends” on TalkShoe with your host, greg – begins every Thursday night at 6:45PM Eastern, 15 minutes after the conclusion of 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 http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/139335
    6:45 PM Eastern Thursdays (for 60 min)

    Please use the phone line TO SPEAK; ASK QUESTIONS AND CONTRIBUTE…
    computer access will ONLY allow you to hear and type into the blog (Not Speak)…

    all are welcome!

    if you would like to receive a weekly email reminder of the call…
    please email the host at: [lawman@gmx.us]
    with the subject line: “please add me to the goose!”

  97. If all goes well….in the event of problems. What could possibly go wrong?

  98. IMHO, the attorney’s opinions are highly suspect.

  99. That’s It!
    PPM. ..Private Placement Memorandum.

Contribute to the discussion!