Federal Agent Misconduct in Favor of BofA and McCarthy Holthus and Levine law firm?

HAS FORECLOSURE DEFENSE BECOME A TERROR THREAT?

WHO IS TERRIFIED HERE?

This is a story about abuse of power or abuse of apparent power. The object is to cover-up crimes that remain largely undetected because the complex maze created by the “Thirteen Banks.”The stakes could not be higher. Either the current major Banks will be sustained or they will come crashing down with a feeding frenzy on a carcass of a predator that stole tens of trillions of dollars from multiple countries, hundreds of millions of people, and millions of homes across the world that should, by all accounts under the Law, still belong to the owner who was displaced by foreclosure. The banks are willing to do anything and they are paying outsize fees and other legal expenses (topping $100 Billion now).

The agents involved — Mike Lum from Homeland Security, Tim Hines, FBI Agent, and Sean Locksa, FBI agent — were either moonlighting (the agents say they were acting in their official capacity) and using their badges in appropriately or they were sent to intimidate litigants with Bank of America represented by McCarthy Holthus and Levine. A few years back, I received reports that the law firm, and in particular attorney Levine, had sent letters to local prosecutors to request action against people who were defending their property from foreclosure. The agents admitted to Blomberg today that they received a “tip” and that “it” was “no longer” a criminal manner and that they had ended their investigation.

In one prior case I saw a letter and I believe I might have seen an affidavit signed by Levine. The result was a series of indictments against one individual that were later dismissed. I have no information on the other cases all dating back to around 2010. I know one of the people, the one who I know was indicted, spent the last bit of her money hiring a criminal attorney to defend her. The case was “settled with a dismissal.” She subsequently lost two homes that were previously unencumbered in a foreclosure where different parties stepped in to foreclose than the ones who asked for lift stay in her bankruptcy. None of the parties were creditors or properly identified.

I now believe I have enough information to connect the dots, and raise the question as to whether members of local, federal and state law enforcement are colluding (or are being wrongfully used by the suggestion of false information) with Bank of America and at least one law firm — McCarthy Holthus and Levine — in which litigants and perhaps witnesses are intimidated into submission to wrongful foreclosures. The information contained in this article relates primarily to Arizona and to a lesser degree, California. I have no information on any other such activity in any other state of the union.

It also appears as though Bank of America and McCarthy Holthus and Levine were taking advantage of some sloppiness at the Post Office, for which the Postmaster in Simi Valley has apologized and sent a refund to the complainant, Darrell Blomberg whose story can be read below. The interesting thing here is that Blomberg reports that McCarthy Holthus and Levine directly received a letter that was addressed to Celia Mora, a suspected robo signor who apparently lives in Simi Valley, according to the post office, but whose mail bears a San Diego postmark.

The joint terrorism task force supposedly represented by the three men identified above, will not answer calls relating to this matter. Thus we only have Blomberg’s report and my own information and analysis — and of course public record. We do have a callback received today by Blomberg who reports that the agents answered a limited number of questions.

The information contained in this report is substantially corroborated by another source who, like Blomberg I consider to have the highest integrity and who was also visited this past week by the same agents who visited Blomberg. Since no specific act was alleged in the interviews except the perfectly legal request to the post office to confirm an address of a potential witness and test mailings to see who was receiving the mailings, it is hard to conclude anything other than that these agents were being used officially or unofficially to intimidate litigants who have been successful at defending their homes in foreclosure for years, and to intimidate them into ceasing their factual and investigative help to other homeowners who are also being wrongfully foreclosed.

If these interviews were sanctioned by the terrorism task force, the FBI or Homeland security it clearly represents the use of Federal law enforcement authority for the benefit of gaining a civil advantage — a crime in most jurisdictions. How high the orders went in those organization I do not know. If there were no such orders and these agents were doing a “favor” then they are subject to discipline for misuse of their badge and deliberately misleading the persons interviewed into thinking that this was an official investigation. The agencies involved might be negligent in supervising the activity of these agents. Neither of the sources for this story have any mark on their record except the mark of distinction — one having worked for decades in law enforcement in economic crimes.

Was Darrel Blomberg getting too close to the truth?

In litigation, one of the points raised by Blomberg was that Celia Mora — allegedly signed an affidavit perhaps by herself and perhaps as a robo signor. The issue of forgery didn’t come up. There was a San Diego post mark same day as the affidavit was allegedly signed 160 miles away. Blomberg’s position was Mora had no actual authority no actual executive position or managerial position, and signed clerically under instruction without knowledge of the contents. That is it. The fact that McCarthy Holthus and Levine actually received the letter addressed to Mora through normal postal service leads one to believe that the affidavit may have been created at the law firm and perhaps even signed there in Arizona. Hence any criminal behavior suggested was not the work of Blomberg but could have been the work of the law firm or Bank of America. To my knowledge there is no investigation pending relating to the use of the mails, false documents, improper signatures, lack of authority or any of the issues presented by Blomberg.

From there it became a vague charge of harassment communicated by three Federal Agents. Harassment was the word used by the agents in the interview with Blomberg and the interview with my other source. But no specific act was stated even in passing as to what act would be investigated as harassment, no less a matter of national security. More telling, when the agents left both interviews, neither source was instructed or requested to stop any specific act. That leads to the question, if there was no conduct they sought to stop, why were they there at all?

Note that McCarthy Malthus and Levine has been replaced by the law firm of Bryan Cave since June, 2013 in Blomberg’s case. Generally speaking Greg Iannelli, Esq. handles the more sensitive pieces of litigation that could blow the lid off of the fraudulent scheme of securitization.

Read Blomberg’s account here —> 2013-08-29, Unexpected Visit from the National Joint Terrorism Task Force

Background and analysis: Why do the banks continue to use low paid clerical workers to sign affidavits and other documents for which they obviously lack authority or knowledge? Why won’t a true executive with true authority and actual personal knowledge based upon his or her own actual observation, investigation and analysis to make sure the foreclosure is proper as to the property, the persons, the balance due and the existence of a default — especially with reference to the actual creditor’s books of account?

Convenience doesn’t cover it. With legal costs topping $100 Billion it would be impossible to pass the giggle test on any explanation of convenience when it comes to the paperwork. My conclusion is that it is worth getting embarrassed in court as long as the number of times is small enough that the overall scheme is not toppled. The use of clerical personnel to sign and approve documents relating to foreclosure is akin to allowing teller’s decide whether you can have a loan on that new car or new house. It doesn’t happen. If it doesn’t happen when the “loan” goes out, then it is fair to assume that the same standards would apply when the loan turns bad and comes back in.

Think about it. The Banks are reporting record profits. U. S. Bank reported $42 Billion in just one quarter. They are attributing their profits to proprietary trading — something I have attributed to laundering the illicit retention of funds that should have been used to pay investors the principal and accrued interest that was due on the promise of investment banks when they issued bogus mortgage bonds. That money was received by the Banks as agents for the investors and therefore, whether paid or not, is a credit against the account receivable owned by the investors.

The Glaski appellate attorneys gratuitously admitted that the true owner of the debts will never be known. Yet the true relationship between the homeowners and the lenders is regarded as known and enforceable. In short, the position of the Banks is that we don’t know who this money belongs to but it must belong to someone so we are going to collect it and foreclose. We’ll get back to you later on what we did with the money. The Banks are required to take that idiotic position because (a) it is still working in court and (b) they get to avoid liability to investors, guarantors, insurers, borrowers and government agencies that could exceed $10 trillion. So $100 Billion in legal expenses is only 1% of their exposure. It is easy to see how the Math works. If the legal expenses were a far more significant portion of the money the Banks were holding then they would find another way to deal with it. 

If the false trading and laundering of money was properly entered on the books as merely repatriating money that was hidden, the investors would be spared the losses that threaten our pensions and cities. It would also alleviate or eliminate the corresponding account payable due from homeowners, city budgets and other “borrowers” who were the unwitting pawns in a scheme to defraud investors. The collateral damage to all citizens, all taxpayers, all consumers, all workers and all homeowners has been obvious since 2007.

The extraordinary story is aggravated by the knowledge that the legal expenses of the Banks has now topped $100 Billion. Like I said, think about it. Nobody spends $100 Billion unless it is worth it. It is worth the price because of the amount of liability they are avoiding, and the amount of money they stole that went offshore. The amount of the theft can be estimated in a variety of ways, and the results are always the same. They siphoned trillions of dollars from many countries. In the U.S. alone it appears that the total was in excess of $17 Trillion, which is $3 Trillion MORE than the total amount of lending on residential “loans.” Extrapolating the most recent profit report from U. S. Bank from a quarter (three months) to a year, that one Bank is reporting annual earnings from “proprietary” trading in excess of $160 Billion per year. That is one of 18 Banks that were involved in this crime against humanity. Do the math.

So the Banks retain money that they never legally earned at the expense of deceived investors, Cities and sovereign wealth funds AND at the expense of the “borrowers” in the “underlying” deals. And by not crediting the lenders, the corresponding reduction of the account payable from “Borrowers” is also absent. No consent for principal reduction is required because the balance has also been reduced or extinguished by payment. Follow the money trail and the results was astonish you. This is like organized crime with all the trimmings of governmental complicity.

Now I am reporting that based upon a pattern of conduct that appears particularly egregious in Arizona, this unholy alliance between the people who committed the wrongs and government is becoming apparent. Who would have imagined indictments and “investigations” of people litigating their cases against the Banks after the scale the crime became apparent in 2008-2009?

CAVEAT: The agents in the Blomberg interview insist they were acting in their official capacity and I take them at their word. My problem with that assumption is that it means the system is susceptible of manipulation by attorneys who have no problem playing dirty tricks to gain a civil advantage. Or, worse, it means that there are high level people in the system who are willing to look the other way when this behavior pops up.

By this point in the savings and loan scandal in the 1980′s more than 800 bank presidents and loan officers, along with mortgage brokers and originators had been convicted by a jury and were serving their sentences. This time the tally is zero. But the reverse is not true. Mortgage brokers and originators and investors who played the system against itself have been investigated, prosecuted and sentenced to prison. And even homeowners have been accused of crimes that were identical to the crimes committed by Banks on a much larger scale. Steal a million, go to jail. Steal a Trillion and get immunity because the finance system might not survive removing the criminals from our society. No longer a nation of laws we have become a nation of men, corrupt men, who continue to accumulate wealth and power as they channel their illicit gains into reported Bank “profits” and control over world natural resources.

For about three years I have been investigating an unholy alliance between a law firm, McCarthy Holthus and Levine, Bank of America, U.S. Bank and law enforcement. It appears as though they have some special influence and that local, state and Federal law enforcement agents are acting as collectors and intimidators outside the boundaries of the law. Prosecutors have followed this line of attack against those pro se litigants who are getting close to the truth that the foreclosures — all of them — were bogus, if they were based upon mortgages and deeds of trust carrying claims of securitization, arising from Assignment and Assumption Agreements, Pooling and Servicing Agreements, and false prospectuses to investors.

The attached report from Darrel Blomberg, a person of unparalleled integrity, tells the story of agents from the FBI who (whether they realized it or not) are clearly acting at the behest and for the benefit of Bank of America, who was represented by McCarthy Holthus and Levine. In the past week, the agents have been visiting at least two people based upon a “harassment” allegation. The agents declared themselves to be part of a joint terrorism task force. The act of harassment was a request for confirmation of address and confirmation of address that ended up both in the offices of Bank of America and the office of McCarthy Holthus and Levine. It was addressed to the U.S. Postmaster who apologized for gaffes in processing the requests and even refunded money to Blomberg. No investigation has been threatened by the U.S. Postal inspector against either the Bank or the law firm. And none has been threatened against Blomberg.

Having a few pages of the attempt to get address of a robo signor whose signature appears to have been forged, these agents have interviewed two people in Arizona that have been known to provide factual assistance to other homeowners and whose own cases have been spread out over many years as the Bank continues to fail in its attempt to claim ownership or verify the balance of the debt. These agents identified themselves as having been dispatched from the FBI, Homeland security and the joint task force. Whether they were merely moonlighting or were in fact dispatched by their superiors, it is clear that no criminal matter was under investigation, and that their purpose was to intimidate two people who fortunately are not easily intimidated. Based upon my investigation it appears as though that law Firm, McCarthy, Holthus and Levine who is frequently replaced by Bryan Cave, has been doing dirty work for the banks through contacts in law enforcement.

It is happening and this should be stopped before it becomes a commonplace act throughout the country.

In the final analysis the issue of ownership of the loan is going to unravel this mess because it is only then that we can look at the books of account and see what money is owed on the original account receivable for the creditor/investor/REMIC.

The analysis of ownership does not merely look to the agreements the parties entered into because the label parties give to a transaction does not determine its character. See Helvering v. Lazarus & Co. 308 U.S. 252, 255 (1939). The analysis must examine the underlying economics and the attendant facts and circumstances to determine who owns the mortgage notes for tax purposes. See id. The court in In re Kemp documents in painful detail how Countrywide failed to transfer possession of a note to the pool backing a Mortgage Backed Security (MBS) so that Countrywide failed to comply with the requirements necessary for the mortgage to comply with the REMIC rules. See In re Kemp, 440 F.R. 624 (Bkrtcy D.N.J. 2010). Defendant in this case has done exactly what was adjudicated in Kemp, failure to sufficiently show a timely transfer that complied with the strict language of the trusts’ Agreements.

As the Kemp court notes, “[f]rom the maker’s standpoint, it becomes essential to establish that the person who demands payment of a negotiable note, or to whom payment is made, is the duly qualified holder. Otherwise, the obligor is exposed to the risk of double payment, or at least to the expense of litigation incurred to prevent duplicative satisfaction of the instrument. These risks provide makers (Plaintiff in this case) with a recognizable interest in demanding proof of the chain of title” (specifically referring to the trust participants). 440 B.R. at 631 (quoting Adams v. Madison Realty & Dev., Inc., 853 F.2d 163, 168 (3d Cir. N.J. 1988). And because the originator did not comply with the legal niceties, the beneficial owner of the debt, the trustee, cannot file its proof of claim either.

About these ads

32 Responses

  1. US Bank and SN Servicing has submitted Forged documents in our federal bankruptcy case too and we will never stop perusing them in court for damages. We are also asking our Federal judge to prosecute their current attorney out of Jacksonville Florida who continued to defend this case knowing that forged document are before a federal court. All the offending parties at SN Servicing and their attorneys are committing a serious crime against our country. We have filed a formal complaint with the FBI and the US attorney general and many great Judges all across this nation are finally stopping them from this kind of fraud on American families. US Bank and SN servicing and their attorneys are also violating a serious consent order that was to protect the people from these crimes but they could care less. Please feel free to have your clients join a class action suit so that we can end their behavior with a multi billion dollar punitive damage suit. Join us, call Ray Shelton in Florida at 352 274 8467

  2. Thankfully my loan is not listed under MERs. My motion to depose includes the Bank A attorney who sent me the letter in August 2011. He did not give a specific date of sale, only that my loan and servicing were sold over 8 years ago (from 2011) to Bank B and that is why they could not answer any of my questions. I sent my letter as a QWR. So I have presented my letter to the court and Bank F presented their fraudulent assignment to the court. If the court believes both documents are “true”, then the note has been split from the mortgage.

  3. It would be nice if we could get some help from Lawyers I’m in Tucson Az and haven’t been able to get one Lawyer to go up against Chase .So I guess I’m going to do it myself. Filing petition for removal foreclosure / wrongful foreclosure expedited discovery. wish me luck,or if you can help, leave info. WAMU pass thru WMALT series 2006-5 have it all robo signing mort pool wamu bailed out 2 different lenders evicting me one from mc carthy Levine phx US bank other chase. Thank-you in advance

  4. @Debbi the alonge I betting at 100% odd is BS, and if you got a letter from bank A that they sold the loan to bank B did they give a date when it was sold? Bank A is not getting involved with lying for the large bank F as there nothing in for them but trouble.

    The Note should tell the story because bank A should have endorsed the Note over to bank B. What happening is that bank F needs to reach back to the originator because everything in between is screw up and bank F does not have the proper proof of chain of ownership.

    Read the Szymoniak v. Ace and the complaint talks about just what your going through. MERS was just finding the last one standing and trying to use this membership to say that MERS is always there and there no need to transfer at the local land recording office so as the assignment was never assigned from the originator (bank A) and I bet that at least one of the other banks had failed and the chain cannot be proven, so go back to the beginning and use their name in the forged assignment as if they now 10 years later sold the loan to bank F. You have already gotten the letter from the bank stating the facts, now makes sure you get the date of sale in 2003. If you have to go through their regulator and have it send to both you and the regulator so that both have a copy.

  5. Thank you all for your responses. My loan was a conventional loan – no FHA or any government sponsored type. I just filed a Motion to depose the individuals who signed the assignment and the “ta-da” allonge. One works for BofA (I have evidence), the other works for Lender Processing (I have evidence). Guess who just filed a Motion to Strike to stop me from deposing!

    I have a letter from the originator (Bank A) who informed me that they sold my loan in 2003 to Bank B. Bank F has submitted to the court paperwork that Bank A assigned the mortgage to them (Bank F) and the allonge for the Note from Bank A to Bank F. I’m a bit optimistic that this letter is my ace in the hole but I’m dealing with judges in Pennsylvania and these judges apparently think that PA is immune from the fraudulent bank practices. That is one of the reasons I am trying to find out if Wilshire Credit is still the sub-servicer for SAIL 2003-BC8.

  6. @Debbi what type of loan did you have? FHA, VA or USDA and if you had one of these call Ginnie Mae and see if it was in their pool.

  7. @DebbiC, that is because they do not know who owns the loan, and they really do not want you to know who owns the loan. Keep the correspondence. In my case, they gave me two loan mods, oh boy! One HAMP was granted and a Settlement Agreement by a mediator through court order. Now, they do not want to abide by either one.

  8. I was told that my loan was not a government insured loan – I was originally told that my loan was owned by a private investor. Then I was told that my loan owner was Aurora MSF Lehman, then I was told that my loan was owned by Aurora Loan Services, then I was told that my loan was owned by BAC Home Loans, then I was told that my loan was in trust SAIL 2003-BC8. I have ALL the correspondence and I was told these stories from Oct. 2010 through July 2011. U.S. Bank is allegedly the plaintiff who filed the foreclosure complaint but of course BofA is doing the dirty work.

  9. The true wealth these frauds are hiding may be found in and amongst the payoffs they capitalized on through derivatives deals based on short sales of mortgages they never had any ownership interest in.

    It is a misconception that individual loans within the pools couldn’t be the focus of short sales. It is true individual loans within the pools could be the subject of scrutiny as to when teaser rates were scheduled to reset and the go-to-rate would take their place.

    Remittance reports, on a monthly basis did the math for those engaged in an inside trade.

    After all, the borrower had been vetted for his/her financials. Those destined to be unable to keep up after the teaser had been predetermined long before default.

    But, based on personal experience, I believe any number of loans never actually defaulted.

    Instead, I believe banks in control of shadow, proprietary trusts manipulated those numbers to cash in on derivatives, bailouts and insurance money.

    Any number of criminal activities within finance can be conducted in the absence of a paper trail.

    The derivatives market describes a shortfall to the international financial system of over 600 Trillion Dollars.

    The SEC will not disclose what is occurring in the derivatives market I feel because to do so would topple the banks overnight.

    The homeowners are the sacrificial lambs to the criminal behavior of Wall Street- but, We The People already know that.

    Keep up the fight.

    http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-wicked-which-of-the?source=s.fwd&r_by=4695413

  10. JG,

    “Creditors generally have a right to a credit bid, but I’m really not so sure about these trusts…”

    Here’s a good one…as you may remember, my “servicer” told me that the “trust” was the owner of my “loan”…yet the Trustee (Deutsche) stated PUBLICLY that they have NO BENEFICIAL INTEREST in ANY of the “loans”…

    So WHY did I get a “Notice To Quit” in the mail shortly after the trustee’s sale that stated that “Deutsche” was now the “owner”…? With no return address, I might add…and the word “Deutsche” was simply stamped at the bottom of the page…

    Hmmm…then a few days after that, I got ANOTHER “Notice To Quit” that said that a real estate investor was the “owner”…

    Complete BS. Just a bunch of debt collectors of unsecured debt playing games.

  11. Debbi, foreclosure must occur for the MI claim to be filed. And most of the bond insurers are already bankrupt.

  12. Debbi bring up a good point that in some cases insurance is paid before a foreclosure however I don’t think this happens in in government insure loan because the government first purchases the loans to see what the lost is and then a insurance claim is paid.

    But as Szymoniak complaint addresses the crime prior to these claims and that is the forgery! The forgery is against the homeowner so how was not that address in these billion dollar settlement.

    In the Szymoniak case the federal government has received money for a Qui Tam claim that was the result of forgeries which resulted in fraudulent foreclosure and false claim were paid base on that issue. This was not the Sherry Hunt part of the case that was paid because Citi wrongfully originated the loans.

    So my point is how does the Federal Government not deal with the crime that resulted in the false claims.

    I am sure Szymoniak and her tem realizes this fact but have gotten their money and are silent on the issue!

  13. I don’t see the difference between the FBI harassing a borrower and the judges violating borrowers constitutional rights to due process. Or maybe even the office of lawyer regulation refusing to recognize fraud and forgery when it’s brought to their attention. How many agencies phones have I called? No less than 14. Documentation submitted? Hundreds and hundreds of pages. Result? Nada. You know the drill.
    Why am I telling you this? Preaching to the choir? I’m convinced they’re all in on the game. They know the money is gone. The government is filled with people who act like dummies. But not on this one, folks. They know. Everybody in the top 2% worldwide knows and understands this.
    I certainly didn’t realize the depth of the corruption within the government and the courts. Now I’m sure of it!
    So now what? Quit?
    I was born an American. I grew up saying the Pledge of Allegiance. My dad fought in two wars. I saw my oldest brother’s best friend in a casket when I was four years old, flanked by two wounded Marines who were destined to return to the place that failed to take their lives the first time they were there. I learned about service to your country many, many years ago.
    And then, I grew up sloppy and comfortable in a suburban white-bread middle class neighborhood. Got kinda lazy as a matter of fact. And now, we, collectively, have lost our country and the rule of law that made it so great.
    I won’t pontificate any longer than necessary to say this:

    We, as a people, are in the fight of our lives for this great country. We as citizens, who are fighting this fraud that is the foreclosure wars, are obligated to continue into battle. There may indeed be very few of us who took to the front lines, as evidenced by the numbers of displaced homeowners, but it really is our job to see this through to the end.
    The phones are bugged, your emails are being sifted through, and a drone strike may not be out of the question.
    And that’s the price you pay for fighting against the powers that be.
    The government, the banks, the corporations that live off the status quo, they are our enemies. Take them to task. It’s your duty.

    The pen is mightier than the sword.

    I hope.

  14. FOR YOUR READING PLEASURE–THESE INVESTORS ARE NOT HAPPY

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/165283859/DAMMING-FACTS-AGAINST-NEW-CENTURY-MORTGAGE-THE-ROOT-OF-THE-PROBLEM-FOR-JP-MORGAN-CHASE-AND-JPMAC2006-NC1-IN-THIS-CASE-BROUGHT-BY-PHOENIX-LIGHT-SF-LIM

    DON’T FORGET-NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE STILL IN AN ACTIVE BANKRUPTCY IN DELAWARE CASE 07-10416 KJC

  15. Can a servicer and/or owner of the note, file an insurance claim on a defaulted mortgage BEFORE the foreclosure takes place? IF an owner of the note files a claim and is paid 80% by the insurance company, can the owner then sell the 20% as collection rights to the servicer and retire the note?

  16. Can anyone tell me how I can find out whether Wilshire Credit Corporation is still a sub-servicer for Trust SAIL 2003-BC8? This trust no longer submits reports to the SEC (allegedly less than 70 investors). Any help would be appreciated.

  17. jason read this.

    ________________________________

  18. One of the very, very, very few appeals court judges… who gets it!

    In substance, it goes something like: “I read the law as it is written. I understand what it states and how it’s been used thus far. Yet, i have to put it back into context. Congress enacted a whole lot of laws with specific intent. Banks thwart it by removing the intent part of the law. I’m putting it back in. And i reverse and remand.

    I’m OK paying such a judge’s salary.

    http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/2/2012/2012-ohio-5914.pdf

  19. […] Federal Agent Misconduct in Favor of BofA and McCarthy Holthus and Levine law firm? […]

  20. […] Federal Agent Misconduct in Favor of BofA and McCarthy Holthus and Levine law firm? […]

  21. Well, I know it sounds like a long shot (or does it?) to probably most, but if the trusts may not own real property, it may be that they may never make a credit bid, even if they had a right, which I’m not so sure about, anyway. Creditors generally have a right to a credit bid, but I’m really not so sure about these trusts. But even if they do, the reason they can’t use them anyway imo is because then the title to the real property would vest in the trust (aka beneficiary) when it (allegedly) makes a successful credit bid.
    Imo, MERS wanted to be a nominee (but NOT agent) who is able to make that credit bid (read assign it to someone else) as thee beneficiary because otherwise the credit-bidding trust would take title by the trustee’s deed. If MERS is an agent and it takes title as agent, it still makes the trust the title holder, just thru its agent. (an agent doesn’t own title – the principal does) So, imo, they really did mean to
    bifurcate the note and deed of trust for this if no other reasons. Now that at least one SC has said these notes are bifurcated and bifurcated notes and dots may be unified (actually it used RE-unified – which is untrue), it’s prob just a matter of time before the bifurcation is fully acknowledged and they have yet another angle for us. There are so many issues in play here, we may all be renters or ex-partriots by the time they’re figured out. That is, unless courts start demanding the appropriate evidence of jurisdiction-invoking injury, etc. etc.
    What a stinking mess.

  22. There may or may not be something powerfully important here re grand juries:

    http://ruleoflawradio.com/grandjurypower.htm

    Read the dissertation piece.

    I don’t know enough about the subject matter to comment intelligently. But perhaps Neil or someone similarly credentialed might address this.

    One thing that I wonder about is if you can get an indictment, how would you compel the D.A. to prosecute? They do have prosecutorial discretion.

  23. One of the probably many reasons a secn trust may not take title to real property imo (other than being seen as “doing business” in a state) may be other issues regarding ownership of real property. A statute I’m reading now suggests that trusts can’t be dunned for the transfer fees on real estate, can’t be dunned for taxes and insurance, and so on. (I’m still on MERS was called a nominee – v. agent – to “assist” someone other than the trust taking title to
    real property after foreclosure because the trust may not.

    Carie – next time you have nothing else to do, you might go to your county recorder’s website and start searching your bankster. See to whom the trustee recorded its f/c deed and compare to who claimed to have the right to foreclose (and allegedly did with a handy credit bid)
    You’ll want to first ‘stop by’ your own records there to see who YOUR
    trustee’s deed went to. Just a thought. Might lead to something. If there are any trustee’s deeds to a secn trust, I would be very surprised.

  24. nine years, Dave? I thought five years was a long time. You go, man!

  25. WOW Javagold, those are my exact numbers and demands.Plus some gravy. I like gravy.

  26. I can’t make sense of this post. It’s all over the place. Holthus was sanctioned in In re Lee, CA, for not telling the court his client didn’t own the note. By my reading of info at the NV bar association’s website, he’s also been the subject of disciplinary action.

    Dave f – got any of your docs posted anywhere? wow – 9 years? No kidding? You seem sane!

  27. What I am not understanding is the fact that the government both state & federal are paid for the 5 largest banks have purchase forgeries and had MERS who the banks are shareholder of created forgeries as explained in the Szymoniak case, yet a court approves of jumping over the original victim in the homeowner.

    The Federal Government cannot be damaged until the property is foreclose using the forgeries which first take from the homeowner, then the Federal Government illegally purchases properties and is why the FHA had $70 billion in loan losses, and next the Government has these false claims against the FHA insurance and the VA insurance.

    How is not the Federal Government not covering up the crime if you know for a fact that just one ROBO outfit in DocX admitted to 1 million forged mortgage document, but the shear number that MERS handles yet we are only looking at something like 92,735 loans in the Apr 5, 2012 approved settlement.

    You don’t purchase a forgery a couple of years ago and know come up with original document saying you own something. It the simplest thing in the world is to show me the money! How did you purchase the loan who and where is that cancel check or wire transfer etc.

    The Government got paid because the homeowner was illegally foreclosed and a claim was made against the insurance but through this we forget to give back the homes or restitution to the ones that have had the crime committed against them. How that work!

  28. I think involvement by law enforcement has actually been rather obvious from the beginning. Gee, are they going to foreclose on the cops, too? Then, maybe the cops will be on our side. Like the part about sending out nuclear bomb to kill a mosquito. Somebody’s scared. We homeowners have been living with uncertainty and fear of reprisal for a very long time. Let the banks go down into the mud where they belong. Find the off shore accounts.

  29. I am easy to please.

    1. $100,000 cash deposit plus $80,000 in payments returned to me

    OR

    2. Paid in full title to the house. Satisfaction of Mortgage.

  30. And by not crediting the lenders, the corresponding reduction of the account payable from “Borrowers” is also absent. No consent for principal reduction is required because the balance has also been reduced or extinguished by payment. Follow the money trail and the results was astonish you.

    **********************************************

    We want honest accounting .

    We want argument “ABC” when offered by us in identical scenarios as the banks when they offered argument “ABC” to be taken seriously.

    We want discovery.

    We want public acknowledgement that tens of thousands of loans were PAID IN FULL in the AIG settlement and we want the homeowners to receive a “satisfaction/paid-in-full” notice recorded for their benefit… AND WE WANT IT NOW.

  31. Collusion? I have no way to support this; but my belief is that the whole financial “collapse” of 2006-2011 was orchestrated by the Banks with the Government holding their hands as it was in their interest to assure that the Banks didn’t fail. Or vice-versa, but to the same means and ends.

  32. Great information. I am dealing with McCarthy Holthus in Las Vegas and a 9 Year battle with wells fargo.

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 3,259 other followers

%d bloggers like this: