Livinglies's Weblog

Patrick Giunta Wins The Argument in 4th DCA: Down to the Nitty Gritty: Holder vs Owner of the Note

32 Responses

1. 

   thecompanyofcreators, on February 11, 2016 at 6:28 pm said:

   Finally!! Someone that gets it!! Thank you! And to all those who are putting up good stuff in the comments section, I find some of what you are posting to be as or more useful than some of the articles. Hopefully, this comment will also confirm.
   Please note the last sentence
   “But note that we are still talking about the PAPER that talks about a transaction that was never consummated — as it relates to the party seeking collection or enforcement or any of its predecessors.”
   I also notice that Neil says “BUT the deeper we drill the easier it is to force them into a corner.” Whereas I have learned and continuosly stated that we need to “box them in”. Which means that we have to “force the judges to abide by the laws and the law of contract.” In other words it is not about the attorneys bring an unlawful action but the corporate judges that are acting outside the law and actively partisipating and promoting criminal actions of extortion and a bunch of other crimes (see 18 USC 471-474, 18) the missuse of UCC 3, the use of UCC 3 when we are not commercial entities nor engaged in commerce, and on and on.
   To “back them into a corner” in my opinion is far moor difficult than “boxing them in”. The last motion I helped create and file on an alleged traffic (motor vehicle code) violation, two attorneys said after only reading three lines, “air tight” and another intellegent people said “wow you bitch slap them around after you box them in”… I like to say that I build six walls then tiled it and grouted it well, not one iota of a leak possible. In the motion and affidavit I actually evidence and cause them to admit to various criminal acts, including kidnapping. “5. Officer Crone required Respondent to sign such charging instrument in exchange for her release.”
   So the judge either must do the right thing or there is self authenticating and admitted (get a certified and notarized copy which is self authenticated and can not be denied the use of in a case) since they do not rebut.. because they can not. It is a fact that “Officer Crone required Respondent to sign such charging instrument in exchange for her release.” What is being admitted to without actually saying it is she was kidnapped and got a ransom for her release.
   The same thing is true when it comes to “Jurisdiction”. I never use the term “Jurisdiction” but I do illustrate the lack of it by the “pixels” or “elements” necessary for Jurisdiction, both “persona and subject matter”. And not just “standing” which is what this article breaks down but also “capacity” (“to be without legal defect”) which “deprives the court of jurisdiction”.
   Thus we are playing the long call instead of the short term investment. By doing so with a strategy in place, of noticing and making record un-rebutted “facts” and affidavits and establishing admissions and summary judgements, partial summary judgements and getting declaratory judgements to build a solid foundation upon which to make a “Claim” in federal court under 42 USC 1983 depravation of rights suit. In other word use the laws and notice of the laws and the lack of denial of those laws, them being subject to and the breaches thereof to evidenced that one has been injured as a result and each of them is a denial of “the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” (18 USC 241) and under colour of law (18 USC 242) and use 18 USC 4 misprision of felony… to “make known to some judge or officer of the United States” of a crime “cognisable by a court of the United States”.
   Once you get this concept you no longer will “defend” the fraudclosure but use the fraud-closure as a tool to make record and evidence that they have full knowledge and criminal intent to defraud and engage in extortion and under threat, intimidation, oppression, injure the people in violation of the written laws, statues and codes which they are subject to (nothing to do with you being subject to) and have a “Claim” not a “complaint” or “charge”.
   For those who have not heard this guy I recommend you listen to this recording.. I am listening to it as I am writing this and he is right on and explains it so very well. What I am sharing is the strategy; he shares the game to expose. http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-1032586.mp3
   Found at: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=39904&cmd=tc

   Episode 356 http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-1032586.mp3

   An excellent followup to the Greg Gory call http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=139335&cmd=tc

   Remember too that TILA states “consummation of the Loan” thus a “rental” contract is not a “loan” so there can not be a “consummation of a Loan” :-}
   Stop defending the alleged “Loan”, the assignments, who is the “note holder” etc. instead make record of their fraud with intent to defraud for payment. Are they not uttering and passing counterfeit instruments? (whether or not a copy) all we are doing is getting them to admit in writing that they have full knowledge and intent to defraud in violation of written laws and office which requires them to “secure these Rights” and “to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
   Hope this helps…

   Loading...
2. 

   Ian, on February 11, 2016 at 5:42 pm said:

   Louise- up until 2010? I think, the only person at Ocwen authorized to transfer mortgages on the MERS system was one Scott Anderson, the man w 41 different known signatures.
   In ocwen v. MERS, wherein Ocwen claimed that persons other thsn Anderson had transferred mortgages/AOM etc, Ocwen was trying to get out of paying 70k in “unathorized” transfers. Anderson did t show up for the bench trial/hearing. There was then and is still now a question as to if he actually exists as a person. I never found him on
   Linkdin, google, or elsewhere.

   Loading...
3. 

   Ian, on February 11, 2016 at 5:34 pm said:

   While we all know these were presold, any ideas as to what the legal argument would be to void these securities/mortgages/ ?

   Loading...
4. 

   mn, on February 11, 2016 at 4:28 pm said:

   Thursday 11 February 2016

   Thank you for providing more context to your first post, K. Very informative, as tends to be your standard.

   Cheers…

   Loading...
5. 

   louise, on February 11, 2016 at 3:36 pm said:

   I have a document from the MERS site that says my loan is inactive from the MERS system since January of 2006, yet Homeward Residential still transferred the loan to Ocwen in 2013. I wonder how that works?

   Loading...
6. 

   Kalifornia, on February 11, 2016 at 3:02 pm said:

   Confirming the intent to securitize the transaction before execution of the documentation, on page 10 of the Fannie patent:

   “…wherein the fully-verified approval pre-designates the mortgage loan application as being in immediate condition to be used to originate a mortgage loan that has been predetermined by a secondary mortgage market participant to be salable to the secondary mortgage market participant with no further documentation being required in order to fulfill the underwriting conditions, and wherein the automated underwriting engine that generates the underwriting conditions is provided by the secondary mortgage market participant…”

   Loading...
7. 

   Kalifornia, on February 11, 2016 at 2:13 pm said:

   @ mn

   Here’s a link to at least one of Fannie’s patents:

   https://deadlyclear.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/master-breeder-1003united-states-patent_-7653592.pdf

   Loading...
8. 

   Kalifornia, on February 11, 2016 at 2:10 pm said:

   @ mn

   I would venture to say that the use of Fannie’s Desktop Underwriter system is far and wide.

   https://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/behind-the-securitization-curtain-21st-century-mortgage-casino/

   Loading...
9. 

   djabelanger, on February 11, 2016 at 12:57 pm said:

   https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/mortgage/mers_rec_foreclosure_proc_after_move.pdf

   The old servicer and the new servicer are still required to notify the homeowner in writing when loan servicing is traded as required under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. A loan is de-registered from the system only if its servicing rights to a loan are transferred to a non-MERS member.

   Loading...
10. 

    mn, on February 11, 2016 at 12:33 pm said:

    Thursday 11 February 2016

    Kalifornia:

    Re the patent “invention” link you provided. Is it widely known that this
    patent has been implemented in the course of making loans, like MERS
    was? If not, of what use?

    Cheers…

    Loading...
11. 

    Smith2, on February 11, 2016 at 12:20 pm said:

    Shadowcat I understand what you are saying, can we talk off form ?

    Loading...
12. 

    djabelanger, on February 11, 2016 at 12:17 pm said:

    25. Status of Electronic Agent.
    Nothing herein contained shall be deemed or construed to create a partnership, joint venture between the parties hereto and the services of the Electronic Agent and MERS shall be rendered as independent contractors for the Lender and the Borrower. Other than the obligations of the Electronic Agent and MERS expressly set forth herein, the

    Electronic Agent and MERS shall have ( no power or authority to act as agent for the Lender or the Borrower ) pursuant to any grant of authority made under or pursuant to this Agreement.

    [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

    [ELECTRONIC AGENT AND MERS SIGNATURE PAGE TO ELECTRONIC TRACKING AGREEMENT]
    ELECTRONIC AGENT:
    MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.
    By:
    Name: Sharon McGann Horstkamp
    Title: Vice President
    Address for Notices:
    MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.
    1818 Library Street, Suite 300
    Reston, VA 20190
    Attention: Sharon McGann Horstkamp, Esq.
    Telephone No.: (703) 761-1270
    Facsimile No.: (703) 748-0183
    MERS:
    MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
    By:
    Name: Daniel R. McLaughlin
    Title: Vice President
    Address for Notices:
    Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
    1818 Library Street, Suite 300
    Reston, VA 20190
    Attention: Sharon McGann Horstkamp, Esq.
    Telephone No.: (703) 761-1270
    Facsimile No.: (703) 748-0183
    13
    EXHIBIT A
    LIST OF AUTHORIZED PERSONS
    LENDER AUTHORIZATIONS:
    Any of the persons whose signatures and titles appear below, or attached hereto, are authorized, acting singly, to act for the Lender under this Agreement:
    By:__________________ By:____________________ By:_____________________
    Name: _______________ Name: _________________ Name: __________________
    Title: ________________ Title: __________________ Title: ___________________
    BORROWER AUTHORIZATIONS:
    Any of the persons whose signatures and titles appear below, or attached hereto, are authorized, acting singly, to act for the Borrower under this Agreement:
    By:__________________ By:____________________ By:_____________________
    Name: _______________ Name: _________________ Name: __________________
    Title: ________________ Title: __________________ Title: ___________________
    14
    EXHIBIT A CONTINUED
    LIST OF AUTHORIZED PERSONS
    ELECTRONIC AGENT AUTHORIZATIONS:
    Any of the persons whose signatures and titles appear below, or attached hereto, are authorized, acting singly, to act for the Electronic Agent under this Agreement:
    By:
    Sharon McGann Horstkamp
    Vice President
    MERS AUTHORIZATIONS:
    Any of the persons whose signatures and titles appear below, or attached hereto, are authorized, acting singly, to act for MERS under this Agreement:
    By:
    Daniel R. McLaughlin
    Vice President
    15
    EXHIBIT B
    MERS PROCEDURES MANUAL
    Shall be found on the MERS website at: http://www.mersinc.org
    16
    EXHIBIT C
    NOTICE OF DEFAULT
    _____________ ___, _____
    Attention: Sharon M. Horstkamp MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.
    1818 Library Street, Suite 300
    Reston, Virginia 20190
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    Please be advised that this Notice of Default is being issued pursuant to Section 4(b) of that certain Electronic Tracking Agreement (the “Electronic Tracking Agreement”), dated as of _______________, 200_, by and among (the “Lender”), the (the
    “Borrower”), MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (the “Electronic Agent”) and Mortgage Electronic
    Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”). The Affected Loans are listed on the attached Schedule 1 (including the mortgage identification numbers). Accordingly, the Electronic Agent shall not accept instructions from the Borrower, the Servicer, any subservicer and from no party other than the Lender with respect to such Mortgage Loans, until otherwise notified by the Lender.
    Any terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have such meaning specified in the Electronic Tracking Agreement.
    By: _________________________________
    Title: _______________________________

    Attention: Sharon M. Horstkamp MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.
    1818 Library Street, Suite 300
    Reston, Virginia 20190
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    Please be advised that this Notice of Default is being issued pursuant to Section 4(b) of that certain Electronic Tracking Agreement (the “Electronic Tracking Agreement”), dated as of _______________, 200_, by and among (the “Lender”), the (the
    “Borrower”), MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (the “Electronic Agent”) and Mortgage Electronic
    Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”). The Affected Loans are listed on the attached Schedule 1 (including the mortgage identification numbers). Accordingly, the Electronic Agent shall not accept instructions from the Borrower, the Servicer, any subservicer and from no party other than the Lender with respect to such Mortgage Loans, until otherwise notified by the Lender.
    Any terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have such meaning specified in the Electronic Tracking Agreement.

    Loading...
13. 

    Sheri Daniel, on February 11, 2016 at 12:09 pm said:

    @ims53. Can a servicer report to credit agencies? Must they name the actual lender?

    Mine were reported by servicer to credit agencies

    Loading...
14. 

    Michael Keane, on February 11, 2016 at 11:58 am said:

    Put simply, “no one was ever supposed to link Bill Clinton’s “multiple Infidelitys” to his collusion, among “Gramm, Leach, Bliley and Impeachment” to suppression of “Glass-Steagall”. Bill Clinton’s Infidelity and resulting collusion to finally suppress “Galss-Steagall”, laid the groundwork (pardon the pun) to what is ultimately going to become common knowledge as “The Greatest Fraud” ever perpetrated on this planet: Phony “Trusts” using American Mortgages to launder terrorist and drug cartel money within a closed system, none of US were ever supposed to know about. Google: “the MERS”; Google: “Landtegrity”; Google: “Lynn Szymoniak”; Google: “Securitization Fail”; Google: “HSBC Bank, Bank of America, Wells Fargo” and then, join those, by lexus/nexus, to: “drug cartel and terrorist Cartel Money”. The dialogue is esoteric and the issues have been, willfully, rendered obscure. The point is: the international, central bankers have rendered themselves “Further” Insolvent in the aftermath of their first GLARING FAILURE: “SubPrime Lending Insolvency”, through their SCAM to create “Notional Derivatives” that are altogether hinging upon Fraud: Google: “1200 Trillion Dollars”. That is the figure owed to international, central banking, on “short sale, Credit Default Swaps” (to begin to understand, go watch: “The BIg Short”). The 1200 Trillion owed to Credit Default Swaps are simply bogus insurance policies predicated upon the notion, a “Servicing Bank”, fraudulently posing as a “Lending Bank” -thank you, Bill Clinton, Senators Phil Gramm, Leach and Bliley… oh, and don’t forget Miss Lewinsky-, may take the home of the person the fraudsters target, using forgeries (robo-signing), false witness and Fraud (personal experience). The “REMIC Trusts” are empty! The “Pooling And Servicing Agreements” to those “Trusts” were created, but, the “Trusts”, themselves were never “registered” within either of the two states (NY or Dela.), that it was incumbent upon the “Trustees” to register those “Trusts” in. Oh, and the “Trustees” are “Trustees” in name only- their involvement in actually “possessing” the “loans” they claim to own is also utter “Fiction”. The point is: TBTF banks are in possession of roughly 98% of the bogus insurance swaps (1200 Trillion owed to credit default swaps- cds; cdos and sythetic cdos). The TBTF are masquerading as “Lenders”, while in reality, they are no such thing, thanks to the suppression of “Glass-Steagall”. The TBTF are also relying on documents (“Pooling And Servicing Agreements”) that are phony, in that they are fronting for “Trusts” the SEC has zero knowledge of (Google: Bucketeering”); the IRS has zero knowledge of (Google: “REMIC Trusts)(Google: “Bucketeering”). Because the “Trusts” never registered: They are legal fiction; a legal, “Non-entity”. A legal fiction cannot sue anybody for any debt. PERIOD. Yet, the courts are awarding TBTFs foreclosures, based on the notion a “homeowner”, that stands to lose their home- whether they were ever in default, or not (personal experience X 2)- is not entitled to penetrate the phony “Trust Mechanisms (“Pooling And Servicing Agreements”)”, because, as the courts have been deciding, “homeowners” that are suffering this OUTRAGE, cannot gain “Discovery”, as they are 3rd parties to the Phony “Trusts” and the Phony Mechanisms, supporting those Phony “Trusts”. The “debt” to the homes in question, has been satisfied, many times over, before foreclosure even enters the picture. The MERS tracks the “loans” and the “Foreclosure” “Notice” acts, in “loan default” as the “LOCATER” to the “market maker’s” counterfeit “ownership” of the “title” as “Holder In Due Course” to insurance swaps predicated upon “Naked Short Sales”:

    stopforeclosurefraud.com/2013/08/31/michael-keane-i-personally-destroyed-thousands-of-mortgage-documents-through-the-same-process-using-a-desk-top-scanner/

    petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-wicked-which-of-the?source=c.em&r_by=4695413

    From what I can gather, so far, every single “loan”, in this country was satisfied, through a Chapter 11 restructuring of a “Holding Company”, that acted as “Clearing-House” for every single “loan” within that portfolio.

    The “Holding Company”, so far as I can tell, is named: “Residential Capital”, or “RESCAP”, and it was “re-structured”, through Chapter 11 as part of liquidation of GMAC Financial.

    GMAC Financial, some may remember, is how the central banks conspired to destroy the car industry by selling “warranties” and “Financial Products”, when it should have been minding its own business and selling cars.

    The point is: the financial center of the planet has been undermined and, like-it-or-not, the Monica Lewinsky Affair emboldened the bankers to perpetrate any number of Fraudulent Behaviors.

    It is beyond ridiculous, Hillary Clinton has suggested she thinks “Glass-Steagall” and reinstatement of regulatory oversight, “Do not go far enough”.

    Although, in a strange way, she may be correct, because it is incumbent upon every single moral and person of any “common decency” whatsoever, to start asking questions about the Clinton’s Infidelities; marital or otherwise.

    Senator Sanders and Abe Lincoln’s “Greenback Dollar” 2016.

    Loading...
15. 

    Kalifornia, on February 11, 2016 at 11:54 am said:

    The CONDUIT ORIGINATOR was a “LOAN BROKER” (see page 2 @ Fig. 1B) for the securitization scheme, NOT A LENDER:

    http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20030233316&IDKey=DC6F1547D976&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fappft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPG01%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D%25252220030233316%252522.PGNR.%2526OS%3DDN%2F20030233316%2526RS%3DDN%2F20030233316

    Loading...
16. 

    djabelanger, on February 11, 2016 at 11:40 am said:

    read what i posted just before this. look at all the wording.

    ( assuming ) the due authorization, execution and delivery

    ( contemplated ) in the
    prospectus supplement delivered in connection therewith, will be legally and
    validly issued and outstanding, fully paid and non-assessable and entitled to
    the benefits of that Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

    in the Registration Statement and
    related prospectus and prospectus supplement relating to one or more of the
    series of Securities, ( without admitting that we are “experts” ) within the meaning
    of the Act or the rules and regulations of the Commission issued thereunder,
    with respect to any part of the Registration Statement, ( including this exhibit.) SO IN OTHER WORDS, THIS LETTER FROM COUNSEL IS MEANINGLESS.

    Very truly yours,
    /s/ Alston & Bird LLP

    Loading...
17. 

    Kennedy Thorne, on February 11, 2016 at 11:37 am said:

    TRID HR3192 is a new Bill introduced. I just read about it today. Lexology Dec. 2, 2015 Know Before you owe article.

    From: Livingliess Weblog To: kennedy_thorne@ymail.com Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 11:43 AM Subject: [New post] Down to the Nitty Gritty: Holder vs Owner of the Note #yiv4322655803 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv4322655803 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv4322655803 a.yiv4322655803primaryactionlink:link, #yiv4322655803 a.yiv4322655803primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv4322655803 a.yiv4322655803primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv4322655803 a.yiv4322655803primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv4322655803 WordPress.com | Neil Garfield posted: “WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order to make it easier to serve you and get better results please take a moment to fill out our FREE registration for” | |

    Loading...
18. 

    djabelanger, on February 11, 2016 at 11:02 am said:

    Based upon and subject to the foregoing, we are of the opinion that:

    1. Each Indenture, assuming the due authorization, execution and delivery
    thereof by the parties thereto, will be a valid and legally binding agreement of
    the applicable Issuer under the laws of the State of New York, enforceable
    against such Issuer in accordance with its terms.

    2. Each series of Notes, assuming the due authorization, execution and
    delivery of the related Indenture, the execution and authentication of such
    Notes in accordance with that Indenture and the delivery thereof and payment
    therefor as contemplated in the prospectus supplement delivered in connection
    therewith, will be legally and validly issued and outstanding, fully paid and
    non-assessable and entitled to the benefits of that Indenture.

    3. Each Pooling and Servicing Agreement, assuming the due authorization,
    execution and delivery thereof by the parties thereto, will be a valid and
    legally binding

    Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.
    August 22, 2003
    Page 3

    agreement of the Registrant or the Subsidiary, as applicable, under the laws of
    the State of New York, enforceable against the Registrant or the Subsidiary, as
    applicable, in accordance with its terms.

    4. Each series of Certificates, assuming the due authorization, execution
    and delivery of the related Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the execution and
    authentication of such Certificates in accordance with that Pooling and
    Servicing Agreement and the delivery and payment therefor as contemplated in the
    prospectus supplement delivered in connection therewith, will be legally and
    validly issued and outstanding, fully paid and non-assessable and entitled to
    the benefits of that Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

    In rendering this opinion, we do not express any opinion concerning any
    laws other than the federal laws of the United States, the laws of the State of
    New York (excluding choice of law rules that would result in the application of
    the laws of another jurisdiction) and the Limited Liability Company Act of the
    State of Delaware. We do not express any opinion herein with respect to any
    matter not specifically addressed in the opinions expressed above.

    We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
    Registration Statement and to the references to this firm under the headings
    “Legal Matters” and “Certain Legal Matters” in the Registration Statement and
    related prospectus and prospectus supplement relating to one or more of the
    series of Securities, without admitting that we are “experts” within the meaning
    of the Act or the rules and regulations of the Commission issued thereunder,
    with respect to any part of the Registration Statement, including this exhibit.

    Very truly yours,

    /s/ Alston & Bird LLP

    Loading...
19. Down to the Nitty Gritty: Holder vs Owner of the Note | garfieldlawblog, on February 11, 2016 at 10:24 am said:

    […] Down to the Nitty Gritty: Holder vs Owner of the Note […]

    Loading...
20. 

    Shadowcat, on February 10, 2016 at 10:32 pm said:

    So Iwantmynpv or Neil …
    Would either one of you like to explain how UCC3 & 9 come into play?

    Loading...
21. 

    lms53, on February 10, 2016 at 7:56 pm said:

    hey has anyone bothered to check their credit reports to see who reports the loan as delinquent. This could be potential helpful info in your foreclosure case if standing is at issue. the dates in the reporting on these credit reports could be useful in our cases.

    Loading...
22. 

    iwantmynpv, on February 10, 2016 at 7:18 pm said:

    @javagold, which part of Fannie and Freddie. Corporate Freddie or Trust Freddie. Very similar to Corporate FDIC (conservator) Trust FDIC (Receiver).

    Corporate America (Secy of Treasury) Trust America (Treasurer of these united states.

    Can’t fractionally lend without the corporate side of all of the GSE’s / quaisi judicial bullshit agencies.

    Owner = Trust / GSE including FHLB’s – Original Lender if held to maturity.

    Holder in due course = creditor / originator

    Holder = Servicer, with or without rights to enforce.

    Each is used in interchangeable fashion to promote vague pleadings, which in turn are critical to the typical possession play. I have the note, it is endorsed in blank and here is this affidavit from the loan service agent claiming some bullshit business records, which are never attached to the pleadings, but entitle me to enforce the note.

    The shit ass attorneys defending homeowners only makes matters worse.

    Loading...
23. 

    Javagold, on February 10, 2016 at 5:54 pm said:

    So are Fannie and Freddie. Investors. Holders. Guarantors ??? Or whatever they need to be to fraudclosed on homeowners.

    Loading...
24. 

    djabelanger, on February 10, 2016 at 5:26 pm said:

    8. Covenants of Borrower.
    (a) The Borrower covenants and agrees with the Lender that with respect to each
    MERS Designated Mortgage Loan, it will not identify any party except the Lender in the field
    “interim funder” on the MERS® System.

    so what else your honor, are they hiding????????????????

    this is why all mortgages at closing, has already been sold to someone, as all mortgages have a mers min number on it. already, meaning irt was sold Pryor TO THE BORROWER SIGNING THE MORTGAGE, AND NOTE.

    Loading...
25. 

    louise, on February 10, 2016 at 4:47 pm said:

    David, do we know about what time this document was originally created? Laws changed several times with regard to how MERS would act, including that they were not owners of anything. It looks, to me, like there is another entity mixed into this as well (3 not 2?). Funny how this document never came out until now.

    Loading...
26. 

    djabelanger, on February 10, 2016 at 4:32 pm said:

    25. Status of Electronic Agent.
    Nothing herein contained shall be deemed or construed to create a partnership, joint
    venture between the parties hereto and the services of the Electronic Agent and MERS shall be
    rendered as independent contractors for the Lender and the Borrower. Other than the obligations
    of the Electronic Agent and MERS expressly set forth herein, the Electronic Agent and MERS
    shall have no power or authority to act as agent for the Lender or the Borrower pursuant to any
    grant of authority made under or pursuant to this Agreement.
    [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

    Loading...
27. 

    djabelanger, on February 10, 2016 at 4:32 pm said:

    7. Covenants of MERS.
    MERS shall (a) not incur any indebtedness other than in the ordinary course of its
    business, (b) not engage in any dissolution, liquidation, consolidation, merger or sale of assets,
    (c) not engage in any business activity in which it is not currently engaged, (d) not take any
    action that might cause MERS to become insolvent, (e) not form, or cause to be formed, any
    subsidiaries, (f) maintain books and records separate from any other person or entity, (g)
    maintain its bank accounts separate from any other person or entity, (h) not commingle its assets
    with those of any other person or entity and hold all of its assets in its own name, (i) conduct its
    own business in its own name, (j) pay its own liabilities and expenses only out of its own funds,
    (k) observe all corporate formalities, (l) enter into transactions with affiliates only if each such
    transaction is intrinsically fair, commercially reasonable, and on the same terms as would be
    available in an arm’s length transaction with a person or entity that is not an affiliate, (m) pay the
    salaries of its own employees from its own funds, (n) maintain a sufficient number of employees
    in light of its contemplated business operations, (o) not guarantee or become obligated for the
    debts of any other entity or person, (p) not hold out its credit as being available to satisfy the
    obligation of any other person or entity, (q) not acquire the obligations or securities of its
    affiliates or owners, including partners, members or shareholders, as appropriate, (r) not make
    loans to any other person or entity or buy or hold evidence of indebtedness issued by any other
    person or entity (except for cash and investment-grade securities), (s) allocate fairly and
    reasonably any overhead expenses that are shared with an affiliate, including paying for office
    space and services performed by any employee of any affiliate, (t) use separate stationery,
    invoices, and checks bearing its own name, (u) not pledge its assets for the benefit of any other
    person or entity, (v) hold itself out as a separate identity, (w) correct any known
    misunderstanding regarding its separate identity, (x) not identify itself as a division of any other
    person or entity, and (y) maintain adequate capital in light of its contemplated business
    operations.
    MERS agrees that in no event shall MERS’ status as mortgagee of record with respect to
    any MERS Designated Mortgage Loan confer upon MERS any rights or obligations as an owner
    of any MERS Designated Mortgage Loan or the servicing rights related thereto, and MERS will
    not exercise such rights unless directed to do so by the Lender.
    8. Covenants of Borrower.
    (a) The Borrower covenants and agrees with the Lender that with respect to each
    MERS Designated Mortgage Loan, it will not identify any party except the Lender in the field
    “interim funder” on the MERS® System.
    6
    (b) Borrower will provide the Lender with a Mortgage Identification Number
    (“MIN”) for each MERS Designated Mortgage Loan that the Lender has extended credit on for
    which MERS is the mortgagee of record.

    9. No Adverse Interest of the Electronic Agent or MERS.
    By execution of this Agreement, the Electronic Agent and MERS each represents and
    warrants that it currently holds, and during the existence of this Agreement shall hold, no adverse
    interest, by way of security or otherwise, in any MERS Designated Mortgage Loan. The MERS
    Designated Mortgage Loans shall not be subject to any security interest, lien or right to set-off by
    the Electronic Agent, MERS, or any third party claiming through the Electronic Agent or MERS,
    and neither the Electronic Agent nor MERS shall pledge, encumber, hypothecate, transfer,
    dispose of, or otherwise grant any third party interest in, the MERS Designated Mortgage Loans.
    10. Indemnification of the Lend

    Loading...
28. 

    djabelanger, on February 10, 2016 at 4:07 pm said:

    you all need to read every line in this doc.

    https://www.mersinc.org/join-mers-docman/5-eta-warehouse-template-v9/file

    Loading...
29. 

    louise, on February 10, 2016 at 1:50 pm said:

    And, thus, many, many alleged notes were sold multiple time.

    Loading...
30. 

    djabelanger, on February 10, 2016 at 1:12 pm said:

    http://www.ambac.com/CABS/CABS.asp

    Loading...
31. 

    djabelanger, on February 10, 2016 at 1:06 pm said:

    please explain to all of us , what is the difference in a banks claiming rescission of all the crap they bought, and found out they were all fraud.

    and the homeowners stating the same. ?

    https://www.orrick.com/Events-and-Publications/Documents/3606.pdf

    COMPLAINT FOR RESCISSION AND
    DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY
    TRIAL

    SUFFOLK, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
    FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF
    BOSTON,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    ALLY FINANCIAL, INC. F/ICJA GMAC
    LLC; BANC OF AMERICA FUNDING
    CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA
    CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA,
    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; BARCLAYS
    CAPITAL INC.; BARRY J. O’BRIEN;
    BCAP LLC; BEAR STEARNS ASSET
    BACKED SECURITIES I LLC; CAPITAL
    ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION;
    CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL
    ASSOCIATION; CI-MVY CHASE
    FUNDING LLC; CHRISTOPHER M.
    O’MEARA; CITICORP MORTGAGE
    SECURITIES, INC.; CITIGROUP
    FINANCIAL PRODUCTS, INC.;
    CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.;
    CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS
    REALTY CORP.; CITIGROUP INC.;
    CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST
    INC.; CITIMORTGAGE, INC.;
    COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL
    CORPORATION; COUNTRYWIDE HOME
    LOANS, INC.; COUNTRYWIDE
    SECURITIES CORP.; CREDIT SUISSE
    (USA), INC.; CREDIT SUISSE FIRST
    BOSTON MORTGAGE SECURITIES
    CORP.; CREDIT SUISSE HOLDINGS
    (USA), INC.; CREDIT SUISSE
    SECURITIES (USA) LLC; CWALT, INC.;
    CW/VIBS, INC.; DB STRUCTURED
    PRODUCTS, INC.; DB U.S. FINANCIAL
    MARKET HOLDING CORPORATION;
    DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC.;
    Civil Action No.: 11 – 1533
    COMPLAINT FOR RESCISSION AND
    DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY
    TRIAL
    ef -4′ RECFIViED –‘,
    i
    1 APR 202011
    i t
    i
    Euriliiig f.s.11JF;i – MR i
    -N. MIC,’.FlArlt ,;r:If’111jOrliVAI,1
    N’t. Cl.LPAc, I Mpi—11:;;Ifif\TT: .
    DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.;
    DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC.;
    EDWARD GRIEB; EMC MORTGAGE
    CORPORATION; FITCH, INC.; GMAC
    MORTGAGE GROUP LLC F/KJA GMAC
    MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.; GOLDMAN,
    SACHS & CO.; IMEI ASSETS CORP.;
    WIPAC FUNDING CORPORATION;
    IMPAC MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC;
    BOAC SECURED ASSETS CORP.; J.P.
    MORGAN ACCEPTANCE
    CORPORATION I; J.P. MORGAN
    MORTGAGE ACQUISITION CORP.; J.P.
    MORGAN SECURITIES LLC F/KJA
    BEAR, STEARNS & CO. INC . AND J.P.
    MORGAN SECURITIES INC.; JAMES J.
    SULLIVAN; JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.;
    JPMORGAN SEC-URI-T LES HOLDINGS .
    LLC; KRISTINE SMITH; LANA FRANKS;
    MARK L. ZUSY; MERRILL LYNCH &
    CO., INC.; MERRILL LYNCH .
    MORTGAGE INVESTORS, INC.;
    MERRILL LYNCH MORTGAGE
    LENDING, INC.; MERRILL LYNCH,
    PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH
    INCORPORATED; MOODY’ S
    CORPORATION; MOODY’S INVESTORS
    SERVICE, INC.; MORGAN STANLEY;
    MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INC.;
    MORE I INC.;
    MORG ‘GAGE
    CAPITAL =1f,
    – E ;MORTGAGE
    ASSET SECUIUTIZATION
    TRANSACTIONS, INC.; MORTGAGEIT
    SECURITIES CORP.; MORTGAGEIT,
    INC.; NOMURA AS SET ACCEPTANCE
    CORPORATION; NOMURA CREDIT &
    CAPITAL, INC.; NOMURA HOLDING –
    AMERICA, INC.; NOMURA SECURITIES
    INTERNATIONAL, INC.; RBS
    ACCEPTANCE INC. F/K/A GREENWICH
    CAPITAL ACCEPTANCE, INC.; RBS
    FINANCIAL PRODUCTS INC. F/K/A
    GREENWICH CAPITAL FINANCIAL
    PRODUCTS, INC.; RBS HOLDINGS USA
    INC. F/K/A GREENWICH CAPITAL
    HOLDINGS, INC.; RBS SECURITIES INC.
    F/ICJA GREENWICH CAPITAL
    MARKETS, NC.; RESIDENTIAL
    ACCREDIT LOANS, INC.; RESIDENTIAL
    FUNDING COMPANY, LLC F/ICJA
    RESIDENTIAL FUNDING
    CORPORATION; RICHARD MCICINNEY;
    RICHARD S. FULD, JR.; SAMI1R TABET;
    SANDLER O’NEILL + PARTNERS;• L.P.;
    STANDARD & POOR’S FINANCIAL
    SERVICES LLC; STRUCTURED ASSET
    MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II INC.;
    THE BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES LLC
    F/K/A THE BEAR STEARNS
    COMPANIES INC.; THE MCGRAW-HILL
    COMPANIES, UBS AMERICAS
    INC.; UBS REAL ESTATE SECURITIES
    INC.; TIES SECURITIES LLC; WAMIJ
    CAPITAL CORP.; WELLS FARGO &
    COMPANY; WELLS FARGO ASSET
    SECURITIES CORPORATION; WELLS
    FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
    ASSOCIATION; and DEFENDANTS JOHN
    DOE 1-50,
    Defendants.
    COMPLAINT FOR RESCISSION AND DAMAGES AND DEMAND
    FOR JURY TRIAL

    Loading...
32. 

    Sheri Daniel, on February 10, 2016 at 12:49 pm said:

    I’ll have to read this again to digest it all …but thanks for providing some clarity….

    Loading...