MOST ORIGINAL MORTGAGE LIENS INVALID

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

I held back on writing this post until I was sure beyond a reasonable doubt that I was right. I’ve said it one form or another, but not like this. It is my opinion (to be checked with licensed attorney) that most mortgage liens over the last 10 years+ were never perfected and improperly filed. If you check with cases involving mechanics liens, mortgage liens, bankruptcy etc., the issue is always about priority of liens and perfection of liens. The essential tests I have distilled from many sources are as follows:

  1. The most important test of the perfection of a lien is whether the lienholder could issue a satisfaction of that lien.
  2. The other statutory steps in establishing the lien and giving it the right place in the priority of the lien must be fulfilled to the letter. Each state differs slightly on such procedures.

Be careful here because this is not one size fits all. There are two classes of such mortgages, and this conclusion regarding the perfection, priority, enforcement and viability of the lien only applies to one class. The first class is the minority by far, but it is a significant minority. There were some actual lenders, apparently like World Savings, that did in fact make loans out of their own cash or credit. That they were later sold  into the secondary market does nothing for you if you are challenging the original loan, which presumably was otherwise executed and properly filed. Hence, at the time of origination neither misrepresentation of the creditor nor the PSA were involved.

The other class, including subclasses, accounts for at least 85% of all loans during this period. In most cases the loan originator was either a thinly capitalized mortgage broker who was called “the lender” even though they never gave the borrower one penny and never intended to do so. If there were any borrower claims arising out of the loan transaction itself it would, the strategy goes, be filed against the loan originator (except now we know they were not the lender and were acting as an agent for an undisclosed principal).

The fact that the loan originator was not the lender/creditor means that the real creditor was outside the transaction. Thus a satisfaction of the obligation could only be given by or on behalf of the undisclosed creditor. By definition there is no way of knowing, but for off-record communication, who to go to for a satisfaction. Factually the Promissory Note is a lie. And therefore the “Security instrument” which misstates the terms itself, is based upon a document that does not properly recite the terms of repayment (i.e., including the terms of the PSA).

It does not properly recite the terms of repayment because (1) it provides a nominee instead of the real name of the creditor/lender and (2) it does include all the terms and parties to the deal (see the PSA). If MERS was used, you have a nominee for title, a nominee for creditor, and therefore no real party on the side of the lender, in terms of on-record activity. This results in the lien being imperfect or never perfected. Check the cases and statutes. This conclusion is unavoidable based upon the factual assumptions I have made here.

The focus on forgery, fabrication and misrepresentation (robo-signing) is important. After all this shows fraudulent intent. But it begs the question as to whether the original lien was perfected. And by the way (see previous post) invalidating the lien does not eliminate the obligation or even the possibility of a judgment lien if it is available to the creditor (depends upon the state).

So the narrow issue addressed here ONLY relates to the perfection of the mortgage or deed of trust, which is only one method of enforcement of a debt. These issues are important as to discharge-ability of the obligation in bankruptcy and enforceability of the putative lien in state or Federal Court. There are obvious ramifications as to lawsuits to Quiet Title as well.

37 Responses

  1. […] MOST ORIGINAL MORTGAGE LIENS … – 17.08.2011  · This is troublesome for me to act on. I (naively) thought my bank/mortgage servicer were the same and that they perfected the mortgage lien … […]

  2. This is troublesome for me to act on. I (naively) thought my bank/mortgage servicer were the same and that they perfected the mortgage lien. USAA as my bank originator of mortgage somehow passed it to the PHH MORTGAGE servicer even though in Florida the servicer can not pass it to another (i guess there are recognized execptions or was a congruent relationship) any way I don’t understand that relationship but certainly all billings and statements have come from PHH mortgage. So was there ever a tangible loan, how to get proof?
    PHH Mortgage ignores all my notarized and certified mail (Complaint, QWR/RESPA Ltr), etc. So the only thing I can think of to do is to send a conditional acceptance and after their silence close the mortgage account and fight them in court.

  3. The ‘Temporary Lender’ given cash (prefunding) per S-3 and S-3/A which can be used to purchase REO properties, for example. REO properties Servicers advance funding and then collect following Sheriff Sale. The ‘Tempoary lender’ in agreement with non-deposit trust company ‘entity’ and gives cash to Tempoary Lender for new loan in order that the RETAIL SERVICER may begin servicing a performing loan, the promise the loans will be performing a requirement and good reason the ‘loan trusts’ are empty until placed into the ‘FWP’ and the S&P, MOODY, FITCH ok the ‘assets’ of the real owners institutional investors and institutional banks for the mortgage-backed notes pre-purchased by commitment of a purchase order, and the commitment is for the new loan, and the policy issued by OLD REPUBLIC, etc., will be Lenders Policy for New Loan protecting ‘Servicer’. and in the event of default the Servicer pays the loan trust, hires third party to collect bad debt (unsecured bad debt) from borrower. The Servicer never in agreement with borrower. The Servicer never in agreement with pass-thru agency the cash was deposited into c/o pass thru agency of seller of loan. The Servicer does not have Standing. Send us the owners of the mortgage notes, I’ll gladly let the owner go to jail!

  4. I apologize for the double post above, Please forgive,

    I mean to say that from the borrower’s view the borrower owes the debt , mitigated ONLY by tortious acts and contract breaches underlying the mortgage. What kind? TILA, RESPA violations, violations of local laws, lying about the value of the property, inking over income claims on the loan app to make the unqualified borrower seem qualified, all within their respective statutes of limitations. Generally the shenanigans with the note and mortgage have no relevance so long as the note and mortgage exist and are producible. Lenders don’t even need originals to have a valid complaint in the event of default. most courts accept copies along with evidence of payment history to prove the debt, EVERYTHING ELSE will merely stall the inevitable, inexorable foreclosure, costing the borrower a ton of extra money and helping to ruin the borrower’s credit. Eventually, the lender or assignee attorney will show up in court with proper paperwork intact, and the foreclosure will proceed to sale and eviction of the borrower.

    Examiners can easily prove those frauds I mentioned above. So foreclosure defenders should attack RIGHT THERE first,

  5. BobHurt I have not read your blog yet but I’ll go there next. I want to respond to ‘consumer’ made a valid deal with ‘temporary lender.’

    Guess you too don’t know that the ‘Owner’ of the Mortgage Note assigned as Nominee the ‘Temporay Lender’ and any of its assignees and/or successors and but for the good reason the ‘owners’ of the Mortgage Notes (the real owners) as curiously silent.

    The real owner of the mortgage note purchased the mortgage note during origination and is the mysterious unnamed third party. The name is real, the transaction read. Get a copy. You too will find out that for a maximum of 90 days, the temporay lender laundered money for the mortgage note owner rewarded with rights to service the debt.

    The ‘mortgage note’ promissory note you signed is not recorded in the name of the mortgage note owner. No its recorded in the name of the temporary lender who laundered money thru a pass thru agency who does not have to record short term investmenets 90days or under, (does not have to record in pass thru agency) but is suppose to record somewhere in entity who made money.

    The temporary lender at 90 days sells the loan again to ‘Issuing Enity’ as revenue stream and does not record the assignment in the County Clerk Records. But neither did the assign the original sale of the mortgage note. Why does everyone ignore this?

    And so, the consumer as a borrower did not know their property was placed into an alternative investment for the benefit of the institutional owner c/o the instituional investor underwriters who may sell some certificates to investors, but who will hold onto the certficates as owners and will be enjoying the cash laundered out of US during the 1st 90 days while the temporay lender violated Patriot Act Laws and OCC covered up the mess.

    From Investopedia:

    A mortgage lender that sells the loans it originates into the secondary market shortly after closing, as opposed to holding the loans in portfolio. Most lenders are temporary lenders.

    These lenders have a few options when selling loans. Security dealers may be willing to purchase the loans for the purposes of securitizing the assets for resale to investors. Other lenders may buy the debt and hold it in their portfolios. The temporary lender may also sell its loans into its own trust, as part of a securitization process. Investopedia explains Temporary Lender
    Temporary lenders make money in three primary ways. First, they charge fees to the borrower. Second, they originate loans at interest rates above par value which allows them to sell the loans into the secondary market for a premium price (the loan is worth more in the secondary market than the actual principal balance of the loan because of the above par interest rate). Third, depending upon the slope of the yield curve, they earn a warehouse spread for the time in which they are the holder of record of the loan (the interest rate on the loan is higher than the interest rate at which the lender borrows money to fund the loan – this spread is earned until the loan is sold into the secondary market).

    Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/temporary_lender.asp#ixzz1VmTDaONw

  6. […] Sent: Wed, Aug 17, 2011 12:25 pm Subject: [New post] MOST ORIGINAL MORTGAGE LIENS INVALID MOST ORIGINAL MORTGAGE LIENS INVALID Neil Garfield | August 17, 2011 at 9:24 am | I held back on writing this post until I was sure […]

  7. I don’t quite agree, Neil. The borrower makes a valid deal with the lender. The borrower gets funds, buys the house with the funds. It does not matter how the lender got the money or what he does with the note afterward. Until the borrower pays that note off, the mortgage controls any default, and the court must give the lender redress. Period. End of subject.

    Eventually, the holder of the note will sue or demand foreclosure from the trustee and the court or trustee will order it. Rightly so.

    Aside from tricks, loopholes, and sloppy litigation, only one thing will block the foreclosure and sale of the realty to pay the debt off: some malfeasance that invalidated the deal – contract breaches or tortious conduct underlying the mortgage. Most famous torts: lender agent lies about the value of the realty, and lender agent falsehoods on the loan application.

    This explains why nearly all defaults result in foreclosure and forced sale of the realty to pay the debt. Yes, the tricky stuff like robosigning, bad notarizations, assignments in blank, splitting the note from the mortgage, wrong entity suing, and securitization snafus often delay the foreclosure sale, but it happens eventually in more than 99% of the foreclosures.(or some other mind-bogglingly huge percentage).

    This means the foreclosure defense industry operates generally like feckless boobs furtively lurching around for some gotcha like robosigning. This delays the sale, but it also increases the interest damage and legal fees and other costs, all to the detriment of the borrower who generally ends up with such a whopping judgment lien as to justify bankruptcy.

    The legislature should order general reparations against the lending industry for their policies that collapsed the housing values and destroyed everybody’s home equity, even for those who never face foreclosure. It constitutes an industry-wide tort that injured and damaged every home owner. Just as Congress liberated the slaves and ordered reparations, Congress ought to enact similar relief for homeowners to liberate them from and compensate them for economic enslavement to the financial industry.

    Where’s our model legislation and model lawsuit for that, Neil?.

  8. I don’t quite agree, Neil. The borrower makes a valid deal with the lender. The borrower gets funds, buys the house with the funds. It does not matter how the lender got the money or what he does with the note afterward. Until the borrower pays that note off, the mortgage controls any default, and the court must give the lender redress. Period. End of subject.

    Eventually, the holder of the note will sue or demand foreclosure from the trustee and the court or trustee will order it. Rightly so.

    Aside from tricks, loopholes, and sloppy litigation, only one thing will block the foreclosure and sale of the realty to pay the debt off: some malfeasance that invalidated the deal – contract breaches or tortious conduct underlying the mortgage. Most famous torts: lender agent lies about the value of the realty, and lender agent falsehoods on the loan application.

    This explains why nearly all defaults result in foreclosure and forced sale of the realty to pay the debt. Yes, the tricky stuff like robosigning, bad notarizations, assignments in blank, splitting the note from the mortgage, wrong entity suing, and securitization snafus often delay the foreclosure sale, but it happens eventually in more than 99% of the foreclosures.(or some other mind-bogglingly huge percentage).

    This means the foreclosure defense industry operates generally like feckless boobs furtively lurching around for some gotcha like robosigning. This delays the sale, but it also increases the interest damage and legal fees and other costs, all to the detriment of the borrower who generally ends up with such a whopping judgment lien as to justify bankruptcy.

    The legislature should order general reparations against the lending industry for their policies that collapsed the housing values and destroyed everybody’s home equity, even for those who never face foreclosure. It constitutes an industry-wide tort that injured and damaged every home owner. Just as Congress liberated the slaves and ordered reparations, Congress ought to enact similar relief for homeowners to liberate them from and compensate them for economic enslavement to the financial industry.

    Where’s our model legislation and model lawsuit for that, Neil?.

  9. “There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.
    Since the “loan” refinances (subprime/­­alt-a) and jumbo new purchases were non-compli­­ant and non-perfor­­ming manufactur­­ed defaults, no ‘funding’ at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans).”

    Subprime alt/a AND JUMBO NEW PURCHASES…that covers MILLIONS of “fake loans”, IMO!!!

  10. Carie,

    “where have I been?” funny. Anyway, I do not propose to argue with the set of facts you present. I propose to discuss the set of facts I presented as, just that facts, as verified. You paired down your description to Alt A / Jumbo Subprime. That of course was a very small minority of all mortgages being originated from 2002 to 2007.

    I was responding to Neil’s generalization that “85%” of all loan are as he characterized. So, sticking to his dialogue, not to be confused with your slice of the overall mortgage pie, The transaction I presented represents over $6Trillion in fundings in that time frame, which of course with a reported $3.5 Triillion per year funding pace is also a small slice.

  11. (con’t):
    “You must understand that trustees – and “security investors” are NOT the lender — not the creditor — not the mortgagee. Trustees to trusts — however fabricated those trusts may be — simply act in a fiduciary capacity to security investors as to cash pass-through of assigned receivables only – converted to pass-through securities.
    Once those CURRENT receivables are gone (in accounting – receivables are for current cash flows), the trustee’s role is gone – and security investors are entitled to — NOTHING. Over – done — gone. In fact, assignment of receivables derived from a “loan” (fabricated or not) — NEVER transfers ownership of collection rights/debt/fraudulent mortgage to the security investors.. Assignment of receivables is — simply — assignment of CURRENT receivables. Security investors are NOT the creditor – not the lender — not the mortgagee — and they will NEVER be the creditor, lender, or mortgagee. .
    What has been orchestrated by foreclosure mill attorneys is an attempt to portray security investors as the “lender/creditor” i.e. –in some eyes — the “funder.” equates to “lender.” This is bogus and false — and is slowly being exposed as fraudulent in courts across the US. NO security investors EVER directly funded ANY mortgage originated loan. Do not care about pre-funding — or anything else. Security investors are simply not qualified to ever fund a mortgage loan — they do not own collection rights — they are NEVER the creditor or lender. They do not fund mortgage loans — bogus or not — to borrowers. And, if some here do not get off this kick — you will lose — lose –lose.
    Once any person/party/individual starts portraying the security investor as the “lender” of “funder” — you have lost the battle. Again, and Again, security investors are NEVER the lender/creditor/mortgagee – or funder directly to the borrower. Borrowers must have a lender/creditor that is approved to lend money — security investors are NOT approved to lend any money directly to borrowers. Any transaction derived from such a fraudulent non-existent contract — is invalid. .Security investors are NOT qualified to be mortgage “lenders/creditors.” They are simply recipients of cash pass-through assigned receivables — that is all. .
    This is my major issue. .
    Accepting otherwise — is a major flaw in foreclosure defense – and destructive to homeowner victims.”

    carie, on August 17, 2011 at 5:58 pm said:

    Kevin W. Hardin—where have you been? No, that’s not what really happened…let’s bring you up to speed—as per “ANONYMOUS”:
    “There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.
    Since the “loan” refinances (subprime/­­alt-a) and jumbo new purchases were non-compli­­ant and non-perfor­­ming manufactur­­ed defaults, no ‘funding’ at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans). The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferre­­d any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor­­” would provide to their correspond­­ent lenders. Once the “loan” refinance originatio­­n was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspond­­ent (originato­­r). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited­­” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-lin­­e transactio­­n. : “Mortgage loan” from onset was not a mortgage but, instead, collection rights. This admission would also mean that the “debt” is unsecured and can be discharged in BK.
    …nothing more than a transfer of servicing rights to false collection rights. And, jumbo new purchases fit in the same category.
    Subprime/a­­lt-a/jumb­o — were not mortgages — they were transfers of collection rights.
    The “investors­­” were the debt buyers that purchased the collection rights — period.
    CDOs? Nothing more than derivative­­s from the false assets that the false securitiza­­tions were based upon to begin with!!

    Kevin W Hardin, on August 17, 2011 at 3:25 pm said:

    So, it is the contention of Neil and many other loyal followers that;
    a Licensed Mortgage entity called “Lender”, who possesses a warehouse line of credit for the funding of mortgage loans as “Warehouse”, that funds a mortgage loan by borrowing said monies and upon recording of Mortgage / Deed of Trust, subsequently sends Promissory Note endorsed in blank to Warehouse under a Bailee agreement and sends Deed of Trust and loan package to purchasing lender called “Investor” for loan purchase, which Investor upon receipt and purchase of loan sends their funds to Warehouse upon which Warehouse releases endorsed in blank Promissory Note under Bailee agreement to Investor which at this point Note and Deed of Trust / Mortgage are in the hands of purchasing Investor
    Is a Sham? Where in this transaction was the “Lender” undisclosed?

  12. malco
    that just about covers it!

  13. Seriously , you think you can win in court ???? With the judges and elected officials on the payroll ?? You stupid Bastards , grow a fuckin pair and deal out vigilante justice , I have taken care of my wife and I will accept any punishment I get if they get me alive – HELL IS COMING

  14. 26 Waschusett Rd in Mass , I am going to visit this CEO in person , may god save your soul , you POS , and I have the whole list of all your people , I am sick of your bullshit – HELL is coming you faggot and I will take your bodyguards OUT w/ extreme prejudice , you ? and your family ? I will take my time with , yeh mutherfucker , I have reached my limit -see you soon , but you will not see me until its too late – Now you will feel our pain , only slower – you F-in cunt

  15. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY
    Appellee
    V.
    Kenneth S. Taylor, et al.

    Appellants )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    ) Case No 11-0437

    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
    From Dismissal of appeal as not involving any substantial constitutional question filed June 08, 2011
    On Appeal From the
    COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT C.A.NO- 25281

    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

    APPELLANT:
    Kenneth S. Taylor {Pro Se} 8610 Hadden Road Twinsburg Ohio 44087 Kenneth S. Taylor {Pro Se} 1-330-425-1542 katickit@ yahoo.com Alycia Taylor- Driggins {Pro Se}
    APPELLEE:
    Robin Wilson of THOMPSON HINE LLP 3900 KEY CENTER 127 PUBLIC SQUARE CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114-1291 216-566-5800 KEVIN WILLIAMS MANLEY DEAS KOCHALSKI LLC P.O. BOX 165028 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43216 1-614- 222-4921 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.
    Why this Court should reconsider its decision: Judges orders are wrong, unlawful egregious abuse of judicial discretion. When a court does not apply the correct law or if it rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of a material fact.” [U.S. v. Rahm, 993F.2d 1405, 1410 (9th Cir.’93)] “A court may also abuse its discretion when the record contains no evidence to support its decision.” [MGIC v. Moore, 952 F.2d 1120, 1122 (9thCir.’91)].The trial Court , the Court of Appeals and The Supreme Court of Ohio has not provided any case law or treaties or common law to support its findings opinions or orders and has rested on well known fraudulent, and clearly erroneous facts. The Judge has erred and violated substantial due process rights , and substantial procedural due process rights to access to the courts because his Sua Sponte dismissal of all plaintiffs counterclaims, are highly disfavored in law , the Appeals Courts have warned lower court District Judges over and over again and again from doing so , C A. has agreed the judge erred dismissing Appelants counterclaims, it is impossible to get to the merits , unless this appeals courts reverses or remands or vacates the illegal orders. The Dismissal Order Violated Multiple Procedural Due Process Rights The dismissal order violated every relevant procedural due process protection guaranteed to all citizens by the laws and Constitution of the United States for the record-setting violations stated in Appellant’s complaint .Violated Due Process Rights Barring Sua Sponte Dismissals The dismissal order violated the clear and settled law that requires a hearing, discovery, opportunity to defend, and a meaningful and honest opportunity to be heard. In Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) 418 U.S. 539, the Court stated: The Court has consistently held that some kind of hearing is required before a person is finally deprived of his property interests; In Anderson National Bank v. Luckett (1944) 321 U.S. 233, 246, the court held: “It is error to dismiss a claim on the merits without notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to respond.” The Ohio Supreme Court recently agreed to review a request (from US BANK NA) to resolve what “appears” to be conflicting appellate court decisions in OHIO foreclosure case law. At the heart of this so called conflict is an issue that Plaintiff banks, pretend lenders, and phony Trustees have continuously slipped past our “asleep-at-the-wheel” judges. A similar and deep sleep was exhibited by our U.S. Government (SEC, OCC, OTS) and the rating agencies (Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, Fitch), for years while the Banks went wild! Now, the Ohio Supreme Court is going to attempt a judicial “closing of the barn door”…years after the “animals”…all got away.
    Here in Ohio, the plaintiff’s Foreclosure Mill Attorneys and Law Firms try to fast track the process and get a quick default judgment by using or submitting phony, fraudulent, or robo-signed mortgage assignments (executed by MERS & LPS employees) The documents, 90% of the time, result in a plaintiff victory. The rare knowledgeable and awake foreclosure judge or an even rarer appearance by legal counsel on behalf of defendant homeowner (only in 8% of cases) requires Plaintiff – to have STANDING – in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. Inevitably the question and legal hurdle for the plaintiff, in almost every defended OHIO FRAUDclosure and foreclosure case becomes:
    To have standing, as a plaintiff, in a mortgage foreclosure action, must a party show that it owned the NOTE and the MORTGAGE when the complaint was filed? The Appelants have agruged this point from the first motion filed in trial court until now, based on this alone a reversal should take place until the conflict is resolved. Why this court should reconsider its decision;
    On April 6, 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court announced that it has determined a conflict of law among Ohio district courts of appeal regarding standing to file foreclosure. In its announcement, the Court ordered the parties in U.S. Bank v. Duvall from U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Duvall (8th Dist. Dec. 30, 2010), 2010 WL 5550259, No. 9414, to brief the issue stated in the Eighth District’s Journal Entry filed January 31, 2011: “To have standing as a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action, must a party show that it owned the note and the mortgage when the complaint was filed?”

    In Duvall, the Eighth District affirmed its 2009 holding that pursuant to Civ. R. 17(A), a foreclosure complaint must be dismissed for lack of standing if the plaintiff cannot prove ownership of the note and mortgage on the date the complaint was filed. Wells Fargo v. Jordan (8th Dist. Mar. 12, 2009), 2009 WL 625560, No. 91675. The Supreme Court has certified that the Eighth District (Cuyahoga County)’s position is in conflict with the Fifth (Delaware County), Seventh (Jefferson County), Ninth (Lorain County) and Tenth (Franklin County) District Courts of Appeal, which generally speaking hold that in order to have standing a foreclosure plaintiff need not prove ownership of the note and mortgage at the time of filing. For example, in the Tenth District case Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Thomas (10 Dist. Jun. 30, 2010), 2010 WL 2636887, No. 09AP819, the complaint indicated that a copy of the note was “not available” and the mortgage attached to the complaint was not in favor of the plaintiff. However, the Tenth District affirmed summary judgment in favor of the substituted plaintiff Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLS, although the complaint was filed by Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. which did not hold the note or mortgage at the time it filed foreclosure.

    The Supreme Court’s determination of this issue could lead to lost standing for current foreclosure plaintiffs who received assignment of the note or mortgage after filing the complaint in foreclosure, or could affirm foreclosure filings by plaintiffs who did not prove or have ownership of the defendant’s note and/or mortgage at the time of filing Plaintiffs DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-OPT2 ASSETS-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006- OPT2 et al., have never proved they had standing to file the lawsuit and has told courts the note is lost missing or stolen and assignment was submitted to court after lawsuit was filed , and produced after allege transfer of property , moreover the assignment was fake , fraudulent and a sham , as is every document before the case is, fake, forgery, robo, signed , nothing is original or authentic its all falsely made by crime lab LPS. And was not produced until the courts needed it to foreclose, the attorney just order any document the court needed from the crime lab LPS, Docx, and did not get the phony documents and affidavits unless the court required them and the documents don’t reflect the actual transactions that occurred, and most transactions in documents never occurred as there is no proof of chain of title not anybody, no one knows were the actual money has gone or who got paid or who lost money, the money trial is gone cold the court should try following the money , as documents are fraudulent how about asking to see deposit slips of banks or withdrawal slips with some indication of the amount, date and time they made the purchase from original lender Option One, they have failed to prove how they became owners, why they are current owners, why because they cant prove what did not occur all these transaction never happen legally they are under the table back room deals made with no paper trail to avoid taxes and other liability , is all fraud DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-OPT2 ASSETS-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006- OPT2 et al., are pretend lenders try to get a free house that the government has paid for, and original lenders were also paid that why they have no proof of purchase of the home , they have no note no mortgage, no title , no chain of title, no legal assignment, no “power of attorney” no witness , not real party in-interest, every one is trying to get a free house, if they had any proof of ownership they would simply bring it to court , however the fake documents can never be tested or never be admissible at any trial or tribunal in the United States that why Tom Parker refuses to hold a hearing of trial Plaintiffs would lose , that’s why there is no hearing because there is no proof , no records nothing would stand the musters of the constitution judge Tom Parker has a void null summary judgment award for plaintiffs that must be reversed judgment can never be enforced, no titled company would risk covering the sale of property, no title search can be done by law it would reveal the true owners, phony credit bid at sheriffs sale is illegal, Akron Legal News is engaging in false advertising, Attorney who signs authorizing sale of home will be sued for millions , the next buyer will be sued, and the next caused of action is wrongful foreclosure, attorneys are now being held liable for filing of fake phony documents ,we are waiting to see Kevin Williams in person by subpoena , and we will subpoena Robin Wilson Taylor’s will seek millions in damages from all parties as some plaintiffs have agreed to wrong doing and will repay the Taylor’s , THIS is not a bank THEY HAVE NO CLAIM As owners to the title mortgage or note but only Trustee for this bundled group of investors, which is now defunct and dissolve under federal IRS laws, IN WHICH TRUST EXPIRED AFTER 90 DAYS. Which has muddied the waters and compounded the real-party-in-interest, which name in the caption is a clear indication of at least 3 investors have portion of a product, that was originally only a legal two party contractual agreement between plaintiff (Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Driggins Taylor) and original lender ( Option One Mortgage Corporation ) that is both defunct and not named in caption, and is also notice to this court that multiple parties exist in this group, and its foreclosure Counsel of Manley Deas Kochalski and Kevin L. Williams , Thompson Hine and Robin Wilson violated the following rules regulations statues, an treaties of OHIO and U.S.FEDERAL LAW TITLE 18, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 CHAPTER 6 WIRE FRAUD, MAIL FRAUD; Regulation Z Sec. 226.1 Authority, purpose, coverage, organization, enforcement and liability. The title to registered land is conclusively ascertainable by the certificate of registration that shows ownership and encumbrances, issued and recorded by the county recorder.   See R.C. 5309.06.   A transferee of registered land cannot be charged with notice, actual or constructive, of any unregistered claim or interest.   See R.C. 5309.34.   Furthermore, any unregistered claim or interest cannot prevail against a validly registered title.   See id.   As we noted in Kincaid v. Yount (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 145, 147, 9 OBR 211, 213, 459 N.E.2d 235, 238, citing Curry v. Lybarger (1937), 133 Ohio St. 55, 58-59, 10 O.O. 61, 63-64, 11 N.E.2d 873, 875:{¶ 8} “The purpose of the [registered-land] system is to create an absolute presumption that the register of titles speaks the last word about the title to land, eliminating all ‘secret liens and hidden equities,’ and making the language in the register of titles absolute proof of indefeasible title excepting only those encumbrances and claims noted therein.”“Standard of Review”; “clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious,” “De Novo” reviews necessary.

    Why this court should reconsider: There is no point of higher importance than the evidence be heard and considered — and that it be tested for admissibility as evidence. “The Court has consistently held that some kind of hearing is required before a person is finally deprived of his property interests; In Anderson National Bank v. Luckett (1944) 321 U.S. 233, 246, the court held: “It is error to dismiss a claim on the merits without notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to respond.” “An appeal [or complaint ] is not frivolous if any of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits.” Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; The requirement for “no genuine issue of material fact” standard provides that the court cannot try the case on a summary judgment motion. National Assn. of Gov’t Employees v. Campbell, 593 F.2d 1023, 1027-29 (D.C. Cir. 1978). also 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[1.–0], [3]. A judgment is void if the rendering court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2862. “A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. V. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980). “[T]he constitution, by prohibiting an act, renders it void, if done; otherwise, the prohibition were nugatory. Thus, the warrant is a nullity.” Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204, 217 (1821). “’No judgment of a court is due process of law, if rendered without jurisdiction in the court, or without notice to the party.” Old Wayne Mut. Life Ass’n v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 15 (1907). Generally, a judgment is void under Rule 60 (b) (4) if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or if acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. E.g., s Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc., 909 F.2d 657, 662 (1st Cir. 1990);Beller & Keller v. Tyler, 120 F.3d 21, 23 (2nd Cir. 1997); Union Switch & Signal v. Local 610, 900 F.2d 608, 612 n.1 (3rd Cir. 1990); Eberhardt v. Integrated Design & Const., Inc. 167 F.3d 861, 867 (4th Cir. 1999); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown 84 F.3d 137, 143 (5th Cir. 1996) The U.S. Supreme Court,”SCOTUS”, On the Importance of Due Process Courts as well as citizens are not free ‘to ignore all the procedures of the law….’. The ‘constitutional freedom’ of which the Court speaks can be won only if judges honor the Constitution.” Walker v. City Of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 338 (1967)(Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting). “Due process is perhaps the most majestic concept in our whole, constitutional system.” Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 174 (1951) (Justice Frankfurter, concurring). It is ingrained in our national traditions, and is designed to maintain them. In a variety of situations, the Court has enforced this requirement by checking attempts of executives, legislatures, and lower courts to disregard the deep-rooted demands of fair play enshrined in the Constitution.” id. 161. “Fairness of procedure is “due process in the primary sense.” Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 281 U. S. 681. In a long line of cases, the United States Supreme Court has held that impingements of constitutional rights are, without variation, subject to the strictures of “due process” or notice and opportunity to be heard prior to their enactments. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950); Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Owen v. City Of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980); Carey v.Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). “The principle stated in this terse language lies at the foundation of all well-ordered systems of jurisprudence. Wherever one is assailed in his person or his property, there he may defend, for the liability and the right are inseparable. This is a principle of natural justice, recognized as such by the common intelligence and conscience of all nations. A sentence of a court pronounced against a party without hearing him, or giving him an opportunity to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.” Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274;23 L.Ed. 914 (1876). This INSTANT case artfully describes the process by which evidence is admitted. It also reveals the way the pretenders DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-OPT2 ASSETS-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006- OPT2 et al. are avoiding the rules of evidence and getting away with it until we take closer look..
    The failure of a foreclosing lender to present any evidence of a written notice of acceleration having been sent to a homeowner was sufficient to sink another foreclosure judgment, according to a recent ruling by an Ohio appeals court.(1)

    A second aspect of this ruling that may be of interest to those avid fans of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure is that the attorney for the foreclosing lender was successful in improperly introducing evidence in obtaining its foreclosure judgment. In allowing the foreclosing lender’s attorney to get away with it, the appeals court apparently had its hands tied by existing case law, noting that the homeowner had not properly objected to the improper introduction of the materials in the lower court proceeding. Because the appeals court booted the foreclosure judgment on other grounds, the homeowner will now get a renewed opportunity to object to the improper evidence.(2)

    Another aspect of the court’s ruling that may be of interest is that an “official” for the lender who signed a mortgage assignment and an affidavit filed in the case may have been a multiple corporate hat-wearing robosigner. The homeowner had correctly observed that, within about a month, the “official” signed an assignment of the mortgage at issue as a vice president of MERS, and then he signed the affidavit in question as a vice president of CitiMortgage. Because their was no evidence on the record before the appellate court actually contradicting the official’s Citimortgage affiliation at the time of the signing of the affidavit, it had no choice but to accept the affidavit.(3)

    For the ruling, see CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Elia, 2011-Ohio-2499 (Ohio App. 9th Dist. Summit County, May 25, 2011).

    Civ.R. 56(C) limits the types of evidentiary materials that a party may present when seeking or defending against summary judgment. Civ.R. 56(C) (limiting summary judgment evidence to “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact”). “The proper procedure for introducing evidentiary matter not specifically authorized by Civ.R. 56(C) is to incorporate it by reference in a properly framed affidavit pursuant to Civ.R. 56(E).” Skidmore & Assoc. Co., L.P.A. v. Southerland (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 177, 179. “[P]apers referred to in an affidavit ‘shall be attached to or served with the affidavit.’” GMAC Mtge., L.L.C. v. Jacobs, 9th Dist. No. 24984, 2011-Ohio-1780, at ¶17, quoting Civ.R. 56(E).

    Even so, it is the opposing party’s duty to object when a summary judgment motion relies upon improperly introduced materials. Id. “[I]f the opposing party fails to object to improperly introduced evidentiary materials, the trial court may, in its sound discretion, consider those materials in ruling on the summary judgment motion.” Wolford v. Sanchez, 9th Dist. No. 05CA008674, 2005-Ohio-6992, at ¶20, quoting Christe v. GMS Mgt. Co., Inc. (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 84, 90……………The Taylor’s objected to summary judgment motion during trial court in at least a 12 times in motions filed in the record on the basis that it referred to improper Civ.R. 56(C) materials, which were not incorporated by reference in affidavit no written records attached, no proof of personal knowledge , Further, the Taylor’s did object to Cynthia Steven son,s affidavit on the basis that it lacked any attachments. See Civ.R. 56(E). This Court has the power to Grant Relief from these proceedings, Grant Relief under both federal and state rules and laws 28 U.S.C. 1655 .These trusts, in the rush to securitize mortgages and sell them to investors, often ignored the critical step of obtaining mortgage assignments from the original lenders to the securities companies to the trusts. Now, years later, when the companies “servicing” the trusts need to foreclose, they retain Lender Processing Services to draft the missing documents. The mortgage servicers, including American Home Mortgage Services, and American Servicing Company, never disclose that the trusts are missing essential documents – they just rely on Lender Processing Services to “fix” the problems. Although the Alpharetta office has been closed, Lender Processing Services continues to mass produce “replacement” assignments from its Jacksonville, Florida, and Dakota County, Minnesota offices, Law firms retained by Lender Processing Services also often use their own employees, posing as officer of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, to produce the needed Assignments. Since the vast majority of homeowners do not retain counsel in foreclosure proceedings, this flawed system has worked very effectively for the last few years, with courts all over the country rarely questioning why so many mortgage companies had officers in Alpharetta, Georgia, or why Trusts that closed in 2005 and 2006 were just obtaining Mortgage Assignments in 2009 and 2010. Most courts never even questioned why companies long-dissolved, such as Option One, could still be executing documents years after the dissolution. While the closing of the Alpharetta office may be a sign that these fraudulent activities will finally be exposed and addressed, for the time being, it is just a matter of an unsatisfactory end of one small facet of an enormous and far-reaching problem. This court is now and forever put on notice the “ASSIGNMENT” presented to this Honorable Court, and Summit County Common Pleas Court in Akron is fraudulent ,See Exhibit A-3 , and was proffered by Dakota County, Minnesota offices, absolute proof is found on “ASSIGNMENT” as it is endorsed by a notary named JAMES C.MORRIS in the state of Minnesota , Dakota County, Minnesota offices, also this office produced a false Foreclosure Compliance Affidavit in the case 5:07 CV 01840 SL Document 4 filed 6-22-2007 See Exhibit B, and a fraudulent Affidavit Regarding Account And Competency And Military Status signed by Assistant Secretary SCOTT WALTER of American Home Mortgage Service Inc.on August 13, 2008 who was present in Minnesota at arms length as it is endorsed by a notary named JAMES C.MORRIS in the state of Minnesota , Dakota County, Minnesota offices, also when American Home Mortgage Service Inc was locate in Irving Texas. The “ASSIGNMENT” further states that Assistant Secretary Jeanelle Gray From Option One was present in Minnesota on June25, 2007 for a arms length deal as a secretary to sign away 84,000.00 note although Option –One Mortgage Corporation was located in Irvine Ca.and purportedly out of business and defunct at such time. Also Absolute Proof. The judge Tom Parker while case was in state court conspired with the plaintiff’s attorney Robin Wilson of Thompson Hine LLP in a joint effort to destroy defendants counterclaim. The judge directed her to draft a false and misleading statement in a previous Final decree of foreclosure. Robin Wilson did so knowingly and willingly by inserting false claims of judge that he had considered defendants counterclaim is his motion granting plaintiff summary judgment which is void because of fraud of the courts and judge a lying officer of the court.. Robin Wilson drafted and sent a letter dated September 28,2009 to Judge confirming the act of conspiracy and her participation as such. The letter states per verbatim “ Enclosed, in response to your telephone request, is a revised Judgment Entry and Decree in Foreclosure so as to include Defendants’ Counterclaim and Plaintiffs’ Reply to Counterclaim”. Signed by Robin Wilson. See Exhibit (A). These representations were false and defendants knew the falsity of these statements at the time they were made. The judge never once mentioned defendants counterclaim, prior to this directive, nor is there any evidence the judge has reviewed the counterclaim. This was a wicked scheme perpetrated against defendants specifically, strategically and systematically ,the judge lied in effort to deprive defendants of their rights to homeownership. Judge and Robin Wilson have given false and material declarations to the trial court violating federal laws under 18 U.S.C.1623 which is a both a criminal and civil act of conspiracy against defendants. Moreover COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT C. A. NO. 25281 agreed with the plaintiffs that judge erred essentially confirmed he lied and reversed and remanded case back to trial court . Judge Tom Parker is an Officer of the court THIS VOIDS STATE COURT FINDING OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ITS NULL AND VOID FOREVER. AND PLAINTIFFS can never be state court losers..Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
    “Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final. The Justice Department sued Deutsche Bank AG, one of the world’s 10 biggest banks by assets, for at least $1 billion for defrauding taxpayers by “repeatedly” lying to a federal agency when securing taxpayer-backed insurance for thousands of shoddy mortgages. The case is U.S. v. Deutsche Bank AG (DBK), 11-cv-2976, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). For this reason alone the court should reverse summary judgment. Also See In re: Ron Wilson, LaRhonda Wilson, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, case no. 07-11862. For the debtors: Elisabeth Harrington of Harrington & Myers. For the U.S. Trustee: Carolyn s. Cole and Mary Langston A LANDMARK CASE DECIDED APRIL 7 2011 IN WHICH LENDERS PROCESS SEVERCINGS COMPANY WAS SANCTION FOR LYING TO COURTS AND PROVIDING “sham affidavits. See exhibits attached the same company produced these fake document, the assignment, the fake “sham affidavits used in pleadings before this court. In which Judge Tom Parker refused to test the evidence denying several show cause motions to do so. along with public support contained in a segment aired on national T.V. by CBS 60 Minutes which verifies Kenneth S. Taylor allegations made in Court records during initial pleading responsive pleading about defective assignment. THE MOST IMPORTANT MISLEADING FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT IN THIS CASE IS THE DEFECTIVE ASSIGNMENT WHICH FOR SOME STRANGE REASON WAS ENDORSED IN Dakota County, Minnesota WHERE, Lender Processing Services continues to mass produce “replacement” assignments specifically, strategically and systematically. The fraud is widespread, massive, the Judges have been lied to trick into favorable judgments by banks with phony, fake, robo signed documents. On April 12, 2010, Lender Processing Services closed the offices of its subsidiary, Docx, LLC, in Alpharetta, Georgia. That office was responsible for pumping out over a million mortgage assignments in the last two years so that banks could foreclose on residential real estate. The law firms handling the foreclosures were retained and largely controlled by Lender Processing Services, in this case Manley, Deas, Kochalski LLC. Of Columbus, Ohio law firm, LPS and LPS Default Solutions is illegally splitting attorney’s fees as part of their contractual arrangement. Who presented the “sham affidavit and fake , fraudulent assignment to this court as only evidence of any alleged ownership that was deemed defective by this federal District Court itself, according to a Sanctions Order entered by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Diane Weiss Sigmund (In re Niles C. Taylor, EDPA, Case 07-15385-sr, Doc. 193). Lender Processing Services, the largest “default management services company” in the country, has already made at least partial admissions that there were faults in the documents produced by the Docx office – although courts and homeowners were never notified. According to Lender Processing Services, over 50 major banks use their default management services. The banks that especially need the services provided by Lender Processing Services include Deutsche Bank, acting as trustees for mortgage-backed securitized trusts. (there now is absolute concrete proof and evidence that the assignment before this court is false , phony , fake, and deceptive, misleading, defective, and produced by this crime lab, rendering state court summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company forever Null, Void, and without Force.) For this reason alone , this case should be reversed or remanded back to trial Court, at the least , or in the alternative this court has the power to grant defendants declaratory relief. This judge Tom Parker once awarded plaintiffs a summary judgment in their favor with no affidavit it had no name on face, it was unsigned it was un-notarized it was a blank document the judge in this case is so corrupt he awarded plaintiffs the Taylor’s home with no evidence and no witness no hearing, the judge admitted he never look at the affidavit, the same parties have submitted a perjured affidavit by affiant Cynthia Stevenson as it was impossible for her to meet the basic requirements under rules of evidence as she was not employed by Option- One the original lender and was not around at the time as her knowledge came only by review of the file was at least (2) years old at the time she reviewed it.
    The defendants the (Taylor’s) have also repeatedly emphasized that a party’s assertion of material facts must be supported by record references to evidence that is of a quality that would be admissible at trial…This qualitative requirement is particularly important in connection with mortgage foreclosures where the affidavits submitted in support of summary judgment are commonly signed by individuals who claim to be custodians of the lender’s business records. Thus, the information supplied by the affidavits is largely derivative because it is drawn from a business’s records, and not from the affiant’s Cynthia Steveson’s personal observation of events.
    The foundation that the custodian or qualified witness must establish is four-fold:
    (1) the record was made at or near the time of the events reflected in the record by, or from information transmitted by, a person with personal knowledge of the events recorded therein;
    (2) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business;
    (3) it was the regular practice of the business to make records of the type involved; and
    (4) no lack of trustworthiness is indicated from the source of information from which the record was made or the method or circumstances under which the record was prepared.“
    Because courts have determine that the affidavits submitted by DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OFSOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-OPT2 ASSETS-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006- OPT2 et al are inherently untrustworthy and, therefore, do not establish the foundation for admission of the attached documents as business records pursuant to rules of evidence we ask that reversal or vacation of the judgment is absoulutely necessary.
    We now ask this Honorable Court to complete this process with redress for those with proof of harm. In re Foreclosure Cases, 2007 WL 3232430 (N.D. Ohio October 31, 2007), Judge Boyko found the foreclosure process was “a quasi-monopolistic system” in which financial institutions, “unchallenged by under financed opponents,” disregard the requirements of the judicial process and instead “rush to foreclose, obtain a default judgment and then sit on the deed, avoiding responsibility for maintaining the property while reaping the benefits of interest running on the judgment.
    To foreclose on a mortgage, a party must have title to the mortgage. The instant assignment is a nullity. The Appellate Division, Second Department (Kluge v Fuquay, 145 AD2d 537, 538 [2d Dept 1988]), held that a “foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by one who has no title to it and absent transfer of the debt, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity.” The Appellate Division, First Department, citing Kluge v Fuquay, (Katz v East-Ville Realty Co., 249 AD2d 243 [1st Dept 1998]), instructed that “[p] laintiff’s attempt to foreclose upon a mortgage in which he had no legal or equitable interest was without foundation in law or fact.” Moreover the title insurance on this present home loan requires by Policy that title is vested and must be vested in individuals only Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia A.Driggins- Taylor, and not a corporation or any other entity created. Thus making it impossible for DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST2006-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006- OPT2 (“Deutsche Bank” or “DBNTC”) to ever become vested in title as owners with foreclosure rights, and any attempt to do so is insurance fraud under policy purchased by original lender OPTION –ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION.

    We stated that at a minimum, in support of any motion for summary judgment in a residential mortgage foreclosure action, the mortgage holder must include the following facts, supported by evidence of a quality that could be admissible at trial, in the statement of material facts:
    • the existence of the mortgage, including the book and page number of the mortgage, and an adequate description of the mortgaged premises, including the street address, if any;
    • properly presented proof of ownership of the mortgage note and the mortgage, including all assignments and endorsements of the note and the mortgage;
    • a breach of condition in the mortgage; • the amount due on the mortgage note, including any reasonable attorney fees and court
    costs;
    • the order of priority and any amounts that may be due to other parties in interest, including any public utility easements;
    • evidence of properly served notice of default and mortgagor’s right to cure in compliance with statutory requirements;
    • proof of completed mediation (or waiver or default of mediation), when required, pursuant to the statewide foreclosure mediation program rules; and
    • if the homeowner has not appeared in the proceeding, a statement, with a supporting affidavit, of whether or not the defendant is in military service in accordance with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.”
    First, if someone sues for foreclosure who doesn’t actually own the loan the person who does own it still has an enforceable claim against you. That means you could get foreclosed upon and then sued by the actual owner for the money, effectively being forced to pay twice – once by ejectment from the property and then again by being financially destroyed a second time through a lawsuit for money damages. The UCC and general contract law, along with the PSAs, are structured in a form and fashion to prevent this. Ignoring these very real legal requirements is not a “formality”, it is part and parcel of the rule of law.
    Second, the “Holder in Due Course” status is extremely important and germane. One of the sordid facts of the “aughts” (the 2000s) is that many people were sold money under false pretense of some sort. There were myriad frauds, including floating-rate loans sold as fixed, “riders” in middle of paperwork that was slipped in un-noticed and in violation of the good-faith estimates and claims given to borrowers before closing along with all sorts of chicanery and outright fraud. Lending officers held themselves out not only as sellers of money but as qualifiers of a person’s capacity to pay, an expert opinion proffered based upon ratios and program claims given to homeowners.
    There is a fair issue triable at law as to whether active frauds occurred in these areas. Some of the cases are black-letter, where borrowers had their own submitted figures and papers altered by lending officers through multiple iterations through computer-based underwriting without their knowledge. Others are more nebulous and may have (or may not have) involved active deception by the borrower himself. These are issues to be tried in a court of law and examined by a trier of fact.
    If holder in due course status does not apply to the current “owner” of the debt the remedies available to the buyer extend to the current holder of the paper. It is only through establishment of that holder in due course status that the paper’s owner escapes successor liability for these actions. If in point of fact the trust never got the paper as required by the PSA then the trust has no “holder in due course” status at best as a late transfer now takes place with knowledge of the fraud claim existing against its origination, which negates that status.
    In many of these cases it appears that the PSA was in fact not complied with and in many of those situations the conundrum becomes even worse, because the originator, securitizer or depositor, whoever they may be, is out of business and has no successor organization. In some (but not all) of these cases the corporate estate is in bankruptcy and the asset in question is properly an asset of the bankrupt estate. The Trustee of the bankruptcy is the only one legally empowered to transfer an asset out of a bankrupt estate prior to its final disposition at law and your assertion of a contractual right to that asset is immaterial as you are subject to the priority of claims in a bankruptcy action.
    I have seen many examples of exactly this sort of apparent fraud, where an “assignment” takes place on a day during which the organization allegedly performing the assignment literally does not exist as a matter of fact or law. Even worse there are assignments that appear to have been initiated by the grantee, which is exactly backwards and is effectively identical to me assigning myself title to your house – without your signature anywhere to be found!
    In still other cases where transfers did not happen the REMIC sections of IRS code prohibit the transfer without destroying the trust’s tax preference. In some cases that late transfer might actually have negative value when one considers the tax implications on a lookback basis. In all cases where a legal bar exists to that late transfer the choice has to be taken – either perform it late, take the tax hit and have the certificate holders sue the hell out of the Trustee for not performing their duties faithfully (and exposing them to a huge retroactive tax hit) or take the hit of not having the security and losing the principle they allegedly “loaned” but in fact paid for nothing. It is manifestly unjust to simply pretend these violations of the law never happened.
    Finally, some of these circumstances have irrevocably severed the security interest. Such an event is a disaster for the noteholder, but again, that’s not the buyer’s problem. He is not “unjustly enriched” by such an event, as he still owes the money – he just can’t be foreclosed upon. The holder of the note in these cases may still sue and recover to their ability (which may, admittedly, be quite limited.)
    What’s happening here is a mass delusion. We have a bunch of institutions that through their own hand violated not only black-letter law but the contractual provisions they entered into with investors around the world. When this failure was first discovered they tried to cover it up with bogus affidavits that nobody had even read, say much less verified – if they had verified them they would have known that the paperwork wasn’t done and the alleged transfers were not made. When they got caught doing that the next response was to claim that the homeowner was a deadbeat anyway, and thus “deserved it”, which is identical to the rapist claiming that his victim “deserved” to be raped because she had a short skirt on and no panties, and he could “clearly see” the target of his assault.
    We properly dismiss that sort of defense these days when it comes to rape, although that same delusional process used to work once in a while in those cases.
    If I “lend” you money but fail to protect my own interests by my own hand, uncolored by anything you do, that I have reduced or eliminated my rights of recourse is not your problem. It’s mine. It is not unjust for a debtor to demand that his creditor prove that he followed the law and that he really is the creditor, especially when there is very reasonable doubt as to whether or not he is.
    Finally, it is never excusable to say “well that apparent felony (perjury) is just fine because the deadbeat over there didn’t pay his mortgage.”
    Nope.
    Bankers for the last thousand years have existed entirely on the back of the storage and keeping of physical documents. Your passbook savings account from your childhood is just one example. So were the common ledgers going all the way back to the Depression and beyond.
    These “record keeping” lapses are not an occasional error or problem; they’re systemic and intentional. Now, having been caught, the excuses have become manifest and outrageous.
    All the documents presented to the courts by pretend lenders are invalid not originals and do not describe the transactions that actually occurred, as to parties or terms, everything is fabricated and fraud, the plaintiffs are not state court losers, the trustee, and their attorneys have signed fabricated documents, the trial court judge was lied to and tricked into believing these parties were telling the truth, and just has erred and failed to apply the law. and simply did not test any evidence, there is no note, no one has proved the Taylor’s are in default, Now with mainstream media involvement judges have to apply the law instead of ignoring it as Judge Tom Parker ,has did in this case, destroying in the process, the Taylors rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness , guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIV[1868] Section 1, violating Due Process rights, and substantial procedural due process which guaranteed some type of hearing before a Sua Sponte dismissal of all claims , before all of the defendants answered, some of which had not been severed or summoned, and time had not tolled to do so , and before their real property is taken , Judge Tom Parker just has gotten it all wrong, moreover his actions and inactions were intentional, as even a lay person with a myoptic truncated sense of the law understands that the Taylor’s claims are valid with merit, and they should be compensated , and deserve to be heard. Especially when some defendants in this case has already agreed by consent and decree to repay the Plaintiffs who qualify for such repayment under the US Comptrollers office global settlement.
    Dated this June 13, 2011

    PRO SE 8610 HADDEN TWINSBURG OHIO 44087
    KENNETH S. TAYLOR ETAL [PRO SE]

    I certify a copy of brief was sent to opposing counsel by US mail on June 13, 2011

    Kenneth S. Taylor {Pro Se} 8610 Hadden Road Twinsburg Ohio 44087
    Kenneth S. Taylor {Pro Se} 1-330-425-1542 katickit@ yahoo.com

  16. Have to take exception to the World Savings example. There is case law that states that if the credit line was used with the specific agreement that loans must be sold to the entity providing the credit line — then table funded – even though credit line was utilized — it was a credit line with condition. Thus, not a bona -fide secondary market transaction. Only point is — the “first class” — might also very well be the second class — need credit line agreement to ascertain.

  17. (con’t):

    “You must understand that trustees – and “security investors” are NOT the lender — not the creditor — not the mortgagee. Trustees to trusts — however fabricated those trusts may be — simply act in a fiduciary capacity to security investors as to cash pass-through of assigned receivables only – converted to pass-through securities.
    Once those CURRENT receivables are gone (in accounting – receivables are for current cash flows), the trustee’s role is gone – and security investors are entitled to — NOTHING. Over – done — gone. In fact, assignment of receivables derived from a “loan” (fabricated or not) — NEVER transfers ownership of collection rights/debt/fraudulent mortgage to the security investors.. Assignment of receivables is — simply — assignment of CURRENT receivables. Security investors are NOT the creditor – not the lender — not the mortgagee — and they will NEVER be the creditor, lender, or mortgagee. .
    What has been orchestrated by foreclosure mill attorneys is an attempt to portray security investors as the “lender/creditor” i.e. –in some eyes — the “funder.” equates to “lender.” This is bogus and false — and is slowly being exposed as fraudulent in courts across the US. NO security investors EVER directly funded ANY mortgage originated loan. Do not care about pre-funding — or anything else. Security investors are simply not qualified to ever fund a mortgage loan — they do not own collection rights — they are NEVER the creditor or lender. They do not fund mortgage loans — bogus or not — to borrowers. And, if some here do not get off this kick — you will lose — lose –lose.
    Once any person/party/individual starts portraying the security investor as the “lender” of “funder” — you have lost the battle. Again, and Again, security investors are NEVER the lender/creditor/mortgagee – or funder directly to the borrower. Borrowers must have a lender/creditor that is approved to lend money — security investors are NOT approved to lend any money directly to borrowers. Any transaction derived from such a fraudulent non-existent contract — is invalid. .Security investors are NOT qualified to be mortgage “lenders/creditors.” They are simply recipients of cash pass-through assigned receivables — that is all. .
    This is my major issue. .
    Accepting otherwise — is a major flaw in foreclosure defense – and destructive to homeowner victims.”

  18. Kevin W. Hardin—where have you been? No, that’s not what really happened…let’s bring you up to speed—as per “ANONYMOUS”:

    “There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.
    Since the “loan” refinances (subprime/­­alt-a) and jumbo new purchases were non-compli­­ant and non-perfor­­ming manufactur­­ed defaults, no ‘funding’ at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans). The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferre­­d any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor­­” would provide to their correspond­­ent lenders. Once the “loan” refinance originatio­­n was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspond­­ent (originato­­r). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited­­” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-lin­­e transactio­­n. : “Mortgage loan” from onset was not a mortgage but, instead, collection rights. This admission would also mean that the “debt” is unsecured and can be discharged in BK.
    …nothing more than a transfer of servicing rights to false collection rights. And, jumbo new purchases fit in the same category.
    Subprime/a­­lt-a/jumb­o — were not mortgages — they were transfers of collection rights.
    The “investors­­” were the debt buyers that purchased the collection rights — period.
    CDOs? Nothing more than derivative­­s from the false assets that the false securitiza­­tions were based upon to begin with!”

  19. E.Tolle – I’m thinking a little more clearly now, after the initial fright and wondering how SCOTUS could rule on this. After all, property rights are STATE RIGHTS, aren’t they? But I know that hasn’t stopped SCOTUS before – after all they gave us the Citizens United BS – Corporations are now people too!

  20. Leapfrog, sure you’re right….been awaiting this moment for what seems like decades now, but now that it’s here, I too dread the results. The entire ballgame being played inside the beltway has its own rules, and I have no doubt the home team Countrywide will win on a grand slam in the bottom of the ninth.

  21. Some news to keep an eye on. I’m terrified. If I’m reading this correctly, this is the BIGGIE supreme court and not the CA Supreme, right? SCOTUS hates little people and LOVES corporations – I fear the outcome of this:

    http://www.housingwire.com/2011/08/17/case-against-mers-reaches-supreme-court

  22. So, it is the contention of Neil and many other loyal followers that;

    a Licensed Mortgage entity called “Lender”, who possesses a warehouse line of credit for the funding of mortgage loans as “Warehouse”, that funds a mortgage loan by borrowing said monies and upon recording of Mortgage / Deed of Trust, subsequently sends Promissory Note endorsed in blank to Warehouse under a Bailee agreement and sends Deed of Trust and loan package to purchasing lender called “Investor” for loan purchase, which Investor upon receipt and purchase of loan sends their funds to Warehouse upon which Warehouse releases endorsed in blank Promissory Note under Bailee agreement to Investor which at this point Note and Deed of Trust / Mortgage are in the hands of purchasing Investor

    Is a Sham? Where in this transaction was the “Lender” undisclosed?

  23. The assignment of valuable consideration which arise out of any contract is a always knotty subject.

    Here – it appears in the form of assigning the right to originate the cash which funds the loan to a third and unknown/unannounced party.

    Fascinating!: and even more so as we often forget that it is really the homeowner who sells the note. The intruder is the third party assigned the right to front the cash and who steps in unbeknownst to the homeowner and buys the note.

    The legal principal and proscription which governs is that the parties to a contract have a right to know and understand the identity of the counter-party(ies) before they enter into the contract.

    Why?

    Because the parties are entitled to make an assessment of the likely behavior of the counter-party: especially if things don’t go well.

    The simplest example is the used car dealer who tells us: “buy here and pay here”.

    This used car dealer wants us to believe that by dealing belly-to-belly with him at the time of purchase that when you want to withhold your monthly payment because the tranny was bad – you will get a better reception.

    Whether the car dealer will forgive a payment over a bad tranny remains to be been seen: but is unquestionably arguable that a out-of-state finance company which was assigned the note on your car will be completely unconcerned with your transmission problems.

    Thus – assignment – after the contract – except where it is clearly customary and expected by the parties – is generally not permitted unless the party adversely affected agrees.

    There is a very interesting analogous and somewhat parallel situation developing in Louisiana or Mississippi insurance litigation.

    When parties who have been damaged by flooding are compensated by the state – for example the US Army Corps of Engineers – there is customarily an assignment of the damaged party’s rights to their existing insurance proceeds. In that fashion, the state can move, sua sponte, against the damaged party’s insurer.
    Talk about howling and crying by insurers!

    The insurers hate having the government come after them when the insurer expected they’d be “negotiating” with a weak and already quite bankrupt policyholder.

    So the feelings about our capacity to deal with a recalcitrant counter-party are a very important part of our decision about whether we want to contract in the first place.

    And that right to reject an assignment of a contract to an unknown and unannounced third-party is enshrined in common law and (I believe) in many state statutes.

    livinglies.com has pointed out an avenue of attack for abused homeowners who can perhaps show that the mortgage and note associated with their home purchase is a nullity – ab initio.

  24. As the holder in due course of many documents deemed to be the original, don’t be surprised by what persons will do behind the scenes.

    If they want it and can steal it, they “””can’t””” have it.

    Trespass Unwanted, life, corporeal, free, freeman, in jure proprio, jure divino

  25. @E.Tolle

    I’m re-posting your posting of the other commenters “plan” for those who didn’t see it:

    “…unnamed commenter on another legal blog. Its beauty is in its simplicity, its brilliance in the cut to the chase format.
    It’s something that each and every AG, county recorder’s office, and concerned citizen could promote with ease. The legislation could be a page or two at most, as it’s already based in sound established law. Any legislator or regulator from county level to fed crying foul would be waving their bankster flags high if they chose to fight this simple democratic plan. It goes like this:

    “Pass legislation in each and every state mandating that ANYONE seeking to foreclose on ANY property MUST record an unbroken, complete and verifiable chain of title with each and every assignment included.
    Entities without the proper chain of title would not be able to foreclose. After a prescribed amount of time (say two years), the homeowner would be allowed to formally quiet title. The mortgage is gone, and equity returns in its entirety to the homeowner.
    AND EVERYONE WOULD BE OBLIGED TO ACCEPT THE RESULTS!
    The land records get shiny clean, either by the banks filing and recording the complete chain of title, or through quiet title by the homeowners.
    Local counties get back all the money they have been cheated out of by MERS and others that have not properly recorded note assignments. Can you spell F.U.N.D.R.A.I.S.E.R? Again, more money comes back to the localities where it rightfully belongs, coming from the banks that destroyed our land records in the first place.”

    Rather than calling and writing various agencies with complaints, I’d suggest calling and writing your state legislators and DEMANDING an answer as to why the implementation of this incredibly simple K.I.S.S. plan shouldn’t move forward yesterday. Furthermore, even your uncle who’s convinced you’re a deadbeat because you didn’t pay your mortgage would be able to understand that there’s absolutely no moral hazard in going back to basics here….either prove it, or shut TF up and lose it.
    The only folks throwing a tantrum about this simple process would be those whose hands are stuck way inside the cookie jar, and who are refusing to play nice. Screw them. We, the seriously affected, could have this bill written up and ready for dissemination to all the states and their legislators through citizen action in a heartbeat. The will is there.
    Force the Vampire Squids into the light….let’s fight this fight.”

    So…who is going to draft the bill? I nominate E.Tolle or ANONYMOUS!!!

  26. @ carie,

    I’ve been away and lost that thread….I don’t doubt your tenacity. I’d be lucky to team up with you against any odds I’m sure. It would seem that since it boiled down to just the two of us against THEM, I’m guessing the time’s not right for a full frontal assault.

    I’d also take it that since ANON voted and boogied, he either has no dog in this fight or is too busy/not interested in a battle at this time.

    Let’s keep the plan and the vigor on the rear burner ready to ignite in the near future. And thanks for your enthusiasm.

  27. john gault and usedkarguy – if you had a copy of the ‘funding’ you’d know the truth. Cashier Check, REMITTER (Seller of Loan) orders third party disclosed on funding and unrelated to borrower assigns Loan#, Remitter referenced ‘Ordered By’ and yes the ‘funding’ is deposited into ‘Seller’s depository. Example: Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp 91+ days prior Corporate Trust Services assigns loan # before 91+ days before PSA closes and loan can be loaded by their 3rd payment 120 days of new loan, as a ‘performing loan’. Prior loans appear to be placed into forced default 91+ days. Real documents would not be as much fund – no speculation. Simply accurate acceptable federal civil evidence under US Code that SERVICER servicing at retail loan placed into PSA 91+ days following signature of borrower. Many times the mortgage documents held until the prior loan in forced default passes 91+ days. What follows the recording of the new loan# the Lenders Policy is issued the same day? the new mortgage recorded which can be 91+ days after consumer signs new loan documents and has already paid 2 payments first one auto paid one month ahead during Origination.

    johngault, on August 11, 2011 at 3:34 am said:
    usedkarguy cited this: (I missed it)

    “While Wells Fargo Bank currently does not rely on securitization as a material funding source, the Depositor’s securitization programs are a material funding source for Wells Fargo Bank’s residential mortgage loan production.”

    What the heck?!
    cubed2, do you take this to mean WF is in fact using the investor funds given to the depositor to fund WF generated mortgage loans? That WF is making a distinction, also, that while they don’t directly utilize investor funds for mtg loans, they use them after they’ve passed thru the depositors, straight to loan funding? It’s no secret I always disbelieved those same dollars were used at closing. Dang. I wonder in the theory the investors funded the loans at closing what diff it makes that they went thru the depositor first.. Have to get some advice on that one!
    OR, is WF just bragging that it’s involved in securitization (as if it’s some hot-damn-deal) and benefits by its relationship with the depositor, so arent’ we cool? I don’t know – the word “material”
    makes it look like those depositor funds are used at closing.

    usedkarguy said:

    ” No intent to modify ANYTHING (execpt your address).” Wcked . Good one. Pretty sad deal, but your expression gave me a chuckle

  28. From the Matt Taibbi article:

    “Much has been made in recent months of the government’s glaring failure to police Wall Street; to date, federal and state prosecutors have yet to put a single senior Wall Street executive behind bars for any of the many well-documented crimes related to the financial crisis. Indeed, Flynn’s accusations dovetail with a recent series of damaging critiques of the SEC made by reporters, watchdog groups and members of Congress, all of which seem to indicate that top federal regulators spend more time lunching, schmoozing and job-interviewing with Wall Street crooks than they do catching them. As one former SEC staffer describes it, the agency is now filled with so many Wall Street hotshots from oft-investigated banks that it has been “infected with the Goldman mindset from within.”

  29. WHEN IN DOUBT—DESTROY ALL EVIDENCE!!!

    Is the SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes?

    A whistleblower claims that over the past two decades, the agency has destroyed records of thousands of investigations, whitewashing the files of some of the nation’s worst financial criminals:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817

    By MATT TAIBBI
    AUGUST 17, 2011 8:00 AM ET

    “Imagine a world in which a man who is repeatedly investigated for a string of serious crimes, but never prosecuted, has his slate wiped clean every time the cops fail to make a case. No more Lifetime channel specials where the murderer is unveiled after police stumble upon past intrigues in some old file – “Hey, chief, didja know this guy had two wives die falling down the stairs?” No more burglary sprees cracked when some sharp cop sees the same name pop up in one too many witness statements. This is a different world, one far friendlier to lawbreakers, where even the suspicion of wrongdoing gets wiped from the record.

    That, it now appears, is exactly how the Securities and Exchange Commission has been treating the Wall Street criminals who cratered the global economy a few years back. For the past two decades, according to a whistle-blower at the SEC who recently came forward to Congress, the agency has been systematically destroying records of its preliminary investigations once they are closed. By whitewashing the files of some of the nation’s worst financial criminals, the SEC has kept an entire generation of federal investigators in the dark about past inquiries into insider trading, fraud and market manipulation against companies like Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and AIG. With a few strokes of the keyboard, the evidence gathered during thousands of investigations – “18,000 … including Madoff,” as one high-ranking SEC official put it during a panicked meeting about the destruction – has apparently disappeared forever into the wormhole of history…”

  30. @joann,

    Your observation is especially relevant in non-recourse states. Question is, if the deed of trust is the only recourse, and it’s found to be void, how can the note be enforced separately?

  31. RETAIL Loan# (borrower uses same loan# to pay NEW mortgage).

    ORIGINATION DOCUMENTS “YOU CAN’T SEE”

    QUESTION: WHY DON’T THE ‘FORECLOSURE DEFENSE’ ATTORNEYS REQUEST COPY OF ‘FUNDING’ CHECK? WHEN CONTESTING ‘STANDING’?

    I M P O R T A N T
    *FUNDING* ($ minus HUD$)
    CASH Pyable to Individual ‘Settlement Agent’
    REMITTER c/o Sellers’ depository HAVING SOLD LOAN TO THIRD PARTY.

    issuer – usually account holder of a bank CASH taken from.
    Payee (the entity to which the check is payable), and the name of the Remitter (the entity that paid for the check).

    FUNDING ‘Cashier Checks’
    ‘Ordered By’ ‘references Entity that paid for Check).

    OBVIOUSLY YOU ALL DON’T HAVE COPIES OF THE
    ‘Cashier Check’ and/or Wire Transfer and/or Electronic Transfer of CASH deposit issued in form of Cashiers Check, Wire Transfer and/or Electronic Depsoit payable to a third party (settlement agent and/or bank attorney).

    WHY DON’T YOU HAVE A COPY?

    THE ONLY PARTIES WHO HAVE COPY OF THE ORIGINATION DOCUMENTS (Email, Faxes, EDI, FTP, Closing Instructions, Closing Disbursement, including the Cashier Check$, Wire Transfer$, and/or Electronic Transfer$ would be the ‘$Remitter who paid for the transaction’, the $Recipient, the $Account Holder whose account became a pass through agency for the secret transaction.

    THE REMITTER identifies the ‘loan#’ as required in the closing instructions.

    Retail Loan# referenced in the ‘REMITTER’ notation includes statement ‘ORDERED BY WFHM’ for example.

    RETAIL LOAN# the NEW Loan#.
    The funding payable to individual title & settlement agent/bank attorney standared when part of nationwide network of Lawyers Title Corp, eLynx, LPS, LSI, TD Services, Underwriters, Appraiser, Mortgage Broker, Origination agents, brokers, dealers, distributors.

    THE NEW LOAN# ASSIGNED ON A REFINANCE, BORROWER BEGINS PAYING 2 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE DATE THE ACTUAL PSA CLOSING; AND BORROWER’S 3RD PAYMENT (91+ DAYS LATER) CONSIDERED TO BE A PERFORMING LOAN INSIDE OF PSA NOW CLOSED.

    THE 2ND LOAN PAYMENT, MAY APPEAR IN ‘FWP’ FREE WRITING PROSPECTUS, REVENUE OF THE NEW LOAN# PAID BY BORROWER TO ‘SERVICER’. COINCIDENTLY, THE 2ND PAYMENT BY THE BORROWER LOAN#, THE MORTGAGE MAY HAVE BEEN RECORDED 90 DAYS LATER IN ORDER THAT THE REFINANCED LOAN COULD BE PHASED OUT OF A TRUST IN A ‘FORCED’ FORECLOSURE 91+ DAY DEFAULT IN ORDER TO LIQUIDATE THE PRIOR LOAN FROM THE PRIOR MORTGAGE.

    WHY IS THIS NOT IMPORTANT?

    NEIL, DO YOU SEE THE PATTERN IN WHICH NEW LOAN# DOES NOT GET AFFIXED TO A PSA FOR 91+ days later

    NEIL, DO YOU SEE THE PATTERN IN WHICH THE NEW LOAN#’S FIRST 2 PAYMENTS ARE NOT ATTACHED TO THE NEW ‘LOAN TRUST’ C/O PASS THROUGH AGENCY, AND THE NEW LOAN# MAY BE REFERENCED AS THE TYPE OF LOAN PAYMENT THAT WILL BE AN ‘ASSET’ OF THE ‘ISSUING ENTITY’ NOT YET SOLD IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, IN ORDER TO SECURE MOODY, S&P, .. RATINGS.

    Why does no one ask where is 1st mortgage payment
    borrower sent to SERVICER? which is not part of PSA.
    Is the Servicer forwarding to Master Servicer? If the money never gets into the REMIC and the first 90 days the deposits of the bank don’t have to be recorded when pass through Wells Fargo Securities at the time prior to 6/2009, Wells Fargo Funding aka Norswest Funding Correspondent Lending swapping loans in 1031 Exchange, etc.,

    Why is none of this important?

    Why does no one ask where 2nd payment goes which may be listed in FWP of the intended ‘Issuing Entity’ which is a fictitious name c/o Pass Through Agency merely file folder label if you will for Registrant to track distributions and deposits.

    The FWP Loan# contiains the same loan# assigned to ‘Escrow funding check ‘Remitter the party who sold the loan’, the account holder of the financial institution the undisclosed 3rd party, only undisclosed to borrower, and the payee an individual with fiduciary accountability.

  32. This explains why no one gets to see any documents. If you get to discovery, the case gets settled. Once the judges ask for the originals that used to be the only acceptable evidence, this will end.

  33. I wanted to bring up another item I’ve run accross online which I believe smells of decite vailed in good intention on the part of JP Morgan Chase and perhaps by other lenders? I have came across several forums were people are discussing how Chase being as generous as they are. Seem to be or were sending out offers to reduce “Good Current Customers” mortgage intrest rates by .5 percent. All they have to do is fill out another loan packet and their all set. Well of coarse so is Chase. They just got a get out of jail free card as far as I can see. A nice new set of loan documents that I’m sure they tided right up. Hence releiving them of the whole MERS mess. Nice guys? right? Just want to help out our most valued customers! Sure! Sorry for the poor spelling. By all means correct me if my assumptions are wrong. Or am I wrong do the original loan Docs still leave them hanging in the breeze?

  34. “And by the way (see previous post) invalidating the lien does not eliminate the obligation or even the possibility of a judgment lien if it is available to the creditor (depends upon the state).”

    Here’s something I don’t get – homeowner signs what they thought was a Deed of Trust and a Promissory Note encumbering their home in a secured transaction funded by the nominal “lender”. Homeowner is obligated to pay the “lender” and lawful successors – paying anyone else does not extinguish their debt. So if the lien is not perfected and the “lender” is not the lender (and now Deed of Trust and the Note are shown to be fraudulent documents for a transaction that did not occur – and investors, borrowers, irs and others were defrauded – no mortgage in the mbs – and other undisclosed shenanigans of potentially huge proportion) and now the real lender shows his face which for many reasons he may not be willing to do (fraud on the courts, fraud on the borrower, fraud on the investors, fraud on taxes ect) – and it is now no longer a secured transaction….. Homowner did not agree to anything other than a traditional secured mortgage by signing the bogus Deed of Trust and note. Homeowner did not sign anything that agreed to an unsecured transaction that could be collected seperately from his home. How is it that the obligation can still be valid? The obligation is to the debt secured by his home – if it was never secured by his home and was fraudulently portrayed to be secured by the home – who does he owe now? Who exactly can place a “judgement lien” on him?

  35. Hey, Neil, don’t forget the impossible perfection when the LENDER that was named was not even in existence. Remember your articles about the “WILD MORTGAGES” created by “AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER” which the Deed of Trust identified as being a New York Corporation?

    That corporation did not exist at the time the loans were created. A different group later set the entity up in NY state as of 12-16-2008.

    Now, even with that other group forming the corporation in the required state at a later date, there really has NEVER been a perfection of any of these mortgages.

    So far, they are typically getting trapped only on the issue of attempts to use MERS to assign and on the attempt to prove some other entity then has standing.

    I am not seeing any attack on PERFECTION being brought.

  36. Neil – Your lastest blog posts have been so crystal clear and evident (from our standpoints) that I wish ALL local judges and States A.G. would be aware of and have a staff onboard whom were following to update themselves on the ‘new’ foreclosure world; i.e. the latter 85% of ‘loans’ ala MERS StrawMan ShellGame of fraud and deception. It has been your persistent revelations across states that will allow our local attorneys and judiciate to pounce on the pretender-lenders and their hired help (the foreclosure mills like Gray & Associates, whom continue despite lack of due diligence &/or knowledge of any true
    transaction facts). Keep up the great work … you’re our Billy Jack! 🙂

    Thank You From All Us Readers!

  37. Now how do I get a judge to buy it? That’s the million dollar question.

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: