The GREAT AMERICAN “PUT UP OR SHUT UP” FORECLOSURE SOLUTION!

submitted by SM

The GREAT AMERICAN “PUT UP OR SHUT UP” FORECLOSURE SOLUTION!

This is very simple.

The LAWS dictate that the bank (or pretender lender) must offer PROOF of OWNERSHIP.

DEMAND a “pre-trial settlement conference.” Mediators are not allowed.

Make this an all or nothing wager. (Wall Street likes betting with other peoples’ money, right?)

Give the bank (or pretender lender) 60 DAYS from the initial hearing to produce the ORIGINAL NOTE (EVIDENCING THE ENDORSEMENTS IN BLANK or NO ENDORSEMENTS for TRUSTS?) – PLUS the ALLONGES, and ORIGINAL MORTGAGE.

Modern forensic analysis – to be paid by HAMP – would verify the credibility of the documents. Ink and paper can be time-dated with modern technology. Furthermore, hand writing analysis techniques and forensic computer technologies are also available and very refined today. Furthermore, The CEO’s (of the employees who “VERIFY” the accuracy of their own signing authority as evidenced in their own affidavits,) would be “sworn in” for perjury and other related potential criminal actions. This would also perhaps eliminate forgeries and criminally manufactured documents by the banks (or pretender lenders,) their foreclosure mill attorneys, and/or their default document preparation firms… To further GUARANTEE and ENSURE fairness, the Homeowner would choose the forensics firm who would operate under the penalty of perjury and fraud.

This simple wager would be established as follows:

1- The pretender lender would “sign off” at the initial “pre-trial settlement conference” on the mortgage and note, (FREE AND CLEAR with clean, marketable title, including the pretender lender’s assumption of all future liabilities for “John Does’ 1- 1000.”) The homeowner would then drop all future claims and counterclaims, and own their home free and clear. Further criminal prosecutions would be dropped for this individual case.

2- IF the pretender lender would NOT “sign off,” then the FORENSIC TESTING RESULTS – OR pretender lender’s NON-COMPLIANCE … in the following 60 days … would determine the FINAL OUTCOME of their claim.

3- At the end of 60 days at the NEXT summary hearing, (held exactly in 60 days,) IF the bank CAN LEGALLY

PROVE THEIR OWNERSHIP by producing the legally necessary documents to the court, the HOMEOWNER has 30 days to peacefully surrender the premises without any further litigation.

4- At the end of 60 days at the NEXT summary hearing, (held exactly in 60 days,) IF the pretender lender COULD NOT PROVE THEIR OWNERSHIP to the court, the HOMEOWNER would receive the HOME – FREE AND CLEAR – (and FREE FROM ALL FUTURE LIABILITIES from “John Does’ 1 – 1000″ ….) PLUS, the homeowner would additionally receive FIVE MILLION DOLLARS CASH ($5,000,000.00) from the pretender lender now proved to be a criminal. Mandated criminal prosections and incarcerations would then follow for corporate parties found guilty of fraud, perjury, RICO Conspiracy, etc….

This MOST CERTAINLY, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, would:

A) END “ABUSE OF PROCESS” and “FRAUD ON THE COURTS!”

B) END LOAN MODIFICATION SCAMS BY ALL ENTITIES!

C) END THE TYPICALLY UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICE OF QUESTIONABLE FORECLOSURES – and, so far, MOST (if not ALL) FORECLOSURES are questionable! (… Let’s not forget about the RAMPANT MORTGAGE FRAUD by the BANKERS in the lax and irresponsible origination and appraisals.)

D) END UNNECESSARY LITIGATION COSTS to homeowners, who cannot afford litigation in the first place. Only 5%(?) of homeowners are litigating and many of them are going bankrupt to merely protect their legal rights. There is currently very little JUSTICE for most homeowners.

JUSTICE is CLEARLY NOT AFFORDABLE!

Long and protracted litigation, through slick, legal maneuvering by attorneys (on both sides) – is demonstrably immoral and unethical.

E) END The strain of COURT COSTS to the TAXPAYERS and STATES!

F) END EMBARRASSMENT by many Judges, Bar Associations, and GOVERNMENT AGENCIES who have aided and abetted, at the very least, unethical behavior, or at the very worst, criminal behavior – regarding foreclosure fraud and mortgage fraud by the banks!

G) END The MISTRUST by citizens of law enforcement, regulatory agencies, and governments who have been wholly negligent of thier DUTIES to PROTECT and SERVE the citizens (who pay the “PUBLIC SERVANT’s” wages and benefits through taxes!)

H) END the WASTE and FRAUD perpetrated on America by worthless government and social policy programs!

I) END the CERTAIN DECLINE OF OUR ECONOMY. Millions of FREE and CLEAR HOMES would RE-START our economy with legitimate (and immediate) equity based lending!

J) END CLOUDED, UNMARKETABLE TITLES that will clog up the legal system for years to come!

K) VALIDATE and REAFFIRM OUR COUNTRY’S COMMITMENT TO FACT, LAW, JUSTICE, FAIRNESS and TRANSPARENCY!

L) UPHOLD THE SANCTITY of “our” U.S. and STATE CONSTITUTIONS!

.. And WHY COULD this NOT OCCUR?

You may call this:

the GREAT AMERICAN “PUT UP OR SHUT UP” FORECLOSURE SOLUTION!

ISN’T THIS WHAT AMERICA STANDS FOR…FAIRNESS, JUSTICE, and EQUAL PROTECTION under the LAW?

27 Responses

  1. M soliman:

    Thanks for that detailed information. Mers was not a part of this case file. The particular case I am referencing is: The Originator (A) endorsed to (B) the warehouse Bank and the (B) endorsed over to the trustee (Bank C). No dates of course. An assignment prepared five years later is recorded with the originator to the warehouse to the trustee in just that order. The judge ignored the fact that we produced a false allonge and an assignment by bank C, the trustee because they had the wrong party, A, endorsing the allonge. The actual note showed endorsement to trustee by bank B to C.

    Now, Bank C has presented the original note in the court room and the Judge after 4 and 1/2 years granted the MSJ to the bank solely on the basis that they are holding the note. In conflict with their statement however, it was determined 10 months later while bank C is attempting to foreclose again, that the Depositor (D) was the creditor, but nothing every recorded to that effect. To me, we had a Note in transition, Bank C to D as a repurchse, but the Bank B held onto the note or they got it back from the Depositor before the court hearing because they could never produce it and we had to force them in discovery. The loan was not eligible for the trust so to avoid fidiciary duty to the certificate holders, it would have been appropriate for C to request that D repurchase or substitute the collateral. Since no loans were being originated, they would have had to return the loan to bank D, the Depositor. The trustee obviously never released the note to the depositor. In fact we would not have known about the Bank D, the depositor until the New Loan Servicer, sent a demand letter which showed that bank D was the creditor and not Bank C, the trustee.

    This was done 10 months after bank C was granted their motion for summary judgment to foreclose and now are attempting to foreclose in bank C, trustee, so they would not have to bring the Depositor Bank D into the picture. bank c is holding the note, but it is a Note in transition back to the Depositor. How can bank C foreclose?

    To further confuse the issue, the loan servicer trying to record the 5 year old assignments which we believe were just prepared inadvertingly recorded the assignments in the wrong order. They now have the false assignment of note and lien back in Bank B, the warehouse. Both the A and B banks are out of business as well as bank D. Can the servicer correct the issue by going in and just simply recorded the false assignments in the correct order. Just want to be sure.

    The detailed information you provided is great and will do much to help us on this end. Thank you.

  2. ANONYMOUS

    Can you follow M.Soliman’s explanations below? I don’t possess the mental horsepower to figure out everything he is saying.

  3. how do you deal with a lender that will not foreclose, the lender refuses to foreclose, leaving us in limbo in litigation. Some one said file a Summary Judgment against ourselves to force there hand?

  4. @ Tony, we all could learn from an expert witness. I have met m soliman twice, and he speaks the truth. Never judge a book by it’s cover.

  5. Tony
    Thanks. Please can you write the detail about, ” the ruling on the motion to dismiss. The Judge explains everthing in detail.” I could not get that

  6. HOW BANKS DO IT …..
    By M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

    Can someone please answer the question? Just because the bank presents the original note, does that mean no matter what has transpired they can foreclose?

    The bank is the holder in due course from day one through eternity. A holder in due course but “FBO” its investors. Remember, possession is nine tenths of the law.

    The original note was never released from the bank as its own custodian. The note is encumbered by a warehouse line of credit. Therefore the borrower is the debtor to the note and lender is the obligor to the bank.

    The Lender Company “A” is alleged to have MERS representing it as the nominee for its investors. In a third party origination the lender called Company “A” is a stand in who is provided a warehouse line by the Bank Company “B”.

    Wholesale is an uncomfortable business means for Banks to originate loans yet offers a huge advantage. It creates an illusion of a “Loan Purchased” through a TPO or third party origination.

    The Lender Company “A” funded the loan (using OPM) and shipped the file to the Bank Company “B” c/o its Whole loan Division. Wholesale keeps the left and right side and ships the “Collateral file to the warehouse division, of Company “B” the Bank.

    The collateral consists of 1) a live note and 2) copy of deed of trust (nonjudicial state) (3) the endorsement in blank and (4) assignment in blank (5) the HUD I.

    The Lender Company “A” is not a major player, a small Frye, who was approved to sell loans to the Company “B” the Bank Wholesale Division. The Banks warehouse line is a credit facility used to originate loans.

    Note – If the lender (ACME Home Loans) is not a recognized name, it’s a TPO; i.e. Indy Mac Bank funds its own loans.

    The Pooling and servicing agreement divulge the registrant who is the warehouse lender –the Bank Company “B”. The draw towards wholesale is the ability to avoid triggering certain accounting violations is dependent on the TPO wholesale channels and is form and substance “table funding” which is a regulatory violation. TPO is dangerous if not “controlled” and if controlled it’s a violation. Wholesale origination has its appeal however for purposes of the Bank, Company “B” remaining out of sight and out of mind. It is for this and other purposes it is popular, such as avoiding concentration of assets and taking the direct hit for predatory lending.

    The platform (which the FDIC told me never to say) is for means and methods of its object, and why Lehman and B of A were the driving force in 85% of all subprime assets origination. It’s the warehouse lender and Bank, Company “B” who were controlling the wholesale origination channels operating in a clandestine and secretive manner. None the less, a major player is the Bank, Company “B” who is the registrant of the securities – the securitizer. Company “B” the Bank is typically backed by a consortium of participants like Sun Trust and Am Trust Bank who stepped up to share the risk and rewards of warehouse lending.

    QUESTION – If warehouse lending is a God forsaken time consuming micromanaged costly business with HUGE risk – why then did all these banks jumped in to participate. See the Lehman Bros investigation conducted by the US Trustee “Vulkas”.

    None the less these warehouse participant’s operated so clandestine and secretive for purpose of avoiding concentration and dispersing risk and apparently to avoid the attention of the FDIC and OTS enforcement of regulatory risk assessment procedures. But in actuality there is more here than meets the eye.

    Back to the question – The warehouse lender is the bank Company “B” and it never ever gives up the note – got it. Never! If the loan is sold to an arm’s length investor only then ship the note before the wire under a Bailee agreement. The loan “files” were shipped “flow” or “upon funding” by the lender Company “A” to the “Wholesale” division of the Bank. The “collateral” file was shipped PTF direct to the warehouse division of the Bank, Company “B”

    Herein the securitization process begins.

    LOANS SEPARATED FROM THE LINE.
    First – Remember the loan is assigned concurrently at funding to MERS- representing the investors as was stated on the mortgage or deed. The Deed is the collateral for the note. The recording of the mortgage at closing is the substitution for the missing assignment. The language MERS requires acts as an assignment granted by the borrower executing the collateral – mortgage or deed.

    The line of credit is sold by the Bank Company “B” the Seller to Company “C” an SPE that was formed as a Trust. The Trust Company “C” is a shell that comes to life upon capitalization by Depositors. The Bank Company “B” will deposit capital or funds to start up the SPE Company “C”. The shifting of Warehouse lines of credit over to the SPE Company C” is called moving liabilities off balance sheet. It’s exchanging the “insured” FDIC Deposits normally held at a bank into an “uninsured” Depositor’s account held at the bank. This substitute’s the Loans for Depositors capital to satisfy the regulator’s for the amount outstanding used to originate the mortgages.

    100 K Loans – 100 K Lines = 0.00 vs.
    (100 K Loans – 100 K Lines) + $100 K Deposits = $100K
    Offset the borrower “loans” that are held on the banks lines of credit.
    ————————————————————
    Upon moving the lines off balance sheet the loan are unencumbered or owned free and clear. (For this example).

    BANK =$100 K Loans and
    QSPE = $100K Deposits – $100K Deposit’s = 0.00
    Thus zero net worth is bankrupt insulated
    ———————————————————-

    Therefore the deposits are substituted collateral that enhances the Bank; Company “B” books freeing up more lines for liquidity and freeing up loans to securitize. The unencumbered loans are Banks assets held for benefit of SPE Company “C”. The excess cash flow is then payable to Trust Preferred investors in Company “D”.

    The Bank, Company “B” holds the notes and owes the borrower payments to the SPE Company “C” for (1) lines outstanding and (2) Common Trust Shares (“CD”) dividends (3) to deposit the excess. Therefore the SPE Company “C” has a receivable due from the Bank Company “B”. Company “C” QSPE then pays out the balance left over to the SPE Company “D” as dividend to trust preferred shareholders.

    The entire structure is held in a Real Estate Investment Trust or REIT and the common shares in Company “C” are owned by investors and controlled by a 10% holding owned by Bank management in a TRS or taxable REIT Subsidiary. The loans are an asset evidenced by the note and owned by the bank that is the controlling interest for Company “C” SPE common shares. The cash flow Company “C” collects and then forwards is debt of the bank – It’s all Debt.

    The cash flow Company “D” is entitled to is for unsecured securities like bond or “Debt / Equity” bonds called Preferred Trust Certificates.

    SUMMARY
    Moving lines of credit off balance sheet secured by deposits is legal. Nothing deemed fraudster or Bankster’s about it. The lender Company “A” is removed from the scheme within 30 days normally and the Bank through its wholesale division controls production and the warehouse division facilitate the originations.

    The Bank always held the notes. The amount due the warehouse line is converted into a long term debt and a receivable for Company “C” by way of shifting over deposits into “Common Stock Shares, which free up the encumbered borrower loans. It’s called factoring – buying someone’s receivables. And once again – the cash flow Company “D” receives is for unsecured securities like bond called Preferred Trust Certificates, payable by the QSPE Company “C”.
    My personal experience and insider knowledge of the scheme reveals’ a significant fraudulent effort here –centered on the “common shares” and TRS. It’s something that cannot remain hidden in discovery.

    It is a fine line between “divestiture” and committing paper (borrower loans) as pledge assets to investments. For the other case of fraud, I believe the FDIC has no idea of what these debt collectors had up their sleeve. This I will testify too.

    M.Soliman
    Expert.witness@live.com

  7. Why won’t someone address it?
    By M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

    Can someone please answer the question? Just because the bank presents the original note, does that mean no matter what has transpired they can foreclose?

    The bank is the holder in due course from day one through eternity. A holder in due course but “FBO” its investors. Remember, possession is nine tenths of the law.

    The original note was never released from the bank as its own custodian. The note is encumbered by a warehouse line of credit. Therefore the borrower is the debtor to the note and lender is the obligor to the bank.

    The Lender Company “A” is alleged to have MERS representing it as the nominee for its investors. In a third party origination the lender called Company “A” is a stand in who is provided a warehouse line by the Bank Company “B”.

    Wholesale is an uncomfortable business means for Banks to originate loans yet offers a huge advantage. It creates an illusion of a “Loan Purchased” through a TPO or third party origination.

    The Lender Company “A” funded the loan (using OPM) and shipped the file to the Bank Company “B” c/o its Whole loan Division. Wholesale keeps the left and right side and ships the “Collateral file to the warehouse division, of Company “B” the Bank.

    The collateral consists of 1) a live note and 2) copy of deed of trust (nonjudicial state) (3) the endorsement in blank and (4) assignment in blank (5) the HUD I.

    The Lender Company “A” is not a major player, a small Frye, who was approved to sell loans to the Company “B” the Bank Wholesale Division. The Banks warehouse line is a credit facility used to originate loans.

    Note – If the lender (ACME Home Loans) is not a recognized name, it’s a TPO; i.e. Indy Mac Bank funds its own loans.

    The Pooling and servicing agreement divulge the registrant who is the warehouse lender –the Bank Company “B”. The draw towards wholesale is the ability to avoid triggering certain accounting violations is dependent on the TPO wholesale channels and is form and substance “table funding” which is a regulatory violation. TPO is dangerous if not “controlled” and if controlled it’s a violation. Wholesale origination has its appeal however for purposes of the Bank, Company “B” remaining out of sight and out of mind. It is for this and other purposes it is popular, such as avoiding concentration of assets and taking the direct hit for predatory lending.

    The platform (which the FDIC told me never to say) is for means and methods of its object, and why Lehman and B of A were the driving force in 85% of all subprime assets origination. It’s the warehouse lender and Bank, Company “B” who were controlling the wholesale origination channels operating in a clandestine and secretive manner. None the less, a major player is the Bank, Company “B” who is the registrant of the securities – the securitizer. Company “B” the Bank is typically backed by a consortium of participants like Sun Trust and Am Trust Bank who stepped up to share the risk and rewards of warehouse lending.

    QUESTION – If warehouse lending is a God forsaken time consuming micromanaged costly business with HUGE risk – why then did all these banks jumped in to participate. See the Lehman Bros investigation conducted by the US Trustee “Vulkas”.

    None the less these warehouse participant’s operated so clandestine and secretive for purpose of avoiding concentration and dispersing risk and apparently to avoid the attention of the FDIC and OTS enforcement of regulatory risk assessment procedures. But in actuality there is more here than meets the eye.

    Back to the question – The warehouse lender is the bank Company “B” and it never ever gives up the note – got it. Never! If the loan is sold to an arm’s length investor only then ship the note before the wire under a Bailee agreement. The loan “files” were shipped “flow” or “upon funding” by the lender Company “A” to the “Wholesale” division of the Bank. The “collateral” file was shipped PTF direct to the warehouse division of the Bank, Company “B”

    Herein the securitization process begins.

    LOANS SEPARATED FROM THE LINE.
    First – Remember the loan is assigned concurrently at funding to MERS- representing the investors as was stated on the mortgage or deed. The Deed is the collateral for the note. The recording of the mortgage at closing is the substitution for the missing assignment. The language MERS requires acts as an assignment granted by the borrower executing the collateral – mortgage or deed.

    The line of credit is sold by the Bank Company “B” the Seller to Company “C” an SPE that was formed as a Trust. The Trust Company “C” is a shell that comes to life upon capitalization by Depositors. The Bank Company “B” will deposit capital or funds to start up the SPE Company “C”. The shifting of Warehouse lines of credit over to the SPE Company C” is called moving liabilities off balance sheet. It’s exchanging the “insured” FDIC Deposits normally held at a bank into an “uninsured” Depositor’s account held at the bank. This substitute’s the Loans for Depositors capital to satisfy the regulator’s for the amount outstanding used to originate the mortgages.

    100 K Loans – 100 K Lines = 0.00 vs.
    (100 K Loans – 100 K Lines) + $100 K Deposits = $100K
    Offset the borrower “loans” that are held on the banks lines of credit.
    ————————————————————
    Upon moving the lines off balance sheet the loan are unencumbered or owned free and clear. (For this example).

    BANK =$100 K Loans and
    QSPE = $100K Deposits – $100K Deposit’s = 0.00
    Thus zero net worth is bankrupt insulated
    ———————————————————-

    Therefore the deposits are substituted collateral that enhances the Bank; Company “B” books freeing up more lines for liquidity and freeing up loans to securitize. The unencumbered loans are Banks assets held for benefit of SPE Company “C”. The excess cash flow is then payable to Trust Preferred investors in Company “D”.

    The Bank, Company “B” holds the notes and owes the borrower payments to the SPE Company “C” for (1) lines outstanding and (2) Common Trust Shares (“CD”) dividends (3) to deposit the excess. Therefore the SPE Company “C” has a receivable due from the Bank Company “B”. Company “C” QSPE then pays out the balance left over to the SPE Company “D” as dividend to trust preferred shareholders.

    The entire structure is held in a Real Estate Investment Trust or REIT and the common shares in Company “C” are owned by investors and controlled by a 10% holding owned by Bank management in a TRS or taxable REIT Subsidiary. The loans are an asset evidenced by the note and owned by the bank that is the controlling interest for Company “C” SPE common shares. The cash flow Company “C” collects and then forwards is debt of the bank – It’s all Debt.

    The cash flow Company “D” is entitled to is for unsecured securities like bond or “Debt / Equity” bonds called Preferred Trust Certificates.

    SUMMARY
    Moving lines of credit off balance sheet secured by deposits is legal. Nothing deemed fraudster or Bankster’s about it. The lender Company “A” is removed from the scheme within 30 days normally and the Bank through its wholesale division controls production and the warehouse division facilitate the originations.

    The Bank always held the notes. The amount due the warehouse line is converted into a long term debt and a receivable for Company “C” by way of shifting over deposits into “Common Stock Shares, which free up the encumbered borrower loans. It’s called factoring – buying someone’s receivables. And once again – the cash flow Company “D” receives is for unsecured securities like bond called Preferred Trust Certificates, payable by the QSPE Company “C”.
    My personal experience and insider knowledge of the scheme reveals’ a significant fraudulent effort here –centered on the “common shares” and TRS. It’s something that cannot remain hidden in discovery.

    It is a fine line between “divestiture” and committing paper (borrower loans) as pledge assets to investments. For the other case of fraud, I believe the FDIC has no idea of what these debt collectors had up their sleeve. This I will testify too.

    M.Soliman
    Expert.witness@live.com

  8. attorneys are learning a lot from their clients there is no question and it is happening everywhere. One attorney I know waits until the client presents a client prepared brief and then goes over it and charges the client. They look up nothing as it is clear to see they followed the client’s lead.

    Can someone please answer the question. Just because the bank presents the original note, does that mean no matter what has transpired they can foreclose? Why won’t someone address it. If that were the case, then what good would a pre trial be if they simply produce the Note and many more than you know, can now do that OR PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT YOU SIGNED A NOTE BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN PAYING FOR YEARS, WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE, BUT JUDGES ARE ACCEPTING IT.

    I t hink everyone is more aware of the process for chain of ownership, but no one is addressing this issue. The last four clients banks have come up with the original, but it does not look like they followed the chain of ownership or followed the PSA. And judges don’t go there if they can help it.

  9. Great idea! I agree. But, it’s too easy, the courts and attorneys want to make everything complex so the rest of us “stupid” people don’t get it. What we really need is something like this, pure common sense.

  10. Ideas folks, the law is both mutable an fixed, but if it is convincing, you have a chance. It is either going to be the court, or the people telling the court to start doing their job without prejudging any person that comes before them.
    And frankly, If you folks don’t realize that Mr. Davies has opened Pandora’s box for any of you that have phony loan like his, go back and watch. He found no attorney that could help, just like a lot of us. So he did it himself. If you don’t understand attorneys are learning from him, you might want to catch up.

  11. Now THERE is a solution to the current homeowners at least! Now, SM, create one for the already foreclosed upon and the investors–never break momentum! Keep going.

  12. sorry about this, but when they recorded the last assignments 5 years after closing date of the PSA, the Official real property records show that the loan is now back in the name of the original endorser over to the trustee. What a mess? five years of fighting these devils. A good thing we know a little about mortgages because we would be way in over our head with attorney cost.

  13. to my last response – again, just because the trustee is holding the note, why does that mean they can collect on it if they are holding it illegally.

  14. Please comment:

    What if the trustee is holding the note, but it has been proven that the loan never made it into the trust for various reasons even though they recorded assignments five years later and by the wrong entities according to the PSA.

    Also, in a situation like this, this loan should have been required to be repurchased because it was not acceptable under pooling provisions.

    Having said that, it is believed that because the endorsements on a false allonge and assignment and then later by the correct parties five years later and the fact that the loan was delinquent means that the trustee should have fulfilled his fidiciary duty by returning the note without recourse to the seller.

    Note is negotiable according to the bank and the trustee so they say they can do anything they want. Is that true since they did not come by it legally and are in violation of the fidiciary duty to the certificate holders.

    To top it all off when they recorded the assignments after five years, they reversed the assignments by mistake and recorded them in the wrong order. The trustee is not now showing that they are the owner of the note and lien and the loan servicer said in most recent court hearing that the creditor was not the trustee.

    TRO injunction is active and waiting another hearing. The case went to appeals over a year ago but the trustee keeps on trying to foreclose, with their fraud and misrepresentations to a new TRO judge. They never give up.

  15. What about chain of title?–
    What about proving there was no “injury and damage” to Plaintiff?
    in Florida the alleged “Originals” show up in every case–I think forensics as you refer could be a last resort.

  16. B.Davies (Just if people didn’t read it where I wrote it)

    How can you confuse the people on here like that? There is no legal way period that this link you provide is correct and I will break it down now to set this record straight.

    1. Indymac Bank FSB was taken over by the FDIC
    2. FDIC made Indymac Federal FSB spliting the liabilities and giving only the assets “collecting rights” and peoples “deposits” at Indymac Bank FSB because it was FDIC insured, and they and a secured claim with the FDIC.
    3.DBNTC file a proof of claim with the FDIC for all 246 and for the NIM trust of Indymac Bank FSB
    4. FDIC rejected the claim of DBNTC saying you are not a Secured Creditor nor will you get an administrative claim.
    5. FDIC sold Indymac Federal FSB assets to IMB Holdco.
    * at this time DBNTC file 2 suits one in California Federal court for breach of contract against the FDIC then in California Probate Court to try to get administrative fees and not be held liable for the former trust.

    I can go further than this but I already did in another post. We would not have DBNTC file a Federal case for breach of contract if DBNTC was able to give “collection rights” to someone and have an QFC in place to hold someone liable.

    I see you pulled a link on the case, but read the ruling on the motion to dismiss. The Judge explains everthing in detail.

    I can’t believe somethings that I see on here. Instead of people saying there are “expert witnesses” people need to study paper work and not think a lawyer will help or google is your lawyer, or some web page will give you all the information you need.

    It is called team work. A lawyer is only as good as the person that gives him information. If you are not properly informed your lawyer will suck. Even though people say “find a lawyer who gets it”, 1st you need to get it in order to find that person who will get it.

    There need to be an open discussion on this topic of Indymac, because to many people on here are being mislead by information. The record needs to be set straight. Common sense would show DBNTC never gave anyone any rights.

    DB securities was on the side of FDIC to make the deal with IMB Holdco aka Goldman group of buddies. They are just suing FDIC for there OWN FEES not for the investors. They are running a scheme on the american public and people are allowing them with pulling bad information.

    ALL LAND RECORDS OF ANY POWER OF SECURITIZATION TRUSTEES ARE FAKE.

    Thats why MERS was made in the first place. So there fraud was private and not filing fraud in a public forum and with the courts. Only reasons they started this “trustees for securitizations” was because people started to find out what securitizations were and studied about it.

    Why you think there are robo signers? Why you think notes are sold without recourse? Saying what ever debt collectors do in trying to collect it is on you not us. Have anyone ever read the FDIC agreement with Holdco? IT says we are selling these debt instrument, but we do not know if they are real or not. Caveat Emptor anyone?

    People think about it and wake up!!

  17. Bob G —Agree.

    hkcon — Agree.

  18. Older article stating that lenders could not trust the builders proffering of loans. Lennar is included.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/48175111/Builder-Lenders-2006-Opteum-Lennar-Link-Written-8-2007

  19. http://www.scribd.com/doc/48250899/Deutsche-Bank-as-Trustee-Agreement-to-Have-Onewest-Be-an-Agent-in-Place-of-Indymac-Bank-Fsb-August-12-2009

    power of attorney granted from Deutsche Bank to Onewest to act as limited agent. It was granted August 12, 2009. Anything before signed by Onewest was not granted by Deutsche Bank as Trustee to Onewest. Onewest started filings March 19, 2009. So anything between those dates were not allowed or should have been in the Indymac or Indymac Federal name.

  20. http://www.scribd.com/doc/48255380/Deutsche-Bank-Response-to-FDIC-and-JPM-Motions-to-Dismiss-1

    Talcott Franklin who represents the certificate holders, and the David Boies [bush v. gore] tell it all for deutsche bank including their inability to get the loan files, however it is common to get the note and security interest. This is how important the psa is in the argument of who did what and when and was it transferred.

  21. Most homeowners fail to pay their mortgages because they are out of work, have had their wages cut, or are saddled with ballooning interest rates on subprime loans, housing advocates say. Some abandon hope of ever catching up, staying put for months — sometimes years — while lenders slog through the increasingly long process that leads to foreclosure.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/48271342/In-a-Jam-More-Skip-Mortgage-Payments-The-Boston-Globe

    The banks screwed AIG [taxpayers] and now there appears to be justice. The homeowners should pay [AIG] them self. Well it looks as though that is occuring. Its whose on first.

  22. I think , a fingerprint on the mortgage paper , would eliminate a lot of problems in the future , even on the home owners copy , who should not be blank.

  23. The problem I see with this is that there is no way to make the Judges honest, they will just say whatever paperwork the bank shows up with is evidence of ownership and truth, justice etc…be damned……..I showed the judge in my bk a letter from the state dept of new york which specifically stated that the trust trying to foreclose on me had never been created and he said I believe they have standing and gave relief….

  24. Sounds Ideal, sign me up

  25. Bob G.

    This is Neils site , perhaps he is attempting to stir the pot or embarass the courts, certainly their lack of equity in dealing with foreclosure SHOULD be embarassing… We need a system that holds both sides accountable ,, not a system that lets the strong take as many shots as they want until they score…

  26. Is there a Quality Control person for this blog?

    And the banks would go for this, why ??? It’s to their advantage to do this, why ???

    And prosecutors would agree to this why ???

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

%d bloggers like this: