HOW DO I PROVE MY LOAN WAS SECURITIZED?

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

YOU DON’T. YOU PROVE THAT THE LIEN WAS NEVER PERFECTED

  1. The question being asked is a red herring. The problem with securitization is that, for the most part, it never happened. In a way our report is only part of the story. There are really three trails — the actual document trail, the purported document trail and the money trail. The actual document trail we do the best we can. We provide all recorded or public records documents and then some. The purported money trail includes the documents that should have been executed and delivered properly. The securitization report shows that. The money trail shows how they treated the loan even though the securitization never took place as was required by the PSA etc.The loan level accounting report shows that, up to a point.
  2. Thus proving that it WAS securitized is not actually in the interest in the borrower. Proving that the pretenders treated it as securitized establishes the lender-borrower relationship between the borrower and the investor/lender. This is probably done through loan level accounting. Proving that the “Securitization” was side-stepped establishes that the people who are getting the money actually don’t have the documentation entitling them to receive, distribute or otherwise use the money except to the extent that the money finds its way to the investor. So what the lawyer is proving is that the indorsements and transfer and delivery never occurred and that the lender of record, as was proven in the money trail, is not and never was the creditor (except in a few instances like World Savings).
  3. Go back to title: in the title record we have a mortgage originator who in most instances was a thinly capitalized “bankruptcy remote” entity, like First Magnus, whose collapse had no effect on the flow of funds, or so they hoped. As such the mortgage originator, although designated as “lender” or even “beneficiary” is not the creditor even for a hypothetical instant in time. The mortgage originator is as much a straw-man as MERS. So in most cases we have two straw men, one lying and the other swearing to it.
  4. The failure to identify the undisclosed principal creditor creates uncertainty as to who one would approach if they wanted a satisfaction of mortgage. If that is not apparent on its face, and it is an actual known fact that the originator is a straw-man, then the lien was never perfected. The “perfected lien” in one that gives reliable notice about eh debt and the creditor. This does neither one, since it neither identifies the creditor nor does it describe the terms received by the creditor via the PSA and other securitization documents.
  5. An unperfected lien is no lien at all and therefore cannot be foreclosed. But that is only a title issue — it does not address the issue of the obligation which surely arose because the borrower received the benefit of the funding of the loan from SOMEONE, even if he doesn’t know who it is.
  6. So the objective is to prevent foreclosure and then leave the issue of damages for loss of money to anyone who can prove they actually lost money. The interesting part of this is that the investors are not doing that. In fact, from all appearances it would seem that they are abandoning the claim against the homeowner in favor of making claims against the investment banker that sold them bogus mortgage bonds using non-existent pools with nothing in them.
  7. It is the unwillingness of investor/lenders to make a claim against the borrowers that has created the mess we see now. Their absence from the fight creates a void where the banks using their credibility based upon brand identification, step in and say we are foreclosing on the property but we won’t tell you who the creditor is nor will we tell you the balance that is due after the payments provided for in the PSA.
  8. It is the payments made pursuant to the PSA and Assignment and Assumption agreement that need an accounting — which the homeowner can get if he is successful at getting the Judge to allow discovery. What he will find is that there were payments made on behalf of the pool or the trust to the investors  but that these payments did not reach the investors, or that they did not entirely reach the investors. No attempt has been made to allocate the payments to the underlying supposed assets, which are not assets, as set forth above because the loans never made it into the pool.
  9. So far the pretenders have been successful at fighting back any attempt to get such an accounting and then allocating on a reasonable basis the payments received to the obligations for which they received third party payments. If that barrier is ever broken, then the loan balances would be required to be reduced because the creditor was paid. There may or may not be a balance still due and owing. It will probably vary from case to case. But if the foreclosure has been stopped because the lien was never perfected then any court that understands this (mostly you will find people who do understand perfection and priority of liens), the obligation might still exist but it is unsecured.
  10. Once the homeowner has won on the issue of an unperfected lien, he has a clear path to Quiet Title, which again addresses only title and not the obligation itself.
  11. So the answer is that the homeowner doesn’t want to prove that the securitization DID take place. The homeowner wants to prove that it did not take place but that it was treated as though it was real. The actual facts of the closing being that the mortgage originator and designated “lender” was merely a mortgage broker, defeats perfection of the lien. Their own attempts at fabrication and forgery of robo-signed documents proves that the loan was not intended to be a loan from the mortgage originator to the borrower. The second thing which might never be necessary unless a real creditor shows up, is to establish that the principal demanded on the notice of default and notice of sale was wrong because they never gave an accounting for third party payments.
About these ads

59 Responses

  1. foreclosureinfosearch,

    Mr. Soliman — fine — but, you did not answer my question.

  2. @ m soliman:

    thank you for the information, will follow the money trail. funny once i started pulling out the mortgage statement, in the accounting area TARP was mentioned as an accounting function as early as 2006. i wonder if they had a crystal ball?

    and the first fraud was mail fraud in the form of their refinance brochure

  3. Desperated HO, on August 22, 2011 at 4:42 pm said:
    This happened on August 15,2011

    I read the complaint. Redundant Gibberish. It was a well crafted boiler plate – a lot like you see for ” free” on some attorneys sites. It was sold as a knee jerk serial filings with well versed and properly formatted “NOTHING”

    A homeowner believes its something that can bring instant “declaratory” relief and other injunctive remedies. I guess it was not working but sold hot off the presses. Arguments about standing and general claims about the lost note are not sufficient to merit claims to stay a sale.

    It will not.

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

    Always seek an attorneys advice on a one to one basis. Nothing published here under expert.witness is intended to substitute for a licensed practitioner. Only legal counsel licensed by the state may practice law. Call your state bar for more details and information.

  4. Anonymous

    My belief for claim is based on basic capitalization methods and GAAP.
    1.1 The conveyance into a REMIC’s “Paid Capital account is in fact tender of the note. By that we mean the conveyance and consideration tendered cancels the note in favor of the household’s obligation. That transfer is affirmed by MERS registration.

    1.2 Capital contribution by Willful Concealment in a reverse repurchase at time of sale (F/C) is your predominant claim causal for alleging damages.

    1.3 In a deed for bond, the note is pledged. In a deed for equity, the note is extinguished for stock. In reconstructing the G/L, I am taking a $100,000 note and treating it as tender. It is tender for capitalization purposes.

    1.4 The note is in fact the ownership held one hundred percent by the Sponsor of the investment. It is what I call the TRS. The capitalization is then diluted for Trust ownership purposes and raising capital. Here is where dilution is hidden as fractionalized ownership ( into TR Certificates). The NAV “net asset value” prior to “Cut off” of the loan is 0.00. This is known as De-recognition under FAS 140 (now banned)

    1.5 The household is capitalized as a stock at the $100,000 example and diluted into $200,000 and thus why people say it’s creating money from thin air. The creation of money lacks merit meaning it’s not arguable under capitalization. Naivety is not something averse to your showing in court. It’s no less concealed capitalization of bank debt – washing capital held as a lender liability into consolidated assets “receivable’s” under investors paid in capital.

    1.6 The G/L takes you from womb to tomb over a five year hold. What’s amazing is the capitalization of the stock cancels out the note under a formal charge, indirectly as basis in assets. The processes and devises exploited GAAP and does in effect – terminate the note.

    1.7 The G/L should be used to demonstrate to the court meaning behind the “lost” note as cancelled. The redemption of the stock nullifies the enforcement of the note further. I call it an unenforceable “novae”. The REPO is in fact a tender of stock for new stock and there is the classic Ponzi.

    1.8 The civil code from state to state permits a deed for bond or “debt”. TP Certificates are equities treated as debt as to preference.

    1.9 It is not debt but an equity and this is the argument to defeat the foreclosure as to an unlawful foreclosure under title theory.

    I hope I answered your question.

    M.Soliman

    expert.witness@live.com

  5. M.Soliman

    Question from your “old” friend — do you provide accounting ledgers — prior to the mortgage “refinance” in question???? That is needed.

  6. I pre-followed Neil’s advice and my first response from a First Amend Complaint (CA) was a declaration of nonmonetary status from the Trustee (Ca Civ Code 2924l). In my objection to that request I pointed out the informal ‘partnership’ by agency among the various players (FNMA, JPM, Chase, trustee) linked by LPS / LSI software. As I was describing the different ways each ‘partner’ made money from the foreclosure, the fraud (in the legal sense) and collusion present itself, and I am now thinking I should have added a cause of action in the complaint.

    In asserting my objection I noted the 3 times that the Trustee falsely filed, or should have discovered a false filing of, a title instrument with the county recorder. I am looking forward to seeing how the judge responds to my request for sanctions equal to the fines not collected by the state for violations of felony recording of title documents. I also noted the recent SCOTUS decision regarding personal rights of corporations to make political contributions, and with those rights come responsibilities. So I suggested the Chair of the Board serve the time (2 – 4 years, no parole) unless someone else was forthcoming who was more guilty of disobeying company policy. And to show the pattern of criminal behavior I provided exhibits of additional loans which resulted in Trustee Sale where the same trustee falsely recorded title documents and thereby clouded the title to the property.

    Yes, it’s about the title.

  7. @tnharry: thanks – a short reply can say as much as a tolstoy writing.

    If escrow is a good start what is the dialogue on ramifications, etc., to involving oneself (homeowners) with an escrow of sorts – can an escrow with a practice (legal) in Florida, for example, be recognized by judiciary, etc., in a different state from where the escrow is held – besides a standard pretender’s form of escrow entity which is to be avoided like a plague just as their title companies, insurance, etc., who or what are considered legally sanctioned ‘escrow’ sources or neutral entities to safely submit funds to – what would classify as an ‘escrow entity’ that judiciary would, for example, say “you know what, the homeowner’s funds are being deposited on a monthly basis at such n such firm – same as if he/she were paying on a real mortgage. . . which is okay for purposes of this litigation” . . . this would (perhaps) assist in propping up or insulating or somehow support the fighting homeowner to some degree?? What would be a typical scenario, i.e., terms with escrow entities, etc., after all this isn’t run of the mill stuff nor common place and local banks/credit unions merely generate a “huh?” moment – where would one potentially begin with this process?

    Also, my other concern is the date is fast approaching for a ‘settlement’ of sorts slated for around Labor Day – should we be filing complaints – lis pendens – cases – something to preserve our legal positions in advance of any potential settlements – sort of like grandfathering in our legal scenarios/cases and propping them up before a ‘settlement’ takes effect? thanks for replies.

  8. @papergate – i hope you don’t view a short response as flippant, especially in light of your lengthy post, but it sure can’t hurt to escrow.

    even if you ultimately don’t have to relinquish the money to anyone, having it escrowed separately in a named account can go a long way to establishing credibility in the courtroom in front of the judge who has the “free house/deadbeat” predisposition. and I know that merely referencing free houses and deadbeats will get some of you all riled up, but the dockets are crowded with a whole bunch of people who don’t read this site or any other sites and are really just in it to hinder, delay, or otherwise prosecute frivolous claims. any way to separate yourself from that group is a plus

  9. Accounting – Great Comment !
    An Experts Perspective.

    By M.Soliman /August 22nd, 2011; Los Angele’s Calif; /Comments -I’m going to follow the money, my money…someone got paid…probably lots of someone’s! I say Bravo – your right ! My 23 years of accounting experience in banking, mortgage banking and 8 years with a regulated FDIC thrift is my averment to subject matter.

    What I have read from material provided and what I know are that I testify to in court.and is as follows:

    GAAP and Ledger: You got it! We recreate the general ledger from scratch. People this is fact. The accounting will not lie.
    This case law and babbling coleslaw is not sufficient to overcome the rules of sentencing.

    CONTINENTAL SAVINGS: Its Charles Keating and Continental all over again. The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s It included your candidate for president for Crumbs sake!

    PHIL NEWSPAPER BK: Read the Philly BK case again and again. I testified in deposition before the CA Appellate Court and they “Remand back to trial court – See Graupner Vs Select Portfolio / Wells et al (fear not.com) Read what the Justices said. Look again at the NIGERIAN BARGE CASE that came from the Fastow testimony in the architect for the SPV. Note how the Appeals Court overturned the criminal convictions of Meryl Lynch s “Fab Four”. Merrill Lynch is the wealth management division of BANK OF AMERICA. Formerly known as Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., prior to 2009 the firm was publicly owned and traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol MER. Merrill agreed to a purchase by BANK OF AMERICA on September 14, 2008, at the height of the 2008 Financial Crisis. It ceased to exist as a separate entity in January 2009.

    Case law did not put them in jail..it got them out. Back to the Philly newspaper deal – Look what the 3rd Ciruit said about credit bidding… IMPOSSIBLE .

    WHAT WORKS: People want sexy answers to mundane questions. But in the most boring of analysis emerges an ACCOUNTING fraud. What exists here NOW is a failure to communicate . . .

    DE-RECOGNITION: The reciprocal effect is recognition and now its payback where the FED gets the shaft by Bankers. Now the day of reckoning came in 2007 when the Fed found themselves on the wrong end of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), Pub.L. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183, enacted August 9, 1989,.

    CONSUMERS PAY BACK: “WTF” “Where’s the FED”. Our government repeals the United States federal law enacted in the wake of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. Its Charles Keating and Continental all over again with the equity in homes being used to replenish lost reserves! I CANT TAKE MUCH MORE

    REPULSIVE DEFENSES: Did someone say a QWR or “Frost Note” . Stopppppppp! . Robo Kelly or Nasty Nadine the Notary who works with Bernie the Attorney. Don’t call the Bar if you do not drink and thank the Lord FOR California leading the way with CC2923.5 Now States like Washington are picking up on this great feat by enforcing a good faith rule while eliminating ANYTHING INCIDENTAL TO A FIDUCIARY.

    PLEASE AMERICA – .Our Hip Hop culture (I do like 50 Cent & Snoop Dagg) and People Magazine replaced basic math skills and the WSJ and Europe is laughing.

    FIRREA : It established the Resolution Trust Corporation to close hundreds of insolvent thrifts and provided funds to pay out insurance to their depositors. It transferred thrift regulatory authority from the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to the Office of Thrift Supervision. It dramatically changed the savings and loan industry and its federal regulation, encouraging loan origination.[1] Boy did it ever!

    I invested long hours as high as I could go with the FDIC and I believe these guys got HOSED! Read again Graupner Vs Select Portfolio where I saw it firsthand…in deposition (God was that brutal. .these guys read everything you publish here.) But in Graupner , I will testify (it cannot be published but I enter as hearsay) I saw it firsthand ….Robo sig’s dating back to a 2002 foreclosure.

    What does that tell you?

    CONCLUSION TO CONFUSION: You cannot foreclose on a Trust Asset. Why? You cannot foreclose on a stock. A stock is equity! Equity cannot be issued against levered assets. The home rests Free and Clear under the guardianship of a fiduciary trustee .That fiduciary requirement (Thank you Washington and California) is fulfilled by the same bank that made the securities program come to fruition.

    TRUST DEED: The lender will have an interest in title. You’re the Trustor committing the assets to the Trustee who Sheppard the transaction to a conclusion while representing the beneficiary assets – for the beneficiary who is the lender.

    Trust Set up: The title holder has lost its title. You’re the Trustor committing the asset (home) to the Trustee who will Sheppard the transaction to a conclusion while representing the beneficiary assets (bare and legal title) – for the beneficiary . . .Who is YOU !

    (C) copyrighted by M.Soliman / expert.witness@live.com

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

    Note- Some clients to date with hire the expert and latch onto the arguments I know are needed to prevail. It’s a long and difficult fight you can win. But when your attorney elects to go elsewhere, what can I say? I do understand. But it’s you that elects to avoid the facts and upon losing the home …..That something I cannot address.

    I am a witness and not an attorney and only an attorney can represent you in a court of law and advise you of your rights.

    (C) Copyrighted by M.Soliman / expert.witness@live.com

  10. @ tnharry: I’ve come to respect your calm, collected reflection of the angst and frustration on this site. Readers must think of you sort of like flossing for those over 40 – it’s something we need that irritates the hell out of our teeth and gums, but when done, was well worth the irritation. Your intentions are to stimulate us fledglings – I get it – better we flop and slop here than in the judicial arenas – I now read every one of your comments with a very opened mind and take the challenges presented – as an adult willing to listen because it actually helps to read – really read what you write. I believe it is important that we all take a position that we are indebted somehow to someone/ something – whether or not it is the parties we battle, which I doubt – it is important that we grow up and show we are trying to do the right thing – Carol Asbury mentioned her practice was merging into a different organization – one thing I have been fighting for 3 years is to have a ‘safe’ and legal form of escrow – I do not believe the party I’m battling has the legal ability to convey my mortgage back to me – and have given them ample opportunity to ‘correct’ the paperwork, in the meantime, I believe there should have been a safe and legal way to continue to pay towards an obligation – no matter how it turns out – if in the end it ends up being an unsecured, void lien, as I believe mine is, whatever, great – I might get awarded the funds back – but the point is there is some demonstration on our (homeowners’) part to show we genuinely want to make good of our responsibilities but we have had few to no options aside paying under duress to pretenders – I believe we should take a very good look at what Carol is doing and make every attempt to put funds into an escrow type account – that will help to demonstrate to the world we are not deadbeats trying to get a free house but are trying to pay an obligation to a party/person that will be able to re-convey at the last payment. This is the fear we all have – if we pay the pretenders – we’re screwed – my question is what is your thoughts about issues involving escrow monthly sums for safekeeping until these matters start to resolve – pros – cons – I would like to hear your opinions on this subject. Thank you.

  11. Comments -I’m going to follow the money, my money…someone got paid…probably lots of someone’s

    .

  12. @tnharry

    Read the History of Banking Fraud Chapter 1
    Origin of the Money Power in America
    (It is on Foreclosure Fraud)
    and you will get it

  13. The question being asked is a red herring
    .
    1. A smoked herring having a reddish color.
    2. Something that draws attention away from the central issue.
    3. A stock prospectus
    4. POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT

    Answer is ____

    [You don’t eat fish.....Distracted by GIBBERISH .....Does not include a subscription.......]

    “THE SWIMMING and ANNUAL OIL LUBE AGREEMENT !
    Its of little value…

    Expert.Witness@LIVE.COM

  14. i have learned so much law from the contributors, but the long winded drawn out legal debates are not going to keep people in their homes. how about some simple answers, because as i see it the simple answer is in the origination..start with the first fraud, no?

    instead of chasing a bank around, why not go the the others who were involved, title company for starter, or my insurance agent, he received a check from someone…actually i think he was paid twice that year..

    received the annual insurance policy and the servicer is naming them selves as mortgagee….this should be interesting…

    i’m going to follow the money, my money…someone got paid…probably lots of someones

  15. @marilyn – this is my last word on this. you keep asking me to cite the law that reverses nothing. you’re asking me to prove a negative. “no state shall” matters. for the bulk of actions involving constitutional claims, you must prove state action.

  16. @tnharry

    There is a long and interesting read for you on Foreclosure Fraud
    after the spoof of Visa credit cards from
    Not my home your not says:
    August 22, 2011 at 9:57 PM
    Oh by the way the onion did not fake this document:

    History of Banking Fraud Chapter 1 – ORIGIN OF THE MONEY POWER IN AMERICA
    The issue between these banks and the people will be joined in the near future, and the greatest struggle the world ever witnessed will take place between the usurping banks on the one hand and the people on the other.

  17. “The mortgage originator is as much a straw-man as MERS. So in most cases we have two straw men, one lying and the other swearing to it.”

    This deserves the laughing rat. :)

  18. @tnharry

    According to your theory Banks cannot violate
    “No state shall…” CAUSE THEY ARE NOT A STATE
    then neither can Car Dealers, or the MARS Candy Company
    cause they are not STATES.

    We can all be in the money business , we are not STATES
    and turn the tables on the Banks.

  19. cubed2k—Capitol One likes to sue…they are the only one that served us, as far as the credit cards…and they got a judgement because I ignored them…and supposedly a lien—but I don’t care…what can they do? Nothing. This is how stupid the whole thing is—after all that—they keep sending us stuff in the mail to open a new credit card…

  20. @tnharryb

    from Blacks Law Dictionary
    By doctrine of “Ultra Vires” a contract made by a corporation
    beyond the scope of its corporate powers is unlawful
    Community Federal S & L of Independence Mo v. Fields

    Justice Thurgood Marshall : the doctrine of Ultra Vires is a most
    powerful weapon to keep private corporations within their
    legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of their
    corporate charters and it probably is not involked ofter enough.
    Zinc Carbonate Co v. First National Bank
    American Express Co. v Citizens State Bank

    There is not a bank charter in existence that allows a bank to lend its credit. You might not believe it tnharry but that is the law.
    Cite the law that reverses that. There is none.

  21. so, if you default, who loses? Nobody, it’s all credit money.

    Borrow actual money from a friend, and default, cuz he used 1 for 1 money, no leverage, he loses, he’s out the bucks. Don’t do it, work it out.

    Banks???????????? Oh come on. You got bankruptcy, no big deal. Why do you have bankruptcy, because it’s no big deal, it’s credit from nothing (or credit that is convertible to money and acts like money). It ain’t serious.

  22. I said this——

    “You have to keep in mind that credit money is created out of nothing. Right? So, what do the credit creators have to lose? Nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    I stand to correct myself. They actually stand to lose PROFITS. But nothing else, since it’s corporation or public company and no owner is on the hook.

  23. tnharry,

    thanks, and got it. I would have to agree “No States Shall” as you note.

    I am talking about what you said only in the sentence I posted, nothing else attached to it or your conversation with Marilyn.

  24. Well. Just got sued today. Answered the door and got a summons. My wifes credit card from Cap 1. Always read up on the net they were a bitch. Anyways, COOL. I just have been researching for the last few hours on what to do, researched the lawyers and the courts website.

    Kind of cool. I’m willing to have it. It’s only 4k so no big deal. Shoot, they could get a default which they are hoping of course, and even then no bog deal. How will they collect?????????? They are actually hoping we will call to settle. Fat chance. Let’s see, thay are down south in calif and I’m up north. I’m gonna file the response and make them show up. Being self employed and having all the free time in the world, i got all the time I need, so their view that I won’t show up won’t work. HAHAHAHa.

    But, it’s a numbers game. Is it worth them to per-sue us for a 4k debt??????????? Or is worth it to us to settle for this 4k debt??

    But, hey, I’ve learned a few things. I’m gonna make them chase me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which will cost them money!!!!!!!!! So will it be worth it to them to chase me? I’ll find out and let you know.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHa

    They want my money, and their power is only what they hope I don’t know. I get it. There is nothing to fear but fear itself. I’m game, bring it on.

  25. i don’t disagree with anything you said cubed. but i do disagree with the whole ultra vires/all mortgages are illegal panacea.

  26. @tnharry

    you said ——-it’s a cornerstone that if something is not prohibited it is allowed.

    How very astute. Now consider the 4 conditions of exchange:

    1. exchange in abundance, give better service than expected, or more product than expected.

    2. fair exchange – all is equal, this for that.

    3. partial exchange – buyer gives money, gets less than paid for

    4. no exchange (criminal exchange) – buyer gives money, gets nothing in return.

    So doing #1 you are a howling success. Look it over. What restaurants have you gone too that you got more than bargained for.

    Look at no. 4. You never did business with them again and they did not stay in business for long.

    Let’s see, during the boom of housing, since we are talking about banks and credit cards, it is kind of the opposite view , sort of.

    Let’s see during the 2008 financial crisis, what did banks and CC companies do, ———-they raised interest rates, foreclosed on people. To what end? To save their own butts, but what did it do to the consumer? Trapped them? It actually falls under exchange no. 4.

    They could have lowered interest rates? Or offered a lower principal. What would have happened if they did that? Where would we be now as a nation? What would have happened if the CC’s & so called mortgage companies really worked out deals which mortgagors?
    Really told the truth and worked it out?

    It’s crazy. It’s insanity. And what is the definition of insanity? Means it’s crazy, you can not understand it. There is no understanding. There is no reason to invoke logic into crazy, because it is crazy, NOT understandable. You cannot understand it. There is no reason. All these rules and regulations have made everything CRAZY.

    Why not just do No. 1 – exchange in abundance – instead of ripping people off, No. 4.

    You have to keep in mind that credit money is created out of nothing. Right? So, what do the credit creators have to lose? Nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  27. @marilyn – this is getting tiresome. respond to my point rather than devolving into nonsense. part of the constitution you refer to begins with “No state shall…” Banks can’t violate that section. Only states can. Admittedly, banks have done plenty wrong, but that doesn’t work. Move on.

    @venu – agreed that something must be done, but outlawing foreclosure isn’t the answer. i assume you mean non-judicial foreclosure. if not, then you should read the constitution with Marilyn. such a course would be a violation of the contracts clause. and even if that wasn’t a problem, all it would do is drive everyone out of the mortgage business altogether.

  28. The foreclosures must stop. It seems about 46 million people in the United States are on food stamp since Obama took office and many have lost their home. This is not practical and things are not working out well. The only remedy is to outlaw foreclosure and force banks to modify mortgages. The other is to file massive number of law suits to quite titles as mortgaged backed securities are sold and resold by many people and no one person or company may not have right to foreclose any home. That is may be the underlying truth.

  29. @Jan van Eck

    I googled the name Jan van Eck
    Is this you or a different Jan van Eck?

    Jan F. van Eck
    Jan F. van Eck

    Principal and Director, Van Eck Associates Corporation

    Executive Vice President and Director, Van Eck Securities Corporation

    President and Director, Van Eck Absolute Return Advisers Corporation

    President, Chief Executive Officer and Trustee, Market Vectors ETF Trust

  30. @ Jan van Eck

    I think you have come in at the end of my many post to
    tnharry.I have previously said …

    The abominable banking system that is in place today, gives a bank great incentive to foreclose on an Ultra Vires contract, as the bank demands lawful money returned for the unlawful money lent.

    By what Authority are the Banks doing this? There is no authority for doing this. This is in complete prohibition to Art 1 Para 10 Cl1 of our US Constitution.

    All of our cases with slightly different facts all stem from the same Fraud.
    The Bank did not lend you ‘LAWFUL MONEY” but the Bank intentionally wrote
    a “bad check” and gave it to you –to circulate as “money”

    I certainly did not know this kind of fraud was going on when I signed my mortgage and note. Did you?

    The Mortgagor puts up a down payment, the Mortgagor pays a lot of fees and probably paid an attorney to represent them, all in order to get this “bad check”

    Would a Mortgagor have put in all that money, if one knew the truth of how the Banks ran their illegal business. I bet not.

    Did anyone notify you after that big day – the Bank’s check bounced – of course not. When the check that the Bank wrote came back to the Bank that wrote it, the bank didn’t say “we only have 5% , if that much and it was not stamped “insufficient funds” the bank stamped it “paid”

    So since the Bank did not have the money sitting in the bank’s account when they wrote the check, what the bank gave you is their credit.

    That is exactly what is prohibited by Art. 1 Para 10 Cl 1 of the US Constitution.

    What authority gives the Bank the right to make contracts with “bad checks”

    Nothing- Nada.

    “Lawful money” is needed to make a contract valid.

    Over and Over Mortgagors gave a Bank a mortgage on their castle , in return for a Bank giving you a credit entry on their books and charging you Interest on this credit. Also illegal.

    Did the Bank give you lawful money or is that what you got, credit?

    Banks are not allowed to lend their credit- Banks are in the business to lend
    “lawful money” There is not a Bank charter that allows a Bank to lend their credit.

    And as we continued to make monthly payments the Bank collected more money on their fraud.

    You try writing a check when you don’t have funds sitting in your account to cover it.
    You can be sure that check is coming back marked”insufficient funds” You are not allowed to do it and either is a Bank.

    This scam of Ultra Vire contracts caused injury to us, the true homeowners.

    In addition the banks are laundering “bad checks”.

    The Banks violate Truth in Lending Laws.

    The Banks are collecting Interest on money that doesn’t exist. (Lending you 5% and collecting Interest on 95% of thin air)

    And once the Bank gets their Ultra Vire contract going, they start flipping them to MERS, Securitizations , Wall Street, Title Companies etc. there is no shortage of people all wanting to get their piece of the illegal

  31. to marilyn lane:

    Rather than make snide comments, it might be helpful to pause and reflect that perhaps your analysis is wrong.

    Further, banks do not make “counterfeit money” or “money.” Banks issue “credits,” which is an entirely different thing.

  32. Neil
    Don’t you have a laughing mouse like 4closureFraud has, that I could use for tnharry and his interpertation ofArt1 Para10 Cl 1 of theUS
    Constitution.

    tnharry is definitely trying to side with the Banks.

  33. @tnharry

    Can Gold Bond create money?
    Can the Mars Company create money?

    They are not States

  34. This happened on August 15,2011

    http://oag.ca.gov/news/press_release?id=2552&

    and 3 days before they shut down the K & K Law Firm in California, the firm was the news.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/08/15/prweb8714146.DTL

    “The defendants in this case fraudulently promised to win prompt mortgage relief for millions of vulnerable homeowners across the country,” said Attorney General Harris. “Innocent people, already battered by the housing crisis, were targeted for fraud in their moment of distress.”

    How can it be “fraud”, when there are actual lawsuit cases going?

    Can someone explain what is going on? This is not a good news for homeowners who are fighting with the banks to keep their house.

  35. @tnharry

    Counterfeit money passes as good, till its discovered as counterfeit
    and then it loses its value.

    Astoria Federal has a second computer contected to my IP address
    so I lose control of my computer-thereisalwaysthelibrary/

  36. Neil is right — have to prove what IS NOT.

    Proprietary – and 2010 codified US agreements. Non-public.

  37. @tnharry

    continued

    The banks are making counterfeit money.
    Monopoly money.

    Counterfeit money passes as good and then it has no value

  38. @Nancy – yes i am. i comment all the time. what do you want me to share?

  39. it’s a cornerstone that if something is not prohibited it is allowed. we’ve had this discussion several times and you haven’t responded to the first three words of the sentence : NO STATE SHALL. banks may be big and evil, but they’re not states

  40. tnharry – are you an attorney? Is that why you can’t comment and share?

  41. Here is an email I received today……..everybody fasten your seat belts…..

    Receive $2k – $10k with the

    Cash for Keys Program

    from American Realty Experts

    Dear Homeowners,

    If you are currently in foreclosure proceedings for a property you own, we would like to offer you our “Cash for Keys” program. We have buyers ready to pay you at least $2,000 – $10,000 for keys to your property. Why let your property go to foreclosure auction and have the bank take possession of your property?

    With our Cash for Keys program you will get paid to sell your property to a buyer who will work with the bank and lien holders to settle via cash payment(s), all debts related to the home. Call now to get started! You can receive payment in as little as 7 days, even if you owe more than the property is currently worth.

    Why give your property to the bank or do a Short Sale and not make a Penny?

    Please Contact Us at 1-888-835-0881 or email us at: sales@amrealtyinc.com for a quick response and a free cash offer, even if you OWE MORE THAN IT’S WORTH! Call and receive payment in as little as 7 days.

    Your property can be located anywhere in the Unites States of America!

    Respectfully,

    Support Team

    American Realty Experts

    Email: sales@amrealtyinc.com

    Office: 1-888-835-0881

    Fax: 954-212-8405

    Website:

    http://www.amrealtyexperts.com

    .

  42. @tnharry

    You have to get it right if you want to argue that a Bank has the right to lend their credit.From where are they getting the Authority to lend their credit. It is prohibited by the Constitution. Congress has never given them the right to lend their credit. From where are they getting this
    Authority?

    Craigv.Missouri says”
    The Constitution, therefore considers the emission of bills of credit and the enactment of tender laws as
    distinct operations, independent of each other which maybe
    separately performed. BOTH ARE FORBIDDEN.

    Again cite your authority.Where are you getting this right for
    the Banks?

    United States v.Marigold
    “if the medium which the government was authorized to create and
    establish could immediately be expelled and substituted by one it had neither created, estimated ,nor authorized -one possessing no
    instrinsic value then the power conferred by the Constitution would
    be uselesswholly fruitless of everyend it was designed to accomplish

  43. THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS IS TO GET A BIG TIME LAW FIRM TO KICK THE BANKSTERS A##
    NEIL GARFIELD HAS HAD ALL THE PROOF WE NEED FOR ALONG TIME NOW.
    NEVER AGAIN

  44. [...] Livinglies’s Weblog Filed Under: Foreclosure Law News, Foreclosure News Tagged With: crisis, foreclosure, [...]

  45. Here is the issue; What if the bank tells the court that “This loan was never securitized. We bought this to keep in our portfolio.” Now I understand the whole ‘not securitized’ argument, How do you show where the loan Should have gone?

  46. @Marilyn:

    United States v.Marigold – citizen brought in counterfeit coins

    Craig v.Missiouri – Missouri basically created its own money

    Calder v. Bull – dealt with contents of a will and ex post facto laws

    The Credit River Case – bizarre justice of the peace case.was unreported and of no precedential value. Nevertheless, Sneed v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46536, 2007 WL 1851674 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2007). The court noted the frivolous nature of the plaintiff’s argument relying on these cases and went on to say: Furthermore, the Minnesota cases cited by Plaintiff are not only unreported, but they have been vacated by the Minnesota Supreme Court in reported decisions. See In re Daly, 284 Minn. 567, 171 N.W.2d 818; Zurn v. Northwestern Nat. Bank of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 600, 284 Minn. 573 (Minn. 1969); Daly v. Savage State Bank, 171 N.W.2d 218, 218, 285 Minn. 503, 503 (Minn. 1969). Plaintiff is hereby admonished she must not cite any decision under which Justice Martin Mahoney purported to question the validity of federal currency or the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act, nor may she cite any opinion or decision as authoritative which no longer has authoritative status.

    And most significantly Marilyn – reread the part of the Constitution you are citing and note the first three words : NO STATE SHALL…..

    Knowledge is power. But when you hear anything you don’t want to hear your response is “Quit tnharry”

  47. @tnharry

    We the people are never going to have the properous times back for all the people and not just the Bankers and Wallstreet unless this issue of Banks lending their credit prohibited by our Constitution comes to the surface

    Go to library and find out why Art 1 Para 10 Cl1 was put into our
    Constitution and what it means.

    What started by Bankers of immitating the goldsmiths has turned into
    the world’s largest ponzi scheme.

    Knowledge is power.
    Quit tnharry. Who taught you the banking system you talk about.
    Go to the Library.

  48. @tnharry
    I sure am. This issue has been heard many times in Federal Court and the Bank Always loses.

    What hides this under the carpet is the Banks corrupt power to our
    Courts.

    Below some cases:

    United States v.Marigold
    Craig v.Missiouri
    Calder v. Bull
    The Credit River Case

  49. So clear. Loans pre-sold were pre-approved as commitments, lenders policies commitments secured to local title agents. The funds issued in this check were placed into pass thru agency corporate trust services, and the loan placed into ‘FWP’ and the Temporay Lender job done. The PSA closes. The PSA loans as revenue were presold, and the Master Servicer will collect money thru servicers, subservicers. When a default arises, the Master Servicer will follow the PSA. The goal to get the property recorded as REO property in order that PREFUNDING may purchase the mortgage note and swap in and out new loans.

    See check attached. Evidence typing loan# which was forward sold, and in my case not recorded for 90 days.

    The appraisal the instituional banks sold back to us at RETAIL the property as real estate owed property!

    We were sold mortgage-backed notes.

    The owner of the mortgage note c/o (account holder on copy of check attached) the institutional investors/institutional banks assigned loan# as long as Lender Policy Commitment issued, and the new loan# was funded, cash deposit, c/o bank attorney/closing agent c/o pass thru agency depository.

    RETAIL TEMPORARY LENDER as NOMINEE (does the exchange of money indicate some deed exists which gave rights and privilege to Temporay Lender? for only the owner could do that right?).

    The period between moving loan into FWP may not exceed 90 days.

    Menawhile the check above issued before the RETAIL mortgage-backed note was signed and was legally active, and no retail monies were distributed. The deposit placed into the pass thru agency treasury of the ‘seller’ as temporay lender will once again sell the mortgage note and we won’t know anything about that. I do believe the forced default of the prior loan takes place parallel and the PREFUNDING of the new Issuing Entity purchased the REO PROPERTY, loan liquidated in other issuing entity trust.

    Note: the currency passing thru the pass thru agency as deposits 90 days or less does not have to be reported when it appears as a pass thru agency a privilege of institutional banks.

    The loan that existed, somebody may create a robo-document which is robo-signed claiming prior loan was paid. Each case unique depends who owns the mortgage note. We have a connection to that entity c/o the Account Holder of the attached check.

    Look at the REMITTER. Note there is the “REMITTER’ file tracked in the CTS-Link of US Bank NA, Wells Fargo Bank NA, etc.

    The existing loan has to be placed into a forced default in order that the prior loan may be liquidated and prefunding of new issuing entity will use FUNDING to purchase loan at REO price thru institutional banks subsidiary like Premier Asset Services for example. Each one of the gang has their own. The loan at RETAIL you signed the promissory note, they figured out they could sell as REO property! And only small percentable of ‘funding’ deposited will go towards ‘issuing entity’.

    Get the evidence of the origination transaction which references the loan# of the Temporary Lender and the institutional bank/underwriter who purchased the loan which was assigned a title policy/lenders policy. The lenders policy is what most of us were charged for and protects only the LENDER during default and is required by PSA to be attached to each loan part of the subrogation and credit enhancments which include the servicer will pay the loan – track the default and try to take the property so prefunding of another issuign entity can be used to acquire the property at the reo price.

  50. @Marilyn – c’mon, you’re still pushing that? it doesn’t work. show me one case where that argument survived the initial motion to dismsiss

  51. No matter how you all go in circles, the Bank is not legally allowed to
    foreclose on an Ultra Vires contract.

    The Bank lent you unlawful money and is demanding lawful money.

  52. Sincere question: One reason to prove the securitization or at least the appearance (transfers not made ect.) of securitization (as in your loan is listed on the fwp loantape for trust)…. for wamu chase mortgages is to show chase cannot say they own it because they got it from the fdic by way of the assumption because you have proof it was sold to the trust years before. Any lender who records a transfer to a trust years after could also be shown to be fraudulently recording an assignment…But this is critical to all we have thankfully learned from this site and even if a person has all the securitization details: “The actual facts of the closing being that the mortgage originator and designated “lender” was merely a mortgage broker, defeats perfection of the lien.” How exactly does a person go beyond the “informed and believe” or “assume this is the case” or informed and believe that table funding and selling forward was common and other ect… to proof it was funded in advance or by others or perhaps not even funded at all as in refi cash out ect. Burden of proof is on plaintiff. So how can you prove this or prove it enough to force discovery – very hard for pro se or even for attorneys to do. Also what is the discovery you need to ask for to prove it?

  53. @Nancy – I know you’re trying to help, but the gigantic cut and paste jobs on every posting nearly destroy the “conversations” being carried out in the comments.

    And frankly, while informative, they usually are completely out of context of what is being discussed…

  54. The ‘lender’ on the mortage note is a Nominee c/o assignes and/or successor related to purchase of loan between the owner of the mortgage note c/o institutional investor and institutional bank.

    The mortgage note owner is never named on the ‘mortgage-backed note’ the borrower signs and yet has evidence sitting in which the loan# and the institutional investors bank acquired the loan and resold rights to temporary lender to collect money from consumer for 90 days.

    The nominee LENDER c/o assigns and/or successors, accepts deposit into pass-thru-agency treasury as cash deposit. This cash is not for paying off the existing loan. Its prefunding for the ‘Issuing Entity’ in which the mortgage note owner will put in some assets, as long as the loan is performing it may be listed in the ‘FWP’ and the PSA closes, the temporay lender done.

    This is how they laundered US Dollars around the Patriot Act for residential transactions related to mortgage services not regulated by FinCEN.

    “Pass Thru Agency’ is one who does not report transactions if short term investmenet of maximum 90 days. That is why you’ll find the loan did not move into PSA’s for 90 days and many mortgages not recorded for 90 days and many lenders policies requried to be attached to the loan not issued for the same 90 days, the new loan, and prefunding c/o Temporay Lender.

    The party named as the temporary lender is not the party filing the foreclosure.

    The party filing the foreclosure is assigned by the ‘Master Servicer’ in accorandance with the Monoline Insurers credit enhancements starting with third party robo-firm who will process Lis Pendens, of the 90+ day old default, will file an assignment claiming a ‘servicer’ like Aurora Loan Services or a substitute trustee have been assigned the rights to take the DEED OF TITLE.

    The servicer has to pay the loans no matter what that was the credit enhancement.

    The lenders policy will pay a fixed % covering the servicers advancing money to collect on the bad debt and take the DEED OF TITLE.

    DEED OF TITLE taken control during Sheriff’s sale, know that PREFUNDING of an Issuing Entity will be used to purchase REO properties,.

    I do belive that the existing loans of refinances were forced into defaults over the 90 days in order that the mortgage note was acquired as REO property. There is nobody before the courts crying foul why? The purchase of the REO property controlled by the owner of the mortgage note. The ‘special code’ placed in the payment history file is not the same one to flag a default reporting a borrower late.

    The Master Servicer in the other Issuing Entity after 90 days writes off the liquidated loan and purchases the REO property, and property again. PREFUNDING may be used to purchase REO property. The old loan swapped with some REO property. Meanwhile the new ISSUING ENTITY, has a performing loan to show MOODYS’, S&P, FITCH in the ‘FWP’ and 90 days the temporary lender done the PSA closes and the Master Servicer controlling coulding the money honey.

  55. @Jack – the method often discussed is to discharge it as an unsecured debt in a chapter 7. Check local listings though, as homestead exemptions may impact whether you keep the house in a chapter 7 since it suddenly has nothing but equity.

  56. SUPERB ANALYSIS, NEIL !!!

  57. If you are able to quiet title, how do you then address the obligation? If you stop paying the pretend lender, you will look like a deadbeat. If you continue to pay them, you may well be paying the wrong creditor. If you sell the house, you’ll worry the lender may still come after you for payment on the obligation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,471 other followers

%d bloggers like this: