Weidner: Notes Are Not Negotiable Instruments

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

——–>SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS: WHOSE LIEN IS IT ANYWAY TOC

LivingLies Membership – If you are not already a member, this is the time to do it, when things are changing.

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688


Editor’s Notes:  

Matt Weidner appears to have mastered the truth about securitization and how to apply it in foreclosure defense cases. The article below is really for lawyers, paralegals and very sophisticated pro se litigants. His point about being careful about how you present this is very well taken. This is for lawyers to do and lawyers should read this and get with the program. Securitization turned about to be virtually all SHAM transactions with the real financial transaction hidden away from the view of the borrower, the courts and even securitization analysts. The operative rule here is that the existence of a financial transaction does not mean that strangers to that transactions can claim any rights. 

These loans were nearly always funded by other parties who had made promises to investors whose money was used to fund the mortgages. The very existence of co-obligors and payments by them defeats the arguments of the banks and servicers. I’d like to see ONE investor come into court and say that yes, they would ratify the inclusion of a defaulted loan into their pool years after the cutoff date which negates their tax benefits. There is o reasonable basis for an investor to do or say that. That leaves the loan undocumented, unsecured and subject to offset for predatory and wrongful lending practices.

The wrong way of approaching this is any way in which you are going into court to disclaim the obligation when everyone knows you received the money or the benefit of the money. The obligation exists. And the only way to discharge that debt is through payment, waiver (or bankruptcy) or forgiveness. Anything that smells like “I don’t owe this money anymore” is going to be rejected in most cases. But an attack on the lien and the reality of the true creditor is a different story. That needs to be presented as simply as possible and I think I good way to start is to deny the loan, obligation, note, mortgage etc on the basis of an absence of any financial transaction between the borrower and the party named on the documents upon which the foreclosers rely. Any discovery at all will reveal that the money never came from the payee on the note or mortgagee or beneficiary on the mortgage or deed of trust. 

by Matt Weidner:

Let’s start with real basic stuff here.  Sometimes law is complex, nuanced,difficult.  Other times it’s black and white…you just read the words, look at the facts and the answer is unavoidable.  Such is the case with the simmering dispute over the fact that the notes that are part of nearly every residential foreclosure case are not negotiable instruments.  Oh sure, too many courts won’t take the time to consider the argument and…just yesterday I heard an appellate court argument where the judges just kept repeating the mantra, “this is a negotiable instrument” without ever doing any analysis at all and without any finding of that “fact” from the trial court.  The attorney needed to stop the appellate judge right there and say, “No Your Honor, it’s Not A Negotiable Instrument”.

Just last week, in a trial court, here’s exactly the way it went down.  Now, keep in mind, this argument in court was supplemented by a long and detailed memo similar to the one attached here.  The best part it was in front of one of Florida’s most respected and brilliant judges.  He’s been on the bench longer than I’ve been alive, he knows more law in the tip of his finger than most lawyers get in their whole bodies in an entire lifetime, he’s presided over tens of thousands of foreclosure cases. It was a beautiful thing to see an argument before a dedicated jurist whose seen and heard it all before that really made him sit up, dig in to those decades of judicial wisdom and then do the heavy lifting. That’s one of the beautiful things about this job….despite decades of work and hundreds of years of law, out of nowhere something new and exciting can still get the intellect and wisdom fired up and shooting like a cannon. Here’s how it goes down:

Your honor, I’ve highlighted and present for you the statutory definition of a “negotiable instrument”.  Because it’s a statutory definition, it’s black and white. We cannot alter or weave or color it with shades of gray….here’s what it is:

673.1041 Negotiable instrument.—
(1) Except as provided in subsections (3), (4), and (11), the term “negotiable instrument” means
an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other
charges described in the promise or order, if it:
(a) Is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a
holder;
(b) Is payable on demand or at a definite time; and
(c) Does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering
payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money.

FL Article 3

Now, we’re all stuck with exactly that definition. Before we examine the note in this case, let’s first think about what a negotiable instrument is….a check made payable to a person for $100. An IOU for $100.  Bills of lading with a total included.  It’s all real simple.

So now that we’re fixed about what a negotiable instrument is, let’s examine what it ain’t.  What ain’t a negotiable instrument, as defined by Florida law is the standard Fannie/Freddie Promissory note and the following paragraphs are the primary reasons why.  Read each one carefully and ask, “Are these sentences conditions or undertakings other than the promise to repay money?” (Of course they are)

4.         BORROWER’S RIGHT TO PREPAY

I have the right to make payments of Principal at any time before they are due.  A payment of Principal only is known as a “Prepayment.”  When I make a Prepayment, I will tell the Note Holder in writing that I am doing so.  I may not designate a payment as a Prepayment if I have not made all the monthly payments due under the Note.

I may make a full Prepayment or partial Prepayments without paying a Prepayment charge.  The Note Holder will use my Prepayments to reduce the amount of Principal that I owe under this Note.  However, the Note Holder may apply my Prepayment to the accrued and unpaid interest on the Prepayment amount, before applying my Prepayment to reduce the Principal amount of the Note.  If I make a partial Prepayment, there will be no changes in the due date or in the amount of my monthly payment unless the Note Holder agrees in writing to those changes.

5.         LOAN CHARGES

If a law, which applies to this loan and which sets maximum loan charges, is finally interpreted so that the interest or other loan charges collected or to be collected in connection with this loan exceed the permitted limits, then:  (a) any such loan charge shall be reduced by the amount necessary to reduce the charge to the permitted limit; and (b) any sums already collected from me which exceeded permitted limits will be refunded to me.  The Note Holder may choose to make this refund by reducing the Principal I owe under this Note or by making a direct payment to me.  If a refund reduces Principal, the reduction will be treated as a partial Prepayment.

10.  UNIFORM SECURED NOTE

This Note is a uniform instrument with limited variations in some jurisdictions.  In addition to the protections given to the Note Holder under this Note, a Mortgage, Deed of Trust, or Security Deed (the “Security Instrument”), dated the same date as this Note, protects the Note Holder from possible losses which might result if I do not keep the promises which I make in this Note.  That Security Instrument describes how and under what conditions I may be required to make immediate payment in full of all amounts I owe under this Note.  Some of those conditions are described as follows:

If all or any part of the Property or any Interest in the Property is sold or transferred (or if Borrower is not a natural person and a beneficial interest in Borrower is sold or transferred) without Lender’s prior written consent, Lender may require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by this Security Instrument. However, this option shall not be exercised by Lender if such exercise is prohibited by Applicable Law.

If Lender exercises this option, Lender shall give Borrower notice of acceleration.  The notice shall provide a period of not less than 30 days from the date the notice is given in accordance with Section 15 within which Borrower must pay all sums secured by this Security Instrument.  If Borrower fails to pay these sums prior to the expiration of this period, Lender may invoke any remedies permitted by this Security Instrument without further notice or demand on Borrower.

3210-FloridaFRNote-Freddie_UI

So, the deal is, if we were sitting in a law school classroom, there’s not a chance in the world but that every student in the room and the professor would agree and understand that the document being examined side by side is not covered by the definition provided.  The problem is we get into courtrooms and we get infected by considerations that are beyond and above the operative law.  Judgment gets clouded by preconceived notions and prejudices against our neighbors and favoritism for the criminal banking institutions that caused all this mess. Even to this day, years into this, years into all the fraud and the lies and the deceit, it’s like we’re still hypnotized by the banks and their black magic and voodoo.

Now, if you really want to take it a step deeper, Margery Golant makes a very credible argument that in doing this analysis we cannot just look at the note alone, but that we must also examine the mortgage that follows with it.  They truly are two integrated documents and you can see from her highlights that so many of the provisions in the mortgage have nothing to do with security and everything to do with conditions on the payment of money….these provisions are just jammed into the mortgage and kept out of the note to try and prop up this artifice of negotiability.  Read her highlights with this analysis in mind:

Fannie Florida Mortgage with Golant Highlights

Further supported by this case Sims v New Falls

Now, understand the industry never intended these notes and mortgages to transfer via endorsement.  The industry set this whole system up so that the notes and mortgage would transfer via Article 9 of the UCC.  It’s just so plain and simple.  They never set it up or intended that million dollar notes and mortgages would transfer via forged endorsements, undated squiggles and rubber stamps or floating allonges.  Of course not…that’s just crazy.  The entire system was created such that notes and mortgages and all the servicing agreements and rights and liabilities would transfer via far more formalized Assignments, with names and dates and notary stamps and witnesses.  The Article 9 transfer regime had nothing to do with protecting consumers, but everything to do with protecting the players in the industry from the scams, the lies, the cons that they all like to play on one another. (Hello, LIBOR anyone?)

But when the shifty con artists that set this whole securitization card game up, they were so focused on how much money they were making, they never considered what would happen when the whole house of cards blew down.  When it blew down, they threw their Article 9 intentions out the window and adopted the whole Article 3 negotiable instrument delusion.  Isn’t it an absurd argument when they cannot answer the question, “if assignments don’t matter, why do you still bother to do them?”  It’s because they do matter….assignments were and remain the foundation of their transfers.  The problem is Assignments, what with their pesky dates and legible names and notaries and all reveal the lies and the fraud and the con that developed once the system came crashing down and they all started stealing from one another. (With the explicit approval of our state and federal government to do so….too big to jail you know.)

Anywhoo, there’s still some faint glimmer of hope as long as we still have good judges out there that are willing to think these things through and do the heavy lifting, we might be able to rescue our nation’s judicial system and in fact our nation as a whole from this deep, dark black pit that we’ve all descended down.

I urge everyone to be very careful with these arguments.  I’m a very big supporter of pro se people and consumers being integrated into their courtrooms and being fully engaged in the public spaces they own. I’ve also seen some very good pro se people go into courtrooms and do some very beautiful things.  In some ways it’s like a “From the mouths of babes” experience.  Language and arguments stripped away from all their lawyerly pretense can have a magic effect on a judge’s ear and thoughtfully and well-prepared arguments are often received with great enthusiasm from our circuit courts….particularly those judges that recognize the roots of our civilian circuit justice system.  The danger is that ill-prepared and poorly presented arguments will taint the ears and poison the minds of judges that might otherwise accept with an open mind…..keep that in mind.  Max Gardner is the Obi One Kenobe of all this and there’s just something about the way he lays it out so clear and clean and simple that has it all make sense.  I really encourage everyone to get all his material and invest in the week long bootcamp before you go trying any of this out…..MAX GARDNER BOOTCAMP

And now my briefs:

Motion-to-Dismiss

Initial-Brief


BUY THE BOOK! CLICK HERE!

BUY WORKSHOP COMPANION WORKBOOK AND 2D EDITION PRACTICE MANUAL

GET TWO HOURS OF CONSULTATION WITH NEIL DIRECTLY, USE AS NEEDED

COME TO THE 1/2 DAY PHOENIX WORKSHOP: CLICK HERE FOR PRE-REGISTRATION DISCOUNTS

About these ads

109 Responses

  1. [...] Read more… Posted in Banks, MERS, News Around The Country, States « CORRUPTION OF TITLE CHAINS IS PANDEMIC BofA shareholders may pursue lawsuit over MERS, Mortgages » You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. [...]

  2. There is a segment of this that attorney have failed to look at and that Ginnie Mae’s role in the Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) as they are different from Fannie & Freddie as Ginnie Mae by law cannot originate, buy or sell a home mortgage but is sitting holding all these Blank Note which they cannot call due because they have no debt obligation with the home owners and Ginnie Mae cannot be in title as the “holder in due course” at the local level and the function they preform with MERS “Transfer Beneficial Rights – Option 1″ is Kabuki Theater because lender who is relinquishing the debt cannot hold the debt without a Note and with a Note Ginnie Mae cannot purchase a debt.

    So the Note and debt are separated and there is no title on court records for the actual holder of debt because no one is actual holding a debt. One the game is found out simply by obtaining the Note which is going to be always a Blank sign document because Ginnie Mae cannot file its name in the blank as it is not a Lender and everybody knows that most government insured loans are in a Ginnie Mae pool and the way to tell is that in the MERS system it has the loan under Ginnie Mae as the “Investor” or simply file a FIOA request with Ginnie Mae and you will have access tit the loans history with Ginnie Mae.

    So you do have a situation where there is no collectable debt that is attached to the property. What who happen as was exposed by Countrywide that the Notes were not delivered to the Trust and now there is a big problem there. However in the case of Ginnie Mae because the Notes are Blank and under UCC 3 you need to be in physical possession of the Blank Note because it blank and who ever is in possession of the Blank Note owns the Note.

    However as with Massachusetts Supreme Court Eaton v. Fannie Mae the court expect that the party foreclosing must be the owner of the Note owed a debt and that they also must be in title as the “holder in due course”. Ginnie Mae who is in physical possession of Blank Notes is neither owner of debt because they did not purchase it and are not in title because they did not purchase the Notes and a lien cannot be created or transferred. So nothing that the borrowers have done but the moment the Blank Note was transferred to Ginnie Mae you have a non-negotiable document where payments cannot be collected by Ginnie Mae by law (pass through) and a surrogate in Servicer cannot collect for Ginnie Mae because it itself is not authorized this activity.

    Lender have been getting away with simply not transferring the Note and if a loan was in default who would know the loan was with Ginnie Mae or if the loan was refinanced there would be a new Note issued, or if the loan was paid off by the borrowers all they would be looking at is the red stamp PAID on the front and not know of pay attention to the still blank endorsement on the back page.

  3. @mary – stopa’s right, of course. Any endorsements on notes are being done by the party who wants to come after homeowners. They
    aren’t done by any legitimate endorser. I remember a case where there were not one, but two, endorsements executed by an employee (aka temporarily appointed v.p. of some dept or another) of the party allegedly in possession of a note. As I recall, the endorsee, well, not endorsee, but the party claiming possession of a bearer note claimed some right which was not evidenced and not challenged!

    I thought this was interesting and useful (still hunting for a Notice):

    DEITRICK v. STANDARD SURETY CO., 303 U.S. 471 (1938)
    58 S.Ct. 696
    DEITRICK, RECEIVER, ET AL. v. STANDARD SURETY & CASUALTY CO.
    CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT.
    No. 455.
    Argued March 7, 8, 1938.
    Decided March 28, 1938.

    “When two or more persons have jointly perpetrated a fraud with intent to injure others, justice and law combine to entitle injured parties to recover from any or all of the conspirators. Corporations can act only through agents. When, as here, two corporations,
    acting through authorized (key word – sic) agents, have jointly perpetrated a fraud which was intended to — and did — injure others**, a just rule of law should likewise hold both corporations jointly and severally responsible for the damages inflicted by them upon innocent parties.”
    Interestingly, the case has to do with a bk receiver of a bank and a surety. And it further evidences imo why MERS purposely avoided the word agent, which they later, as I’ve said, started using, thinking the cost was clear.

    If one alleges fraud, remember it has to be plead with at least some specificity. Courts disagree with what that means exactly, so best to check local jurisdiction. Fraud deprives a party of due process; hard to argue and defend when you’re being fed lies on which your reliance was reasonable. That’s why a f/c may be overturned for fraud.

    ** A bankster will argue you weren’t injured because you were in default. Even if you were in default, what’s that got to do with a lying, scheming conspiracy to steal your home by strangers to the transaction?

  4. thank you, danmoss, and mary, I would love to. Got a link?

  5. see Mark Stoppa law blog regarding his thoughts on this issue.

  6. If the indorser on the note, did not and does not have authority or right to indorse the paper, then that paper has not become a bearer paper. Challenge the right of the indorser on the paper (note) especially if the entity in which the indorser, indorsed for is under Bankruptcy protection, etc….rubber signature stamps (bogus)

  7. Happy Saturday folks,

    I hope that all are doing well. I must say, there are some very interesting people and comments on this site.

    I think that, Mr. JohnGault is deserving of an applause… so… give johngault a “HUR-RUMF!!!”… hey YOU over in the corner, give JOHNGAULT a “HUR-RUMF…!!!”

    the gentleman has made some very informative comments. The thing about it is this… some of you folks need to, step to either side of the tree, infront of you so that, you may see ‘the Forest’…

    keep it up Johngault:)

    @kimmie

    http://www.investopedia.com/search/default.aspx?q=bearer%20paper#axzz20dTR9HC5

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bearer-paper/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bearer_paper

    God bless…

    lowecommunityresourcepartners@live.com

  8. Thanks I actually have them and tried to post for Nora, but part of the post would not go through, so Nora can pick up on this. Thanks.

  9. Nora not all of them showed up, so you may want to email me so I can send the whole bunch of them.

  10. I have been noticing that lately. you used to get it free on scribe.
    Here is the name of a good Florida and Seattle attorney I and friends are trusting. i am pro se, now however I may need her. And plan on it if I dont get my appeal. Go back on fraud upon the court. She does bankruptcy only if you need to do bankruptcy and does it without bankruptcy. Ha Thu Dao, Esq.
    GRAND CENTRAL LAW, PLLC
    PO Box 7382
    Lakeland, FL 33807
    Licensed to practice in FL & WA
    AV rated
    Member of NACA & NACBA
    Grad of the Max Gardner’s Litigation Boot Camp

    (727) 269-9334
    fax: (727) 264-2447

  11. Day pass at scribd? Since when does scribd charge????

  12. I have been opining that a holder (v bona fide transferee) of a note does not receive the benefit of the collateral instrument nor is entitled to it (in the absence of some other contract which would afford it that right). No amount of money is going to change that and none is ever paid, anyway.
    The assignments being executed state that the consideration for the dot assgt is ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration, which is pretty much standard as I recall. That can mean any number 10.00 or higher. But it’s bull, because no real money is actually changing hands. MERS, the alleged assignor, receives no money because it has no economic interest in the dot and it does not receive money and pass it on to another party nor is any other party being paid. (MERS might be getting some token amt for the use of its name on the assignment, but that’s it, has nothing to do with the sale or actual transfer of monies for the assgt, which schematic brings to my mind R I C O). That means there is ‘insufficiency of consideration’, which is an affirmative defense against an alleged obligation.
    Down in AZ, think it was, where someone really needs to talk with those jurists, they ruled in favor of the dot only (with no note!). Those assignments are fully gratuitous as there is no money changing hands. The dot assignee of those dots has no connection to the note (neither does the assignor in this mess, either imo), the debt, has paid nothing in reality, has no skin in the game: lack of consideration, which is an affirmative defense not being used that I know of, nor do I know why affirmative defenses are not being used. And for that matter, the note and dot have now truly been bifurcated with one party owning the note and another having the dot (although I still agree with the judges who have said the dot without the note is a worthless piece of paper, so what if anything has happened is that the noteowner now has an unsecured note and may have a valid claim on that basis: taking collateral under the dot will not retire the note of a hidc and maybe not even that of a holder = double jeopardy).
    Affirmative defenses may require some admission, like “I owe the note or I signed that, BUT……(insert affirmative defense(s)”, or, for all I know, may be used as an alternative in response to a claim. There is a time when aff defenses must be raised, or the right to do so is lost (I think) and so failure to timely raise can be fatal.
    I can’t agree with the explanation of the ‘without recourse’ given here as a comment. I’ve always thought that meant mol “here, it’s yours, don’t bother me if it goes south”, as in I have no liability to the transferee nor, again I think, do I have any rights against the transferee for any reason: I’m out of it.

    One of the very salient and imo unavoidable questions for litigation is whether the claimant is claiming as a holder or a hidc. A mere holder is subject to many affirmative defenses not available against a mere holder. Discovery is necessary to determine this or at least a demand for a “more definitive statement”. You can’t know, so than neither can a court, what might be your defenses if you dont know if the claim is that of a holder or hidc. When did you get this note? Before or after the alleged default? How much did you pay for it? When?
    And, btw, why does a bankster have possession (if it does) of a note? It’s supposed to be with the doc custodian, right? Doesn’t this mean in the best scenario that they pulled it for the purpose of enforcement AFTER default (so not hidc)?
    I don’t think but can’t figure today that one in possession (only) of a bearer note can ever be a holder in due course (if he doesn’t own it, doesn’t actually have the ben interest in the note). He might have paid nothing for it and that is one of the tenets of being a hidc: taken for value. Any court willing to start at hidc for the benefit of the bankster is errant (that’s being nice). That is not, absolutely not, a reasonable presumption. In fact, it’s a ridiculous, appealable conclusion of law with no facts to support it.

    Right now, in my lay opinion, one of our best friends is failure of consideration (and other affirmative defenses), given that no funds are changing hands for either these notes or the dots. Our need to know clearance on holder v hidc should provide for discovery.
    The banksters have been more than willing to file mol generic false affidavits and declarations, but will they be so crazy as to try to rely on false affidavits and declarations (in lieu of meaningful discovery) regarding the dollar amt paid for the loans and when to try to establish their rights?
    I have no idea how affirmative defenses stack up against Article
    8 or 9 of the UCC, which does not contemplate hidc’s. But, maybe because it doesnt afford anyone rights of a hidc, affirmative defenses are always available when a note is governed by Article 9 and that would be good news.
    I’m not an attorney and this is not legal advice. It’s just stuff to ponder, to research, to get competent help (good luck on that one).
    And on that note, I have to disagree a tad with think it’s tnharry about finding attorneys. The very last thing I want to do is alienate or insult the legal community, but how long has it been now? 4 -5 years and some are just getting up to speed on agency and other unavoidable issues related hereto. I’m just a plebe lay person for Pete’s sake and I have been able to at least spell the words for some time now. People tend to think that if you can’t find an attorney, it’s because you don’t have a case. That’s one explanation, but it sure as sam h aint the only one. Plus the ones who are worth their salt are pretty darn busy.

  13. Thanks, Shelley. I’m going to buy a day pass at Scribd so I can print that out. The National WaMu support group has a lot of stuff on their site. If you closed with WaMu, you’re gonna want to read their articles.http://www.nationalwamuhomeownerssupportgroup.com/

  14. Nora here is one more and hopefully the rest will finally post. This was not with them. http://www.scribd.com/doc/63470823/First-Amended-Complaint-Deutsche-Bank-v-Fdic-and-Chase

  15. I am trying to send you the http to this Case and more that state Chase does not own WAMU loans and Deutsche bank never recieved the transfers in time and they are faulty. It may be in moderation. it is not showing up. If they dont show up email me at Shelleystotalbodyworks@comcast.net

  16. Who wants to trust a student learning this when this is so complicated and you can not find an experienced attorney willing to do it? I am in trouble like many of my friends due to asking for a modification, because we could see the writing on the wall and a decrease in our businesses. We were granted the mod and then unapproved and our payments were then credited only as partial payments and we were lured into foreclosure by these demons, using the HAMP program to lure us into mod payments that were turned into partial payments. Our incomes are down not dead.

  17. yes I can afford to pay and many of my friends and customers looking can pay and are having a difificult time finding help in WA state. We believe we may have found a couple now. Been looking since 2010.

  18. I will find the http for the cases: Here is what I have on one of my docs, from this case. : FDIC & JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA’S P&A AGREEMENT DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE NOTES.
    The Purchase &Assumption Agreement between the FDIC & JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA for Washington Mutual Bank does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note.
    U. S. DISTRICT COURT CASE # CV10-0815 0D2 (FFMx)
    JAVAHIERI V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA et al:
    Order GRANTING in Part & DENYING in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint file April 28, 2011
    Decision can be found at http://www.chasechase.org/doxcc/Javaheri35Order.pdf
    US Code: TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part B > § 1641
    § 1641. Liability of assignees can be found at
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1641&url=/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001641—-000-.html
    From the decision”:

    C. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE & QUIET TITLE

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA’s assertion that the P&A Agreement suffices to establish their ownership of the Note is no longer viable. Indeed, the P&A Agreement does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note. (See Dkt. No. 10, Exh. 2.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has now sufficiently alleged that JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA did not own his Note and therefore did not have the right to foreclose.

    From Plaintiff’s memorandum of law attached:

    WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE – SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (hereafter Chase) offers no proof that it acquired an interest in Plaintiff’s residence. In this Motion to Dismiss, once again the only document offered to support its claim is the P&A Agreement. Chase asks the court to leap to the conclusion that Washington Mutual Bank (hereafter WMB) was the Lender on September 25, 2008, the date that the Purchase & Assumption Agreement was signed, even though the likelihood of that, given WMB’s history of securitization, is less than 50%. The challenge facing homeowners is to prove facts to trial courts at the pleading stage.

    Wall Street and the Financial Crisis – Anatomy of a Financial Collapse, the U.S.
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (April 13, 2011) 650-page report,
    was released following an 18-month investigation into the causes of the financial
    crisis. WMB was the leading case study in the report—183 pages (28%) of the report were devoted to WMB—the worst of the worst. The report is readily
    available for download at the Senate Subcommittee’s website. 2
    Defendant alleges in its Purchase & Assumption Agreement that “JPMorgan obtained its rights under the loan from the FDIC” (P&A 4:5). Whether or not the Loan was an asset of WMB on September 25, 2008, a key issue in this case, is not mentioned. Chase asks the court to find, without evidence, a fact that it must prove in order to take the property. Nothing in the P&A Agreement shows whether WMB had any beneficial interest in Plaintiff’s loan on September 25, 2008. The court is asked to guess the answer and dismiss the case. Then Plaintiff will lose his house.

    Where factual findings or the contents of the documents are in dispute, those
    matters of dispute are not appropriate for judicial notice. Caravantes v. California
    Reconveyance Co., 2010 WL 4055560, 9 (S.D.Cal. 2010) citing Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transp. Comm’n, 2006 WL 167657, at *2 (N.D.Cal. 2006).
    See Stephen R. Buchenroth and Gretchen D. Jeffries, Recent Foreclosure Cases: Lenders Beware (June 2007); Wells Fargo v.Jordan, 914 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 2009) (“If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”);
    Chase argues that it obtained the right to sell Plaintiff’s property when it acquired

    Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
    - 17 -
    WMB’s assets through the P&A Agreement for $1.9 billion. Chase could only acquire what WMB owned. WMB no longer owned Plaintiff’ mortgage. Perhaps the identity of the Lender can be tracked down, but it remains unknown.
    Defendant argues that Chase assumed no liability for actions taken by WMB prior to September 25, 2008 in regard to the subject loan. This obscures the issue. Plaintiff alleges that WMB did not have any interest in Plaintiff’s residence on September 25, 2008. His property was not an asset of WMB, and therefore Chase could not acquire any interest in Plaintiff’s residence. This is not a liability issue.
    Chase seems to assert that it can foreclose on any property under the P&A Agreement on the grounds that WMB might have had a beneficial interest in the property at some time, even though WMB sold most of its mortgages to investors.

    Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 62 of the SAC that WMB securitized Plaintiff’s single family
    residential mortgage loan through Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. If WMB retained no beneficial interest in the promissory note when it brokered the deal, Chase cannot acquire what WMB never had. If WMB transferred all of its beneficial interest in the note at the inception of the loan and never entered it in its books as an asset, and entered no corresponding reserve on its ledger as a liability in the event of Plaintiff’s default, then Chase did not acquire ownership of the note by purchasing WMB’s assets because WMB had nothing to sell. This is a question of fact. Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 30 of the SAC that Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, not a holder of the Note, and not a beneficiary under the Note.

    If Chase has no beneficial interest in the note, Chase can only proceed if it
    proves that it is the servicer and joins the owner of the note in this action. To dismiss
    this lawsuit before ascertaining the truth of these allegations is unwarranted. Chase
    could produce evidence in its files, but it prefers to rob Plaintiff of his day in court
    __._,_.___
    Neither WMB, Chicago Title Company, California Reconveyance Company (hereafter CRC), Chase, nor anyone else has recorded a transfer of a beneficial interest in the Note (or any other interest in the) Property to Chase. (SAC ¶ 29). Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, Chase is not a holder of the Note, and Chase is not a beneficiary under the Note. Chase does not have
    capacity to exercise a power of sale. Chase does not claim to be a holder of the note.

    The core issue in this case is to ascertain who is the Lender. Plaintiff did not borrow money from Chase. Plaintiff’s pre-discovery inquiries indicate that WMB did not own the loan on September 25, 2008, and therefore Chase is not the Lender. This issue cannot be brushed aside because California is a non-judicial state.

    Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) remained the Lender for no more than a few days until WMB sold the loan. Thereafter, it was, at best, a servicer of the loan. The Lender was the investment trust that put up the money.

    Foreclosure of the Wellworth Property was commenced by CRC, having been
    appointed trustee on April 30, 2010, by Chase. Chase was not the Lender.

    The Deed of Trust (SAC Exhibit 4) states on page 13, paragraph 24: “Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor Trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by Lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county in which the Property is located.” (SAC Exhibit 8, ¶24).

    Defendant asks the Court’s approval to proceed with foreclosure of Plaintiff’s
    property on the basis of a NOD and NOTS filed by CRC, a wholly owned subsidiary
    of Chase (SAC ¶16) that was appointed as successor Trustee by Chase even though
    Chase is not the Lender and has not revealed who the Lender might possibly be.

    (A) all of the beneficiaries under the trust deed, or their successors in interest…
    Nowhere does the Civil Code allow for assignment of a Deed of Trust by the assignee acting on its own behalf.

    Since Chase is not the Lender, it would violate the terms of the Note and the Deed of Trust to dismiss the SAC and allow Chase to foreclose as a result of a forged Assignment of Deed of Trust signed by someone working for the Assignee.

    Eggert, Held Up in Due Course: Predatory Lending, Securitization, and the Holder in Due Course Doctrine,, 35 Creighton L. Rev. 503, 538 (2002); The beneficiary mind you not the fraud servicer Chase Bank, nor fraud beneficiaries claimed by Deutsche Bank only by deception and fraud.
    .

  19. I have sat with over eight attorneys and tried to get help out of state through a local litigator through an attorney in NY. With no help. I have contacted many attorneys before I started my litigation pro se in 2010. After I started it I kept shopping for help and have been told they can not help me. I believe Washington now has some helping a few people. Multilple of my clients have visited attorneys and paid attorneys up to eight to nine thousand for help without getting help. One of my friends paid six thousand to an attorney who withdrew as soon as the motion for SMJ was made by the banks. Leaving her still looking for an attorney. This same lady and her husband paid a deposit to another attorney thinking they had help and he later on refunded her money with rumors the attorney had been threatened by the bar. This same attorney did not show up to a clouded titles meeting rumored he was threatened by the bar not to go and speak.
    One attorney flat out told me he could not fight the banks. Another attorney told me if he helped me he would be disbarred. A freind in Virginia paid an attorney that allowed her house to go into foreclosure and he abandoned her, she later found out he was not even licensed in the state and had multiple complaints filed against him. A friend in Florida has been seeking help for six months and turned down by all attorneys so far. He paid nine thousand for an attorney that has removed the docs from the court and allowed his house to go into foreclosure and immediate sale at auction wtih absolte proof of fraud photo copy of his note and a stack of robo signed fruad assignments of the same party just like Linda Green. I have multiple friends and customer seeking attorneys and have not seen one possitive result for any Washington homeowner of my knowledge I personally know. I am in hopes now that several of them have finally found good attorneys. Yet to be seen. No end results yet, but looks good. I have had them sitting in my lobby huffing and puffing over the search for help and frustration. I have another close friend that lost her entire inheritance over her BK attorney and trying to save her home. I have mentioned a friend that is in a three and a half million dollar home several times on this sight, that sought an attorney due to me pushing him to find one, that filed unlawful foreclosure and unlawful sale at auction and eguity loss and demanded recission. Then within six weeks the banksters replied with a recinded foreclosure and recinded sale and a letter sign here that you acknowledge we own your mortgage and we will put the house back in your name. The attorney asked him to sign it. He told him to go to H….., And has sought over six attorneys last I knew and I know he is still searching and has the money to pay one. So do some many of my customers who are searching for help. A lady in Nevada same story who contacted me for robo docs i have. I dont have a pretty picture of getting much help yet out there, with hope we will find some help somehow.

  20. and for goodness sake, quit playing the victim. what do you mean “and we wonder why we can’t get an attorney to help”? have you consulted with any attys or tried unsuccessfully to retain one? they don’t appear out of the sky like spider-man to save the day. if you can pay, then i don’t think you’ll have trouble at all finding one. if not, then you’ll have a hard time getting one unless you can qualify for legal aid.

    if any of you are near universities with law schools, i would urge you to contact them. often they have a class during the 3rd year where students take on cases through legal clinics and represent you using teams of students operating under the guidance of professors or practicing lawyers. i would think that some universities might find these mortgage issues to be of sufficient interest academically to jump into the fray.

  21. @shelly – seriously?? did you even read the case? that atty had been warned multiple times in many other cases and kept filing what the court had previously told him were warrantless causes of action and doing it in a procedurally insufficient fashion. you’re better off without him.

  22. Does anybody know where I can find that case, Dousche Bank v FDIC, Chase that Shelley mentioned? See her post at 2:49
    I had that case at one point, but now I can’t locate it. thnks.

  23. @guest at 9:18;
    Fannie ‘s letter from Sims v New Falls-http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/07/bombshellsmoking-gun-fannie-mae-admits-mortgage-notes-are-integrated-with-mortgage-and-are-not-negotiable
    This article was on Matt Weidner’s blog.

  24. Here is a comment from this post on Weidner’s blog relating to this piece:

    I think everyone has missed the boat on assignments and the verbiage the bank uses in the endorsements. The banks always use “without recourse” in their endorsement;.” this type of endorsement negates the banks responsibility to pay for the Note and leaves ONLY the original signer (you) financially responsible. But this is a 2 edged sword. The very act of allowing the bank to add “without recourse” means the 2nd bank has now AGREED they ONLY have the right to collect PAYMENT for the debt but forsakes the right to foreclose because they have become a HOLDER and NOT a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.
    The liability protection garnered by using “without recourse” is purchased with the powers afforded by the IN DUE COURSE right. The fraud then lies with the trustee who violated their fiduciary responsibility by allowing the Note to be endorsed “without recourse” which stripped parties of their rights. Once the trustee did this they voluntary forsook their position and authority and lost the power to control or oversee any future acts.
    In essence, the trustee is nothing more than the thug that does the wet work for the mafia we call the bank.
    Since the DoT states the “debt evidenced by the Note” and the Note has been invalidated by the bad endorsement there is no evidence of any debt.

  25. hman raises an interesting question, about a situtation which many here have probably been subjected to. You got a NOD a year ago and nothing has happend. Maybe no sale date was even noticed.

    The only thing I know is that if a lender voluntarily misses three scheduled sale dates, the sale date must be re-noticed. (think that’s what it is) But what if none or just one came and went? Is there a point whereby a homeowner is entitled to a new NOD or to be noticed of a second sale date? I’ve already said I think so when there’s been a sub of trustee for the dot, but what about when there isn’t? The banksters will say no, you’re not entitled to anything because you had a time certain in which to cure your (allegedly) defaulted loan and that time has come and gone.
    And how about if your alleged beneficiary changes after your NOD?
    (Like it used to be MERS (gag) and after the NOD, there was an assgt to a new (alleged) beneficiary?)
    I don’t think we’re going to find any answers in law on the books per se (but maybe), because this crap never used to happen. You got a NOD, a sale date was set and met, and that was it unless you fought. But, really, it’s just a big load to think a homeowner should have to be hanging out in the wind for an extended time and then maybe come home and find an eviction notice on the door. The banksters will say well you got to live in the home for a long time for free. Anyone who thinks that is beneficial has never lived thru it.
    It seems we need some new legislation of our own.

  26. @hman – fwiw: MERS has nothing to do with the transfer of servicing rights (curious what in your case made you think it did), altho those transfers are supposed to be entered on its system (and I think that’s mostly what WAS entered, not transfers of loans themselves) . Further, just for general info, unlike some bald-face, mens rea lie in at least one piece of bankster-dog doo I read, servicing transfers have never, ever been recorded in public records. Might you be talking about a purported assignment to aurora from “MERS” – likely read aurora employee? If so, who signed the assignment?
    In the absence of an evidenced agreement passing muster, a servicer has no right to substitute a trustee.
    Aurora didn’t ‘transfer’ the loan to the ST. Aurora just appointed a sub trustee, sounds like – the real ben hasn’t changed since aurora was only the servicer (is that right – just servicer?) Need to know if there were an assgt from anyone of the dot to aurora. (And I still have questions myself about aurora loan services, llc now being called aurora bank or aurora bank somehow taking over als’ ‘stuff’. Heard it had to do with als’ bk but haven’t found it ….yet.)
    Aurora I heard is selling most if not all its servicing portfoliio to
    NationStar. I don’t know who is your alleged beneficiary. Can’t be any help, if I could at all, without that info. Well, if I take it that there were an assgt of the dot to Aurora who then sub’d the trustee, if aurora only sold the servicing to Nationstar and not the loan itself, Nationstar wouldn’t need an assgt of the dot. Course, in order for aurora to sell the loan to NationStar, and not just the servicing, aurora would have had to own it. Imo, if als doesn’t own the note, als shouldn’t have gotten an assgt of the dot in the first place. But that’s a big battle at this point.
    Never minding the rest of it for a minute, one question seems to be:
    can one lender or even trustee proceed on the notice of default of another? I would think not. The NOD told you whom to contact (for instance) ….that has changed.

  27. This is why MERS avoided the word ‘agent’ and opted for ‘nominee’ (tho MERS and its members have subsequently decided the coast is clear and allege agency)

    Agents and principals;
    Agents and the third parties with whom they deal on their principals’ behalf; and
    Principals and the third parties when the agents purport to deal on their behalf.
    The common law principle in operation is usually represented in the Latin phrase, qui facit per alium, facit per se, i.e. the one who acts through another, acts in his or her own interests and it is a parallel concept to
    Vicarious Liability and
    Strict Liability
    in which one person is held LIABLE in criminal law or tort for the acts or omissions of another.

    The only thing the deed of trust says MERS may do (and MERS didn’t do it – it’s members did in its name, which is a scam and that’s being kind) is to foreclose SUBJECT TO CUSTOM OR LAW. What custom? What law? No where in the deed of trust is “MERS” authorized to execute assignments. Therefore, if such authority exists, it must be found in another document. It isn’t found anywhere. The only ref to assignments which I’m aware of in ANY document is in the membership agreement wherein MERS grants members (this is sooo tweaked) the authority to assign deeds of trust to non-members (only). No document on this planet which has come to light authorizes “MERS”, the alleged nominal beneficiary, to execute assignments or to authorize others to do so. You can’t grant a right you don’t have, not even by pretend or legitimate resolution.
    Remember, if you will, MERS could have called itself the agent* of the beneficiary (with an appropriate, expressed agreement between MERS and the true ben and that could have been spelled out in another agreement) instead of calling itself the beneficiary (as nominee), but they did NOT want anything to do with ‘agency’. Now they want to and are pretending that’s not so. An agent is liable to its principal (and maybe others) for its acts and the principal is liable to anyone harmed by its agent.
    *XYZ Lender is the beneficiary of this deed of trust and MERS is its agent”
    Two things I’m trying to convey: 1) MERS is not an agent (no such thing as implied agency in regard to real estate and ratification doesn’t cut it, either) 2) MERS is not authorized to execute – or appoint others – to execute assignments in its name.
    If I’m right, are these assignments void or merely voidable? I think they’re void.

    MERS HAS TO GO

  28. http://www.scribd.com/doc/40664635/MERS-Appellants-Brief-MERS-v-Nebraska-Dept-of-Banking-Filed-15-Oct-2004 In the Nebraska case MERS states what is necessary to win the case. In most states MERS claims to be the beneficiary and is closing in MERS name, until caught then they become the nominee beneficiary, then they become another claim all together, what ever is needed to fool the judge.

  29. From MERS v Traylor et al MERS’ appeal reply brief, 09-00669, NV DC, dkt 23, p. 10, 09/04/09 (compare to f a c t s (MERS held notes?) and what MERS told Nebraska to avoid licensing in 2004 / 2005:

    “the uncontroverted evidence before the court demonstrated that it (MERS -sic) was the holder of the promissory note….”

    “MERS argued to the Bk Court that it had standing …….in those case(s) in which MERS was not the note holder….” (oh, really, when was MERS a note holder?)

    ” Even if the Trustee (bk trustee – sic) were correct in his assertions
    about agency, which MERS does not concede, MERS – in its own
    capacity as NOTE HOLDER (my emphasis)……….”

    MERS claimed to be the note holder. The brief was signed by attorney Jeffrey A. Silvestri in Las Vegas.

    A personal favorite – Aurora claims to be the agent of its own alleged agent, MERS:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/49520736/MERS-member-Aurora-Loan-Services-claims-it-is-Agent-for-MERS

    The above is a proof of claim filed on June 22, 2005 and signed by
    attorney Edward A. Treder # 9661

  30. http://www.scribd.com/doc/48446937/Wilhelm-Opinion

    Discussion of the UCC and who may enforce a note. Must prove the transaction by which the note was acquired. The transferee’s rights must be proven. MERS may not assign the note, as it purports to do in assignments of the deed of trust. Compare, too, with more recent decision regarding MERS in MERS v Johnston (MERS is No One) .

  31. And under Rule 17 of FRCP and Rule 7017 (think it is) in bankruptcy, a mere holder of a bearer note might nonetheless not be the real party in interest as required by that rule because when one party tries to enforce the rights of another, that party is not the real party in interest. Not sure how this stacks up with a bearer’s right to enforce a note. A holder of a bearer note may have the RIGHT to enforce an unsecured note, but it nonetheless does not do so for its own account. It’s inescapable that in this mess, the bankster is attempting to enforce the rights of others (when it is not allegedly the sec’n trust trustee after us – and I’d like to see evidence it is in fact the trustee being represented – remember, members and others acted for MERS without MERS even knowing it) and not for his own account. (That is, IF the trust is the noteowner) The rpii must prosecute the action itself or the non-party in interest must join the rpii. Failure to join the rpii is, I think, an affirmative defense and might even be fatal to any complaint brought by one other than the rpii. So one might add that to your response if you’re in Fed court or look for mirror real party in interest state statutes if in state court (right after an attack on the assignment of the coll instrument to a party who does not own the note). Lay opinion only! Helpful info:

    1) Re-read Hwang for a refresher on real parties in interest:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/28524908/In-re-KANG-JIN-HWANG-and-IndyMac-Bank

    2) This case discusses who is a holder and what constitutes admissable evidence:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/53179598/Aurora-Loan-Services-is-NOT-Holder-of-Note-Wisconsin-Appeal

    3) MERS 2007 on the UCC:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/50171939/MERS-discussion-of-the-UCC-in-Motion-to-Dismiss

    4) Lengthy but good discussion of assignment for the purpose of
    litigation / collection – a granddaddy case

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/48254612/MERS-COLLUSION-IN-THE-ASSIGNMENT-OF-DEEDS-OF-TRUST-AND-DIVERSITY

  32. type in case law state of Nevada mortgage fraud and state of Nevada lack of standing and you may find Nevada case law alreadyi won and go to the court house and look at the case or print them out and use this to help you on your case. Same with any state. For US. Case law look up Bains V MERS and the Amicuas curiea filed by Shawn Martin supporting the Bains case and the Amicus curiea filed by AG Rob McKenna supporting the Bains case. Great case law for every state in these. If you have BOA in any state and had RECONTRUST involved look up Washington State V RECONTRUST filed by AG Rob McKenna and you will find the descriptions of the statutes to pull up your state laws and statutes to file against BOA and [RECONTRUST, WHO IS UNLAWFUL IN EVERY STATE.] i BELIEVE MERS IS UNLAWFUL FOR THE SAME REASONS AS RECONTRUST ALSO. MERS nor RECONTRUST WERE REGISTERED TO BE DOING BUSINESS IN ANY STATE BESIDES THE USUAL MERS ISSUES. MERS AND RECONTRUST have been pulling fraud assignments off the county records without public knowledge trying to hide the crime. My sons fraud assignments by MERS have all been removed from Pierce County records in WA and RECONTRUST has issues a notice of withdrawl of foreclosure and discontinuance of sale due to they are all unlawful. The family I posted yesterday has a complaint filed against them after applying for a mod, with the bank asking for recinding RECONTRUST foreclosure and requesting quiet title due to the bank does not have clear title. What a fraudd they tried to pull. A friend in california had RECONTRUST file the initial foreclosure and recinded it without disclosure they recinded RECONTRUST and filed another forclosing company to go after them. Only in ALL the ABOVE RECONTRUST filed the assignment to transfer to the new foreclosing party. Now if they are unlawful to be doing business in the state how can they file a new assignment. I can only assume they dont have that authority either.

  33. Sorry—but this is too, too funny—@enraged said:

    “Do you have to post over and over the same illegible, poorly formulated and even more poorly written rants, from completely unreliable sources who have proved to be confirmed mental cases with a pack mentality and no reasoning ability, to boot? ”

    (enraged—it was written by ANONYMOUS.)

    And then enraged said:

    “Pathetic! Now I see why Anonymous decided to drop out of this site: too many ignorant, vengeful, mean losers. He knew damn well that whatever he had to say couldn’t be understood by most here.”

    ALL OF THE STUFF I POSTED WAS WRITTEN BY ANONYMOUS.

    So—@enraged, you are sticking up for Anonymous—and saying you don’t understand what he is saying—and also criticizing his “rants”.

    I didn’t write that stuff—ANONYMOUS DID.

  34. @betse robbins, Until I am proved wrong, I stand by what I’ve said.
    A holder of a note endorsed in blank who is not a transferee of that note, but has ‘mere’ possession (even a thief apparently), who has not negotiated to itself the sale and transfer of the rights inherent to a note, but does have possession, if a negotiable instrument subject to Article III of the UCC, is entitled to enforce an unsecured note but has no right to an assignment of the collateral instrument. That right would only accrue to a transferee of the note, not one in mere possession. And while the right to an assignment of the collateral instrument does accrue to a transferee, the transferee doesn’t even have the assignment until it is properly executed and delivered to the transferee.
    Another document would be necessary to evidence any right of the
    holder of a bearer instrument to receive an assignment of the collateral for the actual transferee’s benefit for any reason. That document could be a servicing agreement, a power of attorney, or any other agreement which expressly (key word) authorizes a holder of the note to receive an assignment of the collateral instrument. And that agreement must conform to the statute of frauds.
    In one pending case, the homeowner has alleged that the assignment of the collateral instrument to the servicer has bifurcated the note and deed of trust because the note is admittedly owned by a party other than the servicer (who I think but can’t recall for certain alleges possession of a bearer note). Imo the only way that isn’t true is if the servicer can produce a written agreement pre-dating the assignment which expressly, not impliedly, authorizes the assignment to the servicer on behalf of the noteowner. I can’t say anymore here.

  35. @dying – but isn’t that exactly what the role of the court is? to interpret and enforce the law? you say that the law is what it is, not what they say it is. since the courts and judges are the only people who can rule on the law, then I don’t understand your point. you seem to think that the words have an implicit meaning, but everyone can read things differently, including you and I. having one group with the final word is exactly the point of the judicial system.

  36. I WOULD TELL EVERYBODY TO BE CAREFUL AND READ YOUR UCC VERY WELL!

    In NY the UCC is very well written to take care of the issues being raised by Matt Weidner.

    Section 3–104. Form of Negotiable Instruments; “Draft”; “Check”;
    “Certificate of Deposit”; “Note”.
    (1) Any writing to be a negotiable instrument within this Article must
    (a) be signed by the maker or drawer; and
    (b) contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum
    certain in money and no other promise, order, obligation or
    power given by the maker or drawer except as authorized by
    this Article; and
    (c) be payable on demand or at a definite time; and
    (d) be payable to order or to bearer.
    (2) A writing which complies with the requirements of this section is
    (a) a “draft” (“bill of exchange”) if it is an order;
    (b) a “check” if it is a draft drawn on a bank and payable on
    demand;
    (c) a “certificate of deposit” if it is an acknowledgment by a
    bank of receipt of money with an engagement to repay it;
    (d) a “note” if it is a promise other than a certificate of
    deposit.
    (3) As used in other Articles of this Act, and as the context may
    require, the terms “draft”, “check”, “certificate of deposit” and “note”
    may refer to instruments which are not negotiable within this Article as
    well as to instruments which are so negotiable.

    Section 3–105. When Promise or Order Unconditional.
    (1) A promise or order otherwise unconditional is not made conditional
    by the fact that the instrument
    (a) is subject to implied or constructive conditions; or
    (b) states its consideration, whether performed or promised, or
    the transaction which gave rise to the instrument, or that
    the promise or order is made or the instrument matures in
    accordance with or “as per” such transaction; or
    (c) refers to or states that it arises out of a separate
    agreement or refers to a separate agreement for rights as to
    prepayment or acceleration; or
    (d) states that it is drawn under a letter of credit; or
    (e) states that it is secured, whether by mortgage, reservation
    of title or otherwise; or
    (f) indicates a particular account to be debited or any other
    fund or source from which reimbursement is expected; or
    (g) is limited to payment out of a particular fund or the
    proceeds of a particular source, if the instrument is issued
    by a government or governmental agency or unit; or
    (h) is limited to payment out of the entire assets of a
    partnership, unincorporated association, trust or estate by
    or on behalf of which the instrument is issued.
    (2) A promise or order is not unconditional if the instrument
    (a) states that it is subject to or governed by any other
    agreement; or
    (b) states that it is to be paid only out of a particular fund or
    source except as provided in this section.
    Section 3–106. Sum Certain.
    (1) The sum payable is a sum certain even though it is to be paid
    (a) with a stated rate of interest or by stated installments; or
    (b) with stated different rates of interest before and after
    default or a specified date; or
    (c) with a stated discount or addition if paid before or after
    the date fixed for payment; or
    (d) with exchange or less exchange, whether at a fixed rate or at
    the current rate; or
    (e) with costs of collection or an attorney’s fee or both upon
    default.
    (2) For the purposes of subsection one of this section “a stated rate
    of interest” shall also include a rate of interest that cannot be
    calculated by looking only to the instrument but which is readily
    ascertainable by a reference in the instrument to a published statute,
    regulation, rule of court, generally accepted commercial or financial
    index, compendium of interest rates, or announced rate of a named
    financial institution.
    (3) Nothing in this section shall validate any term which is otherwise
    illegal.

  37. @nora – how do you go from “just deny the note and the case will be tossed” to “denying the note will get you 5 seconds in front of the judge” all in the same day? still not making sense…

  38. tnharry,
    Why don’t you see the States’ and US Court Judges and Justices “as being a danger to the public for” spewing “so much inaccurate, misleading, and harmful information” as to what the Law is?

    Because the Law is what the Law says, NOT what they say it says (like the Game Telephone).

  39. Well, maybe the Notes aren’t negotiable instruments (and I have seen the banksters aver they aren’t in two pleadings. I reviewed a lot of cases over these years, but compared to what’s out there, my review is actually very, very limited, so Lord knows how many other times the banksters claimed article 9 reliance in ‘early’ cases). If the notes aren’t neg instruments, then is the (only) alternative article 9, wherein the notes would actually be assigned by separate agreement (and not by end. on the note, and btw, an allonge does not qualify, as an allonge is to be permanently attached so that it is a part of the note)? Clearly MERS is not the party to do such an assgt of a note as is being foisted on us and courts routinely. (Is that the scam? Have “MERS” (read member) assign the notes by ‘separate agreement’, that is, in the assignment of the dot? Is that what that’s all about? Pretending MERS is assigning notes pursuant to Article 9?!) For whatever reason, including an assignment of the note in an assgt of the dot by “MERS” is insane.
    Except when they get away with it.

    Cripes. They can’t do that. That leaves another agreement. The only other agreement we know of is the PSA. Is a recitation in a PSA of the loans at issue for that PSA the legally correct, governing document, then, of what notes are being assigned to the trust? Are there words in the PSA, an agreement separate from the physicality of the note, sufficient to factually convey the notes under Article 9? If Article 9 is the bomb, then why call for endorsements of notes in PSA’s, if they do call for endorsement? Was this all (the PSA) double-speak for the duped investors who only bought payment rights? Are the notes factually being assigned to the trust, or would whatever recitation is there merely evidence which notes the derivative holders were entitled to the payment stream(s) on, that is to say, the notes themselves were NOT actually transferred? Maybe someone who has reviewed more PSA’s than most of us will weigh in on the precise language.

    Deeds of trust, which I swear are regulated by the Statute of Frauds, may nonetheless be assigned en masse. I’ve seen it. As I recall, it was when one lender sold loans to another. They would execute a blanket assignment, although each property was separately identified therein. Where I’ve seen it is itself informative imo. It was at the recorder’s office. No such thing as a “secret” when it came to those assignments. They were properly recorded and therefore noticed.
    Last but no way least imo, can parties agree that an instrument which might otherwise be negotiable is going to be transferred by way of separate agreement / assignment (v endorsement?) And if so, once such an agreement has been reached, can that note later be treated as a negotiable instrument by those parties or other parties? (This one is to cover all possible bases in this querry. If the answer is no, then they can for sure take their ‘bearer’ notes and put them where the sun don’t shine.) Attorney Weidner has it right. The original game plan seems to be formulated around Article 9 (altho still messed up), but especially after MERS’ Consent Order, it became more convenient – grrrr – to rely on and sell Article 3′s bearer provisions to the judiciary.
    It’s hard to make good arguments without more answers (and for those, we apparently need to get familiar with Gardner’s once
    oft-criticized isms).
    We might not have our own PSA’s, but there are probably lots of other PSA’s online to look for common language which might support the PSA’s reliance on Article 9 (except for the probable
    double-speak which made investors believe they were buying notes, not derivatives).

  40. Nora, thanks for responding to my question. Can you tell me where I could find something about Fannie admitting the notes are not negotiable? It would likely be the missing piece to win my case.

  41. I really don’t understand, if I got it right, the decision in Sims. The
    court found Florida to be the governing law and not Georgia, which
    would ring true had the note been executed in FL. It appears to
    have been executed in New Jersey, which should be the governing
    law state. The governing law is not determined by the state of
    residency (the sims lived in FL); it’s determined by the location of the execution of the contract…….New Jersey in this case.

  42. @tnharry & usedkarguy

    Yes, I meant at the origination. Yes to all your questions harry. I asked that question because I heard Catherine Austin Fitts say that the borrowers best direction in subprime is fraudulent inducement. I am not an attorney and am trying to understand. Thank you for such a comprehensive answer. I have gone the gamut over the last 7 years of this loan and all I have ever wanted is to know how I have been harmed. I intend to continue to proceed with caution. I go on this site and others so I can understand from knowledgeable people how to win in court with an awesome litigator. I’m not looking for a settler, I am looking for an intelligent person who loves to win.

    I know the law moves slowly even if foreclosure moves lightening fast and in your opinion has enough good case law been decided in which a borrower who has been truly harmed can survive to a trial? Thank you once again.

  43. Fingers!!!! I need to proof read my post. I am always in a hurry doing things between my posting.

  44. Everytime there is a law suit, truth comes out in witness testimony and pointing fingures at each other and it is a win for us by becoming evidence for us. We gain from their battles. Also more trouble for the banks makes me smiley happy. Discovery of the facts and case law is set and that is good for us. These shareholders have money or think they have money to pay top lawyers that drag discovery out of them and more of the fraud is unraveled and proof of the crime. This can only help us. In Deutsche bank V FDIC/WAMU, Chase admits they dont own the loans just assumed the servicing rights. The proof of the extention of the purchasing assumption was brought out and Deutsche by their own hands in their own law suit claims the PSA’s were not delivered on time and were faulty. Proving Deutsche does not own my loan as they claimed.

  45. Excuse my interrupting. And the fact that I’m a bit dense. But how does that help homeowners. The bank continues to blame bad mortgages for its plight. Doesn’t it?

    This suit is between the investors and the bank. No help for homey types there

  46. FORECLOSURE cases–denying the debt exists will get you about five seconds in front of the judge, especially if you’re pro se. The point is, as Neil has pointed out many times in various articles; there are only two ways to extinguish debt, tendering payment or obtaining waiver or forgivenesss. If your case is not about foreclosure and obtaining the truth about who you really owe the money to, then why get your feathers ruffled? I hope you nail their asses, Martha. Make them squirm, crap their pants, whatever. Jail is as appetizing as a bowl of spit, I don’t care who you are. I want to see some of these criminals behind bars whether they committed forgery, securities fraud, filed false claims, manipulated interest rates, inflated appraisals, switched out assets and triple pledged Notes. Seems like we all want that. So why does the narrative always go off the edge of the cliff? We all have that feeling in the back of our minds that we aren’t going to get a fair shake even though we know we’ve been shafted. We face a court by ourselves, because we can’t afford or can’t find an attorney, blinded by bullshit and baffled by stuff we don’t fully understand because we haven’t held a seat on the NYSE for 45 years like these criminals. Are we at a disadvantage? Uh huh. Are we QUITTING? Nope, not me. It’s why I’m here reading and trying. If I win, I’m going to buy everyone here a postage stamp so they can mail their letter to congress and demand criminal prosecution of the DOJ! I want to smell banker ass burning here in the US like it did in Iceland, and IMHO we should work together to bring that about, rather than participate in forum frays that accomplish nothing. There just isn’t anything to be gained by name calling and critisizing. Post stuff, spread information and help fight our real enemies, Wall Street banks and the government they own.

  47. There are no sides. this is rediculous.

  48. And tn

    Wonder what made us crazy????

    0 due process. 0 redress

  49. For clarification, (TBFAIR) I myself thought Nora was speaking as in getting the case tossed was a BAD thing, as it is for me as I AM THE PLAINTIFF, but maybe she is speaking about non jd states?

    Nora wrote that people should say:
    “Your honor, is THIS party who claims to be the creditor, entitled to a judgment of foreclosure based on these naked claims, in this court of law? In all cases the answer is “nope.”

    MY CASE IS NOT A FORECLOSURE CASE. Its fraud forgery and identity theft, yet al lot of the same things need to be investigated, as that is how I found out I was a victim of INDYMACS STRAW MAN SCHEME.

    If you think you signed, then your in for a world of hurt in court. An accounting is only going to show the judge what a sweet free ride you have enjoyed, DON’T DO IT! Find FORGERY! Find FRAUD!

  50. what an interesting turn of events – the crazies are turning on each other…

  51. @Nora Said,
    Martha,
    1. If you just deny the debt, you WILL get your case tossed.

    3.There’s a great deal of info here, but it requires sifting out what’s relevant to your case, and the research about your local statutes is your responsibility.

    The case for the majority of us should be, “Your honor, is THIS party who claims to be the creditor, entitled to a judgment of foreclosure based on these naked claims, in this court of law? In all cases the answer is “nope.”

    4.Getting the judge to give you that answer demands careful presentation of evidence and a lucid statement of claims rather than a rant of “I got screwed.”

    Gee Nora, have you even READ what happened in my CASE!

    1. Just denying the debt is not what will toss a case, its failure to state a claim, and the courts being crooked, as in CLERKS intentionally setting forward date stamps to make my papers late. Caught em red handed!

    My case is NOT ABOUT DEBT, its about two crooks in prison who had me come into FATCO and sign deeds of trust on LOT 256, and then they created FORGERIES of DOTS on lot 107, and its called the STRAW MAN SCHEME.

    Once upon a time, in a land called Los Angeles, there was a great BANKSTER, named MICHAEL PERRY, at the kingdom of INDYMAC, and he and his best-buds at HOVNANIAN/CALPERS had a sweet lilt deal goin in a lil burb they called STETSON RANCH i Santa Clarita.

    They would have all these VICTIMS sign deeds on trust on a lot, and then have them sign another set, in their FULL NAME, and secretly sell them a different lot. Then they toold the INDYMAC and COUNTRYWIDE LOAN MINS off them and placed a different set on the forgeries.

    MICHAEL PERRY had lots of helpers, and a realitive, SUSAN PERRY ran the HOA there, so all the secret lots could be hidden.

    They would sell one lot to Mark La Ferr, and another in secret to Stanley M. Ferr La

    I DO DENY THE DEBT, as I DID NOT SIGN THE BLASTED DOCUMENTS and the LOAN numbers are NOT THE RIGHT ONES, and the ESCROW AGENT Donna Demello is doing HARD TIME, or soft, as I think they have goose-down beads at Club Fed.

    and 2. ’2.The truth is what you must demand from the “pretender lender” who’s trying to steal your house.”

    WHAT WORLD DO YOU LIVE IN?
    I know the TRUTH, I was there! I don’t need to demand the truth as I HAVE IT. DONNA is in jail for cryin out loud!

    this is the most useless info and its worthless to ANYONE, well excect of course all parties should request accounting, (in my case) but in the average home owner. Why do you need a damm accounting, so you can show the Judge how much of a dead beat you really are in black and white?

    and ” you said,
    4.Getting the judge to give you that answer demands careful presentation of evidence and a lucid statement of claims rather than a rant of “I got screwed.”

    The judge is not going to give you any answer! My claims are crystal clear, in case you even bother to read my statements about my case.

    I am a victim in a straw man loan scheme, and was kept off ALL the contracts and everything until the day of singing, and I signed on LOT 256, a house down the street, and they recorded different loan numbers to forgeries on LOT 107.
    IS THIS CLEAR?

    They even conveyed me LOT 107 in secret the on the 13th, the day AFTER I signed lot 256 deeds and saw the LOT 256 Grant deed!

    The court does NOT want this STORY out. The press is owned by the banks.

    Its obvious whom your master is Nora, and deny it al you want, but people who seem to be overeducated on here and write about all these complicated issues people should present, and stuff is just sending them down a rabbit hole.

    See, I was there that day, and I saw DONNA DEMELLO, and I had the lot 256 grant deed in my hand. I have the truth, and win or lose, they GAVE me lot 107 in secret only to try to harm me, and the deeds on it are VOID.

  52. @tnhairy
    Thanks for all the compliments on my advice, but that advice came directly from Matt Weidner, and from Neil Garfield, repeatedly. I don’t think they worry too much about your dissing their advice, because you have something negative to say about everyone and everything, which destroys your credibility. I hope your keyboard breaks from the strain of all the mean and stupid things you write while passing judgement on everyone who tries to empower or help one another here. Don’t you have anything productive to do? You have plenty of time, obviously, why don’t you pull that stick out of your ass dude?
    I don’t recall asking for your opinion. I can’t wait to see you swing from the cyber gallows. (snicker) yawn.

  53. Guess what.

    The laws are eing changed de facto by the banks. Think “lawless”. UCC be d_____d. The banks are doing their think and there is NO ONE to stop them!

    We just go “nattering” on. Right mr editor. We’re all prophets with nothing to do, no money to spend, and for too many of us, no roof over our heads.

    Let them eat cake!

  54. @LV – assuming as usedkar did that your fraudulent inducement relates to signing the note and deed of trust, you would have to show that 1) someone made a statement or omission to you that was a misrepresentation of a material fact, 2) that said misrepresentation caused you to enter the contract, 3) that you relied on the misrepresentation, and 4) that you’ve suffered damages. additionally, fraud must be pled with particularity or specificity. not that it can’t be done, but it’s usually fairly hard to do. i wouldn’t want it to be my sole basis for relief. couple it with other causes of action. you’ll need to prove exactly how you were mislead, and more specifically that the mislead matter is what caused you to enter the contract as opposed to other reasons.

    but perhaps most important, a successful claim of fraudulent inducement probably wouldn’t result in anything you want. the contract is void, but that means you go back to where you were pre-contract. if you want out of your mortgage and the house, it may work fine for you. if not, then it could be a case of be careful what you ask for…

  55. We can take it if someone disagrees and feel it is incorrect info, but the the name calling is not acceptable. I feel like I am in a kindergarten class here when all the name calling kicks in. I did not like this kind of name calling in kinder care etiher and I dont like it here. We are all trying to seek help here and opinions are welcome and constructive critisim is acceptable. I am a big girl. I feel like the old saying Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. It is a waste of energy. Being corrected and directed the right way is a good thing and the reason I come onto this sight. This kind of pitch forking each others asses prevents the good and detures the good people from this site. Yes if Neil could step in and correct a wrong opinion and help us that would be grand. None of us want to learn the wrong information. His opinion is highly respected by me.

  56. Pardon me I meant to type “THIS IS “[NOT"] SIMPLE”

  57. neil has some information and articles on the left side column to help you with most all banks. what should be simple to prove is not and I believe the judges prefer to side with the banks and some are going by bank law and not the rule of law. So you had better put a lot of proof together and get legal advice and help in everyway, cause the case will be tossed out of court in a wink of an eye, if you think it is simple. I wish I had the info and the help I have found in this blogg two years ago and I am still learning. I see attorneys loosing the cases. Even when the argument is good. The cases are often won in the higher court and most of the time never the first time around. Make sure you have all the proof you can pile up. Look at case law that has won and catch everything you can on this blogg and others. This is simple . It is very technical. Here is another concern. Dont allow anyone including the bank to pay the property taxes for you. You may find the bank owns it legally by a method of paying your taxes for a period of time. I have paid my property taxes and my second even though I am not paying my first mortgage, since Melissa Huelsman told me not to pay the mortgage company one more dime after mod fraud happened.
    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/07/10/elderly-minority-homeowners-lose-homes-over-as-little-as-400/.

  58. Harry, I think he’s referring to the “inducement” to take the mortgage and sign ze papers. There was never any intent on the part of the bank to allow the homeowner/buyer/borrower to actually “acquire” the property and fulfill his side of the deal. The contracts were made so as to force a default at a later date. Fraud in the inducement may include the over-appraisal of the asset, the misrepresentation of the “qualification of the borrower” with bogus underwriting, etc. But, you are the attorney. I am just a, uh, well, uh, litigant? Thanks Harry.
    And Deb, I left the name off the posting for a reason. If you e-mail me, I can send you the case history/info. And there is no ROCK in my eye; some of these people ARE idiots! Like I said, no one is monitoring what’s posted and lots of BAD INFORMATION is being dispensed by these people who really don’t understand the law. Neil, as the attorney and founder of the site, should be monitoring/commenting on what is incorrect advice.

  59. And, enraged—you need to take some responsibility for your own actions and words. You attack and judge and make rude comments—and then call someone “mean” for defending themselves…wake up to your own faults, instead of harping on everyone else’s.

  60. @enraged

    Just FYI—all the recent info I posted was from ANONYMOUS.

  61. Hello,

    Sorry to go off track. Got a situation I’d like some ideas on.

    Here are the facts.

    Original “Lender” Gone and out of business. Servicing transfered to Aurora via the magical MERS. Aurora appoints substitute trustee (Local law firm). Substitute trustee intiates foreclosure. OK so here’s where my questions start.

    When Aurora transfered the loan to the S.T. it was taken out of MERs name because S.T. is not a MERS member. Couple of months into the foreclosure Aurora loans are sold to Nationstar. Foreclosure does not stop and Trustee proceeds as usual.

    Couple of problems I see with this. First under FDCPA isn’t it a huge violation to transfer a non-performing loan? 2nd. The title record is not correct. There is no assignment from Aurora to Nationstar yet the trustee intends to proceed with sale. Additionally, any transfer of title will have to be done via county recorder/clerk because it has been taken out of MERS name. Is this assumption correct? When a substitute trustee is recorded doesn’t that transfer the loan out of MERS name (assuming S.T. is not a MERS member?)

    Doesn’t the trustee (in AZ) also have a fiduciary responsibility to the homeowner as well? Wouldn’t the trustee have some liability to make sure their clients are correct? I’ve seen cases that say the trustee represents both and I’ve seen some where it says they represent the lender.

    Any ideas where to go from here?

  62. @lv – fraudulent inducement to do what?

  63. @tn

    All this info that is posted is great, but all I want to figure out is what happened to us and how to proceed. I understand the financial community has done some horrific things, but is it relevant to me? What matters in court is all I want at this point.

    My question of the week: How do I prove (evidence) fraudulent inducement? Thank you in advance.

  64. @nora c – “just deny the debt and the judge will toss your case”. great advice Nora. that won’t even work in the 22 states that do judicials once they produce the note with your signature and endorsements in their name. what about the other 28 states where you won’t see a judge? has this worked for you personally? please stop giving others advice, especially when it’s so completely wrong

  65. @enraged — you’ll be back. it’s too entertaining to stay away for long. what’s sad is that some people come here seeking help amidst all the nonsense. i wonder how many have given up after seeking help here and finding the crazies. it’s tragic really that this site, which is curated and managed by a licensed attorney, is allowed to go so far down nonsensical rabbit holes on a daily basis. if I was in Neil’s shoes, i’d be concerned that the site bearing my name has become a place filled with so much inaccurate, misleading, and harmful information to the extent that it’s not such a leap to deem Neil as being a danger to the public for attorney disciplinary proceedings.

  66. “The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking.” – George Carlin

  67. Pathetic! Now I see why Anonymous decided to drop out of this site: too many ignorant, vengeful, mean losers. He knew damn well that whatever he had to say couldn’t be understood by most here. He knows people are full of it. Lots of noise, very little action. And a mean streak a mile long, to boot! Pack mentality.

    People attract what happens to them with their ignorance, their navel-of-the-world mentality, their sucky attitude and their hate. I’m out of here. Not worth wasting my time.

    What a pathetic testimony to the American mind (or lack thereof), ignorance and plain stupidity. They gave power to their banks and now, they cry foul! They can’t read, hardly can write, can’t align two words together: the true result of an atrocity called “Multiple-choice education”. Nothing ever studied in depth, no general culture, they think they are the center of the universe. Pathetic!

    You get what you pay for…

  68. The third city in California to go bankrupt. To the judges who dont get it. Pretty soon you will be receiving Food Stamps.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-11/san-bernardino-bankruptcy/56142392/1

    NEVER AGAIN.

  69. usedkarguy- no ones an idiot ok dont pick out the splinter in others eyes when theres a rock in your own….BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR POSTS THEY ARE EXCELLENT STUFF. you are very lucky that you had great help and honest attorneys to get your case moving in the right plain. what ever any one of us does- it counts because its in a conciousness of good and not all profit driven, the profit may not be seen for decades. the real profit. I wish yOU VICTORY YOU DESERVE IT I KNOW HOW LONG YOU HAVE BEEN FIGHTING , PLEASE MAY I HAVE YOUR CASE NUMBER COURT ECT.

  70. One of us already posted Max’s article with all that somewhere in the comments A LONG time ago

  71. Martha,
    If you just deny the debt, you WILL get your case tossed. The truth is what you must demand from the “pretender lender” who’s trying to steal your house. There’s a great deal of info here, but it requires sifting out what’s relevant to your case, and the research about your local statutes is your responsibility.
    The case for the majority of us should be, “Your honor, is THIS party who claims to be the creditor, entitled to a judgment of foreclosure based on these naked claims, in this court of law? In all cases the answer is “nope.” Getting the judge to give you that answer demands careful presentation of evidence and a lucid statement of claims rather than a rant of “I got screwed.”

  72. @guest
    yeah, the judge ruled on it. The Note was non-negotiable under FLA law and definitions. Fannie has also admitted Notes are not neg.

  73. Was this a successful defense or was this Matt’s view that Fannie notes are not negotiable? Did a judge agree that the Fannie notes are not negotiable?

  74. The average homeowner on here knows NOTHING about swaps.and LIBOR and any of this BS!

    God! The blather and endless repsosts is almost as bad as bad Shakespear! Who the heck can figure out the instriuctions in time to save the house! Its POLITICAL POLLUTION!

    All the average homeowner know is there job is NOT SECURE, (if they still have one)
    They are getting paid LESS- dollars for value.
    They were SCREWED.

    WHAT IMPROVEMENT IN YOUR LIFE IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS HAVE YOU SEEN (aside from someone smearing vasoline on your hiney, and its all soft-n-supple now.)

    NEVER GIVE UP! let them DRAG YOU OUT, and get it on VIDEO TAPE!

    even 50 years later, you might be compensated!

    I refuse to even give a rats arse about all the complicated BS they post on here, in the attempt to make you PLEAD this, ( and get tossed out of court)

    DENY THE DEBT. Plain and SIMPLE! and find the reason they FORGED your names, and did not “PAY OFF” the last loan you got!

  75. Damm! leaft off that S’ on the SHE, as Enraged is taking points to make sure we all no enrages is a woman, as if THIS MATTERS, and
    Enraged.. your no lady.

  76. Carries “Balls” are certainly bogger then mine! I feel a coward for nto fighting back, (to the Poser) SIC.

    But I have learned sometimes its better to let them dig their own graves.

    Who ON HERE would try to discredit another PATRIOT from doing what they can to help the other FRAUD VICTIMS?

    This is why all writings on here must be SUSPECT. the little moles and rats run amoke, and try to use smoke and mirrors to stop the average homeowner from gleaning ANY useful info on here.

    Why has enraged suddenly decided to call me vicious names and imply I am crazy, and on need all these drugs? Why does he take my book, and try to make it seem as though this “points” to my “unstable mind? What purpose would this serve???

    I try to be clear, and not muddy up the waters, and the postings are getting very murky..

    I think I am right on point about the REAL ISSUE of what has gone wrong by saying..
    “…yet the majority of the issue is all the past re-fi’s that were not actually satisfied…”

    IS THIS CRAZY??

    HOMEOWNER, do not get dragged into trying to present complex issues in court of that you will LOSE. FIND the FRAUD! and check to see if your signatures were FORGED, and then try to figure out WHY?
    WHy would they forge your signature? and SUBSTITUTE the documents.

    ASK in writing, or better yet NAME THEM IN COURT, and let them say the previous loan was SATISFIED, as it WAS NOT!

    It was all a big jacked up c-suckin Banksters circle jerK~!

  77. People who call other people names do so to help them feel superior…and to forget their own faults.

  78. A little excerpt from my adversary proceeding……
    And I still don’t know why I waste my time here. Neil, you should start running this site instead of letting it get hijacked by these idiots. Yeah, you know the idiots I’m talking about.

    this is from the BK adversary pleading…..we named all the attorneys AND the two law firms for racketeering……these guys keep throwing garbage motions to lift stay with bogus docs…..their dishonesty is very unbecoming for officers of the court.

    91. The crimongenic enterprise thrives on terrorizing citizen homeowners, misleading the courts and attempting to discourage the few attorneys who have been able to understand the
    complex fraud scheme and, through the Defendants and their identified law firms and attorneys joined herein, continues before this court, including, but not limited to:
    a. Fabricating and filing forged documents as described above and below;
    b. Misrepresenting the facts and the law, including but not limited to, the representations in paragraph 92 below, and
    (1) The statement of Defendant (Attorney X) in the Complaint in HSBC Bank USA vs. XXX, et al. in Kenosha County Case Number 09-CV-000 asserting HSBC Bank’s standing to sue the Plaintiffs when he knew that the mortgage note was
    facially made payable to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and was not endorsed in favor of any other person or entity (Exhibit A)
    (2) The statement of the Defendant Attorney X that HSBC Bank USA
    had standing to sue for foreclosure when there was no assignment of the mortgage recorded;
    (3) The statements of Defendant Attorney Y to the Kenosha County Circuit Court that the Plaintiffs admitted the standing of HSBC Bank in HSBC Bank USAvs. XXX, et al. in Kenosha County Case Number 09-CV-353 when he knew that the lay Plaintiffs were clearly, consistently and continuously contesting that allegation;
    (4) The continuing statements of Defendant Attorney Y to this court that Plaintiffs claim had been valued at $1.00 after the court was informed on the record of proceedings on January 23, 2012 that prior counsel for the Plaintiffs-Debtors had not known how to
    enter the term “unknown” for an asset value on E-Z Filing software and that the Plaintiffs had believed that the asset value of $1.00 meant “unknown” and suggesting that the data entry error proved the Plaintiffs to be swearing falsely under oath, even after new counsel explained the data entry error and assessed the value of the claim as much higher;
    (5) The statements of Defendant Attorney Z representing that final judgment had been entered in HSBC Bank USA vs. XXX, et al. in Kenosha County Case Number 09-CV-000 and that res judicata had attached to the proceedings when he knew that the foreclosure case had subsequently been dismissed without prejudice; and
    (6) The forged endorsement to the mortgage note robo-stamped bearing the signature of Joan M. Mills to mislead this court into believing that the note had been timely, properly and authentically endorsed in blank after the commencement of HSBC Bank
    USA vs. XXX, et al.
    92. On June 15, 2012, at the hearing on the Motion to Extend the deadline for filing this adversary proceeding on the basis of a newly filed false claim (#6) which required a total rewriting of the nearly-prepared draft of the adversary Complaint and the newly discovered
    evidence of the implications of the RESCAP, LLC bankruptcy on the draft of these adversary proceedings which intended to join Maiden Lane, LLC and the Federal Reserve Bank of New
    York as real parties in interest, Defendant Attorney Y urged dismissal with prejudice of these proceedings as an alternative to granting a properly sought extension to rewrite an entire pleading
    on 3 days notice and Defendant Attorney X, without having reviewed the asset list of the Maiden Lane, LLC and Exhibit B attached to the Motion for Extension, recklessly stated that he had no reason to believe that the Plaintiffs loan was collateral in the Maiden Lane, LLC TARP asset pool in order to allow the Plaintiffs’ attorney to move forward to plead the servicer of the Maiden Lane, LLC TARP asset pool, the bankrupt RESCAP, LLC, as a party responsible for the Plaintiffs’ damages.
    94. The Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of fabricating documents and filing forged documents throughout the State of Wisconsin (and the United States) in order to
    defraud homeowners, subordinate lienholders, courts (both state courts and bankruptcy courts) for the purpose of seizing homes through court processes and taking title thereto without having
    standing to do so.
    95. In order to accomplish the goal of seizing homes for profitable re-sale to which the Defendant banks and the Defendant law firms and lawyers know or should know upon even mere
    superficial inquiry that there is no competent evidence that the Defendant banks are entitled to payments or the remedy of foreclosure for nonpayment, forgeries and fabricated documents are transmitted to official administrative offices (the Registers of Deeds in Wisconsin) and to the courts (circuit, appellate, bankruptcy and federal district) by wire and mail.

  79. It’s now or never. Either people act and something might be done or people don’t and nothing will change. Simple.

    July 10, 2012 03:00 PM
    Robert Reich on Libor: Time To Demand Breakup of the Big Banks

    By Susie Madrak

    More on the Libor scandal, this time from Robert Reich, who explains what it really means for American investors. He says the time to scream for more bank reform is now:

    ‘There are really two different Libor scandals. One has to do with a period just before the financial crisis, around 2007, when Barclays and other banks submitted fake Libor rates lower than the banks’ actual borrowing costs in order to disguise how much trouble they were in. This was bad enough. Had the world known then, action might have been taken earlier to diminish the impact of the near financial meltdown of 2008.

    But the other scandal is even worse. It involves a more general practice, starting around 2005 and continuing until – who knows? it might still be going on — to rig the Libor in whatever way necessary to assure the banks’ bets on derivatives would be profitable.

    This is insider trading on a gigantic scale. It makes the bankers winners and the rest of us – whose money they’ve used for to make their bets – losers and chumps.

    What to do about it, other than hope the Justice Department and other regulators impose stiff fines and even criminal penalties, and hold executives responsible?

    When it comes to Wall Street and the financial sector in general, most of us suffer outrage fatigue combined with an overwhelming cynicism that nothing will ever be done to stop these abuses because the Street is too powerful. But that fatigue and cynicism are self-fulfilling; nothing will be done if we succumb to them.

    The alternative is to be unflagging and unflinching in our demand that Glass-Steagall be reinstituted and the biggest banks be broken up. The question is whether the unfolding Libor scandal will provide enough ammunition and energy to finally get the job done.’

    He’s right. There’s very little news coverage of this issue, thanks to a far-too-compliant corporate media. The bad guys managed to lobby Congress enough to yank the teeth out of Dodd-Frank, insisting the vast majority of bankers were doing the right thing and that they shouldn’t all be punished as a result.

    Boy, that little dog-and-pony show sounds hollow now.

  80. The deed of trust was recorded by Long Beach. Never transferred from Long Beach to anyone else. Title company was Old Republic. I had my docs analized by Neils group Luminique however I left the docs on my email and my computer tech deleted my emails and I have been trying for over four months to get it emailed to me again by Neils group. They emailed my proof of clouded title but not the rest of the combo report I paid $1295.00 for. I dont know the computers enough to save it on anything. When I get it again I will have the comp tech put it by itself on my screen. I am old school learning the computers. Still in kindergarten as far as computers go. The county has my county records sealed from public view for some reason right now. I think the bank did something to have it sealed. You can not even pull it up on public record by email now. I have copies of my public records from the country recordes office though. Makes me wonder how they can seal public records. It was on the county records. I took it by email. Now it states it is not available to view or print out.

  81. Reader – In my case WAMU/LONGBEACH endorsed the note into blank and cashed it.

    ** They did not cash it. The capitalized it into paid in capital – Legal !!!

    Reader – I have proof the note was suppose to be securitized.

    ** They never securtized the note (at least not like your thinking) they capitlized it out as servicing rights.

    Reader – PSA was left in blank also. The deed of trust in still on county records in Long Beach name with no transfers or assignments to anyone.

    ** The deed is was used to create a discounted bond. The financing is five years carved into fractional intersts held in 30 60 and 90 days paper.

    Question – It was recorded by who ? Was it ever delivered to the title company ? (Discovery)

    absfraud@inbox.com

  82. the argument fails if due process fails. procedure will cripple us first getting it right first time is almost impossible- so if you at first dont succeed, try try again.
    s shafer- devils advocate is a good thing but jeeze too complex at my stage of the game, but the foundations that we try to lay in court may just work out and get to the real meat and potatoes of the money that was stolen from this country and tax payer.

  83. Howdy folks… I’ve been away (doing more research than, should be done, by a person who isn’t in school:)

    As has been previoulsy stated by me, “I don’t have a soap-box… I really, in ALL honesty, do not care and probably could not care, anyless” (my motivation: To EARN the money I charge…)

    That being said; the subject of ‘Negotiable Instruments’ is a little more, up my current line of work (getting a refinery financed) and I can say that, the general public would be amazed at what becomes “Negotiable” and how.

    There are more knowledgeble people here but here is my take (and it’s usually spot-on).

    I went with one of my Clients (Plaintiff) to, one of their Court proceedings (fight against the ‘Servicer’) and the Defense Attorney (for the Servicer) made one of the most bizarre and shocking admissions… The Defense Attorney said, in open Court that, “THE NOTE IS BEARER-PAPER…” unquote

    Oddly enough, I think that, there were only 2 people, in that Court who, realised what had just been said (me and the guy whose eyes caught mine… none where Attorneys… the Attorney who made the statement, didn’t even realize, what he had just admitted to… keyword… ADMITTED).

    ALL modern-day (<10 years) Mortgage Notes are, in fact, BEARER-PAPER/form… … …

    The Notes are NOT negotiable because that would fundamentally, undermind the whole premise and institution of the 'Home Mortgage Loan', its security and validity. THIS HAS ZERO TO DO with the PSA/Prospectus or even the subject of Securitization… but, it does make the THEFT of the "subject property"… a whole LOT EASIER via PSA/Prospectus and Securitization …

    Since I am told that, everyone isn't always on the "same page" as me (my abnormal psych prof. told me I was crazy as well); maybe I'll break it down for the uninitiated…

    THE BUYING, SELLING AND/OR TRANSFERENCE OF 'BEARER PAPER' IS ILLEGAL; WITHIN THE 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' (and it's territories)…

    … hopefully some of those brain cells of yours are, starting to emit heat…

    … and now, enters… the… "N. A."… not North America but… the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION… the 'Foreign Companies'…

    Aaaaaauhhhh… if you don't get it…

    I think that, I'll go back to being crazy (it's a very short trip;).

    Have a good day and may the Lord bless you and yours…

    Danny,
    lowecommunityresourcepartners@live.com

  84. The industry set this whole system up so that the notes and mortgage would transfer via Article 9 of the UCC. . . .(?)

    Article 9 prevails over the transfer (possession is perfection) but Article 8 is far more substantive for purposes of the transfer. I’m lost here.

    So , the Mortgagor owns land and takes on an obligation by having mortgaged his land. The land is Collateral for the Security as the note is to the lenders Receivables.

    ** The receivables are for anticipated revenue from the economics of the obligation.

    On the land a farmer grows crops.

    ** The Crops create revenue from the economics held to the land.

    So, under a security deed, who is entitled to the revenue ?

  85. In my case WAMU/LONGBEACH endorsed the note into blank and cashed it. I have proof the note was suppose to be securitized. The PSA was left in blank also. The deed of trust in still on county records in Long Beaches name with no transfers or assignments to anyone.

  86. ……
    SEE on the web: FDIC & JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA’S P&A AGREEMENT DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE NOTES.
    The Purchase &Assumption Agreement between the FDIC & JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA for Washington Mutual Bank does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note.
    U. S. DISTRICT COURT CASE # CV10-0815 0D2 (FFMx)
    JAVAHIERI V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA et al:
    Order GRANTING in Part & DENYING in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint file April 28, 2011
    Decision can be found at http://www.chasechase.org/doxcc/Javaheri35Order.pdf
    US Code: TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part B > § 1641
    § 1641. Liability of assignees can be found at
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1641&url=/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001641—-000-.html
    From the decision”:

    C. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE & QUIET TITLE

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA’s assertion that the P&A Agreement suffices to establish their ownership of the Note is no longer viable. Indeed, the P&A Agreement does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note. (See Dkt. No. 10, Exh. 2.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has now sufficiently alleged that JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA did not own his Note and therefore did not have the right to foreclose.

    From Plaintiff’s memorandum of law attached:

    WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE – SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (hereafter Chase) offers no proof that it acquired an interest in Plaintiff’s residence. In this Motion to Dismiss, once again the only document offered to support its claim is the P&A Agreement. Chase asks the court to leap to the conclusion that Washington Mutual Bank (hereafter WMB) was the Lender on September 25, 2008, the date that the Purchase & Assumption Agreement was signed, even though the likelihood of that, given WMB’s history of securitization, is less than 50%. The challenge facing homeowners is to prove facts to trial courts at the pleading stage.

    Wall Street and the Financial Crisis – Anatomy of a Financial Collapse, the U.S.
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (April 13, 2011) 650-page report,
    was released following an 18-month investigation into the causes of the financial
    crisis. WMB was the leading case study in the report—183 pages (28%) of the report were devoted to WMB—the worst of the worst. The report is readily
    available for download at the Senate Subcommittee’s website. 2
    Defendant alleges in its Purchase & Assumption Agreement that “JPMorgan obtained its rights under the loan from the FDIC” (P&A 4:5). Whether or not the Loan was an asset of WMB on September 25, 2008, a key issue in this case, is not mentioned. Chase asks the court to find, without evidence, a fact that it must prove in order to take the property. Nothing in the P&A Agreement shows whether WMB had any beneficial interest in Plaintiff’s loan on September 25, 2008. The court is asked to guess the answer and dismiss the case. Then Plaintiff will lose his house.

    Where factual findings or the contents of the documents are in dispute, those
    matters of dispute are not appropriate for judicial notice. Caravantes v. California
    Reconveyance Co., 2010 WL 4055560, 9 (S.D.Cal. 2010) citing Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transp. Comm’n, 2006 WL 167657, at *2 (N.D.Cal. 2006).
    See Stephen R. Buchenroth and Gretchen D. Jeffries, Recent Foreclosure Cases: Lenders Beware (June 2007); Wells Fargo v.Jordan, 914 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 2009) (“If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”);
    Chase argues that it obtained the right to sell Plaintiff’s property when it acquired

    Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
    - 17 -
    WMB’s assets through the P&A Agreement for $1.9 billion. Chase could only acquire what WMB owned. WMB no longer owned Plaintiff’ mortgage. Perhaps the identity of the Lender can be tracked down, but it remains unknown.
    Defendant argues that Chase assumed no liability for actions taken by WMB prior to September 25, 2008 in regard to the subject loan. This obscures the issue. Plaintiff alleges that WMB did not have any interest in Plaintiff’s residence on September 25, 2008. His property was not an asset of WMB, and therefore Chase could not acquire any interest in Plaintiff’s residence. This is not a liability issue.
    Chase seems to assert that it can foreclose on any property under the P&A Agreement on the grounds that WMB might have had a beneficial interest in the property at some time, even though WMB sold most of its mortgages to investors.

    Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 62 of the SAC that WMB securitized Plaintiff’s single family
    residential mortgage loan through Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. If WMB retained no beneficial interest in the promissory note when it brokered the deal, Chase cannot acquire what WMB never had. If WMB transferred all of its beneficial interest in the note at the inception of the loan and never entered it in its books as an asset, and entered no corresponding reserve on its ledger as a liability in the event of Plaintiff’s default, then Chase did not acquire ownership of the note by purchasing WMB’s assets because WMB had nothing to sell. This is a question of fact. Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 30 of the SAC that Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, not a holder of the Note, and not a beneficiary under the Note.

    If Chase has no beneficial interest in the note, Chase can only proceed if it
    proves that it is the servicer and joins the owner of the note in this action. To dismiss
    this lawsuit before ascertaining the truth of these allegations is unwarranted. Chase
    could produce evidence in its files, but it prefers to rob Plaintiff of his day in court
    __._,_.___
    Neither WMB, Chicago Title Company, California Reconveyance Company (hereafter CRC), Chase, nor anyone else has recorded a transfer of a beneficial interest in the Note (or any other interest in the) Property to Chase. (SAC ¶ 29). Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, Chase is not a holder of the Note, and Chase is not a beneficiary under the Note. Chase does not have
    capacity to exercise a power of sale. Chase does not claim to be a holder of the note.

    The core issue in this case is to ascertain who is the Lender. Plaintiff did not borrow money from Chase. Plaintiff’s pre-discovery inquiries indicate that WMB did not own the loan on September 25, 2008, and therefore Chase is not the Lender. This issue cannot be brushed aside because California is a non-judicial state.

    Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) remained the Lender for no more than a few days until WMB sold the loan. Thereafter, it was, at best, a servicer of the loan. The Lender was the investment trust that put up the money.

    Foreclosure of the Wellworth Property was commenced by CRC, having been
    appointed trustee on April 30, 2010, by Chase. Chase was not the Lender.

    The Deed of Trust (SAC Exhibit 4) states on page 13, paragraph 24: “Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor Trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by Lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county in which the Property is located.” (SAC Exhibit 8, ¶24).

    Defendant asks the Court’s approval to proceed with foreclosure of Plaintiff’s
    property on the basis of a NOD and NOTS filed by CRC, a wholly owned subsidiary
    of Chase (SAC ¶16) that was appointed as successor Trustee by Chase even though
    Chase is not the Lender and has not revealed who the Lender might possibly be.

    (A) all of the beneficiaries under the trust deed, or their successors in interest…
    Nowhere does the Civil Code allow for assignment of a Deed of Trust by the assignee acting on its own behalf.

    Since Chase is not the Lender, it would violate the terms of the Note and the Deed of Trust to dismiss the SAC and allow Chase to foreclose as a result of a forged Assignment of Deed of Trust signed by someone working for the Assignee.

    The mortgage is not secured by the note and the contract is breached at inception due to failure to disclose the true lender and fraud assignment to Duetsche Bank National Trust whom is unlawfully doing business in the State of Washington, not incompliance with WA Deed of Trust Act and not in compliance with the Washington CPA laws and Washington Corporation laws. See on the web OCC letter dated January 14, 2005 stating National Bank law does not preempt state law. Duetsche bank has never been authorized to be doing business of any kind including banking , foreclosing, and being a beneficiary in the State of Washington and has been foreclosing unlawfully in the State of Washington. John E. and Shelley A. Erickson’s mortgage contract Breached at inception causes unsecured statutes of limitations three year law to be in place and is uncollectable after the payment has not been made to the lender for three years. The Erickson’s have never had the lender disclosed to us, as far as we knew the lender was a John Doe unknown. It is the duty of the borrower to make sure the borrower is paying the proper person for the debt or be liable to pay the debt again to the proper party. It is not our liability or duty to pay a fraud beneficiary. It is our duty not to pay a fraud beneficiary. See attached Amicus Curiae by AG Rob McKenna, Page 7, paragraph two, Third sentence, The court has said that borrowers who pay off their loans without knowing the owner of the loan should take the risk of loss if another asserts the same debt. See Rodgers, 40 Wn. App. At 1321, (It is “long –settled law that one paying a note either negotiable or non negotiable, should demand production of it upon payment or risk having to pay again to the assignee”.)(citing In re Columbia Pac. Mortgage , Inc, 22
    Bankr. 753 (W.D.Eash. 1982); RCW 62A.3-602(a)(ii) (a loan is only considered paid to the extent that the payment is “ to a person entitled to enforce the instrument.”) Price, 161 Wash. 690 There is evidence that some lenders never transferred promissory notes at all. E.g. In re Kemp, 440 B.R. 624, 628 (Banker. D. NJ. 2010) (bank officer testifies that it was customary for originating bank to maintain possession of the original note when the loan was sold.); Dale Whitman, How Negotiability Has Fouled Up the Secondary Mortgage Market, and What To Do About It, 37 Pepp .L. Rev. 738, 757-758 (2010). See Kurt Eggert, Held Up in Due Course: Predatory Lending, Securitization, and the Holder in Due Course Doctrine,, 35 Creighton L. Rev. 503, 538 (2002); now there is another reason the note is not a negotiable instrument. The instrument stops being negotiable at [VOIDED & NULLIFIED].

  87. @enraged

    And you keep making my case. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean you should condemn it—rudely.

  88. It seems to me from another view, that the notes can not be negotiable if they are void and nullified. They are dead even if the wet stamp note pops up and hits you in the face, if they were supposed to be transferred into the PSA and were not transferred. If the loan was securitized and most were. Mine was and so was my sons.

  89. Carie,

    Whatever. You keep making my case for me.

  90. @enraged

    Yeah, okay—I’l comment on what YOU say—we are all SICK of YOUR constant posting of stuff OVER AND OVER with these long articles—for God’s sake just post the link! AND you are insufferably RUDE.

    If you would read stuff carefully and use your brain you would understand what I have posted. Obviously, the real truth is hard for you to understand—all I can say is the perpetrators wanted it that way.

    I can’t help it if you and others just don’t get it—even when there is physical proof—or maybe PRETEND not to get it—sometimes I think you DO work for the banks…well GUESS WHAT–I am going to continue to post the truth about the collection rights—the source is someone who has intimate knowledge of these things—and since you and tnharry are trying to make it seem like it’s all a big “fairy tale”—well, that’s proof to me that it is the truth—the fact that Dr.Lan Pham was fired when she started digging into all of this is proof also…

    I really don’t care what you think. I will post the information a million times if I have to…because the same lies and half-truths keep coming up on this site.

  91. @Carie,

    You mentioned yesterday that i didn’t comment on what you post. Here it is…

    Do you have to post over and over the same illegible, poorly formulated and even more poorly written rants, from completely unreliable sources who have proved to be confirmed mental cases with a pack mentality and no reasoning ability, to boot? Those people you quote haven’t been helped by their own theories anymore than you have. Shouldn’t you spare the rest of humanity?

  92. @tnharry

    My motivation is to keep posting and sharing the truth of this with as many people and entities as I can until everyone understands—and, as you say—we are in for a world of hurt…before it gets better.

  93. @shelley – that’s quite a twisting of events you’ve made. the countrywide whistleblower said the notes were not transferred to the trusts and the deutsche example is that they weren’t transferred timely. those examples don’t necessarily impact whether they are negotiable instruments, and they don’t have anything to do with the uniform note being not a negotiable instrument theory. using your examples, the notes would likely still be enforceable by the originating lender on the notes or their successors. your next jumps to “separated” and “nullity” don’t seem to be supported by current caselaw, but the times are certainly changing

  94. Chase bank has admitted by their own hands in the court case Duetche bank V FDIC, Chase WAMU, that the PSA’s were not transferred on time, therefore faultie and a whistlleblower from Countrywide states the notes were never transferred to BOA, which makes the notes for all those loans in those two banks from Countrywide and WAMU null and void. Those notes are definately not negotiable notes. The separation makes the note unsecured and dischargabel and the nullity makes the notes void and nullified. So no debt is by law owed to anyone. Period.

  95. What about “holder in due course” and “holder in possession” as the battle of the endorsements and stream of lost note affidavits roll in these phrases of the day being accepted ( at least here in MD) as legitimate proof of ownership and abiltity to “transfer”? It is the “transferred” documents ad the retention of rights bestowed upon the tranferee that they are using to exercise he right to foreclose.

  96. @carie – so i see you’ve found your ctrl-c and ctrl-v muscle memory today… was there in fact previously a separate poster named anonymous, or was it just an alter ego of yours?

  97. @Martha said:
    “…yet the majority of the issue is all the past re-fi’s that were not actually satisfied…”

    Indeed. I am posting this information (excerpts) again for everyone who still doesn’t get it–(including Neil)—read and learn—the REAL truth:

    “…He got Wells Fargo (Master Servicer to his prior “mortgage” supposedly securitized into a trust) to admit that they never received payoff by our subsequent refinance… He wrote to SEC — that investors were never paid — never expected a response — but, they forwarded a complaint to the OCC (Comptroller of Currency) — on his behalf. OCC sent him on wild goose chase. Then he contacted FDIC (there is connection to WaMu — which he did not know about). FDIC sends another complaint to OCC — on his behalf.
    OCC comes back in a letter and tells him that his Freddie Mac loan (which he paid-off by a refinance) — was never paid off — BY HIM — but, rather by a “pay-out” by INSURANCE. OCC tells us him he is currently in default on Freddie Mac loan!! Normally, you cannot access any checks older than 7 years — so the banks would not have record. HOWEVER, he had the CANCELED CHECK in his files!!!… Not only the canceled check — but all closing documents — AND prior mortgage payments. All was in order –Wells Fargo was paid off — by him — and Wells Fargo was supposed to pay Freddie Mac!!! But, they did NOT. Wells Fargo claims no record of pay-off by him– -no record at all — he is missing from the system.
    He has informed OCC that this fraud likely involves millions — or more. All that stands for him — despite the two refinances — is collection rights to a FALSE default Freddie Mac loan. Coordinating this information with SEC documents that he has been researching for years, it is apparent that most — if not all — subprime/alt-a/jumbo loans — were manufactured default GSE loans – for which collection rights were purchased by banks (acting as debt buyer) — and could not be securitized into any pass-through security trust. This is why trusts are empty — there is no funding necessary for collection rights. They are not a mortgage, not a loan. They are unsecured (false) default debt — which was fraudulently presented to homeowners as a secured mortgage.
    When the system was operating — the bank — as debt buyers of non-compliant (manufactured) GSE loans — would sell collection rights to third parties — via swaps or direct sale once the time for collection passed a certain amount of months (usually 180 days). However, at the financial crisis height — even sale of collection rights came to a halt — leaving many bank debt buyers with collection rights on balance sheet (falsely removed by off-balance sheet transfers that were fraudulent). After TARP bail-out — banks continued their process of sale of collection rights — and, no one will now state who actually owns them — attorneys in court will only name original creditor — or trustee to falsely securitized trust. Trustees have NO RECORDS.
    Federal Reserve Bank in NY (he talked with top officials (Director) for Maiden Lane — for months) cannot tell him if they are receiving his CURRENT payments — even though the trust his adversaries claim he is in (he is not) — is part of Maiden Lane portfolio. They are not receiving pass-through from supposed trustees. Fed Res — tried to help him for months — but, finally sent him to legal department — who stated they could not help.
    Many participants on LL are working for distressed debt buyers — by purchasing distressed loans — and refinancing with undisclosed parties. He has consistently emphasized to Neil — that the Investors in the subprime — where junk debt buyers (including banks) — that did not fund anything (except excess cash in refinance) — these “investors” were the credit enhancers to the false securitizations of collection rights. Security pass-through investors were victims — but, they have been paid out by swaps.
    We are dealing with nothing more than collection rights — and this information is in hands of government…
    It is tremendous fraud — with huge power that we are up against…”

    AND @TNHARRY STILL KEEPS CALLING THIS “NONSENSE”…

  98. it’s like there’s a weird time delay on this site – this concept isn’t exactly hot off the presses. and there’s not really a connection to securitization as Neil suggests. the note is either a negotiable instrument or it’s not. securitization doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.

  99. yes Jeff i also question that…..i have read here . more than once, what seems to my uneducated eyes, is telling us both sides of the coin……so as much as i love reading this blog every day and how much i have learned, i cannot say i know what to do in court still to this day

  100. “The wrong way of approaching this is any way in which you are going into court to disclaim the obligation when everyone knows you received the money or the benefit of the money. The obligation exists.”

    Excerpt from a previous post:

    “But if the borrower starts from the beginning denying the debt, denying the obligation, thus denying any possibility of default for a financial transaction that never existed, then the Judge is faced with a material fact in issue.”

    So in one post, the borrower is suppose to deny, and then in this post you are saying that is the wrong way?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,120 other followers

%d bloggers like this: