Why the Delays in Court: Look to the Banks!

The reason the cases cannot be settled or modified is that the loans no longer exist, there is no known owner (past present or future) and nobody has any real authority to settle or modify a loan when they are a complete stranger to the transaction (as stated in the recent San Francisco study). This should not be converted into a burden on the homeowner; the homeowner should be treated as the unintended beneficiary of a bank scam.
GGKW (GARFIELD, GWALTNEY, KELLEY AND WHITE) provides Legal Services across the State of Florida. We also provide litigation support to attorneys in all 50 states. We concentrate our practice on mortgage related issues, litigation and modification (or settlement). We are available to represent homeowners, business owners, and homeowner associations seeking to preserve their interest in the property and seeking damages (monetary payment).  Neil F Garfield is a licensed Florida attorney who provides expert witness and consulting fees all over the country. No board certification is offered by the Florida Bar, so the firm may not claim expertise in mortgage litigation. Mr. Garfield’s status as an “expert” is only as a witness and not as an attorney.
If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our South Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. In Northern Florida and the Panhandle call 850-765-1236. 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 PROVIDE ACTIVE LITIGATION SUPPORT 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.

Yesterday I made the point that the foreclosure proceedings are nearly universally defective because the party initiating the foreclosure does not allege and therefore is not required to prove any financial injury and or any other injury. This leads to countless time-consuming arguments about presumptions and assumptions that could easily be resolved by requiring the “holders” or “lenders” to produce canceled checks, wire transfer receipts etc. to show the extent of their injury, their ownership of the note and open up the issue of receipts and disbursements with third parties — ranging from inspections every other day that cost $95 each to payments received from parties to mitigate the damage of the loss in the value of the collateral, the value of the loan or the loss arising from default.

If you want to test out what I am saying, just go to court at your next hearing and ask for expedited discovery, send a preservation letter first, and then hold the opposing side strictly to the terms of the order setting expedited discovery. What you will find is that the opposing side suddenly starts back-pedaling and for the first time you will see a light in the eye of the judge that tells him that there is something wrong. Why would the defendant who stands to lose money and property at the conclusion of the proceedings and who appears likely to suffer exactly that be the one who is aggressively prosecuting the case? Why is the party seeking relief back pedaling?

The answer is obvious. They are back pedaling because they are abusing the judicial system and abusing the non-judicial system of foreclosures. The banks cannot and will not accept any “expedited” process that would require them to allege and prove the truth of the matters asserted, to wit: (1) ownership (2) principal amount due on the books of the actual creditor and (3) amount of damages due for overpayment on the account by third parties who have agreed to pay down the receivable but waived any right to recover it from the borrower

The entire foreclosure logjam could be eliminated if the foreclosing entity was required to follow the law instead of  judges and legislatures making up rules and laws as they go along, violating the U.S. Constitution as well as the applicable State Constitution. The problem is well known and consistently avoided because nearly none of the foreclosures would pass the threshold test of whether they belong in the foreclosure process or not.

If we stick to first year law school concepts, the entire process becomes clear. The Constitution requires pleading injury in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. And without injury the party is not entitled to judgment no matter how pretty his paperwork appears to be presented.

This is no theory. See Warth v Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975), Bell Atl. Corp. v Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 167 L. Ed 2d 929 (2007). This is not up for discussion. From the U.S. Supreme Courts to the Highest courts in all states to the lower courts of appeal in all 50 states the answer is the same. If you don’t say you have been injured in some way then you cannot invoke the power of the the judicial system.”Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice…” Ashcroft v Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. ed. 868 (2009).

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege “more than labels [e.g. 'holder"] and conclusion, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do…” Bell Atl. Corp. v Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 167 L. Ed 2d 929 (2007).

When I was filing foreclosures for banks and private lenders and homeowner associations, I knew that even if no answer was filed, if I didn’t allege the injury and provide admissible evidence of the loss, I would lose an uncontested Motion for Final Default Judgement. The Judge himself would spot the error and tell me to come back another day.

The simple error that has been repeatedly rubber stamped is that the note can be proffered as evidence of the debt but it is not evidence of the loss. The records from a third party bookkeeping service (i.e., the servicer) are not an acceptable substitute for testimony and foundation from the actual creditor who owns an unpaid account receivable where the defendant is the debtor. The banks have led the Federal, State and local governments into a rabbit hole. “expediting” has come to mean foreclosing as quickly as possible instead of arriving at a just conclusion as quickly as possible.

IF YOU WANT TO SEE FORECLOSURES EXPEDITED, REQUIRE THE BANKS TO PRODUCE THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF PLEADING AND PROVING FINANCIAL INJURY TO THE ACTUAL CREDITOR WHO OWNS AND UNPAID ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE. This cannot be done with the note or the mortgage or even the assignments which are instruments that reference the underlying transaction.

The note is evidence of the debt, not the debt. If I get you to sign a note on the promise that I will loan you money, that deal is not done until I loan you the money (not somebody else). When I sue I must say I loaned you the money and attach the canceled check or signed receipt. A third party producing an assignment from me SHOULD not be any position than I am when I don’t loan you the money. And proving that you received the money you were seeking is not the same as proving that you got it from me. 

FOOLPROOF WAY OF EXPEDITING THE FORECLOSURE CALENDAR: First, for foundation make the banks prove the underlying transactions from origination through all assignments. The foreclosures will all go away with very few exceptions.

NON-JUDICIAL STATES VIOLATING DUE PROCESS IN APPLICATION OF NON-JUDICIAL STATUTES: By analogy the failure to provide the trustee on a deed of trust in a non-judicial state with a clear statement that the beneficiary is the beneficiary and that the beneficiary has been damaged by the default of the borrower — together with a statement of the balance of the receivable account ON THE CREDITOR’S BOOKS (not just the servicer, which can be certainly be used to corroborate the primary evidence proffered by the creditor), the trustee is powerless to act.

And if the borrower contests the balance due or the identity of the beneficiary, the trustee does not have any power to resolve the differences. The trustee is required to file an interpleader action stating that there is a dispute between the parties, that the trustee has no stake in the outcome, and asking for the fees and costs associated with the requirement of filing an interpleader action.

Of course no trustee is doing that because they are “substitute trustees” who achieved that status because the roulette wheel and LPS chose the beneficiary and  trustee for that foreclosure — a service for which they are paid $250 (including preparation of fabricated paperwork to create the illusion of propriety. Why did you think that every non-judicial foreclosure case involves a substitute trustee? It’s obvious, the original trustee would insist on performing due diligence as required by rules and statutes. The new “substituted” trustee is actually the new party claiming (without any right, justification, or excuse) to be the beneficiary and will do everything the newly named beneficiary asks without question or due diligence. It’s like telling your right hand to do what the left hand is asking. In other words, the non-judicial system has completely broken down because judges are failing to do their job — limiting their involvement to calling balls and strikes.

ASKING FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY WILL SHOW THE COURT WHO IS DELAYING THE PROCESS: While it is understandable to assume on the face of things that the party who is being sued to take their home and lose money in a deficiency judgment would want to delay things as much as possible — this is not the case in reality. Even cases where there has been no answer filed have lingered on for years. Why? Because the lawyers and the parties picked by the LPS roulette wheel know they know nothing about he loan and can’t proffer any witness or other evidence of the underlying transaction.

They can only badger the courts and the borrower with arguments  about presumptions and assumptions and why they shouldn’t have to prove the transaction, the balance, the ownership or the mitigating payments received from third parties. Take that cloak from them and they are naked as a jaybird, with no case, no injury, no reason to be in court except to cover up crimes committed at two closing tables: the one with the investor advancing funds and the other with the borrower buying into a fatally defective loan product that does not even state the name of the creditor nor the loan balance correctly.

It is time to expedite these cases. I agree. But that should not be a code for foreclosing despite the requirements of law and ignoring the reality of the transactions. If we are going to expedite, let’s go for it: start with the foreclosing party being required to plead and demonstrate its status as creditor who could be allowed to submit a credit bid at a foreclosure auction, and plead and prove the loss without making assumptions from a fabricated assignment, allonge or endorsement.

Special note to Law Enforcement, regulators and Judges who read this blog: This is not about getting the borrower out from under a legitimate debt. This is about the fact that the banks extinguished the debt at the same moment as creation and went on to make multiple sums of money on top of the “principal due” from the borrower as stated on the note. The failure to grasp the true nature of this transaction is dereliction of duty costing the state billions of dollars in unpaid fees, fines, taxes and damages. 

Yes it is true the borrower got the benefit of the loan. But no, it is not true that they owe that money, unless the account receivable is truly unpaid. It doesn’t matter who paid it or why. It isn’t some trick played by the borrowers. It is a bank trick, identity theft, fraud and PONZI scheme that produced the anomalous result of the borrower owing nothing despite the benefits of the loan. Any other interpretation means that the debt is being paid more than once.

In the end it is all about the actual real account receivable on the records of the alleged creditor. It is either positive or negative. And the documents either match up with the transactions shown on the entries to the account receivable or they don’t match up. The account receivable under generally accepted accounting principles includes all actual depository accounts in which the money or assets are placed which would reduce the receivable. It doesn’t take an accountant to know that if the account receivable is paid, the account payable is extinguished.

The reason the cases cannot be settled or modified is that the loans no longer exist, there is no known owner (past present or future) and nobody has any real authority to settle or modify a loan when they are a complete stranger to the transaction (as stated in the recent San Francisco study). This should not be converted into a burden on the homeowner; the homeowner should be treated as the unintended beneficiary of a bank scam.

Banks Continue To Flout Foreclosure Laws In Massachusetts

Lawsuit Reveals Wall Street Banks Lied Because They Couldn’t Prove Ownership

New Fraud Evidence Shows Trillions Of Dollars In Mortgages Have No Owner

About these ads

33 Responses

  1. Bill…unfortunately, you are right. You have your head screwed on straight on all accounts. The mature, adult thing to do is just to move on with your life. There’s still lots of great things in life to experience and enjoy. Folks who continue to wallow around here in this muck and mire long after they are “dead” remind me of Nicole Kidman’s character in “The Others.”

    By not “moving on” folks risk becoming a mortgage foreclosure poltergeist or zombie.

  2. I have come to the conclusion, that while this site might be helpful to a relative few people that are currently undergoing foreclosure proceedings, the vast majority of us people who have already lost their properties really have nothing to gain, or be hopeful of e.g. future resolution. We’ve got/had the banks, title companies, multiple subsidiaries, investors; not to mention the government, Courts, a gazillion attorneys, (who are always the ones that make out in this kind of ‘stuff”), with the Truth being that all parties that can render any help are simply waiting for time to pass, and be done with it. I’m exhausted after holding onto any kind of hope after 7 years. Good luck to everyone. I’ll keep watching, but I truly believe to no avail.

  3. NG – think this is from In re Wilhelm (ca?)

    “Hasso v. Mozsgai (In re La Sierra Fin. Servs.),
    290 B.R. 718 (9th Cir. BAP 2002),

    explained that the
    doctrine of standing encompasses both constitutional
    limitations on federal court jurisdiction (i.e., the
    case or controversy requirements of Article III), and
    prudential limitations on the court’s exercise of that
    jurisdiction. Constitutional standing requires an
    INJURY IN FACT, viz. an invasion of a judicially
    cognizable interest. 290 B.R. at 726-27. Prudential
    standing requires that the party’s assertions fall
    within the zone of interests protected by the statute
    and, further, requires that the litigant assert only
    its own rights and not those of another party. Id.
    at 727 (citing Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 162, 167-68
    (1997). The party asserting standing exists has the
    burden of proving it. Id. at 726. Though sometimes
    articulated in the cases as principles applicable to
    standing on appeal, the same propositions apply to a
    party at the bankruptcy court level.”

  4. NG – can’t tell you how glad I am that you are espousing and shouting the threshold injury tenets. I’m going to look at your case law for what me doing so would be worth. I have one monster case on assgts for collection (not) and i’ve been putting off the odious task of finding more support for the injury bar, We know that when we start talking injury vrs holder, the banksters may come up with one more of their tap dances and it would be naive to think otherwise. They may retreat initially, but if history is a clue, that won’t last long. So if we, with enough good case law, finally get a court to recognize the injury bar, we have to imo be ready and well-armed for the ensuing arguments: we are entitled to proof of injury. Doesn’t help that they can read our stuff and we can’t read theirs (white papers), but nothing to do for it, I guess.

  5. Can someone give me a link to Szymoniak case as I have not been able to pull it up as it never downloads the pages. I want to read the entire thing as reading her letter to the SEC back on Jun 2011 tells us she is going through some process of challenging these securities!

  6. E. Tolle

    No. She’s going to need some sort of personal knowledge, and as regards hundreds of notes associated with thousands of trusts, she doesn’t have it.

    The FCA was instituted during the Civil War because of industrial war profiteering. Companies were selling the govt tainted meat, or bad equipment. The govt needed a way to get people on the inside of these companies to come forward with personal knowledge of the fraud. Today, the govt uses the FCA for things such as Medicare fraud, misrepresented materials, etc., etc. But unless the whistleblower has inside, personal information that the govt would otherwise not have access to. So in the present Szymoniak qui tam action, in order to succeed, the relator would need inside info, personal to the relator, and not just mere allegations. That means that the relator would have to be one of the players, such as the Originator, Sponsor, Depositor, Trustee, etc., or a key employee thereof.

    See the difference? And those prospective relators aforementioned would not necessarily be the same for each of the REMICs, so they couldn’t file one action that accuses 1,400 trusts of the mortgage note fraud alleged in Szy’s complaint.

    Now think about this. The Feds have said thanks, but no thanks. Why? Because they just spent several trillion dollars propping these guys up. You think they are now going to prosecute them to get the money back? And then there would be another financial crisis. And the banks can’t just admit to this like they did to the robo-signing. In the robo-signing settlement to just agreed to pony up a few billion dollars collectively. Big deal. But in the robo-signing matter all they conceded was that they cut corners so as to expedite getting their lawful loans repaid. Not the case here. Here they would be admitting that none of the loans lawfully existed in the first place and were due and owing to the banksters. That’s a few trillion bucks being paid out, not a few billion. That would also be the end of the banks, banksters, Wall Street, pension funds, etc., etc.

    My guess is that since the Feds withdrew, no state AG is going to try and prosecute this thing in a North Carolina Federal District Court. Everyone of them will say let the other guy go first. Why expend our resources for all the other free riders to benefit. And again, none of the govies wants to be responsible for bringing down the entire financial system, because if this qui tam action were to be successful, that’s exactly what would happen. Millions of mortgage foreclosures across the country would have to be undone, and millions of families that bought those houses would now be on the hook and forced out into the street.

    The socio-economic costs to the nation would be catastrophic, in my opinion. And this is why the banks keep right on fraudulently foreclosing. If they stopped now, it would be an admission of guilt for all past actions. I just don’t see this in the cards.

    And one other thing: unless one can prove that the U.S. Treasury paid out on false claims to the govt, one will have great difficulty in establishing liability. I know whereof I speak, because I have personal knowledge of the matter. Once the money hits a GSE, it’s no longer considered U.S. Treasury funds. You gotta read the Federal case law on this.


  8. Bob G., you said, “because this information has been out in the public domain for a long time now….”

    As the relator, she has to have some sort of “insider knowledge”, and being that she’s a fraud investigator and forensics expert, I would think that would place her investigative research well above common assumptions of criminality that may have been whispered about for some time. And don’t forget, she’s the one that uncovered the entire Linda Green deal, as well as many other criminal surrogate signers that she details in her complaint, including notary frauds out the wazoo. That is novel investigative information that aided the criminality and directly harmed the government. Names, dates, and locations….scenes of the crime.

    Believe me, I’m not trying to be argumentative, as I’d like to get a handle on qui tams myself having unsuccessfully pitched one on occasion to several different white shoe firms. But you would appear to be mixing several elements of her suit into a blender, blanket dismissing her claims due to IRS issues. That’s just a single element of her suit, which as you say may or may not get off the ground. The big picture securitization fail concept that she’s detailing that you and I know so well is only now starting to gel on the bigger screen, as Wall Street’s been very successful at scripting their contracts so that everyone’s buying pigs in pokes that really look a lot like pigs, with tightly wrapped pokes, to stretch an analogy way passed its tensile strength….my apologies for so much bad pork there.

    What gives me the most hope about this action is the possibility of it getting to discovery. On such a large stage, it would be much harder to stall and deceive like they always do in smaller individual cases. And if in fact they are shown to have pulled off what her complaint is alleging, this entire ball of wax will go up in flames, not only singeing many a banker, but hopefully burning down Wall Street at the same time.


  9. So why would we not think that the other banks that did not settle not fold also? Now Szymoniak has a confession by DocX and there is that data base that leads to every one of the forged documents and if these cases are embedded into the securities then it should make these securities bad and not correctable.

    Are not the titles invalid that have Linda Green as a signer. What is that I missing that this should be easy solved and to who is owner of? If you need docX or MERS to forge a document and you filed that document you should be done for life with that file.

  10. E Tolle

    Did some more research. I stand corrected on some issues.

    1. Fed statute allows for fed jurisdiction over state FCA claims.

    2. She gets an original info exemption if she was the first to tell the govt about this prior to her lawsuit.

    However I still do not think that she will be able to prevail with respect to the original information claim. That is because this information has been out in the public domain for a long time now, the allegations that is.

    However, complaints trying to recover on tax claims must be made through the IRS whistleblower’s office with a formal whistleblower complaint, not via a false claims act lawsuit. She may or may not have filed one of these, we don’t know, and we won’t know until such time as the IRS makes the announcement.

  11. Let look at what Szymoniak claim started and that was to expose 1 million forgeries by only one source in DocX which Lorraine Brown has confess too. Now this does not include MERS quasi employees in Asst. Secretaries who for firm like foreclosure mill for example out of St Louis Kozeny & McCubbin who cover 5 states performing these bogus assignment.

    So right now the FBI should know all million forged assignment because Brown has cooperated with them as she awaits her sentencing from MO as she sits in jail in MI. So let understand that we got a criminal outfit out of the suburb of Atlanta that committing forgeries across America, and mailing these documents to courts and having them recorded but this federal crime has not been corrected by the Federal government why?

    How is that you got a convicted felon with a data base of 1 million victims whom home where illegally foreclosed with these document and all million were not over turned, is because of what. You got the largest banks in the Nation settle for $25 billion because of the information but no active involve by the Federal Government to locate victims?

    Why is there no hotline with the names listed from Ms Brown files. It not assuming that a fraudulent assignment was done but an admitted too crime. So who standing in the way of simply supplying each borrower and court with the uncovered fraudulent assignment?

    I say it the Federal Reserve Bank who purchase faulty securities, are we the US taxpayer going to pay out a claim for the fraud that has occurred or does the Fed not want this crime reported because they are still paid the full amount of the investment by not having the crime dealt with.

    So let take my case where let say there was only $50,000, $100,00 or $175,000 drawn against the security as not a 100% of the actual home mortgage loan should be drawn. So the Fed only is insured for it principal amount, but to illegally foreclose on a $202,400 balance the amount coming back into this fraud is $429,095 from the foreclosure sale and a couple of insurance policies.

    OK so let say we the people question the insured (FED) at what point did you know the securities did not have any underlying collateral and at what point did you understand the a blank Note was involved and relinquished to Ginnie Mae? Remember we are dealing with the top investors in the financial market in the world, so their knowledge is not the same as some low level investor or regular citizen. So the point is that at some point even if we say it after the creation of the securities and as report have surface, the question of collateral been raised and reported one by me to all these agencies. So how is the Fed getting full return of its investment plus interest when there is no actual collateral on the US taxpayer dime.

    Why was the SEC Whistler-Blower claim I made not address about Ginnie Mae ownership of the debt not address in Jan 2012 along with the ROBO settlement? The Fed is a private corporation that has a control over the OCC and print our currency and at the very least needs to recover there principal investment or it devalue our currency because there is no collateral for the monies that the Fed release to the world. So the Fed is short $1.1 trillion let say because the Ginnie Mae MBS is a Ponzi scheme??? So what that do to the US currency?

    We know right now for a fact that there is a class action suit for 1 million forged assignment Lorraine Brown is setting in jail for right now. What crazy is the government knows there are fraudulent assignment for the average property of $150,000 and they done nothing about releasing the name of those households…and why? The Federal Government has to lose tons of money because they resold some of those properties with bad titles!

  12. Bob G. said, “Here is yet another case of botched litigation and a misunderstanding of the law by players who should know better. And yet the bleecher [sic] crowd here is once again on its feet shouting for joy as though this actually means something wonderous [sic] is about to happen.”

    Botched litigation? $18 million bucks extracted from the banks? Surely you jest?

    Maybe if I hadn’t mentioned a huge dollar amount in my post you would have seen that I was simply providing a link to her complaint, which, I’ll still claim has the capability of exposing loads of criminality to a much larger audience. You know, your neighbors and associates who, to this day, still think B of A is as American as apple pie and stop and frisk? The ones who tear up when they see B of A’s commercial that shows the four generations of service personnel from one family, when we all know that the truth behind that façade is that B of A has now stolen that families farm, having booted them while they were of in those areas of the world we so covet…Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.

    The only wondrous thing that I look forward to happening here is the slow unfolding of the poker hands they’ve been holding for years, knowing full well that all these financial industry players will eventually be forced to show that they have, in fact, been holding deuce-seven the entire time, while they’ve bet the entire net worth of the globe hundreds of time over with those cards.

    Like a flywheel spinning faster and faster, this thing is and will continue to come apart, eventually shredding everything we know about finance. And when that happens, we can build a new system that isn’t based on inherited wealth and entrenched oligarchic rule. The sooner the better from my standpoint. Bring it down!

  13. Here is a problem I see and that is nobody and I mean nobody knows about Ginnie Mae, so everybody heard of Fannie & Freddie who have the most loans, but they have a 100 arms where Ginnie Mae only has a couple of moving pieces.

    Ginnie Mae is the low laying fruit the got billions in criminal activity, however Niel and the gang don’t have a focus on this when their are so many veterans in FL!

  14. @carie you don’t have to prove that fact with Ginnie Mae because in order for Ginnie Mae to have the underlying collateral it must have physical possession 100% of the time. But because the Note is none through the requirement of Ginnie Mae were the Note must be endorsed blank and relinquished.

    Ginnie in a no win situation because their rules and the rule of UCC3 is what it is. You cannot have a Trust that does not purchase the loan claim a financial interest anymore then Ginnie. However we don’t need proof the Note when anywhere if the Notes are blank and in the case of IndyMac, WaMu & Countrywide the scam is over, because neither of the three are in possession of the Notes now as they are out of business and there were no sell of the Notes!

  15. “…She would have to prove each note never made it into each trust. Tough to do…”

    Tough to do because “they” know they don’t have to—thanks to our wonderful DOJ. Dr Lan Pham got fired from the CBO for trying to delve into “what exactly backs the MBS’s”
    …What about the FOIA? They would just laugh at that, I guess.

  16. BofA Banker Sued by Regulator Later Joined Fannie Mae
    By Dakin Campbell, Jody Shenn & Phil Mattingly – Aug 14, 2013 9:56 AM ET

    A former Bank of America Corp. executive whose work on mortgage bonds is the subject of regulator and Justice Department lawsuits was hired by U.S.- backed Fannie Mae months after the claims began to surface.

    Adam Glassner was named a defendant in a September 2011 complaint filed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates Fannie Mae (FNMA), over losses incurred by the firm. He joined Fannie Mae in January 2012 and worked there until this year. Last week, he also was referenced as “BOA-Securities Managing Director” in a Justice Department lawsuit against Bank of America, according to a person with knowledge of his career.
    Enlarge image BofA Banker Sued by Regulator Then Joins Fannie Mae

    Glassner’s hiring illustrates the government’s dilemma as the U.S. recruits skilled managers to navigate the mortgage mess from the same industry responsible for causing it. [Read that again... Isn't that beautiful? What we call "conflict of interest", government calls it "dilemma!"] In this case, Fannie Mae added a banker whose conduct was criticized by its own regulator less than five months earlier.

  17. HAHAHAHA!!! Too funny! All government knows how to do is print money and… even that , they can’t do right!!!


    US misprinted 30 mln new $100 bills
    Edited time: August 15, 2013 12:18

    The US is approaching the release date of its new $100 bills, but the Bureau of Engraving and Printing is facing an embarrassing problem: 30 million bills were incorrectly printed, and fixing them will cost taxpayers an estimated $3.79 million.

    The new $100 bills were designed to reduce counterfeiting, and were initially scheduled to be released in 2010. But that summer, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing noticed that the bills were being produced with a blank sliver, due to a fold in the paper. The release date was therefore pushed back to 2011, and again pushed back to Oct. 2013.

    But additional printing problems could once again delay the release of the “Benjamins”.

  18. @neidermeyer I am surprise you would have a “Stated Loan” and it was a GNMA pooled loan, as I am not familiar with that product. However if your still in the loan you could check MERS website and see who the investors was, and if it is or was in a GNMA pool it will list GNMA.

    If it was in a GNMA call them at their posted number and request your file under the Freedom of Information Act. However the people now at the FOIA dept are now to what is trying to be done and they have not been responding to request.

    GNMA pool are going to be a combination of FHA, VA & USDA loans, that are going to mostly fixed rates and term and a few fixed adjustable rate loans. But all should have been full documented by income verification.

  19. @ Charles Reed ,

    My loan was a “stated income” … What is the best/most sure way to get a reliable answer regarding possible GNMA involvement at some point in a loans/notes history? If possible please include a link , phone number or mailing address.

    You are correct that when LPS was forced to shutdown DocX they merely transferred the document creation duties (for MERS and others) to the foreclosing attorneys firms but that the forgeries continue.


  20. Here is what different with the case this time is that Lorraine Brown has confess to ! million forgeries and she is currently in jail in MI and awaiting the out come of MO, but the Fed has to have worked a deal with her. Now if I am understanding this correctly is she bring suit against all the other lenders not involved in the Jan 2012 ROBO settlement .

    So now she has discovery but do these banks want that? Now I do agree that the first time around the timing was perfect because the 50 States Attorneys were pushing for payoffs and that may be the ticket again that the states see another payday.

    But I hope it shed the light I need on Ginnie Mae who was not mention because then it would have involved a Government agency getting involved. However that this could not have been mention the first time around and is why I believe conveniently my submission to the SEC was lost and not address in Jan 2012.

    However what Docx was was doing MERS was doing the same through these foreclosure mills, and instead of only 1 million forgeries you got every single pooled loan that was in a pool by blank Note with the same problem and the reason all the big bank needed to forge in the first place.

    My claim is that there is not a single loan that can be called due that Ginnie Mae has or had possession of ever because there is no sale that occurred. So does the Federal Reserve Bank want there claims to be paid question by the public, just as they were when Congress took them to court to find out about the $16 trillion in .5% to zero loans.

    It not being said because of who control the media but this thing is way from over and the rest of the world is not without questioning who is actual responsible for the Dallas Fed recent figure that $14 trillion in American wealth was lost.

    So who read these comments? Szymoniak could not enter into the Ginnie Mae fight then but can her and her team after the unsealing jump into a surer thing that involves a know $70 billion in FHA loan losses. The FHA did not originate those loans, but all those loans where were in a Ginnie Mae pool, where the loan were 100% underwritten with full income documentation and where not subprime stated loan, subprime adjustable, pick a payment or 80/20 loans!

    $8 billion in false claim and the $16 trillion in treble damage is a whole lot of money, and I am not greedy! The smoking gun is 800,000 still blank Notes in each and every file that was foreclosed under the HAMP and were Ginnie Mae pooled loans!

  21. Call me thick…

    “Look , the only reason this woman scored the last time around is because the defendants agreed to settle with the govies. They can’t settle this time. Think about it. And what is she saying that wasn’t said previously ?”

    Actually… I wouldn’t be so categorical. The first time around, she had 60 Minutes behind her. It was new and it was huge. She did her thing. It worked. People have a very short memory. Things have happened since and it cannot be drilled down enough. 60 Minutes have been know to “revisit” after a few years. If they do, she may very well score again provided she agrees to appear again. Will she? I don’t know. With the right spin on it (i.e., her health took a turn for the worst and she still invested all of her whistle blower money into helping homeowners in distress), she’s no longer just a hero. She’s a martyr for the cause.

    Worth a hell of a lot more.

    Know any other real martyr?

  22. Look , the only reason this woman scored the last time around is because the defendants agreed to settle with the govies. They can’t settle this time. Think about it. And what is she saying that wasn’t said previously ? Moreover the dope qui tamed all the states in a federal action. They needed to be qui tamed in their respective state courts. So u know what’s going to happen? Absolutely nothing. Defendants will move to dismiss the action because the fed court lacks jurisdiction to hear the state qui tam complaints involving states and state statutes. She would now have to bring her action in state courts. But the state AGs will say you won’t be entitled to a reward because your allegations were publicly made by you when your fed complaint was unsealed. And the fact that the Feds are passing speaks volumes. And fed tax claims can’t be made via qui tam, but must be made via a whistleblower complaint filed with the IRS. Same deal. Info was public. No reward. Also, only two states that I’m aware of have tax whistleblower statutes.

    Here is yet another case of botched litigation and a misunderstanding of the law by players who should know better. And yet the bleecher crowd here is once again on its feet shouting for joy as though this actually means something wonderous is about to happen.

  23. I feel more confident now more than every because what she was paid on is like my case but it against the Ginnie Mae side of securities which are all the same and are all with one central entity and that Ginnie Mae. All that needs to be done is view the Notes and all will be blank as they must be endorsed in blank and relinquish to Ginnie Mae who is the insurer of the securities and has no other way of claiming any type of underlying collateral is by having physical possession at all time.

    There is no shared possession between Ginnie Mae and some trust because with a blank Note as both cannot have possession and there slick way of having Wells Fargo act as the mortgage servicer, custodian and trust which there is no actual trust created by Wells Fargo for the WaMu government loans, and Ginnie Mae must have the allege collateral in the event of default.

    The Note cannot be passed to another after Ginnie Mae is in possession because as they did not pay for it which is a known fact, and one they don’t dispute, the document cannot ever be transferred again as Ginnie Mae is unable to re-endorse something that was not endorse to them because Ginnie Mae does not purchase the debt.

    Ginnie Mae never thought someone would connect the dot that the Note/Contract is separated from the debt, which works to wipe clear and debt as the issuer has no Note/contract to have enforced. The ex-lender/issuer is not bring the action claiming a debt due, but Wells Fargo is fraudulently claiming ownership, but in my case that claim was retracted.

    Can you say $24 billion which including treble damage for 2009-2010 alone!

  24. @ etolle

    Won’t work. Been there, done that.

    U gotta read the FCA and the court cases. She already spilled the beans in 2009. So This is not original material. Besides, the complaint merely alleges. It does not prove anything. She would have to prove each note never made it into each trust. Tough to do.

  25. I’m guessing that no one here has read Lynn Szymoniak’s amended complaint. IMHO, this thing has the capability of ripping the face right off of this entire chimpanzee fraud. $1 and ½ trillion dollar fraud asking for treble damages….can you say chutzpah?

  26. “Neil Garfield, why should a lender claim an injury with a confessed judgment in the form of a mortgage?”

    **** You lost me on that one. How does a mortgage equate to a confessed judgment? A confession of judgment is a legal document that confesses a judgment against the confessor. ****

    “The lender alleges BREACH OF CONTRACT, and the contract itself prescribes the remedy: sale of the MORTGAGED PROPERTY to pay off the debt.”

    **** The contract is the note, not the mortgage. The mortgage secures the debt owed. If the plaintiff isn’t a holder, owner, transferee or have duly authorized enforcement rights by the holder, owner, or transferee of the note, then the plaintiff doesn’t have squat. ****

    Where you and the rest of the foreclosure pretense defense industry mess up is that you fail to show how the lender or lender’s agents injured the borrower.

    **** Slander of Title; Wrongful Foreclosure based on Filing of False Instruments. ****

    You don’t even have the competence to discover HOW they injured the borrower, from what I can see in your myriad voluminous screeds. Those injuries (breaches, torts, and legal errors) require the court to give REDRESS to the injured party who presents them as causes of action in cross/counter-claims in the foreclosure action, or in related lawsuits.

    **** Mr. Hurt, you must be new to this board. This has been addressed many times before. Just do a search on the subject in which you are interested. ****

    When did you last lodge a cross-claim, counter-claim, or lawsuit for such an injury to the borrower?

    **** I don’t know about Neil, but I’ve had Defendants file such counterclaims, and then I’ve taken assignment of those counterclaims. Works like a charm. ****

    If your clients have no clue how to discover those causes of action, they can call me and I’ll tell them how, absolutely FREE.

    **** Or they can just go to the Jurisdictionary site and get going on their own. I’ve advised folks here to do this before, and I’m not getting any referral or affiliate fees to do so. ****

    **** Mr. Hurt, I have a hard time believing that you’ve spent much (if any) time in court. If you had, you would have been employing some of the strategies and tactics that Neil has advocated in his “screeds.” And you would have discovered that some of his suggestions actually work. ****

  27. “The best Defense is offense.” My own motto for years. I’ve lived by it ans, so far, I am not losing…

  28. Finally. I have been saying this for a long time. Ask for expedited discovery. The best Defense is offense.

    Long Live Neil Garfield


    C.A. No. 26542
    CASE No. CV 09-01-0521
    Dated: August 14, 2013

    Haugabrook’s assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

    Judgment reversed,
    and cause remanded


  30. Neil Garfield, why should a lender claim an injury with a confessed judgment in the form of a mortgage?

    The lender alleges BREACH OF CONTRACT, and the contract itself prescribes the remedy: sale of the MORTGAGED PROPERTY to pay off the debt.

    Where you and the rest of the foreclosure pretense defense industry mess up is that you fail to show how the lender or lender’s agents injured the borrower. You don’t even have the competence to discover HOW they injured the borrower, from what I can see in your myriad voluminous screeds. Those injuries (breaches, torts, and legal errors) require the court to give REDRESS to the injured party who presents them as causes of action in cross/counter-claims in the foreclosure action, or in related lawsuits.

    When did you last lodge a cross-claim, counter-claim, or lawsuit for such an injury to the borrower?

    If your clients have no clue how to discover those causes of action, they can call me and I’ll tell them how, absolutely FREE.

    727 669 5511

    *Bob Hurt* *Blog 1* ***2* ***3* ***f* ***t* ** 2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email ; Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,121 other followers

%d bloggers like this: