The Great Chase WAMU $300 Billion Caper?

Hiding in plain sight, Chase may indeed have taken control of the portfolio loans of Washington Mutual. The FDIC receiver clearly stated to me that there was no assignment of mortgages. He also said that he thought Washington Mutual was servicing about $1 Trillion in loans originated by WAMU or its originators (pretender lenders). And he said that it was estimated by him and the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee that about 1/3 of those loans were portfolio loans — I.e. Real loans paid for by WAMU. And of course, as previously reported here and elsewhere we now know that Chase acquired no loans as part of the merger with WAMU.

So the question is “What happened to the $300 Billion in loans that were real assets of WAMU?” Nobody has really asked and obviously no answer has been forthcoming — especially not from Chase who was going around the country foreclosing on loans that it said it acquired “by merger” from WAMU.

Here is my theory: the loans are technically in the WAMU “estate” from the Bankruptcy proceedings. The U.S. trustee disclaimed any interest in some WAMU subsidiaries that probably have an interest in those loans. Those subsidiaries still exist. why? Meanwhile, Chase DID acquire the servicing rights of WAMU.

As the Servicer it receives payments from Borrowers who have no idea about the status of their loan. If Chase receives a payment on a loan that is subject to claims of securitization, we assume that it makes payments to the trust beneficiaries of the REMIC trust claimed to own the loan. That is a whole other subject for forensic auditing. Our focus for today is what does Chase do with payments on loans that are still WAMU loans. I theorize that one likely possibility is that Chase keeps the money because there is nobody claiming a right to receive the payments now that the WAMU Bank has ceased to exist. That would give them an income of around $20 Billion+ per year on loans that WAMU funded and Chase never bought. But that is the tip of the iceberg.

The loans kept as WAMU portfolio loans were probably subject to underwriting that was more in line with industry standards and probably had a much lower default rate than the loans that investors funded. So those loans had a definite value on the secondary market. Hence I postulate that Chase as authorized Servicer is acting as the owner. Without anyone making a claim, they have nobody to pay. So if they sold the WAMU portfolio loans as successor Servicer for WAMU loans, the proceeds of sale went to Chase and Chase then created numerous such transactions wherein they “sold” the mortgages they didn’t own.

The sale proceeds are completely controlled by Chase. They no doubt did sell most of the loans by now and many of them were probably “assigned” to new REMIC trusts. Thus Chase, based upon estimates from those close to the WAMU estate and the Chase WAMU merger, generated more than $300 Billion in sales of loans it never owned or paid for, plus principal and interest payments received on those loans, probably totaling around $400 Billion between the merger and now. No wonder they are so eager to pay fines measured in the tens of billions, when they illegally obtained loans worth in the hundreds of Billions of dollars.

Who is the injured party? It would appear that the Bankruptcy Estate of WAMU, or the Trustee for the estate, is the injured party. They should have the $400 Billion. Why this was not apparent to the U.S. Trustee and the FDIC receiver I don’t know. But isn’t it peculiar that there is a $400 Billion hole in the deal that went entirely to Chase?

Of course this is conjecture not even an opinion, so far. I could be wrong. But in the chaos of the overnight mergers, it seems more likely that Chase found every way available to grab more money.

About these ads

123 Responses

  1. Look forward to follow up and any new information concerning WaMu-Chase

  2. look at this site

    Today, January 7, 2014, an information (a.k.a. indictment) was filed in Kitsap Superior Court against J. Reiko Callner, Esq., Executive Director, Commission on Judicial Conduct, and against Felice Congalton, Esq., Associate Director of the WA State Bar.

    WA State, under statutory authority RCW 7.56.020, provides for any person to file an “information” when any state official “unlawfully hold or exercise any public office” that affects the “interests” of that person.

    – See more at: http://www.corruptwa.com/corrupt/charges-filed-against-executive-director-commission-on-judicial-conduct-and-associated-director-wsba/#sthash.PnJCLOkA.dpuf

  3. The Ditto case also discusses injury as the threshold for a court’s jurisdiction. Without injury by the plaintiff, a court is without jurisdiction.
    MERS had no skin in the game and could suffer no injury, just like a guy in poss of a note who did not get it by transfer.

  4. MERS v Ditto from Charles – decided Jan 2014 (TN)

    “This appeal involves the purchase of property at tax sale. MERS filed suit against Purchaser to invalidate his purchase of property because it had not received notice of the sale even though it was listed as beneficiary or nominee on the deed of trust. Purchaser claimed that MERS was not entitled to notice because MERS did not have an in the property. Purchaser also alleged that MERS failed to properly commence its lawsuit because it did not remit the proper funds pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 67-5-2504(c). The trial court refused to set aside the tax sale, holding that the applicable notice requirements were met and that purchaser was the
    holder of legal title to the property. MERS appeals. We affirm the
    decision of the trial court.”

    Okay, so this involves a tax sale. But a purchaser is an innocent purchaser for value (assuming value were given) if he takes without notice of an assgt imo. He is only subject to the claim of a recorded interest by the party whose interest is of record. (the TN court ruled “MERS” got all the notice to which it was entitled – have to finish reading) That’s why bk trustees and certain debtors may avoid unrecorded interests. If Joe sold the note and dot to Frank but Frank didn’t record, Frank’s interest may be avoided and Joe doesn’t have any. Certain debtors and bk trustees enjoy the status of bona fide purchaser without notice even though there were factually no sale of the debtor’s property (and the bk trustee has it even if he has actual notice of an unrecorded assgt). This is the one the banksters are hard at work trying to get 86’d. I first learned of this in, think it was, in re Zitta (AZ). I think this is the case:

    http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20BCO%2020110125536

    For the same reason a debtor and a bk trustee may avoid unrecorded interests, imo anyone should be able to. lay opinion. These are both instructive cases. imo.

  5. fwiw – loans which are “modified” are not eligible for re-purchase by FNMA. Remember, someone had to repurchase the loan from FNMA whom itself had to repurchase to end its guarantee. That means they have to be portfolio’d or find another sucker to repurchase them. No one in his right mind, even a schemer, would do that. Or heck, maybe with all the games they’ve mastered, someone would.
    FNMA is likely ‘having difficulty’ repurchasing loans from a party which never got them and has only security interests at best. I guess they could pay the depositor (issuer?) who could pay off the security interest, but that might out the facts.

    Going to read mers v ditto – thanks – but mers v anyone: is that a joke?
    Unless things have changed dramatically, MERS doesn’t “v.” anyone (tho it has have gotten involved in landmark or MERS-is-really-threatened-cases).
    Litigation is brought and paid for by servicers in mers’ name generally to defend actions taken by the servicers or others in mers’ name.

  6. @ Charles Reed – The NPV test is a loan decision engine to determine if the defaulted mortgage could be resecuritized – with less upfront cash flow to the certificate purchases, which is inevery case was teh FRC. As far as knowing if i qualifies – I built and coded an NPV calculator several years ago. Found out quickly that the Servicers did not want to fix this mess, and circumvented using its analysis for most borrowers.

    If you want to run an NPV test – just go to Treasury’s web site. It’s free and never conclusive of who or what will get a modification.

  7. PAROLE EVIDENCE AND INTERPRETATION

    Evidence of prior or contemporaneous negotiations is admissible to properly define and ambiguous term , even one contained in a total interrogation . the ambiguity may either be appear ant on the face of the contract of derive from underlying circumstances. The contract is clearly indicative of a mortgage while the terms conditions and covenants are ambiguous and contradict the mortgagor mortgagee relationship, use of the nominee and even the portrayal of a trustees in the formation of trust versus transacting a mortgage contract and parties agreement in trust

  8. johnG its at stopforeclosurefraud.com.

    The FHA loan had MIP and on the modification it not included as the modification is not within the FHA requirement as the full payment is not being paid. The VA never had a monthly amount and only had a upfront fee.

    Your right about the PMI as everybody started writing 80/20 or 15 or 10 depending on the down payment. I doubt that many Fannie or Freddie loan were modified anyway. The only FHA loan modified were those not in Ginnie Mae pools as for VA loans.

    Your going to find out that all the FHA & VA loan that were in Ginnie Mae pools were not even process for the HAMPs modification because Ginnie Mae holding these blank Notes could not authorize it and if would destroy the securities because you would have payment of half coming in over a 40yrs period instead of the 6.5% over the 30yr the securities were written at!

  9. So, charles, how bout you hook us up with a link to that case you just read? thanks

  10. charles – I do so struggle with figuring out what you’re saying, but….you remind me of an old question: WHAT happens with pmi, fha insurance, va guarantee, or even the FNMA guarantee when a loan is “modified”?? With pmi, for instance, the borrower pays for that and it’s steep. It has to stay on the loan until an appraisal verifies the loan to value is (now) less than 80% (or the borrower has paid the loan down to less than 80% ltv). Maybe there isn’t much out there because the banksters started writing 80/20 loans to avoid mi on the first (the 80%), but then, there’s some kind of insurance on the 20% second and if it’s not on the HUD, it’s rolled into the rate. Yes, it was for the ben of the lender, but the borrower paid for it. What happens to / about it can’t be “nothing”. My guess on pmi is that the insuring co. is let out of the
    original insurance contract when a loan is modified. But I don’t see that with FHA and VA….so, what?!

  11. Just read MERS v. Ditto Tenn Court of App and they know it out the park. People some judges are getting it that MERS is a fraud. MERS has no financial interest in the loan!

  12. carie I read the link and being a homeboy of Mr. Potter my bag Warren Buffett, is Potter on steroid with $57 billion to work with. He sold his stock in UnitedHealth last year also but why? It the biggest healthcare insurance company.

    BOA has dunk its Countrywide loan to a lender not associated with TARP. However I do see a correction in the Stock Market but I see America know at least a cover up scheme which they are under right now.

    Maybe this means Yellen coming in to put down some type of control, because anybody can see the money that investing in the market now only represents a few and the other monies are sitting on the sidelines because they know the sharks like John Paulson are steal in the water having not been captured after the last slaughter.

    If you were rich would you want a 50% loss when waiting does not lose you your money. The economy is already struggling and employment been stagnated with 16 million not working and all government got to do is keep food stamp rolling and the receivers are program now to live with there condition because Obama in charge and they believe in him blindly.

    So it will be the 401Ks that another 45% hit but as the public did nothing the last time and believed that keeping it in, that it would grow back as this is what long term investment is about. The public is program now for whatever as who are they wanting to actual put in jail? Nobody wanting to put the crook that owes you at least 50% of your money in jail so that you get nothing because now they are bankrupt!

    What does it actual mean that the stock market is at 4,500 for the average person on the street as it at 16,500 and gains are not realized until you take the money out!

  13. Hey JG—you never asked me about my 1099A in the email…I’m still waiting for your question…?

  14. iwantmynpv ask me what you want, and if you want me to figure out if you would have qualified for a HAMP just give me your numbers and I could tell you as I have the requirement books, and would just have to find them!

    This is about us working together against them!

  15. Does nobody have a Wachovia loan ? I never hear much chatter about Wachovia and the Wells deal.. What happened to that whole Wachovia portfolio ? I am in amazement how a little piece of paper assigned from LPS from Wachovia to Chase in 2012 has any merit in a foreclosure case…

  16. MS are you kidding me with the EESA? Yes it was passed and is TARP but Paulson who have authority to change any part of it did after Congress passed it and it was only $700 billion with the first $250 billion going to the bank as loans plus AIG, GM and Chrysler. Obama Administration ask Bush to draw the second half of the money of $300 billion.

    Most of the bank already paid the monies back (there was no purchase of securities) but because they all had taken the money is why the were forced into in Mar 2009 to sign an agreement for HAMP.

    Where you guy on the planet at the time?

    iwantmynpv what are your smoking about master servicer when you got a “fail bank” in 2008 who was acting in all these capacities but the know date of the transfer was on Jul 31, 2006 to Wells Fargo, but Ginnie Mae bankruptcy remote plan does not concern us, because I am talking about the Note/Contract which there nothing Ginnie Mae can do to effect the Note as they are not a financially interested party ever!

    First we are of originating a loan which Ginnie Mae cannot do and tell you that FACT. Next Ginnie Mae tell us they also don’t buy or sell home mortgage loans, so there is no government involvement in home mortgage loans except insuring them.

    Next the titling/lien is a State function and no where is there a Federal titling/lien agency. Ginnie Mae is no recorded in the country anywhere as the “lien holder” because they don’t originate or purchase any loans!

    There was not receiver of the Ginnie Mae pooled loans because Wells Fargo was acting as the Trust/Custodian/Servicer but neither Ginnie Mae or Wells Fargo purchase the loan from WaMu. I am not with you talking about other situation which are different except for other “failed banks” like IndyMac or other that failed!

    The reason you did not get an NPV was because Ginnie Mae prevented it if you have a government insured loan, because the loan was not able to be underwritten because there was no authority to do so. There were as many as 750,000 FHA, 50,000 VA & 50,000 USDA loan no even reviewed for the HAMPs during 2009-2010. Look at the OCC matrix and the OCC, Fed & several colleges that all together conducted it study, and released it in Sept 2011. But understanding the OCC matrix you see that those un-reviewed where the 20% of government insured loan requesting modifications. The Army Times tells you that 50,000 VA loan were no granted HAMP or VA HAMP modification!

    It is what it is, and that why none of these folks received NPV or Borrower Notices!

  17. Shelley Erickson asked me to post this for her because she’s been blocked from posting:

    “I don’t believe Neil blocked me.
    For those homeowners that never had the real party of interest brought to the table, the investor, whom has never filed anything against your property, and being the trustee of the trust has no legal right to foreclose in their name, and in WAMU Chase cases Chase was a fraud from day one. I would think the statutes began at the PSA contract being deceived AND THE NOTE NEVER ENTERED. “

  18. JG, KC, thanks.
    I wonder if BAC about the ruling.

    In my opinion, the goal was to trip the insurance by claiming a payment owed and not received and to get the house.
    They filed enough papers to get the insurance, and are prevented from getting the house. I’m sure the court didn’t tell them they had to give the insurance money back since it wasn’t brought before the court, and unless someone looks at the accounting, again…no one will see there is a security floating out there that will get payments until the one paying defaults and then there will be no insurance to cover it (already paid out), and the one holding the security as a form of value is holding wall paper, tissue paper, gift wrap paper, scratch paper, etc.

    Trespass Unwanted,Creator, Corporeal, People, State

  19. Dutchman, you’re never short on style!

  20. iwantmynpv,

    You didn’t address me personally but… I hear you about leading people to the water!

    Too many are not thirsty enough yet. Problem is… they all get thirsty at the same time! And then, watch out for crocs and komodo dragons between two sips! Whatever happened to being proactive, the one thing that made this country so great? Nowadays, not only are they being reactive but worse yet, they are being… reactionary!

  21. Charles, explain exactly when and where the Ginnie Master Trust ever takes possession of the notes?

    I explained exactly how that transaction went down, The reason their are never any loan schedules with FDIC assistance – the FDIC has no money and all the loans are washed through an SPE to keep them BK remote!! I know stuff, even if it shoots down your strategy. You seem like a nice fella – I can only lead you to the water……..

  22. At the last post, KC linked a case which I’d call educational and informative (thanks, KC). If you skip to “Argument and Law Assignment of Error”, you won’t miss much. If my link won’t open, I highly recommend going back to the last post for KC’s link on the 2nd at 10:37 pm.

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2014/01/02/bac-home-loans-servicing-l-p-v-blythe-ohio-court-of-appeals-bac-has-failed-to-demonstrate-that-it-has-standing-to-accelerate-the-note-and-foreclose-the-mortgage/

  23. EESA is a bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets

    How Chuck – how are the repurchasing mortgages -under a Merger and acquisition scheme accounting rules recognize as recognition at time of sale

    So who is bringing the sale Chump …no standing moron

    The ESAA is for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers,

    Tax payer corporations

    EESA was need to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 CHANGE REVISE AND REWRITE the requirements for reconstitution of the lost value from TARP charges taken in 2008

    It was to provide incentives for to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes….to charge written down assets to the household tax payer and then forgive the taxable event by issuing a 1099 A for the households abandonment of claims .

    Caution people .. . .morons like these are her to convolute and confuse the matter

    Hey Chuck – Just kidding (read it yourself before you talk )

    registerclaims@live.com

  24. Charles,

    And there, you have it. He keeps making my case for me every single time.

    Read him at your own peril.

  25. What makes this PNC issue something to pay attention to, is that everyone affected it isn’t disclosed if they are PNC only customers, because PNC is a bank and has a mortgage servicer wing.

    Someone’s hearsay, indicates many more things happened for and against people. These transactions began Dec. 27, 2013.

    The hearsay is cryptic, it says amounts and items. Items is not described.
    “People had payments and items coming out of their accounts that were not theirs…… Some people got a direct deposit and it gave them 2 times the deposit or someone made a deposit to another account and it gave that person twice the amount and then those people say their balance and spent it. ”

    ” Because during all of this you could not see what was coming in or out because it did not give full discription(description) online or even on the bank system. ”

    The above is disturbing if people had withdrawals that took place but were not posted to show a reduced account balance leaving them with no way of knowing they had insufficient funds.
    It is also disturbing if deposits were made and the account balance didn’t increase nor reduce as they spent money not knowing they were spending money they didn’t have if they relied on the balance shown to indicate whether they had enough funds. In those cases looking at the transaction history would/should have shown you had $35, but spent $20 on gas and your balance hadn’t changed, and you spent $115 on groceries and your balance is still showing $35. In that case you’d know something is wrong and start wondering if you are overspending your account.

    Employee of PNC Bank Tells the Real Truth of Ongoing Cyber Issues at PNC Bank: Preview of Things to Come

    http://www.stevequayle.com/index.php?s=33&d=727

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

  26. MS is not paid by anyone. That’s his problem: no one wants to pay him for anything. Self-proclaimed “expert” with no track record, who had to sell out his partners in order to remain out of jail.
    ===================================================
    She has no degree – Neil loves her attacks on me –
    right Garfield

    Check her out -she has been listed on various sites as a schizophrenic . The DA is interested in hearing about where she is getting the information of plea bargains and selling out, doing time. She knows I am correct and have settlement and wins in over 22 cases include the CA Court of Appeals – Order to remand

    The blogger cannot make a single argument with any substantive support other than incessant web research —web tweeker . Late night web tweeking ..

    – She has no formal education
    – She never traded a single closed loan
    – She does not know her anus from her mouth

    No secondary experience and no capital markets understanding .
    She is web trash talking trash and not to be heard.

    Live and let live and let this vermin go away ….Should I share what we have on this fools dossier ….Our web purveyor is nothing but but a mouth full of of crap —.

    Go away darling

  27. Charles,

    MS is not paid by anyone. That’s his problem: no one wants to pay him for anything. Self-proclaimed “expert” with no track record, who had to sell out his partners in order to remain out of jail.

    Google Maher Soliman expert CA and you’ll know everything there is to know. Not ONE serious attorney gives him the time of day, have you noticed? Any time he’s asked for cases he helped win, he is unable to come up with anything of substance. He’ll blurt names like “Lopez v. WF” or “Discovery Card v. Jones” or “Repothugman v. Smith”, with no state, no case No, nothing (how many of those are there in the entire states? I bet a few hundreds!).

    That’s why he comes here to peddle. We warn people. Some still manage to get conned out of $1,500 or even $2,500. Not one person on this site has ever said: “Jeez! That MS is really something! I paid him $2,500 and… I won just because of all the good info he gave me!!!” That’s how he makes his living. Look up the number of complaints against him. The noose will get tighter around his neck at some point. just a question of time. All he knows how to do is attack people and call them names or write cryptical insanity no one can read, let alone use.

    And with Fukushima spewing radiations all over the West Coast, he’s getting more toxic by the day. Ignore him.

  28. MS who are you paid by? Your a bank guy who is wanting to keep people chasing their tails. First TARP took the monies that was suppose to buy the crap toxic loans, but Henry Paulson your daddy, took that money and lent it to banks AIG and GM and Obama took the second half of that money and lent more to banks like Citi, and BOA but the $50 billion set aside for the HAMP only $5 billion was spent as only 530,000 modifications were made, but Harry Reid and his state got a billion or so of that money.

    Modifications are modifications and not refinances and out of the 550,000 there are like 140,000 that have failed because the borrowers where not given the right rate to ensure the modification worked. I would say that the modifications are in present form set up to fail as you see BOA selling off its mortgage servicing portfolio to a bank not covered by TARP agreement.

    The bank have played with house money and now that people are wise to the con, in order to put some trust back into the financial market with monies that not the phony printed stuff the Fed printed needs to come back to the Fed, because its was never backed by real assets. The Fed only had $2 trillion in assets but makes $16 trillion in loans?

    Maybe I am a moron, however then what are you. Your talking about all the loans were wrote off and this all happen under TARP, so were is that evidence?

  29. CHARLES REED Said : I believe they are buying back the securities in a rescinding process for all remaining loans, which are the majority of loans, where they resign DOT or Mortgages.

    Holy Cow ! We have ourselves a genius …Golly gee – Duck Dynasty viewers rejoice ….Its called TARP and Short tile legislation

    Christine for advice – OMG
    No Degree
    No JD
    No Accounting experience
    No Secondary track record
    No Capital Markets experience
    No Analyst experience
    No Private Placement Registration experience

    I don’t know if Knob Slob is accurate (as said by another) but this moron will take you to hell and back ! (Take the bait Jask ash . . . hey jus kidding …I love Hood Rats )

    Peace

  30. christine read the link and I like it as it gives clues as to how to put some of the genie back in the bottle. As I said I believe they are buying back the securities in a rescinding process for all remaining loans, which are the majority of loans, where they resign DOT or Mortgages.

    Next as with the article pay as many wrongful foreclosure and pay out $150,000 because these folks don’t have monies to fight anyway and most attorney are still to late to the fight.

    Take away the victims and settle the more blatant cases and let the other stay that it would take a small fortune to win and your done. And as my wife just added was the people would in most cases purchase a home which put that money right back into the economy!

  31. Right on Christine
    I carry the same question re the fines. Do you trust them- any of them.
    They are junkies.

  32. I’m on record as having asked forever what became of those hefty-looking fines banks… kinda… sorta… appear to be assessed with big fanfare and congratulatory slaps on the back of regulators seemingly doing a job for which we pay their salaries. I guess I’m not the only one to ask. Someone decided to investigate.

    You won’t like the answer.

    And by the way, who pays for them?

    We do! Is that a great country or what?

    http://www.alternet.org/economy/bank-fines-and-crime?page=0%2C0

    Economy AlterNet / By Lynn Stuart Parramore

    When Giant Banks Pay Fines, Where Does the Money Go? Does It Stop Crime?

    Fines are bigger than ever, but financial firms keep making profits, and the rest of us pay.

    “Since the recent financial crisis and housing collapse, some of Wall Street’s biggest banks have faced fines from regulators reaching into billion-dollar territory. In the latest news, JPMorgan Chase is looking at $11 billion in fines for pushing crap mortgage securities on unwary investors.

    That sounds like a hefty amount of cash—it’s about the gross domestic product of Kenya, and tops that of Iceland and Bahrain. As journalist Pat Garafalo has noted, $11 billion is equal to what all the major banks paid together in 2012. The sum would be the largest single financial fine in history, if in fact it ever is paid (JPMorgan Chase is reported to be in negotiations that might reduce it).

    So what happens to all that dough?…”

    “…That’s the billion-dollar question. Regulators love to brag about all the money they extract from financial transgressors, which comes in the form of various fines and “disgorgements” (returns of wrongful profits) to settle charges….”

    “…But does the money go to victims? Does it end up in the Treasury? Do regulators use it to fund more investigations? Buy snazzy new furniture for the office? The answers are not always easy to come by…”

    “…The banks are very clever about things like fines, and in some cases, they actually have ways of making you pay for them…”

  33. People are lured into this sense that the Federal Government does not do things wrong, but as this program (Ginnie Mae MBS) was put in 1973 the glitch was and is now the titling aspect to these loans in the pools. However up until now there was not this mass amount of foreclosure, and the sure fire cover was that of these borrowers with little or no monies, and no attorneys worth their salt invested in an area that was already a forgoes conclusion that the payment are paid or not and if not what the defense? Where was none and the foreclosure took place.

    One thing about families going through foreclosure is if they had the monies they would not be going through a foreclosure. Everybody ignorant to the fact of Notes, Security Instrument and Securities pooling, as you can see after 5yrs Neil as with the other attorney are just somewhat understand what took place, and regular people who are fight everyday for their lives have a great understand then the attorneys and judges but are not equip to present the argument in legal talk!

    It was not anticipated that people would raise up, but given all the close doors by attorneys not know anything about this, and it was easier to simply say you have no defense and keep asking the same question as Neil were you behind on your payment when the contract/Note had become void year before any defaulting was done!

  34. Neil right about caper as I believe the FDIC inflated the value of what was actual being sold in assets WaMu had. They include the term loans also because it was the only way to get to $308 billion, which I am sure included 2nd mortgages all the lender went after in their sales pitches.

    However there was not going to be a point where the FDIC was going to sell the securities that Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie investors had already advantaged draws against. So let take out the semi-government and Gov insure securities where would WaMu have $308 billion in assets and why would you sell them at $1.9 billion?

    As the number was put high as to assets people assumed it was a combination of all these loans, when in fact that the number given was to trick the public, so why do you think JPMorgan is suing the FDIC for $1 billion? It ain’t that they got $308 for $1.9 billion even with $20 billion in settlements and legal cost they had to shell out!

  35. iwantmynpv, my discussion is about the government insured loans (FHA, VA, USDA) which are a different animal than Fannie & Freddie loans. This is not about what JPMorgan purchase they did not purchase Ginnie Mae pooled loan because you have to paid full face value in order to pull the loan out the pools, which would have been around the $130 billion for the balance of the average Gov insure loan balance on the 1.3 million loans Wells Fargo started servicing on Jul 31, 2006.

    I repeat again that this is only about Ginnie Mae pooled loan. Ginnie Mae was not going to have $130 billion of their securities underlying collateral be stole by JPMorgan for $1.9 billion when you could simply refinance those loan instead and at least in the long term recover your money.

    However I know personally that this is not the case and the FDIC has no record of the government loans from the Milwaukee serviced Gov loan involved in the JPMorgan.

    Federal Gov is on the hook to the Federal Reserve Bank mostly for them purchasing the Ginnie Mae Mortgage Backed Securities at 100% of the principal balance of the investment. Wells Fargo is still servicing what left of the 1.3 million loans and the average default rate during 2009-2010 for the Fed Gov loans was up over 3% because of job loss, so that would be one year at 37,000 loan that would have been foreclosed, but the holder of the blank Note (no counter party in WaMu) Ginnie Mae is prevented by Congress from changing the interest rate and term, because Ginnie Mae is not owed that debt as they did not make it and are only the insurer to the “investors” who purchase the securities.

    That is the reason there are no NPV and Borrower Notice that were ever sent to these homeowners because they could not actually be process for a HAMP, FHA HAMP of VA HAMP!

  36. Also, there was a prior article about the banks and hedge funds hoarding commodities outside of the LME regs. This is true, but the editor saw it for its simplest of purpose – allegedly to “clean” all the monies skimmed off the mortgage loans.

    Although, they may be directing the money in this fashion, the purpose is to get out of dollars and dollar assets.

    The United States has had its financial credit run – our season is over. Many sovereigns have already transitioned, and now trade in their own currencies

    Let’s face it, most BRIC nations still have cheap labor, or the capacity to farm out product assembly to a neighboring third-world shit hole. China, India, Brazil and many other smaller countries will become the next “consumer nations”, replacing the United States, which will, at a minimum, suffer 2 decades of stagflation.

    US assets are still inflated as a result of Fed intervention, but as the FRC AND ITS CRONIE BANKS continue to rotate out of dollar assets – at some point they will let it go.

    We can’t even impose fair reserve guidelines (See Volker extension) on they guys. They control the game, and apparently they are the only game in town!

  37. Most WAMU Loans were securitized long before the forced seizure and BK. The bank holding company files BK – not the thrift itself. The thrift itself is tripped out of the bank holding company by the FDIC. The thrift goes to the FDIC as Conservator for about 24 Hours, and right to the FDIC as Receiver, who sold all the assets to an undisclosed Special Purpose Entity, who in turn cleaned it all up for Jamie Dimon.

    Second, the WAMU portfolio loans were the worst of all their origination’s. So bad, they couldn’t even bundle them, and even more of the portfolio loans were “put backs” pursuant to actual and implicit repurchase agreements with the Agency and PLMBS Pools.

    In reality, what was left at WAMU as far as mortgage loans – was the junk of the junk. Check their REPO 105’s with the SEC before every 8K filing and you will see WAMU did not have the reserves do to over-leverage, and the glaring proof that the counter parties did not have the capacity to pay on default events.

    What we should be asking; Why was it that the Reserve System Banks were the entities chosen to consolidate all the assets of these thrifts. They were in no better shape and only survived due to FASB changing the mark requirements, and the FEDS push to .0125 rates, allowing cheap money to filter into the system at the expense of all us poor bastards. Jamie Dimon is on my bucket-list of guys to take with me. in fact, I may stick a hot-poker up his ass soon so he can assimilate properly.

    TSMIMITW

  38. Charles Reed Said “what I am saying is that back in the 1950′s to not have a Note on file was fine because people were not refinancing and loan were not being packaged into securities”.

    What exactly was it that Fannie Mae was doing?

  39. someone here recently sent me some info on a case. Yes, I got it. thanks. the discussion re: successor liability helps explain why banksters who are obligated to repurchase (or retire the security interest of the trust) don’t. “We’re just the servicer”. The people who legislate this stuff don’t seem to understand how the deal works. The bigger guy, who most often becomes the original servicer, underwrote that stinking loan, meaning – to me – they were responsible for the accuracy of all the disclosures, from the Reg Z to the HUD. Cripes. That’s as far as I’ve gotten.

  40. So the official statement is

    PNC spokeswoman Marcey Zwiebel says if you checked your bank account and saw a number of strange charges, or may have had that mortgage payment taken out twice, don’t worry. She says they’re working on it.

    ==============
    Oh how nice.
    I give you permission to take one thing, you dip and dip and dip and dip and dip and dip and take it again and then tell me if I see something strange, don’t worry, you’re working on it?

    Put another way, I am to give you $10 from my wallet, I open it up, and you take $10, and $10, and say if I noticed you took more than you were supposed to, don’t worry, you are working on it.
    I used that example to simplify something that is worse than that.
    Mortgage is the single largest liability for many people with their transportation being the second largest liability.

    I’m disgusted, and in my opinion, it should be criminal to take something from someone without a meeting of the minds and then tell them don’t worry about it, you are working on it.

    It should be criminal in my opinion to violate the provisions of a contract or fail to properly perform the obligations of the contract and have protections within it to not cause injure.

    Injure. Black’s 5th pg 706
    To violate the legal right of another or inflict an actionable wrong. To do harm to, damage, or impair. to hurt or wound, as the person; or impair the soundness of, as health.

    Injury. Black’s 5th pg 707
    Any wrong or damage done to another, either in his person, rights, reputation, or property. The invasion of any legally protected interest of another.

    Interest. Blacks’ 5th pg 729
    The most general term that can be employed to denote a right, claim, title, or legal share in something.

    Seems PNC has violated the legal right of some people, and caused injure and injury to their interest in having something in their bank account to take care of the other contracts they have entered into that this violation will compel them under duress to fail to perform the obligations of and potentially default on those obligations.

    But they are told, by someone they have not met, nor had a meeting of the minds with, to not worry about it, they are working on it.

    I assume that should be a financial crime.
    They are in a position of trust and violated that trust.
    The ripple effect of tapping the accounts go back to the Treasury and the Soc Security account and whatever the IRS keeps tabs on, in my opinion.

    Lots of things affected by their purported glitch.

    http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/01/03/pnc-bank-acknowledges-glitch-affecting-unknown-number-of-customers/

    PNC Bank Acknowledges ‘Glitch’ Affecting Unknown Number of Customers

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

  41. johngualt here what I am saying is that back in the 1950’s to not have a Note on file was fine because people were not refinancing and loan were not being packaged into securities.

    However today it needed to see who exactly is the holder of the debt with the instrument that contains that agreement. MERS is only granted authority through the DOT and is not mention in the Note as they are not a party to the loan.

    In the case of WaMu loans (all of them) had only the requirement been to accompany the assignment of the DOT would have been stop dead in it tracks because the Note has a blank assignment from WaMu to nobody and at the time of the recording if FOREVER impossible for the Note to be reassigned as WaMu is dead.

    So now the county is aware that MERS is not working for anybody because the endorsement is blank and can never have a entry placed into the blank stop on the Note. The chain was broken when the loan was first endorsed and physically relinquished which we know for sure that was done on Jul 31, 2006 when Wells Fargo and WaMu agreed on the servicing of the 1.3 million government insured loan, and here is the finishing touches….Wells Fargo purchase the entire building housing all the loans and hire the WaMu personnel also.

    So what you have are exact date when the transfer occurred and possession taken. There is no guessing as to what occurred. So now Wells Fargo is the servicer and custodian per agreement, and I got a letter from Wells Fargo that yes there were wrong and that they were saying Ginnie Mae was the “lien holder” and the were working for Ginnie Mae, however Ginnie Mae response that Wells Fargo was incorrect and that Ginnie Mae was not the “lien holder”!

    So I got two party and one that MERS assigned the DOT to in Wells Fargo were both have admitted in writing that either is the “lien holder”

    Here what I believe will happen is that like the 100,000 falsified FHA insure loan the Federal government is suing Wells Fargo for as we speak, the the 37,000 WaMu foreclosures or so Wells Fargo perform, will also be sued or negotiated for because you got $370 million in false Claims that were made! Time treble damage were talking $1.17 billion.

  42. To John Gault: – You raise a number of abstruse technical questions, to which I have no answer. As to AIG (and others) not taking a subrogation position: it ended up this way because the Street proposed the parameters of the insurance, and the pricing premium was set to reflect the non-receipt of the insured item (the Note). That was the theory. In practice, the total dummies that worked at AIG were convinced by the oily salesmen at places like Lehman Bros that there would never be a default, so it was “free money,” and could be price accordingly. If you never get a claim, well then all the premium dollars are gravy.

    The problem for AIG is that the rosy promises of Lehman et al did not quite work out that way.

  43. charles – notes have never been recorded in land records. Maybe they should be. A note by itself is not a claim against either the borrower or the home in security first states, if not by agreement in the loan docs. No collateral instrument, no claim. Collateral instrument and no note = no claim. If MERS assigns a dot to one who is not a proper transferee of the note, among other things, all that’s been accomplished is that MERS has transferred its interest, if any, to the assignee, assuming the assgt is found to be binding on MERS. The alleged assignment of both the note and dot by MERS is an unauthorized (that we know of) attempt to unify them in one party, and just now, belatedly to the trusts. imo. If MERS is a novated party, it doesn’t need anyone’s authority to assign (just the) dot because it IS thee ben, which is what the dot says. It says MERS is the ben. No other ben is named. The assgt of the note by MERS imo is an attempted article 9 transfer (sale and assignment agreement), but by a party with no authority as to the note. Here’s a case wherein the claimant acknowledged MERS has no authority to assign (transfer) a note:

    and this is my own brief response fwiw:

    “In one foreclosure case where a claimant was squarely confronted about “MERS” authority to assign the note, PHH v Anderson, PHH agreed that MERS had no authority to assign the note, but averred the assignment of the note in that instrument was merely “superfluous”.
    I’d have to disagree. The recordation of an instrument carries an obligation for that instrument to contain only facts. An instrument is recorded, significantly, to provide notice of, and reliance on, those facts. If the assignment of the note is “superfluous”, meaning it’s not
    what it says and is not to be relied on, it shouldn’t be contained in a recorded instrument. It seems the party who has executed such an assignment wants it both ways: it wants to make a record for its own purposes “over there”, and yet that same party says it’s not to be factually relied on by the one party it affects most: the homeowner.”

    Unfortunately something appears to have arisen between the homeowner in that case and the attorney, so never got to see how this would have been decided (the h.o. said the assgt of the dot bifurcated the note and dot).

  44. I may not know what I’m talking about but I’ll raise a point.
    Issue – Securities – Black’s Law 5th pg 746
    Any of a corporations securities offered for sale at a certain time, or the act or process of distributing (ie. Offering) such for sale. A class or series of bonds, debentures, etc. comprising all that are emitted at one and the same time.

    ——————————
    An issuer is a corporation that sale/offers for sale securities. Series of bonds, where the note may have been bundled in to such a package if they were manipulating from UCC-9 from holder of a promise to some conversion to UCC-3 to holder of a check (however they got there, Treasury, investors, dealer-broker, etc).

    Now this note is tied to some number, EIN, SSN, and some account that the purported holder is claiming a right to collect. Still some number or numbers is in the accounting for this corporation to provide this issue (as an original issue, because the base definition of issue in Black’s law states the giving a thing it’s first inception), and it gets paid in full, scanned and destroyed (we know this from early information released, because not more than one security is allowed to exist just like there can’t be two bills with the same serial number in existence, to do that makes even the original a counterfeit.)

    Now comes the people who all claim a right to possess this note, but all can end up with a copy of it without disclosing to another they have it.

    Someone grabs it and forecloses (which is totally the wrong word because only the creditor can foreclose), so it’s proper to state steal, because thieves don’t want you to say they stole something, they’d prefer we say they transferred it from one location to another, leaving out the details of the transaction like coercion, or no meeting of the minds. Thieves want to be seen in honor, when there is no honor among thieves.

    This works as long as no one is checking the accounting, but the one holding the security has the right to receive the payments, and someone has tripped the insurance on that security without notifying the holder of that security that this has occurred, so they pass payments to the true holder hoping and probably assured as thieves are that nothing will happen to cause the holder in due course to realize the note is no good and go after the insurance in the transaction, after all Jan Van Eck stated they displayed the fact the security was insured to get someone to purchase the it.

    Now comes a situation where the one who has taken the insurance is somehow exposed, and I don’t know how, but they are in a position where they default on those supposedly ‘nonstop’ payments that should last at least 30 years on some mortgages, then the holder in due course will go after the insurance on the security they are holding and everyone else will check their securities to see if they are exposed, and depending on the level of exposure of the ‘nonstop payer’, they all may trip the insurance.

    Ah the Lehman and AIG really will be blips on the radar of financial collapse.

    Derivatives are also insured, and deposits are insured, and we know there is not enough insurance out there for the promises made to insure all the securities, when the insurance has “ALREADY BEEN CLAIMED’ by a party who had no standing to claim it, thanks to the help of judges and lawyers and law firms.

    Yes, I know. They hurried up and sold the property to another who is making payments, but the economy cannot stand on the fraud because everyone was doing it. When only a few did it, the economy could support the ponzi scheme, but you have all the financial people and bankers participating, and all it takes is a clawback, disgourgement, or some other action and it collapses so fast we saw it coming and the next thing we’ll see is the aftermath.

    That’s what I see, with all the billionaires dumping their holdings in solid companies. The only reason I can see them doing that is because solid companies will have buyers for their stock and these billionaires see it coming, they see the need to have cash on hand so as not to default on the debts they created and traded and that are packages that are parts of packages that were repackaged just to package it.

    They are selling their homes to get money but are realizing everyone doesn’t want to purchase a mansion just because it’s a mansion and sorry for their ego, but no one wants to purchase it just because they owned it either. It still has to be marketable like those stocks they are selling to get cash, so that’s an asset they’ll be hard pressed to rely on to get the wealth they need. Now if they are holding gold or silver and have to sell it to get cash, we can see the prices of those things go down too.

    That’s the point I wanted to raise from all of this.
    How much insurance and who’s going to be the first to cash out because there’s not enough money for all of their holdings to be insured, the payments have already been made, and some of these companies rely on the insurance to make sure they can make the payments they owe to some other ‘creditor’.

    Stone thrown into the still water, how far does the ripples affect the calm of the formerly still waters.

    People in a position of trust who can collapse a countries economy by deviating from their oath for the sake of greed, usually are judged under the harshest penalties of their country.

    It can be perceived as treason to take down One’s own country from the inside by robbing it from within.

    Like guarding the King’s or Queen’s gold and taking some out of the vault each night until one day the King or Queen goes to make a payment and finds there is not enough to pay who they promised and forces them to default on their obligation because there was thieves within their midst.

    I’m reminded of that bible story of the king that had those cows and he had someone tending his cattle, and the one tending the cows was offered all the cows that were not white, and so as they took the cows out to pasture, they’d let the white cows eat first and let the non white cows impregnate them, to where the king had fewer white cows and the one tending them had a larger herd than the king.

    I thought the financial system belonged to the Vatican, or the Crown or someone, and do they really give someone permission to ‘take from the hand that feeds them’ more than their fair share of food?

    Opinions of course because I know nothing not even financial nor legal things, but I have a great imagination; about as great as the imagination of the people who came up with this scheme.

    All men are created equal, but we don’t want to experience what they have created for their selves in their thievery from those who gave them the public trust.

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

  45. Here what going to have to happen is to bring Ginnie Mae right into the fire. We know for a fact that Ginnie Mae requires that the Notes are signed in blank, and in the case of WaMu that was done as it must, but because WaMu is a defunct bank it does not so call re-purchase the loans because they are no longer a bank. So what happens is that the party responsible for the security (fiduciary duty) allow this illegal assignment were the servicer in Wells Fargo claims it is the “holder” not telling the land recorder that it is only holding the blank Note as the custodian of record and not as the “holder in due course”.

    If as banks that are still in operation will do is to pull the loan out of the pool first and then proceed with the any foreclose action, because up to that point Ginnie Mae is in possession of the blank Note. But because Ginnie Mae cannot sale the loan, it not until after the foreclosure sale that Ginnie Mae receives monies, and then some sort of exchange and Wells Fargo submit an insurance claim after the fact when in fact they never had anything to do with being the owner.

    So what you got is an insurance fraud against the Federal Government insurances!

  46. Jan Van Eck – why did AIG waive subrogation? I’ve always thought it’s because the trusts already had security interests (the result of non-delivery) which would be senior to AIG’s subrogation rights. If so, AIG knew what was what, who had insurable interests and why. I would think waiving subrogation when insuring is a breach of any number of things in regard to AIG shareholders…..? Plus how did this – waiving subrogation – become “discretionary” for a regulated insuror, probably the biggest question?
    (I think I also remember that AIG developed and distributed software to banksters which allowed them, as a sales edge, to do the input to get their own AIG insurance? Were the regulators sleeping? Smoking something? Out on the yachts downing mojitos to go with their t & a, courtesy of WS?

    Ftr, the borrower pays for the FHA insurance and the VA guarantee. The borrower paid for it, and it was a particular benefit to the borrower.
    For one thing, the borrower was made to believe there would never be the poss of a deficiency judgment. I’d sure like to know under what authority GNMA decided it could pay the Issuer (unless it’s insolvent and then it will pay the certificate holders) after the Issuer repurchased the loan (which imo is not being done). In other words, the insurance the borrower paid for is now contingent on third party actions, about which the borrower was neither informed or in agreement.

  47. johngault what you are saying is what Szymoniak v. Ace said and that been settlement with states but not with the homeowners. It what LPS is doing now and MERS must be dealt with in the same manner as the complaint list the same activity.

    However what gives the dot power is the Note, and the Note is without a owner/holder only, that can act in any court because other than possessing the blank Note they have no evidence that they have purchase the debt which is a requirement under UCC 9. They cannot utilize UCC 3 to take possession and then not observe UCC 9 in proof of that ownership.

    The statute is just for this purpose because as the Note could be stolen and anybody could claim to be owner simply by having possession, so knowing that fact of life, a simply receipt of the purchase needs to be present.

    Local land recorders were naive in not requiring a updated copy of the Note be recorded with every recording that occurred, so that the court could see how is claiming ownership is correctly recorded on the Note!

    The Note is the start and the end, and if its not followed to the letter of the law it does not exist as it was intended! I bet the farm on this!

  48. Neil, you raised an interesting point. Novation (here a new contract in place of an existing contract) generally requires the consent of all parties to the original contract. All the same, it does appear there was novation between someone and the MBS investors. I can’t explain why yet, but I think just now it didn’t require the borrower’s agreement.
    It might be between the trust / trustee and the investors. The investors bought rights in X based on income generated by Y. The notes and dots were to be assigned to the trust to identify particularly the underlying assets and to dead end the notes and dots to preclude enforcement by crooks / those with no rights. But then what the heck of enforcement of the underlying asset which was the subject of the novation contract? ( In a PSA I read, the banksters, who wrote it, said there may be another party appointed to foreclose to allegedly preclude the trust from being deemed “doing business in some states”.
    (Me: all states)
    We were here a couple years ago, but we weren’t thinking of the newly created obligation of the investors as a novation of an existing contract. Someone was obligated to pay the investors, come hell or high water: that was the new contract, at least in regard to any GSE loan. On FHA and VA loans, they even tweeked the insurance to only pay the Issuer, whom to get it, had to repurchase the loan, so unless the fha and va insurance is being waived, the trust should never be the foreclosing party, unless some pretty weird contracts exist between the Issuer and the trust:

    From GNMA:
    “In the Ginnie Mae program, Issuers are financially responsible for their
    securities, even if the underlying mortgage collateral becomes delinquent.” and

    “While the GSEs are responsible for the financial losses related to the loans in their investment portfolios and MBS, the Ginnie Mae Issuer must make principal and interest pass-through payments to investors for delinquent loans, as well as provide the funds to re-purchase loans to foreclose on a home or modify a loan.”

    For anyone interested, here’s more on that subject:

    http://sourceoftitle.com/blog_node.aspx?uniq=1010

    Seems to me the banksters are helping themselves to subrogation rights, but showing the trusts as the foreclosing party. Before that, they didn’t have to worry about this stuff because they were using “MERS”. The notes and dots, as were seeing, weren’t in fact transferred to the trusts, which at best had security interests (or by your theory were the lender period). The REMIC rules called for a true sale, not a security interest, so for this and whatever other reasons, they have to now transfer the loans to the trusts (but only after they benefited from CDS and AIG insurance, etc., and they use “MERS” to do this (as if). At any rate, I think you’re right – there was a novation with the MBS holders. Even if not, there are clearly other contracts which are material to enforcement of our loans.
    In the final analysis, does any of it matter if a bankster shows up with an alleged orig note? I think so, because I think by the terms of the note the note may only be enforced by a hidc, not a mere holder. HIDC briefly: for value, without notice of default, without notice of prior payment. without notice of other claims. Btw, one can’t make or keep oneself ignorant purposely; anyone who tries when it’s clear that’s what’s being done or an obligation to know exists will find the law against him.

  49. if the purpose of MERS were to avoid recordation (the time, trouble, and expense) as MERS sold itself to the unwitting, why does the dot also say MERS may do this and that? It doesn’t say MERS may make a credit bid; it says MERS may foreclose, and to me, by the language, if it’s not a novation, which I say it is, it says, optimally, MERS may foreclose by selling to a third party bidder, which affair doesn’t necessitate a credit bid. There could be another agreement between MERS and X which says the trust (“X”) assigns its credit bid (if one exists for trusts) to MERS, which then, to use Van Eck’s word, could possibly make MERS an accomodation party. But in the absence of (evidence of) the legitimate, lawful assgt of a credit bid to MERS – and just who would have that authority? – at best all MERS could do is sell to a third party, not make a credit bid. So if anyone’s home were snarfed by “MERS”, read servicer in MERS’ name, and not by sale to a third party, I’d be screaming bloody murder before any SOL runs out, either for the return of my property (complications with bona fide purchaser for value) or for compensation for theft. The bona fide purchaser for value we all run from can’t be finite: there is no way the law prescribes or endorses Joe stealing a home or pretending or whatever the heck and selling it to a rube and that’s the end of the story. If the law does, which I just don’t or won’t believe, then everyone should be compensated for theft of a unique asset, even if one doesn’t get the unique property back.

    But let’s say there is an agreement somewhere which says MERS may act, essentially, as an accomodation party and used a credit bid and was the highest bidder. That means the trustee’s deed should have issued to MERS. (The title was quieted in MERS’, because that’s what foreclosure is, a quiet title, and the homeowner’s title is 86’d.). Okay, so now title is vested in MERS. Who shows as the seller on the resale deed? It’s best to go to the recorder’s office and see whaddup, but a lot of info can be gleaned just from looking at the recorder’s website. One may at least get the names of the grantor and grantee on deeds.
    The dot imo is worthless as evidence of anything, since, for one, there is no evidence or even indication of MERS’ acceptance of nominee or any status: the acceptance of any status has to be found elsewhere. Where is it? And how about a short sale? Who signed the agreement for the short sale on behalf of the ‘lender” and where was the evidence that party had authority to bind the lender? The lack of evidence, just like a broken chain of title, is a cloud on the title which imo 86’s bona fide purchaser status in any situation (short sale, foreclosure, whatever). Case law even says occupancy by someone other than the record owner can queer bona fide status (even if factually, the buyer didn’t know it). The homeowner, on info and belief, signs as the seller on the short sale deed. What assurance does the buyer of a short sale get that the o/s dot for 500k will be reconveyed / released on a 400k sale? There must be one. Who signs it?
    Anyone victim of multiple assignments from the same party? Since the law says “B” is bound by an instrument signed by a v.p. or like that, “B” had nothing to ‘withdraw’, as I’ve heard about so “B” can assign to someone else. The correct path is an assignment back to “B” from the original assignee. Then, and only then, may B assign to the “correct” party. If “D” is the assignee of a dot after B “withdrew” its original assgt, D is no one.
    MERS HAS TO GO
    If MERS were an agent, which I say it wasn’t, anything “MERS” executed should have been done “as agent for an identified party” – as nominee for Original Lender its successor and assigns does not get it UNless MERs is a novated party, in which case the language is deceitful to avoid scrutiny of novation.
    MERS needs to be prosecuted for all the robo-signing done in its name.

  50. Shawn Stone/s latest interview of Karen Hudes.

    http://thechristmasmania.ru/play.php?id=NHdEY25ySXppM1k=

  51. For all the gloom-and-doomists, here is the latest Karen Hudes interview, in writing. At least, she is consistent and we have, indeed, avoided being thrown into a stupid war against Iran by way of attacking Syria. That ought to count for something…

    And to put things into prespective: if it took 100 years to get where we are, we ought to give change a few years to come. Patience is still a virtue. Do we have a few years though? That’s the main question…

    http://www.thelonestarwatchdog.com/interview-world-bank-whistle-blower-karen-hudes-january-3-2014.html

  52. We have got to follow our own common sense and not let other tell us what at lease we know to be a fact, as in the Note is a contract with two party and not just the lender as the borrowers have equal right under the agreement!

  53. Jan van Eck I agreed that this could happen and did in the past, but you have loan shark law on the books so it not legal for the type of transaction to occur.

    The Note is a contract and is a document by itself, but a security instrument can be an attaching document to place a “lien” against the property if the two parties agree that it is to be attached.

    What everyone want to simply ignore is like an attorney or restaurant you just cannot open your doors to lend monies for a home purchase or practice law or to serve food to the public.

    Now here is the problem for Salvatore and Luigi is that as they are not register home loan lenders like Ginnie Mae, they both have the same problems is they cannot use the state courts to say that they make this loan which they are prohibited from making and that they have no “lien” against the property.

    So Salvatore and Luigi can violated the collection laws also and break your legs or kill your wife, however this is as illegal as making the loan in the first place. Salvatore and Luigi are out of the monies they lent because they have not legal recourse to bring the matter to court.

    So what now taking place is that Ginnie Mae must trick the court that it not them that claiming to be the lender but the “holder” in Wells Fargo who MERS is claiming to be this beneficiary of the lender, but they failed to mention WaMu in the chain of title as in line as the last holder of the debt and Note prior to placing the loan into the Ginnie Mae pool. At that point once the loan enter the pool, MERS can never represent any party because the term have changed and in reality the Note will never exist again because it is impossible legally to ever reunite the TWO!

  54. Jan,

    It’s still called mafia, regardless whether Salvatore, Detlev, Silverberg or Xhao Zing wears the glasses. And if Eliot Ness has reached his threshold of incompetence or has (finally) successfully been bought and can’t or won’t do his job, he ought to be summarily fired and replaced by someone who will…

    Who’s gonna do it? We should. We won’t. Because we’re afraid of everything Eliot Ness might have on us. He doesn’t have anything. He just makes us believe he does.

    The more things change and the more they stay the same…

  55. Attack the validity of the Contract and what are the must of the Contract/Note that makes it valid. It said that law must be legally correct and not necessarily fair, so the homeowners have got to go on the offense and that is to question the very letter of the contract.

    Homeowner where stumped by a simple question by the judge as that was, were you in default! And the homeowners were saying say but here is why I was in default, instead on no I was not in default…..and here are the fact as to there no longer being a debt after THIS DATE!

    As on Jul 4, 1776 the Note was signed document agreed upon by the both borrower and lender and on a later date the lender enter into an agreement to hand over the Note with a blank endorsement without the exchange of monies and not placing on the face of the who was receiving it.

    Now as the document lays in this state the “holder” of the relinquished blank Note is not in possession of the debt and is legally prevented from holding the debt as it create an addition debt for the taxpayer and Congress has not authorized Ginnie Mae to create this debt as it not in the National budget and also Ginnie Mae is not a home mortgage lender at all!

    The debt stop existing the date the blank Note physically left the hand of the lender without sale of it!

  56. Commenting to statements by Charles Reed, who writes:

    “A Note is an agreement between two parties…”

    That is not strictly accurate. A “Note” is neither the Agreement” nor a “Transaction.” It is more of a documentation that some other transaction took place and exists and created mutual obligations; that other transaction is not memorialized by this “Note.” Thus, at best, it is “evidence of a transaction.”

    More particularly, you met, or were approached by, or made an approach to, a party holding itself forth as a Lender (they probably were not a Lender, but never mind). You made an Agreement whereby the Lender would loan you his money and you would pay it back according to certain terms and with some interest. Interestingly, in most loans that Agreement never gets written up on a separate paper (which would be a Contract). Then, in exchange for the actual cash, you sign a “Note,” which is your Promise to Pay, and is your Obligation. Was there some underlying Agreement? Of course there was. Does this “Note” memorialize this agreement, and is it evidence of this transaction? Not necessarily. Here’s why.

    You agreed to borrow money from Harry’s Quick Loans; Harry agreed to loan the cash to you, and you agreed to pay it back with interest. It turns out Harry is a shyster; he is fronting for Salvatore and Luigi, who work for Mr. Annunziata over in Hoboken. You certainly don’t want anything to do with Mr. A”A, as he is a notorious mobster and will shoot your wife and break your legs if you default. You would rather have NO money than get into some deal with those people. But Harry lied to you. He said it was his money he was lending, and you would be paying him directly.

    What happens? At the “closing,” some guy with a thick accent and sunglasses and a black shirt shows up and hands over an envelope stuffed with cash; you don’t know who this guy is, and he vanishes. You sign that “Note” which says you owe Harry. Harry stamps it “in blank” and hands it to the guys with the black shirt and sunglasses. next thing you know, you are getting these ugly visits from Salvatore and Luigi, who are not friendly types.

    Did you make a loan with Harry – the outfit on the Note? Nope; Harry has none of his own money into the deal, he got paid a brokerage fee for fronting and putting his own name on the paper – Harry is an “accomodation party”. Harry, additional to being a liar, is a man being paid to disguise the fact that Sal and Luigi are working the crowd to fleece people for Mr. “A” down in Hoboken. You, the dummy that signed that Note, are the “mark” in this little fleece scheme.

    Do you see how this works? is it starting to sink in? You signed a Note that says “Lime Financial” loaned you $400,000. Lime Financial is not even worth seventy five cents. Those guys don’t have any cash. You show up at some closing and some clown shovels a stack of paperwork at you and says: “Go sign this here, and that here, and here, and here, and we wire the funds to Charlie over in that title company, and you are good to go.” And you, not having a clue, go do all that. Lime Financial picks up a fat commission, maybe $8,000., for lending its name to the deal, and the cash shows up from Lehman Bros. via a bank account held by Countrywide in a bank at Credit Suisse.

    Does that “Note” memorialize that transaction? Nope. Does it “represent” the transaction? Nope. Is it the Contract? Nope. well, what the hell is it? Answer: whatever the foreclosure mill lawyer says it is. (Until you prove otherwise)

  57. People are going to need to decide what their priorities are, especially since the truth keeps being deliberately hidden from them. A small CA town is realizing that saving the house may not mean jack if the area is unlivable anyway… It’s not what people know; it’s what they do with it.

    http://www.town-of-fairfax.org/pdfs/council/council_packet/2013/110613/Item%2012%20-%20Reso%20Fukushima%20Nuclear.pdf

    Solutions won’t come from government. They will come from people. And they will come when people take an “Enough!” stand and stick with it.

  58. Attack the Note as without a valid Note there cannot be a claim of debt. Does the requester of the Note possess the debt, do they have a lien and are they a lender of home mortgage loans, registered by the State or are a NA bank? they must be all three, as this cannot be split and be some combined group in Ginnie Mae, servicer and MERS!

  59. GOD BLESS AMERICA

  60. Let make it simple, and a Note is a contract between a qualified borrower and a license home mortgage lender in this case.

    Note is an agreement between the two parties where a set amount is borrowed to be paid back at a set time. The Note can be sold, but must be sold to another license home mortgage lender that can fulfill the contract.

    Now once the Note was signed and delivered to another party without the debt of the loan being purchase, you no longer have a Note as it does not fit into the legal description of a Note.

    It was the lender choice to relinquish the Note with a blank endorsement to a known non lender in the case of Ginnie Mae without a exchange of any monies.

    So is the Note and debt currently held by the same party and if not why? The Note is not a Note if their is no debt attach to this arrangement. A blank Note is allowed to be transfer, however without purchasing the debt there cannot be a claim by the holding party because it failed to secure the debt by purchasing it.

    One can have a blank Note and be holder of the debt, and they only have to supply the receipt that monies for the amount of debt was purchase as UCC 9 demands as the holder’s burden.

    The “lien holder” must be owe a debt, and we know for a fact that monies where not exchanged, but Notes were exchanged for participation in the sell of securities. However once the exchange of the Note without monies, which makes it impossible to transfer the lien/title as the “holder” of the Note is not owed monies.

    The day the Note endorsed in blank without the exchange of monies was transferred the Note stop existing. Blank Notes do exist and are valid, as long as the “holder” also holds the debt and is able to present that purchase to the court. In some States the title is assumed to automatically follow the Note, however the Note must be valid. In other States this not the case and the security instrument must be file according to the statute.

    Recording the security instrument is not a problem if done year later as long as the assignment was signed dated the date of the sales transaction, but in the cases of Ginnie Mae its a fact that the transfers don’t involve monies.

    So what am I saying? Is that the attack is that the blank Note becomes automatically void once it does not involve an exchange of money for the debt….end of story and the Note stop existing as a Note!

  61. I could sell a promise of foreclosure defense/default deals like crazy. And very well may.

    I’ll plant one on every mortgage brokers desk in the country, just like a home warranty.

    Make it a Great Day.

  62. And by the way…

    If you really think that things take place in a vacuum, that “accidents” happen and that there is such a thing as a coincidence, you are so seriously mistaken!

    Fukushima didn’t happen in a vacuun. Far from it. In fact, Japan was going to do away with oil in a future not too far ahead and it didn’t sit well with big oil, big nuclear, big banks.

    What TPTB needs to realize is that, regardless how many people they kill, once the discovery is made and published, someone else will grab onto it and pursue further on the idea. Bob Lazar, previously of Area 51, has just demonstrated his own hydrogen powered car. India is working on one as we speak and so is Italy. China’s sudden push to space isn’t accidental either.

    For evey human killed in the name of oil industries, there will be ten more looking into what has really been committed against humanity and for how long. Just a question of time before it blows up in their face.

    Foreclosures, wars and famines are part of the intentional destabilization of humans, in order to prevent them from looking ahead to the future. So is Monsanto. Toxic brains are unable to dream big.

  63. Psychology 101: One can only imagine in others what one is capable of doing. The great majority of people are basically honest and incapable of committing a major crime. That’s why the scheme worked so well and for so long.

    So… the question remains: what are people waiting for to throw all those bums out of congress and government, get their money out of the banks and decide once and for all to create the society they want to see exist?

  64. I owned a little mortgage biz in Mo and it always struck me as a bit odd tio tell people they were forced to pay MI to protect the lender?

    What?

    These Disaster Inc. outfits would stop by the office and dive into my dead files, like a diseased animal. They WANTED default files.

    Gorillas in suits, it was major Houston We Have a Problem.

    It was not that way some years ago. The whole deal had gone Thelma and Louise

    I figured ALLSTATE or any one of the other majors that got hosed would come out with some sort of Illegal Foreclosure Insurance – Turns out they may have.

    Finding out more about it today.

    Wouldn’t that be hilarious – included IN EVERY FILE.

    Make it a Great Day.

  65. No we did not Aman
    We relied on certain things being fair represented truthfully and that necessary disclosures would be made. So what did they deem necessary non disclosures and why and we go arpund and around the mulberry bush.
    We had a right to rely. wTF.

  66. Did anybody know that when they signed the so called Mortgage you pretty much gave the Banksters a license to steal.

    http://www.alternet.org/print/economy/buy-house-make-your-payments-then-discover-youve-been-foreclosed-without-your-knowledge

  67. In the light of what is going on, I predict that more and more people will challenge the legitimacy of IRS. I would strongly recommend to everyone to look up that case and save all the pleadings. They may come handy soon…

    IRS actually fears man who doesn’t file taxes
    ‘Would blow them out of the water if this became public knowledge’
    Published: 06/02/2013 at 2:55 PM Jack Minor

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/businessman-irs-fears-prosecuting-me/#TTmlZyFIROJiBJtA.99

  68. by Nancy Levant

    Happy New Year to America and to people all over the world. However, happiness is hard to find in an economically devastated and war-entrenched planet, and one that is so profoundly damaged by non-stop radiation and geoengineering/aerial spraying.
    Nancy Levant

    It seems that humanity has taken a back step to powers that have caused and continue to cause such damage, and that the world’s people can no longer live normal lives. Weather control has devastated Africa, India, parts of Asia, the West Coast of the U.S. and many other nations for decades. The effects include starvation, war, sickness and disease, and deaths en masse.

    Equally, weather control has devastated all of nature. Global wildfires like none ever experienced in human history, species extinctions at wildly alarming rates, entire oceans, lakes and rivers being acidified and poisoned non-stop with heavy metal nano-particulates sprayed from jets and planes, and with trees and other flora dying all over the world, including food crops.

    People who once were the healthiest in the world are now dying en masse of major organ failures, cancers, chronic breathing problems, sugar disorders, and Alzheimer’s disease, all of which epidemics.

    Poverty has also become an epidemic human disease, globally. Human trafficking (minimal or free-wage labor) replaced actual wages, part-time employment replaced full-time jobs, housing became a global crisis for people all over the world; all while corporations raked in incomprehensible profits, billionaires and banks grew in incomprehensible wealth and power, and political representatives all over the world opted to serve billionaires and banks while knowingly destroying the world’s people and the earth.

    As such, and specifically due to rapidly escalating ill-health of everyone on the planet, 2014 must become the year of commitments. We cannot allow ourselves to be exterminated for the benefit of wealth and power that has become pathological in every conceivable way. Much of Africa, Europe, the Mid-East and the U.S. have been decimated. Each of these nations is full of wealth, intelligence, good and hard-working people, and they are filled with people who ask for little minus the ability to thrive; to have families and livelihoods, futures, hopes and dreams. All has been taken as the world’s elites have horribly, unconscionably taken the ability to thrive from most and all to their benefit, this handful of people who are destroying the planet, every living thing, and all sustenance.

    They have destroyed water, air, soil, food, the atmosphere, the ionosphere, the stratosphere, the oceans, fresh water, and they are even cracking and fracking the earth’s core—all of which for wealth and power. Then, as if their collective damages were not enough, they report that they can control evolutionary processes and intend to make humans less human via genetic modifications, using nano-technologies and neuropharmacology (drugging), and that they plan to replace human necessity with robotic machines that are superior to humankind, all of which, again, demonstrating and serving their profits, wealth and power.

    We have two choices: Allow the destruction of the planet, which provides all sustenance to biological life, including us, or commit to stop these handfuls of people who now have control, globally, over all of science, all global wealth, and all life sustaining natural resources (air, soil, water, plants and animals).

    By altering the natural electromagnetic condition of the planet’s ionosphere, by microwaves, satellite technologies; by spraying the entire planet with heavy metals and sulfates; by permanently damaging the entire planet with thousands of nuclear weapons’ tests, accidents and intended uses, they have sickened all natural systems to such a degree that biological life is rapidly dying off, people included. This is why we are being mass-drugged, why they have altered the world’s food, which no longer grows normally in wholly contaminated soils, and this is the ACTUAL reason why “health care” is being diminished, because EVERYONE is sickened with heavy metals and radiation poisoning. Every living thing, from insects to birds to fish to people to trees to crops, is dying…globally…and there is no medical treatment for such poisoning. It doesn’t exist.

    We are at the edge, people, of life itself. If every person does not stand up to this absolute insanity, we aren’t going to make it. You must commit your efforts on a daily basis, from here on out, or we are not going to make it, which may ultimately be the plan according to many of the billionaires currently at the helm of this pathological nightmare It is also why they are so rapidly attempting to technologically “evolve” humankind; they know we are sick and dying, and they are trying to cover their crimes. You must commit to stop the destruction. All of nature nor we can take any more. You’ve got to act before you can’t.

    http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org

  69. Happy New more-of-the-same Year!

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/02/deutschebank-lawsuit-settlement-idUSL2N0KC0FP20140102

    Deutsche Bank, U.S. shareholders settle lawsuit over mortgages

    NEW YORK Thu Jan 2, 2014 10:42am EST

    (Reuters) – Deutsche Bank AG has settled a U.S. lawsuit in which shareholders accused it of misrepresenting its ability to handle risks associated with mortgage debt prior to the 2008 financial crisis.

    The settlement in principle was disclosed in a filing on Thursday by Deutsche Bank’s lawyers in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. Terms were not disclosed, and final paperwork is expected within 30 days, the filing said.

  70. Another development that could go either way… When read together, those three articles would almost seem ominous.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/federal-reserve-lobbyists_n_4533518.html

    Federal Reserve Asks Financial Industry Lobbyists For Personnel Recommendations

    Financial industry lobbyists are among those being asked to suggest who should replace Sandra Braunstein, the retiring Federal Reserve official who oversaw the regulator’s lackluster efforts to protect consumers in the years preceding the U.S. mortgage meltdown.

    Braunstein, who has led the Fed’s consumer affairs division since April 2004, did not respond to an emailed request for comment. Her plan to leave the Fed has not been previously reported, nor has the Fed’s outreach to identify potential replacements.

    As Braunstein prepares to leave her post, concerns are mounting among consumer advocates that the Fed may pick a financial industry ally who may want to weaken consumer protections. Lonnie Taylor of Diversified Search, an executive search firm retained by the Fed, has asked financial industry lobbyists for recommendations on who should replace Braunstein, people familiar with the matter said.

  71. Fidelity completes acquisition of Lender Processing Services
    Deal brings former spinoff unit back into the fold
    Paul Jackson January 2, 2014 6:27PM

    http://www.housingwire.com/articles/28464-fidelity-completes-acquisition-of-lender-processing-services

  72. I don’t subscribe to American Banker but Piggybank posted this entire article. I think it will be very meaningful, even it disappointing in many respects…

    http://piggybankblog.com/2014/01/03/banks-near-victory-in-fight-over-volcker-rule-provision/

    Banks Near Victory in Fight Over Volcker Rule Provision
    by Rob Blackwell

    JAN 2, 2014 5:06pm ET

    Regulators are hoping to release an interim final rule next week designed to satisfy banker demands to change a provision of the Volcker Rule that threatens to force smaller institutions to take millions of dollars in write-offs.

  73. Ask yourself the obvious question, and that is why are all the Notes blank Note will have to be signed by the Note holder to release the debt at some point. Either the loan going to get paid off because of a refinance or it term has come.

    So why not just sign the Note endorsed over to Ginnie Mae? It because it impossible for Ginnie Mae to also be the debt holder as it not authorized by Congress to create this debt as they are not a license State of National Bank.

    Ginnie Mae if they owned the Note could simply give the custodian of record a power of attorney to sign the Note to another, however the problem is that Ginnie Mae could never be the “holder in due course”. The only sense in having a blank endorse Note is to hide the fact that Ginnie Mae is holding the Note as collateral without the exchange of monies from the agency to the “issuers” which requires a notification to the local land recording that the “lien” against the properties are no long valid.

    The liens are not valid because because without the Note the lender who no longer the lender but is the issuer does not possess a Note, and has enter into an agreement that under UCC 3 the physical possession of the blank Note is with another who now owns that Note. However Ginnie Mae or no other entity will be able to re-endorse the Note. Also part of the scam is not dating these document as to make it hard to pin down date as to when what was done!

  74. KC remember this thing has evolved and people were claiming show the Note but they did not actually know why? People have just started understanding securities. People just started talking securities within the last 6 months and just as Neil is guessing that JPM did not purchase the loans, well its because the loan belong to the GSEs pools.

    Now I got my whistle-blower claim for the securities of Ginnie Mae first turned in Aug 2011. However the issue of securities which is real, as every other day there is a new billion dollar settlement.

    Now as I trying to explain is how loan are placed into these securities that have cause not only a break in the chain of title but the break in whether there is a loan when the one party got a blank Note and is on records saying, they NEVER EVER purchase any home mortgage loans. The party that was last the possessor of debt in WaMu, has not had the Notes in there possession since 2006 when Wells Fargo took over as mortgage servicer to 1.3 million government insured loans.

    So now on Sept 25, 2008 WaMu seized in what suppose to be a secret matter until the OTS walked in and shut WaMu down. However as has been said this was in the making, because the Note had been removed from WaMu possession as the custodian as now Wells Fargo become the custodian.

    They had to have known that if WaMu went under and the title were in WaMu names, that there was going to be an issue, but was that issue more controllable that allowing the FDIC or the bankruptcy court to gain control over 1.3 million loans that you not got a single receipt that you paid a single red cent for?

    Ginnie Mae took its chances with what always worked and that is to hide the ownership, and used MERS to assign the assignments to Wells Fargo, as every local land recorded knows the are a bank, so their is no question when an assignment is submitted!

  75. The A Man,

    $1,500? You made out quite well. Who was it who was saying he paid MS $2,500 for… just about the same result? Wasn’t that Karguy?

  76. Does MS stand for Maher Soliman or Multiple Sclerosis?
    I got to give him credit he got $1,500 from me for doing nothing.

  77. We are back to “Poduce the Note” anything else is obstruction of Justice

  78. Yep I just cracked a joke.
    Because we have another saying life is funny so you might as well laugh.

  79. KC I am dealing with the after the fact of a foreclosure as before if you bring up this defense you have not been damaged yet. So it easy to show the separation because its in the Ginnie Mae regulation as to how loan are placed into them and it is without monies. If you did not pay for the loan you don’t have a claim they your owed a debt!

  80. Worth Repeating

    Buy a House, Make Your Payments, Then Discover You’ve Been Foreclosed On Without Your Knowledge
    This should never happen, but it did, thanks to the sordid mortgage servicing industry. Their mortgage servicer, Nationstar, foreclosed on them without their knowledge, and sold the house to an investment company.
    Nationstar has racked up an impressively horrible customer service record in its short life, failing to honor prior agreements with borrowers and pursuing illegal foreclosures. The fact that Nationstar and other corrupt companies like it are beginning to corner the market for mortgage servicing should trouble not only homeowners, but the regulators tasked with looking out for them. It didn’t seem possible that a broken mortgage servicing industry could get worse, but it has.
    Mortgage servicing is a sewer, and it needs to be completely overhauled from the ground up. If Nationstar represents the future, then until it faces real penalties or an expulsion from the industry for its conduct, private property rights in America will have to be seen as theoretical.

    http://www.alternet.org/print/economy/buy-house-make-your-payments-then-discover-youve-been-foreclosed-without-your-knowledge

  81. You say it so eloquently Jan, Thank You!

    Go Whack Yourself Another Mole!

  82. Responding to Scott Thompson’s inquiry on “mortgage default insurance:”

    Default insurance is distinct from “PMI,” or “private mortgage insurance.” Default insurance is a policy that has a unique feature: there is no subrogation right to the insurer as to the insured property. Also, notwithstanding the arrogant pronouncements of Deutsche Bank, default insurance was not paid for from the bank’s funds; it came out of the pool of cash charged against the homeowner at closing.

    Default insurance is also known as “credit default swap.” If you took out a loan from an outfit that was channeling funds via a back-door, i.e. a warehouse lender, the funds flow started with the acceptance of pension fund money (usually, from Europe) by some outfit like Lehman Bros. or Bear, Stearns. In exchange, the pension fund manager received “certificates,” or shares in a pool (possibly set up as a REMIC). The cash then flowed into the Lehman wholesale account, some of it (after some up-front looting by the “bank” managers) from there to yet another wholesale account (held by another outfit) that in turn distributed it at closing as the disguised payment from the outfit named as the “Lender” on your Note. That “Lender,” with some name such as “Lime Financial,” or “Express Capital Lending,” or whatever, was nothing more than a “mouse-house,” some outfit that loaned its name to the paper. At closing, the wire transfer comes in from a bank account of the second warehouse line of credit, and is cash sourced via Lehman from the European school-teachers pensions.

    If the Eurpoean manager was skeptical about Lehman’s salesman, as being a bit too oiled, then what was offered was an insurance policy, in which AMBAC, AIG, and Radian were big players. The Lehman guy could wave the insurance certificate around to reassure the European that his funds were insured against “default.” Those policies were set up that, if the borrower (retail) “defaulted” by not paying for three months, then on the 91st day the insurer would pay all outstanding principal and interest. Here is where it gets cute (part I): the policies were written without subrogation, so the Note would be paid, but the insurer would not receive the Note (or anything else) in return for the payment. A bit like you total your car, and your insurer pays you for a new one but you get to keep the old one – which you can sell off for parts.. And this is why you do not get considered for a “modification” until 91 days of non-payment go by: at that point, your total loan gets paid by the insurer – and you paid the premium for that policy, but do not get any credit for the payment of insurance.

    At this point the trail gets convoluted. Whoever is sitting on the Notes (or, more accurately, electronic scans of the Notes, known generally as holographic images) does not want to turn over those proceeds to the Europeans. So “scam #2″ kicks in, and the Servicer makes your payments for you – and does not tell you or credit you. You get declared in default. The Servicer payments continue to flow to the Europeans. All the insurance money is scooped up by whoever is playing Trustee- i.e. Deutsche Bank. You get screwed; the Europeans get screwed. Meanwhile that Note is still foating around – not turned over to the insurer, and not stamped “paid” even though it was paid by the insurer. That is just too deliciously tempting for a Wall Street banker type. Now the Servicer goes and sues you in foreclosure -hiring the law firm to file suit, and does it in the name of the “Trustee,” who usually has no idea that the lawsuit is even filed. You lose your house; the servicer (usually) takes it, sells it, and puts your cash into the bonus pool for their “bankers.” Just lovely.

    At that point, the “Trustee” tells the Europeans: “Oops, sorry folks, the investment pool has collapsed, but I have some good news, we got some cash for you, so here is six cents on the dollar.” And the naive Europeans take the six pennies and go away. That leaves the vast bulk of the cash for the “managers” on Wall Street, which explains why an outfit like Goldman Sachs can pay out $38 billion in bonuses when the rest of the planet is flat broke. Lots of variations on this theme, but you get the general idea.

  83. MS tried to make jokes and sing a couple of days … he’s lousy at it! Plug your Ears! But dag gone can he sharpen a dull set of horns.

  84. LOL! They are Harsh and Full of Shit! That’s why I have No Use for them! Now you get it!

    A-Man, did you just crack a joke to?

  85. if a butt-wipe is the same things I used to swipe my kids butt while on diaper duty you are clearly giving these folks too much credit.

    I learned that those wipes will clean anything. In fact, when i realized the type of cleaning they would accomplish – I stopped using them clean my kids.

    I also need to stop drinking dies soda. Just found out recently from my sister that they use it a murder scenes to clean the dried blood from the pavement.

    TSMIMITW

  86. iwantmynpv you know your Jews. If you want an opinion from a Jew you get at least 2. Regarding the Chinese Food spot on especially on Christmas. I heard Southern Style BBQ make great brisket .

    There is a famous joke that in the Israeli parliament there are 120 Members and 240 opinions.

  87. Charles, I understand what you are saying, but how is the info going to help anyone facing fc? The Judge is going to slap them with a judgment before they know what hit them.

    I could have litigated for years on TILA, RESPA and REG Z … but why didn’t I do it? Because I didn’t have to!

  88. KC what Neil is saying that is right that JPMorgan did not purchase any loans at lease no 1st mortgages that where in a Fannie, Freddie or Ginnie pool because the title were long ago relinquished to them and at the time of the seizing of WaMu the bank was then in default and the HUD11711A that Ginnie Mae has all issuers sign conveys any and all financial interest into the loan over to them.

    In order to purchase a loan of of the Ginnie Mae securities you must pay full value owed and who in Sept 2008 in a declining market and knowing WaMu history is going to pay full face value of these loan?

    But as you see JPMorgan paid $1.9 billion for $308 billion in assets, so do you thing that the GSE were going to let what they counted on as the underlying collateral for the securities go to another bank and leave them with nothing?

    The only loan JPMorgan did buy would have been 2nd mortgages and in-house lending loans!

  89. Buttwipes are FOS and not only are they disposable, you can Flush them to!

  90. This is where the WAMU remittance goes every month!!!

    @ NG – You are not even close Neil Garfield. First of all 90 billion of the loans held at WAMU, were and still are, the property of the FHLB. which is still being paid through the structured transaction.
    The rest of the majority of loans had been previously securitized and theroretcially were not the property of WAMU at the time of seizure by the OTS / OCC. Chase did not purchase any loans-that is why there is no Loan Schedule – however, they did purchase the MSR’s and the Senior Tranches and Residual Certificates WAMU owned.
    Without a doubt, the FDIC and Chase established an undisclosed SPE, and that is where the money is being paid to. This was not an overnight financial killing it was a five year financial killing, all at the expense of the WAMU equity shareholders and subordinated debt owners that had invested in WAMU.
    What we should be looking at: The Chase balance sheet was in no better shape than that of BSC or WAMU. This was a heist that that was financed through the FRB of NY and the FDIC. The latter carries the burden of the debt, so as to not affect Chase’s Tier One Ratio’s and to also clean (practically launder) the assets for resale at the cost of WAMU investors, thus lining the conduit for paid and washed MBS.
    As the loans are re-securitized into Chase conduit’s the SPE is paid down and Chase keeps the profit, of which by my tally to date is approximately 29 Billion.
    Everyone still seems to approach this mess as an anomaly. This was a well-planned, well defined and well executed consolidation of assets. They simply take a pool of assets with higher yields, and reload with cheap funds under multiple bullshit cheap capital programs.
    Hence, I take all the assets, restructure with monies loaned at 1.875% from Fed Facilities (even the discount window) and I pay down myself as industry ( See FHLB System) (The Federal Reserve System) and the other former GSE’s, now I push rates higher through the FRC and wallah – i have cleaned assets yielding a 3% spread, securitized at a premium into several pools, and once again I fucked America on it’s own dime!!!
    TSMIMITW

  91. iwantmynpv, is that a Smile I see on your Face?
    I didn’t know you had it in you.

    I Like My Chicken Extra Crispy and My Turkey Deep Fried.

    I Flush Buttwipes.

  92. What is a butt-wipe?

  93. I never use the words Shut Up.. Never! Read it Again! I said Hush Up! That’s the Nice way of saying, I like you, but are leading folks on a wild goose chase that they need not go on.

  94. Thanks “A” Man I tried to google it, but just like securitization – you gte 47 opinions. Instead, I called my ex-mother-in-law who was pleased that I thought so highly of her cooking.

    In return, I put in a delivery order for her at her local Chinese Food place, which i am sure we can both agree, is a true Jewish delicacy.

    LOL, and the brisket smells great.

  95. I didn’t have to follow the money, I had my own. But its sure was one hell of a ride learning about the accounting.

    Follow the Link I posted below …..

  96. Of course I didn’t take kindly to our pension and 401k being robbed either. The Horns came out when they robbed us again as taxpayers.

    Its called the doughnut hole on SS and Medicare.

    It was either keep getting screwed or fight back!

  97. KC lost what what case? Let me ask you what are you here for winner? Thing you should know if any of us here were these millionaires winner we would not be here. So you don’t have the money to find some intentional bank trail of monies.

    I not change what I believed sent I come on here over 1 1/2yr ago but the wind are changing people to my thinking because it is what it is!

    I don’t get into these fights telling people to shut up as i am a old soldier of action not words!

  98. I want my NPV, .. I had two buttwipes attacking my husband on current loans, … I don’t take kindly to that. I called both of them (Citi and CW) on their Bluffs! I won SJ in 2010 against Citi on Standing. Followed by BAC for (CW) dismissed 2008 CW case and never refiled.

  99. Charles, I mean this in a Nice Way, Hush Up!!
    You Lost Your Case!

  100. People you got to stay focus and that is this issue is about the separation of the Note & Debt, and about a broken chain of title. Once you start chasing where the money came from or unraveling who paid what with the securities or anything else, it will all boil down to did you owe the entity that called the loan due.

    None of the rest of it pays you! Look Neil has already said he does not think that the borrower are getting a house for free? We paid into a contract for years on these homes so what free? But if it just you want to be right about something or do you want to get paid. We were borrowed monies to purchase a house and that what we did, and if the lender wanted the house as collateral for the loan it must have follow the rules of recording a “lien” and if not they have a unsecured loan.

    Once the loan Note is no longer in the hand of the debt holder, you no longer have an agreement that the Notes original design. If there is not Note then there is no debt, and if there is no debt then there is no debt and they are married, and if they are not together they are not married and the agreement no longer exist. A marriage is between two parties and without one of the parties, the marriage does not exist.

    We are looking losses and treble damage, oppose to what ever Neil think that the homeowners don’t get a free house. I am not into millions being given to the attorneys for some class action and we receive $12 and a cup of coffee.

    How were you damaged and who damaged you, and what are the damages. What was the value of the home and were the payments legally collated by Wells Fargo or another. How was Wells Fargo a servicer for a party that did not hold the debt? Even if you want to take it after WaMu was seized, at what point can a non purchaser in Ginnie Mae have Wells Fargo act as a mortgage servicer when they admit that they don’t originate or purchase ANY home mortgage loans.

    So legally you should be entitled to the house and any payment paid to a party that was not the holder of the Note and debt at the same time! So Neil right in some regard and that is do we expect a free house? No we expect the house or value of, back payment and treble damage on top of that!

  101. @deborah, i think has the authority to release the lien by order of FDIC. i did not wrote a letter to chase instead i wrote a letter to FDIC in washington, then i was referred to FDIC in Las vegas. and that’s where chase called me. i received my stamped paid off deed and promissory note recorded in the county. i have cleared it from the title company and show them the deed and note that has been stamped paid off. thanks

  102. RE; All, make sure you Flush when you’ve finished. :)

    I forgot to remind you to wash your hands … You don’t want caught with dirty hands. No cookies for anyone with dirty hands .. No No

  103. Ginnie Mae is 100% guaranteed by the Taxpayers!! Why else do you think we had to buy them back at 100% face value?

  104. Are the lien in place correctly? So why all the other theories, when we know these loan were not purchase from WaMu. Is WaMu in court claiming the debt is due, or is there some legal team claiming they are representing WaMu asking for repayment.

    So why are we wondering were the monies came from or that securities were sold, but the thing a judge knows like the back of his hand is did the Plaintiff lend monies or purchase the debt and are they on title? What the answer to those two question, then there are no other question!

    Why are you in possession of a Note that is blank? Do you have a record of that transaction to show you paid for the debt? If not why not? Who not got a recorded of $200,000 purchase? Is the creation of the securities a post loan issue? Yes. Are the investors buying the home loans or the byproduct of a securities that in the case of Ginnie Mae are 100% guaranteed by the Federal Government for the full initial principal balance or a loan with a property that valued at 50% with not back end insurance because the “investors” are not lender who can claim the insurance, as the policy is not assigned to a not financially interest party in the loan!

    Why do you think no loans are foreclosed in the name of Ginnie Mae?

  105. Viola! – and there you have it. Make it a Great Day.

  106. Charles, I don’t speak of such things. Its like dumping it on the backs of your Grandchildren. After All Who is Footing the Bill? Or should I ask … Getting it Dumped on Them? I couldn’t look in the mirror in the mornings knowing I did that to my grandkids, that is why I want to pay the debt. However!! I Will Not Waste My Time Negotiating with a Party who does not Negotiate in Good Faith! I certainly will NOT tolerate being intimidated, threatened or Extorted! You don’t want to know what happens when you get caught with your hand in Grandma’s Cookie Jar.. It gets Messy!

    When My Halo Tips and My Horns are Showing .. Somebody’s ass is grass!

  107. Java, I see your Horns, you’ll need them in the bullpen .. the Halo just doesn’t cut thru the BS.

    Iwantmynpv, sorry .. I don’t do brisket. Yuck!

    All, make sure you Flush when you’ve finished.
    :)

  108. What we wan here is who at the local county recording office should be in title. What WaMu show is that these loan are place into these pools, and we know for a fact that in the case of WaMu the loan were not purchase by JPMorgan but as no one realizes that the 1.3 million loan Wells Fargo was servicing for WaMu until the seizure and to today, are they with blank Notes.

    This situation always been screwed up, but the seizure of WaMu bring to the surface the title issue. The GSE pools are a byproduct of the loan like a CDO or CDS and its not the loan itself and is why the Ginnie Mae is not in title as the lender on a single loan in the country.

    You cannot claim you own the loan when in fact you are not the lien holder ever/anyway. We dodn’t can about what they have going on because we are not a financial part of the deal is our argument in the first place. We want to see the Note and if it is correctly indorse and it it not simple provide the receipt of purchase!

    If you are not in title and you don’t have a assignment SIGNED at the time of that purchase (same day) you are out of luck in calling the note due. This is about who the borrowers don’t owe which is a Wells Fargo and we know WaMu is not in court claiming that a debt is due.

    This tell you that there is that break in the change with MERS because they are only in the transaction of thing because of the Deed of Trust and that party is dead and MERS cannot represent a dead “failed bank” party!

    Stop playing there game! It was the remote foreclosure procedure that caught these folks in there own trap!

  109. I am suprised there has not been more of a detailed analysis /conversation about Mortgage Default Insurance. Anyone care to lift the bonnet on that little slice of joy?

  110. regarding how to cook brisket? google it.

  111. Boots
    my 2 cents ask the
    Question is the party who gave you the releAse was authorized/ became authorized via fraudulent exchanges outside of the laws that govern and the selling of commercial paper. Matters not to you though, im glad you got through your BK.

  112. i have a story to tell about chase. when i was discharged of my BK in 2010, i wrote a letter to FDIC reporting them that my line of credit of my principal home has been discharged through chapter 7 and my credit report says zero balance and was discharged. for two year i keep on writing FDIC to send me a reconvenyance since my loan has been discharged and demanded that they have to return my cancelled original deed of trust and promissory note and record the reconveyance in recorder’s office. finally, someone from chase called me that they are going to record the reconveyance and will send me the cancelled deed of trust and promissory note. chase recorded the reconveyance twice on sept and nov. 2012. i got the deed and note stamped “paid in full’ worth $500K for second loan Heloc.

    if you were discharged through BK and you have a wamu loan, i think try to demand from them to release the lien.

  113. chatgrabber is a search term for the prior comment of where the audio is located

    Trespass Unwanted.

  114. neidermeyer,
    I’ll point you in a direction.
    I admit, I have listen to these audios and have taken none of the actions mentioned.

    This/his knowledge is in California. Two audios greater than three and a half hours and two audios just over two hours. A web page that links to the docs. A chat grabber tool that lets you see what was posted in the chat during the call.
    talkshoe 39904
    joe
    episodes 223, 224, 233, 242, right click and save link as to take it with you as a podcast and listen and see all the power written in their codes that to be free and have our rights, we have to point them to it and show them ‘they can’t do that!’.

    They rely on our ignorance, or in some cases our laziness as MS keeps alluding to when he said stop ‘thinking’ and get off the commode.
    We can be pointed to code and told to read it, and we don’t. I haven’t read the pooling and service agreement and only learned why I should have read it by listening to the call.

    I have always said, everything happening to us, we played a part in it, but that didn’t mean we ‘asked for it’ because we didn’t know something.
    It makes me a lot more tolerable of others who do what I consider ‘stupid’ things because I have taken the time to communicate with some, and seriously, people do stuff based on what they know and if they never had the experience to know well, they make it up as they go, and that doesn’t help them get where they want to be.

    Then there is the ‘fear’ side of people that make them angry, as if they have something to lose in the communication so they yell at the people they are communicating with, and then I wonder, what are you losing by my not getting what you are trying to tell me? I’m trying, I’m just not there yet. Something I don’t know has to connect the dots for me.

    Joe’s audios are connecting the dots for me. I heard it, I didn’t know what to do with it. I didn’t know how it applied to what I already knew and why I need to learn the things others had pointed out today, yesterday and years ago.

    The home was stolen, the escrow is still open, someone is caught with settlement money they shouldn’t have, someone is executing a trust they don’t possess, nor can they claim control of; they are claiming a loss that never occurred and going to court with tons of paperwork to make it look like there was a loss, but no one has completed a written claim, (no financing statement to perfect their claim because as mentioned in prior post, they cannot perfect is a note, it’s a mere promise to pay, so it’s only a right to money, but not money), without perfection they were unsecured anyway and had no valid claim.

    from that UCC 9 video
    o Possession or control (very few that you can’t file to; one you must possess to perfect is money, not rights to money but currency – something declared by government or a country to be money. You perfect by possession; unless it’s proceeds then you can use the proceeds by perfection rule.)

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

  115. if swapping recipes instead of theories is OK on this site – does anyone know how long I need to slow-cook brisket. Mainly looking for the Jewish input here, my past mother-in-law used to kick a mean brisket.

    Couldn’t tell ya a thing about being a Jew, except that my kids were Jews because of their mother, but she cooked a damn good brisket on the New year.

  116. Just as a note for future commentary – every failed thrift that went through FDIC conservatorship to receivership has an SPE attached to keep the loans BK remote. As the convservator the FDIC wipes the slate clean (sorry common share investor), and renegotiates teh senior debt and preferred shares, if any left.

    As the Receiver for a failed or seized thrift, the FDIC finds a buyer (private participation) and then sets up and SPE, (public participation) to hold the clean assets until the the funding creditors, FHLB, FNM, GNM, FRE, FRC and the FDIC are paid, the rest is profit for the Reserve System Bank.

    Did anyone take notice that none of the thrifts took over the Reserve System Banks. More important, did I spell :”WALLAH” correct in my last statement?

  117. @ NG – You are not even close Neil Garfield. First of all 90 billion of the loans held at WAMU, were and still are, the property of the FHLB. which is still being paid through the structured transaction.

    The rest of the majority of loans had been previously securitized and theroretcially were not the property of WAMU at the time of seizure by the OTS / OCC. Chase did not purchase any loans-that is why there is no Loan Schedule – however, they did purchase the MSR’s and the Senior Tranches and Residual Certificates WAMU owned.

    Without a doubt, the FDIC and Chase established an undisclosed SPE, and that is where the money is being paid to. This was not an overnight financial killing it was a five year financial killing, all at the expense of the WAMU equity shareholders and subordinated debt owners that had invested in WAMU.

    What we should be looking at: The Chase balance sheet was in no better shape than that of BSC or WAMU. This was a heist that that was financed through the FRB of NY and the FDIC. The latter carries the burden of the debt, so as to not affect Chase’s Tier One Ratio’s and to also clean (practically launder) the assets for resale at the cost of WAMU investors, thus lining the conduit for paid and washed MBS.

    As the loans are re-securitized into Chase conduit’s the SPE is paid down and Chase keeps the profit, of which by my tally to date is approximately 29 Billion.

    Everyone still seems to approach this mess as an anomaly. This was a well-planned, well defined and well executed consolidation of assets. They simply take a pool of assets with higher yields, and reload with cheap funds under multiple bullshit cheap capital programs.

    Hence, I take all the assets, restructure with monies loaned at 1.875% from Fed Facilities (even the discount window) and I pay down myself as industry ( See FHLB System) (The Federal Reserve System) and the other former GSE’s, now I push rates higher through the FRC and wallah – i have cleaned assets yielding a 3% spread, securitized at a premium into several pools, and once again I fucked America on it’s own dime!!!

    TSMIMITW

  118. So if this is a theory about Wa-Mu and Chase….would the same theory hold true for Downey Savings and Loans and US Bank?

  119. If I remember correctly , didn’t JPM fight very hard to hold onto WAMU, when another bank tried to get into middle of this transaction. Jamie knew how great the theft would be and made sure JPM would be the SERVICER to foreclose on Americans and steal their houses.
    How these guys are still walking around and that we are talking about this 5 years later ??????

  120. This tell me that for at least 1 1/2yrs have gone by and Neil does not read any of these post, because I have only talked about WaMu government insured loan being serviced by Wells Fargo.

    Part of that loan portfolio of WaMu were Ginnie Mae pooled loan and Ginnie Mae did not let 1.3 million loan setting in their pool simply go by the wayside, and is why loan are endorsed in blank and the HUD 11711A is signed.

    What happen is as Wells Fargo was the service of the 1.3 million FHA, VA & USDA loans starting on Jul 31, 2006, as when the loan are first placed into the pools it break the “chain of title” as neither the originator (may or may not be WaMu) or WaMu have informed the local land recorded that the Notes been signed in blank and transfer to Ginnie Mae.

    UCC 3 gives ownership of the blank Note to he that possess it, so WaMu is not longer the owner of the Note and because the Notes are without the debt (as Ginnie did not purchase it) neither actually exist any longer becaus a Note is only a Note because it is attached to a repayment of debt. Had Ginnie Mae purchase the debt and possess the Blank Note it could collect on the debt and even attach a lien if an assignment transfer form WaMu had been signed the day of the purchase (transfer cannot be signed ever any time after sale).

    However as it is publish and conveyed to the borrowers of the Ginnie Mae pooled loan, that Ginnie Mae does not originate, but or sale home mortgage loans or securities and also Ginnie Mae says that it is not an investor, and is only listed as investor in MERS so they can contact of defaults. Ginnie Mae goes on to say that borrowers are to contact you mortgage servicer.

    To claim the loan as their debt a Wells Fargo or Ginnie Mae must do as UCC 9 says and present proof that they purchase the debt which Ginnie Mae already said and that they do not purchase any home mortgage loans at all, plus at the local land recording offices there are not lien in the name of Ginnie Mae, as Ginnie Mae does not and cannot purchase any debt at all!

    WaMu is the one case that sinks the Ginnie Mae scheme because WaMu is a defunct bank, and the slipping back the blank endorse Note to the endorser cannot be done in this case as WaMu was seized and close and in the blank Note were in the possession of about, because if they were in the possession of WaMu at the time it was seized then a bankrupt court would have decided the fate of those loan and that Ginnie Mae not paid a dime for a single loan is not entitle to a dime.

    They are done, and I been trying to explain but people feel they must discovery this on there own. Whistle-blower claim since Aug 2011.

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 3,471 other followers

%d bloggers like this: