I just received a request from a new service, seeking evidence of patterns of conduct by the banks, to wit: banks and servicers and trustees submitting different copies of the same promissory note while asserting that each is the original.
It is good that news services appears to be ramping up its investigative journalism, possibly in sync with the release with the deeply disturbing movies “The Big Short” and “99 Homes”. BUT the questions they are asking may be incomplete.
Some basic issues not mentioned in the request for information are whether the original notes were intentionally destroyed at or near the time of closing and thus whether virtually all the notes produced in court are fabricated and forged by mechanical equipment readily available on the internet. [see Catherine Ann Porter study in 2007 wherein she surveyed thousands of cases only to find that, at a minimum, 40-50% of all notes were intentionally destroyed.]
The second issue that jumps out is whether the payee on the note ever loaned any money to the named borrower and signatory. Starting with the premise that none of the REMIC “Trusts” were in fact trusts with any assets, we discover that the trusts were never funded.
The REMIC trustee was literally paid not to object to the investment bank keeping the money proceeds from the sale of securities issued by the trust.didn’t do what the Wall Street banks were doing — selling the notes even though none of the originators ever funded the loan.
The only reason I can think of for the destruction of the notes is either (a) the Wall Street banks were representing the loan terms to investors inconsistent with the actual borrower’s agreement to terms or (b) or that Wall Street banks wanted to make sure that originators. Maybe it was both. One thing that is clear and consistent: Wall Street banks kept absolute control over the “lending” process and the multiple players, conduits, sham servicers and sham nominees.
Hence the legal question on the ground is whether the note is valid as a claim upon the alleged borrower; and the analysis must then go to whether the risk of loss shifts to the holder or possessor of the note unless (a) the holder can show payment for the note and mortgage —holder in due course under article 3 UCC or (b) the holder actually represents the real owner of the underlying debt (who in turn must show payment).
Possession is not established by self serving “documents.” I can’t sign a bill of sale for your car and then claim that the recipient of the bill of sale now owns your car.
Here is the request from one News Service —
Happy New Year! Please distribute the query below to attorneys who may have responsive documents.
Query:
Looking for documentation regarding foreclosure cases, and other instances involving mortgage backed securities where more than one, or different versions of promissory note(s) related to real property were;
- a) entered in a legal proceeding;
- b) produced in response to a Qualified Written Request (QWR) sent under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA); or,
- c) provided by a financial institution or servicer as a result of any other request from counsel or the borrower.
Examples include those cases where one promissory note is filed with an action for foreclosure or filed with a proof of claim in a bankruptcy matter, and then another note is filed in a motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgment, or relief from stay proceeding in the same matter. For example, those instances where one note does not contain indorsements, and a second note is produced or filed that does contain indorsements. Or, those cases where the borrower’s signature and indorsements are not the same, as found in the recent Florida case where the appellate panel noted the two different promissory notes:
Foot note 1 “Our review of the record reveals that the last page of the original note differs from the previously-filed copies. The borrower’s signature is not the same, and the indorsements are in reverse order and signed by different people.” Selva Adriana Calvo and Marcos Fabian Calvo vs. U.S. Bank N.A. as Trustee for Structured Asset Securities Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-BC-1 (FLA 4th District Court of Appeal No. 4D14-1424 Dec. 16, 2015).
Requirements:
- The document that initiated the discovery of each promissory note;
- The materially inconsistent promissory notes;
For example:
- The proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding containing one promissory note; and
- The motion to dismiss (or other pleading) containing the second promissory note.
- The QWR sent under RESPA;
- The QWR response which includes one of the promissory notes;
- The promissory note that differs from the QWR response.
Filed under: foreclosure |
You may want to contact attorney David G. Wirtes Jr. and William Banner, and Steve Olen (sp?) located in Mobile at http://www.cunninghambounds.com, phone 251-725-9028.
The Living Lies Team
Chase Mtg stole my home of 38yrs even though I never missed a single payment. 2011 tornadoes in Alabama destroyed my home. The insurance ck was 3times more than the balance of my loan.
The Dept of Insurance drove 2 hours to testify of the theft Chase committed but by the time we arrived at the courthouse the judge had let Chase dismiss the case.
Isn’t there anyone with enough morals to hold Chase accountable???
Reblogged this on pamela35004 and commented:
I have contacted many sources,including ignored request to Ethics commission sent via certified mail.
My home of 38yrs was almost pd for when 2011 tornadoes in Alabama destroyed my home. The insurance ck was 3times more than the balance of my loan. Chase Mtg fabricated evidence that I was delinquent on my payments but I had legal svc who,on my behalf stated that I had never missed a single payment. Chase claimed it was an error and would be corrected. Confident it was resolved I spent my entire life savings rebuilding. During that time Chase had illegally removed my name from the title.
The Dept of Insurance was prepared to drive 2 hours to testify of the Chase theft but by the time we arrived at the courthouse the judge had let Chase dismiss the case.
Isn’t there anyone with enough morals to hold Chase accountable???..
When BANKING REGULATORS fail to verify the resiliency of what is being marketed by their clients, that can only be considered to be unreliable information by their clientelle.
However, unreliable has no legality because it’s benefits nor its benefactors ever get disclosed.
Therefore, the BANKING REGULATORY COMMISSIONER should be investigated for self promoting it’s AGENCIES own unreliable information.
hello !!! where could i get the Charles Levinson email address? i am sending him some information.
If that link doesnt work, google it because it’s being blocked.
This is the link that works:
http://www.watcherfiles.com/dulce/chapter33.htm
If the link below is not working you can google it, or the title: FINCEN FOREIGN MILITARY & SECRET POLICE BROUGHT INTO THE U.S. FOR DEPLOYMENT AGAINST U.S. CITIZENS
That link was working this morning.
Let me repost that link in my previous comment:
http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/dolce/Chapter33.htm
I’m not ranting Greg, I’m being honest.
What’s your point SHADOWCAT? That’s my opinion.
Hindsight is 20/20 right?
Had we known before we got robbed by the teleprompter president, we would have sued for DEFAMATION OF TITLE.
FINCEN FOREIGN MILITARY & SECRET POLICE BROUGHT INTO THE U.S. FOR DEPLOYMENT AGAINST THE U.S. CITIZENS:
http://www.the watcherfiles.com/dulce/Chapter33.htm
IT SEEMS WE ARE BEING BLOCKED HERE ON LIVING LIES FROM POSTING INFO ON OUR Q&A CALL @6:45PM AFTER NEIL’S CALL…
so sbad 🙁
Tonight we have a special guest who is a recent ex-patriot from 17 years in the mortgage banking industry… Scot started out as a escrow agent doing closings, then advanced to mortgage loan officer, processor, underwriter, branch manager, mortgage broker and loss mitigator for the banks. Interestingly, he says,
“Looking back on my career I don’t believe any mortgage closing that I was involved in was ever consummated.”
Tonight Scot will be covering areas relating to:
1 lack of disclosure and consideration
2 substitution of true mortgage contracting partner
3 unfunded loan agreements
4 non-existent trusts
5 securitization of your note and bifurcation of the security interest and
6 how to identify and prove the non-existence of the so-called trust named in an assignment which may be coming after you to foreclose
contact me directly by email for more information lawman@gmx.us
Linda said.somthing like this.
” Had We Known First, We would have sued them First for Not securing our Titles”
I vent.
#1
Nice Rant this time Ivent…
For example, the law says you can’t be party to your own transaction.
Therefore, what were the NOTARIES witnessing?
CHECK FRAUD, proven by the separate signing sheets, the so called INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT that can only be considered to be unauthorized BANK DRAFTS because our signature is not on them.
Moreover, I think CAUSATION is what makes MORTGAGE FRAUD CRIMINAL ENDANGERMENT by it’s own effects – FRAUDCLOSURE is LEGAL PROOF OF INTENT TO HARM, because you could not possibly have known of the deception.
Had we known of the deception, we would have sued them first for not securing our TITLES properly.
That have lead to even more controveries regarding our LEGAL RIGHT to hold TITLE to our own person because obviously WALL STREET EXECS don’t think so.
Then we would have uncovered they’ve been violating every one of our LEGAL RIGHTS by causing the controversy in the first place, without us ever knowing it.
They’ve unlawfully seized my private papers before & gone through them under FALSE PRETENSES manufactured by them & had to give them back.
Therefore, I have no choice other than to bring everything with me & that is extremely disheartening in our FREE REPUBLIC that I have to do that.
It’s not by choice, but by necessity, because of their deliberate violations of my LEGAL RIGHT to DUE PROCESS, only I can secure my papers.
I was recently questioned by one of their AGENTS without warrant or legal just cause if I’m going to be carrying my bag of evidence with me for the rest of my life.
To that I said nothing because that’s not only none of their business that is not their LEGAL RIGHT to question me regarding my personal belongings or what I plan to do with them.
When you’re living in the enemy camp, what choice do you have other than to try to secure your own legal documents?
If you don’t, you lose.
I ASSERT the findings of my own PRO SE FRAUDCLOSURE DEFENSE INVESTIGATION, THE ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEY is engaging in wantonly CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT by scapegoating the PRO SE LITIGANTS in FRAUDCLOSURE.
That office is violating theLEGAL RIGHTS of PRO SE LITIGANTS in ILLINOIS forced to defend their own TITLES by GANG STALKING us, they’re using UNLAWFUL SEARCH & SEIZURE to CRIMINALY EXTORT the LEGAL RIGHTS of others.
Wells as servicer is going to produce my original note in court from U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR THE STRUCTURED ASSET…..
We have been in litigation a year and they now have “found” the original. I’m in Pa. Like to send Charles the unendorsed note attached to the complaint and this new one with what will be a “tadaa” endorsement!
MK, trust me….NPV doesn’t just “disrupt” the live stock.
I lock my goats up whenever he’s around, if you get my drift.
@EToLLe,
Don’t tell “iwnatmynpv”. He gets jealous and will disrupt the livestock.
EToLLe, Rules!
@E. ToLLe,
Again! True-to-form picking a fight, creating tension whereas, here-to-fore, none existed prior…
Drunken animals, risky behavior- dare I say: Loose morals…
What part are you not in full agreement with?
For what its worth: I confess my guilt; unabashedly.
My one regret is you were unable to find us under the porch…
I have it on good authority you were looking.
Hey MK, am I reading this right? Are you saying that you and a bunch of groundhogs living in file boxes under a porch drank beer and burned mortgage documents?
Is there a law against that….like maybe aiding and abetting sordid animal behavior? Or are you blaming drunken groundhogs for the destruction of notes, and thus claiming your own innocence?
Are all of our problems due to alcoholic animals running amok in the securitization industry?
This problem is much bigger than meets the eye…..
IT ALL COME DOWN TO WHAT WAS SAID HERE. EVERYONE NEED TO HIRE A SECURITIES ACCOUNTANT, AND HAVE HIM GO INTO COURT AND EXPLAIN TO JUDGE,
THERE IS NO WAY ON THIS EARTH , THAT YOU YOUR HONOR OR ANYONE ELSE TO ASSUME THAT MY CLIENT MORTGAGE WAS PURCHASED FROM ANYONE IN THE CHAIN, WITH OUT SEARCHING ALL THE BOOKS FROM ALL PARTYS, TO SEE IF ANY OF THEM PURCHASED ANYTHING, AND EXSPECIALY IF THIS FAKE TRUST PURCHASED THE MORTGAGES FROM DEPOSITOR FOR THE HOLDER OF STOCK CERTIFICATE.
SO LETS BEGIN. OK YOUR HONOR. ALL WE WANT IS THE TRUTH RIGHT. JUST SHOW ME CANCELLED CHECKS FROM ALL. HAHAHAHA
WATCH THE FIRE WORK PEOPLE.
@ Deb, @Louise, one word: BERNIE SANDERS!
@Boots: I am not in NY, but NJ. Although it is bad language, I cheer myself up with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yge311sFhC8 …
“… Shoulda’ had a real job, not blowin’ bubbles…”
“… Your bottom line is closer than it looks…”
“… You’re good at stealin’ and you’re good at lying…
Now, let’s see how good you are at flying…”
“… Forget your lawyers and your net worth…
There’s one sure way for you to come back to earth…
Jump you bankers…
I can also suggest these people are, ultimately, weaklings and simply worthy of contempt. I look forward to the day we eat them for lunch.
As a Dead Head, I can also suggest one of my favorites: “Franklin’s Tower”; turns out, they were singing about the Liberty Bell the whole time, I just never knew it.
@ Mike Hanson, I agree, where are the reportings on the 1200 Trillion owed as “Notional Derivatives” as the true money-makers listed as “short-sale bets” within the DTC and DTCC?????
It is my considered opinion, the MERS is tracking the bogus, counterfeit, “Naked Short Sales” each “Servicing Bank” lists as each “Distressed Property” comes into their awareness through such proprietary mechanisms as the “Fidelity Network” and what-not.
@ David Belanger, @ John Gault, Thank you for sending me those docs. It will take me some time to figure it out but I’m in.
“I’ll tell you where the four winds dwell, in Franklin’s Tower there hangs a bell…
“It can ring- turn night to day- ring like fire when you lose your way…”
Plant more acorns, We are gonna need more trees.
They are asking the wrong question. Show where the same note was counterfeited and placed into different mortgage backed securities.
D, I am sending you this to get the document that did not come up. Looks like somebody is up to no good. I wonder who that could be–either someone on the outside like MN or Christine or someone on the inside. Who knows? Thanks, Neva Steffens Apex Surety and Bonding SchoolQuantum Healing Hypnosis TherapyBurmese8@yahoo.com 864-241-8602
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This E-mail is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§2510-2521 and is confidential and may be legally privileged. Any unauthorized or improper disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this E-mail and attached document(s) is prohibited. The proprietor of this E-mail does not engage in the practice of law. Any and all information contained therein is not to be used or misconstrued as legal advice. This E-mail transmission, including any documents accompanying it, may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which may be protected by privilege. The information is intended only for use by the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. In addition, nothing in this communication is to be construed as legal advice. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact the proprietor..
From: Livingliess Weblog To: burmese8@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 2:44 PM Subject: [New comment] News Services Ramping Up Investigation #yiv1458629837 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv1458629837 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv1458629837 a.yiv1458629837primaryactionlink:link, #yiv1458629837 a.yiv1458629837primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv1458629837 a.yiv1458629837primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv1458629837 a.yiv1458629837primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv1458629837 WordPress.com |
david belanger (@revolutionnow1) commented: “louise, send me a email. djabeanger@hotmail.com i will send it to you” | |
shadowcat, i have check it out it still the same as it was for past yr, nothing on registry of deeds.
my lawyer says it doesnt matter what you put on at registry of deeds , as it can be challenged. that is why he will note put on that doc and my note showing no one in chain, being assign to them as of the day of closing in 2005.
boots, i have been investigating gmac / rescap for 6 yrs. send me a note at djabelanger@hotmail.com
louise, send me a email. djabeanger@hotmail.com i will send it to you
The Currency Reset is underway things are Ramping Up!
It time to Break Up TBTF!
I would Love to See Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren on the Ticket !!!
D,..they broke the link, you must have stepped on some toes!
I did get it downloaded before they did. Now…go check the recorders office and see if there is a lien.
Know the difference between a Trust Deed & DOT!
Know the difference between a Mortgage & DOT!
Know the difference between a Borrower & MORTGAGORS!
Whose Identity was used to commit this fraud ?
The Borrower or the Mortgagors?
Why were the Mortgagors Estates Released from Liability in the Settlements? What Liability? What Liability?
What Risks? What Liabilities?
Investor, MORTGAGOR, Tax Payer…
As Boots said … Getting Fee’ ed all the way around.
Using our deposits put into a slush fund to
Pay ourselves … Greedy don’t get Both!
We pay the proper party directly!
Investor!
Reconveyance Bound!
Homeowner
One half of the Estate
Many Blessing to All!
Either there is a Trust or there’s Not a Trust!
Can’t have it Both Ways OR at your Convenience! !!
Neither Need Nor Want A MOD!
In depo, make sure you ask if they have ever seen you before. Also, whether they saw you actually sign the document placed before them during the depo. If opp. counsel starts screaming of yelling or other stupid behavior, make sure you state it on the record. “There is no need to raise your voice, I can hear you.” Not legal advice. I used to be a court reporter.
michael keene, you are not alone. i went through a lot for these banksters and i am now in discovery period against GMAC and ETS. my trial will be on march 24, 2016 at the NY BK Court. what I found out through my discovery is that securitization players are part of this elaborate scheme and the victims are the investors and the homeowners. they have their own strategy to make big profits at the expense of everyone. since,my trial is coming i will reserve those what I found out. but here again, i will just tell you that the Trust is empty, the house has no commodities except when our loans became delinquent, in foreclosure, REO, in bankruptcy or paid off. those are the loans that was put in the trust. the performing loans was not put in the trust. the servicer paid $100.00 for the vendors to create and assignment of deeds in order to foreclose the house and then would be place at the trust and will named the trust as the owner who has standing to foreclosed. neil garfield was right since the beginning of livinglies. those performing loans who paid monthly, i don’t know where those money go. it is profitable for the servicer, credit risk management and security administrator because they get paid monthly on those loans.
BTW, if you are in NY please let me know. I will be deposing 4 employees who are not parties of my lawsuit. i need your help guys to cheer me up. it is so stressing but i enjoy doing detective works especially with my case.
Sorry did not post to get off topic just thought it was worth sharing. Thank you.
D, sorry, I did not get into the link. What am I doing wrong? Thanks,
louise, did you get in?
this should get you there
https://ez1mmw-ch3302.files.1drv.com/y3mKtPbiGgKj402sLuaC-09LY4aPpgenP20ePN1N5rezM9Z_VeTpGo8DiWs_dCZ6BApwsocrgXH17DfR9JzqUzEWbWNJqjFM8CzpV8ybOL0zz7T0_ohPSBM56D2QnHQh_uu3sikGAT-H7junfzGBtvZ-A/Ocwen%20Notice.pdf?psid=1
Ann Holden,
Will you please email, I am in the same trust as you and I believe we could help one another. Soundview Home Loan 2005-4, Deutsch Bank Trustee.
melissa.klapper@yahoo.com
Thanks,
Melissa
Here ya go L
From Reuters US version posted jan 5 2016
”
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders warned on Tuesday that financial-sector greed was “destroying the fabric of our nation” and said the starting point of any Wall Street reform effort is breaking up “too big to fail” banks.
“If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist; when it comes to Wall Street reform, that must be our bottom line,” Sanders said in a blistering speech. He said allowing banks that are too big is essentially providing them with a “free insurance policy” to make risky investments knowing the U.S. government will prevent their collapse.
The U.S. senator from Vermont – an independent and a democratic socialist popular with the Democratic Party’s populist wing – gave his speech at a theater near New York’s Times Square, just “a few subway stops away from the epicenter of the global financial crisis,” as his campaign put it.
Sanders also called for structural reforms to the Federal Reserve, making credit rating agencies nonprofit entities, and a tax on speculative investments. He urged increased penalties for financial fraud or malfeasance by institutions, calling fraud the business model of Wall Street.
His remarks were laced with direct and indirect criticisms of the policies and track record of primary campaign front-runner Hillary Clinton, whose constituency when she was a U.S. senator from New York included the financial industry. The former secretary of state, however, has taken a tougher stance against Wall Street as a presidential candidate.
Clinton, Sanders and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley are vying to face the Republican nominee in the November 2016 election.
Sanders and Clinton have tussled over the best way to curb the risky behavior on Wall Street that caused the 2008 financial crisis and triggered the worst U.S. economic slump since the Great Depression.
Sanders favors breaking up too-big-to-fail banks and reinstating a version of the Glass-Steagall Act, a Depression-era law that prohibited commercial banks from engaging in investment banking activities.
Clinton has endorsed an approach that would break up large banks if they take excessive risks. She also believes that reinstating Glass-Steagall, an idea popular with progressive Democrats, would not address the types of institutions that have risen since the law was written in the 1930s.
Glass-Steagall’s main provisions were repealed in 1999 during the presidency of her husband, Bill Clinton – a fact that Sanders highlighted in his speech.
The back-and-forth between Sanders and Clinton over breaking up banks and regulating the so-called shadow banking sector intensified this week, with one of Clinton’s top Wall Street advisers, former U.S. financial regulator Gary Gensler, criticizing Sanders as not focusing on regulating non-bank institutions such as hedge funds and insurance companies.
Sanders said Tuesday that if elected, “Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks will not be represented in my administration.”
Gensler, before serving as chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under President Barack Obama and a U.S. Treasury Department official under Bill Clinton, was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs. Former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson were also Goldman alumni.
Sanders highlighted how he has pushed for legislation to reinstate Glass-Steagall alongside Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a favorite of progressives. He also quoted another progressive icon, former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich, as criticizing Clinton’s proposals to regulate Wall Street as too weak.
New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio, a progressive, is among those in Clinton’s corner. In a statement on Tuesday, he said that “having studied all the Wall Street reform proposals,” he believes Clinton’s is the “toughest, farthest-reaching plan of anyone running for president.”
On the Federal Reserve, Sander said it should not pay financial institutions interest for the money they keep at the Fed and that such institutions should instead pay the U.S. central bank a fee. He also said he would not put financial industry executives on the Fed’s presidentially appointed board.
Individual companies were also name checked by Sanders. He said that JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), Bank of America Corp (BAC.N) and Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N) are nearly 80 percent bigger than when they accepted money from the U.S. government during the 2008 bailout.”
(Reporting By Amanda Becker; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)
I have personally destroyed mortgage documents, by the thousands, liens and Notes; we used to burn them while drinking beer. In one instance, groundhogs made a nest of file boxes, filled with mortgages and Notes, while they were stored under my front porch.
I wrote and signed an AFFIDAVIT explaining as much.
On my primary residence, the fact one party paid the “loan” and another party then claimed ownership of the “loan” is now painfully apparent. My attorney won’t let me, “E’splain why, Lucy”, until we file our complaints.
In the meantime…
This behavior (destroying mortgages and Notes) goes to “dematerialization” and “re-hypothecation”: in other words, “copying” paper to electronic format (computer discs fro example) and then, re-creating those documents, out-of-thin-air on computer screens as “copies”.
It is counterfeiting, pure-and-simple.
Money from undisclosed “third parties” was used to fund “loans” that are never any such thing!
I wrote a petition about it and then was side-tracked through illness:
Counterfeit Fortunes fo#316EFCD
It has been my contention for almost five years now: The MERS is being used to track payments on foreclosures (read: “Naked Short Sales”), that are given in the name of “Servicing Banks” after those banks “counterfeit” their interest in the “loans” in question.
“Robo-signing” IS “FORGERY”!!!!
So, “Servicing Banks” are presently claiming an “ownership” interest among some 80 million residential “loans” that were entered into a private accounting database…
There are 1200 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!! OWED TO THIS INTERNATIONAL, PRIVATELY-OWNED, CENTRAL BANKER SCAM.
The MERS is privately owned, the central banks are privately owned, F&F were privately owned (until 2008: Hank Paulsen: “Gee, golly shucks, Mr. President, the sky is falling”.), the DTC and DTCC are PRIVATELY-OWNED!!!!
The DTC and DTCC are supposed to report on “DERIVATIVES”!!!!
THEY ARE REFUSING TO DO SO!!!
The central bankers are also refusing to report the “M3”; the aggregate accounting of all banking assets v liabilities.
DOES ANYONE ELSE HERE RECOGNIZE A PATTERN??? WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO???? STAND ON MY HEAD????
1200 Trillion Dollars is 20 times the GDP of EVERY COUNTRY, ON THIS PLANET! COMBINED; IT IS AN IMPOSSIBLE DEBT! THE BANKS ARE BEYOND INSOLVENT.
HOW CAN ANY MORTGAGE BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE? THE INSTITUTIONS CLAIMING THE DEBT ARE INSOLVENT!
In the wake of the demise of “Glass-Steagall”, through the advocacy of the “Graham, Leach, Bliley Act”, supplied by three Republican Senators and one, “Slick Willy Clinton”, “Servicing Banks” are now counterfeiting their interest in “loans” that were paid by someone else- Servicing Banks ARE NOT, “LENDING BANKS”!!!
Moreover, signing a mortgage is not the same thing as an intention to provide seed money for financial crimes committed by third parties while those crimes are committed under the name of the person signing the mortgage!!!
GOOD GRIEF!!!
HSBC Bank and Wells Fargo are using American Mortgages to launder drug and terrorist cartel money… How many times do I need to repeat that before it finally sinks in???
RICO was established, in the first place to defeat this EXACT BEHAVIOR!
The chain of Title has been violated. The chain of endorsements has been violated. The money trail is altogether inaccurate. “Corporations are NOT people” and they cannot obfuscate and thereby derail 200 years of lawful recording of lawful transfers of real property!!!!
If they come to take your house don’t answer the door. If they evict you, move back in after you are released from jail. Contact local Realtors and deliver this rant. Contact the local Sherriff’s department and deliver this rant. Contact your neighbors and deliver this rant… Or…
You may have another rant you feel is easier to understand…
If so, BROADCAST IT TO THE PLANET IN ANY WAY YOU FEEL WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
The loan numbers do change, and I have not figured out whether it is because the servicer changed or whether MERS is not active anymore. I searched MERS after the number change, and it states that MERS is inactive.
D, please post link again. It does not work. Thanks,
Ann Holden
Can you please email me , I am in the same trust as you. I have tried to contact you, I think we can help each other.
melissa.klapper@yahoo.com
Thank You,
Melissa Klapper
https://ez1mmw-ch3302.files.1drv.com/y3mKtPbiGgKj402sLuaC-09LY4aPpgenP20ePN1N5rezM9Z_VeTpGo8DiWs_dCZ6BApwsocrgXH17DfR9JzqUzEWbWNJqjFM8CzpV8ybOL0zz7T0_ohPSBM56D2QnHQh_uu3sikGAT-H7junfzGBtvZ-A/Ocwen%20Notice.pdf?psid=1
david has a file to share with you on OneDrive. To view it, click the link below.
Ocwen Notice.pdf
its says. under first line. RE ; ATTACH REPORT OF LOANS PAID IN ( FULL )
THE NOTICE IS FROM THE SERVICER. … OCWEN LOAN SERVICING,LLC
SO THE SERVICER IS TELLING THE MORTGAGTORS INSURANCE COMPANY, TO TAKE THEY NAME OFF AS MORTGEE ON INSURANCE POLICY.
RIGHT. RIGHT/..
]
In another time and place – maybe USA also, the mortgage papers would have the person whose money was used for the mortgage. The borrower would know that ‘John Doe’ money was used to lend
to ‘Jane Doe’. I guess that no longer exist and money that is loaned is not backed by real money.
also check the loan numbers for changes i just discovered mine changed im sure its not an isolated case
You never know one can hope
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2016/01/05/sanders-to-lay-out-plan-to-break-up-big-banks-in-first-year/
listen i want to get 5 certified questions to be answered by a court.
so lets get the best questions that need to answered ok. i have 2 i want .
1/ how can any court use foreclosure laws that pertain to traditional mortgages, as for the past 15 yrs banks have not issued any traditional mortgage contract. they are securities contract, not a mortgage contract, as it is stated in the securities instrument, that it is a security instrument.
2/ how can any court , once a mortgage note has been CONVERTED into 23 security certificates,diced and sliced into 23 certificates and sold to hundreds of holders of these certificates, now remember one mortgage note is divided 23 times, so now there is 23 pieces of shredded mortgage note on floor, is it legal to CONVERT 10 PIECES BACK TO A MORTGAGE NOTE. IF 13 PIECES OF THAT MORTGAGE NOTE HAS BEEN PAID .
COME ON ALL LET FIGURE OUT THE 5 BEST QUESTION TO ASK A COURT TO ANSWER.
Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal.
Wednesday 6 January 2016
> I can provide proof the notes were never legally funded.
> I can provided proof the trust do not legally exist.
Then do it. Talk is cheap…
Wells has not produced my original note for over a year. There were no endorsements on the photo copy they attached to the complaint. We requested it in discovery and they asked for a continuance so they could bring it to the oral argumrnt for summary judgement. That is in three days. What do I do when they produce it? I’m in Pa. Help
Wells has not been able to find my note for over a year. Filed for summary judgement without it. We asked for it in discovery. Now they are going to produce it at the oral argument in front of the Judge in three days. What do I do ? I’m in Pa. HELP!
Ohio Supreme Court
Deutsche v Holden
For the doubting Thomas’ and my controlled opposition nemesis’ – There might be something to this installment lease to future repurchase, patents, and trademarks —— and that there is not mortgage loan after all folks
From the opposition (HSBC) appeal attorney to me
Ken,
I have been focusing my efforts to see if we could come to some sort of resolution on this matter prior to proceeding. I would like to focus more of my attention there. To that end, would you agree to one more and hopefully final extension to submit my responsive brief. I believe it’s currently due Jan 18 but perhaps an additional two weeks may be enough time to see if we can’t get this resolved in some capacity? Please let me know. Thank you for your professional courtesies in advance
I have a copy of an undated robo endosred signature on a note that matches several others one on top of each other from the web. I will send you by email. Also look at this Can find it here.
http://ourlemon.com/docs/110707transcript.pdf
This article has a certified transcript I have the original copies and at video of the senate meeting to use as evidence of a Washington Title Association lawyer telling the senate in Olympia Washington there are no notes to sell a house. https://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/mr-potter-and-the-state-of-washington-legislate-no-need-for-original-note-just-take-t
I have such a note. Wells Fargo sent me a copy of the note not endorsed 3 times. When their substitute trustees sent me a copy, all of a sudden it was endorsed. If you want a copy of the mess, let me know. I’m in MD b
Scot,
The capacity of trusts has been discussed previously.
See this:
https://mattweidnerlaw.com/does-the-mortgage-loan-trust-even-exist/
I don’t know that it ever gained any traction, but I’ve long thought it should. How does a nonexistent entity initiate litigation? How does a nonexistent entity establish a principal/agent relationship? How does an agent represent a nonexistent principal? How does an agent representing a nonexistent principal initiate litigation on behalf of a nonexistent principal?
Capacity is pretty important. See FRCP 9(a):
———-
On differing versions of a note … It makes a difference how/when/where they’re presented (if someone has a better term than “presented” please share, but at present I’m gonna go with that).
Are they being presented as originals?
Are they being presented as copies of originals?
Are they being authenticated? Is one being authenticated? Are all being authenticated?
Are they being admitted into evidence?
In most jurisdictions a “copy” can be attached to the complaint. A complaint is defined as a pleading [FRCP 7(a)], and pleadings are not evidence. Exhibits attached to a pleading are also a part of the pleading [FRCP 10(a)]. Pleadings are not evidence.
The biggest problem comes when differing versions of a note are authenticated as being original, and admitted into evidence.
Here is a case where that happened:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2014/2014-Ohio-1333.pdf
Another problem arises if it is an attorney attempting to authenticate a note (or multiple versions) as being original. Wigmore on Evidence, Third Addition, Vol. VI, section 1911, page 606, offers the following:
“There is then in general no rule, but only an urgent judicial reprobation, forbidding counsel or an attorney to testify in favor of his client.”
ABA Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a) offers the following:
“A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless …” You’ll have to dig on your own to find the rest of that one.
The common problem of any individual authenticating any version of a note is this: do they have first hand knowledge [FRE 602]? If not, then how do they know it is THE original (or a true and accurate copy of THE original)? If the answer is any variation of “somebody told me” then you’re moving into hearsay territory. Hearsay, subject to some exceptions, is not admissible. That is another kettle of fish.
———-
Regarding wholesale destruction of notes …
I haven’t seen anything that definitively establishes such destruction occurred. It has been implied numerous times.
Florida Bankers Association, in comments to the FL SC, stated:
“In actual practice, confusion over who owns and holds the note stems less from the fact that the note may have been transferred multiple times than it does from the form in which the note is transferred. It is a reality of commerce that virtually all paper documents related to a note and mortgage are converted to electronic files almost immediately after the loan is closed. Individual loans, as electronic data, are compiled into portfolios which are transferred to the secondary market, frequently as mortgage-backed securities. The records of ownership and payment are maintained by a servicing agent in an electronic database.
The reason “many firms file lost note counts as a standard alternative pleading in the complaint” is because the physical document was deliberately eliminated to avoid confusion immediately upon its conversion to an electronic file. See State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Lord, 851 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Electronic storage is almost universally acknowledged as safer, more efficient and less expensive than maintaining the originals in hard copy, which bears the concomitant costs of physical indexing, archiving and maintaining security. It is a standard in the industry and becoming the benchmark of modern efficiency across the spectrum of commerce—including the court system.”
They were quite deliberate in using the term “eliminated” as opposed to the term “destroyed,” or “destruction.” See UCC § 3-604.
In instances of blank indorsed notes physical possession of THE original is essential.
“The U.C.C. identifies the requirements for ” negotiation” of a note, that is, for ” transfer of possession … to a person who thereby becomes its holder.” Id. § 4-3-201(a). This statute provides that ” if an instrument is payable to an identified person, negotiation requires transfer of possession of the instrument and its indorsement by the holder.” Id. § 4-3-201(b) (emphasis added). The Official Commentary to section 4-3-201 explains that negotiation ” always requires a change in possession of the instrument because nobody can be a holder without possessing the instrument, either directly or through an agent.” (emphasis added). See also Colo.Rev.Stat. § 4-1-201(b)(20)(A) (defining ” holder” of negotiable instrument as ” person in possession” of it).
” Possession is an element designed to prevent two or more claimants from qualifying as holders who could take free of the other party’s claim of ownership.” Georg v. Metro Fixtures Contractors, Inc., 178 P.3d 1209, 1213 (Colo.2008) (citation omitted).[8] ” With rare exceptions,
those claiming to be holders have physical ownership of the instrument in question.” Id. (citation omitted).[9] In the case of bearer paper such as the Note, physical possession is essential because it constitutes proof of ownership and a consequent right to payment.[10]”
Citing In re Miller, 666 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2012).
This has gotten a bit long in the tooth.
Re: “The endorsements are in reverse order”
KC: An Illicit Illegal Reverse Transaction
Wild Deeds!
Scot,
The capacity of trusts has been discussed previously.
See this:
https://mattweidnerlaw.com/does-the-mortgage-loan-trust-even-exist/
I don’t know that it ever gained any traction, but I’ve long thought it should. How does a nonexistent entity initiate litigation? How does a nonexistent entity establish a principal/agent relationship? How does an agent represent a nonexistent principal? How does an agent representing a nonexistent principal initiate litigation on behalf of a nonexistent principal?
Capacity is pretty important. See FRCP 9(a):
———-
On differing versions of a note … It makes a difference how/when/where they’re presented (if someone has a better term than “presented” please share, but at present I’m gonna go with that).
Are they being presented as originals?
Are they being presented as copies of originals?
Are they being authenticated? Is one being authenticated? Are all being authenticated?
Are they being admitted into evidence?
In most jurisdictions a “copy” can be attached to the complaint. A complaint is defined as a pleading [FRCP 7(a)], and pleadings are not evidence. Exhibits attached to a pleading are also a part of the pleading [FRCP 10(a)]. Pleadings are not evidence.
The biggest problem comes when differing versions of a note are authenticated as being original, and admitted into evidence.
Here is a case where that happened:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2014/2014-Ohio-1333.pdf
Another problem arises if it is an attorney attempting to authenticate a note (or multiple versions) as being original. Wigmore on Evidence, Third Addition, Vol. VI, section 1911, page 606, offers the following:
“There is then in general no rule, but only an urgent judicial reprobation, forbidding counsel or an attorney to testify in favor of his client.”
ABA Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a) offers the following:
“A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless …” You’ll have to dig on your own to find the rest of that one.
The common problem of any individual authenticating any version of a note is this: do they have first hand knowledge [FRE 602]? If not, then how do they know it is THE original (or a true and accurate copy of THE original)? If the answer is any variation of “somebody told me” then you’re moving into hearsay territory. Hearsay, subject to some exceptions, is not admissible. That is another kettle of fish.
———-
Regarding wholesale destruction of notes …
I haven’t seen anything that definitively establishes such destruction occurred. It has been implied numerous times.
Florida Bankers Association, in comments to the FL SC, stated:
“In actual practice, confusion over who owns and holds the note stems less from the fact that the note may have been transferred multiple times than it does from the form in which the note is transferred. It is a reality of commerce that virtually all paper documents related to a note and mortgage are converted to electronic files almost immediately after the loan is closed. Individual loans, as electronic data, are compiled into portfolios which are transferred to the secondary market, frequently as mortgage-backed securities. The records of ownership and payment are maintained by a servicing agent in an electronic database.
The reason “many firms file lost note counts as a standard alternative pleading in the complaint” is because the physical document was deliberately eliminated to avoid confusion immediately upon its conversion to an electronic file. See State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Lord, 851 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Electronic storage is almost universally acknowledged as safer, more efficient and less expensive than maintaining the originals in hard copy, which bears the concomitant costs of physical indexing, archiving and maintaining security. It is a standard in the industry and becoming the benchmark of modern efficiency across the spectrum of commerce—including the court system.”
They were quite deliberate in using the term “eliminated” as opposed to the term “destroyed,” or “destruction.” See UCC § 3-604.
In instances of blank indorsed notes physical possession of THE original is essential.
“The U.C.C. identifies the requirements for ” negotiation” of a note, that is, for ” transfer of possession … to a person who thereby becomes its holder.” Id. § 4-3-201(a). This statute provides that ” if an instrument is payable to an identified person, negotiation requires transfer of possession of the instrument and its indorsement by the holder.” Id. § 4-3-201(b) (emphasis added). The Official Commentary to section 4-3-201 explains that negotiation ” always requires a change in possession of the instrument because nobody can be a holder without possessing the instrument, either directly or through an agent.” (emphasis added). See also Colo.Rev.Stat. § 4-1-201(b)(20)(A) (defining ” holder” of negotiable instrument as ” person in possession” of it).
” Possession is an element designed to prevent two or more claimants from qualifying as holders who could take free of the other party’s claim of ownership.” Georg v. Metro Fixtures Contractors, Inc., 178 P.3d 1209, 1213 (Colo.2008) (citation omitted).[8] ” With rare exceptions,
those claiming to be holders have physical ownership of the instrument in question.” Id. (citation omitted).[9] In the case of bearer paper such as the Note, physical possession is essential because it constitutes proof of ownership and a consequent right to payment.[10]”
Citing In re Miller, 666 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2012).
———-
This has gotten a bit long in the tooth.
This is relevant to the Notes … And why they Stopped Recording the Notes with the Mortgages!
In Illinois…why they Don’t meet the definition of a Mortgagee!
So MERS is the Mortgagee of Record for the Owner of the Note.
Title Insurer … PROOF MERS WAS PAID
The Other 50% of the Estate. (Corporate Entity )
As a Non Borrower ….
How much does KC owe?
😄 How much is KC owed?
They Foreclose the Estate … Or try too!
Oh and I left out,’ my neighbor is not a party to the securitization😎Your Honor.’
BLD,
This is what Neil was referring to in December. Hire an accountant…you will undoubtedly have multiple copies…all of which point different amounts due. If you examine the accounting closely, it shows no default.
An excellent forensic examiner to examine the ‘blue ink’ signature which suddenly appears. At a minimum, they can also examine the fiber of your original copy of the note versus the new paper fiber on the didgitally scanned fraudulent copy of the note. Have them testify in front of a judge.
Why does it take years to get a copy of the note? Thousands of dollars to get a copy of your note? Violent threats to get a copy of your note?
Delay, delay…delay.
Any mortgage company today would get it to you within thirty days.
Up next, report filed to the state bar against these attorneys for willfully and KNOWINGLY filing fraud upon the court. File a motion for hearing in front of a judge.
A judge would not believe me if I testified in court that due to ‘securitization’, I now own my neighbors BMW.
What if it took years and thousands of dollars to get the title to our cars? What if there were multiple copies with different signatures from multiple dealerships? What if your title now resides with a used car dealer???? Unbeknownst to you every step of the way?
BTW… here is Santa Claus … he changed his name to CFPB!
http://www.insidearm.com/opinion/the-demise-of-the-profession-of-the-practice-of-law-for-consumer-collection-attorneys/
Reblogged this on UZA – people's courts, forums, & tribunals.
Very Nice Scot!
Plaintiff vs Big Bad Wolf Bankster Broker
Plaintiffs Note,….YES!
Great. Have Reuters contact me. I have it all in black and white so easy a caveman could understand it. (But not 4 judges apparently, although I do admit I may have had an idiot as a lawyer ….Lol )
Wow, I am interested in proving who owns the Note and the Trusts that do exist. Burmese8@yahoo.com.
Tuesday 5 January 2016
Seems like Reuters is fishing for the banks to find out ways for fighting
whatever information defendants can use/uncover.
>…if admissible evidence exists, and it is conflicting, as a matter of law
> a triable issue of material fact exists which must be adjudicated on the
> merits.
A matter of law? Adjudicated on the merits? In chancery, it is equity
that rules. Law and merit are merely incidental as to how any judge
chooses to use/interpret/ignore. Circuit court judges rely upon their
power of abuse of discretion. “Take it up with the appellate court.”
Charles,
I received an email from Neil Garfield that you are seeking copies of the alleged original promissory notes that have been submitted multiple times in foreclosure cases but they do not match. I can supply you with this. Some are missing the county register of deeds stamp some aren’t. Some have the servicer bar code some don’t and most are missing the hole punch on top of the documents. The hole punches were place on all the documents in the borrower’s mortgage file sol they could be clasped in a file folder and stored for safe keeping. FYI, I spent a lot of years in the mortgage industry.
I thank you for your interest in this matter. Let me know if I can be of assistance to you. Below are a few other points of interest you might be interested in regarding this foreclosure scam. All of which can be easily proven.
The notes were never funded at the closing table. The borrowers were tricked into thinking the lender named on their note and mortgage (funded their note). That the lender named on the note and mortgage provided the money. In reality they never provide one penny. The source of the funds came from an unnamed third party. Everyone but the borrowers knew about this. The even the title companies and escrow agents knew about this but they never informed the borrowers. Why? Some of the alleged lenders state they were using a warehouse line of credit. This would be legal is that is what they were doing. But as you dig into this mess you will find nothing is what they say or as it appears. This is very easy to prove. This is why a lot of alleged mortgage banking companies went bankrupt and out of business in 2007, 2008. They never funded any loans. They were paid a big fee to just originate and rent their name. By rent I mean allow their names to be put on the note and mortgage. This is called table top funding or corresponding lending. But there was one clause in the agreements that caused these companies to shut their doors. If a certain percentage of the loans went bad these alleged mortgage banking companies had to buy back the notes. The question is how can they buy back the notes when they didn’t have the money to fund the notes in the first place. Ask me how I know this.
Because the notes were never legally funded. The recording of the mortgages and notes at the local county register of deeds offices are all illegal.
Most assignments of mortgages do not take place until a legal foreclosure action has been filed. There are major problems with this. The banks attorneys did not fully think this one out. The US Supreme Court ruled that if you assigned a mortgage note there is no need to assign the mortgage because the mortgage is a incident of the note. Without a note there can be no mortgage. But if you assign the mortgage you must also assign the note at the same time. If you don’t the mortgage immediately becomes void and the note immediately becomes unsecured. Back to my point. The Banks are all claiming the notes have been securitized. There are way to many red flags raised with that claim. But for this point the problem is for the securitization to happen the banks most legally create and register a trust and than register the trust with the SEC. When registering the trust with the SEC they file a document called a Pool and Servicing Agreement,. (PSA). In the PSA it states the specific chain of custody the note most travel in order to get into the trust. Now this is where it gets interesting. If the mortgage follows the assignment of the note why are they recording an assignment of the mortgage. If you look at the assignment of the mortgages close you will see that the assignment is from the alleged original lender listed on the note and mortgage to the foreclosing trust. But according to the PSA in order for the note to make it to the trust it must be assigned at least 3 separate times. So by filing and submitting the assignment of mortgage from the originator to the trust they are admitting that the note was separated from the mortgage. That the originator kept the mortgage but sold and or assigned the note and did not assign the mortgage until years later when someone on behalf of the trust filed for foreclosure.
Second most of the assignments are signed by the foreclosing attorney. There is nothing wrong with this accept the according the PSA the notes must be in the trust with in 90 days of closing and in order to be accepted they must have the mortgage with them. But by filing the assignment of mortgage date years after the closing they just admitted none of the notes had any security attached to them.
Third most of the assignment of mortgages were what the banks and the press are calling ROBO signed. Why hasn’t and why doesn’t the press call it what it really is. Its forgery, fraud. Each notary has their signature on file in their respected state. Just request a copy of the signature from the appropriate Secretary of States office and they will forward the copies of the signatures. Most of the time you don’t even have to give the names of the signatures you are requesting. They will tell you the names before you get a chance. It wold be nice to to Forged Documents instead of ROBO signed documents in a headline.
Another very BIG POINT. The trusts do not legally exist. This is one of the very easiest things to prove. You need to go to the SEC website and look up any trust that is foreclosing on a borrower. You will see that every trust is reporting to the SEC that they are registered as a trust in one of two states. New York or Delaware. Next go to the appropriate state government websites and do a search for these trusts. They do not show up. Not convinced yet. Neither was I. So I called the Secretary of States office to confirm my findings. They told me no such trust were ever registered in their states. They will even send a letter of attestation stating this. We even did a Freedom of Information Act request. The trust do not legally exist. When I notified the SEC of this. They told me they do not verify the information on the registration request. But they did tell me to file a IRS whistle blower complaint and provided the forms to do so.
If an entity does not legally exist they are not suppose to be able to file a lawsuit.
In recap. I can provide the example of notes you are requesting. I can provide proof the notes were never legally funded. I can provided proof the trust do not legally exist.
Even if the notes were legally funded. The banks could not legally securitize the notes without the permission of the owner of the notes which is the borrower. Most borrowers don’t know the owner of the note is the creator of the note and the creator of the note is the person that signed the note. Any financial gains obtained from the securitization of the notes belong to the owner of the note. Because the note was used for a purpose unauthorized by the owner of the note.
Everything listed above was verified by a attorney that represented a pension fund against a MBS trust.
Regards.
@ Dr. David B. Starkey
Not to doubt your observation(s) nor veracity, but if admissible evidence exists, and it is conflicting, as a matter of law a triable issue of material fact exists which must be adjudicated on the merits.
Where did things go astray?
I have three notes in my cases(s): one which was given to me at closing with NO SIGNATURE, another which is actually a copy with a blue ink X next to the signature (submitted in the pleadings but shown me in a room outside the courtroom) and the third which is in one of opposing counsels’ office executed with an autopen and submitted in court as the actual original note.
Fraud on the court anyone?
Thank you Dr. Starkey- you hit the nail squarely on the head. I had proof, a report and a sworn affidavit from a certified forensic loan auditor in State of Maryland who found two completely different ‘true test’ copies of the note, an allonge that appeared out of thin air, proof of known documented robo-signers – just to name a few. Not one judge in the Free State gave a rat’s ass about any of it. It took them five years and our entire 401k but BONY/Shapiro & Brown got what they came for – my waterfront property and home. Our mistrust of the dysfunctional judicial system here in Maryland has already gotten my husband excused from jury duty and will undoubtedly excuse us for years yet to come.
I’ve seen 4 different “original notes” in a case against Wells Fargo. Only two of which are in the case files (one without endorsement as answer to a QWR and one submitted later as a proof of claim with an undated “endorsement”). The Wells attorney also showed me ” the original note” with a black ink signature and later one with a blue ink signature. It makes little difference when the one judging the case is in bed with the bank.