Courts Tripping Over Themselves Ignoring the Obvious

If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. Customer service for the livinglies store with workbooks, services and analysis remains the same at 520-405-1688. The people who answer the phone are NOT attorneys and NOT permitted to provide any legal advice, but they can guide you toward some of our products and services.
The selection of an attorney is an important decision  and should only be made after you have interviewed licensed attorneys familiar with investment banking, securities, property law, consumer law, mortgages, foreclosures, and collection procedures. This site is dedicated to providing those services directly or indirectly through attorneys seeking guidance or assistance in representing consumers and homeowners. We are available to any lawyer seeking assistance anywhere in the country, U.S. possessions and territories. Neil Garfield is a licensed member of the Florida Bar and is qualified to appear as an expert witness or litigator in in several states including the district of Columbia. The information on this blog is general information and should NEVER be considered to be advice on one specific case. Consultation with a licensed attorney is required in this highly complex field.

At the risk of lecturing judges on the law allow me to point out that the transfer of an apparently “negotiable instrument” is not a transaction that can be interpreted or enforced under the Uniform Commercial Code unless it is accompanied by payment or exchange of value, which is to say that there must be money involved. A loan that was originated without any money from the payee under the note or the secured party under the mortgage is not to be interpreted by reference to the Uniform Commercial Code because of the lack of consideration.

That leaves the pooling and servicing agreement. Employing and servicing agreement specifies the precise manner in which loans can be transferred into the asset pool and one of the things that is not allowed is an endorsement in blank. This provides no protection to the investors which is why the provisions in the pooling and servicing agreement require that the endorsement be in recordable form and in order to the benefit of the investors or the asset pool.

The problem is that the judges are searching for a way to rule in favor of the banks instead of searching for a way to simply rule on the admissibility and credibility of evidence.  It often happens that the attorney for the borrower argues that the Uniform Commercial Code does not allow recipients of a transfer of loan documents,  which then leaves the court to say that the transfer occurred pursuant to the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement. Or some courts seeing that the transfer was not performed in accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement applied the Uniform Commercial Code even though there is a material dispute of fact as to whether or not any consideration was involved in the transfer of the loan.

If the loan was transferred into the pool pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement then why were the other terms of the pooling and servicing agreement ignored? I have yet to see any pooling and servicing agreement that provided for an endorsement in blank. Such a thing could not possibly exist since the investors thought that they were buying mortgage-backed securities. The pooling and servicing agreement clearly specifies the method of transfer and clearly does not include an endorsement in blank as an approved method.

The object of the investors was to take ownership of the loans by way of the mortgage-backed securities and distribute the risk and income proportionately to their investments. What the banks did was instead of putting the investors first and inserting the name of the asset pool on the loan origination documents or the assignment executed in the manner provided by the pooling and servicing agreement, they used an exotic and completely unnecessary chain of title for what was essentially a very simple transaction. By having the loan originated by the nominee of a nominee acting under power of attorney they created the illusion that the “holder” of the paper was presumptively the creditor. This is the exact opposite of what the pooling and servicing agreement required; had it been known that they were going to operate this way they never would have received their AAA rating, their insurance, or any credit default swaps. It is clear that they inserted themselves or their nominees as the apparent owner of the debt even know the nominee did not make the loan. It is equally apparent that they inserted themselves or their nominee as the apparent owner of the debt even though they paid nothing for the assignment or transfer of the loan.

If the investment banks had intended to operate properly and legally they would have had no need for any nominees much less the parallel title tracking systems including MERS  and all the other entities that pretend to have business interests even know they were so thinly capitalized and covered by layers of entities whose corporate veils need to be pierced. They would simply have placed the name of the asset pool on the mortgage and note making reference to an actual transaction involving actual money that changed hands between the lender and the borrower.

These nominee entities were planned far in advance as “bankruptcy remote” vehicles through which the bankers could channel nonexistent transactions. By creating the illusion that they were the owners of the debt it appeared as though the note and mortgage were valid. But they could never have been the owners of the debt since it was the investors who actually funded the mortgage. No document exists anywhere in which the investors or the asset pool assigned the ownership rights to the loans to the investment banks or any of their affiliates or nominees.

The courts are not clogged because of the volume of litigation. The volume of litigation is bottlenecked in the courts because the courts refused to accept at face value the pleadings and assertions of both parties and because the courts refused to require both parties to prove their claims. For those that assert their claim as a creditor they need only provide proof of payment and proof of loss, which is to say that they have not resold the  loans or mortgage backed securities.

Instead, the banks insist on arguing for the presumption that a bona fide transaction took place for value in which money exchanged hands rather than being required to prove that assertion by simply producing a canceled check or wire transfer receipt.  If you were the bank and you had proof of your payment and proof of your loss why wouldn’t you end the litigation in the first couple of months rather than let it stretch out for years? It is clear that the banks need judges to accept the presumption because the banks don’t have the actual proof.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/04/foreclosure-review-hearings-show-its-time-to-burn-down-the-occ.html

About these ads

52 Responses

  1. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, Eviction, foreclosure, GARFIELD GWALTNEY KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage Tagged: bias, courts, for value received, foreclosure, momney exchanging hands, nominees MERS, pooling and servcing agreement, presumption Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  2. Neil,

    I am confused on this issue, since I swore that I read that Ginnie Mae required an endorsement in blank on all of their FHA loans and with NO date.  I was assuming so that GM could keep transferring the notes as needed.  Can you give me any clarification?  Thank you so much for everything you do to keep us all informed and fighting in court for the sake of each other.

    Also I have called the number numerous times and left messages for an attorney in Florida over the last 3 months and no one has returned my call.  I would love to be able to talk to someone.  Thank you.

    Sherrie L. Hampton-Muhamed, RN,CRRN,CCM Case Management & Rehabilitation Services, Inc Phone:  404-786-6291 Fax: 770-978-0207

  3. louise, thank you. I understand what is going on, maybe not to the fullest extent,no. I understand the many processes that are used to manipulate the ‘system’, how they are done and why. Like what happened in your case, it’s clear they should not have won. Like in Neils post the other day, he says something to the extent of asking the judge if he is going to rule on law and fact, or play party to The bank. Personally, I think that would really piss a judge off, but its how it is. That is what I am trying to do, I have everything (I think) I need, I just do not know if I am presenting it correctly. Per your case and many others, I think perhaps whatever I do may just not matter much if I have a judge that plays blind or simply does not care.

  4. @justme: Please get over the people trying to get a free house. That is bankster BS. You have a long way to go to study what is going on here. In my own case, they brought a FC lawsuit against me but did not file the assignment until 6 months after the lawsuit. That is lack of standing. The case was dismissed WITHOUT prejudice. That means they can file another lawsuit, which they did and claimed the trust owned the note and mortgage/loan which is also BS, but the court bought it.

  5. @John Gault: If Buffet is buying pigs in a poke, that really starts to make you wonder. Buffet does not buy pigs in a poke. My crystal ball says that the securitization scam is deeply entrenched, and even Buffett is in on the scam.

  6. Is there anyone in these forums that would mind giving me a few pointers? I just looked up my PIN in the county Deeds records and found a satisfaction of Mortgage from 2012 on MY property. We purchased our home YEARS before then and have the warranty deed in our names ONLY no easements etc. No Lender on it.I called the ppl that did our closing and all they have is a copy of the title policy.It was a challenge trying to tell them the servicer would not take our payments:P I called The actual issuer of the policy, they have no record of any property, s.s #’s, names etc. on our home,loan nadda. Isn’t that clouded title, …among the umpteen other things I have (in below previous posts) clouded title….no foreclosure? I don’t need much, just I guess how to bring it to court…Do I wait until trial,pre trial? Can I keep all my ‘juicy’ evidence until then or do I have to file it? Thats about it, I would kick myself if I lost because I did not file something I should of. I had a paid consultation and it was useless. He said “No assignment of title, no foreclosure.Period” …”But – you (I) are still in default, so they can foreclose”. I cannot find ANY state blogs or anything for this and it seems most are all ppl trying to get a ticket to a free house.That would be great,sure, but I dont want to wait 2 years to get this figured out, In or out and be be done with it.I dont know when the judge will actually decided to step in, its been all back and fourth filing as of now.

  7. kind words, louise. thanks. hope the case is useful. I’m not feeling very scholarly. I can’t do any more as to, for instance, buffet’s new company buying up the loan portfolio from (was it?) Ally, gmac, and down the chain of corp ownership) than to ask just what was it that buffet purchased out of the bk for something like 3 billion (and free of all “liens” – indentures?, I might add). If Ally, gmac, and the related companies truly securitized their loans, how is it they had a monster loan portfolio for Buffet to buy (for pennies on the dollar)? I think of that when I come accross NS because NS was awarded the servicing on that portfolio by the bk court for around 2.5 billion. As to the pennies on the dollar from Buffet, which may have been an assumption of mine (you know I forget these things), if the servicing were worth paying 2.5 billion for, surely the value of the portfolio exceeded 3 billion by far. But that’s distractin: What the heck portfolio was available for the bk court to approve a sale of? Can I really be the only one whose eyebrows this raises? If anyone has any answers, I’d sure like to hear them.

  8. John, you are a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you. I may be suing my servicer again. It has only been four lawsuits so far, why not another one.

  9. And really, there IS no security interest. I am so stuck on seeing so many ppl with flat proof and hearing they were shot down I want all my stones in one bag with killer backing up.And I have lots, just need to apply it right I guess. And prey the Judge decides on Law and evidence, not the big bank because its the big bank.

  10. Why would they pull (apparently my 2 loans?) from Ginnie? They did that back after I was late a bit but still paying. I literally have oodles of flat no-no’s,violations,..playing the waiting for the judge game I guess. I’m new to this stuff. It started up a few months back and needless to say I’m pretty sure I have read & learned more since then that all my years in school. Walking law book ;/

  11. “Holder in their capacity as Issuer”……Where is the Security the Issuer created? If they don’t have that, the only capacity they have is the capacity go to prison because they are crooks.

  12. louise, this was about NS’s refusal to honor aurora’s “modification”.
    NationStar bought aurora’s servicing portfolio last year.

  13. what would it mean when a lender writes you they placed a loan in a Ginnie Mae, they refer to themselves as “Holder in their capacity as issuer” to GNMA MBS.
    I call Ginnie and they say (TWO w/ same lender,FHA & pool#) loans were liquidated a few months ago…..what do I make of that?
    anyone?

  14. johngault, I think you were the person who posted Hernandez v. Nationstar. Can you post again? Thanks, I will have to sue the SOB’s again. nsavenkat@gmail.com

  15. To the person who posted Hernandez v. Nationstar. I need the link to that case. It is unbelievable: I sent in a complaint to the OCC, Atty generals of my state and federal, my insurance company, the first servicer and the the 2nd servicer, and the CPFB sent me a letter back that said since I was never given a HAMP loan mod, I have to apply for another. I have a confidential settlement agreement with the first bank, with a modification of my loan. I will need to sue again. Four and one half years and four lawsuits later, I got a loan mod with a settlement agreement. Now, we are going into another round of lawsuits.

  16. For every soul who tries to do the right thing, there are millions who don’t know the truth. One clear example of too many people believing lies were the people in that Boston church memorial service today. When Obama spoke, they should have all walked out. He lies and deceives constantly.

  17. True, true. Unless the people in MASS enormous amounts stand against government and ‘them’ literally stand up and say “sorry pal, were sick of your shit” – nothing will happen. Government, banks, everything…it ONLY works because people listen to what they tell us to do. Plain and simple. If a mass amount of the population just stopped (granted everything would crumble and we could go back to living like humans and off the land) and didn’t pay, didn’t do nadda..’they’ are minute compared to the general public.Thousands and thousands of do-good`ers fight every day for whats right and it barely does squash

  18. Sorry just me….I will never come to terms with evil. These are not people doing this to all of us, these are demons from hell. I for one, recognize this evil and I reject this evil and all of its evil works.

  19. The lying and the covering up for the destruction of our Security and who these criminals are has to stop. It is hard to see the good with all of the suffering going on. This suffering is being caused by ongoing lies & coverups of the intended destruction of our Security. The suffering is only going to get worse for everyone until the truth is told to everyone…..there are no Securities……dangerous foreign nationals did this because they want to own & control everyone & everything by making everyone believe their lies. This is evil.

  20. I have come to terms with the disappointment of all the crap in the world. People will be who they are, that is just how it is, will be and always been. Focus on the good. The ruin and waste in this world is much to great a thing, and much too capable of destroying those who combat it.

  21. What if those canceled checks magically appear and are fabricated – how might one prove they are phony? In my case the would be receiving bank went b/k for wire fraud, bad loans etc. If checks, wire transfers can be produced, fake or not, what is the argument if the judge tosses it and decides the lender still is in possession of the (fake) Note?

  22. Why is Obama continuing the coverup for these demons? That is the question I have. IMHO, it is about a hell of a lot more than the money for these liars and deceivers. This is an evil agenda. Look around at what they have allowed to happen to millions of souls. It is a disgrace. Open Secrets …? There is no such thing.

    These people running this place have lost their humanity, they have hard hearts for whatever reason, they have lost their souls. These are not the people who should be running this country. One lie told by someone entrusted with the peace and security of a nation and its souls is one lie to many.

    Showing up to grieve with the victims families is an open display of failure to do your job. It is disgraceful. These politicians have openly and secretly failed to govern and that is unacceptable. None of these horrors should be happening. This is all happening because there is never any accountability for harm done & harm intended by what amounts to be a few greedy, licentious, lousy rotten criminally negligent felons.

    These politicians, media and others look like incompasionate thugs who are covering up an evil agenda.

    I see this deluge of rain that has swept the nation as tears from heaven. This nations leadership is a disgrace.

  23. Let understand that Ginnie Mae says that the loan must be repurchase by the issuers, which it is suggesting that their was some type of money transfer to them in order for the loans to be placed into the pools. We know for a fact that Ginnie Mae does not purchase the loan debt and cannot buy or sell.

    You cannot have a Trust change the term of the contracts (Notes) and have a entity such as a Trust act as a lender and modify loans. Who does a entity that cannot perform as a lender and has no financial interest in the debt, perform an action that changes the working of the contract.

    Fact Ginnie Mae does not purchase loans, so there cannot be a purchase back of something that was never sold. Ginnie Mae does not extend monies in obtaining the blank Notes and like a car title that not endorsed to the new owner through sell or gift, one cannot obtain a title because proper endorsement is not conducted on the car title as on the home mortgage Note.

    Ginnie Mae can own the blank Notes but as it did not purchase the debt it cannot call due a debt. If a debt is called due, the amount is zero and matter solved because a Note is ONLY a Note because it hold a debt, and if there is no debt a Note actual does not exist!

    People have said that Notes were burned, and if that was the case he who is claiming debt has nothing unless they can prove the transfer of funds ie. cancel check or wire transfer or electronic transfer from account to account. However Ginnie Mae already stated that it does not buy or sell home mortgage loans and we know that they are in possession of the blank Notes they have demanded in order for the lenders/issuers relinquish the blank Notes plus sign HUD11711A.

    As I have had the VP of Ginnie Mae MBS section write me about this subject, and as his explanation did not explain how Ginnie was claiming debt ownership and he only stated that the lender were in rightful possession of the Note. What rightful possession of the Note? So in the case of WaMu and Wells Fargo as the servicer why would the servicer acting as custodian be in possession of the blank Notes in the first place.

    Let take Countrywide, Chase, BOA, Citi and Wells who as the originators or purchaser of loans they placed into Ginnie’s pool but now are acting as the custodian of records for Ginnie, is really to to hide the fact of a transfer of the blank Notes. They are wanting it both way and have had it, but with the crisis its put a wide range of victims instead of a few, and that cross section has lead to common sense question and not the answer from a small group of Real Estate Attorneys that mostly in the past worked for the banks interest and those who did not work for the banks had a small customer base that never experience this type of actions.

    When you fight there argument it take you down a road of argument you trying to combat that make the judge think that the normal process is at work and that there are valid contracts when in fact the contract are invalidated because the debt separates from the Note making the contract invalid because there no debt. Once that blank Note is suppose to be in the possession of Ginnie through their physical possession or a custodian, it a done deal and the contract is no longer.

    MERS does not have an agreement with Ginnie Mae as Ginnie as a lender so whatever arrangement it has with lenders does not apply because Ginnie Mae does not have the ability to be in that role. Where are the cancel checks?

  24. It has become the exception rather than the rule and an almost monumental task for people to tell the truth in this country anymore. That is unacceptable. Lies that are intended to hurt and coverup for the wrongdoings of anyone should be tolerated by no one.

  25. There is no psa either. There is nothing, they are just stealing and pillaging what they can. #1…The coverup has to stop. These are serious crimes. Collecting payments and property they are not owed just empowers them and gives them more control. We do not want these criminals in control of anything.

    I was watching the local news last night. A woman was crying over the gun bill not getting done because her child was killed by gun violence. The problem with background checks is, criminals don’t get their guns legally. Gang bangers don’t get them.

    This country is a mess because of the immoral actions of the banksters, the politicians and the media, that is why we are all here in this dangerous place. The last thing we need is to take away anymore of our legal rights to defend our Life, Liberty & Property. We have psychopaths running around armed to the teeth. The truth about evaluating someones mental health is that can change on a moments notice with the horrible people who are running around this place openly & secretly terrorizing souls. With lawlessness like this being allowed by lawless people who have hijacked this place, we need all the self protection we can get and all the strength we can muster to fight this evil. I look at it like this, Obama called these felons reckless and not necessarily criminal and we know that’s not true. As long as these felons are not held accountable for their crimes, and are allowed to conduct business as usual as if nothing ever happened, no one is safe.

    Oh well, life goes on the damage is done is an inhuman belief. One soul harmed or lost because of the wrongdoings of another is unacceptable. There can be no moving forward until the proper corrections are made and these criminals are held to account for what they have done to all of us and I don’t care who they are.

  26. Some lenders are taking advantage of MERS itself. Nifty, If what I think is happining, actually is.Borrows let alone (most/some) Judges don’t know loan docs/assignment need to be assigned back to the lender… So when MERS was stated as mortgagee etc..f/c is brought in Lenders name – Kicker is – it STILL IS in their name.How’d that happen? They SAID mers was assigned the loan, they are the mortgagee..nominee..IN RECORD…yaghta yaghta yaghta.. But there are NO assignments TO mers, NO assignments to anyone (except for maybe the Lender after their little loan finder did his job).Some lenders never did have ANY involvement with MERS in the first place. Its been clearer than day to the average Joe mers is “just a record tracker” …well you sure as shit don’t need anything tracked when the lender stashed the instruments (or destroyed them…pulled some from County and adobe/photo toyed with them to be ‘originals’) and lookie here! The lender is the only person who has ever been in possession! Funny, though…the loan is no doubt in that loan pool over there…and was with with harry,dick,and joe over there…And MERS used as a tracker, you know, they were taking care of that…little did MERS know they were being used as a cover up. It’s brilliant is it not? Courts do not want to see your PSA’s, your 700 pages of thissss and of thaaattt,…a bit more proof over here, an iron clad ‘something’ in that other stack of papers under the previous stack.I am exaggerating here, yessum, as far as I can see unless you are titillating a judge’s fancy and spiking his day with something interesting that really challenges law,and just may prove good….you may have something. But otherwise, keep it plain & simple,No?. And some sneeky lenders did just that. Used this ‘complicating MERS thing’ to hide the complication which (some) say they can do perfectly legally, and MERS didn’t even know. Their own little scheme to save $$ worked, against them in this case.No one watched where all the documents went in the height of this mess, and no one cared.Money was Money and it was flying all over.Another goofy ‘theory” of mine,but more or less an observation.

  27. The bank attorney told me there is no discovery, there is no trust or trustee. In other words, there is no legal contract, just a fictitious payee, a third party debt collector who is an Imposter to the mortgage and was never a party to the original contract because the Issuer destroyed the contract. The Issuer is in fact trying to hide they destroyed the contract & are hiding behind their own debt collection agents and agencies. That is intent to deceive.

  28. Ten dollars and valuable consideration is on the warranty deed. The price we paid for the property is on the tax stamp on the warranty deed.

  29. The party to be licensed for modification is prob the trustee ( secn one), not the investors, which I errantly said. A trustee of a trust could prob out-source mods, but I’m thinking only to an agent because again, the statute of frauds is implicated since real property is involved. But even if a secn trustee could out-source to the man in the moon and not an agent, I doubt he has such authority. Well, actually, the right to modify by the servicer is probably found somewhere – psa? – but that doesn’t change the licensing requirement imo. Nor does it change other contractual considerations between the scvr and other 3rd parties – like FNMA whom I believe says the loans must be repurchased to modify. That may not have historically been FNMA’s
    position on mods (don’t know), but fairly certain it’s the policy now.
    what a mess, and on that note, can judges really believe the economy is at risk if borrowers prevail? Or our moral code? Judges have to be made, somehow, to understand who is the villian here, who has really trashed our economy and lives. What the heck economic or moral
    imperative can they actually think is being served by a stance which is a denial (ignorance?) of the facts? Don’t answer, but how many of us couldn’t make payments because we got the worst bs teaser-rate loans and or lost income and assets as a result of that gang’s m.o./ global threatening acts? How many billions was that that were doled out for modifications that aren’t happening, and that was after the banksters were bailed out, long enough later so that even if relief did come (gag), we were so far down we needed a ladder to see over the curb? Some of us messed up – there’s no doubt, but there’s also NO doubt who caused this whole stinking dea. As to those of us who messed up, lenders are the ones who are in charge of making sure we can repay stinking loans and that’s a fac (not to mention those *&*^%!%! “appraisals”. One more – the false economy they incited by
    their actions. Do judges not get how much damage has been done and who are the vicitms here? Not just victims, actually. We were prey.

  30. Some people may blow off my argument about why consideration is being recited in the assgts because, if I remember correctly, consideration (something like “Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration”) may have been recited in the “old” assgts, pre – Mers, which did not recite that the note was also transferred therein. Regardless of the hurdle if that’s true, I wouldn’t hesitate to make the argument and let the banksters explain why, since the note was allegedly already bought and sold (i.e., the debt), consideration is being recited in the assignment of its collateral. And btw, when assgts contain such a recitation of consideration, are we to take it that MERS is getting the consideration? After all, if the consideration is for the collateral instrument (not the note) and MERS is the ben, isn’t what’s being said that MERS is receiving 10 dollars and other good and valuable consideration? It doesn’t say MERS as nominee for anyone, so I take it it says MERS is being paid. Why should MERS be paid for an assignment? I defy anyone anywhere to show me where one dime passed hands between MERS and anyone else for the assignment of a collateral instrument. They want to pretend MERS is a (nominal) ben (when not an agent), and to bolster lan illogical appearance and legitimacy of an assgt of the collateral instrument from MERS (if it’s not the art 9 sale and assignment of the note it looks like to me),
    they recite consideration. And like I said, I defy anyone anywhere to show me one dime changing hands for the assignment (not the preparation by some servicer employee or anyone else, because that’s not what it says, i.e., “preparation” – it says consideration for the assgt itself,) of a collateral instrument. The devil IS in the details, and one of these days, someone ahead of me is going to hit them right in the ugly mug but good with their own bull.

  31. Oops….the banksters lost possession of the notes and destroyed the legal contracts the day they defaulted on the legal contracts & converted our securities into all kinds of different fraudulent security investments & passed the notes & mortgages to another entity to do it again…& again…& again…

  32. NG, the banksters urge courts to rule that the psa doesn’t mean a thing because the banksters want to and do rely on art 3 poss of a bearer note. We have to make courts care (like it or not) about the consideration you pointed out, if only (starting with ) that of the trusts. Take away the mystique and treat and refer to a trust as any other (alleged) note buyer? Take a blank endorsement. I’ve tried my lay person best to argue that at least in fed juris, injury is a requirement to invoke that juris To me, that means having poss of a bearer note is just not good enough. One has no injury if one has no skin in the game. If it’s a presumption that one in poss of note has paid
    consideration and is entitled to enforce its alleged balance, then avenues to defeat that presumption are in order. I’m pretty sure the answers are in the UCC. What amt is the alleged possessor entitled to enforce? I’m fairly sure of one thing from the UCC – a holder is only entitled to be free of many defenses to the note to the extent of the payment for the note. Whaat has that got to do with the alleged
    balance tendered by the servicer? How does that balance tell us what amt is entitled to be enforced either at all or as a hidc? (and that’s one of the reasons i’m keen on the more definitive statement; are you claiming as a holder or a hidc?) And iIf and since courts throw out trust law and the PSA, one can still stand on the fact that if a trust or ANYone took the note (here possession, I guess) after default, that trust or ANYone (remember just treating a trust as any old alleged transferee) is not a hidc and subject to all available defenses and our need to know clearance: how much and when?
    And I still say, also, that the “MERS” assignment including the note is being used as an article 9 (?) sale and assignment of the note. When a note has been transferred, no additional funds are necessary to
    assign the collateral instrument, but all the assignments recite consideration. I’m a little vexed that you’ve ignored this, and a “this”
    which is either a fraudulent recording (because MERS can’t assign the note) and or is prima facie evidence the note is just now being assigned to the trust (or anyone).
    So let’s take this as fact – the assgt is prima facie evid that the note is just now being assigned to a closed trust. What’s the argument we can make that courts can’t avoid or try to nix?

  33. Assuming that using (IF so) the investors’ money to directly fund loans doesn’t have a criminal name (conversion?), or actually even if it does, the investors could not be called the lender(s) on the notes and dot IF for no other reasons than they weren’t licensed to make loans. Is that not true? They (investors) aren’t licensed to modify loans, either. I suppose one may modify a loan one owns but I’d bet that if one owns or engages in modification of more than, say, four a year, one must be licensed. If I’m right about the licensing req for mod, does it “count” if one’s agent is performing the mods and is licensed? As far as I know, tho, a servicer is not per se the agent of a note owner, plus servicers are not necessarily nor probably licensed as lenders. And I still say “modification” requires disclosures, most specifically those found on a Reg Z Truth in Lending form even if it were a legit deal.

  34. thanks for that, gault.

  35. I am also a victim of Bank of America and our UN-justice system. I submitted more than 100 pages of exhibits which included proof that I was induced to default, threatened by Bank of America to pay money I did not owe, lost loan mod documents even though I had proof that I submitted everything, documents confirming obstruction of justice by Bank of America during an investigation of my loan conducted by the OCC and the AG of Florida at the time (not Bondi), embezzling money from my escrow, my forged endorsed Note, AOM transfer from TB&W to BAC/Countrywide which included forged signatures by robo-signer Malik Basurto and a forensic audit conducted on my loan as well. These are just some of the many documents I submitted with my pleadings. However, the judge decided to grant BofA summary judgement a mere 2 weeks before our trial was to start even with all this evidence. We had already spent a lot of time preparing for trial and the judge suddenly dismisses our case. The judge apparantly ignored my evidence and only went by what BofA’s judges would bring up in their Motions to Dismiss. The judge erroneously states that even though our pleading were plausible, it would not survive summary judgement. Bank of America’s attorneys at Akerman Senterfitt submitted documents that would only further confirm the damages that we received. Now our case is in appeals. You can follow our appeal at the 11 circuit court of appeals, case number 12-15884. Our federal case number was 6:2010cv01933, Florida Middle District Court.

  36. I call it PT FUNDING…..WE THE PEOPLES TRUST FUND…AKA….the U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT.

    The local media reporting severe weather in Illinois today…I call it Gods anger.

  37. usedkarguy the day of my closing I pick up the closing package and the funding check from the bank, now I knew at some point in the near future it was going to be sold to WaMu because that who it was locked with. Now as we were a bank, we conducted correspondent lending with a bunch of banks.

    The bank was a $1 billion asset bank and my loan was only $225,000 that within a couple weeks tops they were getting the funding money back plus the yield paid by WaMu.

    Banks have some monies on hand and they are not without that initial investment long as long as the is what it was locked for then the selling bank is getting monies back and with interest and no headache of servicing the loan.

    Don’t get wrap up in if the banks had the monies in the first place, but I find it hard to believe that a bank could not find monies to fund their loans with the very short turn around time the payoff. Who for got $225,000 where in two weeks is turning a profit of $4,000 = $48,000 per yer in profits and that simply one loan a month for 12 months. Who does not have the $225,000?

    As long as the loan got approve by the purchasing bank your good and not stuck with $225,000, 30yrs loan on your books at 4%!

  38. Same foreign espionage as the illegal bailouts, OBAMACARE & the fraudclosures.

  39. If the trust was never set up as UCC 3 & the PSA requires and there is no trustee, the PSA does not exist. The PSA failed and governs nothing.

    The media is reporting suspicious poison letters are being sent to politicians just like after 9/11. IMHO …the suspicious letters and the Boston bombings have the hallmarks of foreign espionage.

  40. “Factual issues inherent in determining issues of agency may preclude summary judgment before discovery into the agency issue has been completed. See Vance v. Barton-Malow Thatcher, Inc., 680
    So. 2d 492, 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

  41. it’s nice knowing all this security law, but try getting a judge to take judicial notice of ANYTHING, i.e. the PSA, when they rule the borrower has no standing to ENFORCE the PSA against the DEPOSITOR/SERVICER.

  42. most PSA’s will set forth the formal, special endorsement that should be used. They all finish up the section with “or a note endorsed in blank” which has been delivered to the Trustee. There has to be delivery and acceptance in order for there to be a transfer. In RE:Kemp v. Countrywide

  43. Charles, did you get a copy of the check that funded the closing? proof of wire and disbursement? from where the closing took place? why not?
    louise, my judge got “a really nice refinance on (his) mortgage from Wells Fargo, and since they sold it to Fannie Mae, there’s no conflict of interest….” That is just one instance. We have our BK judge deciding that the maker can’t contest the alleged “indorsement in blank” on the instrument. Oh yeah? How about a check? Can you contest the endorsement on a check? Oh yes you can…..

  44. I’m looking at the P&S assoc with my loan, CWABS 2007-9 and it says re conveying mortgage loans to the trust, :

    “original mortgage note, endorsed by manual or facsimile signature in blank in the following form: “Pay to the order of _________ without recourse”, with all intervening endorsements that show a complete chain of endorsements from the originator to the Person endorsing the mortgage note (each such endorsement being sufficient to transfer alll right, title and interest of the party so endorsing, as noteholder or assignee thereof, in and to that Mortgage note)

    SO, when you say they don’t allow endorsement in blank, is that somehow different than what this P&S says? I’m confused!

  45. The serpent moves more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God has made.

    As a result, there are imposters running the country. Most Americans don’t even know these imposters are WHO destroyed the Security. They could not own the Security because they are foreign nationals so they overissued investments in our Security. As a result there is no peace or security. These imposters are master counterfeiters.

  46. And the Answer is …. Accept the Recission or get Sued for Fraud! Another one bites the dust…. On to the next case! :)

  47. this lender submitted an ‘original’ copy of the Note…All it has on it is an endorsement stamp to them. Which is great. But The borrowers copy has no such thing.Which one will be accepted as genuine?, who knows.Its a train wreck thinking of how hard so many people have fought,devoted literally months and years to this, have came forward with point blank PROOF …..Maybe that judge is just in a bad mood.Maybe he does not care to hear it. Maybe he is just ignorant of the matter….and gives it no more than a look down the nose and rules in favor of the banks.That easy.

  48. Some thoughts on this here that have been flying all around my head. Right in GNMA guidelines there are several documents(Certification & agreement, release of security interest<HELLO!!??) To be an approved GNMA issuer lenders give up rights to boot.To issue the mortgages/collateral in to pools to be guaranteed they must "relinquish any and all rights to title and interest"…"No mortgage in the referenced pool or loan package is now subject to any security agreement between issuer and creditor, and upon the release (delivery)of securities backed by the pool or loan package, only Ginnie Mae will have any ownership interest in and to the pooled mortgages"…….uurrrmmmmmm……..(I've here a nifty letter from the lender stating that so&so's loan has been placed into a GNMA pool as collateral.boom) If one's mortgage in a Ginnie pool should that not be plain and clear? Ginnie's own website says somewhere in their Q&A page 'they loan the loan, not the lender, but they let the lender 'hold' instruments to enforce them. Here by law you can enforce an instrument if you are the holder, even so if you acquired a note wrongfully.But here we go – these investors do not require an endorsement in blank HOWEVER, Ginnie DOES…."notes with mortgages registered with MERS are to be endorsed in blank by the issuers registering the mortgages on MERS"….notes can't say they were registered to MERS….and issuers must register Ginnie as "Investor"…(MBS Guide 5003 Rev1, Ch.9,3e-effective 8-2011)
    MERS commercial knowledge number 0029 (8.2011)states there cannot be a foreclosure initiated in the name of MERS because it has to assigned back to the servicer or beneficial owner.That can't be the lender anymore, they gave up their rights….Ginnie cannot come w/ fc – they never bought it like they say up and down – they have nothgin do do with that – they only secure them……where does that leave someone….
    Brainstorm # 2;
    The instruments themselves – would not they be invalid when not written under proper instruction they MUST be, and in accordance with the state law? For example the one I am looking at is a Fannie Mae single family uniform Form 3179. It has exceptionally clear instructions as how they are to be constructed, and when,if any, changes or requirements to them are to be made.4165.1 FHA single fam handbook;Section 2 (Mortgage Provisions) 4-6 & 4-7 point out as well, mortgage docs/Fannie/Freddie instruments must follow their certain requirements for different situations.(per state regs) ……….I have seen quite a few that do not follow any sort of confirmation to these 'instructions'. The one I am looking over is similar in context to 'lenders MUST amend the document for principal deferral…borrower will not pay interest on this deferred amount…' The lender wrote that up completely ignorant to this,has interest upon the entire amount modified which actually goes on to say it includes 'all costs incurred by lender' i.e. title exam, attorney, recording fees etc. liable by borrower. Mortgage letter 2000-05 ; "No administrative fees for completing loan mod docs can be passed to mortgagor." ..Maybe its just me,?.. Many of these instruments are not even being made correctly in order to be valid!
    Heh.

  49. Just track down the money. It’s always been the American way.

  50. This is what I been saying since Oct 2010 to the OCC, Federal Reserve Bank, DOJ. FBI, Ginnie Mae and HUD. Simply where is the cancel check, wire, or other electronic receipt.

    I remember talking to MERS VP Bill Hultman back in Aug 2010 about the titling of my loan and the dude started lying about what role Ginnie Mae was assuming. On one hand Ginnie Mae act as if its not making the stance that they are the “holder in due course” until you challenge the issuer lack of possession of the blank Note.

    Ginnie Mae major screw up in this con game was to allow WaMu to have Wells Fargo act as the servicer for 1.3 million government insured loans, with my loan being one of them. Because in the case of WaMu and IndyMac these two are defunct banks and what I been saying is that the “bankruptcy remote” procedure in the blank Notes and the HUD11711A, where one the blank Note immediately transfer ownership of Note when another is in physical possession of the blank Note. Next the HUD11711A is actual not needed but serves to cover up the first part of the scam, where it talk of any and all financial interest is conveyed to Ginnie Mae by the lender.

    WaMu on Jul 31, 2006 entered into a servicing agreement with Wells Fargo to service the 1.3 million but the blank Note were already relinquish to Ginnie Mae with WaMu acting as the custodian of those Notes. However in this circus tent arrangement has the owner of the debt in WaMu who in creating a Ginnie Mae pool, becoming the custodian Ginnie Mae with blurs the line on did they actual take possess. Well once Wells Fargo buys the building where the blank Notes are housed and is acting as servicer and custodian, the black Notes are no longer in the possession of WaMu but in the hand of the alleged agent of Ginnie Mae, in Wells Fargo.

    This is the end of the road on this scam because as I made Wells Fargo verify the documents and challenged their alleged ownership of my Note, they were forced to admit that they were not the “holder in due course” and that it was their opinion that Ginnie Mae was the lien holder, which we know is impossible and Ginnie Mae is not in fact in title in the local land recording office. Wells Fargo closed in their name as owner of the debt.

    I been posting this same thing and writing authority for 2.5yrs. Game over!

  51. Every time you appear before a judge in one of these foreclosure cases, make sure you’ve done your due diligence on this judge and get his financial records, which are now public record. You can fill out forms with the appropriate state agency or state Secretary of State. They will have to detail all of their investments. Also, since they are part of the state judicial pension system, look at the State Treasury Reports under Judicial pensions. They will usually show that securities that are included in the pension, and most often you’ll find such stocks as Wells Fargo, Citibank, Chase, BOA, etc. in the state judicial pension portfolio.

    Finding that in the judge’s pension portfolio is a signal to file a recusal/ disqualificiation motion. Problem with this, is that most, if not all state judges will NOT be able to hear your case because they have an unconstitutional financial interest in the outcome of your case.

  52. The courts are tripping all over themselves trying to find for the banks, the big question is why. Just because… or because the judges are getting something in return. What is that something in return? The court would not even read my summary judgment or my motion to compel. What is that?

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 3,558 other followers

%d bloggers like this: