JPM Could Lose Its Charter for Criminal Responsibility in Madoff PONZI Scheme

JPM’s Madoff entanglement could prompt review of bank charter
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has reportedly told the office of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara that a criminal money laundering conviction of JPMorgan (JPM) for turning a blind eye to Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme could trigger a review of the bank’s charter.

Editor’s Note: practically every day we hear of new gross violations of law and intentional misconduct by the large banks who squandered their brand recognition on absurd situations. I have always said that it was impossible for Madoff to have stolen $60 Billion without the knowledge and complicity of the major firms on Wall Street. The revelations of the Madoff theft of money from investors was quickly cast as the largest fraud in history. But it wasn’t. The largest fraud can be counted in the tens of trillions of dollars by all the key players on Wall Street in the PONZI scheme that is falsely called securitization of debt — the proof of which can easily be seen at ground level as investors and borrowers alike are settling claims or winning key verdicts.

The Madoff affair actually provided cover for the Wall Street banks and helped steer the narrative to supposedly reckless and irresponsible behavior when in fact management was deceiving, stealing and profiting from a PONZI scheme that depended upon (a) the sale of mortgage bonds and (b) the sale of mortgage products. Once investors stopped buying bonds and homeowners stopped buying loan products the scheme collapsed and banks had the temerity to say they had lost vast sums of money — a claim that is clearly untrue. They received a bailout for those losses in the form of TARP and other programs from the U.S. treasury, the Federal reserve and other sources, when it was investors, insurers, borrowers, taxpayers, guarantors and other parties who were taking losses having given tens of trillions of dollars to the Wall Street banks in money and property.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. And the cries of well-known analysts that the banks are being treated unfairly is losing credibility by the hour. The banks are finally losing the narrative and the association of politicians with them is proving more costly than the benefit of taking money from the bank lobbyists to protect the banks from prosecution arising out of behavior that would land any ordinary mortal in jail for a long time.

Lawyers defending foreclosure cases should take note and use this information pointing out what the court already knows: that there was fraud at the top in the selling of worthless mortgage bonds deriving their value from defective mortgages, there was fraud in the robo-signing, LPS fabrication of documents, the intentional destruction of cash equivalent promissory notes that we now know were defective, in the words of the investors, insurers, government guarantee agencies, insurers and rating agencies.

PRACTICE NOTE: It should be noted and stated openly that any pleading, affidavit or testimony from those banks is inherently untrustworthy and should be subject to intense scrutiny. The remedy of forfeiture in Foreclosures is extreme according to the public policy of every state and should be strictly construed against the party seeking that remedy. Every legislature has put that statement in its laws. Instead, the narrative has been that deadbeat borrowers were clogging the system with bogus defenses.

It never occurred to the courts, the lawyers and even the borrowers that the courts were clogged with bogus claims of ownership, bogus accounting for receipts and disbursements, the existence of co-obligors when the note payable was converted to a bogus bond payable, and wrongful Foreclosures that the banks and the regulators know were wrongful, obtained settlements, consent orders and more promises from people whose business model is all about lying, manipulation of markets and theft.

124 Responses

  1. US Bank and SN Servicing has submitted Forged documents in our federal bankruptcy case too and we will never stop perusing them in court for damages. We are also asking our Federal judge to prosecute their current attorney out of Jacksonville Florida who continued to defend this case knowing that forged document are before a federal court. All the offending parties at SN Servicing and their attorneys are committing a serious crime against our country. We have filed a formal complaint with the FBI and the US attorney general and many great Judges all across this nation are finally stopping them from this kind of fraud on American families. US Bank and SN servicing and their attorneys are also violating a serious consent order that was to protect the people from these crimes but they could care less. Please feel free to have your clients join a class action suit so that we can end their behavior with a multi billion dollar punitive damage suit. Join us, call Ray Shelton in Florida at 352 274 8467


  2. At least you know what you are getting with a prostitute….far more honest and transparent!


  3. In looking over that Covington and Burling cite of their much beloved and venerable Lanny Breuer, I was taken with how honest their write-up actually is:

    Lanny A. Breuer is the firm’s Vice Chair:

    Vice – [vahys] noun

    1. an immoral or evil habit or practice. Synonyms: fault, failing, foible, weakness. Antonyms: virtue.

    2. immoral conduct; depraved or degrading behavior: a life of vice. Synonyms: depravity, sin, iniquity, wickedness, corruption. Antonyms: virtue, morality.

    3. sexual immorality, especially prostitution. Synonyms: wantonness, degeneracy, licentiousness.

    4. a particular form of depravity.

    5. a fault, defect, or shortcoming: Synonyms: flaw, blemish, imperfection, foible, weakness.

    In truth, Lanny impeccably demonstrates all of the above synonyms. As a matter of fact, he’s a master. And who could argue that he’s also masterful at corruption matters and money laundering? And a prostitute? None better!

    Sorry ladies of the night.


  4. Touche, E….spot on!


  5. jg- page 33’ish…I love reading these adudits. If you have not read this yet,


  6. Q: “under what authority does “MERS” or some servicer employee or law firm employee wearing a MERS’ hat courtesy of an alleged corp resolution from Bill Hultman assign the beneficial interest in the dot?”

    A: The judges.

    In other news, does anyone here actually believe for one minute that JPMC could lose its charter? Part of the biggest bank/crime syndicate in the world? The same one that financed the campaigns of all of congress and the administration? The very same entity that will be oiling the rotating doors hidden underneath the beltway that will show the way to fabulous riches to all of the regulators large and small who’ve tirelessly worked on JPMC’s and their cronies behalf for decades now?

    What’s going down here as we speak is so elementary, that it’s sometimes like that forest for the trees story….the government isn’t fining these institutions for “problem mortgages”, they’re laundering the crimes. When they’re done, it’ll all be in the past, and you and I and the rest of Americans (the world) will be renting our homes at nearly the same price as we paid on the mortgages, only with zero incentive to do any upkeep, which is exactly the same percentage that Blackrock et al have. And all the criminality will be just a sparkle and a wink from Jamie’s eye. The monied interests will have sorted all of their varied interests, which means, divvied up our equity and properties amongst themselves.

    And we’ll quietly rent our homes back like good citizens after the whitewashing dries, and yet, that will really be hard to do when needing to work 60 hours a week, and Walmart and McDonalds only allow 30 max.

    We’ve been had, correction: are being had, and the sooner we all awaken to that fact the better.

    From PBS Frontline’s “The Untouchables”:

    NEWSCASTER: Although this downturn started in the housing sector and in the financial sector, you’re seeing a lot of things being hit.

    NEWSCASTER: Today’s numbers suggest job losses are accelerating—

    NEWSCASTER: Almost six hundred thousand jobs—

    NEWSCASTER: That’s the biggest loss since 1974.

    NARRATOR: In 2009, Wall Street bankers were on the defensive. The great American mortgage bubble had burst—

    NEWSCASTER: This is a huge amount of money.
    NARRATOR: —the economy was in ruins, and Wall Street bankers were being blamed. Bankers admitted they had miscalculated.

    NEWSCASTER: —crippled the U.S. economy—

    NARRATOR: But they were also worried they could be held criminally liable for fraud. With a new administration arriving in Washington, bankers and their attorneys expected investigations and at least some prosecutions.

    NEWSCASTER: —$150 billion in mortgage-backed securities—

    MARTIN SMITH, Correspondent: [on camera] Was there a sense that there were going to be prosecutions of alleged fraud related to the mortgage crisis?

    DAVID BOIES, Boies, Schiller & Flexner: I think there was that expectation. I think people had seen the financial crisis. There was obviously a lot of conduct that had gone on that was improper, and I think people were expecting to see some substantial prosecutions.

    Sen. TED KAUFMAN (D-DE), 2009-10: The men and women who duped would-be home owners, who defrauded the American investor, need to identified, prosecuted, convicted and thrown in jail.

    NARRATOR: In Washington, there was broad support for prosecuting Wall Street.

    TED KAUFMAN: I was really upset about what went on on Wall Street that brought about the financial crisis, not only destroyed the financial— almost destroyed the financial system of the United States, almost destroyed the financial system of the world. That doesn’t happen if there isn’t something bad going on.
    NARRATOR: But today, more than four years since the financial crisis of 2008, there have been no arrests of any senior Wall Street executives. Chief of the Criminal Division at Justice Lanny Breuer says the problem is that greed is not necessarily criminal.
    LANNY BREUER, Head of Criminal Division, Justice Dept.: I am personally offended by much of what I’ve seen. I think there was a level of greed, a level of excessive risk taking in this situation that I find abominable and I find very upsetting. But that is not what makes a criminal case. What makes a criminal case is that I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a crime.

    The documentary ends with:

    NARRATOR: So far, in civil proceedings, the government has levied several billion dollars in penalties for misconduct in a crisis that’s cost investors and homeowners many hundreds of billions of dollars.
    But to date, not one senior Wall Street executive has been held criminally liable by the Department of Justice for activities related to the financial crisis.


    And from the current Covington and Burling, LLP’s website:

    Lanny A. Breuer is the firm’s Vice Chair and one of the leading trial and white collar defense attorneys in the United States. He specializes in helping clients navigate corporate crises, anti-corruption matters, money laundering investigations, cybercrime incidents, Congressional investigations, securities enforcement actions, and other criminal and civil matters presenting complex regulatory, political, and public relations risks.

    That’s just TOO rich. Literally and figuratively.


  7. kc said:
    ” under whose authority was your firm acting when your employee on your payroll signed and filed a MERS assignment as sec/vp in the Grantors interest?

    There is an assignor and an assignee when the ben interest in the dot is moved from one lender to another. The homeowner granted the original beneficiary in a dot a right and interest in his home, and that person is the beneficiary of the trust created; the deed of trust creates a trust, and the beneficiary’s interest is held in that trust for him, mol care of the dot trustee.
    But you’re right – under what authority does “MERS” or some servicer employee or law firm employee wearing a MERS’ hat curtesy of an alleged corp resolution from Bill Hultman assign the beneficial interest in the dot? My answer: none. MERS, Arnold or Hultman, acknowledges in probably judicially noticeable material (depo) that MERS receives no communication from anyone to itself assign a collateral instrument, so pretty hard to delegate that to the phony
    servicer or law firm employee. The truth is, the servicer decides
    when to assign the collateral instrument and then does so in MERS’ name and pays MERS a fee to do so. By my understanding of the agreement between MERSCorp and its members, MERS got paid for every robo-signed document executed in its name – and yet no bullets pointed at MERS over that bs, for which imo they are squarely liable. Members wanted other people (read low level minimum wagers at other entities like LPS, DOCX, whatnot) to be able to execute these, so they asked Hultman for some more of his bs “corporate resolutions”, which were forthcoming on info and belief. LPS was ostrecized by its partners in crime until the ugly coast was clear, but MERS blew thru it unscathed, which is nothing short of mind-numbing.


  8. justme@9:48 – I’m only going by what GNMA says – word for word. What I may have missed elsewhere in gnma material is that gnma’s guarantee only kicks in if the p & i payments made to the trust are insufficient to pay the MBS certificate holders, which is along the lines of what I think you’ve said. The trust interests are allegedly over-collateralized, meaning, I take it, if all the payments on the loans in the pool were made, it would generate cash which exceeds the obligations to the certificate holders (because there are supposedly more loans in there than necessary to pay the investors). When excess payments were in fact made, if ever, those funds were subject to treatment I can’t rattle off, other than to say they were not disbursed (way I got it – cursory) to certificate holders. But like I said,
    in my blog, I quoted GNMA, so until I see something different out of GNMA, I’m not changing my opinion – gnma will only pay the issuer and then only on a condition subsequent which they clearly identify. As to everything you said, I have to read what you said a couple more times to get what all you’re saying, which might include stuff I didn’t address and not sure I could.


  9. Christine:
    “FHFA had been part of the global settlement negotiations underway between the DOJ and states’ attorneys general with the bank, but decided to finalize a separate deal

    **when it remained unclear what portion of the $14 billion global settlement would cover its suit.” **

    Could imo just as easily read “when they figured out the FHFA had no authority to prohibit JPMC from taking the 5 billion as a tax deduction.”
    Hearsay mol has it that the DOJ can make it a part of the settlement – that JPMC doesn’t get to expense the 13B (got me, but could well be).


  10. If You are the Grantor who Granted your interest in the Mortgage to MERS. That makes MERS , the grantee and nominee for your interest in your estate.

    Dear Council,

    .. under whose authority was your firm acting when your employee on your payroll signed and filed a MERS assignment as sec/vp in the Grantors interest?

    Just Curious?

    “Scratch That”


  11. It is so friggin’ complicated and the government depends so much on the banks, jailing bankers would automatically freeze the country.


  12. owner of record being my husband, he knows where he needs to sign when I point it out, he works. All this stuff overwhelms him and he just shuts down. I am hoping I have legal authority. I need to claim it, file it, record it or something…as long as it is not with the servicer…..he can quit claim deed me half the house’s ownership – and I still would be under no mortgage obligation….inter spousal conveyance…indeed Christine…talking with another tomorrow. I know in wi one guy tried outting the mortgage by quit claiming the whole house to his wife which was not on the note…………yah…didn’t work. I need help. There, I said it. …Now I have to actually get it.


  13. “provide the funds”? What does that mean? To whom?

    servicers use their own collective funds to payoff the remaining pooled loans issued to a certain investor. But it still GNMA’s which is why they can re pool it or replace it, either way, you filled that gap
    jg @ 2) “GNMA is only going to reimburse the issuer and no one else for losses.” GNMA never reimburses an issuer. Ever.
    issuer makes pooled loans into securities,
    issuer sell securities w. gnma guarantee they be always on time etc..
    gnma only steps in when:
    homeowner defaults, servicer defaults, GNMA used HUD policy insurance/foreclosure proceeds…ONLY then after will GNME pay a dime and it’s to the insurers whom bought the secured certificate/bond/whatever. Ginnie uses it’s self as a LAST RESORT after every possible way to pay the loans has been used. Including issuer/servicer bk. …if they have too many TBA – to be announced- they keep them on hold for a bit until they can sell them or make due.
    >>>> >>doing business with>>investor resources>>on the left, MultiClass securities GUIDE >>boom. HAVE FUN. Place is a hoot.


  14. When I was talking about GNMA’s guarantee, I said the issuer had to repurchase a delinquent loan to foreclose or repurchase a loan to modify it in order for anyone to realize the benefit of GNMA’s guarantee. Here is what GNMA actually says:

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

    “provide the funds”? What does that mean? To whom?
    First time I read that, I read it to say the issuer had to be the one to
    repurchase, but that’s not what it actually says. It says the issuer has to provide the funds to make and keep the purchasers of MBS’s
    whole. The people who write this stuff are at least theoretically professionals capable of saying exactly what is meant. (Kind of like they could have called MERS an agent and didn’t) So it may be that someone else by contract with the issuer may repurchase the loan as long as the issuer “provides the funds”. At any rate, 1) GNMA is not putting up the money for the repurchase and 2) GNMA is only going to reimburse the issuer and no one else for losses.

    Charles, this is part of why I’m interested in what you have to say about GNMA. I just can’t understand exactly what that is.


  15. This is a motion, which was granted, to compel the banksters to retain separate counsel, citing conflict of interest.


  16. Justme,

    I understand what you’re saying and I do agree that you need to consult an attorney. If legally you have no authority to do anything, you may be wasting your time, energy and health on something you have no control over. Is the owner of record even handling anything?
    If he is the one who should be taking action and he doesn’t, no amount of work on your part will fix that.

    I feel for you.


  17. BOO! Trick-or-treating was interesting….
    @jg – correct me if I am wrong…but I think, very certainly, I am not.
    I buzzed quickly through some of that blog (neat) and seen a few red flags off the bat. “The issuers may then benefit from GNMA’s guarantee or insurance.”
    Issuers do not benefit from anything from GNMA besides having a prettier investment to sell because it is 100% backed by the US Government.
    – jg@4:58 – Ginnie does not make payments to the issuer. RUNDOWN:
    Ginnie insures payment TO investors, they promise the issuers of the securities will pay them on time, always…..if the homeowner defaults, the issuer must still make payments to the servicer. After default, and if not cured promptly, the issuer must repurchase the loan. (and/or usually replace it)
    Ginnie ONLY will disburse any funds to the investor- and that ONLY occurs when the issuer/servicer defaults themselves and does not make payments to the investors.
    When that happens – that is why Ginnie needs blank note- to take intimidate possession of the loans. Usually, they will assign the loans to a different master serviver to take them over. If not, They then utilize FHA/ insurance funds to cover the loan, if there is still UPB (which takes a lot because the whole pool needs to not have enough funds, meaning almost all homeowners stopped paying) —wait–grey area– I was going to say they then use liquidation proceeds, but HUD requires the property to be endorsed to HUD if they are to forward out insurance.
    I’m lost. point was- ginnie will only resort to paying the investors themselves after the borrower defaults, the servicer defaults, HUD has paid the loans insurance, and the foreclosure liquidation proceeds have been exhausted.
    Trick-or-treating to this is a mind blower.

    I am still putting up with it because it is my home,my children and my husbands home. Everything is my problem because I am the only one who does “stuff”. I think I want it to be my problem because It is half mine, I have been trying to figure out if I could get a quit claim to half the house, I am not on the note, they cannot take “my half” and I do not owe them NOTHING….we (should, maybe do have) have “mixed property” not individual property.I don’t know- if I refuse to sign off they will just have FUN FUN FUN selling a clouded title I will fight tooth and nail for just what you said, the principal of it. I am going to swallow hard and be on those court steps if there is a sale date, maybe call the news station ahead of time,I’ll be shaking and scared as hell but then again maybe pist enough to do, something?….I do not understand marital property law enough to tackle that one yet, I need to study how the law and court proceedings work now more than securitization and crap. That is where they lawyer would be handy!


  18. Having been in the same position of ALL here, I think the judges are breaking the law. We have given much consideration of going after the judges bond. In the past I have been threatened with contempt; for what your honor, the truth, the rule of law? Then he said: if you don’t like my decision appeal it. I did. Expletives don’t quite cut how we feel about this blatant law breaking by the lawyers and the judges. It sucks…


  19. KC.
    same happened to me..spouse signed mortgage , lender didn’t want my lower credit score so they said. My name is/was on title and deed of house. AT filed motion to subordinate my interest and told judge it was a Scrivner error, even though they were not the original lender. NOTHING BUT FRAUD WF presented to the court and yet they got their foreclosure …..


  20. It is my understanding MERS is a “nominee” only. They cannot assign beneficial interests to your note and any security interests in the note, above and beyond their authority as a nominees. And MERS has no employees. Who pray-tell is assigning this stuff as an employee in their capacity of/or the “nominee” status of MERS? How does a storage space assign a “proprietary interest” in a land title? What?


  21. If a lender holds a beneficial interest in your estate, ….

    The mortgage says the balance less any prepayments by the BORROWER on the NOTE is due in full by when?

    Think Reverse Mortgage.

    Due on Sale Clause?

    Due in 30yrs?

    Due when you Die?


    Why so many different sets of terms in the Note and the Security Instrument?


  22. Beneficial Rights occurs When???

    How would you like it if your daughter sued your estate for her inheritance before you died?

    Better yet … how would a Judge handle it?


  23. MERS represents the Grantors Interest. The Grantor can not be the beneficiary to his/her own Irrevocable Trust! Its to my understanding that a beneficiary has no rights until Grantors part this Earth.

    But then again … I am ignorant! And I can not deny it! sigh …


  24. When party B, who is not the owner of a note, endorses a note in the name of the party that is the owner of the note without disclosing it does so, party B becomes liable on the note, is my understanding.
    So if WF endorses someone else’s note without an acknowledgement at the endorsement that WF does so in some capacity or another, WF has signed up for liability for the note. What are all the ramifications of this, I don’t remember or never knew, but it surely isn’t nothing.


  25. – Mers Corp represents YOUR interest in a single Grantor trust


  26. Thanks Christine! I do tend to let it get to me, maybe because its still going on and there is no prosecutions.

    My Happy Go Lucky Optimistic Realist Me gets a little dizzy running in all these circles of lawless corruption and greed.


  27. Bob G, I agree! I was just taught that!


  28. KC,

    “Was I Stupid or What?” I wouldn’t say that. We were all trusting souls who got conned. All of us. Know why? Because we were brought up that way. Don’t judge yesterday’s actions with today’s knowledge. Counterproductive and counter intuitive.


  29. MERS – for me just now, the whole ball of wax is if the Restatement
    Third is actually the bomb and if so, does it find in favor of unification of a willfully bifurcated note and its collateral instrument. Well, and therein the question ‘is a collateral instrument, though recorded, yet perfected when (willfully) bifurcated from the debt instrument?” The Restatement is alleged to find in favor of REunification (said one state SC and got me – no chapter and verse was cited), and to me the distinction between unification and REunification is no where near negligible. I’m still on and not leaving MERS was created and called a nominee and not an agent because, long and short, secn trusts may not own real estate.


  30. I applied for the loan with my husband but was told his income was more than sufficient. I was told that my medoker grandma pay was not worth the extra paperwork. Was I Stupid or What?


  31. Nice Link John! We need POA agreement from seller to insure title. When we made that request it was discovered that the Trust of the Seller remained open … and the Trustee (deceaed sellers daughter) closed the Trust. So she thought …. When she found out she told us the Trust had been closed years ago and she would testify to that for us. We have to sue her (her dads estate) toooo …….

    No John No! I didn’t sign the note or the mortgage … they were not presented to me! Community Property My Man!! Community Property! Spousal State!! Both spouses must be presented with and disclosed the terms of the mortgage! BOTH!


  32. Ok, KC, think I finally get what you’re saying. First of all, the dot is not a second note. Sounds like you signed the dot, which does reference the note, but not the note. Is it your position your husband couldn’t get the loan himself, and he did, because you didn’t sign the note? Try not to shoot the messenger, but I think you’d lose that one in my LAY opinion. By not signing the note, technically you didn’t become liable on the note, but you did allow your home to be pledged as collateral if you signed the dot, which may be construed as your consent (though you’re still not personally liable on the note). Maybe a lawyer will weigh in.


  33. Check out this title company’s frustration with the sale of properties where there was a deed in lieu of foreclosure titled “Who is the Owner of Record ?” (which imo supports my proposition that trusts can’t own real estate):


  34. Either MERS suing servicer or visa versa. They are all in it together and they have to stay together or it will blow up in their faces. That’s why you need prosecutions. Then the finger pointing will begin and the whole rotten scheme will start coming out. I am really surprised that Madoff has not made a complete confession, but maybe his family has been threatened already.


  35. Where is the money going?

    Federal House Finance Agency Reaches Separate Deal with JPMorgan Chase on Mortgage Fraud
    October 27, 2013 • 8:36AM

    The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced yesterday that it had reached a separate deal with JPMorgan Chase, to settle mortgage fraud charges with a $5.1 billion fine. FHFA had been part of the global settlement negotiations underway between the DOJ and states’ attorneys general with the bank, but decided to finalize a separate deal when it remained unclear what portion of the $14 billion global settlement would cover its suit. FHFA has reached similar deals this year with Citigroup, General Electric and UBS, and according to a Reuters report, a deal is now being finalized with Bank of America that will be $6 billion.


  36. It is definitely starting to close in on a few people. Karen Hudes alluded to this and went deeply into Geithner’s role in the 2008 debacle. She also went in depth in the exact things Kay Griggs reported in 2011 about the infamy committed by the military worldwide.
    I am increasingly more inclined to believe her about things being investigated worldwide…

    Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 11:39 AM PDT
    If JPMorgan Chase failed to stop Madoff, Jamie Dimon must go

    by Christian Dem in NCFollow


  37. justme @ 10:21 – interesting question. GNMA has guaranteed payment on the certificates, but will only make the payments to the issuer, not the certificate holders, unless the issuer is insolvent, in which case (issuer insolvency), it will then make the payment to the party suffering the loss. Another twist.
    In order to get the benefit of the gnma guarantee, the issue has to pay the certificate holders and ultimately repurchase the loan. GNMA, unbeknown to the borrower, has made itself a co-obligor / guarantor on his payments, but only if yet another non-party to the note, the issuer, performs pursuant to its agreement with GNMA. Unless the issuer is abandoning GNMA’s guarantee, which has been “sold” to investors in the judicially noticeable Prospectus as an enhancement, no sec’n trust should be foreclosing on a VA of FHA loan. imo.
    I’m only on the tip of this, I suppose. The point of that is it’s taken
    us years to try to identify and then unravel what’s relevant to our loans. We don’t know when GNMA pays a claim. Maybe it’s only after a foreclosure on the loss or maybe it’s when the issuer has repurchased a loan. Makes a big difference. If an issuer repurchases a loan and at that time gets the benefit of the GNMA guarantee as the owner of the loan, the loan is toast. While that doesn’t SEEM likely, we don’t know, so neither does a court. I can’t see any reason this shouldn’t be introduced in litigation. (Also, if an issuer repurchased pursuant to that agreement with GNMA, it’s not a holder in due course and is subject to all affirmative defenses since default is the only thing to trigger the issuer’s obligation to repurchase: clearly the issuer would have notice of the default.)
    As I recall, the source of my information was a GNMA Prospectus and material at GNMA’s website from March of this year. For anyone interested, here’s more of my take, including how the borrower is wrongfully being set up to fend against a hidc:


  38. Justme,

    “I am not scared to loose msj, I’m scared to defeat it.” That’s as honest as it will ever get. And i relate completely. I’m in a great neighborhood but my house has taken a beating for want of maintenance and I can see the $$$ signs adding up every time i make an inventory of what it will need when I come out of that insanity.

    Windows to replace, yard to tear down completely, kitchen ceiling to redo, the list is pretty long. So, unless I not only get the house but also a serious couple of bucks, it won’t be worth it. On the other hand, I want to win just for the principle of it. That’s why i’m not even concerned about the four walls. I want the money and the freedom to get the hell out and move on to something that is mine and somewhere I like. The whole friggin’ ordeal is weary no matter what.

    “well, he- owes OVER 10,000 what the original amount was.” My question though is… if it isn’t even your house, why are you putting up with it? Why have you made it your problem? Do you even have the legal right to stay in if anything happened to him? The only reason I’m fighting is because the damn house is in my name. And once this one is handled, i have another problem in NH… also in my name. Have you noticed that, in the great majority, people who blog here are women? And even when the house is under both names, the guys appear to be seriously missing in action…


  39. Thank you Christine.
    I have sat down with a few already and 2 said the only thing they might do I didn’t would be to file a motion for my own msj against the plaintiff. I am not sure I would be able to afford an attorney for the long haul.I was reading a post from UKG about $10,000 being a fair retainer (I think it was that) This house in sincerely on it’s last leg. It would not be worth crazy legal fees when there are decent little properties out here on some land available and I went broke on a lawyer.
    We have had this loan for almost 10 years and we _ well, he- owes OVER 10,000 what the original amount was. Shabby house surrounded by government low income housing. We could not sell it when it was in good shape for that simple fact, the neighbors. We had 6 couples wanted the property that were approved, but declined the sale because the neighborhood is flooded with little kids that run rampant because their fucktard POS parents do not care what they do, let them out like yard dogs and treat them like shit. That, and it’s now more than half hmong inhabited..I like the Hmongs,I can butcher my chickens and do my thing and they do not care, and likewise with them and their hogs.
    I still live in the city, it’s rare to do what some of us do.. but the ppl in low income- they do not have a voice as to what their neighbors do living in govt housing. We are one of the few that are white and the police will not bother the Hmongs, not the old school ones anyway. That is what I will miss the most. Neighbors that mind their own business.
    This house is WAY under water, if we do keep it- by modification or otherwise…we will have a $100,000’ish mortgage with a house valued at around 60,000 at it’s best in a neighborhood that is theft prone, it’s not uncommon to have a random toddler walk into your house every now and then, families having screaming matches are a regular listening event, as well as crying children and well – I just won’t miss that! Nope!
    Your correct it is 28 days. I don’t think I could stress out any more than I have already. It’s not about the house, it’s about me going back to being a full time mom & wife, not being online everyday reading everything I can to learn how this crap works.
    I am not scared to loose msj, I’m scared to defeat it.


  40. Justme,

    Friendly piece of advice…

    You may consider consulting a few attorneys BEFORE the hearing on the MSJ instead of waiting for the result. The reason is very simple: if you lose on the MSJ, you’ll be stressed out knowing that you have a limited (very limited) amount of time to contact, reach and interview a few attorneys, pick the one you feel best about, track the docs he requested and make the copies, get them in his hands and devise an appeal strategy together. If the idea is to get representation only in case of an appeal, 28 days (it is 28 days, right? It so much seems to depend on where you are, I’m shooting in the dark here) is a very short time to get it all done.

    If you stress out, you may not come across as level headed and you may scare someone who, otherwise, might have been very receptive.


  41. No I have not. What I have done in court is not this spazamtic mess. I have too much think time., after msj. 25th I will debate lawyer`ing up.


  42. MERS and the servicer are not going to sue each other. Each one is an integral part of the scheme. They depend on each other to make things look legit when they are not. The way that one will wind up eating the other is when they are defendants NOT REPRESENTED by the same law firm in the same lawsuit. You may have noticed that the same law firm usually represents MERS, MERSCORP, the servicer, the master servicer, etc. That is exactly why–circular firing squad.


  43. Justme,

    That’s one reason to get an attorney. Preferably a guy, who won’t move 4 steps forward, meet some resistance, stop, back up two steps, ask everyone what to do, listen to the worse possible advice from backseat drivers, second guess himself, change course, etc., etc., as most pro se tend to do.

    The best thing you could possibly do for yourself is interview a few attorneys, pick the one you feel best about (after checking his results), pay him monthly and get on with your life while he does his attorney thing. And no, not all attorneys are incompetent crooks only after your money. Like everything else, you do your homework, you weigh all your odds based on what YOU know (not what Peter, Paul, Jack tell you they know but they really don’t know jack because they never jumped into the fight themselves) you make a decision and you stick with it.

    Have you contacted UKG’s attorney yet? Because you know what? By the time you really start imploding, you’ll come across as a liability no attorney will want to represent… Hire someone while you still mentally can.


  44. I am thinking in circles. Brain explosion, plausible.
    For over a year it’s almost all I think about. I am overdoing it trying to be done with it. I know the simplicity of how it works,or unsimplicity..just over think it.


  45. I don’t think that even Dr. Moriarty would be capable of pulling off what you think your adversaries have pulled off.

    Whenever I have such multilevel conspiratorial thoughts, I fall back on Ocam’s Razor. Never fails me, and it keeps my brain from exploding.


  46. Justme,

    Are you just waking up? How long have you been dealing with your mortgage issue? Do you need good referrals to documents that would explain clearly what happened, how it happened and why?


  47. I think I was looking at it like this:
    MERS was to save $$ in recording fees
    and allow for easy assignments transfers etc. keeping track

    but- in theory- I think-
    my servicer used MERS to cover up the fact they did not have ownership, stating MERS was assigned the note – when they were not.
    If it could happen- ??MERS would be liable for not properly assigning the note in blank.somethng like that.
    If I am correct-
    they hid behind MERS stating MERS records these transfers-
    allowing them to NOT endorse the note in blank when they pooled it-
    Pool the loan,but keep the note…
    Get pool money, not release loan ownership…
    “mers has the assignments” leaving them in position of not complying with endorse in blank requirement…dont know.
    It’s not shooting yourself in the foot if it’s not your foot.
    allregs state MERS must reflect the interest of Ginnie Mae
    -Issuers registering their loans with MERS waive any and all rights under MERS rules to the pooled notes and acknowledge Ginnies authority & rights to them.

    My servicer was pooling loans but keeping the notes to themselves reserving right to payment.
    Claiming MERS had the assignment puts them in OK position as under MERS they have these rules.
    recorded in the register of deeds are servicers modification stating

    MERS as nominee,stating the note was assigned to MERS the same day the note was made .
    Mod states servicer as lender, .but never makes assignment to MERS .
    my servicer made a merger de-listing them and all their capital securities from NYSE in a public offering for the redemption of all their outstanding trust securities and converged all their shit.they have what, like 50+ different affiliate names all active,cover almost everything there is, insurance, banking,auto,securities,too much to dig around in where they can move liquid assets. Trust wise…not sure it even exists. They say it’s all within MERS.


  48. @ JUST ME

    try to look at it this way. assume the note has 40 paragraphs/clauses. at the end, their are signature blocks. the terms of the note are in the 40 p/c, not the signature blocks. the law contemplates the voiding of the note for tinkering materially with any of the 40 p/c.

    you appear to want a cause of action for their screwing around with the indorsements…and you have one….endorsement fraud.

    but “endorsement” fraud is altogether a different cause of action…and one for which there is a remedy…but it is not materially changing the terms of the note.
    I really don’t know how much clearer I could make this for you.


  49. Deb,

    That’s my point exactly: Since the great majority of servicers (plus Fannie and Freddie) created and support MERS, MERS suing anyone of them would be like the dog biting the hnad that feeds him.

    That’s why I asked for a scenario from John. it simply makes no sense.


  50. I mean ithe othet way around..,
    Mers suing servicer
    Same thing
    They all sit around the ssme greedy table


  51. Justme
    And john gault
    Would not a sevicer suing mers be like suing yourself for damages.
    Or put another way shooting yourself in the foot.


  52. Excellent interview from Karen Hudes on Progressive Radio. I strongly suggest that people listen not just to her but to her interviewer: only way to have a very clear understanding of what the hell is going on worldwide and where the US stand right now in the food chain. The guy covers an incredible amount of subjects and obviously has serious sources everywhere. Sobering as well…


  53. Justme,

    As everyone else, realtors are really suffering. Here, the max they can get is $2,500. They had to unite and fight to get that much and, with Columbus being Chase second Hub and OH being a bad foreclosure state, they prevailed. Otherwise, they weren’t going to handle short sales at all and if I recall, Kasich had to twist a few elbows to assure that the foreclosure problem would not be made worse by bank added greed.

    And, like everywhere else, there is only one agent for the entire transaction. Short sales are the worst possible thing for them and regular sales are too few and far between to make it nowadays


  54. ……What purports to be an endorsement by a payee, in a case of fraud, it is not an endorsement, it is a mere fraudulent act, part and parcel of the fraudulent process by which money is obtained on the forged paper. Bank v. McDowell county bank……….

    “For the purposes of our concerns here, UCC indorsement law is concerned with the indorsements of the subsequent indorsers not the original payor.”

    So the servicer making the endorsement in blank- that is what?

    “an unauthorized change in an instrument”
    = the endorsement was not authorized, and changed it …

    “that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party”
    changed it- modified the loan by converting our note to a security.
    How is that not material in the sense?
    It changed a note for a promise to pay for a house, into the servicers promise to pay for their obligation to the investor, and changed the mortgage to collateral from our house payments to the servicers obligation.
    I made a lot of mistakes wording the above, sorry I am on the fly – trick or treating soon here so Im all over


  55. @justme

    material alteration means changing the terms, interest rate, etc.

    an indorsement is part and parcel of the note, and what makes it negotiable. that would be a very specious argument and one almost certain to get a sanction from the court.

    also, you realize that at inception the borrower signs the note as the payor, payable to the named payee. It is that named payee that indorses the note.

    For the purposes of our concerns here, UCC indorsement law is concerned with the indorsements of the subsequent indorsers not the original payor.


  56. Bob, same here. Why does it seem an endorsement is not an alteration? If an endorsement is not on the note when someone signs it…..later endorsed, it changes the obligatory obligation …..”an unauthorized change in an instrument that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party,”…if you did not agree to it and there is nothing in the instruments saying it can happen…all endorsements render the obligation void. Being fraudulently made, it discharges the party…you’d think when big time securitization kicked in they would of made a clause or something for this?


  57. KC…under NY law, any material alteration of the note voids the note and obligation.


  58. Bob G, I agree that is the way it is supposed to be.

    But the repayment terms on the NOTE and the Mortgage/Security Instrument/Note are Different.


  59. Having dealt with MERS too, we, me and an attorney have found a nominee, which is what MRS is on the DOT has “limited” authority. Then how do you get past they have no authority? MERS has none, now MERSCORP is a valid entity, but that is not what they are using to foreclose. Two different players, IMHO. No lawyer, but have spoken to many about MERS, all the same answer, they are a CD, recording entity and lying…Imagine that? this information is all contradictory…Hmm


  60. Short sales…nope, 1% sorry. I can give you names…! 6-7% for a regular listing, for a short sale..I can show you RI, MA, NC, SC 1%…for the listing agent!


  61. 1%! No way. Around here it is around 6-7%, almost always. And they say that’s giving you a deal..


  62. ..”legal effect of MERS’ nominee status. Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler” MERS came into the picture after the servicer realized they could not foreclose 1. servicer did not own/hold the note 2. even if they did, US bank had a first, very valid mortgage on the house. ( begs the question why the did not use their title policy? maybe it’s really fake)

    MERS makes it’s way into this new modification as Mortgagee & nominee which was granted or assigned “at the date of note” our note & mortgage.
    By now central states is burnt,
    and servicer claims title by assignment to MERS.

    But they did not ever assign shit to MERS. They took title, endorsed it to themselves and kept it.

    With MERS in litigation they have proved pretty hardy in defeating many of the cases stacked against them. I am not sure it would be a direct cause of action, I have not thought it much…ran over the thought if that had happened before. Servicer hiding title by claiming it’s recorded with MERS to cover their own ass, but it’s not.
    MERS cause of action…..false title conveyance?
    They kept it.
    They say they pooled it but did not have any endorsement in blank.
    I don’t know. Need meh coffee.
    The short sales thing…just ridiculous either way.
    They most likely were loans that could of been saved but money hungry bank wanted that insurance,booted the owners… now a pain in the ass for these guys to get it gone. I found one by me – 2 bed 1 ba. Nice little place- 3,000.
    I wonder how much the foreclosed owners UPB was. I bet they might of been delighted to know they could of had it for 3,000!


  63. FYI: My information says, and I deal with a lot of realtors, 1% is the listing fee paid to the realtor. Not much incentive, given the amount of times it comes on the on and off contract status. And with showings, paperwork, travel-gas, etc…most of them are disgusted and don’t want the listings. The banks, servicers in fact are dictating the pay for the work involved. They have taken over much of the market, not just foreclosures, but even the way realtors can and are doing business. More to come I suspect…

    BTW: many of the bankruptcy courts are asking upwards of $10,000.00 cash to consummate the “as is” short sale. See any corruption here?


  64. KC…the security instrument is the mortgage, not the note. The mortgage is the security instrument because its right to the collateral secures the note obligation.


  65. Only 41% of people are employed. 89% debt ratio. Sobering…

    Puerto Rico’s Debt Crisis: Puerto Pobre
    The Economist Oct. 25, 2013, 4:24 PM

    Read more:

    Shrinking, sinking

    Puerto Rico has been in recession virtually since 2006, when a federal tax break for corporate income expired, prompting many businesses to leave. As Puerto Ricans with prospects emigrate, the remaining population has aged and shrunk. The government has run budget deficits (prohibited for states) for the past decade, averaging 2.5% of GDP from 2009 to 2012. Its pension fund is only 7% funded, which is abysmal even by the standards of other American states and territories.

    The current administration has sought to shore up its finances by increasing taxes by $1.1 billion (about 1% of GDP) and raising the retirement age for government employees, as well as the share of their salaries they contribute to their pensions. It has promised to wipe out its budget deficit, projected at $820m this fiscal year, by 2016.

    Such austerity could further hobble growth, making it harder to shrink debt ratios. Luis Fortuño, the previous governor, lost his job last year partly because of public anger at the cuts he oversaw. Like Greece in the euro zone, Puerto Rico has no control over monetary policy (the preserve of the Federal Reserve), and so cannot mitigate a fiscal tightening with lower interest rates or a cheaper currency.

    Investors meanwhile are so wary, after years of missed deficit targets, tardy financial reports and accounts opaquer than those of other states, that Puerto Rico has had to cut back on new bond issues. It is filling the gap with more short–term bank loans; but they come at punitive rates of interest and must be rolled over more often.

    Investors are now openly debating whether Puerto Rico will default. Its constitution requires that its general-obligation bonds ($10.6 billion of the total) get first claim on tax revenues. Other bonds are backed by dedicated revenue such as sales tax and power bills and by a law authorising the government to pay interest ahead of other claims. “Honouring debts is not only a constitutional but also a moral obligation,” Alejandro Padilla, the governor, told investors earlier this month.

    Yet politically it may be tough to gratify bondholders if police, doctors and teachers go unpaid. The federal government cannot be counted on for a bail-out: fiscal hawks in Congress would almost certainly balk at the expense and the precedent.

    Should Puerto Rico seek to restructure its debts, it would be entering uncharted legal terrain. Unlike a city it cannot declare bankruptcy. It does not enjoy the same sovereignty the constitution grants the states; should it try to renege on its debts, Congress might intervene. Years of litigation would follow.


  66. Two Notes

    Read the security instrument carefully.. mine says…

    This debt is evidenced by Borrower’s note dated the same date as this Security Instrument (“Note”),

    So we have the Note that was converted to a Bond and the Security Instrument (“Note”), signed on the same date.

    Two Notes

    My husband signed “The Note”

    And the other was intended for me and my husband to sign
    “The Security Instrument (“Note”)

    That’s why the keep claiming I am a borrower?
    Sure It Is!


  67. Justme,

    Actually, that piece on short sales is addressed to real estate agents. Not homeowners, sellers or buyers. And it does explain what they go through in order to survive: lots of hours or unpaid work to help banks find a buyer. Most end up taking a flat fee of $2,500 per short sale and, unlike in regular sales, there are no buyers’ agents involved since banks do not pay for their commission. So the realtor serves as agent for both the buyer and the seller (the bank).

    Built-in conflict of interest but who cares, right? Ethics have not bothered banks up until now. No reason for it to change…


  68. JG,

    “there’s no reason MERS couldn’t sue anyone – a member, a non-member, santa claus.”

    I am trying to envision a case in which MERS (or more specifically, Merscorp, since MERS is only a computer data bank) can and would sue a mortgage servicer. Do you have a possible scenario in mind?

    The only case on record in which MERS sued anyone is following the Bellistri v. Ocwen quiet title action, when MERS in turn sued Bellistri for violation of MERS due process. See case below.

    Otherwise, I really can’t imagine any case where MERS could have a direct cause of action against a servicer. Am I missing something? (It is always a possibility…)


  69. Stack of Books
    Newspaper Knowledge Center
    To be informed is to be empowered…

    “There is nothing more important in real estate than being informed. We have compiled an entire knowledge center to help you in your real estate ventures.

    Short Sales from Fannie Mae
    The real news is that short sales are so badly named it should be against the law. If there is any truth in advertising they should be called “Long Hard Haul Sales” which is much more appropriate. The word short sounds like it will take a short time to buy one but that is so far from the truth that they are on different planets.

    What short sale means is that the bank will take less than what is owed on the property. “Short” has nothing to do with time frame and less to do with a short amount of pain. The link below discusses some of the changes that are coming down the pike regarding short sales but as a word of caution…don’t be in a hurry to close the deal and move into a short sale.

    And if you are selling a short sale you will not be paid by the hour because if they did you would be making below the legal limits of minimum wage. Workers in Bangladesh will feel bad for you and perhaps send money, stuffed animals and kind letters. But they won’t envy you.

    Short sales are like Chinese water torture. One drip of hope at a time followed by weeks of silence and buyers that are ready to jump ship every other day. At the end of the process will it be worth it to anyone? Well that depends on who you are and what you expected to begin with. Speaking from as little exposure as I could possibly have with short sales and only listening to coworkers moan and complain as they slow go both broke and insane, I wouldn’t put myself through the ordeal or any of my clients.”

    HUD is just itching to make things better, ‘ey?

    but please, feel free to be inclined to kick their asses- and their children- out on the street when they can – and are willing- to pay just 100.00 less than what they could before our economy led them to loose their job, etc.


  70. wouldn’t there be 3 obligations, technically?
    1. homeowners to note payments
    2. servicer pymts to investor
    3. Guarantor (Ginnie in my case) to investor on servicers “timely payments”



  71. well, the owners policy is a sham I know..I’m not entirely 100% positive the lenders policy is though…


  72. NG: ” the existence of co-obligors when the note payable was converted to a bogus bond payable”

    Sure like to see a post devoted to this. I know that FNMA, for instance, guarantees payment,, but I still don’t know WHY, so that’s my first question.
    And is ‘co-obligor’ in regard to FNMA the real dynamic? If a trust actually owned a loan, aren’t there TWO obligations? The borrower’s on the note to the trust itself and FNMA’s on the certificates to the trust beneficiaries? FNMA makes its guarantee in its prospectus to
    MBS securities buyers- does that in fact make fnma a co-obligor on the note or is fnma an obligor on a separate and distinct investment?
    But as written by you, the note is converted, so there is no note. How would you articulate, then, a borrower’s obligation on a “bond payable”?
    (And why are losses on alleged MBS’s socialized by way of a government agency guarantee paid for by real tax payers?)


  73. I cannot say exactly what I do have as I do not know who trolls these blogs, but I can say I have everything they don’t have hat they should to prove they did what they were supposed to ;]
    We are/were in second. There are Owners & Lender policies but they are fakes.No signatures, they are more of a fill in the blank and email to clueless homeowners providing them reassurance. I asked First American that backs the policies and they said no such polices exist. Called closing/title company which are the same guys, and the owner gave me a piece of his mind, he was not happy with me. He was really nice until he asked for our info, pulled up the file or whatever he found, was quiet for a bit, said “oh crap” ….and after that he was very rude, mean, told me I WILL be foreclosed on and I need to stop digging around in something that happened years ago. I wonder why that is….I have called a few other title companies; close knit town. I pissed off a big wig that is well known around here and do not get all too far. He practices in foreclosure too, go figure. His employee that handled the closing no longer works there. The loan was not a purchase money loan I do not believe. That mess kept us in the house the first time around in 2010. They tried to foreclose, I am guessing found my parents still had first priority lien and gave us a mod. My husband was unemployed due to a layoff- we did not even live in the house, we had it for sale and had moved out. Were way behind…and was offered a mod. We took it, not realizing there was not a payment amount anywhere on the mod. After we signed, it was made even higher and we are in the same boat.There was a satisfaction of mortgage made in 2012 on my parents mortgage- RIGHT BEFORE THEY started the current foreclosure. Planned? Ya think? US bank had the loan.US Bank in MN, US Bank in ND, Home side lending in TX, and Banc one mortgage Corp. I have investor numbers, pool numbers, 3 mortgages and now 3 satisfactions my parents never even knew they took out. If I had time for sec info I’d play ball, but I dont. Nothing like good ol’ defrauding the government by pooling a few mortgages that are the same one.But whats new?


  74. justme, did you get a copy of the title commitment? As a requirement of the insurance and a new first, the seller’s loan has to be paid off when the buyer gets a purchase money loan.
    On a purchase there would be two policies, a lender’s policy and an owner’s policy. The owner’s policy covers YOU, whereas the lender’s policy covers the lender and it may be that separate claims may be made on each of those two policies. One by the guy who found himself in second, and one by you. If the seller’s loan were supposed to be paid off as usual and wasn’t, you may well have a claim against the title company. (On the other hand, that mess may be what’s keeping you in the house.) I think this came up before, right? Imo, you should talk to an attorney who practices generally in real estate (not necessarily foreclosure defense) and is a litigator. You might call a local title company not associated with ‘your’ title company, ask for an examiner, and see if he or she has a referal (stick to basic facts: seller’s loan was not released, never mind the f/c status).
    If Central States made off with the seller’s payoff funds, I’m not sure that changes anything for the title co.
    In regard to a title claim, there’s no reason I can think of for anyone to be interested in that hinky stuff with the bogus (?) down payment, though it shouldn’t have been done. It has nothing to do with a title claim in regard to a failure to pay off the seller’s loan. And are you sure the payoff wasn’t made and THOSE guys just failed to release their lien? Surely someone in the act is all over that?


  75. Order from the case I linked earlier; John K, no longer at WF (shock) had stated in depo that he was an officer of WF and also of MERS:

    “1. Defendant is ordered to produce by 5 p.m., December 15, 2011
    all remaining documents not yet produced that are responsive to Plaintiff’s document requests, including, but not limited to (1) John Kennerty’s human resources personnel file, including any separation agreement, (2) all purchasing agreements, and (3) all servicing agreements…. (personal info of John K to be redacted – sic)

    2. On or before 5:00 p.m., December 15, 2011, Defendant’s counsel is ordered to provide Plaintiff’s counsel with an amended privilege log
    pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(5).
    The amended privilege log must contain for each alleged privileged communication information sufficient to enable Plaintiff’s counsel to evaluate the claims of privilege, including (i) the date of each communication, (ii) the names, business titles or positions of each author, (iii) the names, business titles or positions of each recipient or person who had access to the communication, (iv) the subject matter of the communication, and (v) specific privilege claimed……”

    Docs produced in discovery must be be signed by the party producing. That party’s attorney is only authorized to sign objections.
    Look it up (or ask a lawyer)
    WF, among other things, had submitted different notes in the case (endorsement, no endorsement, bar codes, bar codes there, not there, at the top, now at the bottom, etc. ).


  76. My servicer was a shareholder for MERS, not anymore!
    They were using MERS, sneaky bastards.
    Told me the transfer of ownership was recorded with MERS, as they only have the servicing rights.
    They named MERS as nominee, mortgagee etc. but never made an assignment to them. HA.
    They got the servicing rights, but not the ownership, not the note. Ownership stayed with the originator, Central states(surprise)….when they went under the servicer began calling themselves the “lender”.
    MERS verified our loan is not a MERS loan in any way, there was no transfer of ownership, there was no assignment to MERS…nadda. The servicer used MERS like a cover indicating the transfer of note/ownership lies with MERS, that they had the titles assignment, they don’t have jack squat and MERS called them on it. THAT, that was fun.
    I spoke with an attorney that was overseeing Central states receivership and they said thay have access to all csmc’s old files and they are checking into it.This could be really ..neat?…or really bad, maybe.. Central states could(?) challenge my servicer on ownership and claim rights to my loan – but then again central states I believe was indeed supposto release the loan to the servicer…made loans, pumped them out.
    BUT- oops.. I think what may of happened was the funds that were to go to the previous sellers mortgage at closing………perhaps they were pocketed by central states……it’s in the accusations all over js online ……..the sellers mortgage didn’t get paid off,but they thought it did. Our mortgage is in second lien position.
    MERS was used as a cover,
    CSMC made us a mortgage on someone else’s mortgaged property,
    not to mention sent the servicer bogus loan aps’ to approve it,
    Servicer pooled the loan;
    -that was in second lien position
    -that was not FHA insured
    -that was already pooled under a different lenders name
    Title agent faked the title insurance policy, did not disclose the previous mortgagors lien to the servicer, and wrote up the warranty deed fee simple free from all claims, no encumbrances…no nothing…when the mortgage was there?…
    OH YAH- I think i know why they never put my loan on anything too. READY!? …ready! .. The loan originator upped the loan a few grand, used those funds as a “gift” in some bogus account of mine on our JOINT application that were used for closing costs and down payment….and sent the servicer loan applications that were different….But – I was not married just yet…so I was not a party to the loan……..That was how they said it would work, anyhow.I did not know that was wrong. I was 19. They said we would use the extra for closing and could keep the rest…there was not any “the rest”. I think that makes me liable for fraud. That’s peachy. The originator set it all up, the closing guys helped it work. They even wrote on the HUD-1 “seller paid all buyers closing costs” …
    Maybe I will just write them all notices they all screwed each other and I am in the middle in a house that is worth jack! It’s OLD. The foundation is rotting, the insulation has all fallen inside the walls,..and I cant seem to care, they might take it. Let them all fight among themselves…
    They can all sue each other as long as they leave me and my house be, that is not even mine because it was bought before we married. With my funds, from the previous owners…that may of been fraud, I guess, if it was the loan originator he suggested it, said it would make it a lot smoother, he wrote it all up…and it worked perfectly. why? The previous owners….they are my parents. How’s that for you? Takes the fricken cake, eh? I ask them what happened..why was their mortgage not paid off… ” they don’t really remember what happened”.wtf is that? Such a daze. I’m not giving up being a mother and wife to play super pro`se, and I am not going to have to apply for food stamps paying an attorney.Or shit, maybe I should. Pay enough into the damn system, maybe I’ll just ask for it back!
    Who wants a drink? brb.
    dang. :C


  77. justme – there’s no reason MERS couldn’t sue anyone – a member, a non-member, santa claus. If MERS ever appropriately gets nailed for all the robo-signing that’s been done in its name, you can bet MERS will be looking for company.


  78. Justme,

    MERS suing a servicer? On what grounds and on what capacity? I don’t even believe it is legally feasible. So far, the only suits against MERS have come from AGs and counties.


  79. Has anyone happened across a really juicy instance of MERS suing a servicer lately ??


  80. Justme,

    A hell of a headache? A nasty draw? The same as pretty much everyone else? A big “welcome to the club” party?



  81. From MIms’ objection to WF’s mtn:

    “It is worth noting that in the Mims II Memo, attorney for the creditor explain Mr. Kennerty is an employee of Wells Fargo but also act as an officer of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc as Nominee
    for Lend America but fails to indicate any inherent conflict of interest the dual roles present.
    The debtor hereby reserves her right to demand a full accounting and explanation of the use of so-called suspense account which is
    not provided for in the loan documents and violates the Truth in Lending Act as amended in 2009 mandating that all payments be credited to a consumer‘s account the same day as received.”


  82. @Christine – interesting note about Congressional intervention regarding JPM being disqualified from taking tax deduction for settlement costs to avoid litigation. As it stands, the recipient of such settlements have to pay income taxes on settlements. Do you think any Congressional bill will reverse the roles entirely and allow tax-free settlements to homeowners, or the more likely route of taxing both recipients of such settlements? /rhetoricalquestion


  83. what do you get when you have:
    -1 house.
    with all at the same time=
    – 2 different mortgagors
    – 2 different banks
    – 2 different pools
    – 2 different investors


  84. Whistleblower Lynn Szymoniak, Accused Shyster
    Posted: 10/03/2013 8:18 am

    Excellent piece by Richard Zombeck on why the betrayal of Figueroa by Lynn Szymoniak is such a devastating blow to homeowners as a whole.


  85. Do we care about Italy’s oldest bank? Well, maybe not here but Karen Hudes and Bloomberg sure as hell do. Especially when its demise is, once again, tied to JPM, bailouts and Deutsche Banke… and the word is “nationalization”.

    Is anything EVER taking place in a vacuum? Hell no! Should we absolutely look to outside the US to fix this country? It increasingly would appear so. Once thing is certain: the people worldwide are taking back what’s theirs. Iceland, Ireland, Greece, France, Hungary, etc. Here, the people dutifully pay taxes, keep their money stored with JPM and spend their lives blogging and using each other as sounding boards instead of taking action. Where did that laziness and lack of survival instinct come from? Is it tied to their physical shape? Obesity? Monsanto? Church-and-TV brainwashing? Exceptionalism? What?

    Oh, and something else… America decided long ago that taking care of the people had to be through charity. Tax-exempt non-profit foundations have flourished everywhere. It’s running the entire country. No corp ever makes a profit anymore since everything is a “foundation”. Well, it has caused worldwide a maximum of damages. And people are going back to the infamous “rule of law’ Karen Hudes keeps talking about…

    Bank Born Out of Black Death Struggles to Survive
    By Elisa Martinuzzi & Vernon Silver – Oct 24, 2013 6:01 PM ET

    Siena, the medieval city renowned for its Palio horse races, is home to the world’s oldest bank. Within its aging walls lies a distinctly 21st-century tale of devastation wrought by local politicians and global financiers.
    Enlarge image Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA Headquarters

    Siena officials founded Monte Paschi in 1472, after the Black Death wiped out more than half the city’s population. They modeled it after the pawnshops Franciscan monks had set up to counter usury. As it grew, the lender helped fuel the Renaissance in Tuscany that pulled Europe from the Middle Ages.

    After Giuseppe Mussari joined Monte Paschi, the fifth-biggest Italian lender at the time, the board authorized him to search for acquisitions to keep up with the country’s two largest banks, UniCredit SpA and Intesa Sanpaolo SpA, which were expanding. Photographer: Andreas Solaro/AFP via Getty Images
    Enlarge image Former Merrill Dealmaker Andrea Orcel

    Andrea Orcel, a former Merrill Lynch banker, represented Santander on the $100 billion ABN Amro deal, the largest bank takeover ever. He also headed the Merrill group that helped Monte Paschi raise funds to buy Antonveneta.

    Antonveneta was owned by Dutch bank ABN Amro Holding NV, then in the process of being sold to a group of European lenders, including Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and Spain’s Santander. Photographer: Giuseppe Aresu/Bloomberg
    Enlarge image Banco Santander SA Chairman Emilio Botin

    Emilio Botin has banking in his blood. The patriarch of a family that has helped run Santander for 118 years, he joined the bank in 1958, became CEO in 1967 and built it through acquisitions in Brazil, the U.S. and the U.K. into one of the world’s top-20 publicly traded lenders. Photographer: Angel Navarrete/Bloomberg

    Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA, Italy’s third-largest lender, is struggling to survive as it seeks to repay a second bailout or face nationalization. Its downfall proved a boon to global investment banks. They offered merger and investment advice to executives beholden to politicians that helped wipe out 93 percent of Monte Paschi’s value. Then they sold it complex derivatives that hid, even worsened the losses.

    Efforts to rescue the 541-year-old lender have cost Italian taxpayers 4.1 billion euros ($5.6 billion). The investment banks, including Merrill Lynch & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Deutsche Bank AG (DBK), earned more than $200 million in fees from 2008 through 2011, filings and deal memos show.

    “These international banks come to exploit, and Italy is vulnerable,” said former Senator Elio Lannutti, who heads Adusbef, a consumer group for Italian bank customers. “On one side, there’s the local incompetence, and on the other side the bad faith of the international investment banks.”

    Franco Debenedetti, a former chief executive officer of Olivetti SpA, was even blunter.

    “It’s the inevitable consequence of medieval governance falling prey to the fangs of Wall Street,” said Debenedetti, now chairman of Italy’s Bruno Leoni Institute, a pro-free-market research group in Turin.

    Siena prosecutors have requested that New York-based JPMorgan stand trial for obstructing regulators and failing to oversee employees properly on its Monte Paschi financing, according to four people with knowledge of the investigation. JPMorgan has said it “acted correctly at all times” and would defend itself against any charges.

    Prosecutors in Italy and regulators in Germany also are reviewing the Deutsche Bank derivatives after Bloomberg News reported in July that the Frankfurt-based lender kept them off its own books too, according to a person with direct knowledge of the inquiry. The bank said in a statement that the 2008 transaction “was subject to our rigorous internal approval processes and also received the requisite approvals of the client, who was independently advised.”

    Nomura, which bought Lehman’s European and Asian units in 2008, is being investigated in Siena for alleged fraud and usury on a similar derivatives transaction with Monte Paschi in 2009. A spokesman for Nomura in London declined to comment.
    Franciscan Pawnshops

    The allegations, if proven, would be a betrayal of the heritage of a bank with 2,300 branches and 28,500 employees that traces its origins to combating excessive loan rates. Siena officials founded Monte Paschi in 1472, after the Black Death wiped out more than half the city’s population. They modeled it on the pawnshops Franciscan monks had set up to counter usury. As it grew, the lender helped fuel the Renaissance in Tuscany that pulled Europe from the Middle Ages.

    Monte Paschi was nationalized in 1936 during the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini and didn’t shake free of state control until 1995. Like other Italian lenders, it was entrusted to a nonprofit foundation, which used dividends paid by the bank to make contributions to Siena hospitals and schools. The organizations were encouraged by regulators and lawmakers to dilute their stakes over time by selling shares to diversify their holdings and ensure stable endowments.


  86. JG,

    “Anyone know or speculate why some notes have bar codes on them?”

    A few reasons, one of them to better track down the going mortgage rate on the date it was issued, the type of property and other such info. Have you noticed that country recordation also comes with bar codes? If you loan is recorded 15 times as having been assigned/transferred/conveyed/sold, you’ll have 15 different bar codes on your doc. Does “mortgage electronic registration system” mean anything to you?


  87. to John Gault, re bar codes on notes, I have a Countrywide note endorsed in blank by Michelle Solanjer who in a deposition states that every time that note moved to another location they used a wand to scan it, thus leaving an electronic trail of where it is and where it’s been, I requested that documentation in discovery, the bank seems “unaware” of such information (shocker) and the judge did not see my point of why that information was important. If it comes to an appeal, I will make sure to revisit the issue…


  88. Here is the homeowner’s opposition to relief from stay which resulted in WF’s motion being denied. The homeowner then filed an Adversary Proceeding, which is what settled. The motion basically asks, as have others, “were you lying then or are you lying now?”, but what I really liked is how the attorney laid it out. Looks like a great job to me. When the AP was filed, the homeowner also sought relief for fraud on the court. This opposition to the mfrs has most or all of the fraud on the court cited: Too tired to finish reading it. Will, tho, because I’m interested in seeing if the fraud were alleged by WF’s
    counsel as well as WF.


  89. Here is the supplemental request for Production:

    This case involves WF. WF apparently didn’t want to produce and it settled. Kinda weird: Borrower got 10k and to live in the house for another year and her lawyers got 50K! (dkt 82-1)


  90. This is interesting (from a case):

    1. A complete, unredacted copy of the Default Services Agreement between Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.and Fidelity National Foreclosure & Bankruptcy Solutions, Inc. and/or LPS Default Solutions Inc.
    (hereinafter the “Default Services Agreement”)

    2. Complete, unredacted copies of any predecessor agreements to the Default Services Agreement plus any addendums, supplements and modifications to any such predecessor agreements.

    3. Complete, unredacted copies of any successor agreements to the Default Services Agreement plus any addendums, supplements and modifications to any such successor agreements

    4. A complete, unredacted copy of the original Network Agreement between Fidelity National Foreclosure & Bankruptcy Solutions, Inc., a division of Fidelity National Title Company and Steven J. Baum, PC (hereinafter the “Network Agreement”) plus any addendums, supplements and modifications to this agreement.

    5. Complete, unredacted copies of any predecessor agreements to the Network Agreement plus any addendums, supplements and
    modifications to any such predecessor agreements.

    6. Complete, unredacted copies of any successor agreements to the Network Agreement plus any addendums, supplements and modifications to any such successor agreements.

    The bankster may have argued these requests are compound (in addition to their usual “overbroad”, “irrelevant”, and other stock objections). Haven’t gotten that far.


  91. Anyone know or speculate why some notes have bar codes on them?


  92. Neil says the Chickens are coming Home to Roost! I Like Chicken!


  93. That homegrown half slab of meat costs $2.29lb hanging weight plus .62lb processing fee.


  94. Just Me, …. Just don’t let them drain the life out of you! Get up every morning and remind yourself of the things you have that make you Blessed. Things money cant buy!

    Those who use money to buy their “Get out of Jail Free Card” will NEVER enjoy the Blessings they have because they will be to busy covering their asses ( I mean


  95. or the giant homegrown slab of meat..however you’d like to label it :}


  96. KC .I am glad you have that, truly…mine has not a clue…I wish I could hear/have the end of it…………I hear ” you’ve told me this, like 9 times….what do you want me to do?” …enjoy your non life deforming hot dog. Drinks to you all…..*drinks passed around*…


  97. I watched that Dylan Ratigan video sooo many times…Clapped. laughed… spread that thing like wildfire last week….beautiful, beautiful clip .


  98. Just Me, Let It OUT my Friend!

    But I was referring to my husband! LOL! Its tough when he rubs it in when he thinks he is right! Being right is yet to be determined … If he is … I will never hear the end of it.

    Christine, picked up our half beef and hog on the way home yesterday. Amish raised, farm fresh and half the price of that stuffs they sell at Walmart. No Hormones and No Monsanto contaminated feed.

    Save Yourselves and Save Your Money!

    Go Organic and Eat at Home Much Cheaper !!

    Monsanto Must Go!!




  100. The smart ones take a hike and go do their own thing…


  101. This country has really turned into quite a special kind of stupid to deliberately piss off all its allies… So. America has violently reacted, Russia has literally slapped the US by offering asylum to Snowden, Brazil is taking sanctions. The whole thing is imploding through sheer greed and paranoia…

    Divided EU Responds To NSA Spying Scandal

    HuffPost Spain | By Daniel Basteiro Posted: 10/25/2013 5:05 pm EDT | Updated: 10/25/2013 5:09 pm EDT

    Merkel announced that she will ask the U.S. for a new agreement that limits the scope of both countries’ investigations and surveillance activities, The Guardian reported. French President François Hollande is looking for a similar arrangement. According to leading French newspaper Le Monde, Hollande said on Friday that his government has gathered “several trails” pointing to a cyberattack against the Élysée Palace — the official residence of the president — in May 2012. The announcement gave credibility to a report previously published by Le Monde, which pointed to the NSA as the organization responsible for the attack.

    A group of nine members of the EU Parliament will travel to Washington on Monday to gather information about the alleged surveillance.

    The espionage scandal could also delay or block another major treaty: the free-trade agreement between the EU and the U.S. In February, both parties announced the beginning of negotiations around the much-anticipated agreement. According to a European Commission memo, the commercial treaty could generate up to 86 billion euros for the EU and 65 billion euros for the U.S.


  102. No offence, but know…..I side with jg here. This is not a fucking game, It is LIVING. Making what is wrong into a brain maze operation places you in the same shoes as these banksters. “I told you so” does not even qualify on the theories some of you cook up. THEORIES. ….. MERS- please – some one tell me they have noticed some original shareholders just exited the building.. ….well shit, some just up and disappeared.Well GOLLY GEE WHIZ take a shot in the dark at that….. Keep making this word puzzle for MBS/securitization dummies and maybe one day, someone will write a book….letting citizens know how to break the code…after it’s useless. Indeed, roll on, keep it a secret, ask to be paid. It boils down to about that- TBTF…In a sense. Put up a wall, a good one- it’s only time until they build a bridge. We are watching it happen in real time. Secrets are useless in the long run. It’s the end result my friends, the end result…..which may not be measured by some mere wins or losses….There will be implemented new rules. For instance take the glass steagall act, …then taken over by Gramm Leach Bliley Act… a fellow or foe…………..


  103. Someone is saying…… “I Told You So”!

    Many Blessings to All and to All a Good Night!


  104. FYI Folks: Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate was Obamacare website builder @drudgereportapp


  105. What happening here is October 31st 2013 preemption . FIle your claims as time is running out and your claim is worth 300 under a US AG criminal prosecution.Goodbye to foreclosure claims in less than 10 days


  106. Leave a Reply

    – In each of your disclosures is a hidden due on date
    – In your 2009 mortgage statement is a embedded code to instruct the debt collector on how to time the foreclosure
    – In your deed of trust is exculpatory language that conflicts with the foreclosures sale and transfer notice
    – Mers Corp represents YOUR interest in a single Grantor trust
    – The 30 day debt collection practices act letter explains the timing of a Treas Reg 1031.1 exchange for accelerating a tax deferred transfer and sale

    Win on Merit -time is running out!


  107. Dear Clients

    secondary markets subrogation claims, capital markets infringement cases and wrongful estate and title recovery cases.

    Until 1971, the enforcement of due-on-sale and due-on-encumbrance31 clauses was not restricted in California.32 In 1971, however, the California Supreme Court decided La Sala v. American Savings and Loan Association .33 There, the court held that due-on-encumbrance clauses were not enforceable unless the clauses were “reasonably necessary to the protection of the lender’s security.”34 Nonetheless, the court stated that due-on-sale clauses remained unrestricted “because such a provision is necessary to the lender’s security.”35 Thus, while due-on-sale clauses remained unrestricted by La Sala, the framework was set for the creation of future restrictions. Three years later, the California Supreme Court was presented with a due-on-sale clause in an installment sale contract for purchase of land.36 In Tucker v. Lassen Savings and Loan Association,37 the court held that due-on-sale clauses are triggered by the equity transfer in an installment sales contract.38 Having reached that conclusion, the court asserted that before a due-on-sale clause could be enforced, it had to pass a balancing test, that weighed the “justification” for enforcing the clause against the “quantum of restraint” caused by enforcement.39


  108. Wow. This intrigue is REALLY getting intriguing now. HOW DEEP IS THE RABBIT HOLE ?




  110. We’ll see more of those reactions as time goes by. Not a minute too soon.

    Outraged Congressman Wants to Make Sure JPMorgan Pays
    October 24, 2013

    One member of Congress, Peter Welch (D-VT), is outraged that JPMorgan may get off easy in its settlement agreement with the Department of Justice.

    Reacting to reports earlier this week that a large share of the pay-out could be written off of the mega-bank’s tax bill, Welch is preparing legislation that would prevent JPMorgan and other banks from shifting the costs of such settlements onto the American taxpayers.

    In a letter the representative is preparing to send to JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, Welch writes:

    “Should a wrongdoer whose conduct caused harm to the taxpayer ask the taxpayer to help pay the fine for the wrong done?

    We think not.

    Yet news reports indicate that J.P. Morgan (sic), in its negotiations with the Justice Department over a $13 billion fine related to its mortgage activities, is seeking to do just that – shift a significant portion of its penalty to the American taxpayer.

    It was the taxpayer who initially funded the bailout of Wall Street. It was the taxpayer who continues to endure the consequences of the worst recession since the Great Depression. The taxpayer should not, therefore, be required to contribute a nickel towards the fines imposed for conduct that got America into this mess in the first place.”


  111. Something’s definitely up…

    Citigroup Said to Offer Servicing on $63 Billion Mortgages
    By Dakin Campbell & Pierre Paulden – Oct 24, 2013 5:27 PM ET

    Oct. 24 (Bloomberg) — Citigroup Inc., the third-biggest U.S. bank, is selling mortgage-servicing rights on $63 billion of loans, its largest potential sale of this type since the 2008 financial crisis, according to two people briefed on the offer.

    The servicing rights, or MSRs, represent about 21 percent of Citigroup’s total contracts as of midyear, and could be sold in pieces, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the sale is private. More than 80 percent of the loans are performing, according to the people.

    Citigroup’s offering comes as the nation’s banks, including Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and Ally Financial Inc. (ALLY), retreat from the almost $10 trillion mortgage-servicing market amid looming Basel III regulations. That’s attracting private-equity firms and hedge funds including Fortress Investment Group LLC (FIG) and GSO Capital Partners LP to assets that can increase in value when borrowing costs rise and giving them more control over the rights to collect Americans’ monthly mortgage payments.

    “It’s a step toward cleaning up their capital,” said David Stephens, the chief financial officer at Denver-based United Capital Markets Inc., who added he didn’t have specific knowledge of the Citigroup offering. Demand is currently high enough that banks can sell the rights without recording a loss, he said.


  112. How long can Holder hold back the dyke? His former clients are the banksters and their servicers. Maybe we should be looking for who some of his clients were back in the halcyon days of MERS being created. I can’t wait until Obama has to throw Holder under the bus to keep his own sorry ass out of the trap. If you have not checked out Karen Hudes on YouTube, please do so.


  113. Bob G.,

    I was thinking about it. What I believe (and Jan will probably back me on this) is that banks have been doing what everyone else does: they’re probably self-insured to the tune of millions of dollars, by way of offshore captives. So, the actual insurance policy would kick in only when the exposure is 50% or more of the total aggregate limit per claim (chances are the underlying, fronting policy, is a claims made policy).

    For a corporation, it’s the best way to actually double your income: you save a bundle on the insurance premium, you set aside tons of money in an offshore account based on actuarial calculations and you invest it, tax-free, into some very lucrative endeavor such as water, food, drug or weapons. Everybody wins: the insurance co. who is spared the claims handling and investigation costs, the insured who saves on premiums and the investors who make money from every angle.

    I won’t know who the insurers are until it’s reached a pretty high threshold of exposure.


  114. Demand a copy of the policy and then copy the insurer with your papers. If the attys or servicers didn’t notify the insurer, their coverage should be dropped. But jan van eck would know more about this than me.

    Also, don’t worry about the number of defendants. You can always count on a falling out amongst them. The more defendants and their insurers, the merrier.

    Remember what Neil said. The mills are getting $1200-$1400 per case. After that, it’s a billable hour deal for the banks. They don’t like that. I think that I’ve run up about $15K-$20k for JPM alone in the past 10 months.


  115. Bob G,

    Incidentally, though… So far, I haven’t seen my servicer bringing in the existence of any kind of insurance policy. As you know, I’m in federal and i have (among other allegations) an FDCPA claim.


  116. Bob G.,

    I think you’re onto something very important: filing against banks not only for breaches of contract, violations or statutes and what not but also for negligence, covered under professional liability policies. And since the idea is to use the shotgun approach so as to increase all the chances of collecting something from somewhere, maybe now is the time to shoot not just for the PL bank coverage but also for their D&O, E&O and every other existing coverage.

    The major caveat though is that the more players are involved and the longer the case drags on…


  117. Why thank you Bob…it would be nice to have a lucky day, these days!


  118. Poppy…your lucky day!

    A very reliable source at the forefront of all this told me to do the following:

    File suit against the lawyers in Fed court for violating the FDCPA. SCOTUS says they’re liable. Ask for their policy limits and settle with their insurers. There may be some very big money involved there.


  119. You know Bob, I know you are a lawyer and mean no disrespect to you, having got that out the way, IMHO suits NEED to be filed against the law firms-lawyers. There are good guys and bad guys and the legal profession is getting a very bad reputation in all this.

    I know for a fact some of these law firms are by design, filing out their own paperwork and people in the office are signing it. Now, do they have indemnity for that? You can’t have a little bit of fraud…it either meets the standard or it doesn’t.

    And I agree 100% with you about the fines-penalties…this goes on all the time in large corporations. I mean do you take all the planes out of service and fix them, or is it cheaper to take the chance they will crash and pay the victims $10-20,000.00 a piece? We all know the answer to that.

    These cats are stealing land all over the globe. This real property shift and the consequences to homeowners is catastrophic, in reality. After they get done making us renters, which by the way, most cannot rent after the credit decimation and the inability to work after being slandered, where can you go?

    And FYI: when this first started, I had a significant loss of income. Having years of experience and education, sent out over 500 resumes, could not get a meaningful bite with a bad credit score…they are creating a country of renters and indentured slaves, IMHO. This fight is far larger than a home. If they are going to fight dirty, then we must too. This is a war…..again, IMHO


  120. Following up on Jan’s comments…

    For defendants, if you can get a dismissal without prejudice, try and amend your Answer and add the counterclaim of Negligence or Gross Negligence.

    Negligence is almost always a matter of fact and not law. So you can get a jury trial. And you’re going to be asking for not only compensatory damages, but punitive damages as well.

    The fact that the bank may come back with the proper paperwork at a later date and refile the suit, may be of no moment. At the time they filed the original suit, they were negligent.

    Amending the Answer to include the counterclaim of negligence, the seeking of punitive damages, and a jury trial may be a showstopper for the bank.

    I intend to employ this tactic myself and will post the results.


  121. Bob is on the right track. Convincing the Court of the inherent logic of these arguments is the difficult part.

    In the interim, I encourage all persons being victimized by these banks and their grotesquely-misbehaving foreclosure mills, to file suits against them. Let the Courts see a crescendo of filed Complaints and then the Complaint contents go beyond the “crank” phase to the “where there is smoke, there is fire” phase.

    The other advantage of a crescendo of Complaints is that it costs banks hard cash. The avalanche of suits against JPMorgan has pushed the bank, a criminal enterprise, from profit to loss. Spending 9.2 BIllion in outside litigation fees and judgments starts to force even the arrogant and insolent Jamie Dimon to re-think his business model.


  122. Harry Markoplous for President. I like that guy !!


  123. Here’s my solution:

    1. Explain to the court that any decision it makes in the case will not prevent someone from getting a “free house.”

    2. Point out that financial sanctions are meaningless. The foreclosure mills are indemnified by the banks for sanctionable conduct. The banks want the mills to roll over the homeowners with smash mouth tactics, and do so as quickly as practicable. Submission of fabricated evidence, documentation and perjured affidavits is the rule. If caught, the lawyers try to talk their way out of it. If they can’t, and are financially sanctioned, the banks cover the sanction. In 20 foreclosures, where the bank gets $4-$ million in real estate, sanctions amounting to $100K are just the cost of doing business. If one case resulted in a $100K sanction against the law firm, the bank expects that the law firm appeal the sanction decision before paying out the $100K. The bank will provide an appeal bond in the interim.

    3. A meaningful sanction would be for the court to prohibit the law firm from bringing any more foreclosure actions within the jurisdiction involved for a 1 year period. That’s something that the bank cannot fix.

    Additionally, a policy of sanctioning banks by a dismissal with prejudice would also be very effective, and would start to unclog the court system of bogus foreclosure actions.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: