Dan Edstrom Cites Failure to Actually Close Escrow

Getting the closing instructions and the closing documents, including the wire transfer receipts and wire transfer instructions, one is able to piece tog ether that escrow was never properly closed. This could mean that escrow is still open — leaving open the option of a three day rescission. Dan points out in response to me post that there is considerable support to attacking the escrow to prove that the originator is not the lender. The issue that I failed to explain in my post is that the note was never delivered to the originator. This, combined with the failure of the originator to fund the loan, pretty much locks the door on the note or mortgage being valid enforceable instruments no matter how many times they recorded, assigned, indorsed or anything else. My post is http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/beforeyou-open-your-mouth-or-write-anything-down-know-what-you-are-talking-about/

EDITOR’S NOTE: So I amend my prior comments to add the second question, which has many subparts as explained below: (1) did the originator pay for the loan that the borrower received? and (2) was escrow closed? (including amongst other things, did the originator receive delivery of the note and mortgage?). In reviewing thousands of cases (I think only Lynn Symoniak might have exceed the number of cases I have reviewed) I have come to the conclusion that the answer to both questions is NO — when the origination of the loan was part of or subject to claims of a securitization scheme.

This underscores the scheme of theft by the Wall Street Banks. First they divert the money from investors from a trust into their own pocketed. Then they divert the documents that were supposed to protect the the investor to naked nominees that are controlled by the Banks, not the REMIC trust. Now they want to add insult to injury and throw the homeowner out of his home because “THE Loan” is in default, when the the only loan is the one that arose by operation of law between the investor lenders and the homeowner borrower and NOT the loan described in the note and mortgage. The escrow closing says otherwise.

Here is Dan Edstrom’s Response (Thanks Dan)

 

Excellent source of information for lawyers.  Here is what I think is critical that you need to include and discuss.
My assumptions are that it is well established that escrow requires specific performance (at least this is true in CA, and probably all other states).
My assumptions are that the following is generally true in all states.
Without fulfillment of the conditions precedent to closing escrow, escrow cannot close (specific performance).
If escrow never closed you have failure of delivery of an instrument.  The conclusive presumption of delivery avails an alleged note holder nothing if escrow did not close.  In CA it is stated this way:
No delivery of the note, within the meaning of section 3097 of the Civil Code, took place. As the court says in Sousa v. First California Co. (1950), 101 Cal.App.2d 533, 539 [225 P.2d 955],“Only after strict compliance with the condition imposed … does the escrow holder begin to hold for the party thereby entitled. …” Bogan v. Wiley (1949), 90 Cal.App.2d 288, 292 [202 P.2d 824], holds, “No rule is better settled than the one that the payee gets no property in a negotiable instrument until its delivery.” And Todd v. Vestermark (1956), 145 Cal.App.2d 374, 377 [302 P.2d 347], states: “… a delivery or recordation by or on behalf of the escrow holder prior to full performance of the terms of the escrow is a nullity. No title passes.”
You could state what you listed in your article a different way (that the payee provided no consideration at loan closing): [EDITOR'S NOTE: POSSESSION VERSUS AUTHORITY OR RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE INSTRUMENT]
Yet these respondents recognize the rule that a security interest serves as an incident to the debt (Civ. Code, 2909), and on oral argument before this court admitted “if we didn’t have a promissory note, and if it … wasn’t an obligation … [t]here would be nothing for that security to secure; so it couldn’t exist.” Moreover, as the decisions have held, the mere recordation of a deed of trust by the escrow holder, in accordance with the trustor’s instructions, does not establish delivery. Thus in Jeannerette v. Taylor (1934), 2 Cal.App.2d 568 [38 P.2d 831] (petition for hearing in Supreme Court denied), the “title company, following plaintiff’s instructions, recorded a deed to the property which she had signed and acknowledged, the defendant being named therein as the grantee. Following this the title company … mailed the recorded deed to defendant.” The court then stated: “The evidence shows that this was done without express authority. … No one who had possession of the deed was authorized by plaintiff to deliver the same to the defendant. The delivery to the title company was for the limited purpose of recordation. No authority was thereby conferred to make delivery, and its act in mailing the instrument to the defendant did not have the effect of passing title …” (Pp. 569-570.)
Holder and Holder in due course may not apply if there was no consideration and escrow never closed:
Since Builders did not become a holder in due course, the conclusive presumption of delivery avails respondents nothing. (Civ. Code, 3097.) The cited case of Baker v. Butcher (1930), 106 Cal.App. 358, 367 [289 P. 236], does not apply; respondent Walker’s admission 231*231 that his rights depend upon the status of Builders as a holder in due course proves fatal.
The following quote seems to agree with what you are saying, that the Plaintiff can sue based on the obligation or the contract:
Respondents fourthly and finally contend that the conception of the payment of $4,022.14 as a condition precedent to delivery necessarily must void the entire transaction or work an unjust enrichment to appellants. In essence this contention suggests that appellants must rescind the contract in order that no unjust enrichment accrue to them; that, having elected to accept certain contractual benefits, they must ignore Henderson’s breach of his duties. Yet respondents seek to collect upon a note under which appellants are not obligated for want of delivery; respondents’ rights properly rest only upon the underlying contract or in quasi-contract. Thus, as is stated in Jacobitz v. Thomsen, supra (1925), 238 Ill.App. 36–”the note never became an obligation binding, as such, upon the defendants. … The reversal in this case, however, will be without prejudice … to any right Thullen may have to recover from defendants whatever sum, if any, may be due from them under the terms of the original contract … or the value of work, labor and materials furnished. …” (Pp. 38-39.) Gray v. Baron, supra (1910), 13 Ariz. 70, 74, likewise points out–”Under the terms of the escrow agreement and the facts … there was no such delivery of the note … and … the judgment entered by the court for the plaintiff requiring the payment of the note … [must be reversed as] outside of the issues set forth in the pleadings. … The theory of the trial court seems to have been that the plaintiff had established a cause of action based upon the breach of a contract to purchase the stock. The error of the trial court was … in attempting to enforce such a cause of action … in an action based simply upon the promissory note, and not one based upon the breach of the contract to purchase.”
All of the above quotes come from Borgonova vs. Henderson, 182 Cal.App.2d 220 (1960), attached.
Getting back to the conditions precedent, here are some that I have seen.  But keep in mind that all of the loan closing documents I have seen are different.  Some bring up certain conditions different from others (your mileage may vary).  The following are all from one loan closing (notice the impossibility of meeting the conditions precedent):
BORROWERS CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS
You are authorized to deliver and/or record the above and close in accordance with the estimated closing statement contained herein (subject to adjustment);
and when you can procure/issue a 06-ALTA Loan w/Form 1 – 1992 coverage from Policy of Title Insurance from Fidelity National Title Insurance Company with a liability of $500,000.00 on the property described in your Preliminary Report No. 4008203, dated August 16, 2005, a copy of which I/we have read and hereby approve.
SHOWING TITLE VESTED IN:
[borrowers names ...]
FREE FROM ENCUMBRANCES EXCEPT:
[...]
6.   A First Deed of Trust, to record, securing a note for $500,000.00 in favor of Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc..
LENDERS CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS
Named Lender who provided the closing instructions: Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc.
[...]
Residential Funding Corporation has a security interest in any amounts advanced by it to fund this mortgage loan and in the mortgage loan funded with those amounts.  You must promptly return any amounts advanced by Residential Funding Corporation and not used to fund this mortgage loan.  You also must immediately return all amounts advanced by Residential Funding Corporation if this mortgage loan does not close and fund within 1 Business Day of your receipt of those funds.
Closing Agent/Attorney acknowledges the foregoing instructions and understands that failure to properly follow set of instructions may result in legal recourse by MORTGAGE LENDERS NETWORK USA, INC.
Identified conditions precedent in this case that may not have been met:
  1. No exception on Borrowers Closing Instructions for the security interest claimed by Residential Funding Corporation (who by the way was the sponsor of thousands of attempted securitization transactions) in the Lenders Closing Instructions
  2. No exception on Borrowers Closing Instructions for the security interest claimed by MERS on the Security Instrument (Deed of Trust in this case), which states “Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by the Borrower in this Security Instrument…”
  3. Approximately $329,000 was sent to Ocwen Loan Servicing to pay off an earlier 1st lien.  Ocwen was not the payee, beneficiary, mortgagee or assignee and was not listed on any recorded document.  A few weeks after closing, Ocwen recorded a full reconveyance stating that they were the beneficiary.  However, Ocwen was a stranger to the chain of recorded documents.  In this case the Borrower contends that payment was sent to the wrong party (the alleged note holder, beneficiary and assignee was New Century Mortgage Corporation) and the reconveyance is a wild deed.  Thus Residential Funding sent approximately $329k to Ocwen and the Borrower never received the benefit of the bargain as this money was never given to the Borrower or used for the Borrowers benefit.  Thus the encumbrance remains.
  4. The payee provided no money to escrow and the escrow company had full knowledge of this (in fact every other party had knowledge of this fact except the homeowner who was the least sophisticated party present).
In my opinion if the borrower was fooled at loan closing, the escrow should not have closed.  That is unless the escrow company was fooled also.  But they were not fooled – they knew everything.
Remember also that the homeowner never sees MERS or the above loan closing instructions until they are put before the Borrower on the day of signing.  Up until about 2010 I would say that there was no homeowner who could have remotely understood what any of the above meant.

 

About these ads

42 Responses

  1. I have all of that, it shows the sellers mortgage before policy, and no mortgage after policy, but the mortgage still existed. The title insurance company, First American, said they can do nothing. ” That is just the way it worked out” The claim lady said. The loan funds went to the sellers, and even though they have been paying their mortgage on THIS house until 2012 (closing 2005) they finally paid it off, so there is no claim, no nothing.
    I asked how they could even insure the ‘lender’ when my husband didn’t get a loan for the purchase of the house, as it was never purchased by us, nor the lender, nor anyone on their behalf……it hubby here got a “loan” it was not for HIM because the sellers got the proceeds, and their mortgage was not paid off until 9 years later?
    Consideration? no. Offer? no. Fraud? yes.
    Get approved for loan to buy house……but house was never bought with that loan………closing agent made warranty deed/note/mtg KNOWING the underlying mortgage remained alive and no ‘promise’ could be made per note, as no loan funds went for anything on hubby’s behalf….no mortgage could be made as the house was secured collateral for the sellers bank……
    We ended up it seems as the unintended straw buyer.
    House being taken when apparently we did not own it in the first place, and we have been paying back a “loan” for the purchase of this house since 2005 when the loan didn’t purchase any house. The HUD-1 shows that. The loan did not go to us not to the house.
    Wonderful little scenario here, killer fun for a lawyer but I am pooped. Not ruining my life any longer for this.

  2. justme – where is your title commitment and policy? On a sale, the buyer gets the “owner’s policy”. Where is yours (and be nice if you had a copy of the mtgee’s commitment and policy). If you never got or lost your ‘owner’s policy’, demand one from title – not legal advice – what i mean is that’s what I’d do. I’d pay lawyer to get it if necessary.

  3. Neil and Dan, please get your hands on some broker-lender and correspondent – lender agreements!!! In many cases, there was a contract which established a funding loc for the correspondents from the bigger guy / lender, dammit. This relationship was blessed by the GSE’s since the 80′s if not earlier. Before you may aver the lender was not the payee named, you have to overcome those contracts – take 10. Seriously. Maybe they can be overcome, but you’ll never know without reading the dang things.

    Dan, tho I lost track of you, I appreciate your legal research. Have to ask – have you shepard’d those cases? Also, fwiw, compare to
    “a contract does not survive a closing” (this is in ref to buyer and seller).

  4. Neil, you said:
    “The issue that I failed to explain in my post is that the note was never delivered to the originator.”

    I brought this up a long time ago, but I doubt we’ll ever prove it if it’s on us to do so. The dangling participle I had with it is that the originator had to endorse the note (apparently went from a special endorsement to just in blank during the hay-day of this disaster). Brokers popped up faster than banksters can say “we’re just the servicer” and likely weren’t trusted with any live docs, tho their names were on them. A title company, the one named as the orig dot trustee, did the closing and had poss of the orig note and dot. Those went to the warehouse lender, or used to, in the “warehouse package”. That may have changed if no traditional warehouse lender were used, meaning who knows where the orig note and dot went. But I’ve yet to figure how, if and since the title cos. did the closings, the named payee’s end. got on the note. (The assgt of the dot could be dated the date of closing, executed, and sent with the rest of the closing docs to title co.) You’d think no one would present a note to a borrower for signature with an endorsement already on the back, but who knows.

  5. The law or arguments made by operation of law do not have effect on these violations barring a proper understanding for how the accounting breached the mortgagors contract made in trust.

    The cash interest coverage ratio or times interest earned ratio uses accrual – basis numbers to assess interest coverage. The sponsor must generate funds from earnings in order to meet its obligations. This is what compels foreclosure and creates an inducement through the phony modification offers used to encourage default .

    Causes of Action

    Willful restraint on alienation by inducement, laches and acceleration

    registerclaims@live.com

  6. Lender is a trustee
    Originator is a borrower
    Borrower is a creditor
    Beneficiary is the title holders
    Transferor is the source of funding
    Transferee is the PPM
    Trust assets are shares of the SPE
    Pledgor is the Broker Dealer (subsidiary of a member bank)
    Pledgee is the Foreign Nat’l Investment Bank
    Transferee becomes the obligor with the lender the guarantor under a reverse purchase and sale – for common stock

    How about this

    Robo the Hobo sat on a Bobo
    and Option One is for fun
    So make it your job
    to find the knob
    So Dan the Man
    can form a new plan

    The debt arrangement’s —such as bond indentures (not formal trusts) and LOC agreements –typically contain restrictive covenants that protect the rights of creditors FACT

    But the borrower is the creditor
    and borrower is not the household

    There is no note and not borrower as this was all off balance sheet from the side of the household….cannot foreclose

    registerclaims@live.com

    Argument cannot lose – procedures are another story . Now go back to the TV and Twilight Zone marathon

  7. The wire into settlement is used to capitalize the common stock issued by the tax payer sponsor. The borrower note is moved off balance sheet as shadow banking. The lines of record are held in a demand extended each five years. The discounted mortgage is used to prepay the loan. This is how the rating agencies rated the toxic assets AAA

    From here are another 200 pages of testimony that only a market participant could know.

    Like a CPA told me last summer – this is dangerous stuff your messing with ….keep guessing purveyors of conjecture

  8. If Option one had a warehouse line and requested that X dollar amount be wired to the title company for the closing, the bank going to wire X dollar to the closing.

    I bought from option one. The wire instructions were not to Option One but too …..

    registerclaims@live.com

  9. The note is derecognized and carried off balance sheet as a trigger ….for future value. The value of the note is the wire held as a FV while the recorded lien is the PV.

    ….Where the property is conveyed free of liens and encumbrances …into trust to trustee – you have an installment note with a seller and purchaser for value

    Read the mortgage under Transfer Rights in Property

    (but you like to guess – no like to read , like to make crap up and ….guess …like morons…)

  10. How does the US Government allow a Independent Foreclosures Review Board (IFR) to disband settling a matter in Jan 2013, but failing to release the already settled and court approved Apr 2012 Szymoniak v. Ace until Sept 2013.

    Szymoniak complaint solved 1 million loan with DocX assignments along and MERS handle 10 time at least the number that DocX did. How does the US Justice Dept who was in on this agreement IFR not inject the sealed settled matter in which homeowners were complaining had happen to them but as settlement time the OCC & FED are acting if they got no knowledge of what US Justice Dept settled almost a yea prior?

    Now in Dec 2013 the OCC & Fed are settling with LPS/DocX with homeowners getting some part of that settlement. So why are not simply the homeowner allow to take the results of a settled matter into court, and simply show what was agreed on with either DocX or MERS forged assignments and get restitution!

  11. ML,

    What the f*** is wrong with you? Get a life and ignore me.

  12. Neidermeyer here is the problem as I am saying that people are having with did the alleged originator fund the loan? If Option one had a warehouse line and requested that X dollar amount be wired to the title company for the closing, the bank going to wire X dollar to the closing.

    I think you need to follow the chain, because you already provide to the judge that X dollar came into the closing, but your trying to prove why that amount came in, but in lending there were warehouse line. I do agree that these originator did originate the loan without planning on keeping the loan, and acted more as a broker instead of a bank planning on keeping the long term loan.

    Now I do not know what the court going to rule that because it was a short term for the warehouse lender, makes that illegal when the term of the loan did not change, and you were informed of the new purchasing lender.

    However the problem come in when they changed who the owner is and you not informed and they alter the terms, where you are not offered due process of your loan. If they are not in title properly then you have no claim for the property and at best a unsecured loan.

    Here is my question I am going to ask the Justice Dept today and that is if the banks settled Szymoniak v. Ace and the OCC & Fed are now working with LPS/DocX for the forgeries that were committed then why cannot a homeowner effected by the settled claims of the complaint not only with DocX but also MERS which is included in the complaint doing the same things, not automatically provided restitution.

    We know from the claim that they banks have agreed without admitting guilt that people were harmed without admitting criminal guilt, so there had to have been victims of the settled amount. So as Lynn Szymoniak collected on behalf of the USA, what duty do they have informing all victims of her claim?

  13. @ Charles Reed ,,

    ***************************
    If one does not have a valid Note as an originator, or a valid endorsed and receipt as a purchase Note lender plus a “lien” in place, they have “No Standing”!
    ***************************

    That is exactly what I was pointing out (in all bold) in a prior post ,, I have always known that BAC was the table funder for my Option One note , I have the bank wire directly from BAC,, but I just recently found out via the AIG v. BAC lawsuit that BAC actually did the underwriting and approving of the loans ,, Option One had only one role , straw man … now I have the courts playing interference on discovery… If BAC already paid once for the loan through the back door do you think they’re ever going to pay again through the front door (routing same money again but through WF as MS)..

    Of course not …

    And O-One never had a valid role ,,, and never had anything to sell so the forged assignments OCWEN produced can never be backed up by a money transfer.

    BAC is a complete stranger to each and every doc plaintiff has produced.

  14. What I have noticed on this site is when a poster is getting a point of truth out, Christine befriends them, others join her and then abruptly
    her team attacks .

  15. In terms of reforming the system we do need de-regulation but what Neil has been pointing out is the application of the law that exists we either don’t apply ourselves or the courts etc are only now catching up on.

  16. I am not really questioning his motives but maybe somebody is telling him to back off. Or maybe that is the way he is he goes off tangent for no reason.

    Who knows? It is our job to try and keep him focused. All of my comments are really geared towards Neil.

    May G-d give Neil continued strength and courage.

  17. The A Man you may be just right in Neil motives as I was thinking that a couple day back when he was finally on track with WaMu, then suddenly started back with this other BS!

  18. Broken Chain of Title = unjust enrichment for the banksters.

    If the glove dont fit you must aquit.

    Neil how are you gonna get over the judge saying unjust enrichment for the borrower.

  19. This is why the chain of title is important and as to where monies comes from or not is not on the homeowner to prove or not, but for whoever is making the claim that a debt is due. If one does not have a valid Note as an originator, or a valid endorsed and receipt as a purchase Note lender plus a “lien” in place, they have “No Standing”!

  20. Your trying to tie a mortgage and breach of trust claim to Consols. Consols are a longstanding coupon that has no final maturity date. They never mature which gives rise to the claim the mortgage follows the property and not the household debtor.

    A consol exists in perpetuity and began in England in the 18th century (Barclay scandal) . In this way the title holder is perpetually seised of the estate for the life of occupancy and there is no life of loan (aside from enforcing a 360/360 given the household).

    There is a special clause that gives the government the right to repurchase these never ending obligations and they are recognized as call provisions. (Hello TARP)

    But according to scholarly analysis and articles these quasi government backed obligations offered by banks are “….instruments that are valued by a perpetuity formula . For example , if the market rate is 10 percent (Combo loans) , a consol with a annual payment of $100,000 is valued at $1.0 Million .

    $100,000 (Demand) /.10 = $1,000,000

    Ever hear of a waterfall , Goodwill, Capitalization of a bond holders return ?

    registerclaims@live.com

    Look, when you define the pure discount attributed to bond,and its level coupon bond , and discovery of a consol, consider ….

    …nevermind

  21. FACT: The note is held at the accrued amount under the now defunct FASB guidance for FAS 140

    1) The note is de-recognized big Dan E (ex client) and is triggered later by the bond holders due date.

    More LL Guesswork and contribution from a computer programmer – your obligation on this cite is not to guess and opine but state facts as you know them . Your guessing Edstrom and your not an attorney (Disclaimers)

    registerclaims@live.com

  22. Charles Reed I agree. But Neil might be doing this for a reason we dont know.

  23. Here what I mean when we going off the path, and is starting with a judge about whether there was monies actual sent to the title companies, when a borrower was purchasing a home from a party, and when refinancing these loan other loans were paid out and cash back to homeowners in cash out.

    Its math, and when you purchasing $100,000 and a 95% Fannie or Freddie loan, then $95,000 is wired into the title company to hand over to the freaking seller of the property plus the buyer’s $5,000!

  24. It is time to repeal deregulation – the privacy measures alone make it worth repealing

  25. Haven’t pulled out my Black’s Law yet, but this is the internet legal definition of escrow. I have found the internet definitions to not be as crisp as the Black’s Law version, and I choose Henry Campbell Black because he seems to have written all the rules of the games whether it be money, property, law, judicial, whatever, there are a ton of treasties written by him.

    Escrow

    Something of value, such as a deed, stock, money, or written instrument, that is put into the custody of a third person by its owner, a grantor, an obligor, or a promisor, to be retained until the occurrence of a contingency or performance of a condition.

    An escrow also refers to a writing deposited with someone until the performance of an act or the occurrence of an event specified in that writing. The directions given to the person who accepts delivery of the document are called the escrow agreement and are binding between the person who promises and the person to whom the promise is made. The writing is held in escrow by a third person until the purpose of the underlying agreement is accomplished. When the condition specified in the escrow agreement is performed, the individual holding the writing gives it over to the party entitled to receive it. This is known as the second delivery.

    Any written document that is executed in accordance with all requisite legal formalities may properly be deposited in escrow. Documents that can be put in escrow include a deed, a mortgage, a promise to pay money, a bond, a check, a license, a patent, or a contract for the sale of real property. The term escrow initially applied solely to the deposit of a formal instrument or document; however, it is popularly used to describe a deposit of money.

    The escrow agreement is a contract. The parties to such an agreement determine when the agreement should be released prior to making the deposit. After the escrow agreement has been entered, the terms for holding and releasing the document or money cannot be altered in the absence of an agreement by all the parties.

    A depositary is not a party to the escrow agreement, but rather a custodian of the deposit who has no right to alter the terms of the agreement or prevent the parties from altering them if they so agree. The only agreement that the depositary must make is to hold the deposit, subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. Ordinarily, the depositary has no involvement with the underlying agreement; however, an interested party may, in a few states, be selected to be a depositary if all parties are in agreement. In all cases, a depositary is bound by the duty to act according to the trust placed in him or her. If the depositary makes a delivery to the wrong person or at the wrong time, he or she is liable to the depositor. The document or the money is only in escrow upon actual delivery to the depositary. Ordinarily, courts are strict in their requirement that the terms of the agreement be completely performed before the deposit is released. A reasonable amount of time must generally be allotted for performance. Parties may, however, make the agreement that time is of the essence, and in such a case, any delay beyond the period specified in the agreement makes the individual who is obligated to act forfeit all his or her rights in the property in escrow.
    ————————————————-

    Final note, if escrow is not closed, my first question is what about the original purchase money loan, in addition to all the refinances people may have done to save on interest rates or reduce payments? After a theft, if the one stealing is not the holder, and escrow was not closed, that means it’s still open somewhere and the suit settled nothing except allow them to open financial instrument against the property.

    Seeing legal posts pitching services and giving advice to businesses on how to respond to search warrants, and how to respond to government subpoenas or other document demands.

    Looking at that activity as pieces to the puzzle I’m creating.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, People, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  26. The “investors” are buying the by product of the home mortgage loan and not the riskier home mortgage loan. They are not paying for all the brick and mortar and personnel, because they are buying in the case of Ginnie Mae a 100% return of at the very least their principal investment back, that guaranty from you and I the US taxpayers.

    Once you stop on were the money came from which is another set of problems, went someone can lend or give another money to do whatever they want, and if by chance that was to lend monies to another and I come behind that transaction and want to invest in the performance of that loan you made, its two separate transaction and I just take both end of the deal.

    One you got to pay me back for the original unsecured loan at 2% interest and on the 100% US taxpayer guaranteed securities your paying me another 2% on the securities draws, that is 4% that I am making on my monies.

    We are having hard enough time trying to figure out or own deals (home mortgage loan) but we are trying to unravel the banks finances as to were there monies came from? How do you make a judge allow you to go on some fishing expedition on some theory?

    It about is the correct party calling the loan due? Do they have a financial interest in the loan and are they in title! How may are may not be an actual holder is not important as they are not calling the loan due, and if no one ever come forward there is no debt. It been all these year and the other party has no come asking for a debt to be repaid because they are dead. There is a privilege of the holder of the debt to forgive the debt, and who to say that it was not always their intention when the FDIC sales $308 billion in assets for $1.9 billion?

    How do you not get more for something the book value of $308 billion?

  27. Yep, Justme,
    it’s set up to get you to pay someone to help you keep your property from being stolen. Even if you think you are writing the right words, if your words were not considered by the legal definitions of them, you’ll end up allowing something you didn’t mean to.

    I wrote a legal statement once and had to consider when or whether to use ‘at’, and when or whether to use ‘in’ instead of ‘of’.

    If you don’t dot your i’s and cross your t’s when you walk into their game that has their court ‘rules’, you are automatically losing. 21 days is not enough time to learn the procedures and the vocabulary and the style and get the font and spacing and all right to tell them they can’t sue you, unless you are versed enough in their language to use a couple of sentences in the answer to ‘halt’ them before they can get started.

    I didn’t live in that world, so I didn’t know a lot of things, and back then people did not believe that a bank could rob anyone of their property.

    They use names like homeowner and foreclosure and when we use them too, we sound like we agree we were tenants/renters and they were the creditors. We we use words like ‘lost the home’, we sound like it’s something we did wrong. They control the media and their job is to keep us in the language that is ignorant of what a court uses.

    You’ll be hard pressed to hear the words ‘a people’ which is proper for us, but you’ll hear ‘a person’ which drops us in rights and status and gives us inalienable rights (that can be contracted away) instead of unalienable rights that cannot be contracted away even if we wanted to.

    They know we don’t know, and that’s why the remedy is not in the courts for the regular people, we needed a mass solution, so I had to move outside the courts for the remedy. I was not going to let some ‘appeal’ court decide the first judgment was bad or good and make me stick with their decision. Two steps into their world and you are in their world. One step in, and you can show you never was supposed to be there and they committed a crime, fraud, or some other unlawful, lacking immunity practice.

    Pay attention as more gets exposed. It’s the observation from the outside that makes what happened inside get exposed.

    All this time, no one mentioned escrow or that a title cannot transfer just by mailing it, or whatever.

    There are giants of people who have decided not to use the fox of the court, to guard the rights of the hens in the henhouse.

    The government may have low ratings, and people may believe every propaganda that is posted on the web about that government, but their world is based on rules as Morpheus in the Matrix stated.
    They have to abide by the rules, we don’t.
    They may appear faster or smarter but they are not.
    Some of those rules we can bend and some we can break, why? because it’s their rules, not ours. When we step out of the box and see we don’t have to follow a path they have to, we can call ‘game over’ and make someone look at how they applied the rules.

    Was looking at a comment in a chat that was about 4 months old.
    People were discussing for entertainment purposes only, getting a UCC-11 report from the Secretary of the State to see who has a financial claim against the caps name that is in the suit.
    Turns out the financial claim is not there from the people claiming to be owed the note. So why the suit?

    One question was:
    if you do a ucc11 and they have no ucc1 on file, they got a fraudulent court judgment?
    Someone else chimed in this set of opinions, I don’t know what instrument they are referring to, that is, I don’t know if they are talking about a note for a mortgage or a car, or an application for an apartment. It may even be in response to someone saying everything is prepaid, but again I don’t know.

    The opinions in the comment were:
    Treasury did not pay for it, the fed reserve monetized the credit application. No one is out $.
    the fed gov received a buttload of FRNS to spend out of the transaction.
    It was the application for credit/mort application that funded the loan. The note is gravy & to make you think a loan occurred.
    We don’t know if the app was securitized, no one has ever found proof of that. I don’t know if the DoT was securitized, never seen proof.
    My comment: Someone mentioned the PSA and the response was:
    Well there ya go. You are the maker, grantor and beneficiary. It’s an investment contract.
    The bank modified it by UCC 3-115 turning it into a financial instrument and sent it thru the federal reserve discount window, just like a check.
    My comment: That’s why that other video I pointed to is so interesting because they made it clear under Article 9 the note was a promise to pay not an order to pay which is a check, so if they converted it to a check without our knowledge, that may be why we are chasing a loan that never happened. That’s my distorted opinion.
    You would think Neil’s audit would have uncovered this, if it was true, but as I stated, it’s opinion and was for entertainment purposes when it was written in a chat.

    That was the jist of that chat that peaked my interest now that Neil is adding more fuel to the fire, we have statute of limitations, no title transfer, rescission time still open, escrow not closed.

    Here’s hoping all truths get exposed faster and faster. We are in Revelations, paraphrasing the etymology definition, the reveal of information to man from a divine source.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, People, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  28. Screw that. I spose I am your living proof none of it makes a dang bit of difference if the Judge will not hear it. I may have poor pro`se writing – but it is NOT hard to see – JUDGE – that whatever you want to call a “loan” was NOT what I got. THE FRICKEN MONEY WENT TO THE SELLERS. They kept the money, they did not pay off their underlying mortgage…they continued to pay it for EIGHT MORE YEARS which happens to be –*GASP* how long we have been paying for it too.
    The “closers” were also the title company- they knew the sellers had a mortgage but they did not pay it off like THEY SHOULD HAVE and given the REST to the sellers. This is all in the record of deeds.
    SO TELL ME – how is that….maybe the sellers actually got a loan on our behalf, but I sure as shit didn’t. I was buying property – the sellers lender had that property secured before and after I supposedly was given a “loan” for it. Nothing was purchased. The sellers got my loan.

    AND THE JUDGE DID NOT BELIEVE ME.
    Average Joe looses.
    Average Joe is fricken tired.
    Average Joe does not know if she has it in her to fight longer, but she will try. I have learned one thing, though;
    ~ Hell if I follow the “law” anymore.

  29. Regarding Jamie it is probably the investors who have this kind of power.

  30. We need to stop mixing and single out what we talking about. First like a CDO or CDS a securities is not purchasing the Home Mortgage Loan and those loan are suppose to be this underlying collateral but the transaction is a post loan closing transaction that the homeowners have not signed onto. I am contradicting on what the natural progression from borrowers applying, closing to pool and foreclosing.

    A license regulated state or national home mortgage lender is the only entities that can originate or purchase the loan debt, as they must be able to act as a mortgage lender themselves. Secruties are not in it for the risk of a mortgage loan, and look at Ginnie Mae MBS that are 100% guaranteed of the initial principal balance. The risk of a home mortgage loan is that the property upon a foreclosure sale could be 25%, 50%, 75% of what the loan balance is. Now while the property value could be a total loss and PMI, MIP or VA Guaranty are only going to pay the back 20% of the loan balance, is not what an investor of a securities is taking on as a risk.

    There are no “investors” in courts claiming to be “lien holders” if you are the company filing a lawsuit, its not the law firm v. the Defendant but who you are representing. So why would it be Wells, JPMorgan, Citi, BOA or servicing group filing suit or administratively foreclosure in the name of the bank.

    People are wanting to chase a theory that no even the alleged other party is bring to the court. The investors in Fannie & Freddie are suing for the securities and not the loans. They are suing because the loans in the securities did not perform correctly as they were not underwritten properly.

    Investors are not claiming they purchase loans but securities!

  31. Paul Hellyer, former Canadian defense minister, speaking on the two world best kept secrets. Goes extensively into the greatest financial scandal ever visited upon humanity.

  32. Great info. It does appear that govt agencies were also known parties to the fraud or they are now reacting slowly as usual although the sense is the dam may break. Pres. Obama’s blueprint includes references to clean title I believe as does the CA Homeowner Bill of Rights. It’s as if local officials, lawyers etc are stuck and don’t want to read these things or face the reality or accountability of what’s been done.

    On my case a supposed “new” loan on refi that was my only option due to the crisis in late ’07 I was convinced, the reconveyance didn’t make sense. The servicer which was the same servicer on the “paid off” loan refused to answer questions and refused to send the “paid off” note before there were any produce the Note theories. They would send me letters assuring me the FILE was closed.

    Years later I contacted the title company and they would only direct me to the reconveyance as well. It was as if there could be no questioning of filed reconveyances.

    I filed a complaint with the County Real Estate fraud unit and they to dismissed any questioning of the reconveyance, along with every other proof I had on standing, misrepresentation etc. They claimed they can’t review every document since there’s no money in their budget! Then what’s the purpose of taking complaints if not to uncover problems. Instead they made my whole case a matter of credit report problems. The result was that the servicer claimed that my credit reports were wrong and apparently then changed them to reflect them as the lender on all my loan back to the original in ’96. I complained and they were changed again. The final conclusion from the agency “investigation” was that the “lender” responded.

    Similar experience with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    It appears to be changing though and with CA HBOR the stone turning may have provided the last pieces of evidence I need.

    This article and previous, with statute of limitations are really filling in the blanks.

    Just as we could not accept the fraudsters contract argument we have to keep questioning every document and process. A reconveyance filing it appears cannot be a rubber stamp.

  33. Here is the problem, though: for every case listed by Edstrom, dating back at least 50 years and even 100 years, there are thousands of recent ones condoning banks’ and servicers’ actions. Add to that our public servants’ refusal to investigate, let alone prosecute, and… Voila!

    The landscape today has nothing to do with what once was.

  34. Dan is talking about the escrow company. Are we talking about a company separate from the title company or is it because we are talking about judicial versus nonjudicial states? Yes, I met a mortgage broker who was adamant that it was the deadbeat homeowner who caused the whole financial meltdown. Sounds pretty fishy now!

  35. The thing of it though is that Fukushima is as dangerous for them as it is for us…

  36. Who cares about the media and there coverage.
    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2013/12/31/dancing-with-the-dimons/

    If somebody is capable of taking this picture what else could happen.

  37. Keep on overturning rocks folks. The end result is the same….this administration, and the one before it, were told, and believed in no uncertain terms, that life on planet earth would stop if the banking cartel was to dry up….therefore, we foam their runways. Why were they told that? Because the entire governmental counsel consists of nothing but bankster criminals. THEY ARE ALL IN ON IT! And there’s nothing to stop them. Checkmate.

    Broken chain of title? Who cares? Has anyone high up ever mentioned one thing about broken chains of title? Shhhh! The regulators are laundering the titles through meaningless fines that get the criminals off the hook, with absolutely no recompense to the affected borrowers. You want justice? Don’t look to the courts or government, as they’re in on the scam. Who fears a zombie apocalypse when everything governmental and judicial has been usurped, all without a single shot being fired?

    Next in their sights are all the pensions and end of life care. Alongside their complete takeover of educational loans, they’ll have future generations from the cradle to the grave. But turn on your TV and the Ministry of Truth will tell you that things are vastly improved….Wall Street is having a record run. You’ll hear nothing about the millions of homeless, or the millions upon millions who’ve given up looking for work. Absent will be any news of the occasional tent city forming around the charity dental clinics that pop up in any given location, only to turn thousands away due to lack of personnel. People are dying from abject poverty, but within the beltway, things have never been better. Record campaign contributions guarantee this criminality a long prosperous run for those well connected.

    I’d prefer a zombie scenario. At least I could look the enemy in the eye.

  38. One more from Anon:

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

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

    Third, it is not productive to state that since someone else was actually making payments on the “loan”, “albeit” not the borrower, that the loan is not in default. Courts do not care about this — they only care if the borrower is in default. However, if the actual party does not come forward claiming that the debt is owed to them, and the actual party cannot prove how they came to own the collection rights — borrower does not owe the debt to anyone. That party is never going to able to demonstrate that collection rights belong to them because they would have to divulge the above fraudulent process and that the “mortgage loan” from onset was not a mortgage but, instead, collection rights. This admission would also mean that the “debt” is unsecured and can be discharged in BK.”

  39. from Anon:

    “…most, if not all of subprime refinances and subprime new purchases, are bogus mortgage loans that were falsely presented as a mortgage to homeowners. These were charged-off loans, with only collection rights surviving. How does this affect homeowners??? One, not a mortgage — unsecured debt. Two, valid records as to payoffs, and payoff to prior trust and/or GSE — is unavailable by public documentation. Three, the purchase price for collection right to unsecured debt is undisclosed to borrower. Thus, borrower is unable to ascertain how much a debt buyer paid for collection rights to charged-off debt — and, how that “purchase” price can be “modified” for principal reduction by the distressed debt buyer.

    Finally, security investors are NOT investors in default debt. Subprime was default debt. Security investors, and I will state this over and over, can only invest in CURRENT cash flow pass-through. Security investors CANNOT invest in collection rights — or, for that matter, any mortgage loan itself. They can only invest in pass-through of cash flows. The loan, NOTE, collection rights, remain with the “INVESTOR” — who is NOT the security investor. Under federal law, the “INVESTOR/Creditor” must be disclosed to the homeowner. This information CANNOT be found in SEC documents, and will NOT be produced in courts of law– unless the judge is astute enough to understand the process.

    It is time for deregulation to be repealed. This, I believe will come. In the meantime, unless attorneys understand that all is being withheld in courts, borrowers will remain in limbo — unable to access the documents they need. And, given this, foreclosures will (fraudulently) continue. Attorneys have been so brainwashed on a no-end track, that they fail to look beyond the apparent.

    Number ONE — First, and foremost, separate security investors from junk debt buyer “investors.” They are not the same. To conclude that they are the same, is a huge detriment. And, to conclude that they are the same, sadly, has been the major downfall of many. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.”

  40. Why did they assign after the PSA was closed. Did the mony payments go to the PSA? Is the PSA still alive.
    Broken Chain of Title = Unjust enrichment to the banksters only
    Broken Bridge Scam

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 3,121 other followers

%d bloggers like this: