In the mortgage world “successor by merger” is simply a living lie that continues as you read this article. Like many other major illusions in our world economy, the Chase-WAMU merger was nothing more than illusion
The reason for the rebellion showing up as votes for Sanders and trump and the impending exit of the UK from the European Union is very simple — every few decades the populace gets a ahead of their elected leaders and yanks their leash so hard that some of them choke.
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
see wamu_amended_unsealed_opinion
When Bill Clinton was asked how he balanced the budget and came out with a $5 Trillion surplus when he left office his reply was unusually laconic — “Arithmetic.” And he was right, although it wasn’t just him who had put pencil to paper. Many Republican and Democrats had agreed that with the rising economy, the math looked good and that their job was not to screw it up. THAT was left to the next president.
I’m not endorsing Clinton or Trump nor saying that Democrats or Republicans are better that the other. Indeed BOTH major political parties seem to agree on one egregiously erroneous point — the working man doesn’t matter.
The people who matter are those with advanced degrees and who reach the pinnacle of the economic medal of honor when they are dubbed “innovators.”
The reason for the rebellion showing up as votes for Sanders and Trump and the impending exit of the UK from the European Union is very simple — every few decades the populace gets a ahead of their elected leaders and yanks their leash so hard that some of them choke. To say that the BREXIT vote was surprising is the height of arrogance and stupidity. People round the world are voicing their objection to an establishment that doesn’t give a damn about them and measures success by stock market indexes, money supply and GDP activity that is manipulated at this point that it bare little if any resemblance to the GDP index we had come to rely upon, albeit that index was also arbitrarily and erroneously based on the wrong facts.
The fact that large percentages of the populace of many countries around the world are challenged to put food on the table and a roof over their heads doesn’t matter as long as the economic indices are up. But truth be told even when those indices go down, the attitude is the same — working people don’t matter. They are merely resources like gold, coal and oil from which we draw ever widening gaps between the people who run the society and the economy and those who drive the economy and society with their purchases.
In the mortgage world “successor by merger” is simply a living lie that continues as you read this article. Like many other major illusions in our world economy, the Chase-WAMU merger was nothing more than illusion — just like BOA’s merger with BAC/Countrywide (see Red Oak Merger Corp); Wells Fargo’s merger with Wachovia who had acquired World Savings; OneWest’s acquisition of IndyMac; CitiMortgage acquisition of ABN AMRO, CPCR-1 Trust; BOA’s merger with LaSalle; Ditech’s acquisition by multiple entities GMAC, RESCAP, Ally, Walter investment etc.) when DiTech was dead and the name was the only this being traded, and so much more. All these mergers bear one thing in common — they were cover screen for one simple fact: they had not in one instance acquired any loans but then relied on the illusion of the merger to call themselves “successors by mergers.”
Let’s take the example of WAMU. When they went broke they had less than $3 Billion in assets (see link above). This totally congruent with the $2 billion committed by Chase to acquire the WAMU estate form the FDIC receiver Richard Schoppe (located in Texas) and the US Trustee in bankruptcy — especially when you consider the little known fact that Chase received 1/3 of a tax refund due to WAMU.
That share of the Tax refund was, as you might already have guessed, MORE than the $2 billion committed by Chase. whether Chase ever actually paid the $2 billion is another question.But in any event, pure arithmetic shows that the consideration for the purchase of WAMU by Chase was LESS THAN ZERO, which means we paid Chase to acquire WAMU.
This in turn is completely corroborated by the Purchase and Assumption Agreement between WAMU, the FDIC Receiver, the US Trustee in Bankruptcy and of course Chase. On the first page of that agreement is a express recital that says the consideration for this merger is “-$0-.” But before you look up the “Reading Room on the FDIC FOIA cite, here is one caveat: some time after the original agreement was published on the site, a “different” agreement was posted long after WAMU was dead, the US Trustee had been discharged, and the FDCI receiver was discharged as a receiver. The “new” agreement implies that loans were or may have been acquired but does not state which loans or how much was paid for these loans. The problem with the new agreement of course is that Chase paid nothing and was not entitled to nothing, except the servicing rights on some fo those loans.
The so-called new agreement placed there by nobody knows, also stands in direct contrast of the interview and depositions of Richard Schoppe — that if there were loans to sell the principal amount would have been hundreds of billions of dollars for which Chase need pay nothing. I dare say there are millions of people and companies who would have taken that deal if it was real. But Schoppe states directly that the number of assignments was NONE, zero, zilch.
Schoppe also stated that the total amount of loan originations was just under $1 Trillion. And he said that the loan portfolio might have been, at some time, around 1/3 of the total loans originated. Putting pencil to paper that obviously means that 2/3 of all originated loans were either pre-funded in table funded “loans” or that they were immediately sold into the secondary market for securitization. All evidence points to the fact that WAMU never owned the loans at all — as they were table funded through multiple layers of conduits none of whom were disclosed as required under the Truth in lending Act. Because the big asset that WAMU retained were (a) the servicing rights and (b) the right to claim recovery for servicer advances. It could be said that the only way they could perfect their claim for “recovery” of “servicer” “Advances” was by acquiring WAMU since Chase was the Master servicer on nearly all WAMU originations.
The interesting point of legal significance is that Chase emerges as the real party in interest even though it it appeared only as the servicer in the background after subsequent servicers were given “powers” of attorney to prevent the new “servicer” (actually an enforcer) from claiming a recovery for “servicer” “Advances.,” that are recoverable not from the borrower, not from the investor, and not from the trust but in a foggy chaos in which the property was liquidated.
So the assets of WAMU at the time it went belly up was under $3 Billion which means that after you deduct the brick and mortar locations and the servicing rights Chase still got the deal of a lifetime — but one thing doesn’t add up. If WAMU had less than $3 Billion in assets and 99% of that were conventional bank assets excluding loans, then the “value” of the loan portfolio, using FDIC Schoppe estimates was $3 Million. If the WAMU loan portfolio implied by the a,test antics of Chase was true — then Chase acquired $300 BILLION in loans for $3 MILLION. Even the toxic waste loans were worth more than one tenth of one percent.
Chase continues to assert ownership with impunity on an epic scale of fraud, theft and manipulation of the courts, investors and borrowers. The finding that Chase NOT assumed repurchase obligations in relation to the originated loans goes further to corroborate everything I had written here. There seems to be an oblique reference to attempted changes in the “P&A” Agreement, and the finding that the original deal cannot be changed, but the actual finding of two inconsistent agreements posted on the FDIC site is worth investigating. I can assure the reader that I have found and read both.
And lastly I have already published numerous articles on victories in court (one fo which was mine and Patrick Giunta) for the borrower based upon the exact principles and facts written in this article — where the judge concluded that US Bank had never acquired the loan, that the “servicer” in court testifying through a robo-signer had no power over the loan because their power was derived from Chase who was named as servicer for a REMIC Trust that never acquired the loan nor any rights to the loan.
The use of powers of attorney were found to be inadequate simply because the party who executed the POA had no rights to the money, the enforcement of the loan nor any collection or foreclosure. If Chase had acquired the loan from WAMU they would have won. Their total reliance on deflective legal presumptions based upon presumed fact that were untrue completely failed.
BOTTOM LINE: CHASE ACQUIRED NO LOANS FROM WAMU. Hence subsequent documents of transfer or powers (Powers of attorney) are void.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: bankruptcy, borrower, Chase, disclosure, FDIC, FDIC receiver, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, fraud, Schoppe, securitization, WAMU |
I also want to point out that WaMu is not dead. Again. They are still alive and kicking.
Has anyone checked the various WAMU, INCs subsidiary DBA registrations for validly and completeness of filling??
I.e.: In California if you fail to publish your DBA in the local paper it is technically not valid.
Therefore any of the WAMU subs may not have had the legal right to do business.
I was also thinking about publishing an ad in the paper: “would the owner of note please contact payer of said note” or something like that.
How would the courts look at that?
Thanks
what is going on Neil with Eric mains lawsuit?? I would like to compare notes with his Chase/WAMU merger. I consolidated a WAMU note with Chase in 2006 and my credit reports say that Chase paid that WAMU note, therefore one would think that Chase is the holder, owner and they are the servicer, but have went back and forth claiming that fannie is the note holder. they have gone back and forth with their crap to bury me into debt. I would like to speak to Eric via emai. Can you provide a contact email for him please.
@Yoli
If they sent it to me, I am the intended recipient.
If there was other correspondence with it, does it communicate with their counsel or is it generic.
Suppose the employee following procedure came across the note, saw the account paid in full, and per process sent the original to you?
I know when I refinanced, I got the original note back with a red stamp Paid in Full on the outside page while it was tri-folded.
Does the note have Paid in Full stamped on it?
If it does, it belongs to her, because the other side will only copy the front pages and never show the rear page that it is paid.
It is said if you receive something by mail that you did not request, you can keep it.
Your friend did not steal it, it was offered, and she accepted.
Legal maxim:
He who suffers a damage by his own fault, has no right to complain.
What is mine cannot be taken away without my consent.
[It is the friend’s note, that other people were passing around and possessing without giving it back to the friend; now the friend has it, it’s the friend’s note]
What ought not to be done, when done, is valid.
When you doubt, do not act.
[ do not act to give it back when you are in doubt to whether you should have what was ‘delivered’ to you ]
Whatever is paid, is paid according to the manner of the payor.
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/bouvier/maxims.shtml
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
@Yoli
I don’t want to advise you, but…..if it were me, …..
I DEFINITELY would not be giving it back to them, above all else.
For whatever it’s worth, it’s now in your possession, even if it cannot be determined to be ‘yours’. If it can be determined to be an ‘original’ bearer instrument, all the better. Regardless, it provides a huge leverage. Probably time to discuss a settlement of some kind. And, it could also open up their claims of a ‘lost’ note. I’d at least let them know they need to find a way to proceed without it. That is, if I were to acknowledge receipt of it at all. Genuine mistakes are one of very few tools we have today to overcome their crimes, because courts haven’t been very good about it. When they ask you to return it, say, “sure”, then simply ask them to prove they were entitled to be holding it in the first place.
Frankly, I don’t know what the proper answer is here. But, it seems like a good place to be. I’m so honest, I might have trouble doing anything else.
I would also put in front of judge this print out and put in for the judge to read, and say this is why we need the whole picture, and look under all rocks,shell companys, all transaction from all party. let open the books and let see if they really do own something. shell we.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
COURT OF APPEALS
NO. 2015-P-1259
U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR RASC 2006KS9
Plaintiff-Appellant
V.
WENDY BOLLING
BollingBriefFINAL
I would go in front of judge, and tell judge, I don’t want to have my house stolen by someone that does not have any rights to payments.
and that you will be happy to pay the right person any payments owed, as in holder in due course.
so if anyone can claim this. and prove to me and this court, that they do own what they say they own and prove it with cancelled checks, etc etc etc.
until then , no one is getting a free house especially the bank/servicer/debt collectors.
now your honor, that is only fare. to all parties.
What would you do? I am seeking input on a situation people I know (not me) recently found themselves in. We know the banks have been foreclosing on properties with nothing more than an allegation of possession of the note endorsed in blank. In my case the court granted summary judgment solely because of this allegation and a document that appears to be an original (something I have adamantly disputed) despite many disputes to not only standing but other allegations as well. The banks don’t believe they must prove how they came into possession of these notes and it’s clear the courts agree with them.
So what would YOU do if the party in your case claiming a right to foreclose simply for alleging possession of an original endorsed in blank mistakenly sent you the so-called original when it was really intended to be sent to their counsel?? This is a pretty incredible situation and one I truly believe could be a game changer for everyone whose homes are being threatened based on the allegation that possession alone allows them to foreclose. In my opinion this places the homeowner in the driver’s seat and has turned the case 180 degrees.
Delivery is critical, transfer of possession is critical. The UCC says a person might be entitled to enforce the note even if they’re in “wrongful possession.” The way I see it the foreclosure action is now moot and the only way the bank could possibly retrieve that note is by filing a separate type of action (perhaps one for replevin?) but would now absolutely need to provide solid proof it is entitled to the note.
So, I ask all of you who are well versed in this, what would you do? Would you hand it right back to the plaintiff because they’re asking that you do? If your attorney was recommending that you “give it back” without any questions asked, would you? Would you continue employing that attorney? I know what I would do, but not everyone is like me. Am I the only one that sees this as a huge opportunity to turn the tables by forcing the other side to argue the very same things we’ve been arguing? If the homeowner lost the very same arguments and took it up to appeals and got the appellate court to agree the homeowner was wrong in claiming a right to the note based on possession alone would this not open the door to discovery in millions of cases in which discovery is now being blocked because the bank purportedly doesn’t need to prove anything other than possession alone??
Input appreciated!
R DEUTSCHE ALT-SECURITES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2007-AR3, Plaintiff,
against
Veronica Sanchez, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BENZINGER AVENUE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et.al., , Defendants.
Fyi see foreclosure fraud ( by dinsFLA)
The RE Market has peaked and the downward cycle will begin anew. When RE Values exceed the PTI Multiple for that area or are in excess on 2.6%… the only way to sustain present market value is for incomes to see a net increase (inflation adjusted) or for second market participants to lower credit standards.
Since wages have been stagnant (inflation adjusted) for decades we see the following programs as a sign the top has been “put in”.
After much research and feedback from both homebuyers and lenders, Fannie Mae has announced an enhanced affordable lending product—HomeReady mortgage—designed to meet the diverse financial and familial needs of responsible, creditworthy buyers.
Offering a 3% down payment option. Now, first-time and repeat homebuyers can purchase a home with a down payment as low as 3% of the purchase price.
Supporting extended families. For the first time, income from a household member who is not a borrower (i.e., they won’t be on the mortgage) will be considered. This means—in multi-generational households, the income of children, grandparents, or other extended family members may help buyers qualify for a HomeReady mortgage.
Allowing co-borrower flexibility. All borrowers do not have to reside in the property. For example, parents, who won’t be living in the home, can be co-borrowers on the loan to help their children qualify for a mortgage and purchase a home.
Accepting additional income sources. Rental payments may be considered as another allowable income source to help qualify a buyer (i.e., rental payments from a basement apartment). Income limits may apply.
Reaching down the credit ladder to generate new debt to support the interest on the old debt always fails, unless of course, you are the FRC and have the luxury of printing paper.
The credit cycle is over, and residential housing will correct by an estimated 9% for FY 2017.
Variable Interest Entities
GM is providing the information below concerning VIEs that: (1) are consolidated since GM is deemed to be the primary beneficiary and (2) those entities that GM does not consolidate because, although GM has significant interests in such VIEs, GM is not the primary beneficiary. Those VIEs listed below that related to the Financing and Insurance Operations were consolidated in 2004, 2005 and the period January 1, 2006 to November 30, 2006.
Synthetic Leases — GM leases real estate and equipment from various SPEs that have been established to facilitate the financing of those assets for GM by nationally prominent, creditworthy lessors. These assets consist principally of office buildings, warehouses, and machinery and equipment. The use of SPEs allows the parties providing the financing to isolate particular assets in a single entity and thereby syndicate the financing to multiple third parties. This is a conventional financing technique used to lower the cost of borrowing and, thus, the lease cost to a lessee such as GM. There is a well-established market in which institutions participate in the financing of such property through their purchase of interests in these SPEs. Certain of these SPEs were determined to be VIEs under FIN 46(R). GM consolidates any entities with leases where GM provides a residual value guarantee of the leased property, and is considered the primary beneficiary under FIN 46(R). As of December 31, 2006, the carrying amount of assets and liabilities consolidated under FIN 46(R) amounted to $636 million and $797 million, respectively, compared to $780 million and $1 billion as of December 31, 2005. Assets consolidated are reflected in property-net in GM’s consolidated financial statements. GM’s maximum exposure to loss related to the consolidated VIEs amounted to $695 million at December 31, 2006. For other such lease arrangements involving VIEs, GM holds significant variable interests but is not considered the primary beneficiary under FIN 46(R). GM’s maximum exposure to loss related to these VIEs where GM has a significant variable interest, but does not consolidate the entity, amounted to $624 million at December 31, 2006.
Financing and Insurance Operations
Automotive finance receivables — In certain securitization transactions, GMAC transfers consumer finance receivables and wholesale lines of credit into bank-sponsored multi-seller commercial paper conduits. These conduits provide a funding source to GMAC (as well as other transferors into the conduit) as they fund the purchase of the receivables through the issuance of commercial paper. Total assets outstanding in these bank-sponsored conduits approximated $15.3 billion as of December 31, 2005. While GMAC has a variable interest in these conduits, it is not considered to be the primary beneficiary, as GMAC does not retain the majority of the expected losses or returns.
Mortgage warehouse funding — GMAC’s Mortgage operations transfer commercial and residential mortgage loans, lending receivables, home equity loans, and lines of credit pending permanent sale or securitization through various structured finance arrangements in order to provide funds for the origination and purchase of future loans. These structured finance arrangements include transfers to warehouse funding entities, including GMAC and bank-sponsored commercial paper conduits. Transfers of assets from GMAC into each facility are accounted for as either sales (off-balance sheet) or secured financings (on-balance sheet) based on the provisions of SFAS No. 140, “Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities” (SFAS No. 140). However, in either case, creditors of these facilities have no legal recourse to the general credit of GMAC. Some of these warehouse funding entities represent variable interest entities under FIN 46(R).
Management has determined that for certain mortgage warehouse funding facilities, GMAC is the primary beneficiary and, as such, consolidates the entities in accordance with FIN 46(R). The assets of these residential mortgage warehouse entities totaled $7.2 billion at December 31, 2005, the majority of which are included in loans held for sale and finance receivables, net, in the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40730/000095012407001502/k11916e10vk.htm
Mortgage warehouse funding — GMAC’s Mortgage operations transfer commercial and residential mortgage loans, lending receivables, home equity loans, and lines of credit pending permanent sale or securitization through various structured finance arrangements in order to provide funds for the origination and purchase of future loans. These structured finance arrangements include transfers to warehouse funding entities, including GMAC and bank-sponsored commercial paper conduits. Transfers of assets from GMAC into each facility are accounted for as either sales (off-balance sheet) or secured financings (on-balance sheet) based on the provisions of SFAS No. 140, “Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities” (SFAS No. 140). However, in either case, creditors of these facilities have no legal recourse to the general credit of GMAC. Some of these warehouse funding entities represent variable interest entities under FIN 46(R).
Management has determined that for certain mortgage warehouse funding facilities, GMAC is the primary beneficiary and, as such, consolidates the entities in accordance with FIN 46(R). The assets of these residential mortgage warehouse entities totaled $7.2 billion at December 31, 2005, the majority of which are included in loans held for sale and finance receivables, net, in the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
kim cory
My opinion, rant, soap box
SMJ, can be challenged at any time and you can start that challenge with the original court.
Most likely a motion to vacate void judgment for lack of smj, of , of
I think there is a rule that if you have a defense, you name them all when you make your motion and let the court decide whether they will review them or not. But not naming them when you have the opportunity to name them, bars you from raising them in the future.
So if you raise smj, you better know all the other reasons why and raise them, as this would be your last chance, it would be res judicata after that.
You may want to search case law for the words subject matter jurisdiction and pull all the info you can from appeal and supreme court cases regarding what is required to have it and what is missing that denies the court the thing.
Study that, as your solid proof does not have to be groundless if it can change case law.
I once read a case that defined groundless. :
“Groundless” means no basis in law or fact and not warranted by good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
Your goal would be to get past the opposing side seeking a dismissal.
no basis in law or fact is a quick way to get things dismissed.
lack of standing is a good way to challenge anyone who made you stand before them to settle a purported dispute you do not have with them, they do not have with you, but they fabricated on paper with no injury, tangible or intangible.
The CFPB recent amicus contains expansion of injury in the Spokeo decision, so make sure you can show injury and show they have no injury, or any injury they claim where you are partially responsible, that they are partially responsible and you owe them no remedy/redress jurisdictionary calls that, comparative negligence. Of if through some act of theirs you caused injury but it would not have happened if they hadn’t done a thing that made the two of you interact in some way for their injury, jurisdictionary calls that contributory negligence.
Get a membership to search case law for about a month using those terms or use a law library or google scholar or any other means, including searching those words in your own state court website, you’d be surprised the cases that are now online [ appeal and state supreme court cases ] and they are recent decisions and point to prior case law for their decisions; that save you a trip to a law library and opening books.
It’s not over until you give up and subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, because we don’t always see the forest until we step out of it, then we can see how big or small our problems really were.
I heard on an audio once, that a man was in jail for some act for many years, and he challenged subject matter jurisdiction ten years in because an element of his purported crime was that he was engaged in transportation and he was not. The courts sent it back for a retrial, was what i heard. Was it true? Probably, probably not, but it did help to explain what ‘anytime’ means when we see subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged any time.
Think of the people who’s life in jail was spent there because two people sat on both sides of the court and bickered about some charge a cop made up, and the best debater won, and the soul was sent to a barred room wondering what happened?
Then someone with a conscience goes and looks, knows this system is a farce, finds the leak in the dike, points it out, and the soul is free.
The ones that put him there claim some plausible deniability, and the one that made the charge is immune with badge and gun and low IQ to go and affect the rest of the population with their lies and deceit.
We do not speak their language and it takes some of us years to learn what they spent years learning when they waltzed into court one day and robbed us blind wanting us to thank them for not taking more.
I know nothing and if I think I know something, I know no thing. I do not give legal advice because I don’t know legal things. I am not a lawyer and I would not want to be a lawyer. I’d be the scum of the earth before being a lawyer, even the scum of the earth has scruples for who they will mess with and who they won’t. To a lawyer, everyone can be affected by their papers for a fiat buck.
It would be something if history revealed Sodam and Gomorrah and Noah’s flood happened to get rid of the lawyers in the world.
Dang one survived and started the entire profession all over again.
I’m just ranting, never mind me. I know nothing anyway.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
EVERYONE please remember that there are many ALTER EGOs to the name “Washington Mutual.” Some /parent/holding entities are in existence to this day. However, it was the subsidiaries that were closed and it was the subsidiaries that were the CONDUIT ORIGINATORS — NOT A LENDER; other than in name only for documentation purposes.
For example, by Washington Mutual’s own admission in its annual report, the entity named “Washington Mutual Bank, FA” ceased to exist in April 2005. Accumulating circumstantial evidence is pointing to Washington Mutual Bank, FA as being a conduit originator that was in fact TABLE-BROKERING in advance the origination documentation for a securitization in a TABLE-FUNDED transaction — PREDATORY PER SE at its inception.
The point being: pay attention to the details of anything with the “Washington Mutual” moniker, and don’t get lazy by making a perilous reference to “WaMu.”
I watch the news and see the desperate looks on people’s faces that’ve just lost everything….to fire in the west, to copious rains in the dark hollers of another west, West Virginia, and all I can do is nod my head in full understanding. Yes, it’s a major bitch to suddenly find yourself stripped of all assets…..family pictures, furniture, tools that your Grandfather owned….all lost to nature and her tough ways.
And then along comes the government sanctioned cavalry in the form of weekend warriors and governors promising to pull out all the stops to help the downtrodden. They live for moments such as this. Even presidential speeches confirm the aid will seemingly be unending to right the wrongs afflicted upon these families.
I’m glad at least some of them are going to get aid….they obviously need it badly. What I don’t understand is how this same type of loss has been ravaged upon millions of Americans in the ongoing foreclosure crisis, and there’s not a single word printed about the carnage occurring.
In my humble opinion, there is not an iota of difference in losing everything a family has to fire or flood, or to that of fraudulent foreclosure, save for the fact that those who’ve watched their house slide down a hill or be consumed by a raging fire, in my mind, have, at the very least, a sort of understanding that they were victims of natural events, something that has occurred since time immemorial, since our brethren left the caves.
When one fights against an unnatural foe, those mammoth corporate entities who’ve gamed systems and perverted code into law….such as MERS…..and suddenly find themselves facing the same fate, that of being bereft of all tie-downs and safety latches…..all of the things that we were brought up to believe were sacred such as justice and that right will always prevail…..seeing that go up into smoke not unlike a California wildfire will tests the soul, again in my humble opinion, even more so than a natural event.
Losing everything that one has worked a lifetime for, losing the bed that your child goes to sleep in, in order to prepare for school the next day, losing the very grounding that one has worked for their entire life, in order to keep family and friends safe, is, a tough row to hoe. Having it come about due to fraudulent paperwork, with the courtroom’s assistance, and everyone in government turning a blind eye…. knowing that there’s no voice, no savior in government that will ride to the aid of those who have lost all and are now homeless.
One group gets prayers, Red Cross assistance, and government assurances. The other is shown the curb. Tough love. Unequal laws.
So I have solid proof that WAMU never owned our loan and Chase never took legal custody of the same – just what you describe. But I lost in District and Citcuit Court. COA and Supreme Courts both refused to hear my case. I can also prove prejudice. Over 15k later in total overall legal fees, I gave up. My case can change case law and I hate the fact that I’ve given up, what should I do?
If nothing acquired it, nothing can issue a power of attorney, nor can they hire an attorney to represent it in court. That attorney agreement can be challenged for sure, as it’s part of the rules of court. An attorney must represent a client, and must have the agreement.
I am not a lawyer and do not know legal things, so my no(ing) of rules of court can be off, because I do not k(no)w.
Trespass Unwanted
So lets see the the canceled checks from Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., for paying for our MORTGAGE AND NOTE, then i want to see the canceled
checks from GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1, FROM TRUSTEE CHECKING ACCOUNT BOOK. THAT THEY PURCHASED MY MORTGAGE LOAN AND NOTE.
IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. WHAT THE DOJ SAID AND FBI SAID TO ,. IMPOSSIBLE. ONE REASON. IS WHAT I SENT YOU ALREADY.
GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, SOLD 1127 MORTGAGES TO A fictitious name CORP, NOT REGISTERED TO DO BUSINESS
ANYWHERE.
Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc- DOES NOT EXIST-NEVER DID. fictitious name CORP.
GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1- NEVER EXISTED fictitious name,AGAIN NOT A LEGAL OPERATING ENTITY. WITH ANY STATE SECRETARY OF STATE.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, NOTHING BUYS NOTHING= NOTHING.
SIMPLE IS AS SIMPLE AS IT GETS.
the turning point might well have been the Yvanova decision in California in which they essentially said that void is void. And everything after that is void as well. Nearly all of the REMIC Trusts were created in New York where it was possible for a trust to be created on paper, registered no where and nonetheless issue mortgage backed securities that could be privately traded. But New York law also provides that any action that contravenes the express provisions of the Trust document (PSA) is void.
Hence, as the Yvanova court said, ratification of a void act means nothing more than the original ‘Nothing” that started the chain. Ratifying a forged instrument does not suddenly create the rights that were never there to begin with; the only ratification that would have any legal effect would be something from the initial “borrower.” And there is another reason why ratification is out of the question and it is stated in both the prospectus to investors and the PSA — neither the investors nor the “Trustee” have any right to know about or even inquire about the loans supposedly held in the “loan pool.” As it turns out there are no loans in THE loan pool that might be owned by the Trust.
They gave KCs husband a loan.
Then Stripped the Title to Our Estate depositing it into Trust.
Irrevocable like.
Then they held the ESTATE accountable for the Fees!!!!!!!!
The borrower accountable for the Note.
The Estate was party to the Settlements.
Reverse Purchase & Sale into Trust
Purchase & Sale Agreement.
I read the paperwork over three days, I just wasn’t astute enough to pull out a dictionary and a whiteboard and figure out I was handing the property to another after paying for it with the promissory note, and that I was not the homeowner with the keys, but paying a middle man the same amount my promissory note took care of, to be a tenant in the property.
I also did not know all the years of labor for the property would be usurped by a business that wanted in on the ‘interest’ to the property.
AND I did not know how to speak the language to tell the judge that I should not be there and they, strangers to the transaction, with no prior dealings, should be sanctioned or imprisoned for disturbing the peace and forcing me to be there.
And they should be imprisoned for theft of real property when these fake papers are exposed in any case where the home is stolen.
I don’t pretend to be a doctor, get an order from a client claiming to have power of attorney to act for someone; the client hires me to do surgery on that someone, I force someone to be admitted into a hospital, cut them open, remove some organs, close them up and claim on paper I did my job for my client, the surgery was a success, there is no liability for what I did for my client; and tell the patient to appeal the surgery if they don’t like the results.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
I think we can all agree that the paper trail is all fraudulent right from the beginning. When you sat down at the closing table to sign all those documents (that you didn’t get to read or understand) you were not getting a loan from the party you thought you were getting it from, and there is also the possibility that you were NEVER loaned any money but only put into debt on the phoney paperwork.
@VM
If I were you, I’d be checking in with Neil right away. There’s this thing called, in legal term, ‘Infectious Invalidation’, which I’ve not yet heard mentioned around here. But, once something is bad, everything afterward is also bad.
Why does Neil not look on Wells Fargo site and review the Jul 31, 2006 mortgage servicing agreement of the 1.3 million Government Insured loans that WaMu had in Ginnie Mae MBS.
Even with as little as $100,000 per loans x 1.3 million = $130 billion in loans.
8yrs in and these bright minds don’t understand who a Ginnie Mae MBS is created? Once these blank endorsed mortgage Notes were physically transfer from WaMu to Wells Fargo, it was impossible to transfer back.
First the loan could not be transfer back because Ginnie nor Wells purchase the debt and next WaMu died on Sept 25, 2008 without having possession of and not being able to petition the court because they died and no longer exist!
When OTS seized WaMu that sealed the $335 billion loss by the bank and the Ginnie pooled FHA, VA & USDA loan were part of that $335 billion loss!
I have a WAMU loan taken over by Chase and now Ditech is allowed to do a short sale
Do I have any legal action afer short sale is completed?