Setting the Stage for the Next Great Depression

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment: 

Special Note to Readers: Thank you for your good wishes on my speedy recovery. It helps a lot to know that the people whom I seek to serve feel the same way about me as I do about them.

Despite the huge loss taken by homeowners thus far ($13 trillion) and the even larger loss taken by the American taxpayers for fabricated bailouts of fake losses (around $25 trillion, thus far) the banks and their paid politicians are presenting us with the prospect of making the last 4 years only a dress rehearsal for the big one. 

By removing investor protections and by obscuring what little transparency we had left in terms of required disclosures, there is only one thing standing between us and complete oblivion: wishful thinking. With this “JOBS” bill, we add insult to injury to investors. And the reason is obvious as well — as long as the Banks have the power and control the narrative, they are going to use that power. As long as the Banks wield that kind of power, investment in anything American will be subject to caveat emptor — let the buyer beware.

The Banks and the administration seem to believe that they can literally bully investors into making investments in American assets — stocks, binds and real estate, in particular. This is a stupid assumption. Just because other governments and large investors have had to play along with the American fiscal and financial policies while they regain their balance, doesn’t mean that central bankers and prospective investors have forgotten that Wall Street essentially committed an act of financial terrorism on the scale of Ghengis Khan. Nor will they forget that the American regulators not only let it happen, they promoted the cover-up afterwards.

We don’t need to read tea leaves anymore. The bond market, never regulated properly is now the wildwest. Almost anywhere else seems more attractive than the U.S. because only the U.S. has broken its promise of protection and regulation of the banks. So we are now stuck in a holding position where auctions are failing or faked. The only major buyer of U. S. Treasuries are the big banks who are buying the bonds with our own money printed by the Federal Reserve. It’s a Ponzi scheme. People are simply biding their time waiting for a better reserve currency to emerge — which now only requires the issuer to enforce common sense rules. 

The housing Market is no mystery either. Each year we hear that this is the bottom of the Market. Each year the market drops a little more. The reason is simple: we have allowed the great masses of people to enter into loan deals that created an inventory of millions of homes — with millions more on the way — that nobody wants at any price. They’re bulldozing them now.  The argument is that investors will feel assured and confident once they know that the notes and mortgages will be enforced even if the loans were defective in every conceivable way. We don’t need conjecture here. Reality supplies us with a ready answer to that argument — investors are not buying it, the Market is frozen and cannot recover.

Contrary to the exotic theories of policy-makers driven by bank narratives, it is the Banks that are not trusted, not the borrowers. It is the regulators that are not trusted not homeowners. And yet we insist on loading the burden of this mess mostly on the back of homeowners and taxpayers who are buying “homes” without title, buying mortgage bonds that don’t exist and leaving foreign investors to buy homes for cash also without title and very possibly acquiring a liability that has never been disclosed.  If the banks had lost money like the rest of us then we could make the argument that they had simply screwed up.  But they didn’t.  They made money.

Confidence in American financial markets can only be restored if prospective investors, already burned recently by horribly disfigured bonds, perceive that it is truly safe to invest in American assets. That can’t happen unless disclosure is required and unless the message is sent loud and clear that the banks suffer the penalty for violations, management goes to jail for committing fraud, and property is returned to victims of the largest financial scam in human history — so far.

Last Ditch Attempt To Save A Little Bit Of Investor Protection In The United States

By Simon Johnson

As it currently stands, the “JOBS” bill now before the Senate would gut investor protection in the United States.  The title of the bill is a complete misnomer – anything that weakens investor protection makes it more risky to invest in companies and increases the cost of capital to honest entrepreneurs.  (For more background on the bill and links, see this piece.)

Much of the 1930s-era Securities legislation, which served us well for more than 70 years, is about to be repealed in a moment of bipartisan madness.

Almost all attempts to amend the House version of this legislation – and to make it more favorable to investors – have now failed in the Senate, and the “cloture motion” received more than 60 votes (so the bill cannot be filibustered).  But Senator Jack Reed (D., Rhode Island) is leading one last charge to make the Senate version more reasonable.

Here is the issue with H.R. 3606 (as the House version of the bill is known), from Senator Reed’s website:

“The SEC requires public companies to disclose meaningful financial information to the public. This provides a common pool of knowledge for all investors to judge for themselves whether to buy, sell, or hold a particular security. Only through the steady flow of timely, comprehensive, and accurate public information can people make sound investment decisions. The result of this information flow is a far more active, efficient, and transparent capital market that facilitates the capital formation so important to our nation’s economy. H.R. 3606 would roll back key investor protections, denying the public critical information that is essential to make sound judgments and would ultimately not lead to the proposed goal of the bill: providing for access to capital, particularly for small emerging companies.”

The “JOBS” bill would permit even very large companies to avoid all public disclosures.

Amazingly, it would also exempt these companies from having to comply with the federal regulation regarding mergers and acquisition.  Private equity firms would even be able to manipulate the market while making a tender offer for shares – the kind of behavior that has really been taboo (and illegal) since the 1930s.

Senator Reed has put forward an amendment, #1931, that will at least partially retain some of our existing investor protections and disclosure requirements.

Specifically, Senator Reed’s amendment would close or limit a major loophole that will allow large companies to avoid registering with the SEC (and therefore escape much regulation).  The Reed Amendment would clarify how to define “shareholders” for the purpose of determining if a business is so widely owned that it must register with the SEC.  Under the Amendment, the count should be based on beneficial owners of the shares, i.e., real people.  The goal is to prevent evasion of the SEC registration threshold through “nominal” owners holding the shares for large numbers of beneficial owners.

Big companies like H.R. 3606 – they will be regulated less and if the cost of capital rises for start-ups, that actually helps them.  The Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers’ Association, and the Independent Community Bankers of America have all weighed in heavily against the Reed Amendment – the idea of escaping SEC scrutiny greatly appeals to them.

The Chamber of Commerce’s letter against the Amendment to Senators closes with this statement – or you might call it a threat (bold and underlining in the original):

“The Chamber strongly opposes this amendment and may consider including votes on, or in relation to, this amendment in our How They Voted scorecard.”

Under Senate rules, the Reed Amendment would need just 51 votes today in order to pass.  But against this kind of corporate firepower, does this entirely reasonable Amendment have any chance?

About these ads

114 Responses

  1. [...] Common Complaints Against Structured Settlement BuyersStructured Settlement Buyers Can Get You Cash Now – CBC Settlement FundingSell My Structured Settlement Payments – Who Can help?How Selling Your Structured Settlement WorksStructured Settlement BenefitsSetting the Stage for the Next Great Depression [...]

  2. boy Duetsche Bank is really creepy. They just subpeonies the pool guy and all Lynn Syzmonaiks house helpers to find out if Lynn used the money for the purpose she told the bank. Anotherwards to harrass her. We all need to ask Deutsche Bank if they used the TARP and HAMP money for the purpose they contracted and agreed to use it for. See on stopforeclosurefraud.com also the below article. Duetsche and Chase are the creeps I am fighting.
    Pool guy, landscaper of $18 million foreclosure winner subpoenaed
    by Kim Miller

  3. The foreclosures lost this case on a house in Hawaii on a technicality not even as bad as the crimes they have done to the rest of us. I would think the issues I presented and most can present the frauds would recieve a harsh judgement on behalf of the homeowners. I will continue to hope and wait to see what the Ninth Circiit does for mine.

  4. Dying Truth, as we spoke on the web a case from the U.S. Appeals court for the Ninth Circuit just posted on Stopforeclosurefraud.com and the court reversed the sale at auction and gave the homeowner trebble damages. YEAH! i AM SOOOOOO hoping. It is a different story now. Two years ago in the foreclosure fraud, there was not nearly enought proof of what is happening to us. As Melissa said I have a much better chance of winning now than two years ago. Read this case and use what you can to file fraud upon the court.

  5. Dying Truth, I wish I would see anything close to this attention from Washington Deeds of Registers and our AG. Looks like Californians are getting help. Go to your register of deeds and see if they know about Phil Ting and the report of 84% of the assignments in county records being invalid and 100% of the PSA’s (Securities pools ) being invalid. You can look on the web and find Essex County McDonnel report that 74% if the assignments were invalid.

    See
    PULL UP THE OPPENHEIM REPORT THAT SUPPORTS THE PHIL TING REPORT.
    Deadly Clear
    Derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction… potentially lethal. -Warren Buffet

    Search
    Main menu
    Skip to primary content
    Skip to secondary content
    Home
    About
    Post navigation
    ← Previous Next →
    “The REMICs have failed! “The REMICs have failed!”
    Posted on November 4, 2011
    If Paul Revere were alive today he would be riding through the town warning “The REMICs have failed!” However, the government these days would go, “Shhhhhh!”
    Most average homeowners have no idea what a REMIC is – actually most attorneys have no clue …. so, you know many of the Judges are completely in the dark. REMICs are a form of IRS tax shelter sold to investors as part of the mortgage-backed securities package (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (“REMIC”) pursuant to I.R.C. §§860A-G).

    The documents that killed the REMICs may actually help save your home.

    A new report by Oppenheim Law reveals “the Black Magic of Securitized Trusts”. The largest key to REMICs is that they are required to be passive vehicles, meaning that mortgages cannot be transferred in and out of the trust once the closing date has occurred, unless the trust can meet very limited exceptions under the Internal Revenue Code. I.R.C. §860G. The 90 day requirement is imposed by the I.R.C. to ensure that the trust remains a static entity. However, since the mortgage-backed securities trust controlling documents, the Pooling & Servicing Agreement (PSA), requires that the trustee and servicer not do anything to jeopardize the tax-exempt status; PSAs generally state that any transfer after the closing date of the trust is invalid.

    What does that mean to the average homeowner in foreclosure? Check the recordation office and look for the “Assignment of Mortgage” on your property – generally found just before the Notice of Foreclosure is filed with the State if your loan was securitized. Looking through hundreds of these beauties there have been few, if any, that were timely assigned to the trusts. How can you quickly tell if the Assignment of Mortgage has failed to make it timely to the trust?

    The Assignment of Mortgage [below] shows a 2006 Trust – and a fraudulent assignment in 2009 – 3 years AFTER the Trust had CLOSED! Not only was it too late – but the Trust could not accept it pursuant to the REMIC of RFMSI 2006SA4 PSA and as further defined in the Oppenheim Law report. Assignments of Mortgage are public documents.

    What was not known until very recently, in fact Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden brought it out in his case Delaware v. MERS, lenders generally failed to follow the PSA and properly assign the mortgage loans to the Trusts. In the transcripts that AG Biden cited from In re Kemp, 440 B.R. 624, 626 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2010) (No. 08-18700) (Aug. 11, 2009), an employee for Bank of America responsible for servicing the securitized Countrywide mortgage loans testified under oath that Countrywide did not have a practice of delivering original documents such as the note to the Trust and was not in the habit of endorsing notes at the bottom, but favored allonges that they made as they went along. She further testified that allonges are typically prepared in anticipation of foreclosure litigation, rather than at the time the mortgage loans are purportedly securitized. Both of these facts are contrary to the requirements of the PSA that the note be endorsed in blank and delivered to the trustee at the time of securitization. Thanks to foreclosure defense attorney, Bruce H. Levitt, of South Orange, NJ – Bankruptcy Chief Judge JUDITH H. WIZMUR totally got it! See her Opinion here.

    The trust investors have been suing Countrywide and other Wall Street banks for inflated appraisals, systematically abandoning underwriting guidelines and over-rated bonds. The investors did not yet know that many of the mortgage loans failed to make it timely into the trusts and that the REMICs had been damaged. In fact, recently the IRS has taken notice and already initiated an investigation into the “active” activities of these trusts and the tax implications from them. Scot J. Paltrow, Exclusive: IRS Weighs tax penalties on mortgage securities, REUTERS, April 27, 2011.

    Here’s a fine example of a (too) late Countrywide Assignment of Mortgage made in 2010 to a CWABS 2005-3 Trust. Did they just figure the courts were going to be oblivious forever?

    This is FIVE (5) years too late! Oh yeah, the REMIC has or should have failed. And it appears there are thousands, if not millions of these gems filed all across America in every state property recordation office – you just have to look.

    Law Professor Adam Levitin, Georgetown University, describes the conflict the following way in the Oppenheim Law report:

    “The trustee will then typically convey the mortgage notes and security instruments to a “master document custodian” who manages the loan documentation, while the servicer handles the collection of loans. Increasingly, there are concerns that in many cases the loan documents have not been properly transferred to the trust, which raises issues about whether the trust has title to the loans and hence standing to bring foreclosure actions on defaulted loans. Because, among other reasons, of the real estate mortgage investment conduit (“REMIC”) tax trust of many private-label securitizations (“PLS”) . . . it would not be possible to transfer the mortgage loans (the note and the security instrument) to the trust after the REMIC’s closing date without losing REMIC status.”

    Levitin further points out:

    “As trust documents are explicit in setting forth a method and date for the transfer of the mortgage loans to the trust and in insisting that no party involved in the trust take steps that would endanger the trust’s REMIC status, if the original transfers did not comply with the method and timing for transfer required by the trust documents, then such belated transfers to the trust would be void. In these cases, there is a set of far-reaching systemic implications from clouded title to the property and from litigation against trustees and securitization sponsors for either violating trust duties or violating representations and warranties about the sale and transfer of the mortgage loans to the trust.”

    Without valid assignments, attorneys say that standing and jurisdiction issues rise to the top and may be asserted at any time – even first time on appeal. If the pretender lender did not have a standing to non-judicially foreclose because the assignment of mortgage is void, logically everything thereafter would be a nullity – that could open up a can of worms beyond the pretender lenders’/servicers’ repair.

    These documents appear to have been fraudulent and as lawsuits assert – were intentionally prepared and executed to unlawfully confiscate the property from the homeowners. It appears it was easier to create the fraud and get paid by default insurance or credit default swaps than it was to modify they loans with the homeowners. Not only was there fraud on the homeowners, but also on the investors.

    But could REMICs be why the investors don’t partner up with the borrowers? They were both duped. The borrowers unwittingly relied on the [inflated] appraisals and had no idea that the underwriting guidelines had been “systematically abandoned” – just like the investor claims. But there is one big difference…

    If the investors include the borrowers, the fraudulent assignment of mortgages will surface and the REMIC fraud will float to the top like a dead body in a botched murder case…. and somebody will be stuck with paying the IRS – even if the investors win the case and get their investments back.

    Could these fraudulent assignments save your home or undo the foreclosure? That’s a question to ask a competent foreclosure defense attorney and have him review your file.

    Next, we need to follow the money… who actually got paid, how much and when??

  6. This case is good for people with MERS involved to watch and listen closely. MERS was put to gether to move unmovable loans in the days of the S&l. Why would the loans be unmovable? Cause by the law there was no way to move them. HUH! MERS was set up to get around the law from the starting gate.

  7. 83 U.S. 271 21 L.Ed. 313 16 Wall. 271 CARPENTER
    Carpenter v. Longan, 16 Wall. 271, 21 L.Ed. 313, 83 U.S. 271 (1872) – 1 – 83 U.S. 271 21 L.Ed. 313 16 Wall. 271 CARPENTER v. LONGAN. December Term, 1872 …

    http://www.ourlemon.com/docs/MERS/Carpenter-v-Logan.pdf · PDF file

    This case law should kill MERS! MERS is set up to separate the deed of trust from the note. MERS can not by its bi laws hold the note, MERS only claims to be holding the deed of trust separate of the note. and Securities pools separate the deed of trust from the note.

  8. Dying truth!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/san-francisco-foreclosures_n_1370869.html

    Audit Uncovers Extensive Flaws in Foreclosures
    By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
    Published: February 15, 2012
    Recommend
    Twitter
    Linkedin
    comments (335)
    Sign In to E-Mail
    Print

    Reprints
    ShareClose
    Digg
    Reddit
    Tumblr
    Permalink

    An audit by San Francisco county officials of about 400 recent foreclosures there determined that almost all involved either legal violations or suspicious documentation, according to a report released Wednesday.

    Annie Tritt for The New York Times
    Phil Ting, the San Francisco assessor-recorder, found widespread violations or irregularities in files of properties subject to foreclosure sales.

    Readers’ Comments
    Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
    Read All Comments (335) »
    Anecdotal evidence indicating foreclosure abuse has been plentiful since the mortgage boom turned to bust in 2008. But the detailed and comprehensive nature of the San Francisco findings suggest how pervasive foreclosure irregularities may be across the nation.

    The improprieties range from the basic — a failure to warn borrowers that they were in default on their loans as required by law — to the arcane. For example, transfers of many loans in the foreclosure files were made by entities that had no right to assign them and institutions took back properties in auctions even though they had not proved ownership.

    Commissioned by Phil Ting, the San Francisco assessor-recorder, the report examined files of properties subject to foreclosure sales in the county from January 2009 to November 2011. About 84 percent of the files contained what appear to be clear violations of law, it said, and fully two-thirds had at least four violations or irregularities.

    Kathleen Engel, a professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston said: “If there were any lingering doubts about whether the problems with loan documents in foreclosures were isolated, this study puts the question to rest.”

    The report comes just days after the $26 billion settlement over foreclosure improprieties between five major banks and 49 state attorneys general, including California’s. Among other things, that settlement requires participating banks to reduce mortgage amounts outstanding on a wide array of loans and provide $1.5 billion in reparations for borrowers who were improperly removed from their homes.

    But the precise terms of the states’ deal have not yet been disclosed. As the San Francisco analysis points out, “the settlement does not resolve most of the issues this report identifies nor immunizes lenders and servicers from a host of potential liabilities.” For example, it is a felony to knowingly file false documents with any public office in California.

    In an interview late Tuesday, Mr. Ting said he would forward his findings and foreclosure files to the attorney general’s office and to local law enforcement officials. Kamala D. Harris, the California attorney general, announced a joint investigation into foreclosure abuses last December with the Nevada attorney general, Catherine Cortez Masto. The joint investigation spans both civil and criminal matters.

    The depth of the problem raises questions about whether at least some foreclosures should be considered void, Mr. Ting said. “We’re not saying that every consumer should not have been foreclosed on or every lender is a bad actor, but there are significant and troubling issues,” he said.

    California has been among the states hurt the most by the mortgage crisis. Because its laws, like those of 29 other states, do not require a judge to oversee foreclosures, the conduct of banks in the process is rarely scrutinized. Mr. Ting said his report was the first rigorous analysis of foreclosure improprieties in California and that it cast doubt on the validity of almost every foreclosure it examined.

    “Clearly, we need to set up a process where lenders are following every part of the law,” Mr. Ting said in the interview. “It is very apparent that the system is broken from many different vantage points.”

    The report, which was compiled by Aequitas Compliance Solutions, a mortgage regulatory compliance firm, did not identify specific banks involved in the irregularities. But among the legal violations uncovered in the analysis were cases where the loan servicer did not provide borrowers with a notice of default before beginning the eviction process; 8 percent of the audited foreclosures had that basic defect.

    In a significant number of cases — 85 percent — documents recording the transfer of a defaulted property to a new trustee were not filed properly or on time, the report found. And in 45 percent of the foreclosures, properties were sold at auction to entities improperly claiming to be the beneficiary of the deeds of trust. In other words, the report said, “a ‘stranger’ to the deed of trust,” gained ownership of the property; as a result, the sale may be invalid, it said.

    In 6 percent of cases, the same deed of trust to a property was assigned to two or more different entities, raising questions about which of them actually had the right to foreclose. Many of the foreclosures that were scrutinized showed gaps in the chain of title, the report said, indicating that written transfers from the original owner to the entity currently claiming to own the deed of trust have disappeared.

    Banks involved in buying and selling foreclosed properties appear to be aware of potential problems if gaps in the chain of title cloud a subsequent buyer’s ownership of the home. Lou Pizante, a partner at Aequitas who worked on the audit, pointed to documents that banks now require buyers to sign holding the institution harmless if questions arise about the validity of the foreclosure sale.

    The audit also raises serious questions about the accuracy of information recorded in the Mortgage Electronic Registry System, or MERS, which was set up in 1995 by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and major lenders. The report found that 58 percent of loans listed in the MERS database showed different owners than were reflected in other public documents like those filed with the county recorder’s office.

    The report contradicted the contentions of many banks that foreclosure improprieties did little harm because the borrowers were behind on their mortgages and should have been evicted anyway. “We can deduce from the public evidence,” the report noted, “that there are indeed legitimate victims in the mortgage crisis. Whether these homeowners are systematically being deprived of legal safeguards and due process rights is an important question.”

    A version of this article appeared in print on February 16, 2012, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Audit Uncovers Extensive Flaws in Foreclosures.
    comments

    ——– Original Message ——– Subject: PHIL TING REPORTS MOST ALL ASSIGNMENTS ARE INVALID.
    Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:30:15 +0000 (UTC)
    From: Shelleystotalbodyworks@comcast.net
    To: Shelleystotalbodyworks Ann Erickson

    Audit Uncovers Extensive Flaws in Foreclosures
    By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
    Published: February 15, 2012
    Recommend
    Twitter
    Linkedin
    comments (335)
    Sign In to E-Mail
    Print

    Reprints
    ShareClose
    Digg
    Reddit
    Tumblr
    Permalink

    An audit by San Francisco county officials of about 400 recent foreclosures there determined that almost all involved either legal violations or suspicious documentation, according to a report released Wednesday.

    Annie Tritt for The New York Times
    Phil Ting, the San Francisco assessor-recorder, found widespread violations or irregularities in files of properties subject to foreclosure sales.

    Readers’ Comments
    Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
    Read All Comments (335) »
    Anecdotal evidence indicating foreclosure abuse has been plentiful since the mortgage boom turned to bust in 2008. But the detailed and comprehensive nature of the San Francisco findings suggest how pervasive foreclosure irregularities may be across the nation.

    The improprieties range from the basic — a failure to warn borrowers that they were in default on their loans as required by law — to the arcane. For example, transfers of many loans in the foreclosure files were made by entities that had no right to assign them and institutions took back properties in auctions even though they had not proved ownership.

    Commissioned by Phil Ting, the San Francisco assessor-recorder, the report examined files of properties subject to foreclosure sales in the county from January 2009 to November 2011. About 84 percent of the files contained what appear to be clear violations of law, it said, and fully two-thirds had at least four violations or irregularities.

    Kathleen Engel, a professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston said: “If there were any lingering doubts about whether the problems with loan documents in foreclosures were isolated, this study puts the question to rest.”

    The report comes just days after the $26 billion settlement over foreclosure improprieties between five major banks and 49 state attorneys general, including California’s. Among other things, that settlement requires participating banks to reduce mortgage amounts outstanding on a wide array of loans and provide $1.5 billion in reparations for borrowers who were improperly removed from their homes.

    But the precise terms of the states’ deal have not yet been disclosed. As the San Francisco analysis points out, “the settlement does not resolve most of the issues this report identifies nor immunizes lenders and servicers from a host of potential liabilities.” For example, it is a felony to knowingly file false documents with any public office in California.

    In an interview late Tuesday, Mr. Ting said he would forward his findings and foreclosure files to the attorney general’s office and to local law enforcement officials. Kamala D. Harris, the California attorney general, announced a joint investigation into foreclosure abuses last December with the Nevada attorney general, Catherine Cortez Masto. The joint investigation spans both civil and criminal matters.

    The depth of the problem raises questions about whether at least some foreclosures should be considered void, Mr. Ting said. “We’re not saying that every consumer should not have been foreclosed on or every lender is a bad actor, but there are significant and troubling issues,” he said.

    California has been among the states hurt the most by the mortgage crisis. Because its laws, like those of 29 other states, do not require a judge to oversee foreclosures, the conduct of banks in the process is rarely scrutinized. Mr. Ting said his report was the first rigorous analysis of foreclosure improprieties in California and that it cast doubt on the validity of almost every foreclosure it examined.

    “Clearly, we need to set up a process where lenders are following every part of the law,” Mr. Ting said in the interview. “It is very apparent that the system is broken from many different vantage points.”

    The report, which was compiled by Aequitas Compliance Solutions, a mortgage regulatory compliance firm, did not identify specific banks involved in the irregularities. But among the legal violations uncovered in the analysis were cases where the loan servicer did not provide borrowers with a notice of default before beginning the eviction process; 8 percent of the audited foreclosures had that basic defect.

    In a significant number of cases — 85 percent — documents recording the transfer of a defaulted property to a new trustee were not filed properly or on time, the report found. And in 45 percent of the foreclosures, properties were sold at auction to entities improperly claiming to be the beneficiary of the deeds of trust. In other words, the report said, “a ‘stranger’ to the deed of trust,” gained ownership of the property; as a result, the sale may be invalid, it said.

    In 6 percent of cases, the same deed of trust to a property was assigned to two or more different entities, raising questions about which of them actually had the right to foreclose. Many of the foreclosures that were scrutinized showed gaps in the chain of title, the report said, indicating that written transfers from the original owner to the entity currently claiming to own the deed of trust have disappeared.

    Banks involved in buying and selling foreclosed properties appear to be aware of potential problems if gaps in the chain of title cloud a subsequent buyer’s ownership of the home. Lou Pizante, a partner at Aequitas who worked on the audit, pointed to documents that banks now require buyers to sign holding the institution harmless if questions arise about the validity of the foreclosure sale.

    The audit also raises serious questions about the accuracy of information recorded in the Mortgage Electronic Registry System, or MERS, which was set up in 1995 by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and major lenders. The report found that 58 percent of loans listed in the MERS database showed different owners than were reflected in other public documents like those filed with the county recorder’s office.

    The report contradicted the contentions of many banks that foreclosure improprieties did little harm because the borrowers were behind on their mortgages and should have been evicted anyway. “We can deduce from the public evidence,” the report noted, “that there are indeed legitimate victims in the mortgage crisis. Whether these homeowners are systematically being deprived of legal safeguards and due process rights is an important question.”

    A version of this article appeared in print on February 16, 2012, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Audit Uncovers Extensive Flaws in Foreclosures.
    comments

  9. Phil Ting whom is the register of deeds in Kings County San Francisco is helping homeowners prove the broken titles in California. See if he will help you and your deed of records in your county. I will post his video and the McDonnel report for you. California is turning around right now and discovering the homeowners were unlawfully foreclosed on. You can file fraud upon the court and ask for vacate of judgment and quiet title. Go to or call Phil Tings office and see what he can do for you.

  10. No my case started out in US California District Court and was not reversed.

  11. Dying truth, I have seen the 9th circuit and many other Appeals courts reverse and remand the cases back to the state courts. I have one in the ninth circuit and hope I have presented it correctly. Afraid cause I am pro se and still waiting for the answer. Hoping for the best. I am encouraged by the Nineth Circuit and other appeal courts reversing and remanding cases. I know the state courts are out of control. I may have a different view if my case is lost in the Appeals court. I have seen no cases win for homeowners in the Washington state courts and I have seen the 9th circuit reverse those cases and many other Appeals courts. I have tried to do a good job of presenting it and I have asked the Appeals court judges not to remand it back to the state courts due to the rule of law no longer exhist in the state courts, ruling by unconstitutional law and all the judges are partial to the banks and are in conflict of interest. Now is a better time with more reports and more public knowledge of the crimes of the banks than two years back. I am sorry you were disappointed in the Appeals court. Am I understanding they did reverse and remand it back to state court for you, then you lost in state court again?

  12. Shelley A. Erickson, on March 26, 2012 at 9:20 am said:

    “[C]ases that have gone onto the U S. Appeals , not state Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have been reversed for the homeowners, if they were presented correctly.”

    I dispute and resent that statement. 2 years ago I had done everything correctly with TILA Rescission, Tender and refused to settle when they never appeared and defaulted on responding to the complaint, but were still allowed to file (way beyond the deadline) and was granted a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss with prejudice. On Appeal in the 9th Circuit I layed out all the faults in the defendants’ arguments and the lower court’s reasoning (pointing out where it was wrong, how it was wrong, why it was wrong and where it proved me to be right). I filed an oversized reply brief that addressed anything they could have came at me with and they affirmed by trying to reword Yamamoto v. Bank of NY (which I had picked apart in both my briefs) in an unpublished opinion.

    Fast forward to Causey v. US Bank, 10-56021, (9th Circuit) after the FED had bought all the non-marketable MBS that Federal Pensions (ie US Circuit Judges) and taken them off of their hands and in another unpublished opinon they reverse and remand based on some of the very same key arguments that I spelled out in detail.

    And this is just one of the many examples of how Fraudclosing Banks manipulate markets that affect Judges’ pensions and influencing their decisions to our overall detriment.

  13. jThe Honorable Judge Schack testimony
    :http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ImgvkPVeYrc#!

    The one big thing here they forget, is the banks need to correct a hugh problem, theyi need to prove and show whom owns the mortgage and uncloud titles, so the homeowner is not making a deal with a fraud, whom they will never get title from and may possibly owe someone else. It is not ethical of any court to force homeowners into paying a fraud lender whom has no proof of ownership with a history of fraud and con games at every peel of the onion.

  14. We are definately dealing with internal trojan terrorist.

  15. anh, The homeowners with attorneys get discover, the Pro Se’s are thrown out of court at state and federal level. they are treated badly and not allowed our due process of discovery. SMJ’d out of court without any discovery. Unlawful, cause discovery brings out the facts and wins cases. We are screwed totaly in any state court, due to our lack of knowledge and being a prose we are mistreated from the starting gate. We are warred against instead of given consideration like we are suppose to get. The lawyers for the other side, know all they have to do is give a photo copy of the note and claim it is real and it will be produced in court at trial, knowing it will never be submitted in wet ink at trial, and knowing the pro se will not make it to trial. You only see pro se’s win in U.S. Appeals courts. Thecrooked lawyers know this and they work on it and they dont believe anyone or very few will go onto to Appeals court. The pro se gets discouraged to easily and sees the crime of the courts with no justice and gives up.

  16. Were are dealing with a corrupt take over of property at the state and federal level. However cases that have gone onto the U S. Appeals , not state Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have been reversed for the homeowners, if they were presented correctly.

  17. Ken..here has done quite the job with his research..

    http://automated-destruction.com/

  18. fwiw ,,if you want to search ..the program called PROMMISS , you may find it was stolen like 9 years ago or ?? , i got this from someone who told me they were involved with such a program but something nefarious was the end result,the creator got burned selling it & [the] or a similar program was debuted shortly afterward in the servicing ,default industry [LPS] , with algorithm[s] for projections on investment[s] & max ROI . The servicers new many months before you would or potentially default,by credit scores ,payment histories, dti , forward projection of these factors etc.
    automated theft & criminal computer commerce terrorists!

  19. @ All again

    Since the “system” is “home grown”, the REAL questions are Does BOA have the source code? (of course they do nabdulla, why would you even ask a dumb question like that). And What changes has BOA made to the code? Well, to find that out you would have to sound their server(s) – deep, the bottom of the bottom. You’re looking Guatanabo Bay s–t here. Let it go. American torture has been legalized. Oh well….moving right along…

  20. @ All

    Just finished reading the Sjolander deposition.
    At page 21:
    “Q Is it a software program?
    10 A It’s a system.
    11 Q It’s a system?
    12 A It’s a system. It’s home grown.
    13 Q Okay. So it’s — okay. So it’s not software,
    14 or is it — I mean —
    15 A It’s not software that you go and buy, no.
    16 Q Well, no. But obviously it’s not publicly
    17 available, but is it developed by the company?
    18 A Yes, it is, developed by — ”

    Does anybody know, or can find out, the rest of her statement naming the developer? Source code patented?? Me and fellow bums in Debian and Gentoo Linux clans would love to see what it does to data inputs.

  21. Tooooooooooo funny! My kind of news: How to legally rob a thief or When banks become sloppy.

    JPMorgan sued by trader over $3m decimal point
    March 26, 2012 by Agency Reporter Leave a Comment

    P Morgan Chase and Company is being sued by a trader who says he accepted a contract from the investment bank because a typographical error made him believe he would be paid 10 times what was actually offered, Bloomberg reported.

    Kai Herbert, a Switzerland-based currency trader, is suing JPMorgan for about 580,000 pounds ($920,000), his lawyers said at a trial in London this week. The original contract said Herbert’s annual pay would be 24 million rand ($3.1m). JPMorgan blamed the mistake on a typographical error and said the figure should have been 2.4 million rand, according to court documents.

    “That must have been the moment your heart sank,” Judge Henry Globe said at the trial this week, referring to when Herbert discovered the mistake. Herbert resigned from UBS AG (UBSN) in June 2010 following the offer from JPMorgan to relocate to Johannesburg. Herbert didn’t report for work after discovering the discrepancy and JPMorgan rescinded the employment offer in December 2010.

    He has been unemployed since, other than eight months at Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN) where he was fired in a round of layoffs in November. Banks globally have cut about 196,000 jobs since the start of 2011, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

    “How can you possibly suggest that they would pay you so much money for an executive director level job?” Charles Ciumei, a lawyer for JPMorgan, asked during Herbert’s cross- examination. The bank said Herbert could have mitigated his lost earnings by taking the position at the New York-based bank.

    Banker salaries are the focus of several cases in London courts. Commerzbank AG (CBK) is being sued by former bankers at Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd. whose bonuses were cut by 90 percent after being acquired by Commerzbank in 2009.

    “If it is too good to be true, then it probably is, but if the trader signed the contract in good faith it is probably binding,” Adrian Crawford, an employment lawyer at Kingsley Napley LLP in London who isn’t involved in the case, said in a phone interview. “It is all about the subjective view of the trader and JPMorgan will have to prove he knew there was a mistake in the contract but signed it anyway.”

    Kate Haywood, a spokeswoman at JPMorgan declined to comment. Herbert’s lawyer, Dale Langley, declined to comment as did JPMorgan lawyer Stefan Martin

  22. @Dying Truth

    They foreclose anyway…no let up in sight. You can tell them and show them how illegal it is, and how they don’t have standing, and how they don’t own a loan, and how because of securitization they can’t legally foreclose, etc…you can tell them and show them ’till you’re blue in the face and STILL THEY FORECLOSE. IT DOESN”T MATTER.
    All they have to do is say “We are of the opinion we are following all applicable laws…we have the right to proceed with foreclosure…”

    And the courts just let the debt collector/thieves proceed…no matter what.

    Whatever you ask them, they have their deceitful answer…their answers are NON-answers and run-arounds–or– “We don’t have to tell you that because of privacy laws…”

    Welcome to hell…

  23. wow, others are starting to see the problems I’ve been seeing and warning of for the past 4 years!

  24. Federal judges toss foreclosures, say “Prove you own the mortgage”
    Nov 15, 2007 · A federal judge in Cleveland tossed out 32 foreclosure cases in a mass … not owning/holding the mortgage loan at the time the lawsuits were filed. Judge Boyko …

    foreclosingcleveland.wordpress.com/2007/…judges-toss…the-mortgage

  25. Thanks I was trying to find him and could not. This is why.

  26. Royko worked for the Sun-Times. And the Trib.

    Boyko is a judge.

  27. dying truth, What link can you re post the link you are speaking of.

  28. That link was where I found it. I found it interesting that some of what it says is similar to some of the arguments I’ve made here.

  29. We definatley want to give credit to all good judges. They do exhist however are unfortunatley the rare few. And are we grateful to them for giving us case law and hope.

  30. @Shelley,

    You forget Royko and some other judge, also in Ohio, who both dismissed about 30 cases together starting in 2007/2008. As a matter of fact, those were the cases that started the ink flowing and were at the source of many homeowners’ victories.

  31. I have been monitoring every case I find since Chase servicing committed mortgage mod fraud on me, October 13, 2009. The only cases on mortgage fraud I have seen the state and federal judges in Washington state use constitutional law is a small predator lender. All the big predator lenders have won in every state and district court but a few and I mean a few. The fraud upon the court banksters and their corrupt attorneys removing every case to federal court and having it smj out of court without discovery on false hearsay law they own the note and can prove it in court, which they know it wont get into court. Sending photo copies of the notes in their exhibits. Judge Schack, in Florida I beleive and Judge Rakoff in New York are amoung the elite few judges standing up for the homeowners and the constitutional law in the district courts. The only cases I have seen won by the homeowners with lawyers and or pro se are reversed in the Appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme court. This is telling of the corrupt bought judges in the lower courts, or judges that make up their own laws and go by hearsay law and not constitutional law and facts. Any judge that wars on the constitution is considered to be committing treason.

  32. “So the PEB Report is Plan B for the banks’ lawyers. Plan A was for the banks to comply with the law. But if that didn’t work, then plan B is to make the law comply with the banks. The idea here is to twist the law to make it appear as if the banks are in compliance. If the banks don’t fit the law, make the law fit the banks.”

    That is the ONE and ONLY thing we all must get courts to understand, even if it means putting the fear of God in them by clearly drawing the picture of where their retirement and social security are bound to be heading if they persist in failing to enfore the law and holding the banks to the consequences of their complete disregard for it, past, present and future (because they will keep on the same course of action until it starts hurting and hurting badly).

    So much ink has already been poured over it that it is virtually impossible for some of it not to have already stuck. We have until November 2012 to make absolutely sure the elections are about one subject and one subject only: taking away all power the banks have over our economy. If we concentrate on doing that, everything else will fall into place and we have a good chance of a future. If we fail, our species doesn’t have a prayer. Up to all of us. It’s our game.

  33. I am I wrong that criminal cases can be brought directly to the U.S. Supreme court. Perhaps we should be taking our cases directly to the U.S. Supreme court due to the lower courts do not go by the rule of law, and it is extremely difficult to find a judge that will not breach their oath of office and adjudicate by unconstitutional law, therefore we submit our cases directly to the U.S. Supreme court for due justice, by Constitutional law. The people can longer trust the state courts for justice due us. Does the rule of law still stand in the state courts and in the United states courts?

  34. What’s needed here, IMHO, is an attorney preferably with legislative/lobby experience to write a template letter exposing the facts and expressing, in no uncertain terms, that we the people will not tolerate these abuses any further, or it will be at their peril. Stop just short of exposing the plans for putting America’s carpenters back to work building guillotines. It’s time we take it to them. We’ve been the recipients long enough.

  35. Victory in Oakland County Transfer Tax Case Paves Way for Other …
    By Yves Smith
    Similarly, New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman filed a wide ranging suit against MERS and three banks that used it and settled it for $25 million (it included a mention of $2 billion in unpaid recording fees but we were skeptical of …
    naked capitalism

    OH YUHOO! BANKSTERS THE FIRST ONES TO TURN WHISTLEBLOWER WILL GET BIG MONEY AND THAT IS YOUR CORE SOUL GREED AND MONEY, SO DONT BLOW IT AND WHISTLEBLOW ON THE REST AND GET RICH, RETIRE AND LET THE BANKS TAKE EACH OTHER DOWN AND SEND THE ONES WHOM DID NOT WHISTLE BLOW TO JAI, WITHOUT THEIR TEN TO THIRTY PERCENT OF THE FRANK DODD WHISTLEBLOWER FUNDS YOU RETIRE ON. AND ADD A HAPPY ENDING TO THE WIZARD OF OZ STORY FOR THE TWENTIETH CENTURY AND THE PEOPLE!

  36. As Anh pointed out, the single largest lie ever before told en masse, maybe next to the one about Lindsey Lohan having talent….THE NOTES ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE PEOPLE!

    It’s also the single largest display of downright pitiful lawyering en masse as well. The government knows it. The regulators know it. All the $4K suits on Wall and K Street know it, and they’re simply giggling amongst themselves as they snatch up all the real estate.

    You see, this isn’t about money. The biggest heist in history is NOT about Federal Reserve Notes, for they’re worthless. They print those by the trillions. But real estate….they’re not making any more of that stuff. It’s in very limited supply. And all their illegal behavior is simply snatching it all up while we’re busy holding on to what few reserve notes we can cling to.

    At the risk of ripping off a few really smart people by posting their words without permission, here are a few literate treatise on the subject. I’d suggest that each and every one of us write our legislators and tell them enough is enough. The illegal and ordained land grab has to stop. Or it will get ugly.

    First is O. Max Gardner III, an extremely bright guy who I’m very glad is on our side:

    Obstacles to Negotiability of Residential Mortgage Notes

    O. Max Gardner III
    June 27, 2011
    INTRODUCTION TO NEGOTIABILITY

    Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code carries forward and codifies venerable commercial law rules developed over several centuries during which negotiable instruments played a much different role in commerce than they do today. As stated by Grant Gilmore, Article 3 is not unlike a “museum of antiquities — a treasure house crammed full of ancient artifacts whose use and function have long since been forgotten.” Grant Gilmore, Formalism and the Law of Negotiable Instruments, 13 Creighton L. Rev. 441, 461 (1979). His following quotation is apt and often-repeated: “codification . . . preserve[d] the past like a fly in amber”.

    In addition, Article 3 does not purport to govern completely the manner in which those ownership interests are transferred. For the rules governing those types of property rights, Article 9 provides the substantive law.17 UCC § 9-109(a)(3) (Article 9 “applies to . . . a sale of . . . promissory notes”). Article 9 includes rules, for example, governing the effect of the transfer of a note on any security given for that note such as a mortgage or a deed of trust. As a consequence, Article 9 must be consulted to answer many questions as to who owns or has other property interest in a promissory note. From this it follows that the determination of who holds these property interests will inform the inquiry as to who is a real party in interest in any action involving that promissory note.

    Unlike Article 3, Article 9 is a relatively recent innovation which attempts, among other things, to regularize nonpossessory financing. It was last completely revised in 1999, although there are currently amendments to that version being offered for adoption by the states.

    UCC § 9-109(a)(3) states that Article 9 applies to any sale of a “promissory note,” which is defined in § 9-102(a)(65) as “an instrument that evidences a promise to pay a monetary obligation, [or] does not evidence an order to pay . . . .” In turn, an “instrument” under Article 9 is defined as “a negotiable instrument or any other writing that evidences a right to the payment of a monetary obligation, is not itself a security agreement or lease, and is of a type that in ordinary course of business is transferred by delivery with any necessary indorsement or assignment.” UCC § 9-102(a)(47).

    See UCC § 9-203(g) (“The attachment of a security interest in a right to payment or performance secured by a security interest or other lien on personal or real property is also attachment of a security interest in the security interest, mortgage, or other lien.”).

    With very few exceptions, the same rules that apply to transactions in which a payment right serves as collateral for an obligation also apply to transactions in which a payment right is sold outright. See UCC § 9-203. Rather than contain two parallel sets of rules – one for transactions in which payment rights are collateral and the other for sales of payment rights –Article 9 uses nomenclature conventions to apply one set of rules to both types of transactions. This is accomplished primarily by defining the term “security interest,” found in UCC § 1-201(b)(35), to include not only an interest in property that secures an obligation, but also the right of a purchaser of a payment right such as a promissory note. UCC § 1-201(b)(35) (The term “security interest” also “includes any interest of a consignor and a buyer of accounts, chattel paper, a payment
    intangible, or a promissory note in a transaction that is subject to Article 9.”). That is, it transfers a note in a manner not contemplated by Article 3. Article 9 explicitly incorporates definitions found in Article 1. UCC § 9-102(c).

    Even if the Note is not a “negotiable instrument,” and thus Article 3 would not directly apply, it may “be appropriate, consistent with the principles stated in § 1-102(2) [now § 1-103], for a court to apply one or more provisions of Article 3 to the writing by analogy, taking into account the expectations of the parties and the differences between the writing and an instrument governed by Article 3.” Comment 2 to UCC § 3-104. See also Fred H. Miller & Alvin C. Harrell, The Law of Modern Payment Systems § 1.03[1][b] (2003).

    WHY RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE NOTES ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS

    First:

    Uniform Covenant 2 of the standard Fannie and Freddie mortgages and deeds of trust provides that “all payments accepted and applied by Lender shall be applied in the following order of priority: (a) interest due under the Note; (b) principal due under the Note; (c) amounts due under Section 3 (escrow). Such payments shall be applied to each Periodic Payment in the order in which it became due. Any remaining amounts shall be applied first to late charges, second to any other amounts due under this Security Instrument, and then to reduce the principal balance of the Note.” This Covenant further provides that to the extent payments are misapplied the borrower is entitled to a proper credit on the outstanding principal balanced owed. Under 3-104(a)(3) of the UCC, a promissory note cannot be an instrument if it contains such an undertaking; the rules of negotiability apply only to promises to pay money, not to other,
    non-monetary understandings such as principal reductions for the misapplication of payments.

    Second:

    Section 4 of the standard Fannie and Freddie fixed rate mortgage note and Section 5 of their standard adjustable rate notes provide that the borrower has “the right to make payments of principal at any time before they are due. A payment of principal only is known as a ‘prepayment.’ When I make a prepayment, I will tell the Note Holder in writing that I am doing so.” The Italicized sentence of this Section constitutes an undertaking to do an act in addition to the payment of money. Under 3-104(a)(3) of the UCC, a promissory note cannot be an instrument if it contains such an undertaking; the rules of negotiability apply only to promises to pay money, not to other, non-monetary understandings. Sending a notice certainly is an act “in addition to the payment of money,” and the note’s language clearly constitutes an “undertaking” to perform that act. Thus, the standard Fannie-Freddie Uniform instrument is not negotiable and thus the rules of Article 3 of the UCC (including the holder-in-due-course protections) do not apply.

    Third:

    Uniform Covenant 14 of the Uniform Freddie and Fannie mortgages and deeds of trust provides that with respect to loan charges the “Lender may charge Borrower fees for services performed in connection with Borrower’s default, for the purpose of protecting Lender’s interest in the Property and rights under this Security Instrument, including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees, property inspection and valuation fees. In regard to any other fees, the absence of express authority in this Security Instrument to charge a
    specific fee to Borrower shall not be construed as a prohibition on the charging of such fee. Lender may not charge fees that are expressly prohibited by this Security Instrument or by Applicable Law. If the Loan is subject to a law which sets maximum loan charges, and that law is finally interpreted so that the interest or other loan charges collected or to be collected in connection with the Loan exceed the permitted limits, then: (a) any such loan charge shall be reduced by the amount necessary to reduce the charge to the permitted limit; and (b) any sums already collected from Borrower which exceeded permitted limits will be refunded to Borrower. Lender may choose to make this refund by reducing the principal owed under the Note or by making a direct payment to Borrower. If a refund reduces principal, the reduction will be treated as a partial prepayment without any prepayment charge (whether or not a prepayment charge is provided for under the Note). Borrower’s acceptance of any such refund made by direct payment to Borrower will constitute a waiver of any right of action Borrower might have arising out of such overcharge.” Sections 3-104(a) and 3-106(a) of the UCC clearly provide that a negotiable instrument must constitute an “unconditional” promise to pay and that the obligation to pay must be “unconditional.” Under 3-106(a), an express condition in a note creates a complete bar to negotiability. Uniform Covenant 14, by expressly justifying the borrower in withholding a portion of the stated principal amount of the note, or by demanding a credit on the stated amount due, creates such an express condition.

    Fourth:

    The Uniform Freddie and Fannie fixed rate mortgage note includes a “usury savings clause” that provides, “interest paid or agreed to be
    paid shall not exceed the maximum amount permissible under applicable law and, in any contingency whatsoever, if the Lender shall receive anything of value deemed interest under applicable law which would exceed the maximum amount of interest permissible under applicable law, the excessive interest shall be applied to the reduction of the unpaid Amount of Note or refunded to the maker.” Because this provision expressly conditions the maker’s obligation to repay the stated principal and interest on the lawfulness of the negotiated payment terms, it deprives the note of negotiability. In short, this language renders the obligation to pay conditional because the borrower is obligated to pay the fixed “stated amount only if the amount is consistent with applicable law.” Section 3-104(a) of the UCC requires that the note state a “fixed amount of money” due in order to render it a negotiable instrument.

    Fifth:

    The representations and warranties provided by the Sponsors, the Sellers and the Depositors in the typical securitized transactions effectively do not treat the residential mortgages notes as completely sold due to the continuing repurchase obligations arising out of such representations and warranties. The EPDs (early payment default) covenants are simple examples of such provisions. These conditions render the notes non-negotiable under Section 3-302(a)(2)(iii) and (a)(2) (vi) of the UCC.

    Sixth

    The so-called Multiple Option Adjustable Rate Mortgage (MOARM) is yet another example of a non-negotiable mortgage note. Under these mortgage notes, the borrower has multiple options for the first 2, 3, 4 or 5 years of the 30 year mortgage. The available options
    include but are not limited to making no payments, making half the interest due that month, making the full interest payment due that month, making the principal payment due that month, etc. Of course, if the borrower elects option one (no payment) or option two (half the contractual interest due) then the principal balance owed on the note goes up. And, if such options are elected during the first month, then the loan quickly converts to a negative amortization loan since the total amount owed is greater than the original amount loaned. Since Section 3-104(a) of the UCC requires that the note state a “fixed amount of money” due in order to render it a negotiable instrument, the MOARM simply fails this test as does any other note subject to any similar negative-amortization feature.
    Since these notes are not negotiable instruments, the transfer and sale of the notes are subject to the provisions of Article 9 rather than Article 3 of the UCC. The following is a Brief Analysis of Article 9:

    A VERY BRIEF ARTICLE 9 ANALYSIS

    Presuming a real estate secured note is a non-negotiable instrument (which it is) AND the originator of a given non-negotiable note opts to sell the same THEN UCC Article 9 applies (as it applies both to Sales of secured instruments and secured transactions).

    In such a case the note must be assigned by the originator/assignor to the assignee AND the assignee MUST pay good and valuable consideration to the assignor in exchange for the assignment.

    Thereafter, any further assignment of the non-negotiable note would require full compliance with Article 9 –that is each
    subsequent assignee must pay good and valuable consideration to the assignor.
    In securitized transactions the Pooling and Servicing Agreements (PSAs) constitute such an Article 9 assignment between the Depositor and Trust/Trustee and it includes conditions in addition to those set forth by Article 9 which would represent a threshold requirement in all cases. For example, since the PSAs require an unbroken chain of indorsements on the note from the originator to the custodian for the trust along with actual delivery of the note for each sale in the chain the notes cannot be acquired simply by the contract of assignment. The drafters of the PSAs have thus imposed a sort of “hybrid Article 3” rule on how the notes must be transferred and delivered with an “unbroken chain of indorsements from the originator to all intervening parties with the final indorsement to the Trustee for the named trust.” Such additions to the Law of Assignments provided for by Article 9 are specifically allowed by Section 1-302 of the UCC.

    Put simply, there can be no mere HOLDER of a non-negotiable note, one is either a proper assignee or not. The requirement for good and valuable consideration is set forth in UCC section 9-203:

    (a) A security interest attaches to collateral when it becomes enforceable against the debtor with respect to the collateral, unless an agreement expressly postpones the time of attachment.

    (b) Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (c) to (i), inclusive, a security interest is enforceable against the debtor and third parties with respect to the collateral only if each of the following conditions is satisfied:

    (1) Value has been given.

    (2) The debtor has rights in the collateral or the power to transfer rights in the collateral to a secured party.

    (3) One of the following conditions is met:

    (A) The debtor has authenticated a security agreement that provides a description of the collateral and, if the security interest covers timber to be cut, a description of the land concerned.

    (B) The collateral is not a certificated security and is in the possession of the secured party under Section 9-313 pursuant to the debtor’s security agreement.

    (C) The collateral is a certificated security in registered form and the security certificate has been delivered to the secured party under Section 8301 pursuant to the debtor’s security agreement.

    (D) The collateral is deposit accounts, electronic chattel paper, investment property, letter-of-credit rights, or electronic documents and the secured party has control under Section 7-106, 9-104, 9-105, 9-106, or 9-107 pursuant to the debtor’s security agreement.

    It should also be noted that assignment law means a transfer of ownership that does not occur under Article 3. And, it should likewise be noted that the recent draft report of the Permanent Editorial Board of the Uniform Commercial Code specifically states that “the following discussion analyzes the application of these rules to that determination in the case of mortgage notes that are negotiable instruments. The law other than Article 3, including contract law, governs this determination for non-negotiable mortgage notes. That law is beyond the scope of this Report.”

    Section 2.01 of the standard PSA provides that the loan notes and the mortgages must be transferred by assignment. The standard
    parties are the Seller, Depositor and the Trust. The Seller assigns all rights to the Depositor and the Depositor in turn assigns all rights to the Trustee. The typical language provides that each party transfers “all right, title and interest in and to the mortgages and mortgage notes” to the transferee. However, in addition to the law of assignments, Section 2.01 of the standard PSA incorporates the “hybrid Article 3” otherwise agreed provisions by requiring that the “original mortgage notes” must also be transferred and delivered and indorsed by all of these parties-the Seller, the Sponsor and the Depositor. The standard PSA language provides that the original note must have a complete and unbroken chain of indorsements from the originator through a specified chain of parties, including all intervening indorsements.

    The PSA terms trump the normal Article 3 and 9 Rules as an otherwise agreed provision under 1-302 of the UCC and therefore the notes in a securitized trust are transferred by assignment and by Negotiation. Section 1-302(a) of the UCC states that “except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) or elsewhere in (the Uniform Commercial Code), the effect of the provisions of (the Uniform Commercial Code) may be varied by agreement.” Sub-Section (b) of Section 1-302 then states that the “obligations of good faith, diligence, reasonableness, and care prescribed (the Uniform Commercial Code) may not be disclaimed by agreement. The parties, by agreement, may determine the standard by which the performance of those obligations is measured if those standards are not manifestly unreasonable. Whenever (the Uniform Commercial Code) requires an action to be taken within a reasonable time, a time that is not manifestly unreasonable may be fixed by the agreement.” Finally, 1-302(c) provides that “the presence in certain
    provisions of (the Uniform Commercial Code) of the phrase ‘unless otherwise agreed’, or words of similar import, does not imply that the effect of the other provisions may not be varied by agreement under this section.” The Comments to 1-302 provide among other things that this Section “addresses the effectiveness of contractual provisions that select an exclusive or a non-exclusive” form of transfers and negotiation of instruments.” Also, these Comments also make it clear that the parties by agreement may not make an instrument “negotiable” unless it otherwise complies with Section 3-104 of the UCC. Similarly, the Comments state that the parties by agreement may not avoid the applications of UCC Article 9 to a transaction that falls within its scope (See Comments to 9-109). And, the Assignment Rules are set and structured by the PSA and the collateral Mortgage Loan Sales Agreements as the same relate to the PSA.

    WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN?

    In order to establish standing and comply with the real party in interest rules, including the legal right to enforce a residential mortgage note, the party seeking such status must prove-up the following:

    1. That the Sponsor acquired rights in the mortgage note for valid consideration pursuant to a mortgage loan purchase agreement that referenced the specific mortgage note subject to enforcement. This obligation in many cases could encompass proof of many such contracts that would establish a complete and unbroken chain of true sales and assignments from the originator to all intervening parties and finally to the Sponsor.

    2. That the Depositor acquired rights in the mortgage note for valid consideration pursuant to a mortgage loan purchase agreement that referenced the specific mortgage note subject to enforcement.

    3. That the Trustee for the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securitized Trust acquired rights in the mortgage note for valid consideration pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement that the PSA referenced the specific mortgage note subject to enforcement.

    4. That the Trustee has actual possession of the original mortgage note.

    5. That the original mortgage note includes a complete and unbroken chain of indorsements from the entity that originated the note with the final indorsement to the Trust either in blank or to the specifically named Trustee (e.g., an order endorsement to Deutsche Bank as Trustee without naming the vintage year and name for the Trust would not be legally sufficient).

    6. If an Allonge was used for any of the required indorsements, then the Allonge would have to include a specific reference to loan level date (e.g., name of borrower, property address and location, and original amount of the note) and would have to be permanently affixed to the original note.

    7. All of these documents are not “business records” that can be authenticated by a “business record affidavit” but rather would have to be proved-up by an individual with actual personal knowledge as to the facts necessary to establish the “authenticity” of each document in the required unbroken chain of assignment contracts and indorsements.

    And now to Adam Levitin, from a writing he did posted at Credit Slips last year, sorry, I have this saved without links:

    The Heirs of Karl Lleywellyn: the PEB Report, Green Cheese, and the Hijacking of American Law (Part I)

    posted by Adam Levitin

    This last week the Permanent Editorial Board of the Uniform Commercial Code came out with a report bering the none-too-thrilling title of “Report on Application of the Uniform Commercial Code to Selected Issues Related to Mortgage Notes”. There’s an awful lot to say about this awful document, and I’m not going to attempt to cover it all in a single blog post. This post is going to cover what the report is, what authority it has, and why it is completely irrelevant (namely that it deals with negotiable notes, when virtually all mortgage notes are non-negotiable). Subsequent posts will deal with the substantive flaws in the report and with the motivation behind the report and with the way the uniform law making process has become completely hijacked by monied interests.

    There are two critical takeaways from this post. First, it is important to understand that the PEB report is not law. It is not authoritative or binding. The PEB does not determine what the law is or what the Uniform Commercial Code means or does not mean. The report is merely dicta on dicta from a completely nonrepresentative, politically unresponsive body that includes some patently conflicted members.

    Second, it is important to understand that the PEB report is utterly irrelevant because by its own terms it only addresses the enforceability of “negotiable” mortgage notes, and virtually all mortgage notes are non-negotiable. Therefore, even if everything in the PEB report were correct (which it ain’t), it would have as much real world application as a report on the enforceability of mortgage notes made of green cheese. (This raises the question, of course, why there would be so much energy spent on an irrelevant document. I’ll address that in a later blog post, but basically this report is a desperate attempt to put a finger on the scales of justice in favor of the banks).

    The PEB Report Lacks Authority and Is Not Law.
    To understand what the PEB report is, it is necessary to understand what the Uniform Commercial Code is and what the PEB is. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is a set of model commercial laws. They are designed to be adopted uniformly by all 50 states. As it happens most of the UCC’s 10 articles (1-5, 7-9, 2A, 4A) have been adopted by all 50 states. They haven’t been adopted completely uniformly, however, and some states have adopted revised versions of various Articles, while others haven’t (for example, there are three versions of Article 3 in effect in different states).

    The UCC is a joint project of the American Law Institute (ALI) and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law (NCCUSL: na-KEW-sell). ALI is a private law reform organization whose membership is made up of fancy law professors (like our own Bob Lawless), judges, and lawyers. It is essentially the intellectual leadership of the American bar. ALI is perhaps best known for its “Restatements,” quasi-normative summaries of American law in various areas.

    NCCUSL, on the other hand, is a body made up of commissioners appointed by each state. I don’t have a great sense of who NCCUSL commissioners are, but my impression is that some are law professors (including, briefly, our own Bob Lawless), but that many are would-be jv politicians. In any case, NCCUSL doesn’t carry nearly the prestige of the ALI.

    The Permanent Editorial Board for the UCC is a body comprised of 6 ALI representatives and 6 NCCUSL representatives. It includes the head of the ALI (a law professor) and the head of NCCUSL, but neither is a commercial law expert. Looking at the other 10 members, there are 4 law professors, five lawyers in private practice, and a VP of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The PEB, according to ALI’s website “assists in attaining and maintaining uniformity in state statutes governing commercial transactions by discouraging non-uniform amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code by the states, and by approving and promulgating amendments to the UCC when necessary.”

    A PEB report is not even a proposed amendment to the UCC (and remember that a proposed amendment is just that until and unless a state legislature actually adopts it as law. Otherwise, it’s legal status is the same as any proposal for a law that you or I come up with.) Instead, a PEB report is just a report on how the PEB believes the law should be interpreted.

    This brings us to a critical point: the PEB is NOT the ALI and PEB reports are not approved by the ALI. The PEB report doesn’t even carry with it the prestige of the ALI imprimatur. Instead, it is the product of a 12 person body that contains many non-neutral parties and only one commercial law scholar with a national reputation; most of the top commercial law scholars who are ALI members are not on the PEB. (These are the heirs of Karl Llewellyn?!) I find credentialism really distasteful, but the PEB report is trading on the ALI’s reputation, which is quite different than that of many PEB members. So what we have here are dicta from a nonrepresentative, politically unresponsive body. Add to that that it is apparent that at least some of of the members have pretty clear conflicts of interest, such as representation of or employment by major mortgage investors, even if not necessarily on mortgage investment issues. Yup, that’s authoritative.

    2. The PEB Report Is Irrelevant Because It Only Deals with Negotiable Notes
    Perhaps the bigger point to make about the PEB report is that it is utterly irrelevant. It is a report about the enforceability of “negotiable notes”. The problem is that no mortgage note in the country qualifies as “negotiable” under the definition of Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code. This might as well be a report about the enforceability of mortgage notes made of green cheese. Even if it were technically correct on every point (which it ain’t), it just wouldn’t matter.

    Courts haven’t really taken up the negotiability point, but it seems beyond peradventure as Ronald Mann noted nearly 15 years ago that the uniform Fannie/Freddie note doesn’t meet the requirements of negotiability because it contains additional undertakings and conditions. This report makes no mention of this issue. But the fact that the notes aren’t negotiable makes the report irrelevant to the legal issues involving foreclosures.

    Now I should note that the fact that the notes aren’t negotiable doesn’t solve the trust law problem of the notes lacking the endorsements required by pooling and servicing agreements. If the PSA says that the note has to be made of green cheese, that’s what it has to be. PSAs, as it happens, apply to all notes, whether or not negotiable. PSAs don’t require negotiability of the note. Instead, they require endorsement of both notes and mortgages (mortgages are themselves never negotiable instruments), as a way of indicating ownership, as a way of documenting chain of title, and as legal protection for the securitization trust if the note does happen to be negotiable.

    The Heirs of Karl Lleywellyn: the PEB Report, Green Cheese, and the Hijacking of American Law (Part II)

    posted by Adam Levitin

    Why the PEB Report?

    What motivated the Permanent Editorial Board for the Uniform Commercial Code to issue its ridiculous report on the enforceability of negotiable mortgage notes (discussed in the previous post in some detail) when virtually no mortgage notes are negotiable? Why go to all the effort and fuss to issue an irrelevant report?

    The report is an attempt to paper over all of the legal and paperwork snafus that have gummed up the foreclosure system. The report is an attempt to put a finger on the scale of justice in favor of the banks in foreclosure litigation. (I hope ALI members who read this understand just what a rogue body the PEB has become; I don’t think this is a policy that the ALI membership as a whole would support.)

    To understand what’s going on here, think of the scene in Star Wars when the rebels are attacking the Death Star and the imperial officer says to Grand Moff Tarkin:

    We’ve analyzed their attack, sir, and there is a danger. Should I have your ship standing by?

    The authors of the PEB report are like the nameless, cautious imperial officer. They are lawyers who have realized that there’s a real danger to the banks in the foreclosure process because the banks failed to comply with the law (the bankers themselves don’t get this–for them this is all technicalities that don’t or shouldn’t matter. Or as Grand Moff Tarkin responded: Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances!).
    It seems that the PEB report has been underway since around the fall of 2010–when the robosigning scandal broke. Some bank lawyers realized that there was something to the arguments being made by consumer attorneys and law professors that the banks had screwed up the chain of title and paper work in so many different ways that they really couldn’t foreclose if courts were to take the law seriously. (Some other law professors and I have been trying to squash this tarakan for a while–we delayed it but weren’t ultimately successful. You can see some of my comments on earlier versions of the report here and here.)

    So the PEB Report is Plan B for the banks’ lawyers. Plan A was for the banks to comply with the law. But if that didn’t work, then plan B is to make the law comply with the banks. The idea here is to twist the law to make it appear as if the banks are in compliance. If the banks don’t fit the law, make the law fit the banks. Hence the attempt to sound very official about the enforceability of (negotiable) mortgage notes in the hope that no one would notice that mortgage notes are non-negotiable. Instead of rule of law, it seems, we have rule of banks.

  37. Carie, besides the obvious fact that the banks are waiving photo copies of notes in the courts and not one court or homeowner has seen a real wet stamp note in over three years, only forged notes which is telling, as Melissa Huelsman said to the justices in the U.S. Supreme court in Olympia, Washington. The banksters producing several fraud notes to her she was able to prove were fraud, and the MERS attorney dancing around having no factual proof of notes in his possession. WHICH IS ALL TELLING! There have been several cases that prove different banks have not produced the orginal wet stamp notes to prove they have standing throughout the courts of the U.S. Only fraud notes! Duetsche Bank & Chase Banik are two just judged against with no proof of ownership of the note, telling on each other in Duetsche Bank Nat’l Trust V. FDIC and Chase/WAMU.
    SEE on the web: FDIC & JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA’S P&A AGREEMENT DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE NOTES.
    The Purchase &Assumption Agreement between the FDIC & JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA for Washington Mutual Bank does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note.
    U. S. DISTRICT COURT CASE # CV10-0815 0D2 (FFMx)
    JAVAHIERI V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA et al:
    Order GRANTING in Part & DENYING in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint file April 28, 2011
    Decision can be found at http://www.chasechase.org/doxcc/Javaheri35Order.pdf
    US Code: TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part B > § 1641
    § 1641. Liability of assignees can be found at

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1641&url=/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001641—-000-.html

    From the decision”:

    C. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE & QUIET TITLE

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA’s assertion that the P&A Agreement suffices to establish their ownership of the Note is no longer viable. Indeed, the P&A Agreement does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note. (See Dkt. No. 10, Exh. 2.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has now sufficiently alleged that JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA did not own his Note and therefore did not have the right to foreclose.

    From Plaintiff’s memorandum of law attached:

    WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE – SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (hereafter Chase) offers no proof that it acquired an interest in Plaintiff’s residence. In this Motion to Dismiss, once again the only document offered to support its claim is the P&A Agreement. Chase asks the court to leap to the conclusion that Washington Mutual Bank (hereafter WMB) was the Lender on September 25, 2008, the date that the Purchase & Assumption Agreement was signed, even though the likelihood of that, given WMB’s history of securitization, is less than 50%. The challenge facing homeowners is to prove facts to trial courts at the pleading stage.

    Wall Street and the Financial Crisis – Anatomy of a Financial Collapse, the U.S.
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (April 13, 2011) 650-page report,
    was released following an 18-month investigation into the causes of the financial
    crisis. WMB was the leading case study in the report—183 pages (28%) of the report were devoted to WMB—the worst of the worst. The report is readily
    available for download at the Senate Subcommittee’s website. 2
    Defendant alleges in its Purchase & Assumption Agreement that “JPMorgan obtained its rights under the loan from the FDIC” (P&A 4:5). Whether or not the Loan was an asset of WMB on September 25, 2008, a key issue in this case, is not mentioned. Chase asks the court to find, without evidence, a fact that it must prove in order to take the property. Nothing in the P&A Agreement shows whether WMB had any beneficial interest in Plaintiff’s loan on September 25, 2008. The court is asked to guess the answer and dismiss the case. Then Plaintiff will lose his house.

    Where factual findings or the contents of the documents are in dispute, those
    matters of dispute are not appropriate for judicial notice. Caravantes v. California
    Reconveyance Co., 2010 WL 4055560, 9 (S.D.Cal. 2010) citing Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transp. Comm’n, 2006 WL 167657, at *2 (N.D.Cal. 2006).
    See Stephen R. Buchenroth and Gretchen D. Jeffries, Recent Foreclosure Cases: Lenders Beware (June 2007); Wells Fargo v.Jordan, 914 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 2009) (“If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”);
    Chase argues that it obtained the right to sell Plaintiff’s property when it acquired

    Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
    – 17 –
    WMB’s assets through the P&A Agreement for $1.9 billion. Chase could only acquire what WMB owned. WMB no longer owned Plaintiff’ mortgage. Perhaps the identity of the Lender can be tracked down, but it remains unknown.
    Defendant argues that Chase assumed no liability for actions taken by WMB prior to September 25, 2008 in regard to the subject loan. This obscures the issue. Plaintiff alleges that WMB did not have any interest in Plaintiff’s residence on September 25, 2008. His property was not an asset of WMB, and therefore Chase could not acquire any interest in Plaintiff’s residence. This is not a liability issue.
    Chase seems to assert that it can foreclose on any property under the P&A Agreement on the grounds that WMB might have had a beneficial interest in the property at some time, even though WMB sold most of its mortgages to investors.

    Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 62 of the SAC that WMB securitized Plaintiff’s single family
    residential mortgage loan through Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. If WMB retained no beneficial interest in the promissory note when it brokered the deal, Chase cannot acquire what WMB never had. If WMB transferred all of its beneficial interest in the note at the inception of the loan and never entered it in its books as an asset, and entered no corresponding reserve on its ledger as a liability in the event of Plaintiff’s default, then Chase did not acquire ownership of the note by purchasing WMB’s assets because WMB had nothing to sell. This is a question of fact. Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 30 of the SAC that Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, not a holder of the Note, and not a beneficiary under the Note.

    If Chase has no beneficial interest in the note, Chase can only proceed if it
    proves that it is the servicer and joins the owner of the note in this action. To dismiss
    this lawsuit before ascertaining the truth of these allegations is unwarranted. Chase
    could produce evidence in its files, but it prefers to rob Plaintiff of his day in court
    __._,_.___
    Neither WMB, Chicago Title Company, California Reconveyance Company (hereafter CRC), Chase, nor anyone else has recorded a transfer of a beneficial interest in the Note (or any other interest in the) Property to Chase. (SAC ¶ 29). Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, Chase is not a holder of the Note, and Chase is not a beneficiary under the Note. Chase does not have
    capacity to exercise a power of sale. Chase does not claim to be a holder of the note.

    The core issue in this case is to ascertain who is the Lender. Plaintiff did not borrow money from Chase. Plaintiff’s pre-discovery inquiries indicate that WMB did not own the loan on September 25, 2008, and therefore Chase is not the Lender. This issue cannot be brushed aside because California is a non-judicial state.

    Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) remained the Lender for no more than a few days until WMB sold the loan. Thereafter, it was, at best, a servicer of the loan. The Lender was the investment trust that put up the money.

    Foreclosure of the Wellworth Property was commenced by CRC, having been
    appointed trustee on April 30, 2010, by Chase. Chase was not the Lender.

    The Deed of Trust (SAC Exhibit 4) states on page 13, paragraph 24: “Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor Trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by Lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county in which the Property is located.” (SAC Exhibit 8, ¶24).

    Defendant asks the Court’s approval to proceed with foreclosure of Plaintiff’s
    property on the basis of a NOD and NOTS filed by CRC, a wholly owned subsidiary
    of Chase (SAC ¶16) that was appointed as successor Trustee by Chase even though
    Chase is not the Lender and has not revealed who the Lender might possibly be.

    (A) all of the beneficiaries under the trust deed, or their successors in interest…
    Nowhere does the Civil Code allow for assignment of a Deed of Trust by the assignee acting on its own behalf.

    Since Chase is not the Lender, it would violate the terms of the Note and the Deed of Trust to dismiss the SAC and allow Chase to foreclose as a result of a forged Assignment of Deed of Trust signed by someone working for the Assignee.

    REMICS HAVE FAILED…..
    All the PSA’s/MBA’s/REMICS have failed and are void and therefore the notes are void and unlawful debt collector servicers are attempting to collect uncollectable debts. The mortgagesplit. MERS nominee (no such thing) beneificary, not real beneficiary and does not hold the note. MERS claims to hold the deed of trust not the note. The deed of trust separated from the note nullifies it and the notes (were destroyed to prevent securities fraud and to steal) photo copies were put into the trust not the notes. Notes were destroyed and the PSA’s are empty, and that is what the Phil Ting report states 100% of the PSA’s are invalid and not signed to anyone left in blank for the servicers to steal from lenders and trust. Both the deed of trust and the notes are invalid and note collectable due to the banksters fraud and ponzie schemes.
    December 24th, 2011 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    This is actually a great post about the fatal flaws at the heart of our financial system

    the remics have failed
    Click onto the Oppenheim Report.
    The banksters use Hearsay law and photo copy notes. The judicial system is not ran by the rule of law and is a huge part of the problem. The judges need to be debenced!

  38. I agree with Enraged! The internet has allowed us to spread the word, teach, inform, share information and expose this crime. The criminals got a way with it for centuries, because it was kept a dark secret to the main stream people. This should be first most in our history books and we need to educate our children and grandchildren of this crime. This crimehas been the down fall of people for centuries and is way to important to allow it is a victimless crime. This is the most victimizing crime I have ever known of. We are so much farther ahead this year than in the last two or more years. We will prevail. listen to this pod cast and to both parts: http://wp.me/p1EGDj-bEX

    As you saw in the Wizard of Oz documentary (which if you have not watched you NEED TO! This should be shown to the publc more than the Judy Garland childrens version. Thoughout history, the people became angry enough seeing the crime, without all the knowledge we have and overturned the banks every time. I just hope it is done without civil war by our representatives being forced to see this does not work, before the officials allow a civil war to errupt. The blood will be on their heads for not regulating and doing their job. I pray this is done in a civil and criminal action through the courts before the people decide they have to take it into their own hands. Our regulators must do their jobs. We must vote out the ones that do not.

  39. Discovery in a Foreclosure Case

    Posted on March 23rd, 2012 by Mark Stopa

    http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/2012/03/discovery-in-a-foreclosure-case/

    Many people who don’t work in the legal field and/or are unfamiliar with normal court procedures are surprised to see how a lawsuit actually works. It’s not like you see on TV, where a dispute arises and the parties are immediately thrust into a trial. In real life, all litigants have the right to obtain discovery from the other side. This means, in non-lawyer terms, that both sides have the right to require his/her opponent, prior to trial, to provide documents pertinent to the case, to answer interrogatories, and submit to depositions. It’s not like the old TV shows like Matlock, where a cunning lawyer could bring in a surprise witness during trial, win the case, and leave his opponent scratching his head, wondering what happened. Both sides have to disclose their witnesses, indicate what those witnesses are going to testify, and provide pertinent documents, usually long before trial ever begins. The process of obtaining documents from your opponent in a court case, identifying witnesses, and learning what those witnesses will testify is called discovery.

    Florida law, like that in most states, has broad discovery rules. Not only must all parties disclose anything relevant to that case, but anything “likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” should also be provided. These broad discovery rules ensure both sides can litigate fairly, preventing a ”trial by sagotage.” In some ways, trials in real life ares like a game of cards, except the participants all have their cards laid on the table, face up.

    With this backdrop in place, the interesting question becomes – Do the same rules apply in foreclosure cases? Do homeowners get the same, broad rights to discovery (that every other litigant in every other case enjoys)?

    According to the letter of the law, there is no reason to provide homeowners fewer rights in the discovery process than any other litigant. Foreclosure cases are litigated in court (in Florida, anyway), so if homeowners want to ask banks to produce documents, identify witnesses, ascertain what those witnesses will say, answer interrogatories, or submit to depositions, homeowners are perfectly entitled to do so.

    In reality, though, it often doesn’t work this way. Banks and their lawyers hate providing discovery in foreclosure cases. They avoid it like the plague. Unfortunately, I’ve witnessed this dynamic many times in foreclosure cases, when bank lawyers respond to my discovery by saying:

    You don’t need no stinkin’ discovery, Stopa. I have the original Note, with an endorsement, and that’s all that matters.

    Perhaps I’m exaggerating a little, but not much. In my experience, it’s quite common for banks to respond to my discovery requests by saying “we have the Note, we have the mortgage, here is a life of loan history, and a corporate representative will testify at trial. That’s all we’re giving you.”

    Obviously, I very much disagree with the banks’ approach in this regard, as I think my clients’ discovery rights are much broader than this. To illustrate, take another look at one of my favorite cases, McLean v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 37 Fla. L. Weekly D 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). In that case, the Fourth District reversed a summary judgment in favor of a bank because the bank did not prove it had standing at the inception of the case. As the court explained in detail, if a bank is relying on an endorsement to convey standing, it has to prove the endorsement was entered prior to the lawsuit being filed.

    If you’ve ever looked at an endorsement on a Note in a mortgage foreclosure case, you know that such endorsements are virtually never dated. It’s just a signature on a piece of paper – no date. As such, it’s essentially impossible for anyone – a homeowner, a judge, or the lawyers for either side – to know when that endorsement was executed. So how is anyone supposed to know whether that endorsement was entered before the lawsuit was filed? In my view, that is a classic example of the type of thing a homeowner can inquire about in discovery. Send the bank an interrogatory and ask when that endorsement was entered. Better yet, send the bank an interrogatory like this:

    Interrogatory: The Note you filed in this case on March 23, 2012 contains an endorsement by Mickey Mouse, as Assistant Secretary of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Please specify the date of this endorsement as well as the name, address, telephone number, job title, and job description of Mr. Mouse, to include his relationship with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. on the date of the endorsement.

    Of course, this is just one example of the many facts about which homeowners can inquire during the discovery process of a foreclosure case. To illustrate, I had a hearing this week that played out exactly like I described above. I served a Request for Production and First Set of Interrogatories on a bank in a foreclosure case. The bank’s lawyers responded with objections to nearly every request, refusing to disclose much of anything. So I filed a Motion to Compel compliance with these discovery requests. At the hearing, the judge granted that motion, compelling sufficient answers to 17 interrogatories (similar to the one above, but on a broad range of topics, to include forcing the bank to identify all of its witnesses and to provide information about any insurance payments on the subject note/mortgage). In fact, the judge agreed with every one of my requests except for one, finding this interrogatory to be irrelevant:

    Interrogatory: Have you ever received any bailout money of any kind from the United States government, either pursuant to TARP or otherwise? If so, please identify the amount of money you received and how and when the money was spent/used/allocated. In your answer, please be sure to disclose the extent to which any such funds were used to provide loans of homeowners in Volusia County, Florida.

    My argument for requiring the bank to answer this interrogatory went something like this … Mortgage foreclosure cases are proceedings in equity. A claim for a deficiency is a claim sounding in equity. There is nothing equitable about a bank taking billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money, including from my clients, which money was intended to avoid foreclosures and provide loan modifications, but for those banks to refuse such modifications. Worse yet, there is nothing equitable about banks getting this bailout, flooding the real estate market with foreclosed properties, driving down property values because of those foreclosures, and then recoup 100% of its alleged deficiency, which it created, despite having been bailed out.

    Unfortunately, despite agreeing with me on everything else, the judge did not require an answer to that interrogatory, strongly suggesting (without saying) that he did not agree with the premise of my argument. Respectfully, that’s terribly disappointing. Do you seriously mean to tell me that a bank should get to collect billions in bailout money, not use that money for loan modifications, create a flood of foreclosures in the real estate market, cause prices to drop, create a deficiency, foreclose, collect 100% of the deficiency, and that a homeowner can’t argue “wait, you shouldn’t be able to do this?”

    Even if you don’t agree with that argument, I certainly think I should at least be able to argue it. To present evidence to support it (under Florida’s broad discovery rules).

    I hope everyone reading this will think long and hard about that issue. Think about the broad discovery rules. Think about how mortgage foreclosure cases are proceedings in equity. Is it really that unreasonable for homeowners to ask, in the face of a lawsuit for foreclosure and a deficiency, “where did all the TARP money go?”

    More importantly, if you’re a Florida homeowner, make sure you realize the rights you enjoy during the discovery process. I didn’t win on that interrogatory, but I won on 17 others, and I assure you – forcing the banks to answer such questions will only help as you fight your foreclosure.
    Mark Stopa Esq.

    http://www.stayinmyhome.com

  40. Mortgage Notes Are Not Negotiable- Max Gardner’s Bootcamp
    March 25th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    I’m sitting in a room with about a hundred of the best foreclosure attorneys from all across the country. Bright minds, brilliant thinkers, intense and committed people who are dedicated not just to passionately defending their individual cases, but to making right and fixing an entire legal, financial and political system that is grievously broken.

    As foreclosure cases now move into trials, the real question develops whether we are going to protect our long-developed rules of evidence and substantive law or we’re going to flush hundreds of years of rules on evidence and procedure down the toilet. We’re either going to enforce consistent rules about who can testify and continue to require witnesses to have personal knowledge and confirm that documents and evidence and records are accurate and authentic or we’re all going to stand beside and allow false evidence and impermissible testimony from witnesses to be part of our court system….goodbye Due Process, goodbye the Rule of Law, hello Legal Anarchy! And because this is indeed happening all across the country, the question is:

    How did we all sit back and actively participate in the destruction of our nation’s legal system?

    Because if you sit in foreclosure courtrooms and watch these files move through the system, you are watching what was the world’s most respected legal system be destroyed.

    The biggest lie that persists across this nation is the bankster attorneys waving around a blank endorsement on a promissory note and claiming this gives them the right to come into court and take our homes.

    THIS IS A LIE. A VICIOUS, MONSTROUS LIE THAT LIES AT THE HEART OF THE DESTRUCTION OF FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR NATION’S LEGAL SYSTEM

    Warriors need to fight every single foreclosure case and push back against this anarchy…..

    Some details behind this from Max Gardner’s Bootcamp:

    Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code carries forward and codifies venerable commercial law rules developed over several centuries during which negotiable instruments played a much different role in commerce than they do today. As stated by Grant Gilmore, Article 3 is not unlike a “museum of antiquities — a treasure house crammed full of ancient artifacts whose use and function have long since been forgotten.” Grant Gilmore, Formalism and the Law of Negotiable Instruments, 13 Creighton L. Rev. 441, 461 (1979). His following quotation is apt and often-repeated: “codification . . . preserve[d] the past like a fly in amber”.
    In addition, Article 3 does not purport to govern completely the manner in which those ownership interests are transferred. For the rules governing those types of property rights, Article 9 provides the substantive law.17 UCC § 9-109(a)(3) (Article 9 “applies to . . . a sale of . . . promissory notes”). Article 9 includes rules, for example, governing the effect of the transfer of a note on any security given for that note such as a mortgage or a deed of trust. As a consequence, Article 9 must be consulted to answer many questions as to who owns or has other property interest in a promissory note. From this it follows that the determination of who holds these property interests will inform the inquiry as to who is a real party in interest in any action involving that promissory note.

    Obstacles to Negotiability of Residential Mortgage Notes

    http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/03/mortgage-notes-are-not-negotiable-max-gardners-bootcamp/

  41. And this proves what I keep saying: it will get cleaned up. Slowly but surely.

    BOOM- FHFA OWES OAKLAND COUNTY MAJOR TAXES! (IN EVERY COUNTY IN AMERICA?)
    March 25th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    OAKLAND COUNTY, ET AL.,
    Plaintiffs,

    vs

    FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY
    AS CONSERVATOR FOR FEDERAL
    NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND
    FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE COMPANY;
    FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION;
    AND FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE COMPANY,
    Defendants.
    ________________________________/

    ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
    DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    Excerpts

    D. An Exemption from All Taxation Covers Only Direct Taxes, Not Excise Taxes

    Plaintiffs rely upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Wells Fargo for the
    proposition that an exemption from “all taxation” does not cover excise taxes such as
    the Michigan Transfer Taxes. 485 U.S. 351. Plaintiffs say that Wells Fargo made clear
    that an exemption from all taxation covers only direct taxes, not excise taxes. The
    Court agrees.

    In Wells Fargo, the Supreme Court considered whether certain items of personal
    property–“Project Notes”–were exempt from the federal estate tax. In the late 1930s,
    Congress passed the Housing Act, 50 Stat. 888 et seq., which empowered state and
    local governments to issue tax-free obligations called Project Notes to finance housing
    projects. 485 U.S. at 353. Congress provided that “[Project Notes], including interest
    thereon, . . . shall be exempt from all taxation now or hereafter imposed by the United
    States.” Id. at 355. Discussing the exemption, the Supreme Court stated:

    Well before the Housing Act was passed, an exemption of property from all
    taxation had an understood meaning: the property was exempt from direct
    taxation, but certain privileges of ownership, such as the right to transfer the
    property, could be taxed. Underlying this doctrine is the distinction between an
    excise tax, which is levied upon the use or transfer of property . . . and a tax
    levied upon the property itself. The former has historically been permitted even
    where the latter has been constitutionally or statutorily forbidden. Id.

    After reviewing the case law, the Supreme Court held that the exemption from all
    taxation did not exempt the Project Notes from excise taxes such as the estate tax. The
    Court noted that where Congress had, on other occasions, exempted property from
    estate taxation, it generally referred specifically to the estate tax rather than to “all
    taxation.” Id. at 356.

    In reaching its conclusion, the Court reviewed over eighty years of Supreme
    Court case law holding that excise taxes have historically been permitted, even when
    tax on the property has been forbidden.

    IV. CONCLUSION

    In the end, this case turns on a single question: whether a statutory exemption
    from “all taxation” includes excise taxes such as the Michigan Transfer Taxes. Wells
    Fargo dictates that it does not. Accordingly, the Enterprises are liable for the Transfer
    Taxes.

    Plaintiffs’ and State Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
    Defendants’ motion is DENIED. The issue of damages remains.

    IT IS ORDERED.

    Oakland County FHFA

    ShareBe Sociable, Share!

  42. @Neidermeyer,

    I don’t agree. I think we have more information than ever before and we’re still discovering something new about motives every single day.
    All the great majority(ies) ever wanted was to live in peace, be self-sufficient and autonomous and to appreciate life as it was meant to be (and is, for a very few…) The motives of a very few today (1%. Historically, it used to be much, much higher) went counter to the aspirations of the many and those very few were intent in destroying everything in their path as long as it didn’t suscribe to its designs. Knowledge is power. We’re gathering knowledge. We’re slowly regaining power and mainstream mdia mentions of what is going on augurs extremely well, even though they are few and far between.

    Think back 2 years. The progress is undeniable.

    It will be cleaned up and the many will finally get its wish: peace, harmony, creativity and the reconnection to what is truly important. I have absolutely no doubt about it.

  43. @enraged ,

    re: Jon Corzine, Ex-MF Global CEO

    ******************************************************************************
    He is free because he is directly connected to the greater fraud… Jailing him would be dangerous to maintaining the illusion… and the taxpayer funded gravy train.

    But you knew that already…

    This is what will bring them down … if the story ever gets more than a mention or two in the press. But the press will do nothing as they are owned by the President and all his subordinates ,, nothing will happen.

  44. The collapse of entire economy was intentional. Anyone still want to to deny that 9/11 was concocted and orchestrated by the banks and Jeb Bush, Silverstein, Goldman Sachs and others? That the US has been a colony of Israel since 1948?

    When I see hundred of countries really, really opposed to Israel’s existence and I see that this horrendous fraud having killed worldwide economies originated in the ONLY two countries that insisted in creating Israel (i.e., UK and US), I have some very serious questions…
    And it isn’t even biblical. Israel was NEVER meant by God as a piece of land that would destabilize the entire world over. Israel was a NATION. Ask Jacob! Israel was supposed to live EVERYWHERE. That was God’s plan for it. Israel was a lifestyle, a relationship with God, regardless of its circumstances. Israel represented God’s hopes for a humanity that would follow the 10 commandments. It was to be the model nation. And it flunk the test. Royally. And in it fall, it’s taken down everyone with it.

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2012/03/if-true-its-treason-cbo-director-douglas-elmendorf-and-the-impact-of-the-foreclosure-crisis/

  45. The following article falls right into the allegations of The Secret of Oz, the worldwide resignations and the general unease we all feel. Something is definitely up and… it comes, once again, from… England. It is 25 days olf but it sure as hell is a welcome news!

    The World’s biggest banks are investigated Reuters | 25 Day(s) Ago

    The United States Justice Department is conducting a criminal probe into whether the world’s biggest banks manipulated a global benchmark rate that is at the heart of a wide range of loans and derivatives. These Include trillions of dollars of mortgages and bonds to interest rate swaps, a person familiar with the matter said.

    While the Justice Department’s inquiry into the setting of the London interbank offered rate (or Libor) was known, the criminal aspect of the probe was not.

    A criminal inquiry underscores the serious nature of a worldwide investigation that includes regulators and law-enforcement agencies in the United States, Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom.

    Several major global banks, including Citigroup Inc (C.N), HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA.L), Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc (RBS.L) and UBS AG (UBSN.VX), have disclosed that they have been approached by authorities investigating how Libor is set.

    No bank or trader has been criminally charged in the Libor probes. It wasn’t clear which banks or traders the Justice Department is targeting in its criminal probe.
    The Justice Department and the banks declined to comment.

    Libor is set everyday in London for 10 currencies for a range of maturities. The rate is supposed to reflect the rate at which banks lend to one another. Dollar Libor, for example, is calculated after 18 banks submit the costs to borrow dollars.

    The rate underpins $10 trillion in loans to consumers and companies and another $350 trillion in derivatives. In the derivatives market, Libor is used in the pricing of the massive and popular interest-rate swaps market, where two parties swap floating- and fixed-rate interest payments. Libor typically is used as the basis for the floating rate.

    The investigations are examining whether traders at the banks tried to influence whether the rate went up or down. A change in the rate could mean a windfall of tens of millions of dollars if a trader has bet correctly on the direction of Libor.

    Swiss bank UBS is playing a key role in the probes because it agreed to come forward and cooperate in the inquiries.

    The bank said in a regulatory filing it has been granted conditional leniency or conditional immunity by the antitrust division of the Justice Department and the Swiss Competition Commission.

    In recent months, probes in Japan and Canada have focused on a group of interest-rate traders who attempted to manipulate yen Libor, according to court and regulatory documents.

    In Ontario Superior Court, a Canadian antitrust regulator said that a “cooperating party” has provided information on how the alleged manipulation took place. The co-operator is UBS, people familiar with the situation said previously.

    The Canadian documents provide examples of how a trader at the cooperating bank contacted traders at banks such as RBS to try and influence Libor.

  46. “…true owners of the note, i.e., the trust and the investors…”

    That is a quote from “Dying Truth”‘s link. Can someone please explain how that is not a true statement—ANONYMOUS? Or anyone? And how do we prove the truth—that the notes/loans were never acquired by the trusts?

  47. THIS MAY BE WHY THE BANKERS ARE BAILING. SECURITIES FRAUD AND TAX EVASION INVESTIGATIONS AND SUBPEONAS.

    ALL HELL SHOULD HAVE BROKE OUT BEFORE! THIS SHOULD REALLY DO IT. THE INVESTIGATION IS GOING TO FIND VOID EMPTY SECURITIES POOLS AND MULTIPLE SALES TO TRUST WITH PHONY PHOTO COPY NOTES. AND MULTIPLE SALES OF A SINGLE LOAN.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017830998_apussecwellsfargo.html

  48. John 7:24

    Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

    The Wicked Witches of the West

    &

    The Strawman

    Once upon a time I was a happy housewife. I was married to a great guy, and he made great money. Life was good, and I had hope for the future.

    My name is Mrs. Richard Nali, and this is my story.

    December 2006 or early January 2007

    Mr. and Mrs. Richard Nali are about to be entrapped in a Straw Man loan fraud by First American Title Company.

    First American Title Company will do this by using two agents named almost the same who will share a notary journal:

    Donna K. McDaniels Demillo and

    Donna K. McWilliams Escamillo

    Mr. Nali applies for a Stated-Income mortgage to buy a new home in “Stetson Ranch”

    He was told he couldn’t make a deposit unless he is pre-approved. He is approved.

    January 7th, 2007 Mr. Nali gives the new home representative a $15,000 deposit check on a home for a home that was on (they think Austin court,) the actual LOT number was unknown. It was not for LOT 256!

    This check is sent to First American Title Company.

    Someone there writes LOT 256 on the check and First American cashes it.

    Mr. and Mrs. Nali allege the handwriting is Donna K. McWilliams Escamillo’s

    A Grant Deed is secretly created that conveys LOT 256 to Richard Lawrence Nali for $10.00, as Sole and Separate property. First American “accepts it” on his behalf, but Mr. and Mrs. Nali won’t see it for six months, and are unaware of its existence.

    Days later, the sales agent calls, and tells Mr. Nali “ a better home is available and it’s cheaper, and its going to have the address of 15958 Thompson Ranch Rd. on the corner of a cul de sac. (a bait and switch technique)

    January 11th, Mr. Nali signs the deposit receipt for 15958 Thompson Ranch Rd. The LOT number on this receipt shows LOT 107, but (they discover in 2011) this address is actually LOT 256

    Then, just before the house is to be built, Mr. and Mrs. Nali are told that the house direction was a “mistake” and it’s no longer facing Thompson Ranch Rd, (later changed to Spencer at this section) but now faces the Cul de Sac called “Farnham Ct.”

    Mr. Nali is forced by the sales agent to write up a “Lease” with a relative on the old home. He is told this will show that “he does intend to live in the new home” but that it’s not binding, and he can cancel it, at any point. He is told they require leases on all old homes, (if people still own them) so “Flippers” won’t buy homes.

    (Mrs. Nali alleges this “lease” would be somehow used to artificially inflate and alter his applications later, without their knowledge)

    (Later, as the market would begin to crash, Mr. and Mrs. Nali told the sales agent they were going to sell and not lease it, as Mrs. Nali was worried about the market)

    Over and over, the next few months, Mr. and Mrs. Nali are now bombarded with paperwork on LOT 107-Lot 107. This was setting them up mentally for the mind control of getting them to “forget” what actually would occur in the fraud scheme.

    July 12th, 2007

    We are told to appear at First American Title Company to close on LOT 107.

    Donna K. McDaniels Demillo is the agent. (aka Donna Demello)

    Read her indictment on Scribd. Google me under “Martha Raysik.”(she is now STILL awaiting sentencing on her 2010 guilty plea of over EIGHTY LOAN FRAUDS) or find her indictment on the internet under “Donna Demello.”

    Mrs. Nali alleges that Demillo is actually a Government agent or informant.

    Donna K. McDaniels Demillo tells us she “flies all over doing closings for First American.” She tells us that she “just flew in from San Jose.”

    Donna tells us that the LOT NUMBER is no longer LOT 107, but it was changed to LOT 256, and it was a mistake, but that it’s lot 256 that we are closing on.

    “Lot numbers are temporary, and builders change them all the time” Donna tells us.

    Donna says a cancelation of the contract for LOT 107 has to be signed, and it is, and the contract for LOT 107 is CANCELED.

    Donna now had the $10.00 GRANT DEED FOR LOT 256 there and it said they had long ago conveyed LOT 256 to Mr. Nali as “Sole and Separate Property” for $10.00 and we asked about it, and she said “This is how they do it, the Lots are deeded to buyers as soon as we get the deposits.

    “Oh, and Mrs. Nali, we just have this sort of situation here. ” She said. “You see, because your husband is the only person on the Grant Deed, what we need to do is make him ‘Temporary loans’ in his name, and then after this, we will ‘instantly refinance’ them with permanent loans and deeds of trust will then be signed in both your names.” So we said, “Well… okay…if this is how it has to be done.”

    “Yes,” Donna said, “This is how we have to do it, as you are not named on this Grant Deed, Mrs. Nali.” Then she said, “And what we need you to do Mrs. Nali, is sign this ‘Temporary Interspousal Grant Deed’ giving up your marital rights to LOT 256’, but it’s just temporary, and as soon as we do the ‘final’ Deeds of Trust, Lot 256 is then vested in your name.” I sign the document releasing all my interest to my husband.

    HOW WOULD WE KNOW this was FRAUD??

    Then, Donna has Mr. Nali sign two Deeds of Trust for LOT 256 (a 1st & a 2nd) in his name, under the name:

    Richard Lawrence Nali, as “Sole and Separate Property”,

    and the loan numbers were

    1001326-0000035176-3 and 1001326-0000035177-1

    Then Donna had both of us sign the “final Deeds on LOT 256″ that said:

    “Richard L. Nali and Martha L. Nali,” and again the legal description was for LOT 256.

    and the Loan numbers were:

    1001326-0000035175-5 and 1001326-0000035178-9

    (The Loans were all created consecutively in January, and as the last digit is meaningless., the actual true last digits are 5,6,7,8. All were created in January, showing the intent and planning of the fraud on us for over six months)

    The transaction is now OVER and Donna K. McDaniels Demillo flew back to San Jose, and we have not seen her since.

    We never signed any other Deeds of Trust after the date of July 12th, 2007.

    Then the next day, the 13th, in secret, her partner…

    Donna K. McWilliams Escamillo created a Grant Deed that conveyed lot 107 to us, dated the 13th, which was a day after we signed the Deeds of Trust.

    (This was a MISTAKE on their part, as Deeds of Trust are always supposed to be dated AFTER one acquires ownership, and title companies are very careful to always record the Grant Deed PRIOR to the Deed of Trust, just for this reason, as the law is “One cannot convey –what they do not own!”)

    Four days later, On July 16th, we are told miscellaneous house documents were “wrong” and we had to go into the office. We go in, and for the first time we actually meet…

    “Donna K. McWilliams Escamillo” But she tells us her name is “Kim.

    She is there as a “notary” and has us sign some unimportant documents, then casually she asks us, if we could “acknowledge” that we signed Deeds of Trust on the 12th, and she makes us repeat this odd OATH that we signed Deeds of Trust.

    Then she makes us sign the same exact notary journal that Donna had used.

    Then we left the office for the last time., and we had no idea we were being set up in such a complicated scheme that we would not unravel until October 2011.

    After this, Escamillo then forged our names to deeds of trust with a notary “acknowledgment” dated July 16th, for lot 107, and she switched the loan numbers from the first set on LOT 256, to the forged set on LOT 107, so we would be paying for the loans on the house of LOT 256! This was a criminal conspiracy, and they wanted us to forget the transaction occurred with Demillo on July 12th, 2007!

    We moved into a new home and forgot what happened, just as they planned.

    Then they started the mind control! Documents were sent to us that now says LOT 107 again, but, as I had been told this number of lot 107 over and over the past six months, and my husband took care of all the “family business,”

    I was not aware of the deceit. My husbands memory was not what it used to be, and he has age related memory loss.

    This happened to us!

    Now a person who I allege works for the Government is living in LOT 256, yet he is there just to deprive us of our property.

    The house is almost EMPTY! The garage is EMPTY now for FIVE YEARS!

    No American actually living there…would let that occur! Look in YOUR garage!

    Almost NO trash is ever removed from the home. I have checked the garbage cans! He is PLANTED THERE. He is an AGENT with access to top-secret military info.

    When I first discovered a discrepancy in 2009, I began to investigate. In 2010, I located Donna K. McWilliams Escamillo, whose name is placed on the forged Deeds of Trust when (they wanted to remove Demillo’s name.)

    Escamillo told me “I am Donna, I am the escrow agent” THIS IS A LIE!

    Escamillo was NOT the agent on July 12th!

    I WAS THERE!

    These two women conspired!

    It was Donna K. McDaniels Demillo on July 12th.

    Donna K. McDaniels Demillo…indicted on EIGHTY LOAN FRAUDS

    Donna K. McWilliams Escamillo…STILL SIGNING DOCUMENTS DAY AFTER DAY!

    THIS IS NOT A COINCIDENCE!

    ARREST THE OTHER DONNA!

    Why will the FBI not arrest the second “Donna” involved in this straw man scheme?

    Why is the shared Journal FULL of DOUBLED UP SIGNATURES!

    Why are all the straw man homes being so easily sold to government workers and politicians!

    Did your neighbor buy a short-sale or foreclosure?

    Are they a politician or government worker?

    You are paying for their house!

    This was Evil that these Witches did to us!

    It is beyond Wickedness.

  49. Ed DeMarco and all the rest of them are being caught lieing through the dentures. Nothing is real about these guys not even their teeth. They have no teeth in their foreclosures. No teeth in their fraud documents. I sure hope all of the over 350 banksters that are jumping ship are rowboat pooling to the whistleblowers office.

  50. Dying Truth,
    Where did this come from it is not clear whom wrote this or where it was taken from?
    http://jopasafinancial.com/uploads/Securitization_and_Foreclosure_1_.pdf summary

  51. Ed DeMarco, head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency — which oversees Fannie and Freddie — has stood in the way of (principal) reductions and he’s claimed the support of Fannie and Freddie. But that’s no longer the case. Even Fannie and Freddie now support principal reductions. It’s time for Ed DeMarco to step aside by signing this Whte House petition:

    https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/push-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-issue-principal-reductions-underwater-homeowners/qtS3crg7

  52. @ Dying Truth….that’s good. I wonder who wrote it? Is it an amicus? Right to the point. Do you know the author/origin?

  53. Check out this short http://jopasafinancial.com/uploads/Securitization_and_Foreclosure_1_.pdf summary. Did you know that once a note is securitized it has to be physically destroyed because of it being chopped up and sold off in portions and it CAN’T ever be undune.

  54. WELCOME TO OUR WORLD! THE UNIMAGINABLE!

    ARTICLE FROM MICHIAN : Subject: Michigan Association of Registers of Deeds

    Imagine a country where nobody can identify who owns what, addresses cannot be easily verified, people cannot be made to pay their debts, resources cannot conveniently be turned into money, ownership cannot be divided into shares, descriptions of assets are not standardized and cannot be easily compared and the rules that govern property vary from neighborhood to neighborhood or even from street to street.

    Hernando DeSoto The Mystery of Capital, page 15.

    http://www.mard-mi.org/

  55. @Shelley,

    You just beat me to it! :)

  56. Andf for those who missed it, Rachel Maddow yesterday talked about Tighpen and how Greensborough volunteer homeowners and OWS members are reviewing all the county’s land records in anticipation of a lawsuit.

    Slowly hitting mainstream media.

  57. I know my unbriddled optimism grates some people the wrong way but I see so much progress made in the past year, so much discovery of the extent of the fraud, so much awareness, so much change that it becomes impossible for us not to prevail.

    Just a question of time…

  58. @Ahn,

    Glad Matt Weidner decided it was important enough to mention when I contacted him and sent him to check it out with Kabuki, Facebook and the SEC.

    Yves Smith poopoo’d it. Literally. She said that she wasn’t “impressed” and didn’t have anything to compare those numbers with. (Fair enough, though. it is true that we don’t know what those numbers were last year since we did not yet feel that something is up. Now, there is that general unease, that feeling of sitting atop two chairs, waiting for one to be pulled away…)

    The way I see things, the more we report on the collapse of banks and the more likely it is to be created and truly happen. We create our own reality. Now is the time to create a reality of bank collapse, return to true values, earth clean up, restoration of jutice, etc.

  59. Customers of mine whom I dont discuss the mortgage isues with unless I know them well and I see they are in trouble, tell me they have changed to credit unions. One after another. All my adult children bank at credit unions. I changed the only acct the BECU credit union would not service to the BECU credit union the day they started business accounts. People are aware of the crooked banks and are angry and they are cutting off the money supply to them. People in trouble with their credit cards due to this crime should go on line and order and read the Kevin Trudeau book Debt Cures. Cut the banks off.

  60. American Kabuki- Why Are All The Banksters Quitting And Walking Away….?
    March 23rd, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    I won a foreclosure trial this week…after the very nice rob0-perjurer who was on the witness stand actually told the truth enough to show the judge just how much all these foreclosure cases are lies.

    There were at least a half dozen other prospective robo perjurers in the courtroom, several had been brought there just to see what they were supposed to do…how they were supposed to answer, “YES!” emphatically leading question and demonstrate personal knowledge that they cannot possibly have.

    They all fit the same profile…young, women, indoctrinated. Just like we are finally going after the robo signers, we’re going to build the cases and go after the robo perjurers…I wonder whether their employers or their law firms have explained perjury and whether they will provide criminal attorneys for them when the charges come?

    But enough about that …. while the foot soldiers are down here in court committing perjury, the generals are all jumping the sinking ships…I wonder how many of them have gone off the grid or are planning to go off the grid?

    AMERICAN KABUKI

    http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/03/american-kabuki-why-are-all-the-banksters-quitting-and-walking-away/

  61. Jon Corzine, Ex-MF Global CEO, Gave ‘Direct Instructions’ To Transfer $200M From Customer Account
    By MARCY GORDON 03/23/12 08:25 PM ET

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/jon-corzine-ex-mf-global-ceo_n_1376281.html

    OK… And he is still free because…?

  62. Just finished watching The Secret of Oz. Thank you John Anderson for posting it.

    The common people instinctively know that banks are the problem. Some of us have advocated for years to leave the large banks and flock the credit unions. Some of us advocate to stop using credit cards and to borrow only when it is absolutely necessary, for big ticket itens such as a house but not for consumer goods. We know it. Until we do it, nothing will change.

    We don’t need government to act. We can do it ourselves. Stop paying your mortgage and every loan you have. If you want anything to die, stop feeding it. If we do it, it will be on our terms. We all have the ability to remove our money from the big banks and either put it in a credit union or keep it as cash. If we don’t do it voluntarily, there will come a time when the system will collapse (and it will). We can decide to make it happen or wait for it to happen. I would be inclined to create the circumtances rather than wait.

  63. This is explosive! On stopforeclosurefraud.com:

    SEC Files Subpoena Enforcement Action Against …2 hours ago
    Mar 23, 2012 · SEC Files Subpoena Enforcement Action Against Wells Fargo for Failure to Produce Documents in Mortgage-Backed Securities Investigation

    par4thecourse.newsvine.com/_news/2012/03/23/10834301-sec-files…Wells Fargo and Company: Lit. Rel. No. 22305 / …3 hours ago
    SEC Files Subpoena Enforcement Action Against Wells Fargo for Failure to Produce Documents in Mortgage-Backed Securities Investigation

    http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2012/lr22305.htm

  64. I was wondering if your posting was hard on you or a stess relief? Take care of yourself first most. We all are glad to see your ok, however dont want you to over due it. Theres another day! It is good to be drivin but not drivin to your grave.

  65. The Wall street and the Finiancail Crisis; Anatomy of a Financial Collaspe” report for the Senate that has been documented since 2006 I believe proved the preset up defaults and bidding on the stock market against the banksters own clients with insider info knowing they were setting up the borrowers for default and the ivestors to be schrewed, and no one went to jail Senator Patty Murry would not read it cause it was to many pages. To bothersome to read and not important enough. I read it a second time and yellow markered the high points for her to read. Her secretary whom is a client of mine, stopped by to personally take it to her. You should all read it and wonder why these banksters are not in jail already. Bank rule not government rule. The government should run the banks not the banks run the government. I dont believe government should run any business but government business, however when it comes to the public health and wealthfare private banks have been the ruin and corruption of governments, caused depressions, salvery, debt slavery, and downed economies and devased societies, for centuries proven thoughout history, therefore government should have government ran banks, wtih debtless money. Private banks should have competition of the government banks and no bank should loan more money than it has. Government banks owned by the people for the people looks like an answer. The state of Washington has a law that enables the government to seize the big banks and take them over in this state, due to the crimes the banks have committed. I sent a copy of this law to AG Rob McKenna. The big banks should be siezed for their crimes and taken over by the government and ran with debtless money, owned by the people, restitution for their crimes. The crooks should go to j in shackles. The big banks, the Fed and Fannie and Freddie have proven they can not handle money and power are corrupt beyond means. They are nothing less than parasites on humanity.

  66. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Calls for Immediate Break-Up of Giant, Insolvent Banks

    Submitted by George Washington on 03/23/2012 13:53 -0400

    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-12-23/federal-reserve-bank-dallas-calls-immediate-break-giant-insolvent-banks

  67. John Anderson ! WOW! If you did not watch the video John offered to us on this blog, you have missed out on the truth of what has happened for centuries, and the truth of what can and I mean can be done to free ourselves from the bankster evil-one-lords. I have known a lot of this story before. However this the most complete documentary on this I have ever seen, for centuries back. A must watch and a must spread the word to everyone, so they can understand, especially our government represenatives. We can be run for the people by the people and not by bank law. We need to not only allow the banks to fail, but throw their **** in jail.

  68. Matt Taibbi’s Latest Beef Against Wall Street Is Straight Out Of The Godfather
    Linette Lopez | Mar. 23, 2012, 12:38 PM | 1,838 | 9Email

    Matt Taibbi’s latest Rolling Stone blog post hits on something he grazed over in his big, nasty Bank of America article — bid rigging on Wall Street.

    He was inspired by a recent Bloomberg piece about how JP Morgan is still number one bank for holding government debt, even after the Jefferson County (Alabama) bankruptcy. It was the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history, and JP Morgan ultimately paid out a $722 million settlement because of its involvement in a pay-to-play/municipal bond scandal that contributed to Jefferson’s downfall.

    From Taibbi’s post:

    Bid-rigging is an old-school crime of machine pols and gangsters. In the old days, it was parceling out garbage collection or construction contracts to each of the proverbial five mafia families, who would patiently pantomime real bids for government contracts. They would take turns “winning” the state’s business with artificially low bids, guided by a corrupted insider who usually took a bribe to rig the auction.

    In modern times, it’s the same thing, except that it’s banks now doing the pantomiming. Here a circle of organized crooks (read: banks) gets together, parcels out territories so that each party gets to “win” business in certain areas, and then they all get together and agree to a rigged bid system.

    Banks have gotten in trouble for this collusion before. For example, Bank of American paid a $137 million settlement for doing it all over the country (in places as far away as Guam, says Taibbi). Wells Fargo settled with New York for bid rigging back in November to the tune of $37 million.

    If recent history is any guide, if a bank pays a $150 million settlement to the federal government for this sort of activity, one can guess that the bank probably made ten times that amount in profit, at least. And there are at least a dozen major banks that have been accused of this sort of activity in recent years.

    In other words, Taibbi is saying that these settlements are just the cost of doing business.

    And banks aren’t the only problem. Politicians across the country continue to give major banks government contracts to the detriment of their constituents. California has sued banks time and time again for bid rigging and other things, yet, here’s a quote one state official’s testimony in support of the banks:

    “I haven’t found an investment bank that hasn’t had some problem in the last three years,” California Treasurer Bill Lockyer said in a telephone interview. “We do business with them all. I think they provide good service. I think they’ve been highly ethical with us.”

    Perhaps he’s saying that because, as Dealbreaker pointed out, these same banks keep giving states loans when they’re in the hole. Since we’re on California, let’s stick with it (Bloomberg via Dealbreaker):

    In August 2009, after California closed a $24 billion budget deficit, JPMorgan loaned the state $1.5 billion so it could pay IOU’s issued during a cash crisis. The loan helped keep the state funded until September, when it could issue $8.8 billion in short-term debt.

    Last month, JPMorgan loaned California $500 million for four months at 0.2 percent so the most-populous U.S. state could pay bills after tax collections trailed budgeted amounts…

    JPMorgan and Barclays also co-managed a $1.9 billion refinancing for the state…

    So even if the states don’t want to do business with banks — tough. Like Michael Corleone said, “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in.”

    See AlsoCredit Suisse CEO Just Took A Humiliating BathA Consultancy Did A Psych Evaluation Of Greg Smith Based On His Infamous LetterTHE MOST AMAZING ECONOMICS WEBSITE IN THE WORLD THE FUTURE OF MOBILE [DECK]

    Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

    Follow Linette Lopez on Twitter.

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/matt-taibbis-latest-beef-against-wall-street-is-straight-out-of-the-godfather-2012-3#ixzz1pygFwGbo

  69. Florida is still a horrible mess.

    FORECLOSURES UP IN LIGHT OF SETTLEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL LAWSUITS
    March 21, 2012

    March 21, 2012

    During the time that the rash of Attorney General lawsuits against the banks were in litigation over the past several months, foreclosures slowed. However, now that many of these AG lawsuits have been settled, the attitude of the banks appears to be “off to the races” now that the AG’s are not watching over their shoulders. Since these settlements of late, we have been receiving significantly more inquiries concerning foreclosures which have been recently filed, and also as to cases previously filed which were dormant during the AG litigations but which have now “ramped up”. However, court backlogs remain.

    Florida is a case in point. State funding for the “rocket dockets” ran out June 30, 2011, resulting in foreclosures which had been assigned to the “rocket docket” being sent back to the presiding Judges. As such, we are now having to wait up to three (3) months to get a hearing on motion calendar in some jurisdictions. This is not a criticism of the system; just a reality. The reality has also been compounded by the over 100,000 foreclosure cases left “up in the air” when the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. ceased operations.

    Another problem is that certain law Firms which are taking over some of the cases filed by the Stern Firm are not examining the court file to ascertain whether the homeowner is represented by counsel, and instead using the service list from the original Complaint for purposes of sending papers filed by the “new” law Firm. This has resulted in homeowners who are and have been represented by counsel being served with court papers, including motions for summary judgment, directly and without their counsel being copied on the papers. This practice of contacting the homeowner directly instead of contacting the homeowner’s attorney of record is a sanctionable offense in Florida with case law to support the imposition of sanctions against the offender.

    Another issue concerns the substitution of counsel for the foreclosing Plaintiff. Many of the “foreclosure mills” are being replaced by other Firms, with the files being, in many instances, incomplete. We had instances lately where a “new” law Firm apparently entered an appearance for the Plaintiff, but with that law Firm only copying one Defendant (such as the HOA) and not all counsel of record. In another instance, there was no copy of the Notice of Appearance in the court file, and the “Appearance” was only brought to the attention of the Court by one Defendant’s counsel who received a copy of the Appearance.

    A third problem is that certain of the “new” law Firms taking over cases from the mills are sending copies of papers to us in cases where our Firm is not even and has never been counsel of record for anyone in the case. The obvious result is that the proper attorneys for the parties named as Defendants are probably not being copied with filings by the “new” Firms.

    Given the amount of pending foreclosures in Florida, we do not expect these problems to be resolved any time soon.

    Jeff Barnes, Esq., http://www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

  70. LIST OF DOUBLED UP NAMES FROM THE-SHARED-NOTARY PUBLIC JOURNAL THAT:

    Donna K. McWilliams Escmillio and
    Donna K. McDaniels Demillo SHARED at First American Titlle

    Donna K. McDaniels Demillo was indicted for EIGHTY LOAN FRAUDS.

    Donna K. McWilliams Escamillo is STILL sitting at a desk at
    First American Title SIGNING DOCUMENTS!

    Which Deeds of Trust these folks sign are the TRUTHFUL ONES.

    HOW MANY STRAW MAN HOMES ARE NOW SHORT-SOLD TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES????

    EACH NAME WAS STOLEN AND USED TO SECRETLY PURCHASE ANOTHER HOME WITHOUT THE PERSONS KNOWLEDGE!~

    aldana, Blanca deed of trust dated May 25, 2007 notarized May 25, 2007
    aldano, Blanca deed of trust dated May 25, 2007 notarized May 29, 2007
    baroi, Deborah deed of trust dated May 15, 2007 notarized May 25, 2007**backdated
    baroi, Deborah Internal Grant Deed dated April 6, 2007 notarized April 7, 2007
    baroi, ion deed of trust dated April 5, 2007 notarized April 7, 2007
    baroi, ion deed of trust dated May 15, 2007 notarized May 25, 2007*backdated
    brennisen, William deed of trust dated May 2, 2007 notarized May 3, 2007
    brennisen, wlliam deed of trust dated April 18, 2007 notarized April 18, 2007
    buenbastro, Vincent deed of trust dated July 20 2007 notarized July 20 , 2007
    busirostro, Vincent deed of trust no date notarized July 13 , 2007
    chen, jason deed of trust dated may 25 2007 notarized June 5, 2007
    chen, Jason deed of trust dated May 25, 2007 notarized May 31, 2007
    facciolo, joanne deed of trust dated may 3 2007 notarized May 7, 2007
    faccione, caroline deed of trust dated July 3 2007 notarized July 5 , 2007
    faccione, ted deed of trust dated July 3 2007 notarized July 5 , 2007
    ferman, jose deed of trust dated unknown notarized July 17 , 2007
    fermin, jose deed of trust dated July 18 2007 notarized July 19 , 2007
    Garcia, nelly Internal Grant Deed dated June 1 ,2007 notarized June 2, 2007
    Garcia, rene deed of trust dated June 2 2007 notarized June 2, 2007
    Garcia,Richard deed of trust dated March 19, 2007 notarized March 20, 2007
    Johnson, albert deed of trust dated June 28 2007 notarized June 29, 2007
    Johnson, eric deed of trust dated June 15 2007 notarized June 22, 2007
    Johnson, tomiekia deed of trust dated March 28, 2007 notarized March 20 2007
    Johnson, veronica deed of trust dated July 11 2007 notarized July 12 , 2007
    Johnson, veronica deed of trust dated July 11 2007 notarized July 17 , 2007
    Johnson, veronica deed of trust dated July 9 2007 notarized July 9 , 2007
    liu, Anthony deed of trust dated June 22 2007 notarized June 26, 2007
    liu, sue deed of trust dated June 22 2007 notarized June 26, 2007
    liu, William deed of trust dated June 22 2007 notarized June 26, 2007
    McCormick, steve deed of trust dated April 11, 2007 notarized April 17, 2007
    McCormick, steven deed of trust dated May 2, 2007 notarized May 2, 2007
    McCormick, tamela deed of trust dated May 2, 2007 notarized May 2, 2007
    McCormick, tamela, deed of trust dated April 11 2007 notarized April 17, 2007
    Prior, Richard deed of trust dated March 29, 2007 notarized April 2, 2007(page 13)
    Prior, Richard deed of trust dated March 29, 2007 notarized March 29, 2007 (as aif)
    Prior, Richard deed of trust dated March 29, 2007 notarized April 2, 2007 (page 12 as aif)
    Prior,Richard Deed of trust dated March 29, 2007 notarized March 29, 2007
    riggs, Michael deed of trust dated May 31, 2007 notarized May 31, 2007
    riggs,Michael deed of trust dated April 30, 2007 notarized April 30, 2007
    singh, dajleet deed of trust dated April 23, 2007 notarized April 25, 2007
    singh, daljeet deed of trust dated April 23, 2007 notarized April 24, 2007
    singh, daljeet deed of trust dated april 23, 2007 notarized May 1, 2007
    singh, daljeet deed of trust dated April 27, 2007 notarized April 30, 2007
    sukhjit, kaus deed of trust dated April 23, 2007 notarized April 25, 2007
    sukhjit, kaus deed of trust dated April 23, 2007 notarized April 25, 2007
    sukhjit, kaus deed of trust dated april 23, 2007 notarized May 1, 2007
    sukhjit, kaus deed of trust dated April 27, 2007 notarized April 30, 2007
    Wilson, Cynthia deed of trust dated March 29, 2007 notarized April 6 2007
    Wilson, Cynthia deed of trust dated March 29, 2007 notarized March 30, 2007
    Zuniga, Michael deed of trust dated June 28 2007 notarized June 28, 2007
    zuniga, Michael deed of trust dated June 28 2007 notarized June 29, 200

  71. The banksters are “kings with no clothes” and have no authority to be stealing the houses, therefore no authourity to rent them either.,

  72. Martha, listen to the pod cast Neil just posted. I listened to it last night. The banksters are out of control gangsters, and have been for decades. They dont care what property or whom you are or what your beef is their intent is to steal at all risk, BECAUSE THEY CAN, or at least have gotten away with it for decades. They put up a front “bankers” with a falacy they are “TO BE TRUSTED”. We are dealing with organized crime at its worst. The banksters dont even loan money, they use the investors money and retirement funds, and sell the same loans over and over and over again with photocopy notes and shred the real notes to hide the proof of the securities fraud and tax evasion. These gansters steal at every peal of the onion. There is noting they wont pull or do to us to steal and have power. Most of the judges are either bought or fooled to believe the banks are trust worthy and the people are dead beats. The rule of law is not followed. The judges are making up unconstitutional law as they go , taking the role of law makers and disregarding the rule of law and the legistlature, the U.S. Supreme court rules and standing case law for decades. We are in a sess pool of criminal organization. We have to push and dig for the proof of corruption and whistle blow with every tool we have to fight this crime, to stop decades of this crime. This is not new. The people are able to communicate and compare notes better with the internet to put two and two together, and gain knowledge and a lot of us have woken up and are trying to wake up the other 95% of the 99%. Email your friends and work with everyone you can wake up to compare notes and prove this crime is going on. The outrage and the knowledge is helping us baby step at a time. We are in better shape now than two years or a year ago. America has been trashed and as Neil says “MURDERED”. We have to fight with awarness and digging for the truth to put America back on the map with the rule of law and regulations for banking back in place and put these S.O.B’s in jail. That is why Neil and many other great advocates are exhasting themselves to teach us what is going on. Knowledge and awareness and our votes to put the criminals out of office that are part of this crime is utmost important. The banksters are crooks, but it takes the government officials and the judges to enable them. It also is the people enabling them, by not having the knowledge and trusting the crooks. The media could help big time, but have not. The mainstream media is owned by the crooks, and is enabling the crooks. By walking away from the house and not fighting back and digging for proof of crimes and spreading the knowledge, and working with the banks the people are enabling these crooks. Possession of the house is 9/10th the law. Dont leave until you have an eviction notice. One party on line I have met, has her family supporting her by getting together and supporting an attorney that Lisa Epstein recommended. We need to support each other to win this battle. Write your represenatives, and email them. Hugh waives of discontent cause them to worry they wont be voted in again. They like the power and to be in office. Huge waives of complaints works. The squeeky wheel works. Rob McKenna AG of Washington was exposed by David Krieger from Clouded titles for champagne money from foreclosure mills. I took his proof and plastered it all over the internet and sent him a copy of the facebook and emails I had sent this on to and three days later he refunded the money.

  73. [...] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: 60 minutes, affidavits • attesting • Daniel Edstrom • DTC-Systems • fabricating • false information • false sworn documents • foreclose • illicit business practices • improper statements • imp, AHMSI, appraisal fraud, attorney general, auction fraud, Chris Koster, credit bids, DocX Indictment, foreclosure fraud, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, foreclosures, forgery, housing market, housing prices, investors, linda green, LPS, Missouri, mortgage fruad, mortgages, Robo-Signing, settlement, strategic default, Wells Fargo Livinglies’s Weblog [...]

  74. APRIL CHARNEY ESQ. . AND A GREAT COURT ORDER!

    http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/stokes.pdf

  75. TD Bank v. Mirabella – We reverse – No evidence of merger was forecast before trial court

    While in certain situations, taking judicial notice of a bank merger may beappropriate, we do not deem it so in this case, where at the summary judgmentstage no evidence of the merger was forecast before the trial court, plaintiff failedto properly present evidence of a merger with this Court, and defendant has specifically contested the authenticity of the merger documents provided in theappendix to plaintiff’s brief. However, we do believe that the information presented by plaintiff raises a genuine issue of material fact. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and remand for furtherproceedings.
    See Mitchell
    at ___, 705 S.E.2d at 764.
    III. Conclusion
    For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedingsconsistent with this opinion. As we are reversing and remanding this case, we need not address defendant’s other arguments on appeal.
    REVERSED and REMANDED.
    Judge STEPHENS concurs.
    Judge BEASLEY concurs in the result only.

    Read more at http://www.scribd.com/doc/86366575/APPEAL-COURT-REVERSES-AND-REMANDS-A-SUMMARY-JUDGMENT

  76. We the People need a US Constitutional Amendment banning all Usury, which is as historically defined as the charging of any interest. Anybody who believes is true equality will be for such an Amendment, anybody who is against it just wants to leach off of the rest of society.

  77. The root of all evil is money. And evil people control it.
    The problem is our FED. It needs to be ended.

    Our country was taken over by the Military Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us of in his exit speech, made on Jan 17 1961.

    This takeover was completed via the Kennedy coup “last real President” brought on by his decision not to escalate the Vietnam conflict, and his desire to end the FED. This would not do. Enter Johnson, the Gulf of Tonkin lie, 58,000 of our boys killed, and we came outta Vietnam clinging onto helicopters off the Embassy roof. And this is the way we will come outta the last 2 wars based on lies, and the one to come next, Iran. Expect a false flag attack, probably a attack on the ready to be decommissioned aircraft carrier Enterprise.

    The only way to keep the military staffed in a non draft environment, is to keep the economy weak, so that enlistment and reenlistment of personnel is sufficient to ensure the military ability to carry out the Military Industrial Complexes desires, via instructions from the Rothschild’s, overlords of fiat currency, gold and influence.

    The Secret of Oz – Winner, Best Docu of 2010

    The same people who killed Kennedy are still running things and need to be exposed for their lies, war crimes, false flag attacks, phony economic crisis, and fraud upon the world.

  78. The stage is set Neil…all we need is the “truthful” discovery of ledgers, accounting sheets, a truthful/real lineage of assignments/transfers, the trail of financing receivables with pledging of the notes and implementation of criminals charges, that SHOULD be enough to rock and roll with.

  79. We already are already in the great depression.

    NEVER AGAIN.

  80. THEY CLAIM WE ARE NOT HARMED! They are going to DISMISS MY CASE! I AM DENIED A JURY, and cannot find the RIGHT attorney!
    I will post this again and again until its picked up!

    January 7th, 2007 (my husband)Richard Nali gives a new home broker a $15,000 deposit check on a home in “Stetson Ranch” A home that was supposed to be on Austin court, LOT number unknown.
    .
    This check is sent to First American Title Company.
    Someone there writes LOT 256 on the check and First American cashes it.

    A grant Deed is created that conveys LOT 256 to Richard Lawrence Nali for $10 Bucks, as Sole and Separate property. First American “accepts it” on his behalf, but Mr. and Mrs. Nali won’t see it for six months.

    Days later, the agent calls, and tells Mr. Nali “ a better home is available and its cheaper, and its going to have the address of 15958 Thompson Ranch Rd.
    ( a bait and switch technique)

    January 11th, Mr. Nali comes in and signs the deposit receipt for 15958 Thompson Ranch Rd. the LOT number shows as LOT 107, but this address is actually LOT 256 they will discover in 2011.

    Months later Mr. and Mrs. Nal are told that the house direction was a “mistake” and its no longer facing Thompson Ranch rd, but now faces to a Cul de Sac.

    Over and over the next few months Mr. and Mrs. Nali are bombarded with LOT 107-Lot 107, over and over- setting them up mentally for the mind control they will use.

    July 12th, 2007
    We are told to appear at First American Title Company to close on LOT 107.

    Donna K. McDaniels Demillo is the agent. (aka Donna Demello)

    Read her indictment on Scribd. Google me under “Martha Raysik.”(she is now awaiting sentencing on her guilty plea of over EIGHTY LOAN FRAUDS)

    Donna, tells us that the LOT NUMBER is no longer LOT 107, but it has been changed to LOT 256.

    “Lot numbers are just temporary until the sale, and builders change them all the time” Donna tells us.

    Donna says a cancelation of the contract for LOT 107 has to be signed, and it is, and the contract for LOT 107 is CANCELED.

    “Oh, and Mrs. Nali, we just have this sort of situation here. ” she said. “You see, because your husband is the only person on the Grant Deed, what we need to do is make him ‘Temporary loans’ in his name, and then after this, we will ‘instantly refinance’ them with permanent loans and the deeds of trust will then be in both your names” I said, “Well… I guess so, if this is how it has to be done.”

    “Yes,” Donna said, “This is how we have to do it, as you are not on Grant Deed.” and then she said, “and what we need you to do Mrs. Nali, is sign this ‘Temporary Interspousal Grant Deed’ giving up your marital rights to LOT 256, but it’s just temporary, and as soon as we do the ‘final’ Deeds of Trust, Lot 256 is then put back in your name.”

    Donna had the $10.00 GRANT DEED FOR LOT 256, there and it said they had long ago conveyed LOT 256 to my husband as “Sole and Separate Property” for $10.00, and I asked about it, and she said “This is how they do it, it’s deeded to buyers as soon as we get the deposits.

    HOW WOULD I KNOW??

    Then Donna has my husband sign two Deeds of Trust for LOT 256 (a 1st & a 2nd) in his name, under the name:

    Richard Lawrence Nali, as “Sole and Separate Property”,

    and the loan numbers were

    1001326-0000035176-3 and

    1001326-0000035177-1

    and then Donna had both of us sign the “final Deeds on LOT 256″ that said Richard L. Nali and Martha L. Nali, and again the legal description was for LOT 256.
    and the Loan numbers were:

    1001326-0000035175-5 and

    1001326-0000035178-9

    (then the next day, the 13th, her partner,
    Donna K. McWilliams Escamillo, created a deed that conveyed lot 107 to us, in secret)
    Four days later, I am told some documents were “wrong”and I had to go into the office. We go in, and for the first time we meet…

    “Donna K. McWilliams Escamillo” who calls herself “Kim”.

    She is there as a “notary” and she tells me that we need to “acknowledge” that we signed Deeds of Trust on the 12th, and she makes us repeat this odd OATH that we signed Deeds of Trust. She makes us sign the same exact notary journal that Donna K. Demillo had used!

    After this, she forged our names to deeds of trust for lot 107, and she switched the loan numbers.

    This was a criminal conspiracy!

    We moved into a new home and forgot what happened, just as they planned. We are VICTIMS!

    Then they started the mind control! Documents were sent to us that now says LOT 107 again, but, as I had been told this number of lot 107 over and over the past six months, and my husband took care of all the “family business,”
    I was not aware of the deceit.

    This happened to us!
    Now a person who I allege works for the Government is living in LOT 256, yet he is there just to deprive us of our property. The house is almost EMPTY! The garage is EMPTY now for FIVE YEARS!
    No American actually living there…would let that occur!

    Donna K. McDaniels Demillo…indicted on EIGHTY LOAN FRAUDS!

    Donna K. McWilliams Escamillo…STILL SIGNING DOCUMENTS DAY AFTER DAY!

    THIS IS NOT A COINCIDENCE!
    ARREST THE OTHER DONNA!
    10,000 arrests? She should be one!

  81. Fantastic podcast interview by Mandelman of Nye Lavalle and Max Gardner TOGETHER!!!

    The things I’ve just learned! A MUST HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2012/03/max-gardner-nye-lavalle-together-in-concert-a-mandelman-matters-podcast/#.T2vYzvY1DA0.facebook

  82. We can all PRAY! for tenthousand arrest!

  83. @Shelley,

    I read that 10,000 arrests thing but… it is from the “fringiest” of the fringe websites and, somewhere, I have to draw a line on where I get my info from. What attracts me with American Kabuki is that they cite their sources and send us to the facebook page where every single resignation listed also gives the link to verify it (which i do). And they sent us to check the SEC records directly from SEC website. I kinda resent the “We’ve learned from “respectable” sources” but we don’t know which ones. It reeks of Iraq’s “weapons of mass destructions”, if you see what I mean… Way too manipulative for me.

    That being said, i sure as hell want to see that 10,000 arrest thing come to pass, although i still don’t know what to make of all those resignations. Since no one comments on them, it is hard to tell whether it is good news or bad news. So, I put my “good news” spin on it.

    Makes me sleep like a baby!

  84. Good wishes to you, Neil, for a speedy recovery.

    Quote — “The SEC requires public companies to disclose meaningful financial information to the public.”

    Have had this conversation with the SEC. What is meaningful to the public, is not necessarily meaningful to the corporation. Corporations have always been able to conceal — whatever they choose to conceal. Corporations must deem “meaningful” in order to disclose.

    Nothing new with this bill.

    “investor” — let’s clarify the word. That is the biggest problem — as to the mortgage fraud.

    Investor in what???

  85. “This is a hill to die on… property rights are that important.”

    Better believe it. Losing those is the stepping stone to Gulags.

  86. A client of ours at the day spa told us he is of the know of a hugh massive arrest in the financial world. I have no clue if he is credible or not or how he knows of this or thinks he knows of this. He would not say much, just to watch for it happening soon, that Linda a hair stylist here and I will be very happy. This massive resignation makes me think there is some truth to what he said, and enraged believes this is going to happen. Then there was a site posted on the web, talking about a huge massive arrest of 10,000. So I am in hopes you are correct!. It will be a happy day for all of us. It is hard to believe these banksters can get away with this exposed crime. If this comes true, it will cause major relief to so many. Two plaintiffs that were mortgage brokers just won a case and elven million for whistle blowing for protecting milliary families that were harmed by the banksters. That is so great to hear. The article is on stopforeclosure.com. They say the stress has been sush a burden to them, that they are going to retire to someother business and get away from the stress. We need more whistle blowers! Take advantage of the Frank Dodd Act! And save America! Maybe the people jumping ship are jumping ship to become whistle blowers! Yes I like to dream good dreams! America is to good to fail! Looks like the settlement is being opposed and the banksters are not behaving with this settlement either. There is big big money in Whistle blowing so blow those whistles.

  87. @Neil

    tell your doctor your insurance ran out
    you’ll be better in no time.

  88. Well, Steven J. Baum so far gets away with a four million dollar sanction for years of fraud and forgery and making false statments by affidavit in public records, including the courts all over the U.S. throwing millions of homeowners out of their homes unlawfully. With a two year vacation from doing business and then to promise not to repeat this offense again. Never mention the violations of 18USC 2,3,&4 statute, a misdemenor and prison time offense. Extreme harm to the homeowners and helping to steal houses and not only allow fraud, but enable the crime of the biggest ponzie scheme our history and gets away with it. No jail time. Who did Barney Madoff tick off. How did he wind up in jail for life time, when his crime is a tenth of this crime at best? Tells ya something when Steven Baums attorney is the head of the Florida state bar. I hope this is not the end of his hell and he is sought after by others whom promise to go after him. He laughs all the way to his yaught.

  89. @hman ,

    I don’t know the answer to your MERS question ,,, but as we have seen that MERS controls were virtually non-existant I would value the “garbage-out” as worthless and I’m sure the title companies share the opinion. Even if MERS properly controlled access to their databases you always have the problem of “do you trust the data” , you see there are utility programs that can bypass security (RACF) and audit trail reporting (SMF) and modify any data in their dasd farm ,,, the baddest program out there is AMASPZAP aka “SUPERZAP” … it is traditionally excluded from creating SMF records … http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zvm/v5r4/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.zos.r9.ieab100/iea2b17020.htm

    The changes to the title policy go back to the much discussed dual closings ,, the pretend one for you , the real one for the actual parties. Having that EIN is good ,, you can find internet based lookups… many of which allow one or two at no cost.

    I’ve worked in mainframe computing since the late 1970’s and when this much money is involved I don’t trust anybody with electronic records… maybe if it was a government owned database and we had super strict access controls and real serious penalties for misuse… but even that’s a stretch …

    I’ve stated it before I have land in a foreign country that was overrun by Japan in WW2 , the land records were destroyed and it still causes EXTREME hardship to this day … 70 years later. This is a hill to die on… property rights are that important.

  90. A FASCINATING READ ON INSIDE PROCESSING OF COLLATERAL OF COUNTRYWIDE-BAC IN THE DEPOSITION OF MICHELE SJOLANDER WHO GAVE A POWER OF ATTORNEY TO HAVE OTHERS ENDORSE THE PROMISSORY NOTES. SHE DOES NOT KNOW WHO THEY ARE.

  91. To Neil,

    So happy to hear you are doing better – I do so appreciate your site and have learned so much from what you post. I wish you all the best!!

  92. @ hman

    Filed a claim against my title insurance for an unmarketable title. I’ll let you folks know what happens.

  93. @Hman,

    When you ask “Can they…?”, are you asking whether they have the ability to do so or whether it is legally allowed?

    I would say that they can do anything they want. Technology allows for it. The legality of it, however, is very questionable but… who’s going to question it? Obviously not your AG if you approach him: the last he wants is to see a new can of worms opened, so close to the signing of this infamous “settlement”. Probably not the insurance commissioner of your state either: that guy is not elected but rather named by the governor, if I recall. Right now, state governors appear to be completely useless patsies, regardless what their political affiliations are.

    Do you have an attorney you could consult to see what it takes to file a claim against your title insurer? Do you have a copy of the actual policy? I think you are right: having some underwriting documentation may very well serve you in the future. Hang on to that paper.

    And, as i am found of repeating it: my originator is also my title insurer. I’m not kidding. Same owner, same officers. Different companies but the same people. What is the likelihood that the title insurer simply double dipped and conveniently failed to issue a policy? I would say it is quite high. The good thing, though, is that when one goes down, so will the other one. Question of time.

  94. Thanks Enraged.

    Interesting about the title policy info.

    I got this paper I don’t think I was supposed to get from the title company? I don’t know what this document is but I believe it was something the underwriter would use. My loan closed on the 2nd. The paperwork was signed off on this date. At the bottom of the page it says.

    Prior to funding Conditions. (There are several items it lists)

    Tax ID on title policy is incorrect. Correct to …..
    it also states
    #2 on Prelim requirements to be removed from the final title policy.

    These condidtions were signed off on by the underwriter 10 days after the loan closed? Assuming that the title policy was issued can they alter a policy already in force? The “funder” requested the tax id # be “corrected”? and for part of the policy to be removed after the loan closed?

    I tried to research the tax id/ein # on the edgar database. I wasn’t listed on the 10K of my trust. If I was able to find out this info I think this would be another bullet in my gun.

  95. Neil is correct, when I went to this REIA meeting to see what Rob McKenna had to say to the investors, the investors were all aware of the issues we talk about and asked the right questions and they did not seem to be happy at all. The air in the room was one of distrust , anger, and concern. Rob told the investors there was no problems in continuing to purchasing the foreclosures. WOW! You know he knows better. Unless he knows the banks are going to get away with it. By the USA AG complaint, you know he knows better.

  96. And to prove my theory…

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/75#Increasedspendingbeforeandevenduringglobaleconomiccrisis

    Very telling graphs and charts. It won’t end well. OWS is child’s play.

  97. And I have a theory…

    An increasing number of countries’ economis have been literally wiped out by the atrocity committed by American banks. Many have ample reason to come after us and might very well decide to go on the attack.

    Hence the tough talks against China, Iran and whomever else. Since the best defense is a “good” attack, creating a war will serve two purposes: distract us, We The People, into forgetting that the enemy is among us and needs to be dealt with asap and restart our economy with increased weapon manufacturing. Plus, if wars are fomented left and right, the countries taking part in them will be busy themselves and (hopefully) forget that it all started here. Once half the world has been decimated, they’ll join forces to “rebuid”, possibly with one global government, one culture, one lifestyle. Perfect New World… Takes care of all the undesirables, takes care of half the world (over)population

    Farfetched? I don’t think so… How else to explain that our military budget is growing by the day, at the expense of everything else?

    Here are the numbers between 2000 and 2010.

    http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/022609_fy10_topline_growth_decade/

  98. @Hman,

    And my 300-member looks a lot more like 1000+…

    But many don’t exist anymore.

  99. Hman,

    Here is the complete list of MERS members. Many of them have already shut down, been closed, filed for bankruptcy, etc. You’ll notice quite a few title companies in there. Those are the rotten ones.

    http://protectamericasdream.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=289

  100. @Hman,

    I don’t have all the answers to your questions but I believe i have a couple.

    Technically, the title company SHOULD check MERS records to see if any prior loan was satisfied/extinguished. It doesn’t. Hence the fact that, on my house, there is, in MERS database, an old WF loan still active. It predates my purchase of the house by 4 years and I expect every day to receive something from WF. What has happened in many cases is that the title company is a MERS member. Scrib published a year ago the complete list of MERS members and they total over 300, including loan originators, lenders, title companies, appraisers and many other real-estate related sectors of the industry.

    I have never seen a contract between MERS and its members but I would suspect that MERS protected itself by obtaining hold harmless/indemnification agreements signed by members for the privilege of… remaining in business (remember that many non-members who tried to function outside of MERS were pushed into bankruptcy. That holds true for many title companies as well.)

    What we know of the MERS title companies is that they billed for their title search but… many never conducted any. Otherwise, they would never have issued any policy since titles were already seriously clouded since 2002. A lot of those title companies have gone belly up since. The title searches we paid for, sometimes upward of $1,500, didn’t get conducted. That’s why so many people here are talking about securing the policy and demanding to the see the work product they paid for, in order to review it and see whether than can file a claim. Incidentally, it is becoming increasingly obvious that… no policy was ever written either. People end up having paid for title insurance but… no insurance exists. When they finally wake up and start suing (which they do eventually), many title insurance companies will end up bankrupt since they can’t pay back what they stole.

    Of note, the serious title insurers are slwly refusing to touch any foreclosure. They simply won’t insure any repo’ed home. They know the risk attached to them.

    The fraud touches every single area of the real estate business. That’s why, without serious investigations, this economy cannot and will not rebound, contrary to what delusional Obama keeps announcing.

    Every single mortgage written since 2002 has to be thoroughly reviewed and rewritten from scratch. Without a nationwide moratorium, nothing will be fixed either. And rather than tackle the situation once and for all, which required tearing down everything, shutting down MERS and dismantling the banks, our government is trying to fix the problem piece meal.

    Can’t work. You don’t put new wine in an old skin. If the system is broken, you have to completely tear it down and start from the beginning. Costly, time consuming but if it is done at the expense of everyone having ever profited, directly or indirectly, from the fraud, our lawmakers and government included, it will provide jobs for millions, it will rstore confidence in our elected reps and it will bring redress to our broken economy.

    http://www.natlawreview.com/article/mers-twenty-first-century-creation-navigating-eighteenth-century-legal-system

  101. I cannot believe you are posting, I hope your wife stops you and makes you go back to bed and get rest.

  102. Glad you are back Neil!

    I have a question about title companies/searches that if someone has any info with would be greatly appreciated.

    When you buy/sell a home does the title company cross check the MERS database to know the “status” on the MERS stystem?

    If the county recorder records showed lender A and you had a satisfaction/lien release/or judment (default) from lender A on record without any other public recordings.Could you sell the home? or would the title company dig deeper and check the MERS #?

  103. It’s nice to have you back Neil! And in the end, everyone loses including the banksters. What we need is a new, local banking system separate from stranglehold of the Rothschilds.

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 3,443 other followers

%d bloggers like this: