Bank Of America Hammered By The United State’s FHFA

The Banks are now like the proverbial frog in the water that gradually heats up to boiling. Their arrogance causes them to disregard all the warning signs.

The “mismanagement” of investor’s funds and documents is a euphemism. What they are talking about is that the banks never put the money into the trusts. So it is impossible for the trusts to have purchased any loans. Therefore the PSA is irrelevant, and the servicer et al are all acting without any color of authority except that the borrower has in some way acknowledged the appearance of authority. And that means none of the banks should have filed foreclosures. And that means that if investors were told what they need to know and if borrowers were told what they need to know, then the foreclosures would never have occurred.

The foreclosures are a necessary completion to the fraud. At some point here the judiciary is going to make a fast turn, realizing that the foreclosures are a means to an end that has nothing to do with protecting lenders and everything to do with committing the world’s largest economic crime.

And I say again, if the courts want to clear their dockets, just require the foreclosing party to have proof of the money trail starting with the original loan. 80% of the cases will fail just on the basis of origination fraud — the taking of money from a party who is being defrauded and using it for the benefit of an entire series of parties involved in a meaningless paper trail that has no connection or intersection with the money trail. Apply the same logic to the endorsements and assignments and you will have practically no foreclosure cases. Just debts and debtors looking for a creditor to settle up accounts.

 

Bank Of America Hammered By The United State’s FHFA

Fri, Nov 8 | by Don Dion

Includes: bac

In 2011, President Obama’s Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) made financial history when it filed civil suits against Bank of America (BAC) and other mortgage lenders. The FHFA argued that the lenders in question grossly misrepresented the quality of their mortgage-backed securities. Packaged deceptively and sold to semi-public institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, these toxic securiti…

Full Story: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1821802?source=ipadportfolioapp

131 Responses

  1. .That is why there are so many of fighting for our properties pro so

  2. Yes: it is these guys who invented America’s real estate forgery systems & they’re usually lawyers.

    Just copy-paste this in Google to see ABA’s report: “Lawyers Worst Violators Of Law: Part I” and click on the PDF link that comes up.

  3. guest AND ALL

    WILLIAM P FOLEY’S BIO seems to be deleted from my computer but press in William P Foley bio in to search and read the many that come up from Forbes, Businessweek etc. They are written to make it appear all the good Foley has done for America but once you see Foley developed LPS you know it is all the bad Foley has done to America.

  4. At Guest

    I do have it somewhere in my computer but i can’t post it now. incidentally to the fraudulent foreclosures I live in what is suppose to be an ordinary REIT rental garden apartment and I wonder why what should be an ordinary downstairs neighbors possess and use military style equipment like microwave guns and electric magnetic pulses and some nights they keep going at me and me dog for hours.
    I sure hope the Calvary comes soon.

  5. Thanks. Do you have the actual link to where Foley came in the picture so you can post it here?

  6. GUEST AND ALL

    Go to the Fidelity Title Web page and pull up their history .It did start over 100 years ago and then pull up William P Foleys bio and see when their paths crossed.

  7. @ ML: thanks. So, about when did that guy Foley start with Fidelity? I thought Fidelity was over 100 years old.

  8. Guest and all
    read my Dec 22 2013 posts starting with 11:19,
    then 11:37 and then 11:54
    my computer is hacked THIS IS HOW i POST.

  9. continued again to Guest and all

    i encountered William P FOLEY IN 2008 WHEN i was in NYSC
    vacating a void ab initio judgment . Void ab initio judgments are a nulllity and can never turn valid and have no latches

    After Astoria Federal S & L sucessor in interest admitted that their previous debt collector attorneys had auctioned off my two NYC condos with two void ab initio judgments, the title companies were stepping in two indeminify.

    (the debt collector attorneys MJRF were long gone from the bank) In steps Thomas Malone attorney for FNT and his partner in crime
    David K Fiveson and of a shame title company he called Coronet Title and told JUDGE ALICE SCHLESINGER OF NYSC we have WE HAVE EQUITY and she took it and ruled against the US Supreme Court case Elliot v. Piersol. on that decided the law of the land on jurisdiction of the courts.

    I wrote a simple letter to William P Foley ‘WHAT WENT WRONG THAT YOUR NY attorney Thomas Malone finds himself fighting for a forged deed? and Fidelitys answer for Foley was “it is proper’

    now that we all know Fideltys lps fraudulent document link we see why he defended the ‘proper’ RESPONSE..

    With all of Foley and his cohorts trillions of stolen assets they have lots of indemnifing to do to the people of this country.

    He is a great enemy to out Country. That is William P Foley.

  10. continued for Guest and all

    it was Foley and Fidelity that wanted to buy LPS Docx back for three Billion dollars but it was the good sense of the Federal Trade Commission that didn’t allow it opening up again in the United States so it is housed in another country but they are again going to try to use their forged made documents to steal more properties.

    These qualities of William p Foley is what makes him a natural born enemy to the people of the United States of America.

  11. at Guest and all

    William P FOLEY of Fidelity National Titl and its subsidiaries is the greatest American born conman that lives. He built the Title industry from a unknown entity into the greatest farce that destroyed homeowner property rights and destroyed over 200 years of reliable county land records.

    This massive ponzi scheme never would have taken been able to take place had it not been for Foley masterminding the makings of LENDER processing Service. you might now know LPS DOCX by the notoriety of jailed LORRAINE BROWNE but it was William P Foley who was chairman of LPS in 2008. before it was turned over to Lorraine Browne. continued below

  12. @ ML: Yes. Him. who is he & what role did he play?

  13. I’m not quite sure what your question to me @1:17 is referring to. Are you asking me who is William P Foley?

  14. @ marilyn lane

    What did this guy do? & Who is he?

  15. Ray,
    if Attorney General Holder zeros in on the part William Foley of Fidelity played in the fraudulent foreclosures between Banks, homeowners and county recorders in order to keep selling title insurance and to avoid paying claims, I think the whole country would be able to unravel this massive fraud and homeowners can get back their properties or money and damages . The title insurance is what stalls the whole correction and indemnifying process.

  16. Now after my fraudulent foreclosure and that I am forced to live as a rental, I discovered that a different issue exists among some of the tenants here. They are not at all sympathetic to our fight to get back our stolen properties because they are themselves are angry ,
    But angry that they never had a house to be foreclosed on.

  17. Ray:

    Unfortunately class action suits are nothing but attorney shakedowns of companies to obtain millions of dollars of legal fees. Usually they settle for offshore bribes in return for lower judgments or for dismissing cases, etc. Victims usually never benefit from them.

    Almost all judges are corrupt & paid off by banks. The very few who are honest usually get sacked. This happened to several honest bankruptcy judges right after 2008. Two that I recall were California bankruptcy judges Bufford & Sargis. Both were kicked out shortly after they made a few rulings against lenders’ crimes like in your case.

  18. 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

  19. Below is a really bad scan of my Deed of Trust From Citi Mortgage. Have a couple of questions that someone may be able to answer. 1. You can clearly see that MERS is the Assignor. Question I thought that was illegal. 2. You see a stamp on there that says Certified True Copy. Actually you cant see the stamp, on here but its on the document all by itself and nothing else. The notary on here is part of the original deed. Question shouldn’t this be notarized I requested a certified copy through a QWR? 3. Can someone tell me how to find out if this loan was securitized? As you can see some the stuff did not scan very well such as the signature.

    When Recorded Return To:
    CT LIEN SOLUTIONS
    PO BOX 29071
    GLENDALE, CA 91209-9071

    ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST
    MERS SIS # 868-679-6377 MIN: 100052550053155353
    Assignor: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for New Equity Financial Corp., its
    successors and assigns
    Assignee: CitiMortgage, Inc.
    For Valuable Consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Assignor hereby assigns
    and transfers the following described Deed of Trust unto. the Assignee:
    That certain Deed of Trust executed by James A Smith and Rhonda E Smith, dated
    021:2212005 recorded in the land Records of Baltimore County, Maryland in liber: 0021536 Folio: 333 ,
    securing a note executed of even date therewith in the original principal amount ot $295,000.00, and
    granting a securing interest in the property commonly known as 9411 Lyonswood Drive, Owings Mills,
    MO, 21117, which property is more particularly described on: Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
    herein by reference.
    Description/Additional information: See Exhibit A
    Original Beneficiary Name: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for New Equity
    FinanCial Corp. its successors and assigns
    Original Beneficiary Address: P.O. Box 2026. Flint, MI, 48501-2026
    Current Beneficiary Address: P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI, 4650′-2026
    Witness my hand this -:–+-’-::-L……:::.~—
    Mortgage Electronic Registr ion Systems, Inc. as nominee for New Equity Financial Corp. its successors
    and assigns

    ~me Geraldine Ann Belinski
    Title: Vice President
    Page. 1 39147374 2~49 MDOO~ 8a~rmo,e County Inlernal

    STATE OF MISSOURI, ST. CHARLES COUNTY
    On 1- Z &-20 t.3 before me, Ihe undersigned, a nolary public in and for said
    state. personally appeared Geraldine Ann Belinskl, Vice PreSident of Mortgage Electronic
    Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for New Equity Flnilnclal Corp. Its successors and
    assigns personally known 10 me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
    individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she
    executed the same in his/her capacity. and that by his/her signature on the instrument, the individual, or
    the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument

    Page’ 2 391″7374 2«49 1.10005 Banimore COunly Internal

  20. My Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust’s Date of Assignment was September 9, 2011. As you can see below the cutoff date was January 1, 2006. Based on this information Beth says that the document is void. I don’t understand all of this. What does that mean to me? What do I do with this information? Who do I address this with, the Servicer? MERS? the Lender? or the Assignee? Is this enough information that I can negotiate with whomever, without having to hire an attorney?

    @ James Smith – here is the info regarding the claimed trust your loan is supposed to be “pooled” in. If the Assignment you have is after the cut off date 1/2006, then you have an argument that your loan is not in the pool. Also it is the depositor, not MERS, that is to assign the loan to the pool.

    http://www.secinfo.com/dsvrn.vA9.htm#ed0

    Residential Funding Corporation
    (Master Servicer and Sponsor)

    —————————————————————
    |
    | sale of mortgage loans
    |
    |
    —————————————————————

    Residential Asset Securities Corporation
    (Depositor)

    —————————————————————
    |
    | sale of mortgage loans
    |
    |
    —————————————————————
    U.S. Bank National Association
    (Trustee)
    (owner of mortgage loans on behalf of issuing entity
    for the benefit of holders of certificates)

    SUMMARY

    The following summary provides a brief description of material aspects of the offering and does not contain all of the information that you should consider in making your investment decision. To understand the terms of the offeredcertificates, you should read carefully this entire document and the prospectus.

    Issuing Entity……………………………… RASC Series 2006-EMX1 Trust.

    Title of the offered certificates…………….. Home Equity Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-EMX1.

    Depositor………………………………….. Residential Asset Securities Corporation, an affiliate of Residential Funding Corporation.

    Master Servicer and Sponsor………………….. Residential Funding Corporation.

    Originator and Subservicer…………………… Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc.

    Trustee……………………………………. U.S. Bank National Association.

    Cut-off date……………………………….. January 1, 2006.

    Closing date……………………………….. On or about January 20, 2006.

  21. I revealed the mechanics of these criminal frauds nine years ago in my Orange County Ca. case # 04CC11080 and also did a write up on it one year ago in this valuable website:
    https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/mortgage-mess-was-preventable-and-is-correctable/#comment-187310

  22. @ iwntmynpv – What makes you think IndyMac Venture, or One West Venture, LLC have my note??
    I am curious as ever wondering how you came to that conclusion.Very!
    I do not know where it is. I know the company who was assigned the mortgage has affiliated same name and issues securities of all kinds. Fortune 500 junk. When they acquired my loan they were itty bitty on the mortgage scale. From their TFR report they had 0 pass through securities …granted that thing is wrong wrong wrong.
    I am seriously interested in why you think my note is where it is, please tell.

  23. My original Lender on the Deed of Trust was Mortgage Lenders Network. I have a Corporate Deed of Assignment that MERS assigned to US Bank, National Association, as trustee for RASC 2006-EMX1 at 4801 Frederica Street, Owensboro, KY 42301. The recording was requested by Wells Fargo and they are also listed as the default assignment. Wells Fargo recently sent me a document which listed Ocwen Loan Servicing as the investor. If that is the case, shouldn’t there be a document assigning the loan to Ocwen Loan Servicing? Im so confused with this stuff. Something is truly wrong with this loan, but I cant afford to hire an attorney to get to the bottom of this. jsmith5915@msn.com. James Smith

  24. Has anyone ever dealt with Ocwen Loan Servicing out of Fort Washington, PA. Wells Fargo is telling me that Ocwen Loan Servicing is the Investor for my 2nd Mortgage which America Servicing Co/Wells Fargo is the servicer. What I need to know is what is the best way to go about finding out if they are the actual investors and if they even have any records of my loan. My guess is that I am going to get the run around and probably will find out that they know nothing about the loan.

  25. to anyone

    if Bank of America gave a mortgage to the party that holds a forged deed to my stolen property what are my options against Bank of America?

  26. A Justme – IndyMac Venture, or One West Venture, LLC has your loan. Do they have the note – of course they do, but that than exposes the Trustee, Master Servicer, and investment baker to the RICO Act.

    I would pound the FDIC for the loan schedule between IndyMac Bank, FSB and IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB. Than request the same schedule that was allegedly part of the structured transaction between the FDIC as Receiver for IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB and IMB HoldCo, LLC

  27. As I am watching a movie today regarding 911, and reading this sight I have to reflect back how misguided “Wall Street” has been.
    America, was so heartbroken when the towers fell, that we were ready and willing to put our lives on the line.
    I have to question if the managers of “Wall Street” have reflected back on that time.
    In return, many of main street America have lost sons and daughters, is this how they choose to repay us?
    I know that some of them as well have lost family members, but I do think some time to reflect on what they do for America collectively as a country is warranted.
    Jaime

  28. poppy, you said:

    ” IMHO, the debt collectors are out in force, collecting a payment stream for the bond holders.”

    Well, I’ve said payment of the note 86’s the dot as a matter of law. What I don’t know is if writing off the debt does, but it must. And I still don’t get collecting written – off debt and no one has offered an explanation. But you like to do detail stuff, so maybe you can determine if writing off the debt extinguishes the coll instrument, find the rule that says so. I doubt they’re collecting anything for the bond holders.

  29. Thank you, Jamie.

  30. To Just Me;
    I am so sorry you and your family are going through this, it is unfair. Stay close to your spouse, children and close family members in time they will learn what has happened.
    Family doesn’t say anything because they don’t understand, they are still innocent and uneducated to these financial issues. Many of us were trusting the banks and the government to do us right, it has been a huge wake up call.
    My family was at the same place in 2008 when this all happened to us, now years later I have educated all of them.
    Keep doing what is right for your family, so no one else gets caught in these banks trap. Be vocal, tell friends, family and co-workers when you are ready and they will support you. Also keep in mind, it could be others don’t talk about it because they are in the same boat. I was surprised when I spoke up, how many of my co-workers were having the same issues, then we were able to provide support for each other.
    Have another cup of joe and enjoy your day. Jaime

  31. The reality is: 95% of ALL mortgages from 2002 on have been sold in the secondary market, making it impossible to fix a “MINOR” problem, like an insurance lapse, missed payment, shortfall in an escrow, falling ill, having an accident, etc…

    There is no remedy for anyone with fractional sales of notes or bond holders…you cannot get a modification from bond holders or investors. They have put all of us in a situation with no remedies and herein is where your criminal activity has been established. There is no access to the contractual party, the contract has been altered, which makes it void (hence the reason for counterfeiting, the illusion of a proper, valid agreement and securitization and lien), improper converting of the instrument to other than a mortgage, posting the mortgage as an asset, instead of a debt?….enabling the “fractional” sales, while at the other end, collecting on a charged-off, deliberately defaulted – debt AND using the court to try and collect on a non-performing loan, saying they have a loss and beg the courts assistance to be made whole, again using the non-existent trust angle, when in fact they have collected on the long-term value of the debt, multiple times and it never seen a deposit in any “trust”….they are full of SHIT!

    My take only…no legal advice

  32. I would like to write up a fill in the blank answer and counterclaims that is simple, direct and easy “how to & why” instructions and go around posting the up at walmart, in libraries, liquor stores…all over.
    If every homeowner, or just 40% more RESPONDED to a complaint things would turn drastically. How many do now? What are the numbers? What, maybe 5 in 100 people fight vs flea?
    I do not care if they are current, behind, etc. It is SO easy for these chumps to throw paper and steal homes.
    If more people knew how to just send in an answer… show the note, prove the debt, chain of title…money trail…dah dah dah law offices would be overloaded in a VERY short time.
    You should all think about doing that.
    At the least, print off a few thingers like this and stickk`emup! :

    DID YOU KNOW:
    You can fight foreclosure yourself ?

    The first step is as easy as deciding to not let someone steal your home.
    *Easy explain answer, counterclaims, etc. etc.*

    People do not want to talk about it, they are ashamed.
    Maybe they where current, maybe they are bust and can’t afford the home ..then again they could be one of those ppl who find their note “paid in full” – who knows.
    The only downfall I can see is a lot of homeowners going pro se and really aggravating the courts with greenhorn ignorance….that is a really bad con but people need to not be fricken ran over. The few of us can fight with all we have and argue MERS, trustees,PSA etc. but we are thinking in circles, which is fine but we need to move out of that circle.
    We need to start from the ROOT. People are the roots. And look at them, us. It’s fricken SAD. Food costs alone are half of average net income, family of 4. Afraid of government, afraid to have a voice, or think they are just the little guy…what can they do….this is turning into a speech, apologies. Where is KC? lol – “Brought to you this morning by dark coffee, an absurd amount of sugar and my favorite, coffee mate creamer :}”
    Point is, the attorneys……it’s too easy for them right now. They get a few thousand maybe just to file a complaint, get DJ and that’s it! Even if 8 in 10 are unsuccessful they are going to want bigger fees for their work, they are going to be scrambling around more as well as the banks when Tom Dick and Henrietta don’t roll over. Enough of that and banks might make mods etc. – lately the belt is being tightened. They want to make shitty mods chances are it’s going to comeback and get them. I am a little guy. I do not know much but I know enough to pull other little guys out of the mud and at least let them know they have a right to make the bank prove “stuff”.

    2 years ago I did not know what a MBS was.
    I did not know what a security was, not really,..I id not know it came from other “things”. I did not really know the difference between a “servicer” and a “lender” …thought they were one and the same (kinda)
    I did not know you could represent yourself in court.
    I am still a little guy but not in the dark anymore.
    I do not tell people I am in F/C.
    My own parents know, my inlaws- they do not even ask about it…kinda PISSES ME THE FUCK OFF.
    They avoid the embarrassment and do not ask ” So,hey, whats going on with the house”…. Or maybe they do think I am a dead beat, or don’t care. (no bother)
    But Seriously? it’s THAT shameful? It’s THAT bad?
    I do not tell anyone mostly because it is kind of embarrassing and It’s a bit a pain in the ass to say “well, you know…there are banks that lie and cheat…they sold my mortgage….but still try to take it etc etc…”
    I have been not believed.
    Literally.
    I get ” what? That cannot happen…A bank cannot just sell your mortgage…..it is recorded down at the courthouse…It’s against the law….” LITERALLY A REPLY FROM SOMEONE.
    Yeah. I also do not tell people to spare them from my mortgage bipolar non stop rambling such as this.
    Again…blows my mind what the common person thinks.
    My own parents do not even have the balls to say ” so…hey! Are my grand kids going to still be in their home in a week or what? When you getting kicked out *smile* How’s that been going?”
    Not a laughing matter but that’s the reality, to most people F/C is like some grey area you don’t talk about…which I believe why ppl just close eye and roll with the punches.
    This thing needs a word limiter here, writing a book for yall this morning! HAPPY MONDAY!

  33. Poppy you are right. The attorney for my servicer is sooo not in touch with the servicer. They are both doing two totally different things, in many ways….(many times>) servicer to this day sends me an electronic copied note NOT endorsed in blank stating it is true, genuine certified copy, when the attorney is sending me a legal size copy with the blank endorsement….Hello0o0o?!
    Attorney was asking for mod paperwork and other crap insisting I send it ONLY to their office and the mediator(I think she is in cahoots) when I’ve been toying with the lender.
    pardon my french, BUT THE JOY OF FUCKING SHIT UP is wondumous.
    Last hearing the Judge was asking the attorney about a some things pertaining to the account, DUDE HAD NO CLUE what the Judge was talking about, the Judge did NOT, really NOT like that at all.
    I assume these attorneys take these cases and flop them down for filing, and wait for default judgement. If they do end up with a disgruntled homeowner that is not a sheeple they take it into their own hands to play ball. I am pretty sure the lender has not any idea what the attorney is doing and vice verse .Keep those wedges in there and drive them puppies in deep.

  34. @JG: Carie’s post @nov.9- 7:12 from anaon:
    “As to (servicer letter), One West is wrong. They were obligated to provide the creditor under the TILA 1641 g.
    Creditors do NOT include servicers, and trustees. According to the law, any investor with the largest position in your loan, has to identify itself to you — and, to the IRS…the stated trust, to which One West claims to be servicer, never received the PAYOFF by the foreclosure…(WHO DID?)
    Thus, this is not only tax evasion, but also securities fraud.”…

    “the entity purchasing the greatest interest”. What anon said sums it up.
    Your servicer cannot be the creditor and the collector.
    That is what mine is doing. That interests me, they will not identify NUTTIN.
    They stated they are “holder in their capacity” as issuer of GNMA………………ok…..I ask who owns the note and they say I have DOT! wtf, I am in Wi…we do not use a DOT, derrrr. So I asked them for the DOT…they said I do not have one.
    Holder in their capacity for GNMA as issuer of the MBS, that is where they sit.
    Perhaps FHLB has my loan! What a hoot,

  35. And again it is just my humble opinion: we “need” to go after the lawyers, posing as authorities. Many of them are in fact “counterfeiting” and “forging” documents right in their office. And in the non-judicial states it is by design, denying us due process. If you check the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, we have a right to face our accusers and not be bullied into admissions of guilt, by paperwork. The “act” of incrimination, under that Amendment is withstanding and it is happening every day, without legal process being administered for the accused…We have criminals coming into the justice system, committing perjury to expedite “conversion” of land and title for “unjust enrichment”, with no verifiable loss present by these gigolos….

  36. Now, jg I never said not to pursue the MERS thing. What I said was: MERS has no employees. MERSCorp is a different entity and by and large they are using their employees to designate signers….where they have no authority to do so, as they are a different corporation. MERS is a nominee and that designation only carries certain powers with it. A nominee is not a holder, lender, servicer, beneficiary, custodian, etc…and a nominee cannot keep nominating people to “act for” on “behalf of” the party that gave them the nominee status.

    The entire point of my posts; the words are very specific in duties and authority and have limited abilities to act on behalf of anyone, to include any lenders. Proper assignments are the key. Even endorsements do not always carry authority to work “for” or “on behalf” of a lender. IMHO, the maze of parties is too confuse.

    We can all agree to disagree. In my world I check “everything” even the smallest detail, right down to phone/fax numbers on paperwork. And I have decided to deal with the devil before me first. Who is it that is trying to foreclose and by what authority? IMHO, the debt collectors are out in force, collecting a payment stream for the bond holders. And if I am correct, bond holders have no authority to foreclose. This is why the notes and DOT’s are showing up in court. They HAVE to appear as though the note and deed exist and are collectable. But, the party before you, more times than not, is a fraud, a thief…they are taking your house without “legal” “proper” authority.

  37. @ E. ToLLe,

    The US government has urged that Bank of America Corp pay $863.6m in damages after a federal jury found it liable for fraud over defective mortgages sold by its Countrywide unit.

    This exactly the point I was making earlier. You still believe the government is acting as a outside regulator. The government is part of the business model!

    Email me your exact case and the pleadings / motions ad I will tell your attorney how to set them straight. I have set up an e-mail specific for you at donoco68@gmail.com.

    I will not provide legal advice – I will provide the solution without all the horseshit that provides hours of billing.

    I am TSMIMITW…

  38. James Smith – the whole MERS deal with “MERS officers” in the offices of the people they really work for, like servicers and LPS and DOCX and law firms, is bs. However, no one much fights that fight that I know of. So Geraldine is supposedly an officer of MERS and of Citi? Not that long ago (I think post-consent-order) MERSCorp mandated that employees (of others) who were the recipients of Hultman’s (MERS) corporate resolutions (but see the three iterations of MERS for Hultman’s own authority or lack thereof) also be designated officers of their employers (like Citi). I love it. The alleged agent is telling its alleged principal how it’s going to be – some more. Not that many courts have been squarely confronted with this “mers officer” business. One, the Koontz (Indiana?) court said no way and called the assgt a false document. The claimant withdrew rather than explain why the assgt was executed by a low-level employee of the servicer, which as I recall, was the assignee (maybe that’s part of the reason that low-level employee is also now designated an “officer” of her employer) In another one I saw, the court said big deal. I thought the judge was quite arrogant, actually, when he said something like ” Nor do I see anything remarkable about this dual officership”. Well, I do, and not just because it’s dual officership (now). I don’t believe for one minute those people have a clue what they’re doing and they don’t take their marching orders from MERS. They take them from their employers and have no personal knowledge of a thing. I’m glad you made the effort to protest. I don’t recall just when the non-MERS’ employees started to assign the loans to a trust v their employer. I do remember it made me nuts that they were self-assignments before that.
    MERS has admitted it has gotten no authorization itself from any noteowner (really should be LAST noteowner and last “unrecorded” dot assignee) to assign the collateral instrument. What a racket.

  39. justme, what t is it you think we should get here?
    P.16:
    “Sale of the Loan
    Type of purchaser.
    If you sell a loan in the same calendar year in which
    it was originated or purchased, you must identify the type of purchaser to whom it was sold. If the loan is sold
    to more than one purchaser, use the code for the entity purchasing the greatest interest. If you sell only a por­tion of the loan, retaining a majority interest, do not report the sale. If you do not sell the loan during the same calendar year, or if the application did not result in a loan origination, enter the code “0” (zero). For more informa­tion, see Appendix A (I.E),

  40. JG @ 3:36 referencing amon……I * believe* this is what was going on with Anon & “largest certificate holder has to be named” thing.
    see page 16 “sale of the loan”
    http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/pdf/2013guide.pdf

  41. throwing a freebie tonight, I am not sure this is as well known as I thought. * must learn to be a massive world wide web digger to find dirt* FFIEC.
    Choose “Call/TFR” in pull down tab. Enter bank.

    THIS HAS A MULTITUDE OF WEALTH AND I HAVE SEEN NO ONE REFERENCE IT! Why not! This has SOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooo much info it to pick through you will just have a fricken blast.

    https://cdr.ffiec.gov/public/ManageFacsimiles.aspx

    Have fun.
    Your welcome😀

  42. The cut off is essentially how long the notes have to make it into the trust, a deadline to be assigned to wherever.

  43. carie – sorry johngault764

  44. To James Smith,
    Re; Post cut off transfers, I don’t have a clue…I suggest Google it and ask john gault. I write from the gut, and how things effected me and my family. I don’t have the knowledge these guys have so I write what I can. I have written some tear jerkers, with the soul purpose to get a response back and I keep it up. I don’t try to say things I don’t understand otherwise it does not come off genuine.
    I have heard back from many including The White House, San Jose Major, CA AG, and OCC including his secretary who called with a tearful apology. Write what you know; for every person they hear from they times it by a thousand because most people don’t write.
    Good luck, be loud, be clear, be honest, don’t let them brush it under the rug, it is what they hoping for ( us to forget and go away).

  45. Can someone tell what exactly are post cut off transfers. I have an idea but what constitutes one. How many days do they have to post to county records?

  46. Come on, people! Which one of us can use his talent creating a site to index post-cut-off transfers? The rest of us can contribute names, probably just by going to the recorder’s office with a pen and paper.
    Then follow deadlyclear’s mechanics, find the trust, confirm the cut-off and there we have it. Or if that’s a lot like work or no recorder near, just list one’s own.
    If no one here will do it, how about if we hire someone? Can’t cost that much….? Aren’t there lots of US?

  47. I think some here think there’s no value in pursuing the “MERS thing”.
    Was it poppy who even said so? Obviously I disagree, and it should also be obvious that I disagree vehemently. Servicers are issuing 1099’s. They either can or they can’t. What they’re doing, where they’re trying to hang their hats, can’t be rocket science – after all, they came up with it. We can probably get a bead on it (or at least get in the hood), but not if we don’t try.
    Has ANYone ever seen a 1099 from a trust?

  48. 4closed30kids, what are post cut off transfers?

  49. 4closed30kids – if we did all that, including reporting post cut off transfers, I think we really would shake them up.

  50. e.toll – thumbs up.
    Btw, I really do appreciate it when you cite that stuff because I’m usually ‘somewhere else’. (And you don’t just paste it – you add your own commentary or analysis and I, like many here I have no doubt, find them spot on.) Besides that, I gotta like a guy who can quote Woodie Guthrie.

  51. I think it’s time to write the IRS and the White House and ask that very question. Seems to me there is money due back to the tax payers. I also remember the same issues with my loan and taxes. I just like things fair and square, you screw me, well I can do you the same favor back. Boomerang! I Just want to be of help 🙂
    **and yes they do answer back including the OCC, and CA. AG. Ask and expect an answer back, then write back with your next question, be a pest and be constant! Get loud and write the newspapers, blogs, FHFA, Fannie & Freddy, they are starting to hear us, rattle all their cages.

  52. Anyone endorsing notes in blank is contractually untying all rights to it from any previous creditor.

    Have any homeowners doctored up a nice old note yet? I have been waiting to see this happen and am dumbfounded it has not happened yet….or it has been done, successfully.

  53. ….if you buy my note I do not deliver it you ain’t got shieeeett if I don’t deliver it. No transfer, no perfection,…no delivery, your SOL! Gotta have delivery or your not going to have a valid security interest, yaj? Yah!

  54. I hear you 4 closed Meditation
    Learn how if you do not practice already- this chit will hurt you if you dont find a way to compartmentalise- its not who you are nor i or any of us. Its just something we chose to do, that does not define who we infact are ehat we are ir where we are heading. That only god knows.

  55. JG said:

    “Pretending the trust is the foreclosing party and then having someone else take the write-off is rancid.”

    Yup. Seems like pure tax fraud to me. And I was told outright—in writing—that “OneWest doesn’t own your loan”…yet there they are taking a write off…on a 1099A.

    Lies lies lies.

    BTW, not sure what your email address is, JG…?

  56. No joke, I ended up in ICU for 4 day, bleeding ulcers.
    I will just hope for the Boomerang effect!

  57. that’s what I was afraid of, kinda stinks!

  58. 4closed
    known as a stress ulcer

  59. na that aint fiwre

  60. I know where the fire in my belly is, and caused me a few ulcers. The question is where is the fire in the feds belly? I am afraid it came out their ass.

  61. bloody hell- chins up muckers- they prosecuted german Nazi officers despite their age, they got em , eventually. come on now…for our kids wheres the fiwre in yer bellies, (that’s my elma fud voice)

  62. And so then court must apply the law as and the IRS the rules as written
    Just fyi taken from good ol wiki

    Under civil law, the following specialties, among others, exist: Contract law regulates everything from buying a bus ticket to trading onderivatives markets. Property law regulates the transfer and title ofpersonal property and real property. Trust law applies to assets held for investment and financial security. Tort law allows claims for compensation if a person’s property is harmed. Constitutional lawprovides a framework for the creation of law, the protection of human rights and the election of political representatives. Administrative law is used to review the decisions of government agencies. International lawgoverns affairs between sovereign states in activities ranging from trade to military action.

  63. The US government has urged that Bank of America Corp pay $863.6m in damages after a federal jury found it liable for fraud over defective mortgages sold by its Countrywide unit.

    Has urged? WTF is that? Are they going to throw a conniption if they don’t pay? I can’t believe these lame-ass jerks in government. Can you imagine a stopped and frisked black teen being urged to empty his pockets….please, if you don’t mind? It can’t get any worse than this.

    Oh wait….“….Rebecca Mairone, a former midlevel executive at the bank’s Countrywide unit who the jury also found liable, “commensurate with her ability to pay”. Huh? WTF is that – again? Since when do we base fines and fees based upon what is convenient for the perp? WHAT IN THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?

    “The government said the penalties were necessary to punish the bank and Mairone “and to send a clear and unambiguous message that mortgage fraud for profit will not be tolerated”.” Clear and unambiguous? I’d say that it’s clearly unambiguous that the government doesn’t like being in the business of going after financial terrorists. They like the headlines, but the details are sorely lacking.

    “….to send a clear and unambiguous message that mortgage fraud for profit will not be tolerated….” I guess they’re OK with folks doing the fraud if it’s just for the hell of it. Fraud is fraud, whether or not profit was the underlying motive or not. Idiots.

    ‘Yes, as through this world I’ve wandered
    I’ve seen lots of funny men;
    Some will rob you with a six-gun,
    And some with a fountain pen.

    And as through your life you travel,
    Yes, as through your life you roam,
    You won’t never see an outlaw
    Drive a family from their home.’

    – the ‘Ballad of Pretty Boy Floyd’ (1944) – Woody Guthrie

  64. 🙂

    ** just like to say Boomerang, back acha BOA & JPM,…more to come.

    * I would still like to see these banks have to pay back the actual home owners they de-frauded.

    * I have an idea how about allowing the foreclosed homeowner to buy a home at 0% interest rate not using credit scores as a marker.

    ** 30 year loan, no interest, no points, no charges.

    Yep that would be a start to healing this mess they made!

  65. re 902(g):
    When Buffet’s new company got the billions of loans out of Ally / RESCap’s bk, he did so “free of other interests”. I questioned (and still do) why Rescap would have billions of loans on its books – why weren’t they securitized? If I buy a note and pay you for it, but you don’t deliver, the UCC creates my security interest in the note and its collateral, if any, is the way I get it. If the trusts paid for notes but never got them,* it’s my understanding under that provision of the UCC the trust has security interests. That’s what I sure would like to know: are those the interests Buffet’s company was able to avoid?! And if so, what’s all that business about bankruptcy remote?

    *and who owns such a note at that time? The seller, subject to the security interests of the buyer? Seems like in that state, the note isn’t enforceable, unless you go by Article III only and pretend other UCC provisions like 902(g) aren’t in play, mean nothing.

  66. carie – email me

  67. “All these issues were the ones MERS imo was created to handle and really had nothing to do with skipping recording fees, although that was a nice bonus.”
    It was also a really good sales tool to get the rubes (lenders) not involved in securitization itself on board for the depositor, the servicer, and the issuer’s end game. Think of what wouldn’t be possible without MERS: a lot, starting with a loud one: there would be an assgt to the trust pre-cut-off. I’m telling you, with God as my witness, that’s the last thing they wanted and the why not is the what we care about. The loans would be dead-ended to an entity which had no way to enforce them. They can say a blank end on a note means this and that, and they do, routinely. Not so an assignment of a collateral instrument with a named party.
    MERSCorp’s 7 year contract with Genpact is no doubt to try to make some legitimacy of prior acts.

  68. carie – I’m with you. I don’t know that law, but I would think if I’m the servicer – guy who handles payments – for say private loans, I’m not the one to have my name on a 1099. My limited understanding of such a 1099 is that the party issuing it has taken a write-off for uncollectible debt (HIS) and the 1099 is the flip-side, evidencing the debtor’s tax liability on that written-off debt. When a servicer’s name is on a 1099, it could be that it IS the servicer who is taking the write-off and the lie (among many) is telling you it’s really some MBS investors. I’ve opined that as passive structures, these trusts can’t foreclose and certainly may not own another or diff asset (real estate). They, trusts, probably can’t take a write-off, either, or at least the certificate holders can’t. I don’t know about what Anon said – that the largest certificate holder has to be named, except to say that I don’t believe that person has a 1099-resulting write-off. If that person were a beneficiary of a ‘regular’ trust which didn’t involve
    interests created by a derivative, maybe that would be so.
    My money is on the servicer IS taking the write-off. The question for me is why is that, especially if a home were snarfed by a trust and its alleged credit bid. Even if a servicer or anyone used the credit bid as (alleged) agent of the trust, it’s still the act of the trust, not the servicer or anyone else. All these issues were the ones MERS imo was created to handle and really had nothing to do with skipping recording fees, although that was a nice bonus.
    Let’s say the servicer or someone claims to have an assgt of a credit bid from a trust (which is what I believe they did with MERS pre-Consent Order – MERS, a novated party and not an agent – can’t be agent or is same as act of trust). My first question is ‘who is authorized to assign the credit bid on behalf of the trust’. Seriously, who would that be? The servicer? The trustee? Where is the authority to be found? It might be in the PSA, which says it might be someone else “to prevent the trust from being seen as doing business in some states”. If that’s the language relied on, okay. Not okay but let’s assume that’s what they use as authorization.
    But if the assgt of a credit bid is legitimate and occurs, then the credit bid should be made in that someone else’s name. There’s an assgt or there’s not. They can’t have it both ways. They want everything both ways. They want to make it appear it’s the act of the trust (foreclosure) at the sale, but they don’t want (and I think can’t) have the 1099 issued in the trust’s name. If you go to an auction, I would be surprised if you ever heard anyone making an alleged credit bid identified specifically.
    All I’ve heard is generic: “the lender”. The someone else is not entitled to issue a 1099 even with an assgt of a credit bid assgt. It has no loss to declare if it doesn’t own the loan.
    But I think, bottom line, it may well be the party issuing the 1099 who has taken the write-off, not a trust and not any investors (and again, that’s the lie, another one). So just why is that? Is it because the loss is his? How would that be? If he owns the loan is the only real reason I can think of and took the hit. The servicer, or anyone, can’t take someone else’s loss. The servicer, just like any entity, files a tax return, and just like anyone, when it does so, it is swearing what’s in it is factual. If no one is specifically identified at the f/c sale making a “credit bid’, we really don’t know who that is, so it could be the servicer with a credit (but so far, no loss for servicer to issue a 1099 on, UNless he owns the loan in which case he shouldn’t be pretending it’s the trust)
    There may be a way the servicer could legitimately end up with the loss to declare, but I can’t get it just now. fwiw.

    I’m sorry for your angst, but I also appreciate it and am glad you don’t want to take it lying down. If I had a million dollars or two, I’d fork some over because I’d sure like to see giving one a bogus 1099 as a cause of action. Pretending the trust is the foreclosing party and then having someone else take the write-off is rancid.

    For every identifiable trust, we should report a post-cutoff
    transfer. I’d start the registry to keep track of what we report, but I’m not capable. Surely someone here is. And I’m with e.tolle – it ain’t all over. if we want, we can still influence policy or die trying.

  69. Poppy, sure you’re right. I know I get way too easily put off by the upper-crust attitude displaying superior knowledge and intellect, when what’s really needed here is some down-home honest unveiling of key ingredients to this soufflé. Just the facts ma’am.

    I also tire real quick with the blatant ads by the likes of MS….23 wins and counting! Really? He’s been asked a gazillion times for documentation of even just one assist, to no avail. For him to sign off every post with “Save Your Homes!”, when we all know too well that his MO is getting a check in the mail as soon as possible. One gets the feeling that MS is sincere in that catch phrase, only it’s his home he’s trying to save.

    As to NPV, when he goes to market, he says, “Jeeves! Get the car!”

  70. Iwantmynpv… You just can not make it more clearer, … Well said!

    All …. I will say this Again! Every Case is Different and there is NO Silver Bullet or a Cure For All.

  71. You’re a star E. ToLLe…those who have been victorious could certainly extend the olive branch, no question!

    My comments only state my own query into this mess. The enemy is not readily visible…while many are stuck in the trenches digging endlessly, the diversion is evident, as the thief runs off into the night with your possessions. The comparison for me is one of the low-level drug dealer….you grab the small player to hook the large one! The immediate battle is stopping the pretender, to flush out the big player…

  72. Npv said, “Again, the mortgage heist is over ad [sic] they are sweeping the final fraud under the GSE rugs….”

    It may be over for you, but millions more are still in the death grip these assholes have over this whole crime scene. And while I agree with most if not all of what you’re saying, I could do without your Wall Street attitude….I got mine, for the rest of you it’s over.

    You speak of the macro, while everyone here is still stuck in their individual micro-world of lying lawyers, crooked judges, bought and paid for regulators, and a president more concerned with renaming the Redskins football team than to finally confronting TPTB. How about renaming them the Washington Oligarchs? Works for me. Meanwhile, folks here are still pushing the same old string, left clutching a hope that sanity will return along with the rule of law. Does it do anyone any good to tell them that it’s all over, short of stroking your all-knowing-smartest-guy-in-the-room ego?

    A week or two ago, you took the stage and told everyone here how you were victorious against your foe in court, making it sound really simple, with absolutely no setup or accompanying facts. You then told everyone you had the Holy Grail….that you knew the secret line when once uttered, the doors would swing open wide, and the judges would fall under a spell, no longer resisting the urge to do the right thing, thus ruling in favor of the borrower. All that would be left is the uncorking of the Champagne. One line to rule them all.

    Then you left, without a peep. What a guy. Do you steal pacifiers from babies while their moms are distracted? Rip butterfly wings off for the fun of it? Magnifying glass and ant trick?

  73. iwantmynpv is right…endlessly some here are still talking about tranches, burifications, MERS and MERSCORP like they are one in the same, servicers as though they are working for a trust, under the PSA agreement…IMHO, way off on this path. The paperwork is a lie. Go back to the beginning and follow the money.

    One small tidbit, again, IMHO…when in a preliminary hearing you must get the judges attention, 30 seconds or less. He/she decides trial issues. All of the nuances we discuss here cannot be used effectively in 30 seconds or less. A trial is necessary to have all of this purged…

    no legal advice, just a lay opinion….

  74. @justme – I worked in banking for many years. I have already defeated One West Bank, FSB I court, so I am not frustrated. I was not insulting anyone with me comment – I was stating the obvious.

    You are not fighting banks, you are fighting a business model that also includes government agencies, private insurance companies, and multiple quasi-judicial agencies.

    Dick Cheney publically stated in 2006 that the debt ceiling would be raised to 24 trillion, because he understood the amount of leverage, and the ratio of velocity to support the debt (federal reserve notes).

    If any of you believe that corporate United States intends to repay the paper-debt, you are dwelling within a media state.

    When a economy requires 2.5 trillion in annual borrowing (lol) to produce 2% GDP growth – something is going to give. The mere hit of fed tightening set the 10 yr yield up over 1.5%.

    That tells me our debt requires a 5% yield to entice private capital to invest – that alone increases the US debt service to almost one trillion per year, which requires more fed debt to pay the interest o the old fed debt.

    Again, the mortgage heist is over ad they are sweeping the final fraud under the GSE rugs. Remember, at some point the central bank will need to sell the 2 trillion in MBS that nobody else would purchase – who is going to buy this crap.

    Stop thinking about tomorrow, that is the action our government hopes we will take. Think five years out like the banking community, hence their slow secret push to acquire precious metals and other commodities, or anything that is not a dollar asset.

    TSMIMITW

  75. Christopher King (@KingCast) you have this gumption……I like it. Build this VOICE. You are doing more than the MANY, many us of us have – and I applaud you for that. You are helping OTHERS when most are focused on THEIR home.

    I SUPPORT YOU FROM WISCONSIN KINGCAST!

  76. “Just stop paying for three months and Bank of America will help you get a loan modification.”
    http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2013/11/boa-busted-for-bad-faith-dual-track.html

  77. Heavens no, how could you!
    Tis Saturday!
    It’s a vodka night :}

  78. @E.Tolle

    Right on, as usual.

    @justme

    Into the scotchy scotch?🙂

  79. 0o0o0o0hhh, I second that.
    A new dealy……a peoples dealy.
    A dealy for the peoples.
    The peoples deeley`O …
    …..call it BOB.
    Implementation BOB underway.

    Two roads diverged in a yellow wood….

  80. E. Tolle, but my question is still, Is it illegal for them to do that, because I have a document that shows they did exactly that.

  81. James Smith wrote:

    “Below under “Fighting MERs in CA” someone stated.
    3) Any assignment of the Deed of Trust & Note from MERS to a successor is void and fraudulent.
    I live in Maryland and I have a Deed of Trust that MER’s assigned to successor. Can someone tell me if this is a true statement.?”>/i>

    James, correct me if I’m wrong, but what I believe you missed in that statement was the alleged transference of both the DOT, AND the note. MERS can’t transfer the note. Although most here, myself included, would believe that MERS isn’t capable of assigning anything other than a broken chain of title or a bag full of crap, courts across the land have no problem with their setup. They’re not the least bit concerned that this cartel setup a new land title system without asking anyone if it was OK.

    It would be like you and me and everyone else on this forum just deciding to devise and implement a new motor vehicle registration dealy, because we thought it worked better than the state one. Of course, we’d make no mention of the fact that we’d be usurping a multitude of state government agencies who have their framework clearly established in age old law.

    It’s just another facet of the capture of our government, that they don’t knee-jerk at the unbelievable hubris of these crooks and toss them all into jail. The money is way too good. I see nothing. I hear nothing. I know nothing. Our elected so-called representatives are no better than highly paid monkeys. Too bad. We had a good thing going here in America before they sold it out. REV 2.0

  82. securities fraud, it just sounds delicious, doesn’t it.

    @carrie – “You need to get whistle blower forms in. And, inform One West that this is what you are doing.” ……….I have read this before-What is the purpose of telling a servicer you intend to toot the horn? I get retaliation protection is there, but as to anonymity it makes my kur`rrrrious! …unless it’s required.

    in general…THIS :
    ” …The note secured by
    the mortgage provided that the lender could transfer the note and that anyone who received the note by transfer was entitled to receive payments under the note and would be called the “Note Holder.”….'”

    I always thought this was a DOT thing, not a note thing….it is referenced all to often for me to not be even more kkuu`rioussss of it’s absence on my note… The norm for standard fannie/freddie note format…..poor little lost servicers must eh` been alladaze! Ha haa. always found it interesting how GNMA/FHA loans have a nifty pick & choose between formats.

  83. Below under “Fighting MERs in CA” someone stated.
    3) Any assignment of the Deed of Trust & Note from MERS to a successor is void and fraudulent.
    I live in Maryland and I have a Deed of Trust that MER’s assigned to successor. Can someone tell me if this is a true statement.? Do I now have a fraudulent document. Would someone be willing to send me their email address so I could scan and send to them, so they can let me know in fact this is a fraudulent document. My email address is jsmith5915@msn.com 443 677 2799. James

  84. “…You have to file a complaint with the IRS — as a whistle blower, and with the SEC, as a whistle blower, that the trust claimed, and by IRS 1099 as to “servicer”, is invalid and fraudulent.
    You have to file complaint that the stated trust, to which One West claims to be servicer, never received the PAYOFF by the foreclosure.

    Thus, this is not only tax evasion, but also securities fraud.

    You need to get whistle blower forms in. And, inform One West that this is what you are doing. Unless it can be shown the specific trust that claims to have your loan, for which One West, servicer, and trustee, acts on behalf, actually received the foreclosure payoff — we have IRS and Securities fraud…”

  85. Anon’s response to that letter:

    “As to (servicer letter), One West is wrong. They were obligated to provide the creditor under the TILA 1641 g.
    Creditors do NOT include servicers, and trustees. According to the law, any investor with the largest position in your loan, has to identify itself to you — and, to the IRS…the stated trust, to which One West claims to be servicer, never received the PAYOFF by the foreclosure…(WHO DID?)
    Thus, this is not only tax evasion, but also securities fraud.”

  86. Carrie, so what are you saying? Are you saying that the 1099 should have the lenders name on it? Are you saying that the servicer cannot complete a 1099. jsmith5915@msn.com 443 677 2799. James

  87. Bullshit alert…

    Subject: RE: 1099A Tax Form from ONEWEST BANK

    Mrs. _______,

    We have confirmed that the 1099 form was correctly prepared. That field is populated by OneWest Bank as the servicer of your loan. I understand that the form states “Lender” but we have verified that it is accurate in the manner in which it was provided.

    As for the creditor, I am unable to elaborate on the investors of the MBS. An MBS can be owned by many people, both public and private, the names of which are not available. For the purposes of identifying the creditor, your loans inclusion in the MBS, along with the Trustee and Servicer information that has been previously provided, sufficiently identifies the responsible parties in accordance with applicable servicing standards.

    Regarding the Independent Foreclosure Review, the results of our review have not yet been released. The third party auditors and responsible regulatory agency continues to finalize the results of the review and will make the information available to the public upon completion. Once completed, eligible parties will be notified of any potential remediation. Since the process is being conducted by third parties, I am unable to provide the individual results until made available for release. We are approaching the end of the process and hope that this will be resolved in the very near future, however, I am unable to confirm when that might be as the decision will not to be made by OneWest Bank directly.

    I apologize that I am unable to provide any additional information related to these requests. Please let me know if there is any other matters of concern that I might assist with at this time.

    Respectfully,

    Michael T. Albers
    Default Escalations, AVP
    IndyMac Mortgage Services
    Office: 1.512.918.7598
    Fax: 1.866.591.5546

  88. My opinion of when a note and dot may be bifurcated willfully: when the orig lender (or its rightful assign) has been established as the ben and it’s noticed, and it then pledges a dot (by using an assgt? such as in that case I can’t find) as coll for “something” – could be anything.

    The dot is not enforceable by the pledgee for lack of interest in the obl it secures, but the assgt precudes the lender from enforcing the mtg loan against the notemaker. Theoretically, the lender will perform and get its dot back. The issues between the A and B here have to be resolved before enforcement on the note may be sought based on a mtg loan, at least in security first states (that’s if the dot doesn’t itself say the deal is security first and I havent’ gotten around to scouring). The lender could have pledged or hypothecated the note, as well, but for whatever reason, it didn’t and it doesn’t have to if it’s cool with the other guy. I think it’s possible to pledge, mol, the note and dot to different parties, as long as there’s agreement. But in the absence of agreement with the note pledgee, that’s a time, now that I think of it, when the note pledgee might be gunning for the dot under 9-203g which says a security interest in a note also creates a security interest in its collateral. So what that says to me, as to 9-203(g) is:
    There are two contracts, one with A and B and one with A and C.
    B has a pledged note. C has an assgt of the dot or at least a pledge.
    A doesn’t perform on either contract. B wants the security interest to go along with its note, which is being forfeited by A.
    After seeing there are two contracts, to resolve the dispute, the court turns to the UCC and I think by 9-203(g), it finds in favor of B, the guy with the note pledge, finding that B’s security interest in the note also created a security interest in its dot. The banksters would have us believe that a dot just plain follows a note pursuant to this UCC provision re: security interests, which it doesn’t. It only creates a security interest in the dot, and that sec interest may be found to be senior to any other claims of interest.

  89. Why can’t / doesn’t MERSCorp allow foreclosures in MERS’ name?
    Why the Consent Order?
    What might that be acknowledging?
    Possibilities:

    MERS is not an agent for anyone (at least not by way of the dot).
    MERS is not an agent for successors or assigns.
    MERS is not a beneficiary.
    MERS is a novated party (and thus IS the beneficiary), but the
    novation has bifurcated the note and dot.

    If a novated party, “MERS” needed to execute, deliver, and record assgt from MERS to any subsequent note buyer because it IS the beneficiary and remains so until it assigns the dot. Under NO theory could the dot of a novated party “follow the note”.
    If an agent for only the original lender, “MERS” had to record an assignment to the first note buyer.
    The note and deed of trust are bifurcated when the note is sold, even if MERS is the agent of the original lender. 1) MERS and the orig lender may not make MERS (or anyone else) someone else’s agent,
    and certainly not as to real property interests and 2) the “someone else” may have an agreement as to agency with MERSCorp, but not MERS (how’s that, Virginia – nod to deadlyclear) which, again, is the entity named in the dot. Therefore, any agency between MERS, the party named in the dot, and the new note owner may be found in some agreement, but it’s NOT found in the dot even if arguably agency is found in the dot as to the original lender (me = not. If anything, by its language, a novation is found).

    For lack of interest in the note that was transferred, if an agent for the original lender (only) as to the collateral instrument only, MERS needed to record an assignment to the new note principal in its capacity of agent of the old note owner and needed to execute the assignment in that capacity, as agent for an identified party (the former note owner). An agent doesn’t, to my knowledge, act in its own name (a novated party does, though).

    The members agreement is with MERSCorp, which is not the entity
    named in the deed of trust (MERS is). Accordingly, any relationship between MERS and any subsequent noteowner doesn’t find its origin in the deed of trust. Period. It’s possible a relationship, even one of agency, might be found in another binding agreement, i.e., members may have contractually agreed the novated party is its agent. That’s been perplexing me:: the possible relationship between a novated party and anyone else (members). I’m your agent. You want me to be the beneficiary for whatever reasons (here I’ve already opined why I don’t want to be the ben, or more specifically, why I don’t want a particular, foreseeable party who is supposed to end up with the note – the trust – to be the beneficiary: foreclosure, succinctly). So you and I execute an agreement which defines and appts you as my agent. I then novate you as beneficiary in the dot instrument. Right now I’m hard pressed to think why that couldn’t be done. But, for one thing easily recognizable, is that even then, you may have become the agent of MERSCorp, not MERS, the entity actually novated, or no one’s. Yes, I have case law around here somewhere which clearly demonstrates that separation of corporation identities must be maintained, even when one entity is the parent of the other (and that’s the particular context of the cases).
    So then what might we have here? MERS might have been apptd a mutual agent (in a separate – key word – agreement) of MERSCorp’ members (and disregarding all inherent problems / conflicts with that) by and between MERSCorp and its members and then, as agent, been novated in the deed of trust as the beneficiary. But that agency is simply NOT found in the dot and there’s where it’s being relied on (erroneously) by courts for its origin. (There is ZERO expression of agency in the dot).
    Then we have to think about what that means. If the novated party, MERS, is an agent (by sep agreement) of the noteowning MERSCorp members, then what? I have to think about that some more fwiw and could use some help..
    But MERSCorp imo may not bind MERS, a separate corporation, just like I can’t make you my agent without YOUR agreement, not by your dad’s ( nor may I make you anyone else’s agent nor may you make yourself anyone else’s agent but mine). Agency requires appt and acceptance (yes, it does). No where that I know of does MERS accept the appointment in the MERSCorp membership agreement. So there’s that biggie.
    But even if that agency between MERS were established OUTside the dot, a novated party is still a novated party and I think, but am not sure just now, that the note and dot are still bifurcated. So I guess the question is: What if any difference would it make if the novated party is the agent of the lender by separate agreement?

    When the NV SC ruled that MERS’ presence in the dot bifurcates the note and dot, it could only be by recognizing a novation (if it’s even a novation, standing on the borrower signing the note ahead of the dot to establish the lender as the “creditor” because a novation is a substitution of an original party, not the naming of a diff party in an original contract). What might it mean if 1) the novated party is the agent of the original party, 2) what might it mean if MERS is the novated party of other MERSCorp’ members, and 3) may there be novation in an incomplete contract – incomplete because this particular contract is not complete until both instruments are executed – in other words they biffed big time when they stopped naming the original payee as the ben and then recording assgts to MERS. Like I said, I don’t know the rams if MERS could somehow be found an agent in a separate agreement, but I think there’s no good in ignoring the issue – whether or not MERS, a novated party, has been appt “mutual agent” in a separate agreement. document and what that might mean if so (notwithstanding that MERS doesn’t sign that membership contract).
    Someone here (hman?) recently wanted to demonstrate that
    so and so was not a MERSCorp member when his loan was made. Unless an agency is demonstrated outside the dot, I’m thinking because (okay if, but I’m on it did) a novation occurred in the dot regardless of any alleged agency created outside the dot (in a MERSCorp agreement), it doesn’t matter. Novation is novation and imo, it happened regardless of any MERSCorp membership. What might matter, but only might, is the relationship, if any, between the novated party and subsequent notebuyers. Actually, what might, would even, be relevant is that under no theory, despite that wholley bogus language in a dot, the original lender may not even argue that MERS is the original lender’s agent or anyone else’s. So under any theory, imo the original lender when not a MERSCorp member clearly made a novation and that should be the end of it. so in that regard, it would be good to know if the original payee were a member. But no one is even pressing to know if MERS were an alleged agent for note transferees along the purported way. Got me why not.
    The MERS Consent Order and the subsequent “no more foreclosures in MERS’ name only underscores the novation. To me, it’s (at minimum) a testament that MERS is not an agent, the note and dot are bifurcated, and having no interest in the note, MERS may not do jack except try to unite the note and dot for enforcement.

    So what’s the fix? If the original bifurcation were not even a novation because the contract was not complete when the attempt to novate MERS occurred by naming MERS the orig ben, there is no ben named in the dot and there is not a complete mortgage loan contract nor significantly, is anyone’s interest in a home noticed. Someone may have an unsecured claim. (Even if MERS were an agent of the lender, the dot should still have named the lender and then in the next paragraph, it could appt MERS, its alleged agent, as its nominal ben – but that requires signatures on that instrument if the appt is alleged to be made by and in that very instrument) If it could be found that naming MERS as the orig ben is a novation of a complete contract (good luck), the note and dot “exist” but are bifurcated. The NV SC says they may be “re-unified” (but did so with no cite from the alleged source of info) What about unification? The answer to ‘what is the fix’ depends on the answer to this question. imo.

    Why is MERS not being held accountable for the robo-signing done
    by its “officers”? It’s a legally binding assignment when done by
    MERS alleged officers, but ‘we don’t know them’ when the S hits the fan? NOT – Hultman gave them the same ‘corporate resolutions’ he gave all 20,000+ of them.

  90. pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), 12 U.S.C. §1833a. 2

    “Taking a Bite Out of Crime”

  91. Cease and Desist Order against Citi and Wells Fargo.
    There is currently a Cease and Desist Order against Citi Mortgage. Below is the complaint that I sent to Office of Comptroller and Currency.

    There is currently a Cease and Desist Order by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency against Mortgage Electronic Registration System. I am writing because I want something done about the Banks and MERS, because they continue to perform illegal transactions. I recently had a document that was posted to County Public Records by Citi Mortgage and MERS. It was a Deed of Trust for a transaction that was done back in 2005. Something was not right about them just now posting this document after so many years. I goggled the person that signed the document, Geraldine Ann Belinksi, Vice President. I found another Deed of Trust online that had the same person’s name on it, but this time it stated that she is the Assistant Secretary. I immediately got on the phone and called the office that was listed on the document, Citi Mortgage, 1000 Technology Drive, O’Fallon, Mo. I located the office where this individual worked and discovered that she is a mere processor. This has gotten out of hand and I am very skeptical that any of the transactions and documents that I have through Citi Mortgage are legal and binding. Why are they allowed to continue Robo Signing documents? I can be reached at 443-677-2799. Thanks James A. Smith

    I did not call MERS to verify that she worked there. I call Citi and they stated that she was a processor. This is response that I received from Citi regarding the complaint

    “Our records indicate Geraldine A. Belinski is a Certified Appointed signor for Mortgage Electroic Registration Systems Inc.”

    My question is, does MERS have employees that work in Citi facilities? I do not believe this. I called and verified that she worked there and they stated she was a processor. How can I verify that they are lying, because Im sure that OCC will believe what Citi’s response was.
    James Smith 443-677-2799.

  92. Java, you are asking legal questions .. you need an attorney to answer them… I have not seen your contract and do not know your state laws. Maybe this will help..

    A broken chain can lead to cancellation of the mortgage or deed of trust. As a matter of fact, a complete chain can lead to cancellation of the mortgage or deed of trust. However, in order to truly understand how to do it, one must first have a general understanding of the following:

    Darryl Evans, on October 26, 2012 at 8:07 am said:

    1. Money
    2. The Lending Process of Commercial Banks
    3. The Definition of “Loan”
    4. The Definition of “Debt”
    5. U.C.C. Article 3 (Negotiable Instruments)
    6. U.C.C. Article 9 (Secured Transactions)
    7. P.S.A. Language
    8. The Securitization Process
    9. How to Formulate Proper Allegations

    Once understood, one will come to the conclusion that the home owner is not a maker of a note within the meaning of UCC § 3-412, therefore it is non-negotiable and it does not evidence a promise to pay a monetary obligation within the meaning of UCC § 9-102(a) (65), so it’s unenforceable.

  93. One last question , so I know we are talking about same issue.

    My paperwork fraud is with the assignment of mortgages being back dated with incorrect order of dates and by robo signers. So on assignment chain i have , WF got the assignment before the middle assigner got assignment from original “lender”….(A to C instead of A to B to C)

    Is this the same broken chain of title and conversion theft, we are speaking of.

  94. I’m not sure Java, … Maybe Jan or John could help you out here. If I had to take an educated guess… I would include it in the motion to vacate.

  95. I spoke to Christine this morning, she is fine. She is still on the offence taking them head on and still working FT.

    Iwantmynpv, You are right on ….. this is the biggest financial crime ever seen in history and the American people will pay for generations to come. We started CU Bucks (currency exchange) here about 5yrs ago to trade amongst the local businesses in preparation for the loss of the US dollar as the world currency.

    Every single one of those bank officers, board members and their congressional buddies they made rich for turning their heads all need prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law!

    Down in Southern Illinois in a small town called Salem … they have a nice pit ….. Great for a Bonfire. Frog Stew or Extra Crispy Chicken, either way they both cook well on an open flame.

  96. Theft by conversion. Nobody consented for these dopes to take our notes and use them for their plot. Why is this still a debate? WHY! None of these servicers, investors, trustees or anyone else have any anything with our signatures consenting to this theft. Damages for all up the wahzoo.

  97. Thank you KC. I will get to work on that and see where it leads me.

    Would you or anyone here know if I should include this in a motion to vacate sheriff sale or is this I a seperate issue/lawsuit.

  98. Java, I wanted to repost this for you. I Hope It Helps!

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Jan van Eck, on October 23, 2012 at 1:32 pm said:

    The “break in chain of title” is not properly described as a “civil theft,” but as a “criminal theft,” a larceny, although admittedly in actual practice nobody is going to do anything about it. The difference is that if you describe it as a “theft by conversion” then you can obtain as a remedy, either twice or three times the value of the property converted (depends on the State, of course). In my view, in many cases, suing for “conversion,” even if you still have possession of the home and the adverse has effectively seized the title by filing transfers on the Land Records, is much more profitable. Getting whacked for treble damages on a conversion count takes the fun out of stealing houses. Banksters beware: I will whack you every single time on a conversion count. usually attracts attorney fees also (a nice touch).

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  99. @ john gault ,

    I get it but I wish I didn’t ,, Iwantmynpv is correct , we’re done , it’s all over … the bottom line about insurables is IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER because of what little is left of a money system and legal system … forget about getting to the bottom of it ,, that’ll happen in time … the only practical thing to do is grab what you can using whatever the argument du’jor is and save what you can. We are officially an “eastern block” country now. The coup is fini. The opposition is merely a shadow.

    Oh , I was thinking of “The Sting” when I wrote that prior comment …

  100. I can’t tell if iwantmynpv is throwing insults around or just aggravated and really, really, really looking forward to turkey day.

    JG, we should not need any insider info. We should not have to pick the meat off the bird to get to the bones!! I think it’s pretty fricken obvious a nice little scheme was cooked up and fuck if we need to know what the ingredients were!
    We know, have, can and will prove without a single doubt the whole loan process= it’s just whacked! bBoom. That’s it. You did th*******S and someone fuked with it to make it t#####at. Easy, should be anyway… the people smoking their 5 pound buckets of acid seem to think that’s ok. AAAAhh, GOOD MORNING.

  101. This heist is over. The banks have moved on and left some small servicing companies behind to clean up the drippings in the turkey-pan. The bird has long been removed, carved and swallowed up by the Reserve System folks that simply funded the last stage of the heist with fictitious reserve notes, which ironically are supported by the same folks being tossed from their homes.

    Imagine, homeowners are financing their own foreclosures. Society has passed the point of financial resolution. other Countries have already set exchange rates to for inter-cultural financial transactions that no longer consider dollar conversion.

    Just like these new Servicer / Lender / Creditor Banks – this website will lick the gravy from the bottom of the pan, and eventually will fade from the forefront, ultimately disappearing as the need for information diminishes.

    TSMIMITW

  102. Everything I read says all the GSE loans or certificates were insured by one of the GSE’s. That leaves subprimes that went elsewhere at risk, and apparently, there were a lot of them.( RFC, whose market started in the 80’s with jumbo and alt-A loans, might be a candidate for needing “other” insurance or CDS or whatnot.)
    Don’t we want to stop the speculation and find out WHOSE interest was actually ‘insured’? It’s speculation to me, anyway. that’s just a whole area I’m ‘short’ on. Some, like Neidermeyer, might get it, but I don’t. The only thing I’ve ever been able to venture is that AIG, say, a regulated insuror, should only have been placing insurance on insurable interests, and since neither the trusts nor its alleged beneficiaries seem to have benefitted from that insurance, something is amiss there – AIG either placed insurance on uninsurable interests or the party taking the insurance HAD the insurable interest, right?

  103. neidermeyer – just saw your comment, which I’d really like to grasp and not try to infer. Once again – larghetto, s’il vous plais?

  104. The ISDA:
    “International Swaps and Derivatives Association – ISDA

    Definition of ‘International Swaps and Derivatives Association – ISDA’
    An association created by the private negotiated derivatives market that represents participating parties. This association helps to improve the private negotiated derivatives market by identifying and reducing risks in the market.

    Investopedia explains ‘International Swaps and Derivatives Association – ISDA
    Created in 1985, the ISDA has members from institutions around the world. It was created to improve the private negotiated derivatives market by making it easier for the institutions that deal in the market to network.
    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/isda.asp

    Chances aren’t very high many of us will either take the time to explore this stuff or come to understand it, so I say again we need minds that get this to educate our attorneys. We’ll get it on the trickle-down. Just the vocabulary, words like “swap”, “master swap agreement”, etc. at this site was enough to freak me out.

  105. “Credit Default Swaps are the most widely used type of credit derivative and a powerful force in the world markets. The first CDS contract was introduced by JP Morgan in 1997 and by 2012, despite a negative reputation in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the value of the market was an estimated $24.8 trillion, according to Barclays Plc. In March of the same year, Greece faced the biggest sovereign default the international markets have ever seen, resulting in an expected CDS payout of approximtely $2.6 billion to holders. Read on to find out how credit default swaps work and how investors can profit from them.

    SEE: What Happens In A Credit Event?

    How They Work
    A CDS contract involves the transfer of the credit risk of municipal bonds, emerging market bonds, mortgage-backed securities, or corporate debt between two parties. It is similar to insurance because it provides the buyer of the contract, who often owns the underlying credit, with protection against default, a credit rating downgrade, or another negative “credit event.” The seller of the contract assumes the credit risk that the buyer does not wish to shoulder in exchange for a periodic protection fee similar to an insurance premium, and is obligated to pay only if a negative credit event occurs. It is important to note that the CDS contract is not actually tied to a bond, but instead references it. For this reason, the bond involved in the transaction is called the “reference obligation.” A contract can reference a single credit, or multiple credits.”

    http://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/08/cds.asp

    NG asked the other day why it’s taken so long to get a handle on all this junk. Well, no one here, including me, understands a lot of what is or may be relevant, what real affirmative defenses may exist, what we might come to understand which would make discovery unavoidable. We need some “outside” assistance.

  106. No, no I do not.
    “one day” …is all I can say

  107. We need to smoke these rodents out of their holes…

  108. @ poppy ,

    100% correct ,, the reason we can’t put the dots together is because we’re dealing with their language … it’s really pretty simple … Redford and Newman sucked in the marks ,, insured everything to the hilt and expected to be able to get away by making payments as if the loans were performing by utilizing foreclosure sales and insurance proceeds to generate excess cash … by pretending it was all REMIC and off balance sheet they made their leverage unlimited… their real insurance was that they owned the master servicers who could snap their fingers and trigger an insurance payout at a moments notice… the only trouble was that the marks finally caught on and balked.

  109. In New York the Judges have forgotten to follow the law and when the Judges put forth proposition 6 to extend the age of Court of Appeals Judges and Supreme Court Judges from 70 to 80 New Yorkers have made their voice known that they want judges that follow our Constitution .

  110. If you reduce the language: servicer, one who services an account-debt…oh yes, they are servicing a collection account. Let’s stop the bullshit…the trust does not exist, hence the PSA is moot.

    They have nothing. Debt collectors is all they are. That changes the entire game…IMHO.

  111. e.tolle – yeah, the investors really stepped in it. They may have nada and to boot owe taxes on money that didn’t qualify as pass-thru. They would have a claim for theft / embezzlement and reimbursement of taxes* if their funds were “misappropriated” – wouldn’t they? – but in the interest of TBTF, doubt we’ll ever see such actions,at least not large-scale, sorry to say. The guys capable of bringing those suits and seeing them to fruition are probably in bed with the govt, the IRS, the banksters.That’s a really disconcerting thought, but I don’t know how to see it any differently if this stuff did happen*

    *but investor suits may be influenced by this: to go after the taxes, they’d be acknowledging they’re owed, and once that lid’s off, I doubt the IRS would or could care why any more than it usually has, succinctly.
    Why I personally care fwiw: the banksters willfully made illegal predatory loans. We know how that worked out. They then accepted billions in HAMP and other gimme funds and we know how that’s been working out. HAMP funds, imo, were known to be a band-aid and not much more than a publicity stunt. In order to “modify” loans except maybe a couple ish, someone has to repurchase them. First of all, if you’re the bankster, from WHOM are you going to repurchase when you know what you know? Would you really pay a party with no interest, here a trust, and put your neck on the line so you can make a loan modification? So why not just execute and record an assgt now and then repurchase the loan? My only explanation is that as to post-default assgts and to foreclose, because of the MERS’ Consent Order, the banksters feel they have no choice since the f/c can’t be pulled off in MERS’ name. But they’re not gonna execute and record assgts when they don’t HAVE to.

  112. Now You’ve got it JG… ” the Corporate Officers” …

    Poke Poke

    All Mad Boiling Frogs ……

  113. At this late stage does anyone really believe these assholes are going to try and make things right? They’ve proven that they’d rather we all live a life of destitution and peonage rather than give up one iota of their lifestyles; their positions of power are way too dear.

    We all heard this from yesterday….rather than doing something about it, this idiot sounds like he’s whining:

    Some argue that what I have proposed—higher capital requirements and better incentives that reduce the probability of failure combined with a resolution regime that makes the prospect of failure fully credible—are insufficient. Perhaps, this is correct. After all, collectively these enhancements to our current regime may not solve another important problem evident within some large financial institutions—the apparent lack of respect for law, regulation and the public trust. There is evidence of deep-seated cultural and ethical failures at many large financial institutions.

    Karl Denninger reminds us:

    Lack of respect for law eh?

    What do you call someone who has a lack of respect for the law?

    You call him a criminal, right?

    What do you call an organization that lacks respect for the law?

    A continuing criminal enterprise, and there’s a specific law for that problem too — RICO.

    Now, Mr. Regulator (and yes, the NY Fed is the primary regulator), would you care to explain why given both your pronouncement of the problem and your possession of the solution that remedy has not been used?

  114. I agree with E. ToLLe here.
    The lampshade came into play ; sentence 2. Starting out with lenders jipping the investors…..Yes, yes. The investors.

  115. 8 billion….? Compared to what they actually made on the fraud, pocket change. Just a small cost of doing business. Why is the fine such a small percentage of the total crime? Still, why no prosecutions? I guess it is “don’t rock the boat.” Maybe if the judges were not invested in all the banks, it might make a difference?

  116. The only way imo for the investors to be deemed, under any theory, the creditor is 1) if their funds were in fact used to fund loans ,2) the originator knew the funds were stolen / embezzled and 3) there were
    no bonafide transfers of the loans to anyone from an “innocent” originator (not considering predatory lending issues). Equity can’t get around the standing of a bonafide transferee. So far we have assumed there were none, but we don’t know that, and won’t know it unless the money trail confirms no one ever paid anything. And even then we have to beware the promise to pay IF delivery and endorsement occurred. We need the chain of custody with evidence any alleged custodian was in fact the custodian for any particular party and not for everyone and his brother, as I think is being pulled off just now. Banksters may in fact have had in place agreements which make X the custodian for more than one note owner, kind of like MERS is a common agent for collateral instruments (gag as usual). Even if so, and those “mutual custodian” agreements may be deemed legitimate and not to, for instance, create a patent conflict of interest, a common custodian would still not find the notes endorsed – unless the bums authorized that custodian to endorse the notes on their behalf. I recently learned that, taking a page out of MERSCorp’s playbook , corporate officers of company A, a depositor, was also a corporate officer of company B, a servicer. This allowed that dual officer to endorse the notes for A. Wherever the deck can be stacked, we’ll find it stacked.
    If these guys traded these notes as e-notes courtesy of MERS e-registry, which appears to be the case, or at least investigation-worthy, to me and a few others fwiw, that’s another hornet’s nest. But, since they couldn’t be traded as e-notes since they aren’t e-notes, the last real transfer, if any, is the paper one (if otherwise done legitimately). I’m guessing the paper transfer occurred much more often than not from the broker to its sponsor, long and short because of an in-place contractual agreement. The broker was obligated, and failing to meet that obligation would have been deadly to his business.

  117. JG, Neil’s insistence that the borrower still needs to connect with the right party, or even better, that we’re all perfectly willing to search out the proper investor if it takes the rest of our days never fails to crack me up. There is no putting this thing back together again. Humpty’s not only dead, he’s splattered all over the planet….it’s gory. Neil’s been saying it for longer than anyone I know, that it’s the biggest heist in the history of the globe, but he still seems to believe that it’ll be alright as soon as we pair off and settle our balances. Check please!

    JG: “Maybe that’s why with one exception investors limit their claims to “the quality of the loans was misrepresented”. Otherwise, they could find themselves with zilch, long and short.”

    Guaranteed. This will be the only time in its relatively short life span that Wall Streeters will not want to have their cake and eat it too, for if they complain about there being zilch in their MBS piggy-poke, that’s exactly what they’ll end up with. Oink. So they’re willing to take 15% or maybe 20% clawed back cash rather than admitting that the emperor is as naked as the day they were all born. And man is he ugly too!

  118. NG: “Apply the same logic to the endorsements and assignments and you will have practically no foreclosure cases. Just debts and debtors looking for a creditor to settle up accounts.”

    And who do you propose that might be? If the investors’ funds were in fact used to make loans when the investor funds were meant to go into a trust to pay for derivatives, first of all, wasn’t the money stolen /
    embezzled? What is the status of a loan made with embezzled funds?
    Who is the lender? If ABC originated a loan with embezzled funds, but didn’t know it was doing so,…..? If GHI bought a loan made with embezzled funds but didn’t know it was doing so, what is GHI status?
    If the trust had no loans in it because there was no money in it to buy the loans and there was then no basis to issue derivatives, those are pretend, too, aren’t they? And the trust has no beneficiaries (with an interest in anything)? Maybe that’s why with one exception investors
    limit their claims to “the quality of the loans was misrepresented”.
    Otherwise, they could find themselves with zilch, long and short.

    I don’t know the ‘status’ of a loan made with stolen / embezzled funds
    particularly if the originator had no knowledge about those funds. Seems to me the loans could be transferred (as if) between parties with no knowledge (as if) and those transfers would be recognized right up until the loans got to the trust, where no transfer did or could took place for lack of funds in the trust.
    But here, it gets more complicated if THE GUY who’s supposed to be selling to the trust is the same guy who embezzled the funds because HE knows what’s what. He knows there’s no money in the trust to buy anything, and THE GUY wouldn’t pay anything himself for the loans because he already funded them – with someone else’s money. Or would he? Not sure how that would shape up factually. That might make “the creditor” the last party to have no knowledge of the racket who effected a legitimate transfer to himself: the money trail may show the investors’ funds were used, but where does any legitimate transfer end? NG, you think the use of those funds make the investors the lender / creditor (?), I take it. I’m not so sure about that. (and I think you’ve mentioned a common law something being formed and not so sure about that, either, with embezzled funds.)

  119. It is incredible that Banks get bailed out and we don’t. Yet, the banks after been bailed they still expect our mortgage payments to get to them on time. Disgusting!

  120. So, Who will benefit from all this?
    I will help KC light the match…

  121. And if it’s anything like the JPMC settlement, the portion of the BAC fine levied concerning Fannie and Freddie misdeeds will be tax deductible. So, while the Feds take away our food stamps, they’ll be sending us a bill to once again bail these assholes out, even though they pay exactly ZERO in taxes. So in reality, they make a profit. Don’t they always, no matter how you do the math?

    They’re not in a boiling pot, the administration, congress, and the regulators would all love for us to think so. Bad bank! BAD! In actuality, they’re still sunning and swimming in the Caymans. Brian Moynihan says, “Pass me one of those rum thingys with the little paper umbrella, oh, and the sunscreen….life’s good when you own the globe.”

    When they start mentioning how the borrowers were defrauded as well, and need to be shored up, in the same breath as the investors, I’ll put a lamp shade on my head and dance around the desk. Until then, it’s all a bad joke and as always it’s on us.

    Oh I forgot, they fixed it for us already, and we all got rich with our $300 checks. Bermuda anyone?

  122. And let KC light the match!

  123. Put the lid on the damn pot!

  124. Boil, you bitchez!

  125. And throw Ken in the pot too

  126. Boil Brian, Boil !!!!!!

  127. Neil, AMEN!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: