How and When to Use Title and Securitization Reports

If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our South Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. In Northern Florida and the Panhandle call 850-765-1236. Customer service for the livinglies store with workbooks, services and analysis remains the same at 520-405-1688. The people who answer the phone are NOT attorneys and NOT permitted to provide any legal advice, but they can guide you toward some of our products and services.
See LivingLies Store: Reports and Analysis

If your loan has been securitized you are looking for either confirmation that what the servicer told you was true, or that the servicer is lying about it. Wells Fargo is fond of denying securitization but when you apply for the modification they tell you that the investor denied it. Then they put “Pooling and Servicing Agreement” on their list of Exhibits, thus removing any doubt that the loan was subject to claims of securitization but not telling you the name of the trust or anything else.

Our combo title and securitization report gives you the most information we can find on public record PLUS our proprietary database. It lays out a road map for discovery, motions for summary judgment and trial. It is might be admissible in evidence (usually it is accepted into evidence) but without an expert stating the conclusions reached and why — in a clear and convincing manner — the judge will go to sleep and you won’t make your points.

No forensic audit is a substitute for discovery, motions to compel discovery and aggressive litigation of the issues. For the same reasons that the Banks should lose, YOU need a competent witness who can testify as tot he work done, what was found and authenticating the study and the report. THEN having an expert declaration along with the willingness of the expert to appear at deposition or trial will have its greatest impact.

The problem I am seeing out there is lawyers and pro se litigants are trying to take short cuts that don’t exist in civil procedure or substantive law. The judge has no choice but to find in favor of the bank. You can’t do some of the work and expect the judge to take it the rest of the way. But you can raise doubts in the the mind of the Judge as to whether the right party is actually doing the foreclosing or has any substantive rights at all.

If Wells Fargo is the Plaintiff and they have not filed on behalf of the actual creditor, it is because neither the trust (which was unfunded) nor the investors have any clear claim against you and especially means that the mortgage encumbrance is at least clouded if not defective. Entry of Judgement for Wells Fargo in such a case would transfer the collateral and the claim from the principal (investors) to the agent. This would enable the agent (who probably only has apparent authority because the PSA terms were not followed) to submit a credit bid, take the property and screw both the investor and the homeowner.

The combo title and securitization report is a first step toward making your case and setting it up properly for appeal if the Judge is intent on “moving the case along” by allowing the foreclosure. It raises the issue as to whether the secured loan described in the “loan documents” was paid or extinguished at origination or in transfer. It puts the Judge on notice that the claims of the forecloser do not follow the actual transaction path and that the forecloser is interfering with your ability to mediate, modify or settle the claims with the real party in interest.

 

152 Responses

  1. eggs – the note also says at 20 that it may be sold ALONG with the dot (without PRIOR notice). I wonder if this isn’t an assurance that the note and dot will remain together? If A sells the note to B, but neglects to assign the coll instrument to B, obviously A owes B an assgt of the dot. But pursuant to that language in the note, I think we could posit there was in fact an assurance that the note and dot would stay together. Maybe most beneficial to those in AZ (Hogan), but worth a thought? The banksters want to say, but only when it’s handy, that language means the note and dot DO remain together without an assgt of the dot, that is, if the note is sold, it takes the dot with it. I don’t read it that way since I’m a strong proponent of the statute of frauds which requires a writing to assign a dot. (And I maintain that mere poss of a note neither carries the dot with it nor creates a right to an assgt of the dot)

  2. Solly, what I forgot to say was:
    Bear-Stearns CDS paid (held) by TARP ML1
    lock date 6-7-05
    close date 6-10-05
    $164200

  3. @eggs – I guess ms has banked on getting paid for what he knows or thinks he does. I believe just now he thinks he’s got the dynamite, and
    it must be frustrating if so not to be able to profit from what he considers singular knowledge which he no doubt feels he worked hard for. But yes, his ‘cryptic musings’ are annoying and distracting. The only thing of value he may know which we don’t, far as I can tell, is what actually happens to a note when bonds based, at least loosely? on that note are sold. I don’t think he actually understands real property, including the dot, since he makes such far-out claims about it and that the document. But as to the WS stuff, he probably knows something we’d like to understand.

    Another problem I have with you, ms, altho it’s sometimes amusing, is your insistance on put-downs to those you claim to believe are errant.
    I have yet to see you defend your alleged disagreement with anything which makes sense.

  4. eggs – to the best of my knowledge, most of ‘the note’s not a negotiable instrument’ proponents concentrate on other obligations of the borrower recited in the note (like late fee, I forget)? I’m saying or at least asking the question for a different reason, I believe. But at any rate, the language in the note is different than language in art III of the UCC, and the note rules.

  5. E Tolle and all,
    Ludden also helpfully enumerates quite a few possible criminal acts that use of MERS could conceivably put the financiers and rent-seekers in violation of:

    “40 Depending on the conduct revealed, Federal statutes that may have some degree of applicability
    include: 18 USC § 2—Principals; 18 USC § 3—Accessory after the fact; 18 USC § 4—Misprision of
    felony; 18 USC § 5—United States defined; 18 USC § 6—Department and agency defined; 18 USC § 8—
    Obligation or other security of the United States defined; 18 USC § 10—Interstate commerce and foreign
    commerce defined; 18 USC § 12—United States Postal Service defined; 18 USC § 13—Laws of States
    adopted for areas within Federal jurisdiction; 18 USC § 18—Organization defined; 18 USC § 20—
    Financial institution defined; 18 USC § 21—Stolen or counterfeit nature of property for certain crimes
    defined; 18 USC § 27—Mortgage lending business defined; 18 USC § 241—Conspiracy against rights; 18
    USC § 242—Deprivation of rights under color of law; 18 USC § 371—Conspiracy to commit offense or to
    defraud United States; 18 USC § 401— Power of court; 18 USC § 402—Contempts constituting crimes; 18
    USC § 656—Theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee; 18 USC § 657—
    Lending, credit and insurance institutions; 18 USC § 891—Definitions and rules of construction; 18 USC §
    892—Making extortionate extensions of credit; 18 USC § 893—Financing extortionate extensions of credit;
    18 USC § 981—Civil forfeiture; 18 USC § 1001—Statements or entries generally; 18 USC § 1002—
    Possession of false papers to defraud United States; 18 USC § 1004—Certification of checks; 18 USC §
    1005—Bank entries, reports and transactions; 18 USC § 1006—Federal credit institution entries, reports
    and transactions; 18 USC § 1007— Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation transactions; 18 USC § 1010—
    Department of Housing and Urban Development and Federal Housing Administration transactions; 18 USC
    § 1012—Department of Housing and Urban Development transactions; 18 USC § 1032—Concealment of
    assets from conservator, receiver, or liquidating agent; 18 USC § 1033—Crimes by or affecting persons
    engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce; 18 USC § 1341—Frauds
    and swindles; 18 USC § 1342—Fictitious name or address; 18 USC § 1343—Fraud by wire, radio, or
    television; 18 USC § 1344—Bank fraud; 18 USC § 1346—Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”; 18
    USC § 1348—Securities and commodities fraud; 18 USC § 1349—Attempt and conspiracy; 18 USC §
    1350—Failure of corporate officers to certify financial reports; 18 USC § 1510—Obstruction of criminal
    investigations; 18 USC § 1511—Obstruction of State or local law enforcement; 18 USC § 1956—
    Laundering of monetary instruments; 18 USC § 1957—Engaging in monetary transactions in property
    derived from specified unlawful activity; 18 USC § 1960—Prohibition of unlicensed money transmitting
    businesses; 18 USC § 1961—Definitions; 18 USC § 1962—Prohibited activities; 18 USC § 1963—
    Criminal penalties; 18 USC § 1964—Civil remedies; 18 USC § 2311—Definitions; 18 USC § 2314—
    Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys, fraudulent State tax stamps, or articles used in
    counterfeiting; 18 USC § 2315—Sale or receipt of stolen goods, securities, moneys, or fraudulent State tax
    stamps. See also M. G. L. c. 266 § 35A; M. G. L. c. 267 §§ 1, 5, among others.”

  6. E Tolle,
    Oops! I Googled Rockwell Ludden and clicked the first link, which was to a different article than the one you posted. The one I read was “Decoding the MERS Mortgage” and it is from 2013. Great article, maybe a follow up to the one you posted. He makes repeated comments about how the judges not getting it—either because they’re ignorant or corrupt—is obviously problematic and he summarizes it brilliantly:
    “How in a case of wrongful foreclosure such hogwash [i.e., MERS] could be taken seriously will someday emerge as a mystery of the times.”

    I truly appreciate his dead-on analysis, but I have to admit to being slightly irritated by it, because he’s right—one day all of this will be undone, because it has to be. Maybe it’ll happen in 5 years, maybe 20. But the tide will eventually turn and the judges will suddenly start getting it in a big way and the media will write pieces asking “How could judges have ever ruled against homeowners when MERS was obviously a hoax,” etc. That’ll be great and everything, but we’re screaming about it NOW and nothing is being done. It’s obvious NOW that the law is being violated and more importantly, lives are being ruined, money is being stolen, and families are being put on the fucking street over this nonsense.

    It’s like segregation—before Brown v. Board, the courts were all: “separate but equal is perfectly fine.” After Brown, everyone’s like: “How could any court in America have ever ruled that separate but equal was perfectly fine?” In the meantime, blacks suffered mightily and no amount of hand-wringing, reassessments, and formal government apologies after the fact can change or undo that suffering.

    Just saying all that to say that I agree with you—the courts/government have been bought/captured and we’re fucked.

  7. “Under three alternative theories, an employer may be
    liable for punitive damages based on an employee’s wrongful acts if:

    (a) The employer had advance knowledge that the employee was unfit for the purposes of the employment and employed him with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others;

    (b) The employer expressly authorized or ratified the wrongful act of
    the employee for which the damages are awarded;
    or

    (c) The employer is personally guilty of oppression, fraud or malice,
    express or implied. ”

    Please note this is only in regard to punitive damages, not other damages, which imo an employer is liable for. This is from N.R.S. chapter 42. Check your state’s chapter 42 or keep looking (if you’re
    so inclined and want the info). And please note the “or” used here, not an “and”.

    Hultman appointed low-level employees of members and non-members as officers of MERS by way of alleged corporate resolutions ,and further, his alleged appt of non-member employees was at the behest of members who app wanted to out-source “certain endeavors”, which if done by anyone, should have been done by true MERS’ employees and officers. Though apparantly no one wanted or wants his own name on those assignments, both MERS and the employer of the guy executing the assignments are liable for assignments which are fraudulent. Imo, the true employers of these signatories cannot isolate themselves from liability by claiming the act was done by its employee not in her capacity as employee, but as an act of that person/ employee as an “officer” of MERS. The employer is paying her to sit there and execute assignments at her employment desk and further, the signatory is a(n) (alleged) signatory because the employer asked and paid MERS or at least Hultman to so appoint its employee to execute assignments.

    And Lorraine Brown is the one in jail????

    For fans of CW and B of A, you’ll be happy to hear CW was nailed for
    a million dollars for trying to foreclose on the wrong property, including 86’ing every bit of the homeowners’ personal property. (yeah, I know you’d like a case where they got nailed for what else they should be nailed for. Maybe it’ll be yours)

    COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS v. THITCHENER, 124 Nev. 725 (2008)
    192 P.3d 243
    Marquis and Aurbach for homeowner on appeal to NV SC
    CW appealed an award of over 2.5m and got it down to around 1m.

    “This appeal and cross-appeal from a district court order in a breach of contract and tort action arising from improper foreclosure proceedings involve several compensatory and punitive damage award issues.”

    It says CW is a NY corporation. Did we ever decide if that’s true?

  8. JG, I also wholeheartedly agree with you when you counter MS and say: “And to say that someone has alienated his property and rights thereto by giving a collateral instrument (dot) is dangerous nonsense.” Having said that, with the way courts are ruling and have ruled, i.e., in complete disregard for the law, maybe there is something to what MS is saying, however misguided.

    What I don’t get about MS is this: if he can save everyone’s house like he appears to claim, why not just post how to do it in a straightforward, easily digestible fashion? Or if he is under some gag order of some type, just tell someone else the magic solution and let them post it. I have no beef with MS—I believe he does want to help. If he didn’t, I don’t think he’d waste time posting even his cryptic musings. The only problem I have is that he won’t just come out and say what he knows directly and succinctly.

  9. JG asked: “Might it be that these notes aren’t in fact negotiable because the language in them restricts their enforcement?”

    I think the argument re: non-negotiability is based not on the fact that enforcement of them may or may not be restricted, but rather is based on the fact that the typical note does not meet the UCC definition of a negotiable note. Matt Weidner has covered this a good bit in his blog, in conjunction with the opinions of Max Gardner. Neil actually covered it here: https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/weidner-notes-are-not-negotiable-instruments/

    Interestingly, when one tries to Google old Weidner posts about non-negotiability, one encounters a lot of “page not found” messages. It appears that Weidner has pulled these posts, perhaps because the argument is not looked on with favor by judges and Weidner wants to distance himself from it. That does not mean that the argument is not correct, however.

  10. so, Solly, who took the note? Deutsche supplied the line
    Wells originated
    HSBC trustee of the WFHET
    Citi as Sec Underwriter
    Wells shows it on their books
    lots of postforeclosure assignment efforts

    okay my man, who’s on first?

    prove yourself

  11. @ johngault 08/26/2013 5:42

    That’s how I see it … extinguished by 100% insurance payout 20+ months before purported default. Just need to clean up the paperwork with the title company… it’s all documented in 2 lawsuits already. Attorney for plaintiff has been broadly hinting at a “good settlement” ,,, but he doesn’t know 10% of what I’ve posted here … thinks I’m just some douche trying to delay things… Wilbur Ross should be terrified of me getting any truthful responses to my discovery… his “portfolio” is no different than what he grew up on ,, buying lists of charged off, uncollectable accounts from Montgomery Wards and Sears.. just with a few more zero’s.

  12. @ masterservicer …

    I may be speaking a foreign language here , I certainly don’t speak accountant… but that doesn’t mean that I don’t have a 140 IQ , it doesn’t mean that I’m not a multi-engine instrument pilot (that exam IS harder than any bar exam) and it doesn’t mean that although I may not have put things across in the perfected language you use that I don’t have competent aggressive counsel working for me… but when you’re dealing with a tornado of lies and you have enough threads of truth to show beyond any doubt that the opposition is fabricating a huge amount of what they swear is the truth I don’t need someone guessing at the parts I have left out and assuming the worst… My team is good but I am always trying to learn.

    To answer your questions…

    1.) closed early 2007 , but actual lender not on docs , have wire info , have instructions, have court orders when “trust” went from AAA to CCC and was bailed showing actual owner (table funder) being recipient of big$$$ .. not the plaintiff… not originator.. ownership changed after AIG bailout… and all indications are that AHMSI (aka Homeward Residential) bought collection rights from the blow’d up “trust” now in Maiden Lane. (CUSIPs were assigned but there is no indication the necessary steps to create the trust were taken)

    2.) trust “closed” 81 days after my closing , except the trust was never created , just alluded to in sec filings ,, trust was never anything more than a spreadsheet at WF (as masterservicer) in their CTSLINK system …

    3.) sale date? of what?? note to trust? NEVER HAPPENED, trust never created and was bailed out by AIG before any sale to “investors” ,, ( bailed out party was table funder of “originator” who got caught holding a bad/unsellable portfolio too long hoping for interest rates to drop which would make their crapola look more attractive and sell for more $$$$ ) .. but they would give you the date in PSA , allonge is undated and created 6 years after the fact as determined by the doc not existing at time of complaint verification in LPS’s image files…. but it “appeared” magically a year after suit filed.

    4.) Note amount xxx,xxx.xx

  13. Might it be that these notes aren’t in fact negotiable because the language in them restricts their enforcement?

  14. e.tolle – I know you dont’ think that. sorry if it seemed that way. But the lack of challenge to agency is maddening.

  15. When we sign a dot, we are authorizing someone else, the dot trustee,
    to convey OUR retained rights and title in and to our property to a successful bidder under limited circumstances. The dot gets power of sale: he can sell the title he holds in trust and he can sell our title.
    He is gtranted power of sale – power of sale of title, not power of sale of a dot.

  16. and no, ms, generally what i say is not what you call it. I’m not in charge of who participates in discussions here. I offer what I believe based on years of experience and research . If people qualified to disagree with me do so, no one would be happier than me that we could get to truths, but surely you can’t think I or anyone would take non-sensical rants sans facts seriously…? And to say that someone has alienated his property and rights thereto by giving a collateral instrument (dot) is dangerous nonsense. I try to avoid your stuff when I have nothing to contribute or it, well, doesn’t deserve comment, but sometimes I don’t see that as an option.

  17. no, ms, neidmeyer didn’t. He granted (conveyed) ONE of the TWO forms of title to the dot trustee to be held in trust for the dot ben until one of two things happens: the dot is extinguished, generally by payment of the note it secures or the trustee has moved to extinguish neidmeyer’s interest by sale, succinctly. * He did not alienate his property nor his rights in it. see equitable and legal title. He did, however, grant someone else rights in his property, but that didn’t extinguish his. He retained legal title and possessory rights.

    *That’s why foreclosure is in fact a quiet title action by the dot trustee: the title retained by the borrower is 86’d, united with the title held by the dot trustee in the successful bidder. The bidder by way of the trustee’s deed now has all title and interest.

    When a dot is extinguished by payment of the note, the trustee is to execute and record a RE-conveyance of the interest of the the dot trustee in the property he has held during the life of the loan: the borrower once again has both forms of title. Even if he doesn’t, when the loan is paid off, as a matter of law, the dot is toast. Title companies
    don’t like that, dont’ want to rely it, don’t want a future pi$$ing match and insist, rightfully imo, on a recorded reconveyance before they will
    insure a new loan or buyer’s title.
    I don’t, fwiw, generally try to speak to ‘mortgages’ because I don’t have time to examine them. Plus when I happened on one in NJ and saw there was a conveyance to MERS, I needed valium.

  18. My loan originator, as you know, died a quick death, and has no business assigning anything, but is universally allowed to by crooked judges across the nation, thanks to MERS.

    The originator is named to the note . If so he is the cause for acceptance, the ABA wire into settlement and HUD 1 disbursement schedule. More over he created the basis for de-recognition and extinguished liabilities. In other words you need a party and a step ahead of the transferors delivery to the transferee before the transferee can allow the seller to issue and be made the depositor in a Cayman island off shore account . In de-recognition there is recognition at a later date and there it comes time for payback .

    But not is the payback is lost to the M&A with a defunct or as you say loan originator, who died a quick death. This is right under your nose and something you cannot see . Want to win your home back …submit to what I can show you that you do not know.

  19. E. ToLLe, on August 26, 2013 at 4:01 pm said:

    JG, I’m not sure what I posted …. want to touch….. I’m not sure ….like a zombie … I’m not sure ….. I’m not ……sure Isn’t it worth the risk……. I’m not sure …… judges love to shout … I can’t quite figure … I’m not sure …..It all boils….. I’m not sure ….a red herring….(and) our grandchildren …. I’m not sure …Rat Bastards One and All!

    Hey I though it was funny to take some of your thoughts and arrange them as such ..no offense . You make very good points from time to time . But most of what you say is asinine incompetent and certified coming from soothsayer.

    Wha-tah-Az[z]-olle

  20. Mr. Neidermeyer :

    Your granted and conveyed your collateral
    You transferred it free and clear
    You were granted consideration and do not know it
    Your transferring title into a REPO

    If 1-4 are true – then there is nothing in law that can stop them from enforcing a sale in foreclosure

    ….except THE FACTS YET TO BE BROUGHT INTO COURT

    Listen, this is not a suggestion but its somewhat true . Whats more of a challenge, trying to copy a secret lemonade formula or pouring a glass of it. Teaching a Child to tie or untie a shoe …winning the title from Mike Tyson or examining the replay round by round ?

    Trying to stop a sale is nuclear physics and your on the defensive. Unwinding a sale however and the opposition goes crazy with prima fascia beyond your wildest dreams

    …this is it folks! I am in court all week & it is time to put up and shut up the foul mouths and critics from hell ! Its been while Counsel from OC….and but its time ….

    God Bless the lenders and their attorneys —Sorry THERE ARE NO LENDERS HERE

  21. MS drooled, “ROBO the Hobo and Bobo
    the WoJoe Manitoulin assignee for tea!”

    Meds are in order. PRONTO!

  22. JG said, “e.tolle – no one may act as an agent for an unknown party / principal.
    That this has gone on this long is a black mark against h.o. attorneys.
    Sorry, just the truth the way I see it”

    JG, I’m not sure what I posted that made you think that anyone, especially myself, supports the notion of an agent acting for an unknown party. That is, quite frankly, my biggest beef with this entire debacle, the lack of agency in these matters. My loan originator, as you know, died a quick death, and has no business assigning anything, but is universally allowed to by crooked judges across the nation, thanks to MERS.

    Eggsistence, you wrote quoting the white paper that I posted, “….no Massachusetts
    law supports the proposition that ownership of a mortgage passes legally from one person to another during the securitization process merely because they have all decided to use the same agent.”
    But, and it’s a big butt, MA law, like MN and AZ, all agree upon a wicked view of securitization that I can’t quite figure out how they attempt to push those round pegs into the blatantly square holes….how they figure that it’s alright to sell the note to party A, while the DOT or mortgage goes off to party B. And this brings me around to your post on Longan, in which you cogently answered JG’s question about who would want to touch Longan. Longan is the rule of the land. Why is it ignored?

    MA, AZ, and MN, all accept that it’s quite alright to bifurcate the note from the mortgage/deed of trust. No where have I read why this is deemed acceptable behavior. How can the Federal Supreme Court state Longan, which has held up for so many years, from back when the blue and the gray were duking it out, be trashed as if meaningless by these state rules that were obviously purchased by corporate interests? I don’t get it.

    It all boils down to capture. Our government was and is still being sold to the highest bidders.

    Sachs rules all.

    REV 2.0

  23. My friend

    F$% that mind bender stuff ….

    send me or put up here on this site…. post it

    1. the day you closed …
    2. the day the trust closed and
    3. the purported sale date
    4. Note amount (or we can do $100,000 and you divide it out —

    Ill show you how to move to dismiss by weeks end .

    I’m not an attorney and not entitled by law to post legal opinions and caution one not to take anything from here or any site as legal advice unless you are speaking to a licensed attorney

  24. Now this is what you need to set you mind free ….read

    The loan is repaid by paying Z=F(0; t; T) dollars at time T to close the short position. The price of a loan agreed to and taken at time t is determined by B(t; T) (B is for \bond”.)

    Assume “A to borrow money at time T to be repaid Assume X wants to x the price of the loan today. The notation for this is that
    company agrees today (time t = 0) receive F(0; t; T) (F is for \forward
    rate agreement”) at time t and pay one unit of currency at time T. If
    Z is the dollar amount borrowed, the loan can be thought of as shorting Z=F(0; t; T) units of the loan at time t. This produces F(Z=F) = Z dollars at time t.

    Therefore “A” may receive (or pay) B(t1; t2) at time t1 and pay (or receive) one unit at time t2 > t1. The difference between the B(t; T) rate and the F(0; t; T) rate is that the company must commit to the F rate at time t = 0, while it need not commit to the B rate until time t. In each instance , money changes hands only at times t > 0 and T > t.

    So you want to tackle the above —no way
    …no value correct ?

    …Its what Wall Street recognizes as an ASSIGNMENT

    REGISTERCLAIMS@LIVE.COM

    ROBO the Hobo and Bobo
    the WoJoe Manitoulin assignee for tea!

  25. @ Masterservicer 8/26 6:53am

    Related to an open blank asmt I took a depo from a very nice but STUPID (LPS/AHMSI/Homeward Residential) complaint verifier stating that Option One ALWAYS included a blank unattached allonge with the closing docs and that the buyers name was filled in later …. in my case about 6 years later … can’t say for certain because they left it undated… and they never attached it (???) and and and and …..

    Can’t wait til I get disco in…

  26. First your the “lab chimp” who granted Mers its interest as a nominee.

    Second, you know they formed a trust …grantor trust ….nominee grantor trust ?

    Third your the Salisbury steak that failed to see that MERS Never ever ever has laid claim to lawfully assign a mortgage …it cannot .

    So Pope Arthroscope …what does Mers really do and why are you attacking a clever move to motion to join parties in claims.

    Hey ….To the pathetic porkers out to confuse the truth —they shall be banished for their ignorance and held the fool for their petulance towards the law. . .

    jus kidding
    1-800 Call U-Haul

  27. E. Tolle,
    Thanks for posting the link about the Ludden article. He really does drill down to the essence of the MERS fraud, as in this passage:

    “By way of illustration, let’s say that Charlie Brown decides to sell his bottle cap collection to Lucy for five cents, and that he hires Snoopy to handle the sale. In the meantime, Lucy, though she hasn’t yet bought the collection but is quite the entrepreneur, also hires Snoopy to sell it to Pig Pen for seven cents once it is hers to sell. Let us further say that Pig Pen, in turn, also hires Snoopy to sell the collection to Woodstock for nine cents once it is his to sell. And finally, let’s say that they all live in a state in which the sale of a bottle cap collection comes within the statute of frauds and that it must be memorialized by a writing signed by the party to be bound.

    But lurking behind this seemingly typical business scenario is a question, and it is this: does the mere fact that they have all decided to use Snoopy as their agent somehow transfer ownership of the collection from one to the other even though no sale has
    actually taken place? The question might seem silly were it not for the fact that this is precisely the industry’s position—one that continues upon occasion to be swallowed hook, line, and sinker without further examination by an unsuspecting judge; in other
    words, it is deemed to be so simply because the industry says that it is so.

    In point of fact, the answer is an emphatic no—and the first reason for this lies in a well-settled principle of agency law: that there is always a functional identity between principle and agent, a melding of the two with regard to a defined set of rights and responsibilities. One aspect of this is that an agent may only do for the principal what the principal herself may do and may therefore only sell on the principal’s behalf what is the principal’s to sell in the first place.10 Yes, Snoopy may sell the bottle cap collection, but only if authorized to do so by the person who actually owns it—and no Massachusetts
    law supports the proposition that ownership of a mortgage passes legally from one person to another during the securitization process merely because they have all decided to use the same agent.”

  28. In Mers Arguments your lacking the allegations in support of not being made aware of any prevarications concerning the mortgage loans right to transfer to successors at time of executing the agreements

    Are you saying in claims the material misrepresentations arise in the agreements , security etc that that prevented or dissuaded borrowers from examining the section where it says YOU appointed MERS

    Your asking questions that fail to raise an issue of fact with respect to Mers perpetrating a fraud …assuming a fraud claim.

    .

  29. JG asked:

    “Why do some people want Carpenter v Longan to be the bomb?
    Can someone tell me?”

    Yes! Keep in mind that Carpenter is very useful for specific fact patterns, but may be less useful with others. The fact pattern in my own case–and a lot of others I know about (mostly in non-judicial states)–worked like this…

    These things happen simultaneously:
    1. Foreclosure commences with Assignment of Deed of Trust from MERS to servicer
    2. However, Note said to be held by some other party, like Fannie or some other trust

    And that’s where Carpenter comes in, saying that such a fact pattern is a nullity. Carpenter stands for the principle that Deeds of Trust cannot be assigned separately or separated at all from the Note.

    Now, why is that useful in a case that fits the fact pattern above? Because it means that the Assignment of DOT is null and void. Carpenter does NOT make exceptions for agency or for MERS or for anything else. It says very clearly that note/mortgage are inseparable and that any attempts to assign only the DOT is a nullity.

    In my case, I used Carpenter and a 5th Circuit precedent that quoted Carpenter. I used it because I had an Assignment of DOT from MERS to BAC while Fannie supposedly held the Note. According to Carpenter and my 5th Cir. precedent case (Kirby Lumber Corp. v. Williams), that assignment from MERS to BAC while Fannie supposedly holds the note is a nullity, right? Of course it is.

    Here’s why I ended up losing: the judge wanted to have it both ways. That is, he wanted to uphold the principle that the mortgage follows the note, but he also wanted the bank to win. So what he said in his order against me was that the law in my state is that the mortgage follows the note. I had articulated that in my briefs and at the one hearing we had. However, the judge then completely contradicted himself a couple of sentences later and said that an Assignment of the DOT from MERS to BAC while Fannie held the Note was A-OK.

    And that’s how this game is played. And that’s why I didn’t appeal–because I couldn’t waste any more time or money fighting a completely rigged system. At any rate, that’s why Carpenter is the bomb, because it defeats these bogus assignments of DOT and mortgage, which they have to have because otherwise, Fannie Mae would be seen to be taking a lot of people’s houses. And if that were the case, people would really get pissed, thinking, “didn’t we bail out Fannie Mae to the tune of billions of dollars, and now they’re taking my fucking house?” And there would be a bloody revolution. And the banks do not want that.

  30. Listen – A mortgage whole loan is held in inventory marked by the live note, copy of the recorded deed of trust with a blank endorsement and assignment left blank.

    The open assignment and endorsements have a life of only 180 days and cannot be used beyond that period of time . Are you telling me you see lawyers bring in the blank assignment ?

    The assignment and endorsements are moot anyway …if the foreclosing party are the Holders represented by the indentures trustee

    registerclaims@live.com

  31. Agree with you neidermeye

  32. @ Johngault 08/24/2013 5:07pm

    You sir are a godsend ,,, that line of thinking regarding the warehouse lines being stuck with unsellable portfolios/trusts is something that had never occurred to me but answers a GREAT many anomalies in my ownership timeline… I really appreciate the back and forth … THIS THREAD is one for all to save ,, LOTS of great info here …

    P.S. I agree wholeheartedly with your interpretation of MERS agency and authority … We really need to become bolder in our assertions , this is unraveling for the fraudsters.

  33. Why do some people want Carpenter v Longan to be the bomb?
    Can someone tell me?

  34. The garbage posted by two sick individuals is easy to affirm as false and slanderous. Lies . But whatever…

    Countrywide allegedly falsely represented that home appraisals were conducted by independent appraisers while, in truth, the appraisers were beholden to Countrywide, thereby increasing the risk of inflated appraisals. The MBIA suit alleges that if it had known that Countrywide’s representations were false, …

    Why is this a classic “failed argument” and why would Obama say in a speech -No more appraisals under a new program ….

    Its about the basis in assets ….

  35. Even if court’s want to rely on “successor and or assigns” of lender
    recited in the dot for MERS’ alleged ostensible authority to act for a succ or assign, notwithstanding that the dot is not signed by the lender to make the appt when MERS is claiming agency), there has to be evidence that the lender for whom MERS’ purports to act IS a successor or assign of the original lender. How is that ascertained?
    is one in poss of a bearer note necessarily a lender’s successor or assign? Or is he just some schmoe who got his hands on the note and is claiming enforcement under article III? is article III consistant with the terms of the note which identify the party entitled to enforce THIS note? The note doesn’t say ‘see UCC”. it says something else and it rules; the UCC is default law. Default law is used only in the absence of any contractual agreement, briefly. The note says the lender may transfer the note and that anyone who holds the note by TRANSFER and is entitled to receive payments is the note holder. Does that describe an entity that has possession of a note? Where was the transfer? Now have to look at UCC re: “transfer”.

    UCC art III:

    “a) An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer

    for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument.”

    Does this necessarily describe a person in possession of a note? How is one to know if possession of a bearer note comes with the intent of the transferor to give the right to enforce? If usedkarguy found the
    note e.tolle bought (below), has that note been transferred” to usedkarguy? No, it hasn’t. (and as I always opine, in any juris subject to rule 17 or its kin, usedkaryguy is out of luck, having suffered no injury).

    Certainly MERS, someone “other than an issuer” (borrower) has no authority to ‘deliver’ a note for the purpose of “giving the right to enforce the instrument” to anyone, and since it doesn’t or there is
    no evidence it does that we’ve ever seen, the assgts of the notes
    are fictitious and fraudulent and fraudulently recorded or tell me why not. And how can MERS ‘deliver’ a note when it doesn’t have it to
    deliver in the first place? Just pretend?

    If nothing else, when possible, one needs to get the bankster to
    more particularly define his claim: is there reliance on the “MERS”
    assignment of the note?

    Here again is a link to a case in which it was acknowledged that MERS has no authority to assign notes (not that we should need it – we shouldn’t)

    Way I get it, a bankster has two issues to prove: 1) it is a successor or assign of the original lender and 2) it took the note by transfer

  36. e.tolle – no one may act as an agent for an unknown party / principal.
    That this has gone on this long is a black mark against h.o. attorneys.
    Sorry, just the truth the way I see it.
    Is it so hard to say, “Your honor, the lender named on the note is out of business (say) , so obviously, MERS is no longer acting (gag) for ABC. Since an agent’s authority or right to act is derived from its principal’s, the court has no way to ascertain that authority and thus the agent’s.” That was with NO thought to it whatsoever from a lay person. Just fingers typing on autopilot.

    Even if XYZ is alleging poss of a bearer note, that doesn’t make MERS XYZ’s agent or anyone’s agent who has authority to execute the assgt in its own right in order to pass that authority to MERS -read-member-employee-pretend-MERS officer (if not some
    non-member grunt). And it isn’t just that so and so isn’t a real MERS’ officer, it’s that EVERY single MERS’ assignment by design is
    executed by a person who is not an employee of MERS and is not
    under the direct (or any that I know of) supervision of MERS: got one of Hultman’s 20k + “corp resolutions”? Well, have a ball!

    Now, where MERS is claiming to be thee ben, and not an agent, a diff argument is required. Hmmm….from the hip (see how easy?) let’s say MERS is thee ben for a party who was the payee of the note (aka lender – remember them?). Okay, let’s give them that. MERS was the ben for ABC, who is now toast and your juris doesn’t call that bifurcation. XYZ now claims to have a bearer or special end note. Can XYZ tell MERS to exec an assignment of the coll instrument?
    Most people think the answer is yes. It isn”t, even if XYZ owns the note.

    You own a house. You sell it to me and you carry the paper – I gave you a note and dot for 300k. You want your son named as the ben on the dot. Okay, we did that (you’ve bifurcated the note and dot, but we’ll pretend you didn’t) You soon want some money to chuck it all and run off to Phuket, so you sell the note to e.tolle. You endorse the note to e.tolle and give it to him. Then you split. Can e.tolle tell your son to assign the dot to e.tolle?

  37. These were posted at scribd by William A. Roper, who is one smart guy. Look him up online – he may have something else for you.

  38. don’t know the date of these – were handiest

  39. I’ve never seen a mortgage assignment that read….MERS, as nominee for Bank D-Wad assigns any and all stuff to MERS, as nominee for Four Horsemen Bank. Anyone?

    Crickets?

    The bottom line is this….any and every attempt by Corker, Bauchus, and most importantly this BLOODY IDIOT from Texas Jeb Hensarling needs to be stopped posthaste, yeah, he’s the guy trying to slip through a new and improved national registry that would legalize all of the illegalities that we’ve all come to know and despise with MERS. When TPTB can’t con their way out of a problem, they simply buy some politicians, and hand them a carefully crafted bill that cements the needed position. And they slipped him comp rooms at a posh resort, which caused him to sell us, as well as our grandchildren down the river. Rat Bastards One and All!

    From Deadly Clear:

    This [bill] would wipe away in an instant all the challenges to the failures in securitization. Under this new process, all property and due process rights that we currently hold would be subservient to the ability for a note holder to get its documents blessed by the repository. Judges would have to follow the statute, and regardless of robo-signing, backdating, forgery, lost notes that magically reappear, or the failure to properly convey notes to the trusts, they would have to treat any registrant from the repository as having an enforceable right to foreclose. Take all the questions arising from whether MERS has the legal right to foreclose, and all the myriad of problems with mortgage documentation, and just will it away with a brand-new private database that pre-empts all those questions and concerns. All those losses MERS has suffered in state courts? Gone.

    All those problems servicers are having foreclosing in states like Nevada and California and elsewhere? Poof!

    States have always controlled property law, and this Republican bill would wrest away that state control, putting it not in the hands of the federal government, but a private entity.

    The banks would be able to foreclose because a repository (in all likelihood owned by the banks), said they had that legal right. People thought the IRON Act would clean up the banks’ problems; this does all of that and much, much more. The provision is best described as Foreclosure Fraud-Away.

    Now more than ever it’s them against us. Our very own politicians are proving to be owned by TPTB. Please join me in a moment of understanding of the facts here….it’s them or us. There is no other path. MERS needs to go, not be reconstituted. Death to MERS.

    DEATH TO WALL STREET

  40. While re-reading a very well written white paper entitled “THE MERS MORTGAGE IN MASSACHUSETTS: GENIUS, SHELL GAME, OR INVITATION TO FRAUD?, Authored by a very smart guy named ROCKWELL. P. LUDDEN, I came across a little tidbit that grabbed my interest. This is a significant piece of work and should be digested whole on an empty stomach.

    The persistence of MERS as Lender A’s agent in the public record is in effect accomplished with smoke and mirrors—and it conjures a host of evils. Yes, every MERS member establishes its own agency relationship with MERS. But immediately upon transfer of the mortgage from Lender A the agency relationship between MERS Lender A ends. The agency between MERS and Owner B is in fact a new and distinct agency relationship—and, given the functional identity between principal and agent, a new and distinct “MERS” as well. Again, in the absence of a valid assignment, the status of MERS as the mortgagee in the public records becomes a misrepresentation of material fact at the very instant the mortgage is assigned by Lender A, and from that point on the mortgage industry is, in effect, using a ghost to do its bidding—and one of dubious character at that. Only the name “MERS” remains; the “continuity” is a chimera, an illusion, the purpose of which is to make an end run around the need for a formal assignment. It has also served as a red herring, distracting courts from the sober fact that the role of MERS as a “common agent,” for all of its theoretical elegance and self-proclaimed validity, simply cannot in its present form be fit into the framework of existing law without inflicting collateral damage upon the very principles of fairness and transparency on which that framework has been built over many years and through many efforts and sacrifices.

    What this all boils down to it this: in order for MERS to remain the mortgagee of record
    at the local land office without fraudulently misrepresenting itself as such three things must occur.

    First, since an assignment of mortgage is a conveyance of an interest in land that requires a writing signed by the grantor, there must in fact be an assignment of the mortgage from Lender A to Owner B. If the public record indicates that the mortgage is being held by MERS on behalf of Lender A, the assignment must be from MERS on behalf of Lender A.

    Second, the assignment must make clear that the mortgage will be held by MERS in its capacity as agent for Owner B; that is, it must say something to the effect that “MERS, solely as nominee for Lender A, hereby transfers its interest in the mortgage to MERS, solely as nominee for Owner B.” This distinction is not an easy one to draw, but it is essential to knowing the substance of the transaction.

    And third, to avoid discontinuity in the land office records and allow for proof of ownership in the event of foreclosure, the assignment must be recorded. The same would apply to a subsequent
    transfer from Owner B, and so forth all along the chain of ownership.

  41. iwantmynpv – well, I’m at least very clear on two things: 1) MERS has to go and 2) whatever the h MBS’s are, they need to go, also. And yes, I understand what you say about debt v cost of assets (home) and wholeheartedly agree that another eighth on a rate, even .25 or actually more, would be well worth it to get rid of all this baloney. In fact, as I’m sure you know and is what you’re saying I think,
    history has shown that with higher rates, we have lower costs on homes and vice-versa, and it’s shown this over and over. I’ve always been in favor of higher rates when necessary because one may refi and change that rate generally – at some point – but when you paid 500k for something, well, that’s what you paid and it won’t change. Fwiw, whether or not one should refi depends on the cost of the refi. I’ve always thought, because we’re so mobile, that if it takes more than two years to recover the cost of the refi by virtue of saving 100.00 a month, say, with the lower rate, don’t do it – unless one knows she’ll be in that home for a long time. If it costs 5k to refi to save 100 a month, it’ll take a long time to recoup that 5k.

  42. @ all – Do you read some of this stuff posted Neil has a combo.

    “Can I have the Whopper Combo, and instead of Fries I want a securitization report, oh yeah hold the Title Report that comes with the lettuce”, and a large diet coke filled with enough chemicals to make holes in my brain.

    Speaking of coca cola – anything that can remove paint and blood stains from a murder scene – probably should not be consumed.

  43. JG the loans I am talking about are the portfolio loans, which were switched from HFI to HTM. They don;t own the loans anymore and merely keep them on their balance sheet until sold, securitized or the bank is dissolved.

    The FHLB of San Francisco owned the 13 billion in loans, and should have seized them was Indy was wound down by the OTC. You should read a Member Agreement between the GSE and the lenders it’s great work if you can get it.

    The FHLB’s are the unknown GSE / Bank Slush Fund that should also be wound down.

    Get rid of all the GSE’s – let the banks and investors take the risks. The argument is always less financing available because the cost to insure. The real result would be slightly higher rates and the Residential Housing Market prices correcting to levels of affordability, or to match the PTI Multiple.

    Higher debt service – lower asset price. The banks don’t want this because they are broker, and could never raise the reserves to reflect a much-needed housing correction.

    Why hasn’t the FASB required the lenders, investment banks, credit card companies, and all the others with political clout that got under the bank holding company scam, to start marking their assets to pre- 2009 requirements?

    The answer is…. The FRB could not keep them all afloat and you would lose CITI and BAC for sure.

    More important, I opt for taking up space.

  44. And JG,

    Just for what it’s worth, that fear of dying is becoming obsolete. More and more people realize that grabbing an extra 20 years in uncertainty ain’t what it’s cracked up to be. Especially if that extra 20 years means depending on drugs people may not have access to next year or will make them 100 times more sick because of the side effects…

    Fear of dying fast after taking a stand v. being sick for years and dying anyway having made no difference… Easy choice for me.

  45. JG,

    “Sometimes I want to yell, scream, rent a billboard. Did you sleep thru contract and real property law”, but then if I did that, I might alienate people I’d rather not.”

    Who would you be alienating? Your bread-and-butter people? So what?

    Moral courage… What a wonderful and priceless thing. From what I understand from your many posts, John, you are an older gentleman. If I am right, you don’t have hundreds of years ahead of you. Why not invest in a billboard and saying just that? What’s the worst that could happen? You die a little sooner than you wanted to but you will never know because you never knew when it would happen in the first place, right?

    What is the best thing that could happen? You become one of the people who moved people into action… and you still don’t know when you’ll die anyway. Do you want to take up space or do want to make a difference?

  46. ps – the membership agreement and rules are prob still all over online.
    Grab them while you can.

  47. @christine at 2:33 – I believe my source of info was the membership agreement. If not, it was another MERS’ – member governing document. Why is no one on this? got me. As to the got me, I’ll have to leave it at. Oh, hell. Sometimes I want to yell, scream, rent a billboard “Did you sleep thru contract and real property law”, but then if I did that, I might alienate people I’d rather not.

  48. I posted that a couple of days ago. It’s all about Larry Summers, whose salary we’ll be paying shortly, as the new and improved bought-sold-and-paid-for Bernanke. That same Larry Summers who ran this country and many others to the ground for greed sake and enriched himself in the process.

    Here’s the deal: whatever we learn here, the rest of the world does too. In fact, most of the rest of the world knows everything before we even learn of it here. We already know that the rest of the world doesn’t like us very much. Do people really think that ostriches are famous for decisiveness? Courage? Intelligence? WTF is wrong when 320 million people do just about… nothing to redress what their own elected officials created?

    Doesn’t anyone see why Russia, India and China would want the real estate but nothing to do with the people here?

    This just came from MSfraud. It’s been posted everywhere else for at least 48 hours… Does America have any balls left or has it become a nation of eunuchs?

    http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/19053-confidential-memo-at-the-heart-of-the-global-financial-crisis

    Confidential Memo at the Heart of the Global Financial Crisis

    When a little birdie dropped the End Game memo through my window, its content was so explosive, so sick and plain evil, I just couldn’t believe it. The Memo confirmed every conspiracy freak’s fantasy: that in the late 1990s, the top US Treasury officials secretly conspired with a small cabal of banker big-shots to rip apart financial regulation across the planet.

  49. ms: “Then there is the conversion of the Note and the Payments into a Bond.. all the while the Title was conveyed to irrevocable trust by grantors. (separation of Note and Mortgage/DOT).”

    real thing you said is “conversion of the note and payments into a bond”. yes, we have knocked that around best we could. You could spit it out in English if you really believe that’s what was done. I/we can see there is no coll for a note converted to a bond, I guess. But I don’t think it takes sophisticated accounting arguments to explain how a note has been converted to bonds……it may take some reference to some kind of derecognition of the note (as a note). got me. if I understood it, I could probably explain it briefly. Why can’t, won’t you?

    you: “separation of Note and Mortgage/DOT”

    jg: hardly can be called ‘separation’ if note is destroyed by its conversion……?

  50. kc: “MERS holds legal title for the Grantors/Trustors Beneficiaries/Heirs inIrrevocable Trust!”

    jg: I’m sorry,Kc, but I believe you are confusing common law trusts with the trust in deed of trust, first of all. Secondly, MERS, as to a dot,
    does not hold ‘legal title’ to anything. What MERS has claimed to hold legal title to is the rights of another party, the lender, in a dot. No one may hold ‘legal title’ to those rights because there is no such thing as legal title to rights. One either has rights or one doesn’t; it’s not a matter of holding “legal title” to them. That’s some inanity they made up. MERS, or anyone, may be appointed a nominee. Mers (taken here just for now as a legit business), or anyone, may be appointed an agent. A nominee imo is not “a limited form of agency”, primarily because most agencies are themselves limited. A nominee and an agent are separate and distinct things, and the fate of our homes may lay in that distinction. If, here, MERS, is a nominee, the note and dot are likely bifurcated and fatally so as to mortgage backed securities. If MERS is an agent, which I say it isn’t for reasons I’ve mentioned 10 times, then the note and dot aren’t bifurcated. I’ve also asked 10 times why anyone thinks MERS wasn’t called an agent, when designating it one would have been so easy, but on that one, I’ll ask again: why does anyone think MERS wasn’t designated an agent in the dot? Does anyone think it’s because the word was outside their
    vocabulary?
    Not to dilute the issue, but MERS is called a nominee and then the dot goes on to describe specific rights of an agent, but the lender doesn’t
    sign the dot. The borrower’s acknowledgement means nothing.

    kc – where is the prohibition against changing the beneficiary to an
    irrevocable trust?

  51. JG,

    Glad you agree. That’s why I believe people who go to court with an openly hostile mindset are hurting themselves. The hostility and contempt for judges is palpable. Judges feel it. It’s demeaning and they react negatively to negative vibrations. Same for fear. It it well known that dogs attack people who fear them.

    The best way to present in court is as a legitimately curious, deeply hurt, want-to-understand person. Drop the entitlement mentality. Drop the “I was wronged” mentality. Drop the paranoia and the “fraud, fraud!” mentality. Just present as “I never defaulted on anything. I worked all my life and paid my taxes. Never asked for handouts. Paid the bank. Something happened in 2007 that i didn’t create and since then, I’ve lost my job. I lost my retirement. i lost my savings. I’m about to lose the roof over my head. i asked the bank to work with me. 6 times I had to send the same paperwork. All I want is to keep the roof over my kids’ head. What more can I do? What more am I supposed to do? Help me here!”

    Judges are scared but most of them profess to have solid moral values. Capitalize on that. If you want them to take responsibility for this mess, forget it: not their job. If you want them to be reasonable3, be reasonable first.

  52. christine @ 11:16 re: judges – yep!

  53. The NV SC recently ruled that MERS in the dot bifurcates the note and
    dot. it goes on to say they may yet be “re-unified” for enforcement (or any reason, I suppose), relying on an unspecified provision in Restatement 3rd. As If. (still waiting to see this provision)
    Bah humbug, anyway, because when there has been no unity in the first place “re”-unification is not possible. And btw, if they were bifurcated, then there’s no MBS, is there?

  54. iwantmynpv – I think you’re implying that loans that IndyMac ‘held’ were being ‘held’ for investment with another outfit. That hasn’t been my understanding. My understanding is at least some of them were ‘held’ on warehouse lines pending their sale in a better market, read at better ‘strike prices’. Lenders often close a loan at say 6.25% and hold the loan until the market is at, say 6.00, which gives them a much better price for that 6.25% paper. When the market goes the other way, they are messed. I thought IndyMac got caught holding too much speculative paper and its warehouse lines were
    exhausted, and if they couldn’t unload favorably or without too big a hit and also couldn’t get new sources of warehouse funding, would and did kill them – can’t originate any new loans. Any such loan held like that, on warehouse funding, would be subject to the security interests and rights of sub by the warehouse lender. Don’t have a clue what happens when the FDIC has to get in the act as to those sec interests of the warehouse lender – shouldn’t change anything, I’d think. But maybe I got that all wrong, and IndyMac was in fact holding loans for investment and then would be killed by exposure to default on mostly sub-prime loans (no govt or other insurance). What kind of dumb-sh&ts hold exposed sub-prime loans? It was bs enough in the first place to make them. They didn’t hold them v. sell them as a matter of integrity for making rotten-to-the-core loans in the first place, so I can’t figure why they would be holding them except temporarily.

  55. neidermeyer and everyone:

    e.tolle said:
    “Yes D. Wynn, and the judges love to shout from on high, ….foreclosure attorneys acting within the scope of employment are “immune from liability to third persons for actions arising out of that professional relationship.” Crime? Not when it’s protected by law.”

    It so isn’t protected by law, despite how some things are twisted in this case or that case.

    This particular case, involving Wells Fargo, has a great discussion
    of rule 9011 sanctions and attorneys’ liability for bad faith conduct.
    Rule 9011 is a bk rule, deriving from FRCP 11. When we start going after the law firms, things will change imo.
    Did you know that courts have a duty themselves to report violations of the legal canons by attorneys to the disciplinary board? Did you know YOU may make a complaint with the bar association disciplinary board?
    Caution: these complaints should not be made lightly nor merely to be vindictive.

  56. MS, grow up my boy. I don’t make anything up. Google yourself and see how well thought of you are… Again, what the hell are you smoking? Drinking? Sniffing? Ingesting?

    Posted 07/31/12 #1
    Sources close to M. Soliman say that M. Soliman has reached an agreement with state and federal prosecutors to testify against the K-Platinum defendants and also crooked attorneys who were involved in the K-Platinum civil cases. M. Soliman has bragged that he wore a wire and got a lot of incriminating evidence against the crooked attorneys.

    M. Soliman will receive full immunity from any prosecution and will be able to resume his expert witness service after serving only 6 months of probation. He should be available as an expert witness again in 2013.
    Texas
    Posted 07/31/12 #2
    Immunity from prosecution and return to being an expert!!!

    A paradox is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which (if true) defies logic or reason, similar to circular reasoning.

    Catherine
    Posted 07/31/12 #3
    M. Soliman will also testify against his former NLS business partner Brenda Michelson who is charged in the K-Platinum swindle:

    M. Soliman claims he will get immunity from prosecution for the Mortgage Guarantee Collateral Acceptance swindle, the Tri-Star swindle and his perjury in prior affidavits in support of borrowers. He will agree not to make perjury in affidavits when he resumes his service.
    Texas

    Posted 07/31/12 #4
    Most seniors on this site do not believe anything from M. Soliman.

    Being that the case, why would a judge or jury believe?

    goi
    Posted 08/01/12 #5
    Maher Soliman is NOT and Expert Witness. WHY he (and others) seem to think has some ‘secret’ knowledge is LUDICROUS. I provided his “evidence” to several attorneys, (who HAVE WON in court), auditors and paralegals. ALL HAVE AGREED is has NO LEGAL VALUE in a foreclosure case. He provided FALSE CREDENTIALS when being introduced into a FEDERAL CASE. The Judge DISQUALIFIED HIM…!!!! He is a TOTAL FRAUD…!!!

    This is EASY to VALIDATE: If maher can provide ANY CASE in which he testified to the benefit of a homeowner (or other person) contesting a bank (or lender) and PREVAILED: anyone could acquire the case folder(s) from the court to verify. Court Cases are PUBLIC RECORD: so don’t believe the ‘gag order’ BS that he (or anyone else) gives you….

  57. iwantmynpv, what do you know about PSA’s that are no longer on the SEC website and whether they can be found elsewhere. Opp. counsel in my case stated that “there is no PSA.” I find that hard to believe.

  58. MS went after a crooked law firm he was associated with and only because he was becoming a target of that investigation.

    Nutjob , Lord this is one whacked out sorry mother from another . What in the world are you saying …read the press release as not on word is spelled correctly ….its living Lies terrrorism

    He testified in exchange for immunity. Immunity from what, I ask.

    Well now Nana. Because I want to be immunized from chicken pox —NG stop this will you – manage this site

  59. e.tolle at 7:16 – right on and left off and you still crack me up and you’re still a very good writer.

  60. I am simply trying to figure out why in tarnations I can not get a payoff for a debt owed
    THERE IS NO DEBT OWED BY A GURANTOR OR GRAT SURETY – UNTIL THEY ENTER A COMMON LAW COURT

    but instead get terrorized for asking, I also get another $60,000 in bogus fees for their delays.
    THE $60,000 IS BASIS THAT WILL ACCRETE AFTER THEY F/C AND CAUSE FOR THE HOME TO REMAIN EMPTY FIVE MORE YEARS

    I am not a hacker and never hacked here before —maybe when I wake up and START hacking after I have a cig!

  61. neidermeyer – about them dismissing…..can’t be done if your mtn for SJ is pending. A pending mtn for SJ precludes the other side from a voluntary dismissal. I guess it depends on the strength of one’s mtn for SJ (if one has one or can get one in), in which a court may consider ‘stuff’ outside the pleadings, is my understanding, like JN’able stuff. Sometimes it’s good enough just to get them to bug off, but knowing they often just re-stack their deck and come back, sometimes it isn’t. lay opinions of course. IMO it’s always best to get them to commit to a particular position about who’s who to make it harder if not impossible for them to re-stack the deck, but that may only be possible early on.

    Have you looked at any of these lately for support:

    In re vargas
    In re wilhelm
    In re Hwang
    In re Sheraton

    These were all earlier cases now buried, but they’re still all over online, I think. Yes, they’re all bk cases and not nec precendent, but the arguments still hold water, tho I mostly can’t recall what all they were! I think Vargas involved sanctions, but not sure. And it was in Vargas fwiw that the court stated that pleading for
    “ABC banksters, its successors and or assigns” is an illegal attempt
    to get relief for unnamed persons/entities (non-parties).

  62. KC,

    About Second Coming’s tobacco claim…

    Always ask yourself why someone would file anything in court as a pro se. Right now, many homeowners cannot find representation. They don’t have a choice.

    If they want to fight, they have to do it alone. And it is all to their credit, given the current conditions.

    OMG ……wow

  63. EDITOR Said: If Wells Fargo is the Plaintiff and they have not filed on behalf of the actual creditor, it is because neither the trust (which was unfunded) nor the investors have any clear claim against you

    Counsel, if they file in the name of the trust and trust assets as “holders” the laws governing domicle , title and muniments recorded for a NY indenture by WFB soley as Trustee as holding dominion over assets wired off shore in depositors accounts held in Cayman Islands.

    The jurisdiction rests in a federal Claim or challanges to in- rem proceedings (opinion)

  64. @johngault ,

    Thanks for the MASS WF case regarding actual holder hiding behind servicer … I have read it and forwarded it on to my team as I think I may be able to get the wedge in and open this up… I’ve got PLENTY to muddy the waters with but that’ll probably just lead to plaintiff dismissing and disappearing .. I want to get something useful out of this.

  65. KC,

    About Second Coming’s tobacco claim…

    Always ask yourself why someone would file anything in court as a pro se. Right now, many homeowners cannot find representation. They don’t have a choice. If they want to fight, they have to do it alone. And it is all to their credit, given the current conditions.

    Not so for his lawsuit. Personal injury attorneys are a dime a dozen. especially in CA. Biiiiiig business in CA. P.I. attorneys are always making a killing. The cases being turned down are extremely rare, including against the big, deep pocket of the tobacco industry. And yet…

    Get my point?

  66. JG,

    “the thrust of the arguments in favor of the National Registry is that it would be more beneficial to have our land records indexed nationally and not at local county levels.” one more way to funnel and siphon up all the money from the remnants of middle class up to government. Look, that’s what they did with SS and we know what happened: lots of monies diverted to Lalaland. Same for the Post Office.

    Institutionalized highway robbery doesn’t make it any more acceptable. Funny thing, though, is that that little bit didn’t make it to MSM either…

  67. JG,

    “it’s my understanding that the members have to pay to defend almost all actions against MERS contractually. Chances are high MERS never even knew when it was a named party.” I understand that it is what we all assume, based on… what again?

    Where I have a problem is that not one homeowner, not one attorney has ever really dug into it. i realize that anyone wanting to handle any part of real estate has to be a MERS member (or risk going belly up because of being de facto blackballed. Happened to my own attorney…) I also understand that becoming a member, which guarantees them the ability to make a living, probably comes with serious ties, such as the obligation to indemnify and hold MERS harmless against everything under the sun and then some.

    I still want to see where the money comes from and based on hat kind of agreement between MERS and the members. Blackmail is wrong, any way you look at it. By following the money, it becomes feasible to prove that MERS members were forced to participate in that scam if they wanted to survive. Has anyone seen or published an actual contract between MERS and its members? I don’t recall seeing that.

  68. christine @ 2:00 – the thrust of the arguments in favor of the National Registry is that it would be more beneficial to have our land records indexed nationally and not at local county levels. Beneficial for whom?
    Currently, as we all know, our land records are recorded locally. We can go to the recorders online and see the captions of the documents and this costs nothing. If we want to see the actual documents, we have to go to the recorder’s or have an account and pay to see them online (or maybe one may send a check and request copies). This is one of the things they want to avoid. Title companies may well be behind it, at least partially. If there is a National Registry, they need have only one account to see docs in any county in any state. It will be more difficult for homeowners to see anything and you can probably forget just going to the recorders since they are
    instigating electronic recordation of these records and one would likely need an account to access jack. IMO this is going to lead to a lot of
    woes and is an effort to force out smaller title companies in favor of a few monopolies. And keep in mind that those monopolies will likely be held by title companies who currently are MERS’ members and shareholders in MERSCorp. It’s a very, very bad idea for title companies to have such monopolies. We and all smaller title companies and recorder’s offices should be screaming. We’ll add it to the list, right?
    sorry about my last comment. computer ate it and had to redo and then it was a mess.

  69. KC,

    I don’t go after people who file AND people who don’t. I don’t get upset either. There is a place, a time and a reason for everything. In the tobacco matter, you need to read the filing or just the appeals court ruling.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1342236.html

    Keep in mind that, at the time MS filed, cigarette smoking in ALL public places had been banned pretty much in all of California for a good 12 to 15 years because it was addictive and dangerous (I lived there at the time and i know it had been). The guy is in LA. He’d known for years what he was doing and his “Oh Gee… i had no idea until i saw it on TV” didn’t fly because it had been on TV for 12 to 15 years.

    Not so with homeowners who did NOT know what had been caused by the banks until a few years ago. However, where I do have a serious problem is when people do absolutely nothing to defend their own interests and come here to lecture with other people’s experiences.

    And just for the hell of it… MS went after a crooked law firm he was associated with and only because he was becoming a target of that investigation. How do i know? He testified in exchange for immunity. Immunity from what, I ask.

    Tells me everything i need to know.

  70. Great Post Christine, that is exactly what they are trying to do to those who have no already waived their homestead exemption rights via a refi or mod or snookery.

  71. christine @ 11:16 – it’s my understanding that the members have to pay to defend almost all actions against MERS contractually. Chances are high MERS never even knew when it was
    a named party. That may have changed, but I doubt it. When it comes to class-A’s or actions from recorders, MERS likely gets in the act. But when it’s been homeowner v MERS et al, it’s been by and large the member retaining counsel and litigating in MERS’ name. MERS never provides any of the docs, like
    the note or dot because MERS doesn’t have any and never did. No real MERS’ officer has ever, with rare exception and then usually Hultman, has ever signed and submitted a declaration in a homeowner case.

    MERS charges a 25.00 fee to make members and non-members MERS’ “officers”. Then the members and non-members must pay a fee to MERS to use their own employees-come-MERS
    officers to execute assignments (pretty sure). In other words, MERS has been paid for the use of its name in the execution of every assignment done by anyone in its name. MERS is liable for
    every action taken in its name, includiing those by the robo-signors. And yet, only a few individuals doing what they were appointed to do have been nailed.

    For anyone interested, the Ukpe (NJ) homeowners forced those guys to retain separate counsel $$, citing conflict of interest, which there is. The Ukpe homeowners also successfully had their case remanded back to state court. (see scribd but spelling is wrong as Upke, I think). They also got a ruling that HAMP provides a private right of action for homeowners. I mention this repeatedly because it’s good info and because I admire the attorneys involved. It’s also the case where I Iearned MERS is on its third iteration – depo of WM Hultman – also at scribd, I think – and that no iteration authorizes Hultman to make these appointments. I don’t personally believe it’s possible for MERS to ratify these appointments because they are given specifically to affect interests in real property. Hultman’s ‘appointments’ are in writing, by way of a corporate resolution he apparently crafted and signs, but they’re good for nothing
    without his own corporate authority to execute them.

    In the only case I know to address whether or not Hultman’s appointees are in fact MERS officers, Koontz v EverHome Mortgage and MERS, ND Indiana, here is what the court said:

    MERS, in its Answer to the plaintiff’s Complaint, admit(ted) that Bethany Hood is not an employee of MERS. (cite omitted). The debtor claimed that the document [assignment signed
    by Bethany Hood as a MERS officer] was fabricated and MERS has offered no other explanation, nor has it submitted properly authenticated documentation of an assignment.

    It appears to this Court that a fraudulent recorded Assignment of Mortgage might still be found today in the St. Joseph’s County Recorder’s Office, despite MERS’ knowledge of the false signature.”

    In other words, the assignment is crapinski, fraudulent, and further, MERS declined to defend its appt of Ms Hood (or any of its 20,000 + “officers”). MS Hood, like many, many others was appointed so
    that MERS and its members could further curtail and avoid their obligations and expenses.

    It’s true that the law says an assignment executed by a corporation binds that corporation. But that doesn’t mean the corporation has anything to assign and it definitely doesn’t mean these Hultman-appointees are in fact MERS’ corporate officers that may bind the corporation. Based on the Hultman depo in Ukpe, its the Board which must appoint corporate officers.

    If I had lost my home to a “MERS” assignment, I would be looking into whether or not these Hultman-appointees are in fact “MERS” officers qualified and able to bind MERS or if in fact these assignments are VOID as well as fraudulent. And I would be looking at non-MERS specific cases and statutes.

    christine @ 11:16 – it’s my understanding that the members have to pay to defend almost

    all actions against MERS contractually. Chances are high MERS never even knew when it was

    a named party. That may have changed, but I doubt it. When it comes to class-A’s or

    actions from recorders, MERS likely gets in the act. But when it’s been
    homeowner v MERS et al, it’s been by and large the member
    retaining counsel and litigating in MERS’ name. MERS never provides any of the docs, like

    the note or dot because MERS doesn’t have any and never did. No real MERS’ officer has

    ever, with rare exception and then usually Hultman, has ever signed and submitted a

    declaration in a homeowner case.

    MERS charges a 25.00 fee to make members and non-members MERS’ “officers”. Then the

    members and non-members must pay a fee to MERS to use their own employees-come-MERS

    officers to
    execute assignments (pretty sure). In other words, MERS has been paid for the use of its

    name in the execution of every assignment done by anyone in its name. MERS is liable for

    every action taken in its name, includiing those by the robo-signors. And yet, only a few

    individuals doing what they were appointed to do have been nailed.

    For anyone interested, the Ukpe (NJ) homeowners forced those guys to retain separate

    counsel $$, citing conflict of interest, which there is.
    The Ukpe homeowners also successfully had their case remanded back to state court. (see

    scribd but spelling is wrong as Upke, I think).
    They also got a ruling that HAMP provides a private right of action for homeowners. I

    mention this repeatedly because it’s good info and
    because I admire the attorneys involved. It’s also the case where I Iearned MERS is on

    its third iteration – depo of WM Hultman – also at scribd, I think – and that no

    iteration authorizes Hultman to make these
    appointments. I don’t personally believe it’s possible for MERS to ratify these

    appointments because they are given specifically to affect
    interests in real property. Hultman’s ‘appointments’ are in writing, by way of a

    corporate resolution he apparently crafted and signs, but they’re good for nothing

    without his own corporate authority to execute them.

    In the only case I know to address whether or not Hultman’s appointees are in fact
    MERS officers, Koontz v EverHome Mortgage and MERS, ND Indiana, here is what the court

    said:

    MERS, in its Answer to the plaintiff’s Complaint, admit(ted) that Bethany Hood is not an

    employee of MERS. (cite omitted). The debtor claimed that the document [assignment signed

    by Bethany Hood as a MERS officer] was fabricated and MERS has offered no other

    explanation, nor has it submitted properly authenticated documentation of an assignment.

    It appears to this Court that a fraudulent recorded Assignment of Mortgage might still be

    found today in the St. Joseph’s County Recorder’s Office, despite MERS’ knowledge of the

    false signature.”

    In other words, the assignment is crapinski and further, MERS declined to defend
    its appt of Ms Hood (or any of its 20,000 + “officers”).

    It’s true that the law says an assignment executed by a corporation binds that
    corporation. But that doesn’t mean the corporation has anything to assign and it
    definitely doesn’t mean these Hultman-appointees are in fact MERS’ corporate
    officers that may bind the corporation. Based on the Hultman depo in Ukpe, its the Board which must appoint corporate officers.

    If I had lost my home to a “MERS” assignment, I would be looking into whether or
    not these Hultman-appointees are in fact “MERS” officers qualified and able to
    bind MERS or if in fact these assignments are VOID as well as fraudulent.

  72. Let me rephrase… Unless all the SC Justices AND Congress croak overnight. Ain’t gonna happen as long as we keep feeding them all.

    PATH: House Republican GSE Bill Would Codify MERS, Pre-Empt Private Property Rights

    Posted by 4closureFraud on July 16, 2013 · 5 Comments

    The top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee has tucked a provision into his mortgage finance reform bill that would create a privately held “National Mortgage Data Repository.” The repository would basically look like MERS, the bank-owned electronic database tracking mortgage transfers. The difference is that, while MERS’ activities have drawn legal challenges across the country, the National Mortgage Data Repository would have the force of statute to carry out the exact same behavior. According to the bill text, any document arising from this repository would be seen as presumptively legal, pre-empting state and federal laws on demonstrating the right to foreclose.

    Jeb Hensarling, the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced the bill last Thursday. Hensarling has already gotten into trouble this year for taking a ski vacation/fundraiser with Wall Street lobbyists, including an official from the American Securitization Forum, just six weeks after getting the Financial Services Committee gavel. Financial interests donated over $1 million to Hensarling in the last election cycle. It’s not a stretch to suggest that legislation offered by Hensarling at least has the stamp of approval from Wall Street, if it’s not directly written by their lobbyists.

  73. Christine, you get upset with people who don’t file lawsuits and with people who do. I’m confused ..

    MS has went after a dirty law firm and big tobacco … what could be so wrong about that? Win or Lose … he fought the Good Fight didn’t he? You say he did it for the money … maybe so (I don’t know), but your lawsuit is for the money to isn’t it? I’m just saying .. that if you don’t agree with someone…. there is no need to attack them. And that goes for MS to!

    I’m not defending anyone here … nor am I paying anyone. I am simply trying to figure out why in tarnations I can not get a payoff for a debt owed but instead get terrorized for asking, I also get another $60,000 in bogus fees for their delays. Hocky Sticks will have Wings before I pay those bogus fees a second time!

  74. Supreme Court Declines to Review MERS Challenge
    Submitted by bobbyw24 on Thu, 10/13/2011 – 08:32

    The United States Supreme Court has denied a writ of certiorari in a case involving MERS, refusing to reconsider a California court ruling, which upheld MERS’ right to initiate foreclosures.

    The Supreme Court of the State of California previously refused to review the case, leading San Diego foreclosure attorney Ehud Gersten to elevate his client’s case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    “It is disappointing,” Gersten told DSNews.com Wednesday. However, Gersten noted that the odds the case would be heard were very slim. Only about 3 percent of cases submitted are granted review by the Supreme Court, he said.

    Still, he had hoped the Supreme Court would make a national ruling, ending the state-by-state discrepancies in MERS cases. “One of the things that’s disappointing about it is that it would be nice to have a decision for the entire country,” Gersten said.

    http://www.dsnews.com/articles/supreme-court-declines-to-rev

    It was tried way back when. Unless all the SC Justices croak overnight and are replaced, it ain’t gonna happen any time soon… They don’t have the guts to go after it for the same reasons judges are too petrified to make the proper decisions. Still has to do with that little thing called “moral courage” (or absolute lack thereof, in that instance…)

  75. What needs to happen to MERS is a constitutional challenge.

    As to MS, he doesn’t suffer from delusions of grandeur, but from delusions of adequacy.

  76. “…not an attorney…” We know, MS. We know. In fact, we know everything you’re not, and the list is pretty exhaustive.

    The question is… What are you? Besides a festival of auto-satisfaction, of course…

  77. To think (everyone here is cracking up ) I bet I could bring out the whaccos blogger tweekers and cry babys with as little as 15 minutes of exchange. LOL

    but the NAREIT thing was a great response . …

    LMAO

  78. Yes Christine, he smoked for near 50 years without realizing it was bad for him. The judge, as he was having him tossed to the courtroom parking lot said:

    JUDGE: “If you try and bring another case like that before my court, you’ll get worse! What time is it?

    MS: “Five to Ten your honor.”

    JUDGE: “That’s exactly what you’ll get!”

  79. The Deed is in my husbands name. Probative issues / avoidance
    RE bill comes in both our names. Community

    There is No lien on the Deed.- But one recorded
    There is a recorded Mortgage. – Yes it did Read the Deed – In Rem arguments arisen

    Bulleye – On target : But the Mortgage secures Nothing without the Warranty Deed 1st being filed. The Warranty Deed is not filed.

    Ask yourself this question till you can get it —-But the Mortgage secures Nothing without the Warranty Deed 1st being filed. The Warranty Deed is not filed.

    Get off this site and map it out …it will mean more to you then being told the reponde ! CAll me later ….peace

    not an attorney and for provided for the sole purose of reading and sharing layperson views . Only a licensed attaroney can represent your interest in property and in matters brought into a court of law

  80. Hey MS….these two little things ” “ over to the right of your keyboard go are a great tool for letting people know when you’re quoting someone. Oh and, that word I just used and that you also just used is spelled you’re, not your. Just a refresher since I know it’s been a while since you answered that ad on the matchbook cover, “You Too Can Become A Mortgage Expert!” You should have gone with Hotel/Motel management, or maybe just Laundromat Attendant.

  81. MS,

    What the hell are you smoking these days? I know tobacco didn’t do you any good…

  82. “MERS is considered a full fledged mortgagee, with all the inherent and associated rights that that invokes….

    And MS said, “Wrong so so wrong ….”

    Yeah, of course it’s wrong, but that’s exactly the way the courts AND and the law community in MN perceive the situation. I realize that’s hard for you to comprehend, but then again, isn’t everything?

  83. brilliant –

    I dont know who you are and what you stand for and your no friend …..
    But what you just said is brilliant

    Ask yourself the question again ….your now on track Bulls eye …ask your self the Q again ….Mers Corp and NAREIT whats the connection

  84. MS… Because I had another Trespasser on our property today, Landsafe, via Bryant property inspections for BOA
    ————- ——————– ——————-
    Watch Colombo series on DVD ….He is laughed at , ridiculed , told to get out and made a fool….all this while he asks ….

    Inspector – is this coffee fresh …can I have the rest before I leave ….oh, it’s not fresh ….it was made this morning.

    Inspector – Hmmmmm But you said at the time of the murder at 10:00 PM you were in the kitchen making coffee. Okay , But , how did you make coffee if the pot has the coffee left over from this morning….

    Inspector – Okay , just curious . I’m leaving now.
    The inspector is never the fool at the end when he reads the suspect their rights ….

    You need to welcome these people into the home
    You’re the inspector so ask questions –

  85. I meant “would have any say in it”

  86. MS,

    And inasmuch as MERS and Merscorp were created by the banks, I can’t see how NAREIT wouldn’t have any say in it…

  87. MS:

    Once again, your world is a very strange place where no direct answer to any direct question is ever offered, no supporting documentation ever introduced and the whole blahblahblah ever makes any sense…

    I bet you’re not married because no sane woman would venture in that strange, strange world…

  88. Behave You Two Passionate Hot Heads!

  89. .The Deed is in my husbands name.
    RE bill comes in both our names.

    There is No lien on the Deed.
    There is a recorded Mortgage.

    But the Mortgage secures Nothing without the Warranty Deed 1st being filed.

    The Warranty Deed is not filed.

  90. Chistine —why thank you …does this mean you and i are friends ….

    Okay sorry …I understand

  91. Jack in the Box early on boasted of their “secret sauce”. You cannot patent ketchup and mustard. What is patented here is a business model that NAREIT wants no part of. I use a mathematical formula to calculate the tax payer end of year 1099 statements. It’s what keeps me going in these hostile waters when attacked by the ignorant and economically insane. But you cannot patent a mathematic equation. You cannot revoke testimony or deny evidentiary to allow a 12(b) 6 lotion for Movant to prevail.

    EXAMPLE: The IRS takes a 15 day period added to the FDCPA for recognition and 180 day term to enforce these Mers trades, – Is this patent? Yes where it ties the business models execution to DOT Regulations and the security instrument you signed, whereupon each is held to local jurisdiction solely for recording purposes.

    Is this more MS gibberish intended to get J Gault excited? Maybe –

    But read your deed first before you judge…. [Its prima fascia and you don’t get it ]

    registerclaims@live.com

    If I wished you good luck would you know what to do with it…..

  92. MS… Because I had another Trespasser on our property today, Landsafe, via Bryant property inspections for BOAna changed their Motto and their Routine… Changed the time and date of inspections since they started last Nov. They caught me off guard today as I was busy with our grandsons and didn’t know they were here.

    I had the Buckshot locked and loaded…

  93. KC,

    In keeping with the patent issue…

    Even Monsanto is patenting its atrocities. And going after everything that moves (sometimes, it doesn’t even have to move: all it has to do is have the misfortune of holding one seed it hasn’t paid for, even if a little birdie dumped it on a field…)

    Merscorp and MERS never bothered. Why?

  94. MS,

    KC is the only person who believes that you are the second coming. Be good to her…🙂

  95. KC,

    When i talk about patent, I am referring to a product conceived by the human mind and which whoever conceived it intends to protect from duplication. For example, CoreLogic (my other pet peeve) had 2 patents granted to it on June 18, 2013.

    LIST OF PATENTEES
    TO WHOM
    PATENTS WERE ISSUED ON THE 18th DAY OF June, 2013
    AND TO WHOM
    REEXAMINATION CERTIFICATES WERE ISSUED
    DURING THE WEEK BEGINNING THE 10th DAY OF June, 2013.
    NOTE–Arranged in accordance with the first significant character or word of the name
    (in accordance with city and telephone directory practice).

    CoreLogic, Inc.: See–
    Sathyanarayana, Vinaya; Sivananda, Salaka; and Pati, Peeta Basa 08468167 Cl. 707-776.
    CoreLogic Solutions, LLC: See–
    Serio, Dianna L.; and Kesselring, Felice J. 08468088 Cl. 705-38.

    Look up the records:

    http://search.uspto.gov/search?affiliate=web-sdmg-uspto.gov&query=&go=Go

    Try to find Mers (or Mortgage Electronic Registration System) or even Merscorp (as the brain behind it…) Neither exist. There isn’t even any indication that it ever was submitted,rejected and appealed, as is the case for TITAN, StormBoard or ULTRASLIM, for example. There is a trademark for MERS and Merscorp but… no evidence of existing patent on record (again, unless I didn’t research properly).

  96. Question “MERS is considered a full fledged mortgagee, with all the inherent and associated rights that that invokes?

    Wrong so so wrong ….

  97. Then there is the conversion of the Note and the Payments into a Bond.. all the while the Title was conveyed to irrevocable trust by grantors. (separation of Note and Mortgage/DOT).

    No conversion -contra assets ….

    What are you doing here ….

  98. KC Why are you doing this ? MS

  99. E. ToLLe,

    I’ve been thinking about that case and what Butler is up against. Once it’s all said and done, Butler’s only way out is to file BK7. What judges and attorneys don’t get is this: they will come a time when people who’ve got nothing to lose outnumber those who do. I even believe that it doesn’t even to get to that before it blows: I read somewhere that all it takes for a revolution is 10% of the population being fed up. We’re not there. Working at it but still a little time to go.

  100. You can not patent a Life. But dag gone if BOA didn’t go and file patent for the loan apps in 2010 (a lil late).

    Would that be because you list all your assets, liabilities and income on the application? Could It be they were selling the Applications or Your LIfe Estates Value in advance of a loan?

    My daughters FHA Pre disclosres in 2006 were on a property she never made an offer on. But has an FHA loan on?

    Then there is the conventional mortgage she and her husband received several months later in 2007 thru same broker on a property they did make an offer on and bought. They have a conventional loan on the property they live in.

    The DU System tells the Whole Story.

  101. that should read now up to $330K….

  102. Christine, another kicker on MERS….in attorney Bill Butler’s sanctioning, now up to $230K, he’s been ordered to pay adversary’s law bills, which include both MERSCORP, Inc., and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

  103. KC,

    Not quite. What I want is much more simple: I want the right questions to be asked. Not just by homeowners who have been denied any authority to ask them but by the people whose salary we pay to ask them. Because once they are, MERS will disappear. The problem is not that MERS hasn’t been prosecuted. The problem is that no one has the balls to ask the RIGHT questions.

    Think about this: from all my research, and Gawd knows I’ve spent a lot of time and energy on it, I have been unable to even find that the MERS program itself was ever patented!!! In other words, anyone else could very well decide one day to duplicate it or reproduce it. Its registered in its first, second and third generation but i couldn’t find ONE patent for either (unless, of course, I didn’t look in the right places).

    Mind boggling, in a world where the first thing anyone coming up with anything whatsoever is… to patent it!!! Might it be because… it isn’t patentable? Might it be because it wouldn’t stand to the tests?

    http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/mers-too-many-dead-ducks/

  104. Settlor/Grantor/Trustor can not be a Beneficiary. So they created MERS to go in the middle. Who is on Title? Who gets Title when debt is repaid under the terms of the Note? Why were the Warranty Deeds not filed?

    Yes I know who is behind it Christine! And I know who is funding them and so do you. We just disagree on the solution … you want to bring them down and I want them prosecuted and I want transparency brought to the People. I want a Government Who Represents the People and Not Bribed by Corp Campaign Donations.

  105. MERS holds legal title for the Grantors/Trustors Beneficiaries/Heirs in Irrevocable Trust!

    Beneficiaries can NOT instruct Trustee or Nominee or even a Jackass to act on livery person.

    Trustee acts under Trustors limited powers granted to it.

    Trustee acts upon the Grantors/Trustors dimise and not on the authority of a beneficiary in due course.

  106. “But that’s not the way the law operates in MN. MERS is considered a full fledged mortgagee, with all the inherent and associated rights that that invokes.”

    And yet… it doesn’t exist! It has no money, no employees, nothing! That’s what is so mind-boggling about it. No one appears to want to go after what’s driving MERS and, more importantly, how. I have yet to read anything substantial about who hired the attorneys to defend MERS in the many lawsuits attempted against it, who paid for MERS defense costs, who paid for whatever fines MERS was to pay to the very few government agencies that levied them against it. No one appears to have either tried or been able to say: “B of A contributed X%, Chase paid Y% into it, WF forked up Z%.”

    That non-existing, non-entity vested with the legal status of a “person”… enough to drive anyone thinking about it completely insane!

    I don’t believe judges or attorneys are inherently evil for not looking into it. I believe they are inherently terrified of what could/might/would happen, were they to start looking into it. What’s preventing disclosure of where the money comes from and in what shape or form is nothing more than fear of a collapse it is bound to create. Another case of kicking that can down the road for fear of facing reality.

  107. I’m not out for the Money, so the math makes no difference to me … I am just protecting our Family Estate and our Beneficiaries .. Heirs.

    Growing Up is No Fun!

  108. E-Tollee.. Nope! Not Possible.

    You have to study your Vocab words, you will find them in the Mortgage and the Note.

    My Math/Accounting Skills are still a work in progress. Sorry!

  109. Neil,

    Don’t you think its about time to pull up your Big Boy Pants and Tell the People the Truth?

    Are you selectively blocking my posts again?

    Hellooooo …. Anyone in the room?

  110. When household estate are conveyed irrevocably and warrantied free of all encums and liens into trust, they can not be modified and are protected by debt collectors of anyone in the estate.

    Then there is the conversion of the Note and the Payments into a Bond.. all the while the Title was conveyed to irrevocable trust by grantors. (separation of Note and Mortgage/DOT).

    Accounting/Conversion… Change in Repayment Terms? Talk to MS.
    I am still brushing up on my Off the Book Accounting Skills. Or as I call them … Cooked Books.

  111. KC, would it be possible for you to simply say what it is that you have to say, without the split personality?

    And maybe in one post instead of hundreds?

  112. Why did they take Title before default?

    KC .. because you conveyed it to them irrevocably.

    Homework …….

    Can you sue a Revocable Trust? ….(for debt default)

    Can you sue a Irrevocable Trust?

    Can you modify a Revocable Trust?

    Can you modify Irrevocable Trust?

  113. RE: What “IF …What if the beneficiary for deed or security was not what you think…

    KC…. Who is the Grantors beneficiaries? Grantors/Trustors to irrevocable trust can not be Trustor and Beneficiary?

    irrevocable means til you croak….

    you can not modify irrevocable ….

  114. I will have my Bacon Extra Crispy Please!

    Hogs are easier to catch …..

  115. Can you tell Grandma drank the whole pot of coffee this morning all by herself?

    Oh …Title was conveyed to trust warrantied by the Grantors free of all encumbs and liens. 🙂

    Show Me the Title!

    I love Coffee and I am So Done Chasing Chickens!

  116. This is not legal advise … I am not an attorney.
    I’ just think out loud to much……

  117. KC hubby as borrower/creditor/debtor.
    KC hubby as buyer/seller/trustor/grantor with KC.

    Household estate not responsible for unsecured debt outside an irrevocable conveyance.

  118. KC as buyer, then seller ….. did not authorize MERS to act…

    Who did?

    KC as Grantor/Trustor did not authorize Trustee to act ..

    Who did?

    Ut Oh ….

  119. Buy .. Sell … Lease Back for Life

  120. KC says … The grantors/sellers nominates MERS.

  121. RE: nominee withheld the grantor name for good reason

    KS.. Yeah they did Alright! Buttwipes!

    RE: the asset cannot come out of an irrevocable grant or conveyance

    KS…. Enforce It!

    KS… Now Go Kick Butt!

  122. Don’t Fight Them … Join them

    Enforce the Contract!

  123. MS said, “Mers Can endorse the transactions Seller side …But only for the party it represents….”

    That bit of what should be painfully obvious logic also went the way of the Edsel in my neck of the woods. In MN, Jackson v. MERS, MERS has been erroneously attributed with the capability of being a stand-alone entity, one that needs no agency. The courts rule that way with a religious zeal, and not a single attorney would try and haul that barge upstream.

    Justice Alan Page, the lone dissenter in Supreme Court case, even went so far as to state in his dissent, “MERS claims to hold legal title, but only legal title, to the mortgage being foreclosed. MERS also claims that in foreclosing mortgages it acts only as nominee for its members. But MERS can act as nominee for only the particular MERS member who holds the promissory note at any particular time and, when that promissory note is assigned between members, the member for which MERS acts as nominee, and on whose behalf MERS holds legal title, necessarily changes.”

    But that’s not the way the law operates in MN. MERS is considered a full fledged mortgagee, with all the inherent and associated rights that that invokes. MERS can and does assign mortgages from long dead originators with complete impunity, and in defiance of anything remotely legal. It just does, and they just let it. It’s like a zombie in a bad B movie….it just keeps attacking and won’t die.

  124. Where did I leave my Switch … ?
    I know someone who needs their Britches warmed up.

    Master Servicer knows the Truth, The Whole Truth, and has told Nothing But the Truth! He still needs his britches warmed up thou ..

    Many Blessings to All

  125. Im not suing mers ms

  126. Hedge Funds Are Dumping Monsanto Company (MON)
    By Arnold Frias | Google+ in News
    Published: August 21, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    Actually, more African countries have been refusing entrance to Bill Gates in the past few months, especially after his forced vaccinations in Chad where 49 kids subsequently died. People are waking up worldwide on that systematic and methodical poisoning earth and its inhabitants have been subjected to. It won’t be too long any more…

  127. And when called out for our forgery and fraud, we just recount George Costanza’s logic (also used to great effect by George Bush) to the judge: “It’s not a lie if you believe it”…

  128. What “IF …What if the beneficiary for deed or security was not what you think…and a nominee withheld the grantor name for good reason ….the asset cannot come out of an irrevocable grant or conveyance …not without a gimmick. Mers Can endorse the transactions Seller side …

    But only for the party it represents ….now go on and attack your friends over at Mers Corp (learn how to litigate – litigate what …your own obstruction of facts )

    History 1237 the lost tribe of Mor-e-ons

  129. Eggs in my case
    Youis wrong
    USCA 9th circuit 12-16192

  130. Well FIRE economy- what the heck does av joe understand about that.
    But i hear ya.

  131. “The problem I am seeing out there is lawyers and pro se litigants are trying to take short cuts that don’t exist in civil procedure or substantive law. The judge has no choice but to find in favor of the bank. You can’t do some of the work and expect the judge to take it the rest of the way.”

    The judge “takes it the rest of the way” in favor of the banks all the time. Why are we held to a different standard? I love E Tolle’s idea–if forgery and fraudulent documents suddenly appearing out of nowhere are the name of the game, then let us have at it!

    The new company’s name: Xdoc, maybe. We get our brothers and sisters who’ve lost their jobs and homes to the banks to sit and sign Jamie Demon’s name to releases of mortgage and stamp “paid in full” on notes all day long. And we won’t have to worry about notaries, either–just make that shit up! It’s a win-win: they get jobs AND free houses and the banks get beaten at their own game!

  132. Yes D. Wynn, and the judges love to shout from on high, ….foreclosure attorneys acting within the scope of employment are “immune from liability to third persons for actions arising out of that professional relationship.” Crime? Not when it’s protected by law.

    One must realize that this “rule of law” didn’t happen by happenstance. It was bought and paid for by the FIRE sector. The absolute best representation that can be purchased….America was auctioned to the highest bidder.

  133. And yes the arrogance of the attorneys representing banks. Unreal.

  134. Etolle
    Thats why MERS fails
    Industry owned
    Lying sob,s who have exclusive access and manipulation thereof. The integrity of the record is dust
    Hence lis pendens ANY lis pendens when filing a adversary and/or lawsuit should be upheld until the material facts of the case are proven and both sides have equal oppertunity under the good ol constitution.

  135. “Since none of the notes or mortgages are recreated with indorsements or assignments until a default occurs – we should get together and start a business….”

    This new business should be structured around creating millions of “new” but old looking mortgage documents indorsed in blank, and then given freely to anyone anywhere, establishing homeowners across the land as the new legal bearer of rights to the properties. Why should their side be the only entity with fresh ink printing rights? How could they possibly prove that the forgeries they create using digital presses are the authentic ones? Ours could be just as inauthentic, 100% impressively crafted forgeries. Let the proving begin.

    What do we stand to lose? Will one of us, one of the millions of we-the-people who are then saved from this debtor’s servitude go to prison like their sacrificial lamb Lorraine Brown? Isn’t it worth the risk that one of us will go away for five years, two of which are probationary, with a paltry $15K fine, for “creating” millions of satisfaction release documents? I’ll go. You can thank me later.

    How would Holder and his Department of Injustice continue the what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander-bankster rule of law ? Can’t we also become Too Big To Fail – Too Big To Jail? We need to become – Way Too Many To Fuck Over?

    WTMTFO

    We need a fresh approach, since they’re blatantly not the least bit interested in our rule of law path that is leading us nowhere, save for more bloody carnage. Our Gallipoli Campaign, while well intended, i.e believing in fairness in courtrooms and the rule of law, was naïve, and now that millions have been sacrificed unnecessarily we need to grow up and change tactics. Fortify. We need a Manhattan Project, a game changer. In The Art of War, Sun Tzu says, “….one must avoid massacres and atrocities because this can provoke resistance and possibly allow an enemy to turn the war in his favor” That is where our adversary screwed the pooch. And it will come back to haunt them.

    If the courtrooms of America think they’re dockets are bloated now, let’s take a few tens-o-millions mortgage documents satisfying the mortgagor’s debt into the hallowed halls of bought-and-paid-for-justice and give them a tangling they’d never sort out. Needles and haystacks. Largest ball of twine.

    I’m all for fucking them up so bad that they’d never even think of bending us over again.

  136. iwantmynpv – kudos. SJ is an adjudication on the merits and res j attaches, I think. It’s amazing sometimes still what the banksters bet they can get away with. Since you were able to find that one doc where your loan WASNT, any chance for the benefit of others in that same boat you would post it somewhere and link it? I’m not one of them, btw.
    I’ve had some ideas similar to yours and ones not similar. Problem is
    I don’t have the energy. Wish like hell I did, and don’t mind saying, indulge me, they’re glad I don’t. You probably feel the same and deservedly so. Some of us take this crapinski very seriously and together, we could have an impact by our efforts (which is in no way to undermine anyone else’s).

    ps – dont’ know how your motion was styled, but as one for sj, it precluded the banksters from voluntary dismissal. Yahoo! (tho they appeared too arrogant to do such a thing)

  137. Since none of the notes or mortgages are recreated with indorsements or assignments until a default occurs – we should get together and start a business that we retrieve the documentary evidence for borrowers for a small fee, and than show them how to legally challenge their banks.

    I will build out a template that can be changed to obtain everything from certified notes to “Q” filings to P&A Agreements to the MLPA’s. We can expose the other slush fund GSE, all the FHLB’s and expose the FDIC for forcing private banking losses onto the public.

    When things get real ugly we can blame Marty Mandelman -and he can commit a mysterious suicide, and we won’t have to split the kitty with him. Who’s in? lol

  138. As a reminder the case below only works for the 13 billion in loans held to maturity. The loans held for investment are a separate agreement between IndyMac Venture, LLC and One West Venture LLC, which was the intermediate holding company until a default occurs and the loans are assigned to the Trust for which the they secured the MBS.

    If anybody needs assistance with any IndyMac -One West or IMB registered pools – please let me know – the advice is free.

    Also, Bob Hurt is a Mo MO, very smart guy, but in an attempt to sculpt his business model – he believes he needs to undermine all others. Slob on the knob Bob – you are only part of the solution – and frankly, I have forgotten more about this industry then you and the other tin god have begun to learn. In fact, you couldn’t shine my shoes!

  139. Christine & JG – this is for you

    http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2013AUG/51003079520095SCIV.pdf

    Now watch what I do to the FHFA for forgiving 6 billion in losses to OWB / IMB because they were Obama donors!!!

    Can’t forgive principal on loans for homeowners – but you can let go 10 of billions of “recourse loans” for a couple of wall street bankers who give politically.

  140. Part 1 – How to Challenge an Assignment of Mortgage
    Posted on August 23, 2013

    Have you ever wondered what the phrase “Borrower is lawfully seised of the estate hereby conveyed and has the right to mortgage” under BORROWER COVENANTS meant?

    Glenn Augenstein, a seasoned researcher and expert witness in foreclosure fraud, has taken the time to research the ancient word “seisin” which gives us better insight into what the mortgage document was meant to convey.

    This two-part post is worth the read and education – and may give you a new perspective on the intention of the documents and the necessity to defend the title at all costs.

    Part 1 – How to Challenge an Assignment of Mortgage
    By Glenn Augenstein

    [Read the rest here if interested]

    http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/part-1-how-to-challenge-an-assignment-of-mortgage/#more-4640

    Soliman:

    You touched upon this a few days ago and managed to screw it by your self-absorbed, insecure attitude. Well, somebody else, very articulately, defined it. You see the problem? You could know a whole lot but your personality keeps getting in the way. “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care”. Unfortunately, you don’t. You come here to make money and push your agenda. Grow up, boy.

  141. Some attorneys explaining why it is dangerous to rejoice too fast over one favorable decision…

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2013/08/a-winning-team-meet-the-lawyers-for-mr-thomas-glaski-a-mandelman-matters-podcast/

    A Winning Team: Meet the Lawyers for Mr. Thomas Glaski… A Mandelman Matters Podcast
    Turned Down For A Mod? Find Out Why With The REST Report!

    2013-08-23 — ml-implode.com

    “It’s only been a couple of weeks since the California Court of Appeal first issued and soon after published the court’s opinion in the case brought by Mr. Thomas Glaski, and already there is no question that the decision is having a significant impact on how foreclosure defense attorneys and homeowners, both in California and elsewhere, are planning to proceed in light of the landmark decision.

    And I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that even some banking industry lawyers have started worrying about how often, when it comes to foreclosures, it may be later than they think in some regards… pun intended.

    Well, the truth of every situation is always something less than the hype, and the Glaski decision is no exception to that rule. Not that the decision isn’t potentially positive for some homeowners… but most would agree that it’s way too early to close off the streets and schedule the parade.”

  142. neidermeyer – when you get where you think you need to be, you might find In re Nosek (MD) useful. Think it was WF that was sanctioned 250k for not telling the court it didn’t own the loan. The appeal court knocked it down to some dribble, but if there’s a pattern…..(I think that knock-down should’ve been appealed) The attorneys were sanctioned, also. Here’s the original decision from the bk court. Worth a read by any of us:

    http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/LB_Nosek-Decision.pdf

  143. In addition to the Confidential Memo showing the intention of the banking industry to destroy the economy of the western world though lending shenanigans, let’s not forget the 2010 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Its 2011 report at http://fcic.law.stanford.edu/report shows that the collusion between government and bankers that resulted in widespread predatory lending precipitated the financial crisis that destroyed homeowner equities and created widespread foreclosures.

    Lenders are culpable for the collapse and that’s why the memo and report ought to become standard items of mandatory judicial notice at the beginning of any foreclosure proceedings. I believe they can form the basis for pushing the court to order a cram-down of the loan balance to the current value minus paid-in equity. The ignorant borrower should not shoulder the brunt of equity loss. The sophisticated lender who caused the foreclosure should shoulder that burden.

  144. Neil, your title and securitization report is USELESS for defending against an utterly indefensible foreclosure. When people breach the valid mortgage note and security instrument, they set themselves up for a WELL-DESERVED foreclosure UNLESS they can prove the lender or lender’s agents injured them at the inception of the mortgage.

    Even the TILA rescission once gave a valid way to fight the foreclosure by fighting the lender for cheating or lying to the borrower at the inception of the deal. But lenders and their agents commit many more torts, breaches, and errors. THOSE justify a comprehensive mortgage exam that lawyers would charge $10,000 to $20,000 to do (at their hourly rate) IF they had the competence and skill to do it, which 90% or more lawyers don’t have.

    Anybody wanting a comprehensive mortgage exam OR wanting help with a strategy that lets them WIN the war against scurrilous lenders and their agents, can call me for FREE strategic guidance based on actual proof of the workability of the method I proposed above. Bob Hurt – 727 669 5511. Free Public Service – I charge nothing for anything. ​

    Bob Hurt, Concerned

    *Bob Hurt* *Blog 1 2 3 **f t *** 2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email ; Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

  145. Does anybody remember that Bill Clinton sold off all of his stocks in May of 2007? I have tried to find it, but no go. Bill is not always lucky, sometimes he is connected.

  146. Neil ,

    I have the WF scenario you describe , I have solid evidence of other parties owning the note , real owner (with 99% certainty) is AHMSI , prior “owner” was BAC ,, NOT WF, plaintiffs attorney brought PSA’s relevance into the discussion!

    I need some idea of how to get the truth out of the plaintiffs attorney as to who is paying him. What can be requested in discovery to get the answer?

    Is anyone here in possession of a list of AHMSI’s assets purchased after the crash from Maiden Lane I or II?

  147. Here is my thing is Sen Warren is asking about 34 billion form 2008-2010 that was not collected for the America tax payers and I could not get an attorney that wanted a piece of this money, not matter how much I cried!

  148. I am a little confused here as for the last year here I been talking about $24 billion which includes treble damage of the 800,000 government insured loans (FHA, VA, USDA) being illegally foreclosed in 2009-2010 and the false claims by the servicers, and in the last few days Sen Warren who I have written to a few times about this exact fact, has asked Atty Gen Holder to answer her question of this matter by the end of Sept.

    Neil were is that post from you on this matter?

  149. The Confidential Memo at the Heart of the Global Financial Crisis

    Greg Palast’s Column

    The Confidential Memo
    By Greg Palast

    http://m.vice.com/en_uk/read/larry-summers-and-the-secret-end-game-memo

    When a little birdie dropped the End Game memo through my window, its content was so explosive, so sick and plain evil, I just couldn’t believe it.

    The Memo confirmed every conspiracy freak’s fantasy: that in the late 1990s, the top US Treasury officials secretly conspired with a small cabal of banker big-shots to rip apart financial regulation across the planet. When you see 26.3 percent unemployment in Spain, desperation and hunger in Greece, riots in Indonesia and Detroit in bankruptcy, go back to this End Game memo, the genesis of the blood and tears.

    The Treasury official playing the bankers’ secret End Game was Larry Summers. Today, Summers is Barack Obama’s leading choice for Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, the world’s central bank. If the confidential memo is authentic, then Summers shouldn’t be serving on the Fed, he should be serving hard time in some dungeon reserved for the criminally insane of the finance world.

    The memo is authentic.

    [Click on link to read the rest]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: