REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT AND REMAND BACK AGAIN TO STATE COURT

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:

Too often lawyers and pro se litigants fail to realize that while a motion for removal is ordinarily granted without hearing, they retain the right to move the Federal Court for remand back to the State Court and the Federal Judge often agrees when it receives the Motion for Remand.  The point is that the laws and procedures governing the case are all state laws, of which there can be no dispute, and the remedy is a state remedy leaving no room for Federal interpretation. In this case MERS was cut off at the pass by a narrower reading of the Class Action Fairness Act. MERS had sent a notice of removal to Federal Court but he parties suing MERS responded that this was a counterclaim by MERS and could not be subject to removal to Federal Court under conventional grounds. They remanded it back to state court where it belongs.

Class Action Act Didn’t Alter Removal Rule

by Ed Wesoloski

A familiar story in troubled economic times has produced a new ruling concerning federal civil procedure from the Sixth Circuit.

A Kentucky couple bought a house with a loan issued by America’s Wholesale Lender, secured by a mortgage with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). Later, the couple defaulted on the mortgage. Countrywide Home Loans foreclosed in state court, claiming MERS assigned the mortgage.

The couple filed a counterclaim against Countrywide, arguing that MERS never had a valid mortgage. Countrywide said the counterclaim was deficient because MERS wasn’t joined as a necessary party.

The couple then filed a third-party class action complaint against MERS. MERS, said the couple, was nothing more than an electronic data base for keeping track of mortgages and did not hold a valid mortgage, having failed to follow Kentucky’s registration procedures.

Here’s where the fresh twist to things begins.

MERS, as a third-party defendant, removed the case to federal district court. Normally, third-party defendants can’t do that. First Nat’l Bank of Pulaski v. Curry, 301 F.3d 456, 461 (6th Cir. 2002).

The Kentucky couple, citing Pulaski and 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), moved to remand their case to state court.

This time it’s different, MERS argued.

[MERS] sought removal of the action based on 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b). The [Class Action Fairness Act of 2005] provides that a district court has jurisdiction in a civil action where there is diversity of citizenship; the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million; and the proposed class includes at least one hundred members. …

[MERS argued] that under section 1453(b), a qualifying class action “may be removed by any defendant without the consent of all defendants.”

You’re reading the statute way too broadly, the Sixth Circuit ruled.

[MERS] attempts to distinguish Pulaski by arguing that section 1453(b), which includes the term “any defendant,” has expanded the right of removal in Class Action Fairness Act cases.

But that language is used in a specific context — it is part of a larger clause providing that an appropriate action “may be removed by any defendant without the consent of all defendants.” Contrary to [MERS’] position, the provision simply modifies the rule that all defendants must consent to the removal.

What the Class Action Fairness Act doesn’t do is extend removal opportunities to third-party defendants, the Sixth Circuit concluded.

The case is In re Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems

37 Responses

  1. Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
    (a) Required Disclosures.

    (1) Initial Disclosure.

    (A) In General. Except as exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) (those listed here don’t generally apply to these actions – sic) or as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties: ………………*

    (C) Time for Initial Disclosures—In General. A party must make the initial disclosures at or within 14 days after the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference unless a different time is set by stipulation or court order, or unless a party objects during the conference that initial
    disclosures are not appropriate in this action and states the objection in the proposed discovery plan. In ruling on the objection, the court must determine what disclosures, if any, are to be made and must set the time for disclosure.

    (D) Time for Initial Disclosures—For Parties Served or Joined Later. A party that is first served or otherwise joined after the Rule 26(f) conference must make the initial disclosures within 30 days after being served or joined, unless a different time is set by stipulation or court order………..”

    Does this not impose as a matter of law a duty of disclosure by the bankster without first entering a discovery plan? Clearly this rule, federal rule of civil procedure 26, is not being complied with in district courts around the country. I would think there is a mirror state court rule of procedure, also. Unfortunately, I have never read pi$$ing match cases involving this rule, but since I have not run accross it as an issue in a motion for compliance / to compel, or anything else, I think in homeowner defense cases it might be being ignored to the significant detriment of the homeowner.
    According to (C) above, the time for the disclosures is 14 days after the rule 26(f) conference. Well, hell, then I guess one must first get to that conference to demand compliance, right? If a homeowner is the plaintiff, the first thing the bankster does is file a mtn to dismiss. If the homeowner is the defendant and answers, they file something else, like sj. Now, can one proceed to a 26f conference with a mtn to dismiss/ sj hanging out or can one try to schedule the conference at the time of the action or shortly thereafter and would it matter? I read a bit of BD’s app brief and see his court granted some or all the bankster’s mtn to dismiss while discovery was pending, which like BD struck me as crap. These procedural rules are tough on most of us, but not impossible to negotiate. It looks to me like this rule is our friend if we can learn to defend its application, especially in the face of get-rid-of-us motions. That would take appropriate case law no doubt, but I’ll bet its out there: case law that supports one’s need-to-know clearance as demonstrated and expected by this rule. And if there is non-compliance, what then? Does this rule, could this rule, lead to the bankster having to stand on what was submitted in / with their complaint? (as in, that’s all you get, sucker!?) The full text is here:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26

    Note: we would be under the same duty to disclose

  2. The various subsidiaries of Countrywide Financial are: •Countrywide Home Loans and LandSafe, Inc. and its family of companies, which provide mortgage banking and loan closing services.
    •CFC International, India Services provides offshore processing and IT services.
    • Countrywide Capital Markets (CCM) consists of three subsidiaries: Countrywide Securities Corporation, Countrywide Servicing Exchange and Countrywide Asset Management Corporation.
    • In the field of Insurance Services, Countrywide’s subsidiary is Balboa Insurance Group, Inc. It is comprised of Balboa Life & Casualty, Balboa Reinsurance, DirectNet Insurance Agency, Inc. and Countrywide Insurance Services, Inc.

    Recent Merger
    Full Spectrum Lending, Inc. was merged into Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. in December, 2004, and became one of its internal divisions.
    Headquarter Address
    Countrywide Financial Corp
    4500 Park Granada
    Calabasas, CA 91302
    Phone: (818) 225-3000
    Fax: (818) 304-5979

    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE & PURCHASE GROUPS
    GLOBAL PORTAL OF COMMERCE
    SECONDARY MARKET
    (HUD, FANNIE, FREDDIE, FHLB, FHLMC, USPTO, …)

    PRODUCER’S EXCHANGE ‘LIKE KIND’ FINANCING, INVESTMENTS, ASSETS, ….

    Select BALBOA INSURANCE COMPANY (CA)
    Property & Casualty Insurer
    VIRGINIA PRODUCER #24813 – BALBOA INSURANCE COMPANY
    PO BOX 19702
    IRVINE, CA 92623-9702
    Phone: (949) 222-8000
    Toll Free:
    Domicile State: California

    #68160 – BALBOA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (CA)
    Life & Health Insurer
    68160 Company Contact Information:
    BALBOA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
    400 ROBERT ST N STE A
    SAINT PAUL, MN 55101-2099
    Phone: (651) 665-3500
    Domicile State: California
    ALIASES:
    PROVIDENT ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED
    Former Name 1/17/1973 -1/30/1974
    PROVIDENT ALLIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
    1/30/1974 END DATE 9/16/1987

    Name * Denotes an Alias. ( ) Shows Domicile State.
    Select COUNTRYWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY (WI) *
    Property & Casualty Insurer25453 Company Contact Information:
    NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
    1100 LOCUST ST
    DES MOINES, IA 50391-1100

    Phone: (515) 280-4211
    Toll Free:
    Domicile State: Wisconsin

    ALIASES:
    COUNTRYWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY Former Name 8/26/1997 – END DATE 9/23/1985

    DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTO & HOME INSURANCE COMPANY Trade Name 12/17/2000 (OPEN)

    TIG COUNTRYWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY Former Name 8/26/1997 END DATE 5/7/1999

    Name * Denotes an Alias. ( ) Shows Domicile State.

    Select COUNTRYWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY (CT) *
    Property & Casualty Insurer
    24031Company Contact Information:
    NORTHLAND CASUALTY COMPANY
    1 TOWER SQ
    HARTFORD, CT 06183-0001

    Phone: (860) 277-0111
    Domicile State: Connecticut
    http://WWW.NORTHLANDINS.COM
    ALIASES:
    AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK Merger Survivor 1/29/1964 OPEN

    COASTAL CASUALTY COMPANY Former Name 7/30/1968 END DATE 5/5/1981

    COUNTRYWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY Former Name 2/13/1967 END DATE 7/30/1968

    TRANSAMERICA INDEMNITY COMPANY
    Former Name 12/26/1963 END DATE 2/13/1967

    TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY
    Former Name 12/30/1959 END DATE 12/26/1963

  3. Order for remand back to state court from DC in a 2009 NJ case.
    Still looking for homeowner’s mtn to remand, which might be useful.

  4. @jve, you hit it. Well, actually 2 ‘its’. AWL is not a MERS member. Where is the evidence – ever – that so and so is a MERS’ member (fwiw – which in my book is zilch)? Maybe they will produce something – some e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e, but as far as I know, the only thing they come up with is the “MERS Membership Application”. But why let them slide, on anything? The application in turn refers to the MERS Rules, which state that A MEMBER (and gee, not MERS, the do-nothing, no-employee computer program) is to execute an assignment only if the note has been sold to a non-MERS’ member. Does this describe a trust (non-member?) The MERS rules don’t even provide that the little member-worker-bees may assign anything to other members and certainly not to themselves.
    I am beyond happy to see people making comments about the bogus assignment of the notes in the (similarly bogus) assgts of the dots. Those alleged assignments of the notes are legal fiction and comprise the recordation of false instruments, a crime in all states (google or yahoo “Alabama Statutes recordation of false instrument” for example). As far as I know, it is only a stature of limitation, if any, which stands between one who lost his home wrongfuly and getting it back or other recompense. It is also wrong to submit a false doc to a court (fraud on the court, abuse of process, submission of false claim, what-not). The assignments of the notes, unlike the claims of the bankster attorney in a NV case (somewhere around here), is not no-thing (google “MERS admits it may Not Assign Notes scribd”). It is done with the intent of reliance by third parties, including courts of LAW, the goal of which is to fraudulently cause you to lose your home.
    I appreciate the info at the post here esp since it was well-written, but it may concentrate mostly on class-A suit-laws. There was a successful mtn to remand back to state court in a non-class A case. I’ll find it. fwiw, which might be something.

  5. @davies910

    Since MERS is not on the NOTE, all the assignments that profess to ASSIGN the NOTE should be recognised as bogus for that additional reason.

    But people should start from the beginning and determine if MERS was EVER properly a party to the contract. When the original lender is bogus, the contract is void. There can’t be any legal relationship between the initial lender and MERS.

    So for those VOID loans, MERS can not legally be used to assign because there are no Corporate Resolutions.

    The issue of any PSA is not even relevant to a contract that is VOID from the start.

    Only those who do have an initial lender that is or was in business and has a valid relationship with MERS will need to step into the mire of the late assignments by MERS, provided the loan was securitized. A small percentage were NOT. For a loan that was not securizied, you do not even have the PSA to attempt to help.

    Of late, some courts have ruled that the borrower is a third-party to that transaction covered by the PSA and has no grounds to dispute the late assignment(s).

    Then there is the typical wording of the assignments where they also attempt to ‘ASSIGN’ the NOTE. MERS is not on the NOTE so that SHOULD be an issue, but not every court is acknowledging that issue either.

    Void contracts need to be taken aim at for the multiple points they can be attacked on. If you are not successful in keeping the servicer (and their attorney) from claiming to also represent that ‘lender’, there is still much that can be used as further claims/arguments, let alone the appeal of that servicer having no right to represent the bogus lender in a void contract.

  6. Here is the link which discusses in full with current cases 15 U.S.C. 1641(g). If feel it is part of the magic bullet on late assignments since they dont notice. Is it because the assignment is bogus. The keep using the assignment along with the note as though it is real [it is not].

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/93007336/Davies-v-Deutsche-Bank-Final-Appeal-Opening-Brief-05082012-http-www-scribd-com-doc-91440318-Emergency-motion-to-stay-proceed-Included-is-the-fu

  7. Search Maiden Lane. Maiden Lane is the purchaser of all the security tranches that the banks could no longer hold. Maiden Lane has “restructured” those tranches into one big TRUST, that is now sold to other distressed debt buyers by the management of distressed debt buyer bigwigs. You certainly cannot have pass-through of “cash flows” to the old (dissolved trust) and to Maiden Lane managed by distressed debt buyers.
    But, the problem is that these trusts, dissolved and Maiden Lane, is only for pass-through of current cash flows. They were not, and are not, the current creditor/lender as now defined by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has long stated that security investors are not the creditor/lender and that collection rights are not passed along with cash flow pass-through. This is clarified by the Fed Res Opinion (now Rule) to the TILA Amendment. This is quite clear, and as I posted elsewhere, recently clarified by a Federal District Court (as to the Fed Res Opinion and TILA).
    The biggest mistake we have made is to EVER claim that security investors are the lender/creditor. This has been a disaster, in error, and absurd.
    I can only surmise that those that continue to believe the dissolved trusts still exist, and that security investors are the creditor/lender, have a self interest that has been extremely counter-productive to fighting foreclosure fraud.

    ANONYMOUS, on December 11, 2011 at 5:36 pm said:

    Testimony??? Yeah, by debt buyers themselves. Is it not ironic that the “goal” by these so called “investors” is to “keep people in their homes?” That should NOT be the “goal”, because “keeping people in their homes” by their terms, means continued victims and continued fraud. The goal should be to EXPOSE THE FRAUD and to allow people to rightfully OWN their homes. You cannot promote home ownership by continued fraud. The goal MUST BE to expose the fraud that has been perpetrated by the “investors” and then let the people “KEEP their homes” — not “keep people in their homes” by continued fraud.
    We are not talking securitization of cash flows, that is a separate issue, and those are “security investors” that are not the lender or creditor. We are talking debt buyer “investors” of (fraudulent) collection rights.
    Debt buyers do not want homeowners to keep their homes because to rightfully keep their homes, the fraud MUST be exposed. And, certainly, debt buyers have no incentive or desire to expose that mass fraud.

  8. “…if the actual party does not come forward claiming that the debt is owed to them, and the actual party cannot prove how they came to own the collection rights — borrower does not owe the debt to anyone. That party is never going to able to demonstrate that collection rights belong to them because they would have to divulge the above fraudulent process and that the “mortgage loan” from onset was not a mortgage but, instead, collection rights…”

  9. “certificate purchasers” are the banks themselves (security underwriters), and they only purchase a “pro-rata” share to a “pool” of cash flows —- that is all — they are NOT the mortgagee/creditor—the trust is assigned the loans from which the pass-through cash flows are derived—it is the DEPOSITOR (subsidiary), that owns the collections rights (they are not mortgage loans), and the Trust itself. The “certificate purchasers” (the bank security underwriters (another subsidiary) themselves) then repackage the certificates to “pro-rata” cash flows into CDOs that are marketed to security investors — who are also never the mortgagee/creditor. According to all PSAs — there must be a documented valid sale of the “loans”, with supporting Mortgage Schedule to the Depositor in order for any Trust to be valid. There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.”

  10. “…since the “loan” refinances (subprime/alt-a), and jumbo new purchases were non-compliant and non-performing manufactured defaults, no funding at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans). The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferred any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor” would provide to their correspondent lenders. Once the “loan” refinance origination was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspondent (originator). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-line transaction.”

  11. Nancy Drewe mystery writer is sounding a lot like my friend Maher, isn’t she? Whomever the author, the points seem right on.

    “JUST HOW DID ISSUER AS SELLER: DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST CO BECOME OWNER OF YOUR NOTE? AND WHAT HAS MERSr got to do with it dear BORROWER? BORROWER is not you – you don’t have a loan you had a mortgage or deed of trust and in exchange for promissory note agreeming to give cash to bank $xxx,xxx.00 for 30 years at XX.XX% you became their bank! Joke on you in an exchange through Concealment – you did not own real estate unencumbered and the very document used to record in property records SERVICER/Financial Intermediary/Trustee of REMIC allows them as ‘CREDITOR’ to repurchase the Note and find another sucker willing to forward cash and the owner of that lien will be tracked in MERS r congratulations! Keep ignoring the truth why? You see audits of public records. Where are the audits of the private records and encumberances, entitlements, restrictiosn due-on-sale and acceleration and facts ‘SERVICER’ and ‘TRUSTEE” get to use cash of every real estate receivable for their personal unjust enrichment ‘not the certificateholders e.g. pension fund trust!’
    Through repurchase of NOTE from INVESTOR:
    Deutseche Bank Trust Co ISSUER:SELLER has accountability for MISREPRESENTATIONS. Hello anyone home? Thats the REMIC and e.g. Pension Fund Trust.”

  12. @concerned: picked up a copy of the funding check for the Wells Fargo mortgage. It was a Deutsche bank check that funded the loan.
    That said, everybody should have been at their closing/title company office requesting a copy of all the docs related to the funding and closing of the loan already
    @ Jan: counselor, the details that change from document to document are indeed telling. The learning curve for this type of defense is indeed long. Watching rulings coming out at the appellate level are indicative of what charges will stick. Although temperaments of judges vary considerably, the facts are the facts. If the parties to the transaction are indiscernible, discovery is required.

  13. @Concerned,

    Again, i couldn’t agree more. Many people have gone into unchartered territory (securitization) that very few understand (and even fewer judges can grasp) to see their case thrown out of court.

    Always better to keep the down-to-earth approach: “I have a contract that says X, Y, Z and paperwok that states the opposite and didn’t comply.” Produce both for as many examples as you have uncovered and you can raise enough doubt in the judge’s mind to prevail.

    Always K.I.S.S.

  14. @enraged,

    You are welcome. I have spurred a few people on to look at the loan and at the MERS Resolutions.

    I only presented the ‘dig’ that is needed regarding the original loan docs and the follow-on. My information does not attempt to find the flaws with any securitization. My reason is that if you have significant or major defects in the original loan, nothing that is done regarding any attempt to securitize can be valid. “AWL Corporation” loans are examples of what should be declared to be VOID contracts.

    Also, even if the contract has no overt problem, if there are clauses that are not adhered to in the attempt to declare a default or take other actions adverse to the borrower, it is an easier case than trying to pull the securitization issues into court as the only leverage your case has.

    I also know that in some states it is very hard for the homeowners to raise any issue about the securitization. They are told they are a ‘third party’ and do not have rights to intercede between the investors and the ‘banksters’. I will agree that there is money that should not have been allowed to benefit the banksters in the various ‘spreads’ and insurance pay-offs. The problem is getting it into your case in court.

    The arguments needed to go there are complex and can have the judges eyes glaze over. Consider and learn from other cases filed in your state that attempt to raise issues with the securitization before you head down that path.

  15. @Concerned,

    Finally someone who give a step-by-step of what we all need to look for. Thank you, thank you, thank you. That information is much more valuable than anything Nancy Drewe spits out any day of the week.

    Yes guys, it take an inordinate amount of time to retrace every step of that mess. It is a F…* full time job!!!That’s why I am absolutely adamant that I will NOT settle with my servicer for anything not compensating me for that inordinate amount of time. For Pete’s sake, if I had wanted to be an investigator, i would have become one. Likewise for: CPA, attorney and whatever glorified paper pusher I have become thanks to all those banks and their shenanigans.

    Life is passing us all by because we can’t do anything but work, work, work at extricating everey piece of that insane puzzle. Sue and decide how much your time is worth. Every time you work on your G..* damn file, add the time you spent and keep that figure in the back of your mind: that, my friends, should be your bottom line. Everyone has one. Make your own and stick with it. That is the one thing that will keep you going: the absolute certainty that you MUST be compensated for your time. Everybody else is. Don’t give that away to any bank just to keep a lousy house.

  16. Let’s all get back on topic with this particular case and look at what we can learn from it.

    A major point that MANY MISS is the need to investigate that initial ‘LENDER’ named in the loan documents. Far too many people and even ‘auditors’ start with the documents that come AFTER that which is WRONG.

    1.Always go back and verify the status of that named lender at the time of the loan origination. This case involves a ‘LENDER’ that did not actually exist. The count of these loans may be in the millions. They were not ‘mistakes’ but intentional and apparently LUCRATIVE. Many people simply do a search in the state of NY records for “America’s Wholesale Lender Corporation” and when they find one listed, they stop. Instead, look at the date the corporation was REGISTERED. Oh, oh! 12/16/2008 is AFTER all these loans were originated. Then look at WHO formed the corporation. Nope, no part of Countrywide, nor is there any linkage with Countrywide for that corporation.

    2. For those LENDERS that were valid at the start, verify that they were registered lenders with your state if that is required by your state as it is with CA. Of course, a lender whose corporation did not even exist also never filed as a mortgage lender with the state of CA.

    3. Look at whether the LENDER filed BK or was taken over by the feds or possibly taken over by some other corporation. Examine the repercussions of these findings closely. You need to question whether assignments were needed or if there is a valid ‘successor in interest’. Countrywide can not claim to be the valid successor in interest to a lender that did not exist.

    4. Next look at whether any CORPORATE RESOLUTION existed for that LENDER and MERS back during the origination. Take note that some of the corporate resolutions may be for the wrong corporate entity. An example is that Countrywide Financial Corporation has a Corporate Resolution with MERS. But what good is that MERS Corporate Resolution to “Countrywide Home Loans Corporation”? Here you likely need an experienced attorney to hammer home the difference to the judge.

    IF any valid assignments were do exist, you need to repeat the first 4 steps for each of those assignees just like you did for the lender named at origination.

    5. Also, the legal status of MERS with your state can be a factor in the ability for MERS to sue in court. In CA, MERS has had problems keeping out of the ‘SUSPENDED’ status, usually for failure to pay taxes, etc.

    6. Really READ your DOT or MORTGAGE. Does it have clauses that SPECIFY who is allowed to specify a Substitution of Trustee? Are there clauses that specify that certain actions are reserved for the LENDER and even excludes MERS from doing it? Remember, if your ‘LENDER’ did not exist, as is the case for all “America’s Wholesale Lender Corporation” loans, there is no entity that can do those things. The “AWL Corp” loans all have language specifying that the LENDER has the exclusive right to name a SOT. The loans also indicate that the LENDER is to declare any default. The KY case has missed several salient points because they do not fully bring out all the things that are a complication of naming a LENDER that did not exist.

    7. After you have these facts, look at the documents that were executed AFTER the loan origination. In light of what you may already have gleaned, you may know that NO ONE could have signed for a particular lender, which is the very case with any “America’s Wholesale Lender Corporation” loan such as the one in this KY case.

    8. Delve into the signatures of those signing for MERS to make sure they were authorized to sign on behalf of the particular lender. Look to see if the signatures are valid

    9. Look at the notary signature standards for the state where any document you have is notarized. In some states, the usage of 3 scrawled initials is not a proper signature for the notary. Some states want the signature content to be exactly what was used in the notary application. TX was VERY unhappy with a particular notary whose signature content varied considerably (let alone that they did not seem to be executed by the same person). That particular notary relinquished the notary commission early.

    10. Compare the signatures to see if they appear robosigned with varying signatures or if they appear to be mechanically reproduced. You may need to check the standards for your state that apply to electronic reproduction of signatures. IF they are valid, verify WHEN they became valid and check when they appear on your documents.

    Too few homeowners, their ‘auditors’ or their attorneys are really examining the loan documents fully. Far too many of them give up the case before it is even started, assuming the original contract to be VALID. Then the leap to the conclusion that the loan was SECURED. That is not true with any loan that named a ‘strawman’ as the original lender.

    Bottom line, I’m seeing far too few of the “America’s Wholesale Lender Corporation” loans disputed by homeowners. I’m glad to see the KY couple is fighting, but they have overlooked much of the ammunition they have.

    Too few are attempting to get the Corporate Resolutions with MERS produced also.

  17. Jenn in GA: ML 1,2,3, are repositories set up by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to take the toxic assets (uncollectable liabilities from the bonds and credit default swaps; i.e., all the shit that was clogging up the bond market). The idea behind TARP was to take the taxpayer money and help lenders restructure the borrower obligations (via mass modifications). Unfortunately, the banks took all that cash that replaced the unsaleable bonds and used it to pay themselves and make expensive loans (again) with free money supplied by Uncle Ben (kinda like what the states are doing with the foreclosure settlement funds). And the banks also managed to offload all kinds of other crappy assets. Do some research and learn.
    The REMIC transaction has defaulted.

  18. @Carie,

    Thank you. You echoed what I have been saying for a long time. And it is irritating to have to read those posts all in capitals. But as you may know, Nancy Drewe in not in there to help anyone. She’s in it… for the money! I can recall a few months ago an Elisabeth (somebody. Forgot the last name) who posted that she had been taken for $5,000 by Nancy Drewe, had received a completely useless report and had the hardest time getting back her documents. In fact, Elisabeth was so hurt by it that she even gave Nancy Drewe’s real name.

    Tells me everything I want to know…

  19. @Nancy Drewe

    I’m a consumer harmed too. We are all in this crap together. I may “whine” once in a while, but only because I care about how EVERYONE is being harmed—but all you do is SHOUT things that most of us can’t decipher because you don’t know how to write proper English in a way that is understandable for the average person. If you really cared about anyone except yourself and your “vast” knowledge, you would figure out a way to be helpful instead of confusing, stuck up, and hateful.

  20. @ enraged….

    “” Who? Who? We want names!!! Was Romney one of them? And where is the “trickle down”? Where is the money? Can we have it back?”

    Off the hook….:-)

  21. Carrie loves to whine. I’m a consumer harmed. I don’t give legal advice.
    Contact ABBY Anita Carr the consumate professional by the way where is she these days?

  22. Hey Drewe, can we get a little clarification over here?

  23. @Carie,

    Don’t you hate that elitism? When enough of us ask for clarification, we may get somewhere…

  24. @nancy drewe…Whining? Wow. Maybe you should learn how to speak English and write correctly, if you want to share your “brilliant mind”…and it’s Albert—not Alberg.

  25. click read and learn instead of whining

  26. @Nancy Drewe

    I know you’re trying to tell us something but I was wondering if you could explain it succinctly in two sentences—something I can write on my protest sign—that the average Joe would understand. Thanks.

  27. BRYAN CAVE LLP PATENT “judge was so disturbed by this that he stayed the proceedings……Bryan Caves team
    representing B of A I believe, mouths dropped to the floor …….”

    http : // www . scribd.com/doc/95355209/SECURITIZATIONS-New-Class-of-Assets-Promissory-Note-s-Cash-equivalent-SYSTEM-PROCESS-SECONDARY-MARKET-S-ALTERNATIVE-ASSETS-ALTERNATIVE-FINANC

    FANNIE MAE DBA FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS

    June 1998 ALL FHLB BORROWERS’ SECURITY INTERESTS Conveyance to NationsBank Corp FEDERAL REGISTER
    RECORDATION WITH US COMMISSIONER TRADEMARKS

    JUNE 1998:
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM REPOSITORY & OVERSIGHT THE CHASE MANHATTAN CORP AS PARENT OF:
    MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM INC.

    REMIC AS ISSUER PURCHASER OF NOTES
    REMIC BECOMES SELLER OF NOTES
    BROKER-DEALERS & ASSET MANAGERS
    VIRTUAL TRANSFERABLE RECORDS
    JEMS r JPEX r CTSLink r and

    YOU Keep reporting what MERS r (Mark) is not!

    Your ‘SPIN’ [square peg in ROUND HOLD]
    harms consumers. EVERY DAY THE ‘SPIN’ ENABLES THE SUCCESS AND VALUE OF THE ‘CASH-EQUIVALENT CERTIFICATES ISSUED TO REMIC CERTIFICATEHOLDERS
    & FREDDIE MAC’S CASH-EQUIVALENT PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES PCs’ ‘SECONDARY MARKET’ EXCHANGE
    BEAT DUE-ON-SALE CLAUSE CONSUMERS WITHOUT MARKETABLE TITLE PRIVATE ENCUMBERANCES, PRIVATE ENTITLEMENTS, YOUR DEED OF TRUST OR MORTGAGE RECORDED BY ORIGINATOR/TITLE AGENT MAKES Financial Intermediary CREDITOR AND MERS TRACKS ALL FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK Correspondents’ Business security interests TO CREATE, E.G. ENDORSEMENT OF INSURANCE CALLED ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE, REAL ESTATE REPURCHASE OF NOTE BY ‘ISSUER’ REMIC TRUSTEE SETTLE WITH SERVICER ALTERNATIVE ASSET & FINANCING IN COURTS OF EQUITY NATIONWIDE CONCEALING YOU NEVER HAD CLEAR AND MARKETABLE TITLE BECAUSE YOU SIGNED OVER YOUR RIGHTS TO SETTLEMENT AGENT WHO AFTER YOU CLOSED CONTACTED THE ARRANGER AND ACCOMODATOR, RECORDED AND GOT ‘STAMPED’ BY COURT WHEN THEY PAID THE ‘EXCHANGE’ TAXES AND FEES.

    Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. -Alberg Einstein

    Do you SPIN?

    Do you provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion: “a messenger who spins bogus research into a vile theology of hatred” (William A. Henry III).

    How about learning about the spin off To derive (a company or product, for example) from something larger.

    For every whine of a consumer harmed is money in the bank for the GREEDY BASTARDS C/O JEMS Brokers-Dealers & Asset Managers THROUGH ‘EXCEPTIONS’ APPROVED BY OCC FOR NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ….
    LOOPHOLES WHICH APPEAR HARMFUL TO CONSUMERS.
    LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE?

    LIENS ARE TRACKED INSIDE OF MERS r RELATED TO ALTERNATIVE FINANCING ‘SECURITY INTERESTS’ CONVEYED TO ANYBANK NA ‘SERVICER’.

    JEMS r JPEX r CTSLink r…

    MERS r SECURITY AGREEMENT recorded FEDERAL REGISTER allows ALL CORRESPONDENTS’ BUSINESS SECURITY INTERESTS CONVEYANCE TO ANYBANK NA CAPITAL FUND C/O FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARY WHO TRACKS OWNER OF LIEN AS ARRANGER, ACCOMODATOR, SERVICER, TRUSTEE,

    READ BRYAN CAVE LLP PAWNBROKER PATENT 2005, AND EARLIER PAWNBROKER PATENTS WHERE EXCEPTIONS IN PAWNBROKER ACT 1989 ALLOW ‘FINANCIAL’ ‘SECURITIES’ ‘CASH’ ‘CASH-LIKE EQUIVALENTS RECEIPTS’

    SPE#1 SUBSIDIARY

    spin off:To derive (a company or product, for example) from something larger.
    JEMS r
    BROKER-DEALER ASSET MANAGER
    ‘SERVICER + SELLER:ISSUER + TRUSTEE REPURCHASER OF NOTE’ UNTIL A NEW ‘BORROWERS CORRESPONDENT BUSINESS IS FOUND’
    KEEPS BRINGING HOME THE BACON TO JPMORGAN CHASE!

    JUST HOW DID ISSUER AS SELLER: DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST CO BECOME OWNER OF YOUR NOTE? AND WHAT HAS MERSr got to do with it dear BORROWER? BORROWER is not you – you don’t have a loan you had a mortgage or deed of trust and in exchange for promissory note agreeming to give cash to bank $xxx,xxx.00 for 30 years at XX.XX% you became their bank! Joke on you in an exchange through Concealment – you did not own real estate unencumbered and the very document used to record in property records SERVICER/Financial Intermediary/Trustee of REMIC allows them as ‘CREDITOR’ to repurchase the Note and find another sucker willing to forward cash and the owner of that lien will be tracked in MERS r congratulations! Keep ignoring the truth why? You see audits of public records. Where are the audits of the private records and encumberances, entitlements, restrictiosn due-on-sale and acceleration and facts ‘SERVICER’ and ‘TRUSTEE” get to use cash of every real estate receivable for their personal unjust enrichment ‘not the certificateholders e.g. pension fund trust!’

    Through repurchase of NOTE from INVESTOR:
    Deutseche Bank Trust Co ISSUER:SELLER has accountability for MISREPRESENTATIONS. Hello anyone home? Thats the REMIC and e.g. Pension Fund Trust.

    Decision 2 by Foreclosure Fraud http : // www . scribd.com/doc/95478548/Decision-2

    VIRTUAL TRANSFERABLE RECORD
    MERS r JEMS r CTSLINK r EDGAR On-LINE r FIS r JPEX r, …
    govermental approved monopolized PROCESS, MARKS, GOODS, SERVICES COMMERCE INTERSTATE, e.g. International Class 036

    Negotiable Instrument ‘Insurance Endorsement issued by First American Title Insurance Co, exchanged Sales Contract for DEED in your name’ and if you stop advancing cash to Anybank NA SERVICER -Servicer as CREDITOR allows REMIC: ISSUER AS SELLER PER PROSPECTUS REPURCHASE OR TRUSTEE REPURCHASE AND IF THE FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARY ‘ACCOMODATOR’S ‘SERVICER’ FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO -ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE IS AN INSURANCE ENDORSEMENT PRODUCT, TRANSFERS ‘VIRTUAL TRANSFERABLE RECORD’ ROBOSIGNING PURPOSE -HOLDER OF TITLE AGENT GOES INTO COURT AND GETS CLERK OF COURT TO STAMP ‘CREDITOR DOCUMENT WITH LIBER FOLIO TO PROCESS FORECLOSURE’ AND THAT MEANS? YOU’VE GOT A LOT OF READING TO DO

    VISUAL ONE PAGE FLOWCHART OF
    REPURCHASE OF A NOTE BY CORRESPONDENTS’ BUSINESS SETTLEMENT AGENT (LOCAL) TAKE DEFAULT TO COURT & CLERK OF COURT STAMPS ‘OK GO FOR IT’ TAKE UNFAIR SEIZURE OF COLLATERAL SECURITY INTERESTS HELD BY CORRESPONDENT’S BUSINESS AGENT. THE ANSWER IS RIGHT HERE IN THIS CHART FIRST COLUMN! ‘SECURITY INTRUMENT RETURNED TO ORIGINATOR/AGENT

    http : // www . scribd.com/doc/95010424/MERS-CORRESPONDENTS-BUSINESS-INSURANCE-INTERMEDIARIES-JEMS-BROKDER-DEALER-ASSET-MANAGERS-SECONDARY-MARKET-JPEX-OREXCO-Virtual-Exchange-Agen

    NEXT READ THE SECURITY & CREDIT AGREEMENT RECORDED IN FEDERAL REGISTER WHICH ALLOWS BROKERS-DEALERS & ASSET MANAGERS SECONDARY MARKET EXCHANGE, TRANSFERS WHILE YOU SUCK WIND.

    http : // www . scribd.com/doc/93538677/MORTGAGE-ELECTRONIC-REGISTRATION-SYSTEMS-AS-BORROWER-GOVERNMENTAL-APPROVED-MONOPOLIZED-ASSIGNMENT-ALL-SECURITY-INSTERSTS-TO-Nations-Bank-Assignmen

  28. BRYAN CAVE LLP PATENT “judge was so disturbed by this that he stayed the proceedings……Bryan Caves team
    representing B of A I believe, mouths dropped to the floor …….”

    http : // www . scribd.com/doc/95355209/SECURITIZATIONS-New-Class-of-Assets-Promissory-Note-s-Cash-equivalent-SYSTEM-PROCESS-SECONDARY-MARKET-S-ALTERNATIVE-ASSETS-ALTERNATIVE-FINANC

    FANNIE MAE DBA FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS

    June 1998 ALL FHLB BORROWERS’ SECURITY INTERESTS Conveyance to NationsBank Corp FEDERAL REGISTER
    RECORDATION WITH US COMMISSIONER TRADEMARKS

    JUNE 1998:
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM REPOSITORY & OVERSIGHT THE CHASE MANHATTAN CORP AS PARENT OF:
    MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM INC.

    REMIC AS ISSUER PURCHASER OF NOTES
    REMIC BECOMES SELLER OF NOTES
    BROKER-DEALERS & ASSET MANAGERS
    VIRTUAL TRANSFERABLE RECORDS
    JEMS r JPEX r CTSLink r and

    YOU Keep reporting what MERS r (Mark) is not!

    Your ‘SPIN’ [square peg in ROUND HOLD]
    harms consumers. EVERY DAY THE ‘SPIN’ ENABLES THE SUCCESS AND VALUE OF THE ‘CASH-EQUIVALENT CERTIFICATES ISSUED TO REMIC CERTIFICATEHOLDERS
    & FREDDIE MAC’S CASH-EQUIVALENT PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES PCs’ ‘SECONDARY MARKET’ EXCHANGE
    BEAT DUE-ON-SALE CLAUSE CONSUMERS WITHOUT MARKETABLE TITLE PRIVATE ENCUMBERANCES, PRIVATE ENTITLEMENTS, YOUR DEED OF TRUST OR MORTGAGE RECORDED BY ORIGINATOR/TITLE AGENT MAKES Financial Intermediary CREDITOR AND MERS TRACKS ALL FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK Correspondents’ Business security interests TO CREATE, E.G. ENDORSEMENT OF INSURANCE CALLED ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE, REAL ESTATE REPURCHASE OF NOTE BY ‘ISSUER’ REMIC TRUSTEE SETTLE WITH SERVICER ALTERNATIVE ASSET & FINANCING IN COURTS OF EQUITY NATIONWIDE CONCEALING YOU NEVER HAD CLEAR AND MARKETABLE TITLE BECAUSE YOU SIGNED OVER YOUR RIGHTS TO SETTLEMENT AGENT WHO AFTER YOU CLOSED CONTACTED THE ARRANGER AND ACCOMODATOR, RECORDED AND GOT ‘STAMPED’ BY COURT WHEN THEY PAID THE ‘EXCHANGE’ TAXES AND FEES.

    Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. -Alberg Einstein

    Do you SPIN?

    Do you provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion: “a messenger who spins bogus research into a vile theology of hatred” (William A. Henry III).

    How about learning about the spin off To derive (a company or product, for example) from something larger.

    For every whine of a consumer harmed is money in the bank for the GREEDY BASTARDS C/O JEMS Brokers-Dealers & Asset Managers THROUGH ‘EXCEPTIONS’ APPROVED BY OCC FOR NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ….
    LOOPHOLES WHICH APPEAR HARMFUL TO CONSUMERS.
    LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE?

    LIENS ARE TRACKED INSIDE OF MERS r RELATED TO ALTERNATIVE FINANCING ‘SECURITY INTERESTS’ CONVEYED TO ANYBANK NA ‘SERVICER’.

    JEMS r JPEX r CTSLink r…

    MERS r SECURITY AGREEMENT recorded FEDERAL REGISTER allows ALL CORRESPONDENTS’ BUSINESS SECURITY INTERESTS CONVEYANCE TO ANYBANK NA CAPITAL FUND C/O FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARY WHO TRACKS OWNER OF LIEN AS ARRANGER, ACCOMODATOR, SERVICER, TRUSTEE,

    READ BRYAN CAVE LLP PAWNBROKER PATENT 2005, AND EARLIER PAWNBROKER PATENTS WHERE EXCEPTIONS IN PAWNBROKER ACT 1989 ALLOW ‘FINANCIAL’ ‘SECURITIES’ ‘CASH’ ‘CASH-LIKE EQUIVALENTS RECEIPTS’

    SPE#1 SUBSIDIARY

    spin off:To derive (a company or product, for example) from something larger.
    JEMS r
    BROKER-DEALER ASSET MANAGER
    ‘SERVICER + SELLER:ISSUER + TRUSTEE REPURCHASER OF NOTE’ UNTIL A NEW ‘BORROWERS CORRESPONDENT BUSINESS IS FOUND’
    KEEPS BRINGING HOME THE BACON TO JPMORGAN CHASE!

    JUST HOW DID ISSUER AS SELLER: DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST CO BECOME OWNER OF YOUR NOTE? AND WHAT HAS MERSr got to do with it dear BORROWER? BORROWER is not you – you don’t have a loan you had a mortgage or deed of trust and in exchange for promissory note agreeming to give cash to bank $xxx,xxx.00 for 30 years at XX.XX% you became their bank! Joke on you in an exchange through Concealment – you did not own real estate unencumbered and the very document used to record in property records SERVICER/Financial Intermediary/Trustee of REMIC allows them as ‘CREDITOR’ to repurchase the Note and find another sucker willing to forward cash and the owner of that lien will be tracked in MERS r congratulations! Keep ignoring the truth why? You see audits of public records. Where are the audits of the private records and encumberances, entitlements, restrictiosn due-on-sale and acceleration and facts ‘SERVICER’ and ‘TRUSTEE” get to use cash of every real estate receivable for their personal unjust enrichment ‘not the certificateholders e.g. pension fund trust!’

    Through repurchase of NOTE from INVESTOR:
    Deutseche Bank Trust Co ISSUER:SELLER has accountability for MISREPRESENTATIONS. Hello anyone home? Thats the REMIC and e.g. Pension Fund Trust.

    Decision 2 by Foreclosure Fraud http : // http://www.scribd.com/doc/95478548/Decision-2

    VIRTUAL TRANSFERABLE RECORD
    MERS r JEMS r CTSLINK r EDGAR On-LINE r FIS r JPEX r, …
    govermental approved monopolized PROCESS, MARKS, GOODS, SERVICES COMMERCE INTERSTATE, e.g. International Class 036

    Negotiable Instrument ‘Insurance Endorsement issued by First American Title Insurance Co, exchanged Sales Contract for DEED in your name’ and if you stop advancing cash to Anybank NA SERVICER -Servicer as CREDITOR allows REMIC: ISSUER AS SELLER PER PROSPECTUS REPURCHASE OR TRUSTEE REPURCHASE AND IF THE FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARY ‘ACCOMODATOR’S ‘SERVICER’ FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO -ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE IS AN INSURANCE ENDORSEMENT PRODUCT, TRANSFERS ‘VIRTUAL TRANSFERABLE RECORD’ ROBOSIGNING PURPOSE -HOLDER OF TITLE AGENT GOES INTO COURT AND GETS CLERK OF COURT TO STAMP ‘CREDITOR DOCUMENT WITH LIBER FOLIO TO PROCESS FORECLOSURE’ AND THAT MEANS? YOU’VE GOT A LOT OF READING TO DO

    VISUAL ONE PAGE FLOWCHART OF
    REPURCHASE OF A NOTE BY CORRESPONDENTS’ BUSINESS SETTLEMENT AGENT (LOCAL) TAKE DEFAULT TO COURT & CLERK OF COURT STAMPS ‘OK GO FOR IT’ TAKE UNFAIR SEIZURE OF COLLATERAL SECURITY INTERESTS HELD BY CORRESPONDENT’S BUSINESS AGENT. THE ANSWER IS RIGHT HERE IN THIS CHART FIRST COLUMN! ‘SECURITY INTRUMENT RETURNED TO ORIGINATOR/AGENT

    http : // http://www.scribd.com/doc/95010424/MERS-CORRESPONDENTS-BUSINESS-INSURANCE-INTERMEDIARIES-JEMS-BROKDER-DEALER-ASSET-MANAGERS-SECONDARY-MARKET-JPEX-OREXCO-Virtual-Exchange-Agen

    NEXT READ THE SECURITY & CREDIT AGREEMENT RECORDED IN FEDERAL REGISTER WHICH ALLOWS BROKERS-DEALERS & ASSET MANAGERS SECONDARY MARKET EXCHANGE, TRANSFERS WHILE YOU SUCK WIND.

    http : //www.scribd.com/doc/93538677/MORTGAGE-ELECTRONIC-REGISTRATION-SYSTEMS-AS-BORROWER-GOVERNMENTAL-APPROVED-MONOPOLIZED-ASSIGNMENT-ALL-SECURITY-INSTERSTS-TO-Nations-Bank-Assignmen

  29. JenninGA,

    FHLT 2005-E

    Fremont Home Loan Trust 2005-E

    Edit Company Info
    175 N Riverview Drive
    Anaheim, CA 92808-1225 map
    About Fremont Home Loan Trust 2005-E
    Website:Information not found | Phone:(714) 283-6500 | Is this your company? Claim This Profile Business Categories

    Trust Service in Anaheim, CATrusts, NecTrust, Fiduciary, and Custody Activities
    Fremont Home Loan Trust 2005-E in Anaheim, CA is a private company categorized under Trust Service. Our records show it was established in and incorporated in California. Register for free to see additional information such as annual revenue and employment figures.

    Products or Services: Real Estate Investment Trust Company, Real Estate Trust Company.

  30. @ carie

    I saw you had posted elsewhere about Maiden Lane – I just don’t get what Maiden Lane is or how it relates – could you explain it a bit – (Maiden Lane for dummies is what I need I guess). :)
    I just searched a Maiden Lane excel sheet and see cuspid numbers that are close to what I am looking for – but not a perfect match – what does this mean? EX I saw cuspid number for FHLT 2005-A, FHLT 2005-B but not FHLT 2005-E and I have no clue what Maiden Lane really means…

    Thanks

  31. @ TNharry

    I know the CUSIP number for the trust that my mortgage servicer claims is the beneficiary of my loan.
    I know Freddie Mac bought this trust – it was included in a GSE certificate they bought on 12/20/2005.

    (This info was included in a complaint filed for Freddie v. credit suisse)

    When I go to the Freddie site and enter the cusip number – it does not appear under mortgage securities but directs me to use the debt securities search instead. When I enter the cuspid number in the debt securities search it says “cusip details information will be available when this issue settles”.

    I don’t understand the difference on the Freddie site between “mortgage securities cusip” verses “debt securities cusip” and I don’t understand how any of this relates to a trust that my mortgage servicer claims is the beneficiary of my loan – am I chasing my tail here or is this something I should study???

    Please explain if you have the time – thanks!!!

  32. @tnharry

    Please watch (especially near the end) and comment:

  33. Prosecutor in Swiss bank cases resigns:
    Lynnley Browning

    Reuters

    10:42 a.m. EDT, May 31, 2012

    (Reuters) – A top prosecutor responsible for a crackdown on Swiss banks and sellers of corporate tax shelters has resigned from the Justice Department, a source familiar with the matter said on Thursday.

    Kevin Downing, 46, who has led agency criminal probes of the Swiss banking industry, and earlier of banks and accounting firms, is leaving to join a law firm, the source said.

    The name of the law firm could not be immediately determined.

    His departure comes amid intense scrutiny of Swiss banks by the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service.

    Eleven banks, including Credit Suisse AG, are under criminal investigation. Wegelin & Co, Switzerland’s oldest private bank, was indicted in February.

    Dozens of Swiss private bankers and their American clients have been indicted in recent years.

    http://www.dailypress.com/news/nationworld/sns-rt-us-bc-swiss-downingbre84u0sh-20120531,0,4143656.story

    “Dozens of Swiss private bankers and their American clients have been indicted in recent years.” Who? Who? We want names!!! Was Romney one of them? And where is the “trickle down”? Where is the money? Can we have it back?

  34. @Jane,

    I’m not sure I understand… You’re discussing standing while this is about venue. Actually, I may very well be that KY is more favorable than Fed court would for those people. The same way that banks use every trick in the book to get they way, so should homeowners filing suit. Or defending suit.

    Anyway, what I love about this story is that they used the exact same case as MERS, to obtain the reverse result. Which tends to show that it does cut both ways. The key is to do the necessary research. And not to scare off.

  35. MERS defined in page 10 of this petition: http://kareemsalessi.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/2-4-12-salessi-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-with-the-supreme-court-with-live-hyperlinks.pdf
    similar to what the above case described “ONLY A DATABASE”:
    “As an example, MERS, which is only a computer database (i.e. a collection of files), was in fact engineered as the nationwide application of robo-signing to the creation, and assignment, of mortgage loans created by computer-based forgeries; making the forgeries untraceable to public records; and to facilitate the colossal number of staged foreclosures which we have encountered since 2008. MERS modus operandi motive was to prevent any public-records documentations relating to mortgages, in order to pledge each mortgage to countless mortgage pools, resulting in the creation of unlimited counterfeit computer-money in the form of derivatives.
    The Federal Reserve System has been a similar colossal computer-money counterfeit operation (AOB 7), as proved by Salessi in 2004, and as confessed by its chairman, Mr. Bernanke.
    One of lenders’ messages to homeowners is that since people have negative equities in their homes, they no longer own them, and thus they must abandon them, never mind that most lenders can’t produce any originally recorded proofs that they have any rights to claim those properties (AOB 6-10);(ARB 1-5).
    These negative equities were engineered by the lending industry to plunder the bulk of the American real estate, under the disguise of foreclosures, and to destroy its economy and society as discovered by Salessi in 2002/3, and disclosed in his Orange Case #04CC11080, unveiling in detail the mechanics of the modern American Credit Counterfeit Industry (ACCI), falsely named “lending industry”. “

  36. Someone is asleep at the switch here. The Note is to america’s Wholesale in NYC. The forecloser is “Countrywide” out of California. Ameerica’s Wholesale is not even a MERS member. Countrywide wants to use its MERS membership to go sign for another entity’s ownership of a note? No way, Jose. Defense counsel is missing the switch marker signal.

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 3,361 other followers

%d bloggers like this: