Our services consist mainly of the following:
-
30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
-
60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
-
Case review and analysis
-
Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
-
COMBO Title and Securitization Review
-
Expert witness declarations and testimony
-
Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
-
Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.
================================
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
The problem is that this is a grey area. Payments made to the beneficiaries of the trust were never intended to discharge the debt from the “borrower.” That’s obvious. But payments were made on account of this debt. So we go back to the law of presumptions. If the creditor receives a payment and the payment is on account of a particular debt due from a particular debtor, then it is discharged to the extent of the payment — regardless of the stated “intent” of the payor after the fact. So servicer advances definitely fall into that category. But in addition, if the entire debt has been discharged by the replacement of the obligation with another obligation from another party, then you have similar issues.
So first of all, the beneficiaries agreed to take payments from the REMIC Trust — not the “borrowers”. There is no relationship between the beneficiaries of a trust and any single “borrower” or group of “borrowers.” The REMIC Trust doesn’t pay the beneficiaries despite the paperwork to the contrary. The REMIC Trust is inactive with no assets, bank accounts, business activity etc.
It is the Master Servicer that pays the beneficiaries. And the Master Servicer makes those payments regardless of whether it has received payments from the beneficiaries. (servicer advances). The note and mortgage name a specific payee that is neither the Trust (or Trustee) nor the Master Servicer. So the first real legal question that I raised back in 2007 was the issue of who was the owner of the debt or the holder in due course?
The debt arose when the “borrower” accepted the benefits of funding that came from an unidentified source. It is presumed not to be a gift. The “borrower” has signed a note and mortgage in favor of a party that never loaned him any money — hence there is no loan contract and the signed note and mortgage should have been destroyed or released back to the “borrower.” Such a loan is table-funded and is almost certainly “predatory per se” as described in REG Z.
Since there is no privity between the “originator” and the Trust or Master Servicer the loan documents cannot be said to be useful, much less enforceable. Those documents should be considered void, not voidable, when the payee and mortgagee failed to fund the loan. The repeated transfers of the loan documents without anyone ever paying for them clearly means that the consideration at the base “closing” was absent. Hence there is no consideration at either the origination or acquisition of the loan documents. Acquisition of the loan documents does not mean acquisition of the loan. If there was no valid loan contract or there is no valid loan contract (rescission) executing endorsements, assignments and powers of attorney are meaningless.
So there is a serious question about whether there is a legal creditor involved in any of these loans. There are parties with equitable and legal claims, but not with respect to the loan documents that should have been shredded at the very beginning. All those claims are unsecured. And the foreclosures, in truth, are for the benefit of parties who have no relationship with the actual money that was used to the benefit of the alleged “borrower” who is looking more and more like a party who is not a borrower but who could be debtor if there is anyone answering to the description of “creditor.” No party in this scenario seems to answer to that description.
And THAT would explain why NO PARTY steps forward to challenge rescissions as a creditor and instead they attempt to retain their status of having apparent “Standing” and attack the rescission through arguments that require the court to interpret the TILA Rescission Statute, 15 USC §1635. But the US Supreme Court has already declared that it is the law of the land that this statute is not subject to interpretation by the courts because it is clear on its face. So such parties are seeking relief they didn’t ask for (vacating the rescission) using the void note and void mortgage as their basis for standing.
Thus without someone filing an equitable claim showing that their money is tied up in the money given to the “borrower” there does not seem to be a creditor at law.
Add that to the fact that most of the “Trusts” were resecuritized by more empty trusts and you have the original beneficiaries completely out of the picture as to any particular loan and the so-called REMIC Trust being completely out of the picture with respect to the loan or loan documents that were originated, even if they were not consummated.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: creditor, disclosure, foreclosure, fraud, Mortgage, securitization, TILA, TILA rescission, UCC |
In the seizure of property, I wondered why and how state agengies and officials fit in, and this is what I found. Institute for Justice
http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/
Policing for Profit Visualized: How Big Is Civil Forfeiture?
https://youtu.be/KhAa2vep1z0
Ian, that was the premise of SS. A careful review of SS shows that the FRC, which agreed to lend these united states money via the Roosevelt administration, asked one simply question…
If you want to carve a bunch of ugly faces into the side of Mount Rushmore, how are you going to pay the interest on the debt?
Roosevelt agreed to the fractional gold standard and went one step further… he implemented the social security trust… Because the Country was engulfed by the great depression… raising the tax on income (another scam) would be futile and the folks would not go for it. Instead, they set forth the entitlement (which somehow has now taken on a bad rap) system… meaning, you are entitled as a contributor.
The surplus monies collected each year would be locked into the trust, therefore producing huge reserves over time. Instead of the surplus being used to purchase treasuries, or simply left alone, it has been stolen under the guise of an IOU.
So, just like the income tax, which had its arrival the same year as the FED was chartered… SS was just another method to bleed out the folks without calling it a tax, which origins and sole purpose was a guarantee that the FED would be paid its interest for lending under the jobs act… Remember, the Sterling was the reserve currency at the time, thus no printing of federal reserve notes permitted!
**COUGH**
Conduits: Their Structure & Risk
https://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/banking/1999dec/2_v12n3.pdf
Npv- i remember algore saying that he invented the internet. With no disclaimers when he said it. He may have added a line or two later on, but initially he said only that he invented the internet. Ridiculous.
And in his discourse on Social Security, he kept stating that we had to imagine SS as a lockbox. Both our rmployers’ and our SS contributions/ deductions were to be placed in a “lockbox”, drawing interest until needed. But we know that the monies paid in simply go toward the gubmint general fund. A sad state of affairs indeed.
Scalia missed on Citizens United. He was otherwise somewhat balanced from a conservative view. Ed- any guy that makes such an open-end statement (I invented the internet, sorta) cannot be president. One thing I can say for Al Gore… he is one of the first to openly tell the American folks that the US government has been stealing their social security monies through some bullshit premised surplus model for years.
Anybody but Bush or Clinton! I hope the entire Bush and Clinton family have a town hall barbecue with the Texas Chef that conspired with the international banking cartel that plotted together to kill Scalia for his Jesinoski decision. LOL, this is what is wrong with our Country. The worthless feeders are preoccupied with some delusional bullshit about a Scalia conspiracy… meanwhile our two biggest foes just announced a deal (openly) to manipulate the price of oil higher. Where is all the free-market bullshit rhetoric from sides of the same worthless aisle?
This is why an insane open socialist is gaining momentum against a washed up habitual liar, and 6 other morons that will do or say anything to get elected. Is Donald Trump America’s next experiment? Is he any worse then the other idiots?
TSMIMITW
The Definition of a Creditor for the Purposes of TILA.
The term creditor includes “any person who originates 2 or more mortgage referred to in subsec-tion (aa) in any 12-month period.” 15 U.S.C. § 1602(f). Subsection (aa) refers to a consumer credit transaction that is secured by a consumer’s principal dwelling, other than a residential mortgage transaction, reverse mortgage, or a transaction under an open end credit plan, if the total points and fees payable by the consumer at or before closing will exceed the greater of 8 percent of the to-tal loan amount or $ 400.00. 15 U.S.C. § 1602(aa).
Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal.
E.tolle-
So you thought highly of Scalia?
“Scalia… Texas BBQ… 40 people… he’s dead by morning…. unknown causes?”
Excuse me while I wipe my eyes…..not from tears at his passing, but from the wild-ass-speculation of a conspiracy, in some small part due to borrowers getting a small bone in Jesinoski? It’s much more likely that his appalling and contemptible views finally put him one pound of mental bile over the line. There just wasn’t any room left in him for Round-Up Ready Texas beef brisket on top of all the malignity he carried around with him for all those years.
And while I feel for any family that suffers a loss, you won’t see me shedding tears for this black-robed blowhard. If it weren’t for him, Gore would have been elected, which he was anyway, it’s just that TPTB couldn’t allow that…..and the earth might stand a bit better chance what with his ecological sense over that Bush the Buffoon II who scorched it for no reason whatsoever. Just because. Oh, and it helped out his military-industrial-complex friends and his boss Cheney quite well.
And where would we be without his deciding vote cast on Citizens United? Don’t even get me started, as I know Neil will kick my ass off of his blog….come to think of it, he should have done that years ago!
In the words of one commentator concerning Scalia:
Nobody but Scalia could have written, airily, that “this Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.” To describe the execution of an innocent man as fully constitutional takes operatic levels of chutzpah.
And then there’s this quote from the man himself:
There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less—a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas.
I’ll stop there, knowing full well that this board is filled with hard core right wing Christian xenophobes who would tell the rest of us what to believe and when to believe it. I used to rely on the Supreme Court to make sure that my right to view things differently was protected. Not any more.
Now if only they’d serve some of that BBQ to a few hundred on the Hill…..
Guys he was 79
With a stressful job
you know dam well they got to him, and this was a warning to all of them to show who is controlling them and they better be listening.
Speaking of accidents, a local banker in Illinois just stabbed himself to death last week. It took three tries, but he did succeed.
Above I saw comments about MERs, I think this forensic Examination clarifies in explanation what is the nitty gritty truth. SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS — As of this date and time, approval has been given by the attorneys representing the Osceola County, Florida Clerk of the Circuit Court, Hon. Armando Ramirez, to release the Forensic Examination conducted of his real property and court records in Kissimmee, Florida (this is a 8.3MB pdf file, make sure your hard drive will allow you to download it). For a further explanation of the information contained in the report, click on the link below:
OSCEOLA COUNTY REAL PROPERTY RECORDS FORENSIC EXAMINATION
The local Orlando and Osceola County media appear to be divided as to exactly where their support lies for the information contained in the Osceola County, Florida Forensic Examination of the official property records and related court records involving numerous foreclosure actions.
As many of you know, I have been assisting (as a paralegal and consultant) distressed property owners’ attorneys in foreclosure defense issues through the contribution of chain of title assessments. Anyone who has read Clouded Titles knows what my position is in all of this foreclosure mess. I also teach chain of title assessment and quiet title workshops around the country to homeowners and their attorneys who wish to acquire and evaluate my research for their own purposes. I have been doing this since I launched the first version of my book in December of 2010. This report, should you dare to explore it, will certainly enlighten you and you will walk away with many questions. Your questions will probably be extremely valid, more valid than the questions that were posited to me by Sheriff’s Economic Crimes Unit’s detectives in Osceola County when I met with them, along with two of the examination team examiners.
[CLOUDED TITLES]
– See more at: http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2015/07/26/dk-consultants-llc-releases-the-osceola-county-florida-forensic-examination/#sthash.UEzxoe6C.dpuf
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dies at 79
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/ar-BBpt2F8?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout
New Break: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dies at 79
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/ar-BBpt2F8?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout
Justice Scalia and Jesinoski
I believe Scalias higher self knew that his life’s work was almost done and he did the RIGHT THING, but remember none of the Justices disagreed, Jesinoski decision was unanimous, and that is that.
mn,
It is critical a conservative replaces this vacancy.
Saturday 13 February 2016
Scalia rules on Jesinoski…huge problem for banks.
Scalia dies of “natural causes” overnight.
There are many who believe there are no accidents.
Justice Scalia has died at age 79.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1175483/000119312513101333/d500466dex991.htm
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
by and among
THE SELLERS LISTED ON SCHEDULE 1.01(a) HERETO,
HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION
(solely in respect of its obligations under Section 11.19
and in its capacity as Seller Representative)
and
SPRINGCASTLE ACQUISITION LLC
Dated as of March 5, 201
SECTION 2.04. No Recourse; As Is, Where Is. Neither Sellers, Seller Representative nor Guarantor shall be liable to Purchaser, or Purchaser’s successors, successors-in-title, legal representatives or assigns, should any Borrower fail to perform any of such Borrower’s obligations under the Loan Documents. As of the date hereof, one or more defaults and/or events of default by the Borrowers may have occurred and may be continuing under the Loan Documents. EXCEPT FOR THE LIMITED AND EXPRESS REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF SELLERS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE V, PURCHASER IS PURCHASING THE PURCHASED LOANS (A) SUBJECT TO ALL DEFAULTS AND EVENTS OF DEFAULT THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED OR MAY BE CONTINUING AS OF THE CLOSING, AND (B) “AS IS,” “WHERE IS” AND “WITH ALL FAULTS,” AND WITHOUT ANY REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OF ANY TYPE, KIND, CHARACTER OR NATURE (INCLUDING REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES AS TO THE GENUINENESS, LEGALITY, VALIDITY, SUFFICIENCY OR ENFORCEABILITY OF ANY LOAN DOCUMENT; OR AS TO THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF ANY BORROWER; OR AS TO THE VALIDITY, ENFORCEABILITY, ATTACHMENT, PRIORITY OR PERFECTION OF ANY SECURITY INTERESTS GRANTED (OR PURPORTED TO BE GRANTED) IN ANY COLLATERAL; OR AS TO COMPLIANCE WITH LAW OF ANY PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED WITH RESPECT TO ANY LOAN DOCUMENT; OR AS TO ANY MATTER FOR WHICH WARRANTIES WOULD BE IMPLIED UNDER ARTICLE 3 OR ARTICLE 9 OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE; OR AS TO THE SERVICING OF THE LOANS OR THE COLLECTION EFFORTS OF ANY COLLECTION AGENT), AND WITHOUT RECOURSE OF ANY NATURE TO SELLERS, SELLER REPRESENTATIVE OR GUARANTOR (EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT). WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING AND, EXCEPT FOR THE REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF SELLERS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE V, PURCHASER IS PURCHASING THE PURCHASED LOANS WITHOUT ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO: (I) THE COLLECTABILITY OR VALUE OF THE LOANS; (II) THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF BORROWERS OR THE ABILITY OF BORROWERS TO PERFORM PURSUANT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE LOAN DOCUMENTS; (III) THE VALUE OR PHYSICAL CONDITION OF ANY COLLATERAL; (IV) BORROWERS’ OR ANY OTHER PERSON’S OWNERSHIP OF OR TITLE TO ANY PROPERTY, REAL OR PERSONAL, SECURING OR SUPPORTING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THE PAYMENT OF THE LOANS; (V) THE EXTENT, VALIDITY, PRIORITY OR PERFECTION OF ANY MORTGAGE OR OTHER LIEN RELATING TO THE LOANS; (VI) THE CONTENT, COMPLETENESS OR ACCURACY OF THE DUE DILIGENCE MATERIALS (INCLUDING ANY HISTORICAL INFORMATION SET FORTH IN THE CUT-OFF DATE DATA TAPE OR OTHERWISE WITH RESPECT TO THE LOANS RELATING TO PERIODS PRIOR TO THE CUT-OFF DATE) OR LOAN FILES; OR (VII) ANY OTHER MATTER CONCERNING ANY LOAN, LOAN DOCUMENT, LOAN FILE, COLLATERAL OR MORTGAGE, IN EACH CASE EXCEPT AS MAY BE OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY STATED HEREIN.
NOTICE: THE LOANS INCLUDE MORTGAGES SUBJECT TO SPECIAL RULES UNDER THE FEDERAL TRUTH IN LENDING ACT. PURCHASERS OR ASSIGNEES OF SUCH MORTGAGES COULD BE LIABLE FOR ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES
-27-
WITH RESPECT TO SUCH MORTGAGES THAT THE BORROWER COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE CREDITOR. BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, PURCHASER ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT IT COULD BE LIABLE FOR ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WITH RESPECT TO SUCH MORTGAGES THAT THE BORROWER COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE CREDITOR.
SECTION 2.05. Excluded Documents. Purchaser acknowledges that the Excluded Documents are not included in the Loan Files. The Excluded Documents may include material information that, if known to Purchaser, could have a material influence upon Purchaser’s assessment of the value, merits, risks and hazards inherent in the Loans, and Purchaser accepts such risks by entering into this Agreement, and such risks shall be borne solely by Purchaser. In no event shall Purchaser at any time be entitled to review or have access to or rights of discovery with respect to the Excluded Documents, all of which are hereby waived.
SECTION 2.06. Loan Files. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN ARTICLE V, PURCHASER UNDERSTANDS AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE LOAN FILES WERE NOT PREPARED FOR PURCHASER OR TO BE RELIED UPON BY PURCHASER, THAT THE LOAN FILES MAY BE INCOMPLETE OR OUTDATED OR MAY CONTAIN ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR INACCURATE AND CONFLICTING INFORMATION, AND THAT NEITHER SELLERS, SELLER REPRESENTATIVE NOR GUARANTOR HAS ATTEMPTED TO VERIFY, CORRECT OR RECONCILE THE INFORMATION IN THE LOAN FILES. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN ARTICLE V, PURCHASER IS ASSUMING ALL RISKS RELATED TO THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE LOAN FILES. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN ARTICLE V, PURCHASER UNDERSTANDS AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ANY REPORT OR DOCUMENT IN THE LOAN FILES THAT MAY BE PROVIDED BY SELLERS OR SELLER REPRESENTATIVE IS BEING PROVIDED WITHOUT REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY OR SUFFICIENCY OF THE FACTS, ASSUMPTIONS OR CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN ARTICLE V, PURCHASER HEREBY WAIVES, RELEASES AND AGREES NEVER TO ASSERT ANY CLAIMS AGAINST ANY SELLER, SELLER REPRESENTATIVE, GUARANTOR, THEIR RESPECTIVE AFFILIATES OR THEIR RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES OR THE PREPARERS OF THE LOAN FILES THAT COULD BE BASED UPON RELIANCE ON THE LOAN FILES.
ARTICLE III
CONSIDERATION
SECTION 3.01. Purchase Price. The aggregate consideration for the Purchased Assets shall, subject to the terms and conditions of this Article III, be an amount equal to the aggregate Loan UPB Purchase Price as of the Calculation Time on the Cut-Off Date for all Loans (the “Purchase Price”). The Purchase Price shall be payable as set forth in Sections 3.02 and 3.03. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in no event shall the Closing Cash Consideration, as adjusted pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, be greater than $4,000,000,000.
Here’s a question which I havent seen raised on this site or anywhere else:
I am looking at my 1098 for last year. If all these loans are bogus, paid off, there is no balance, purchased by the servicer or whomever for 2 cents on the dollar, etcetera: if i paid, for example, $21,000 in “mortgage payments” in 2015, of which $16,000 is purportedly principal and $5000 is interest- someone is lying big time as there can’t be any principal. It is all interest (profit) on a nonexistent mortgage. But i can only deduct the interest, as shown on the 1098. I should be able to deduct everything. Any thiughts on this? Any links? Any IRS cases? There is massive fraud on the part of the servicers/lemders/banks because there are no principal balances outstanding.
Dbelanger- the montgomery county MERS case wasn’t successful. I think it was well-plead.
Good info in there and the amicus brief.
http://www.pilcop.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/15-03-23-HLS-Amicus.pdf
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 the status of MERS as mortgagee of record with respect to any MERS Designated Mortgage Loan confer upon MERS any rights or obligations as an owner of or secured party with respect to 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 Purchaser.
The Electronic Agent and MERS agree to provide written notice to Purchaser of any litigation, threatened litigation or potential dispute in which the validity or legality of this Agreement or any term hereof is questioned or challenged.
Covenants of Seller.
The Seller covenants that the Seller is a member of MERS in good standing.
The Seller covenants and agrees with the Purchaser that with respect to each MERS Designated Mortgage Loan, it will not identify any party except Purchaser in the field “interim funder” or “warehouse/gestation lender” on the MERS® System without the prior written consent of the Purchaser.
Seller will provide the Purchaser with MERS Identification Numbers for each MERS Designated Mortgage Loan sold to the Purchaser for which MERS is the mortgagee of record.
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.
ELECTRONIC TRACKING AGREEMENT
WHOLE LOAN SALE AGREEMENT
ELECTRONIC TRACKING AGREEMENT
WHOLE LOAN SALE AGREEMENT
THIS ELECTRONIC TRACKING AGREEMENT dated as of March 21, 2002 (this “Agreement”) among Greenwich Capital Financial Products, Inc. (“Purchaser”), MERSCORP, Inc. (“Electronic Agent”), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) and E-LOAN, Inc. (“Seller”).
WHEREAS, the Purchaser has agreed to purchase from the Seller, from time to time at its election, Mortgage Loans (the “Mortgage Loans”) pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Mortgage Loan Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as of September 25, 1998 between the Purchaser and the Seller, as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time (the “Purchase Agreement”) and a Custodial Agreement dated as of June 29, 2000 among Bankers Trust Company of California, N.A. (the “Custodian”), the Purchaser, and the Seller, as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time (the “Custodial Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Seller is obligated to service the Mortgage Loans pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Purchaser and the Seller desire to have certain Mortgage Loans registered on the MERS® System (defined below) such that the mortgagee of record under each Mortgage (defined below) shall be identified as MERS;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1082337/000108233702000003/exh10-6.htm
Registered Loans in Rated Securities
Overview
Loans registered on the MERS® System may be included in rated securities issued by
MERS® System Members. Assignments normally recorded naming the Trustee as the
Mortgagee are largely eliminated for the MERS Loans in the securitization.
The securitization may include loans registered on the MERS® System and unregistered
loans. For the MERS Loans included in the securitization, the Trustee must be named as the
current Investor on the MINs. The Trustee does not need to be an active Investor on the
MERS® System; it may choose to be a passive Investor and let the MERS® System process
the confirmations automatically.
A Trustee that is a MERS® System Member should supply its Org ID to the Member issuing
the securitization.
For non-Agency securitizations, the Trust name must be included in the Securitization field
on the MERS® System
https://www.mersinc.org/join-mers-docman/978-mers-system-procedures-final/file
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 Purchaser.
8. Covenants of Seller.
(a) The Seller covenants and agrees with the Purchaser that with respect to
each MERS Designated Mortgage Loan, it will not identify any party except the Purchaser in the field “interim funder” on the MERS® System.
(b) Seller will provide the Purchaser with a Mortgage Identification Number
(“MIN”) for each MERS Designated Mortgage Loan sold to the Purchaser 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 Purchaser.
The Electronic Agent agrees to indemnify and hold the Purchaser and its
designees harmless against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, actions, judgments, suits, costs, expenses or disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, that the Purchaser may sustain arising out of any breach by the Electronic Agent of this Agreement, the
A-7
Electronic Agent’s negligence, bad faith or willful misconduct, its failure to comply with the Purchaser’s instructions hereunder or to the extent caused by delays or failures arising out of the inability of the Purchaser or the Electronic Agent to access information on the MERS® System.
The foregoing indemnification shall survive any termination or assignment of this Agreement.
“Mortgage Pool” shall mean a designated pool of fully amortizing first lien Mortgage Loans, a 100% ownership interest in which is purchased and sold under the Participation Agreement.
“MERS® System” shall mean the Electronic Agent’s mortgage electronic registry
system, as more particularly described in the MERS Procedures Manual.
FYI:
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2016/02/12/orcilla-v-big-sur-inc-ca-court-of-appeal-6th-dist-quick-loan-never-assigned-the-note-or-its-interest-in-the-deed-of-trust-wrongful-foreclosure-and-a-crap-load-of-various-statutory-violations/
msfraud dot org has the article where the doj was taking complaints from anyone that witnessed bidding fraud during a [theft] foreclosure.
They have my complaint under penalty of perjury.
doj-seeks-information-concerning-foreclosure-bid-rigging_5-15.html
In the words of:
Jason Nesmith: Never give up. Never surrender.
Galaxy Quest, 1999
Our complaints of facts, placing their names in the public criminal databases is their Book of Life.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
From msfraud dot org website
Department of Justice seeks information concerning foreclosure auction bid rigging or fraud
doj-seeks-information-concerning-foreclosure-bid-rigging_5-15.html
I took the time to write and ask a ‘is this bid rigging’ email, based on what happened when the thieves called their selves selling ‘my’ home outside the courthouse, and asked whether it was bid rigging.
Antitrust.Complaints@usdoj.gov
I got a very polite canned response, I’ll include the body here:
Dear Concerned Citizen:
Thank you for contacting the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Citizen Complaint Center receives, reviews and files complaints and concerns. We are prohibited from providing legal advice or offering opinions on whether conduct may violate the law. Unfortunately we are unable to respond to your questions. However, if you have a complaint, we would be happy to receive it.
You might wish to explore our website which contains a primer on antitrust laws and explains what constitutes an antitrust violation. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/; http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/div_stats/antitrust-enfor-consumer.pdf; http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/209114.htm
If you are concerned about confidentiality please see our Confidentiality Policy and Privacy Policy, which apply to all complaints received by the Antitrust Division. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/confpol.htm, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/privacy.htm
We appreciate your interest in the enforcement of federal antitrust laws.
Sincerely,
Citizen Complaint Center
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
I then took the time to write the complaint that the letter informed me; was what they receive and provided files to support the claim and where I could not provide files, I explained in detail where specific information was logged, what each person did and who may be holding the logged information relating to what transpired that day, for example, the clerk of the court recording the credit bid where no money changed hands from the self appointed trustee who was the only bidder on the property, where other bidders remained silent, and the bid was the exact amount the purported creditor claimed was delinquent
.
Where I had documents, they were photo images of the certified copies I got from the court easily verifiable.
I gave my status, and the claim was made in fact, correct, and complete, under penalty of perjury without misrepresentation.
I then received a second canned response that I will include here:
Dear Concerned Citizen:
Thank you for contacting the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. We have your information on file and should the legal staff need further information, they may contact you in the future.
We appreciate your interest in the enforcement of federal antitrust laws.
Sincerely,
Citizen Complaint Center
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
—————————-
I do not give legal advice because I do not know legal things.
As I see it, we can still put their names in the public for what they do, the complaint made public in criminal databases are their Book of Life.
I have and continue to act, no matter how much time passes, fraud is fraud without statute of limitation.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
From msfraud dot org website
Department of Justice seeks information concerning foreclosure auction bid rigging or fraud
doj-seeks-information-concerning-foreclosure-bid-rigging_5-15.html
I took the time to write and ask a ‘is this bid rigging’ email, based on what happened when the thieves called their selves selling ‘my’ home outside the courthouse, and asked whether it was bid rigging.
Antitrust.Complaints@usdoj.gov
I got a very polite canned response, I’ll include the body here:
Dear Concerned Citizen:
Thank you for contacting the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Citizen Complaint Center receives, reviews and files complaints and concerns. We are prohibited from providing legal advice or offering opinions on whether conduct may violate the law. Unfortunately we are unable to respond to your questions. However, if you have a complaint, we would be happy to receive it.
You might wish to explore our website which contains a primer on antitrust laws and explains what constitutes an antitrust violation. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/; http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/div_stats/antitrust-enfor-consumer.pdf; http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/209114.htm
If you are concerned about confidentiality please see our Confidentiality Policy and Privacy Policy, which apply to all complaints received by the Antitrust Division. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/confpol.htm, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/privacy.htm
We appreciate your interest in the enforcement of federal antitrust laws.
Sincerely,
Citizen Complaint Center
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
I then took the time to write the complaint that the letter informed me; was what they receive and provided files to support the claim and where I could not provide files, I explained in detail where specific information was logged, what each person did and who may be holding the logged information relating to what transpired that day, for example, the clerk of the court recording the credit bid where no money changed hands from the self appointed trustee who was the only bidder on the property, where other bidders remained silent, and the bid was the exact amount the purported creditor claimed was delinquent
.
Where I had documents, they were photo images of the certified copies I got from the court easily verifiable.
I gave my status, and the claim was made in fact, correct, and complete, under penalty of perjury without misrepresentation.
I then received a second canned response that I will include here:
Dear Concerned Citizen:
Thank you for contacting the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. We have your information on file and should the legal staff need further information, they may contact you in the future.
We appreciate your interest in the enforcement of federal antitrust laws.
Sincerely,
Citizen Complaint Center
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
—————————-
I do not give legal advice because I do not know legal things.
As I see it, we can still put their names in the public for what they do, the complaint made public in criminal databases are their Book of Life.
I have and continue to act, no matter how much time passes, fraud is fraud without statute of limitation.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
I do not give legal advice because I do not know legal things.
I was on msfraud website about a year ago(?) [fuzzy when exactly I accessed the information] I saw the article titled
Department of Justice seeks information concerning foreclosure auction bid rigging or fraud
doj-seeks-information-concerning-foreclosure-bid-rigging_5-15.html
I took the time to write and ask a ‘is this bid rigging’ email, based on what happened when the thieves called their selves selling ‘my’ home outside the courthouse, and asked whether it was bid rigging.
Antitrust.Complaints@usdoj.gov
I got a very polite canned response, I’ll include the body here:
Dear Concerned Citizen:
Thank you for contacting the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Citizen Complaint Center receives, reviews and files complaints and concerns. We are prohibited from providing legal advice or offering opinions on whether conduct may violate the law. Unfortunately we are unable to respond to your questions. However, if you have a complaint, we would be happy to receive it.
You might wish to explore our website which contains a primer on antitrust laws and explains what constitutes an antitrust violation. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/; http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/div_stats/antitrust-enfor-consumer.pdf; http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/209114.htm
If you are concerned about confidentiality please see our Confidentiality Policy and Privacy Policy, which apply to all complaints received by the Antitrust Division. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/confpol.htm, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/privacy.htm
We appreciate your interest in the enforcement of federal antitrust laws.
Sincerely,
Citizen Complaint Center
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
I then took the time to write the complaint that the letter informed me; was what they receive and provided files to support the claim and where I could not provide files, I explained in detail where specific information was logged, what each person did and who may be holding the logged information relating to what transpired that day, for example, the clerk of the court recording the credit bid where no money changed hands from the self appointed trustee who was the only bidder on the property, where other bidders remained silent, and the bid was the exact amount the purported creditor claimed was delinquent
.
Where I had documents, they were photo images of the certified copies I got from the court easily verifiable.
I gave my status, and the claim was made in fact, correct, and complete, under penalty of perjury without misrepresentation.
I then received a second canned response that I will include here:
Dear Concerned Citizen:
Thank you for contacting the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. We have your information on file and should the legal staff need further information, they may contact you in the future.
We appreciate your interest in the enforcement of federal antitrust laws.
Sincerely,
Citizen Complaint Center
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
—————————-
As I see it, we can still put their names in the public for what they do, the complaint made public in criminal databases are their Book of Life.
I have and continue to act, no matter how much time passes, fraud is fraud without statute of limitation.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
imho
It is called a travesty of justice
Well we have a sub trustee that sells at the so called public auction to the highest bidder being the other ” trustee” Who represent CERTIFICATE HOLDERS that’s what they claim ( emphasis added)
They issue a ” trustees deed upon sale” signed by the sub trustee signer ” for” a SERVICER Not THE LENDER
The subject loan was properly rescinded months before this sake took place
A 1099a is issued naming the SERVICER AS Lender
What is wrong with this little story
Neil- but there HAS to be a creditor! Otherwise all the “credit bids” would be illegal.
Certainly not a one of the LINOs who never intended to, and did not, loan any of their own monies. No LINO took any risk whatsoever, and no LINO can show any harm or injury, let alone a book entry on the money trail’s origin.