Swindlers List

For reasons unknown to me these two videos have had a combined viewing total of around 225. It should be 225 million. This is a first step on changing that. Everyone who is or has been involved in foreclosure or whose neighbor has been involved in foreclosure should view these two relatively short animated presentations.

Hats off to John Reed

Swindler’s List

and then —


13 Responses

  1. All is intended for hope. But, Poppy is right – “buyer beware.” An attorney once told me –the banks don’t have tell you whether it is a refinance, modification, or restructuring of default debt. So, who knows what we sign.

    The point about modifications is that it was the only way for the government to mandate some “help” to homeowners without disclosing the true fraud. If that were not the case, then why didn’t the government just mandate that the loans be validly refinanced with title cured? Because that cannot happen. Title cannot be cured.

    It was actually suggested by Barney Frank and others, years ago, to allow bankruptcy courts to write down the principal of these loans without extenuating modification agreements with unknown parties. Congress voted that down. .

  2. Just wanted to share something about these modifications. I recently came across some language in my modification. If anyone out there has one read it thoroughly.


    Take particular note to the language of: making-closing-administration-collection or the enforcement by “OCWEN” of the “Loan Documents”…then I found an amount payable to Ocwen, which appears to be a refinance of the original loan? More and more I think my “alleged” loan was refinanced, not modified, even though they bought it as a debt collector. Buyers Beware…all is not what it seems.

    I signed the modification, under duress of course. The date of my signature is 06/30/2009. It has now reared its head in 2017, signed by Kyle Higgins of Ocwen dated: 08/09/2012. 3 years and 2 months later….Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

  3. Some comments gives us hope and some comments discourage us about government & court deal with each other which make no sense
    That modification is nothing more than Craftsman fraudelant

  4. Kalifornia — also, think of the entities that claimed to have funded these loans — Countrywide, Fremont, IndyMac, Argent, Ameriquest, New Century, etc. None of these entities had the ability to fund anything that could be reflected on their balance sheet. There was warehouse lending from the big banks. But even with that warehouse lending, the loans never went onto these entity bank books. The rights to these loans” were instead immediately sold to the security underwriters (big banks) before they were securitized. But, the loan (rights) never went on those big bank balance sheets either (Big Banks being – Bank of America, CItigroup, Chase, Barclays, Wells Fargo, etc.) The rights went straight to an off balance sheet conduit — yes, as in Enron.

    This is why the documents are fake. You can’t make valid documents out of fake transactions.

    Oddly, the DOJ settlements with these banks list the trust names under the settlement. The banks were supposed to reach out to help the homeowners. BUT, the settling bank has to be the CURRENT servicer, or they will not help. Most of these loans have now gone the path to default debt collectors — Ocwen, Nationstar, Pennymac, Carrington, etc. And, by that path — one loses the “mortgage holder.” There is no longer a mortgage holder.

    So, people are desperate (can’t blame them). They will do anything to save their home, including a modification if they can get one. However, modifications just continue the fraud. Title is permanently destroyed. Modification should just be a modification of the original contract with the Countrywides, Fremonts, Indymac, Argents etc., but it is not because those entities are gone. And,the banks that may have acquired those entities, will simply claim — the bogus trust owns the loan. — not even the trustee who should be the legal holder. An empty trust owns the loan?? How are they the mortgage holder????? In effect, the mortgage, claimed at origination, has been torn apart to nothing but a “claimed” right to debt collection — even if you never defaulted. Which is what these loans were from the onset — or they never would have taken this bad path with bogus trusts, and bogus docs.

    Modifications have not helped uncover the fraud. They cover it up. But, again, for most, they will do anything to save their home.

    The government and courts simply close their eyes to what has gone on and continues to go on. Government won’t help because the banks give big donations to campaigns. Courts simply don’t have a clue because no one looks at the transactions before the last transaction. Thus, courts are looking at fake docs, and falsely believe them – or, just don’t care.

  5. CementBoots this is for you..

    CASE #1: DiLibero v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (No. 2013-190-Appeal; PC 11-4645)

    Ann Marie DiLibero timely appealed the dismissal of her Complaint by the lower court against MERS based on a line item topic that I have been advocating needs to see the light of day … the rejection of the executory contract involving the bankruptcy of New Century Mortgage Corporation (“NCMC. See the case and the executory contract below:

    DiLibero v MERS_2015-13-190


    The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court’s ruling on the following grounds:

    1. Despite the fact that DiLibero granted MERS contractual rights, NCMC was the designated Lender, who later filed bankruptcy and rejected its contractual obligation to MERS as a MERS/MERSCORP member-user of the MERS® System.

    2. Despite the fact that MERS maintained that it had contractual rights in its 12(b)(6) state Motion to Dismiss, it relied on the standards applied in Ashcroft v. Iqbal (see attached ruling below). The Rhode Island Supreme Court however determined that the pleading standards under Iqbal had not yet been adopted by their Supreme Court. You should recognize that in a majority of the 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss filed by MERS and the banks in both state and federal venues, they always cite this case, along with another U. S. Supreme Court case, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, in an effort to get all of the respective courts to apply federal pleading standards to State cases or cases that are not fully plead. This should tell the average litigant and their attorney that their state-based pleadings, even if notice-plead, need to be fully explained as if they were going to be removed to federal court and tromped on by MERS’ and the banks’ counsel in a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. This is a procedural tactic used by the banks and it’s time that homeowners and their attorneys woke up from their “nap” and got with the program. Laziness doesn’t count here!

    3. DiLibero argued that she had a right to challenge the Assignment of Mortgage as to its validity, despite counterclaims from MERS that homeowners have no standing to challenge Assignments of Mortgage (or Deed of Trust) because they are not involved in the transaction. The Supreme Court found otherwise, as noted below, citing Mruk v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 82 A.3d 527, 534-36 (R.I. 2013):

    Ashcroft v Iqbal_07-1015

    “In Mruk, we held that “homeowners in Rhode Island have standing to challenge the assignment of mortgages on their homes to the extent necessary to contest the foreclosing entity’s authority to foreclose.” Id. at 536. We see no reason to veer from our holding in Mruk in this case.”

    4. What’s most important to recognize and learn from here, is the tail-end rationale of the Court when it comes to the application of the rejection of executory contracts in bankruptcy:

    “The plaintiff contends that New Century’s MERS membership had been terminated, thereby prohibiting MERS from continuing to act as its nominee. Consequently, the plaintiff concludes that MERS lacked the authority to assign the mortgage to UBS. Conversely, the defendants argue that the facts, as alleged by the plaintiff, would not render the assignments void ab initio; rather, they would make the assignments voidable at the election of the parties thereto. However, in view of New Century’s actions in the Bankruptcy Court rejecting its relationship with MERS, “the rejection of an executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor constitutes a breach of such contract or lease.” 11 U.S.C. § 365(g). Therefore, crediting the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint as true, as we must in this analysis, when New Century filed its rejection of the executory contract with MERS, the contract was breached and its relationship with MERS was terminated. See id. Thus, the subsequent assignment of the mortgage executed by MERS to UBS would be void ab initio because the assignor, MERS, had nothing to assign. See Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska, 708 F.3d 282, 291 (1st Cir. 2013); 17A Am. Jur. 2d. Contracts § 10 at 45-46 (2004) (“A void contract is void as to everybody whose rights would be affected by it if it were valid. Based upon the facts as alleged in the complaint, it is our opinion that the plaintiff has adequately stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.”

    Thus, you may not see this posted on the MERS website under its “press release” section as it does not like to tip off the public as to ways to beat MERS up in court. I have always maintained that when the originating Lender says “NO MORE MERS”, it means what it says. In the Assignments that subsequent users of the MERS® System maintain however, they execute these documents with complete disregard of MERS’s nominee status. This is where this author maintains that the MERS® System was facilitated for the purpose of the commission of criminal RICO violations in covering up not only the chain of title but also the chain of custody of the Note as well!


    In the following case however, NCMC was in fact the originating Lender, but the attorney representing this Plaintiff in an action against MERS didn’t include the rejection of the executory contract in his argument. This made all the difference in the following case ruling:

    Case #2: Cruz v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (2012-136-M.P.; (PC 11-890)

    You can view the 11-page Rhode Island Supreme Court case ruling below:

    Cruz v. MERS_2015-12-136

    It is sad when attorneys don’t have all the facts (or use the right facts) going into a proceeding (IMHO), especially against MERS, who managed to get a denial of a protective order against it quashed. Oh well, we live to fight another day based on the mistakes and successes obtained by others. Hopefully, once you read these two decisions you will understand the fundamental reasons for opposing decisions made by the Court.


  6. Kalifornia — I get what you are saying. BUT — we still need an ORIGINAL balance from which off balance sheet conduits were derived. Without an original on- balance sheet — there can be NO off– balance sheet derived conduit or securitization. This is standard. Europe discovered the flaw originally, hence, the market collapse. And, hence why we have bogus assignments, robo-signing, and servicing that does not conform to any accounting standards. Remember — it is the cause – not the effect- that is important.

  7. I re-posted this video along with parts 2 and 3 on our website. I cannot mention our website here because if I did, Livinglies has a filter built in to delete any mention of it and this comment would be filtered off and not available for anyone to see.

    (Neil – can you please remove that filter)


  8. SEC Adopts Rules on Disclosure of Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Aggregate Contractual Obligations



  9. … continuing

    “As some regulation expert once said to me, if a firm is intent on hiding information, it can be awfully hard for regulators to unearth it. Today’s “SIVs” — “structured investment vehicles” — are indeed yesterday’s SPEs: “special purpose entities” of the sort Enron excelled in. (For outrageous yet true examples, see our Enron explainer, Accounting Alchemy.)

    In essence, SIVs, SPEs, or whatever you call them are all subsidiaries of the parent company legally structured so as to be or seem independent, and thus off the parent’s balance sheet. Not unlike a typical tax dodge, their actual “legality” depends upon being caught and then successfully prosecuted.”


  10. @ ANON & All

    One answer to a piece of the off-balance sheet motive:

    “Yes, a primary goal of securitization is to sell assets off the balance sheet (i.e., to avoid their consolidation). But it’s not the only motive. I think Culp is helpful here when he says “securitization has both a financing [funding] and a risk transfer impact on the original firm.” So, while balance sheet avoidance may be an accounting and/or economic motive, a firm also securitizes to raise cash (“monetize credit-sensitive assets”) and *transfer risk.* Many of the SYNTHETIC STRUCTURES are so-called exactly because they do not remove the assets from the originator’s balance sheet but they still transfer risk away from the originator and toward the investors. There is learning outcome about the difference between a cash CDO and synthetic CDO, where the difference is, really: in a cash CDO, the originator divests the assets (and so of course does not consolidate). But in a synthetic CDO, the originator does not sell the assets; rather, the SPE sells credit protection to the originator. So, a “typical” synthetic CDO does not meet the balance sheet motive but does transfer credit risk to investors. That was a long way of saying “it can be beneficial to securitize and keep them on balance sheet if the motive is credit risk transfer.””

    “Okay, but you are correct in this sense: the trust SPE was invented to qualify assets into off balance sheet status, after the corporate SPE lost that magic due to FIN 46R. Both FAS 140, and later FIN46 (Anti-Enron) to close more loopholes, exist specifically to clarify the rules for avoiding consolidation. That is, they were responses to perceived abuses in the achievement of dubious off balance sheet status. The four criteria in FAS 140 amount to: you must achieve a ‘true sale’ to avoid consolidation; i.e., sufficient distance between originator and SPE, enough to avoid consolidation. In short, trust SPE, FAS140, and FIN46R are about the pursuit of (trust SPE), or the hurdles required to get (FAS 1410, FIN46R), off balance sheet treatment.”


    The foregoing does not obviously answer why an originator did not have on-balance sheet treatment from inception of the transaction.

  11. This is great. But surprised they do not explain the nexus of securitization. Loans must be on a balance sheet before they can be securitized. If loans were never on a a balance sheet, there was no securitization. This is the reason the market actually collapsed. Therefore, we need to know why the loans were never originally accounted for on a valid balance sheet. We still do not have that answer.

  12. We need action – not talks.

  13. Excellent information. Use what you need from this list for your particular situation, find the law and case citations to support each Item. Use these wisely and be very organized with it. It’s definitely time to expose this truth. After all that’s what has been happening throughout the country. We are airing all our dirty laundry and the slime is bubbling up to the surface to clean up.
    Get out there now and talk about it! Times Up!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: