Is There An Actual Legal Creditor?

The judicial system has fashioned a remedy, to wit: judges strive to PRESUME that the underlying transaction exists and as long as they can block the homeowner from showing the absence of any such transaction, their presumption is likely to be upheld by an appellate court (although that tune seems to be changing lately).

 The Wall Street banks profited far more by forcing the loans to fail, foreclosing on the property and then abandoning the property they had foreclosed


For a description of our services  click here:

I keep hearing stories about homeowners frustration with their lawyers who fail to make the connection between what happens on Wall Street and what happens on Main Street. This is an example of how lawyers are seeing what goes on with Wall Street banks as too remote to be of any value. They have not made the connection because they are not paid enough to do the research and analysis of the facts and the law.


My suggestion is that the lawyer should ask themselves some simple questions:

1. If the REMIC Trusts were not funded, then how could they be the buyer of loans?

2. If the originator did not loan money to the borrower, then what is the value of a note that has their name on it as Payee?

3. If the custom and practice of the industry was to destroy notes and then fabricate them, forge them and robosign documents of “transfer” why should anyone be entitled to any legal presumptions about a “facially valid” instrument?

4. What harm would it do to require the foreclosing party or the enforcing party to prove that the underlying transaction actually exists?

5. If the note is evidence of the debt and the debt was never owned by the originator, what value is the note?

It is basic black letter law on bills and notes that the note is not the debt. It is evidence of the debt. What if the debt does not exist? The assumption is that the debt must exist because the borrower signed the loan papers. But a quick look at the Truth in Lending Act reveals that Congress found it necessary to pass a law against “table funded” loans and even dubbed them “predatory per se.”

In each of those cases the buyer has signed the loan documents without disclosure of the actual “lender.” TILA and Reg Z were originally designed to stop the practice of denying the borrower the right to know the name of the party with whom he/she is doing business. So even on the first level the practice is illegal, even if it was custom and practice in the industry to do it.


When the law was passed it was intended to cover situations in which the real lender hid behind the originator, but there was contractual privity (in some form of Assignment and Assumption Agreement) between the real lender and the originator. That is the prevailing assumption today. But for 96% of the mortgage loans that are subject to false claims of securitization (see “securitization fail”, a term used by Adam Levitin), the hidden party is not a lender either. So we have an originator who is not a lender and then a remote vehicle that is also not a lender but through whom the funds flowed to the closing agent.

The remote vehicle is a conduit for a conduit which is completely controlled by the Wall Street bank that created the REMIC Trusts on paper and then never activated the trust as a business entity. If you look closely you will see that the REMIC Trust is the Wall Street bank that created it.

The funding for the origination or acquisition of the loan comes from funds that were illegally diverted from the REMIC Trusts who issued and “Sold” MBS and deposited into a vast commingled dark pool. There is no privity between the originator and the dark pool or anyone who manages it.  I know that from inside sources and pure logic — nobody who was being paid a fee for pretending to be something they were not would want a contract that showed that they agreed to violate the law. And the investors are stuck with worthless paper issued by an inactive REMIC Trust that was, according to the prospectus, to manage investor funds in a particular way, to wit: originate or acquire Triple AAA residential mortgage loans.


The bottom line is that there is a note but it is evidence of a nonexistent transaction. There is a debt (or more properly defined as a liability) but it arises from the receipt of money (by the closing agent) from a dark commingled pool of money from thousands of investors who are at the mercy of Wall Street banks that control the pool. The investors have two claims, to wit: (1) against the Wall Street banks from whom they have been receiving settlements and (2) the homeowners, but they lack any paper trail with which to enforce their claim in equity or at law. The homeowner owes money to an unidentified party who probably does not even meet the definition of a “Creditor” much less the “holder” of any enforceable instrument.
The banks created this void between claimants and the homeowner. And they filled it with their own conduits and special purpose vehicles that were “remote” for reasons mostly related to avoiding detection. And THAT is why you never know who the Plaintiff or beneficiary is going to be in any foreclosure case. It is picked out of a hat in Jacksonville, Florida by Black Knight (f/k/a LPS). And THAT is how, for the most part, they hardly ever have more than one claimant attempting to enforce the worthless loan documents.
The judicial system has fashioned a remedy, to wit: judges strive to PRESUME that the underlying transaction exists and as long as they can block the homeowner from showing the absence of any such transaction, their presumption is likely to be upheld by an appellate court (although that tune seems to be changing lately).

So the problem is that lawyers cannot conceive of a note without a debt. And even more challenging, they cannot conceive of the illusion of a loan transaction when in fact no legal debt exists between the borrower and the originator. Is there a debt in the legal sense? I think not. But there is a liability of the homeowner owed to the parties whose money was used to create the illusion of a loan transaction — without their knowledge or consent.

Hence for the past 10 years the bench has been legislating a result based upon the policy decision to take all the wrongs committed on Wall Street and immunize the dirty work done with documents (with unclean hands). The result is that millions of people lost their homes and other properties to entities who were merely adding insult to injury. first they stole the money, then they stole the house.

This becomes self-evident by looking at blighted communities, most of whose residents would have accepted modifications that would have preserved much of the value and security for the alleged loan. But they didn’t want the loans to succeed. The Wall Street banks profited far more by forcing the loans to fail, foreclosing on the property and then abandoning the property they had foreclosed. They were able to tell investors the loans had failed, so don’t expect any money. And more importantly, they were able to get a judge’s signature on the only legal document in the entire pile of papers creating the illusion of loan  origination, loan acquisition and foreclosure.

We are left to wonder whether intentionally depressing property values with fake foreclosures might be some violation of anti-trust laws.

40 Responses

  1. Come on yellow Keep talking about FANNIE MAE. I’m positive these stories need to be told They trying to smooth it over that BIG BANKS are the problem. Banks don’t lend money and neither does Fannie Mae.

  2. […] via Is There An Actual Legal Creditor? — Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  3. Anonymous, if you keep your credit reports, they can track the ownership of your loan. I have mine all the way back from 2010 and Fannie did not even appear on my credit reports until 2014 and they say fannie owned my loan since the beginning. this stealing of our homes is a conspiracy. look in your public records and see how many homes Blackstone group, i.e. invitational homes has bought up. they have bought over a 1000 in broward county florida ( and none have been arm’s length transactions) the courts issuing a “certificate of title” isn’t worth the paper its written on. their securitization of rents will fail just like with mortgages. the investors have driven the prices of rents and homes back to an unaffordable level for most.

  4. We are long overdue for organizing massive protests across the nation.
    It’s beyond question now that the courts are conspirering to deny our group of citizens equal protection under the law, denying us our due process, denying us our rights to our property.

    There must be millions of people who have already lost their homes to foreclosures in the last 10 years and millions more who are facing foreclosures today … We need a grass roots movement to take hold and start organizing in every state … Civil disobedience, marches, protests, exercising our right to assemble in order to bring attention to the injustice and corruption taking place inside the courts. Judges are intentionally disregarding the law, twisting , spinning and playing games that ultimately destroy peoples lives. The system is not just broken, it is corrupt and has no oversight …how many struggling families can really have access to the legal help they would need to appeal these cases up to the highest courts? Practically none. And the legal profession lacks competent attorneys who are capable of articulating the arguments. Most attorneys want no part of this fight. The ones who do try end up losing because of the corrupted system. The system refuses to allow homeowner victims to prevail in 99.9% of the cases.

    Matthew Weidner channel put up a video this week about the Florida Supreme Court taking steps towards ruling against homeowners who are arguing the statute of limitations had run on the banks ..the court seems to be heading toward ruling that the SOL laws don’t apply to big banks who are stealing citizens homes.

    When the law protects citizens, the courts spin, twist and flat out ignore those laws so that the homeowners cannot prevail.

    How do we sit idle and continue to watch this travesty play out?

    When are we going to stand up and do something to show our anger?

    At least let the scum know that we know what’s up ..and let the world know by our public outrage that our elected officials and the justice system has orchestrated this ongoing crime against its own citizens.

  5. I’m in touch with a few people in CA where we have extreme cases where agencies, non profits, lawyers are ignoring the law and abusing courts incl bk. If u want to get in touch leave email here –
    @ Anonymous I’ve seen the same thing TWICE on my credit reports first time county agency basically gave them a pass and they changed info back to oriiginal then on illegal transfer credit reports changed again! These guys can do whatever they want to our property and personal information and the government agencies are going along.

  6. Hammertime, we are in California. I am 75 and my husband’s health has gone so bad from this stress, his heart beat went from normal to 190 and they put him on blood thinners. We paid $100,000 to go thru the chapter 11 bankruptcy. Now I guess we have to spend more to keep from losing our properties. Chase is trying to foreclose on two other loans too.

  7. Have a forensic examiner examine the ‘original note’ with an endorsement which is an impossibility.
    They’ll examine paper fibers, totally different than a scanned copy, and the ‘blue ink signature’ which was reproduced digitally.

    Your copy of the note possesses important paper fibers which an analyst could testify in front of a judge.
    Lack of endorsement on original as well…

  8. My wifes credit report is now showing Chase srating they owned our loan from 2004 – 2007

    We refinanced with Commerce Bank in 2004

    The note was endorsed pay to the order of WAMU upon closing

    We paid our monthly payments to WAMU from 2004-2007

    Fannie Mae website claims they own our loan from 2004-2016

    Wells Fargo is the plaintiff foreclosing right now , with a copy of the original note that was endorsed to WAMU… they added a bank stamp

    This is the first we are learning of Chase , as they just recently appeared on the credit report saying they owned our loan between 2004-2007

    What the heck is going on? Two years ago we called federal agencies and they confirmed that our loan was not part of what Chase acquired after WAMU went under …the guy looked it up and told us “No, your loan was not acquired by Chase” …

    It appears that Wells Fargo who we challenged on standing due to the gap in the chain of title …has somehow gotten Chase to cover up the gap after the fact ..Before this foreclosure goes to appeal?

  9. Barbara,
    Take SPS to court immediately. They are forcing you into default to take your home. They do not own your note. Get it in writing.
    SPS has no standing.
    Attack the accounting. They will not have a full accounting.
    File unlawfull foreclosure in court, start pro se if necessary.

  10. GUESS WHAT I FOUND TODAY! Nationstar stated that they are foreclosing for a Fannie Mae Trust. I saw on their transaction report for my loan that in 2009 the loan was redistributed from the pool (946026) that they named in court to another pool (000001) that closed in 2011. I wonder what does that mean?

  11. Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal.

  12. @Barbara that’s unbelievable but then again not shocked. What state r u in?

  13. We have a loan that was originally with WAMU, then Chase, then we went into a chapter 11. After 7 months of paying our payments Chase transferred the loan to Ocwen. Chase then sent us a 1099C Discharge of Debt. Ocwen had the loan for one year and did not apply one penny to our principal balance then the loan went to SPS, Select Servicing, who is now trying to foreclose on us, even though we never missed a payment. . I spoke to the Master Servicer and they said the money was not going to the trust and they did not know why the 1099C was sent to us.

  14. Dear Bruce- Thank you for contacting LivingLies. I regret that Mr. Garfield does not have time to address each email personally. If you are interested, you may want to sign up for the small group consultation. Please look for details on today’s post if interested.
    The consultation is not legal advice but may allow you an opportunity to receive feedback on your issue.
    Thank you,
    The LivingLies Team

  15. Bruce,
    SPS does not own your note and does not have standing to foreclose.
    Attack the accounting and for the transaction which ‘assigned’ your loan to them. That’s usually when you find your loan has been securitized…and now in some phony ‘trust’ on behalf of a ‘bank’ who is a complete stranger to your original loan agreement.
    Request on multiple occasions the payoff amount. You will receive multiple amounts, all differing dramatically.
    Now you are just beginning to scratch the surface.

    FULL accounting and to whom are the payments being dispersed.

  16. Dear Mr. Garfield,We are currently not in any danger of losing our home, but during the final stages of negotiating with servicer SPS,Inc., we created an addendum which I felt protected us and preserved our right to demand verification of debtor status. I was pleased that the addendum was accepted by the servicer, as evidenced by them attaching a copy of the addendum to our final agreement (included as attachment to this e-mail). My understanding is that by accepting this addendum, they have obligated themselves to prove their claim or return all funds received under this agreement. Through fortunate family help we have been able to stay current on our part of the bargain for years now, but I have always wondered if we had a cause of action worthy of a lawyer taking it on in hopes of exposing fraudulent behavior on part of the banking industry. I have not found a lawyer who thinks I have a case, and so I am writing you to ask your opinion, if I should continue to hold this hope of resolution or just give it up and be thankful that we retained our home. I’m sure you are busy, but thought this may be a unique situation worthy of review. Thank you for all you have done to educate and call out the banks in their falsehood and parasitic ways. Sincerely, Bruce Jackson 541-287-0631

  17. t’s all about the Benjamins. And we’re the ones who pay dearly for them, at the hands of corporate thugs that continue to break the law publicly — day after day.

  18. When you finally get to a contact for your supposed ‘trust’, they will tell you the ‘trust’ shows no activity and that the ‘bank’ refuses to discuss anything with you and that you must go back to your servicer(who does not and never has had any information).
    Isn’t this fun?

    Homeowners should do there own research as too many attorneys are not willing to.

  19. Next, go to Department of State of New York and Delaware. Type in entity information.
    After much searching, I found out our ‘originator’ was registered as a ‘foreign business corporation’.
    Scroll down and note the disclaimer, ‘ A Fictitious name must be used when the Actual name of a foreign entity is unavailable for use’.

    This is why the banks are getting away with murder.

  20. Go to Secretary of State Business Sercives Division in New York as well as Delaware. Type in ‘originator’ as well as the ‘trust’ your loan is supposedly in. Neither are registered and never were.
    Then go to the Secretary of State where your ‘originator’ had you send your monthly payments…they are not registered there either. Never were.
    For a small fee you can get copies of everything! It doesn’t stop there…keep digging, then start making phone calls. Document or record, if legal, any person you speak with regarding your ‘loan’.
    If you look under Rsgistered Angent Information, you will find a ‘registered agent’, yet it is not the securities trust who supposedly hold your ‘loan’. Then call the phone number.
    Just for starters😊

  21. Anti-Trust Coercive Monopoly. Fannie Mae/MERS Patented electronic assignments hiding the fact that the real creditor/lender is a ghost who caused homeowners to have “fake” defaults thereby leaving the homeowner vulnerable into submitting to the “fake” debt because all the judges, lawyers, clerk of the court (recordings), politicians in non-judicial states are conspiring to save their pensions that are held in the largest, most fraudulent securitized trust(s) in the world with no contracts, no wet ink notes, and no evidence of “real money” changing hands to be found or presented as proof and “MERS” deeds of trust are not worth the paper that they are printed on thereby smearing the integrity of the title to properties forever. We keep worrying about BIG BANK……Fannie Mae trumps them all! ..respectfully reserving all my rights and liberties

  22. My original lender was AAA. Fannie Mae after the house was sold at auction/foreclosure, now comes forth and states that it was the original lender/investor of my alleged loan which I had no knowledge that the note is allegedly in a Fannie Mae Single Family Mortgage Back Security, SFMBS, CUSIP 31413HPK8. Does this mean that Fannie Mae lends money? Or does it mean that Fannie Mae lent money back in 2007? Those are the questions that I need answered because my original lender never signed any mortgage contract and neither did Fannie Mae.

  23. did you see what Iceland did, they let the crooked banks fail and put the banksters in jail for a long time Ha Ha! Icelands economy has rebounded and all is well and JUSTICE was served and the people say they got what they deserved and THEY did get what they deserved. NPV you are spot on with your analysis and IF I am able to ever get a housing loan again and can bypass the banks, I will seek out a private investor and there are plenty out there and for only one ding on my credit with Chase, I’m sure I can get funding. I say we all boycott these big banks.

  24. Ian, if you look at the Exhibits attached to the SEC filings, you will see that there is an Purchase Agreement between the Depositor or Sponsor and each of the Sellers. The Sellers could have acquired loans from any number of smaller banks or mortgage brokers through wholesale lending divisions, but the Seller provides the Depositor with the recourse agreement, thus providing collateral support to the higher tier certificates.

    The issue Neil makes is that the proceeds from the sale of the Certificates was never physically delivered to the Trustee… therefore they could not have actually purchased the mortgage loans.

    This is somewhat disingenuous, because the Trust received what it bargained for. X amount of dollars of monthly cash flow generated by a pool of Mortgage loans that secure the payments to the investors. The reason many of the investors are suing the entities that sold the loans is because the loans did not meet underwriting criteria or contained numerous misrepresentations, not because the Trust is not entitled to the cash flow generated by the loans.

    Look at if from this perspective… if the Trust was not entitled to the loans, how could the investors sue the Depositor and Seller’s fro misrepresentation. When you see the massive settlements on these massive lawsuits being made to the FHFA and HUD by the large banks, it is for the quality of the laons that were carved out of the pool to form the GSE tranche. Fannie would buy the certificates in an entire tranche or provide guarantees and in turn would rehypothecate that same cash flow into GSE Bonds, which carry an implicit guarantee (i.e. taxpayers).

    What we should be bitching about, is why hasn’t the cash flow generated from these two former quasi-bullshit governmental agencies ever been used to pay down the 100’s of billions in debt the taxpayer assumed when these two slush funds fell into Conservatorship.

    I also disagree that the notes are not indorsed to the Trustee (blank endorsement)… it just does not happen until their is a default because when these trust’s originally went effective… the parties wrongfully assumed that they would be foreclosing via the “MERS nominee scenario”… so Neil is right on that front… they are definitely stamping courtesy indorsement’s on the notes or including fabricated Note Allonge’s to create the ownership chain.

    The reason they are not endorsed EVER by the Depositor to the Trustee, which they should be under the UCC… is a whole other matter that includes reserves with the BIS. Unfortunately, defense attorneys can never articulate that argument in Court to the extent it does not appear that they are attacking the PSA.

  25. NPV-
    Great explanations- i do have one comment: all the remics/mbs/rmbs needed 2 true sales to create a BRE (bankruptcy remote entity). That was a sale of each note in the trust from
    The originator, to the sponsor, to the depositor, to the trust. Not one “trust” ever did this with one note, from well over 45,000 trusts. No one has ever seen 1 trust which complied w this explicit provision of NY or Del Trust Law.

  26. At p. 7 of the link, below: “…where assets are transferred into a trust using a pre-funding arrangement, such assets remain on the books of the transferor.”

    [That statement needs review and vetting for clarification.]

  27. [On the issue of the purported “LENDER” named in the SECURITIZATION CONDUIT transaction documentation (NOTE & DEED OF TRUST), the referenced letter factually explains the party’s intent to originate and service, as well as the fact that “the transferor does not maintain control or retain the risks and rewards of ownership over the transferred assets. (See p. 2., et al.)]

    July 31, 2003 Letter from Washington Mutual, Inc. (NOT WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A.):

    File Reference No. 1200-001: Exposure Draft on Qualifying Special-Purpose Entities and Isolation of Transferred Assets, an amendment to FASB Statement No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities

    (open with a *.pdf viewer)

  28. Mr. Garfield, Saying homeowners are liable to investors seems to affirm the phony debt. When it comes to TILA why don’t lawyers use some common sense and focus on the purported transaction we were led to believe took place. If the transaction never took place at all or as we understood, that’s fraud on US. So on refis where TILA applies not purchase loans as i understand it there was to be a payoff and we were to receive the PAID note by right. For homeowners and lawyers that claim to advocate for us that should be the focus not the securitization rabbit hole. If we didn’t get our receipt, paid note, by right as Chase itself admitted to me there’s no proof the transaction ever happened and as claimed on closing documents. If that was the focus homeowners would be seen as having been defrauded and don’t have to go down the rabbit hole chasing investors.

  29. I’m not sure where everyone is going with this… all banks have credit lines that they can draw on, some directly with the FRC, some with the FHLB’s and some with Wall Street firms or the Reserve System Banks. There is no law that says a bank is not permitted to borrow money to fund loans, as long as they fund in that banks name.

    Is it kinda of shitty that all of these middle guys are making money and not disclosing it? You bet… but is does not make it illegal if I borrow money and fund in my name.

    Should homeowners be able to borrow direct from MBS Trusts? Well, that is coming sooner rather than later. Just look at all of these crowd funding sites that have started. at some point when the digital mortgage is eprfected and the work flow necessary to manufacture a mortgage is fully auotmated, there will be no need for Banks in the mrotgage process. The OCR technology will be perfected and the end purchasers (bond buyers) will simply provide the udnerwriting criteria on a grid,a nd all the middle guys will be cut out, whcih accomplishes two things… it costs less to get a loan and the actual investors make more money.

  30. This is how it works… Let’s use a correspondent lender as an example, which basically, is a local “fetch bank”, which for the most part are 100k net worth banks, meaning… there is no balance sheet capital sufficient to carry loans.

    Some can go to Wall Street direct and set up lending facilities (warehouse lenders), but most did not have enough volume to secure a facility direct from the street. Enter… the Aggregator, which in essence, were entities that simply obtained the underwriting requirements of specific loan pools, secured their own lending facilities from large banks, which in turn secured their lending facilities from even larger banks or investment firms.

    These entities would provide financing to the correspondent lender with the following terms… the loan is funded and packaged and assigned that day to the party they stipulate… typically over MERS and by immediately sending a copy of the signed note and mortgage along with the collateral package. Once received they would send it up the ladder to the company that provided their financing, and so on until it reached the original money changer!

    The FR Bank at the top of the ladder can and does fractionally lend money, meaning they post 10% actual cash to the mortgage account file as the reserve requirement, and the other 90% is funded through an entry on their balance. It is your promise to repay (promissory note) and your signature that permits that money to be created on their balance sheet as a liability, and not an asset.

    When the loan is sold to the Depositor and the cash flow from that loan is directed toward a specific PLMBS or Agency Trust, the warehouse line is cleared of the liability and replenished to start the entire process again.

    Neil may be right that the Trust never received the proceeds from the sale of the certificates, and that no endorsed notes (specific or in blank) were ever transferred to the Trustee or custodian, but there was consideration at the table and the loan was definitely made by a BANK, even if 90% of the money is created out of thin air, and the correspondent lender merely lent its name to a transaction that ultimately is funded by your promise to repay that amount.

  31. 5. If the note is evidence of the debt and the debt was never owned by the originator, what value is the note?

    etymonline – debt – thing owed.

    5. If the note is evidence of the [thing owed] and the [thing owed] was never owned by the originator, what value is the note?

    The note is not worth the paper it’s written on, that’s why they created a security and destroyed the note. [in that order]

    Who provided the [thing owed]?
    The one with the credit, the only one who signed the note. The true credit[or]. The home owner. Those endorsing it and passing it around are getting paid from the single transaction, like passing around a check one of us, the creditor, sign.

    The originator is not the creditor. That’s why they only identify the originator without providing the definition of the term, and only identify the Lender, without defining the term, but they do not go far enough to identify the Creditor, they rename the Creditor as the Borrower, and do not define the term.

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

  32. hey we all know we signed “something” of a commitment with the banksters and speaking for myself and I’m sure many others, we performed in good faith, but the banks never had any intention to perform in good faith on their end. Standing was never really an issue with me until I saw so much back and forth paperwork in the court that it obviously had to be fraudulent. this house wasn’t my first rodeo and I should have been smarter right, wrong!. you would think our government would protect us from this once hidden fraud but no and why because they are part of it. the lower court and the appellate court all in on it. you tell us neil and I know you spend a lot of time trying to help the consumer everyday through this mess that ONLY the banks created

  33. I am already aware that the note is as cash, and that it actually funds the alleged loan. I said nothing in my comment which contradicts that. I am glad that you are aware of this fact, though. I wish that more people understood this. Things will be much better for everyone in this world once the root of this massive fraud is fully exposed to the masses. As long as even people attempting to defend foreclosure fraud, are still focused upon the branches of the fraud, and refusing to cross the line and address the root…nothing will really change for the better. As long as Judges and Attorneys are still operating on the presumption that the debt obligations from homeowners to borrowers are legitimate, (unless voided by something such as robo-signed and/or forged documents, chain of title or assignment defects, or any of the other commonly used defenses), then the only true hope we have is to continue exposing the real root of the problem, and hope that it will eventually become common knowledge.

    I write as often as I can, to tell people that the general truth can be found in the Federal Reserve’s own publications–such as “Modern Money Mechanics” and even in court cases like “The Credit River Decision”, Most people still don’t want to “go there” for some reason. Especially most Attorneys and Judges. When people say things like “if the homeowner did not pay his loan payments, he deserves to have his house foreclosed on” I want to ask “What Loan?” “Can you prove there was ever a loan?” Are you assuming that there was actually a loan, just because that is what you have always been told?” “What if what you have always been told, has always been a lie?” And, other questions along those same lines. To prove that this information applies to your particular case–you must find a way to obtain the hard records and documents. This is the hard part–but if you take this information in front of a judge, in a generalized format—without hard evidence specific to your own case—the judge will not listen to you, because of the presumption of a valid debt obligation that most judges can’t seem to let go of.

    I have been researching foreclosure fraud because of a friend’s foreclosure issues–on and off–for about three years. One day, not long ago, he tried to explain these concepts to his attorney, and got nowhere. So, he asked me to try. I tried, and I did not get through a whole sentence before she told me that what I was saying was crazy. This is the kind of attitude that we are up against.

  34. I remember years ago going to one of those lawyers in the Yellow Pages advertising predatory lending. He asked, ‘Are you foreclosed?’ I said yes and you knew that when I called for this appointment. He asked, ‘Can you tender the loan?’ I said, “You know I can’t.” He said, ‘Sorry can’t help you.’
    What a waste of time and money that was. He would discuss nothing else. They know they won’t get paid enough so it’s easier to make a quick buck on the consultation fee. Internet and reality are two different worlds.

  35. susanspeaksout, look at 12 USC 1813 (L) 1. Your promissory note is as cash!

  36. How about USC 1033,
    (1) Whoever is engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce and knowingly, with the intent to deceive, makes any false material statement or report or willfully and materially overvalues any land, property or security— Sounds good to me.

  37. Why are organizations like FASB,FAF calling the shots on financial products that make getting any justice or even fairness impossible?Who are these so called gifted persons and their boards?Ask yourselves that then you may want to forget this entire mess as there is no escape IMO.

    Its all good fun though huh?

  38. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear.

  39. This is a pretty good post, and I think you do dig deeper than most attorneys tend to do, and are beginning to dig even deeper than you were before. I agree with almost all of this post, except for the following part. “But there is a liability of the homeowner owed to the parties whose money was used to create the illusion of a loan transaction” Because I believe that when the whole truth finally comes out–it will be shown that it is actually the homeowner and the note which funds the alleged loans. Some people are already beginning to become aware of this, and there is more information about this now, than there was 3 years ago, when I first started researching for a friend’s foreclosure issues. But, obtaining hard, admissible evidence to prove it, is a bit more challenging than actually gaining the knowledge and understanding. The hard evidence required must be specific to each individual case, in order to be usable in a defense–especially if you take it in front of a judge.

  40. yes in my case, I believe that is the only way they can validate the debt with the judges signature. also I consolidated one of those bad wamu loans with chase before chase bought them, but don’t tell me fannie has owned my loan from the beginning because my credit reports show otherwise and I save EVERYTHING Neil and it shows on my credit that chase is the owner of the old wamu loan so please tell me how fannie has owned my note since 06 when I refied with chase. NEVER was standing proved in my case. Please call me if you can help me because. I want to go to federal court.

Contribute to the discussion!