Fake Mortgages Used for Money Laundering at BOA?

Darlene Spencer wrote an excellent piece in a comment on our Facebook page. I had heard rumblings from inside the industry when HSBC got tagged for laundering money for terrorists et al. But thus far I have come up with no actual corroborative evidence, which is why I didn’t write about it. Darlene explains it so well that I thought I would post it on the blog. I guess the most frustrating thing for us is the total apathy or complicity of government in failing to prosecute those responsible in the banking industry for the gutting of the world economy. The Banks operate in a world of their own behaving as though they are somehow “above” the law. So in the meantime while government sits on its hands, we must win these cases one at a time until we reach critical mass and the whole paradigm shifts.

History is not likely to treat Obama very well on the financial crisis. While giving him well deserved credit for stabilizing a hopelessly unstable situation, the lack of accountability and prosecutions in the financial sector is paving the way for virtually certain disaster. Since wrongdoers escalate when they get away with the last gambit, and we already know the banks are in the process of gaining control of natural resources (having already cornered the world’s money supply) the largest threat to world peace now comes from the Banks.

Darlene Writes:
Many of loans were not actual loans. The were multiplied to justify elicit funds going through the system. Securities Mortgage fraud was originally intended to move a large amount of money undetected. For example they would take 10 accounts (mortgage accounts) and those would become shell mortgages in order to justify funds being moved. When they noticed this could actually be more lucrative and remove limits on “trading” it grew into a monster they were not able to control and were not able to confirm what was a real mortgage and what was a shell mortgage. This giving you Securities fraud as well as RICO violations and severe tax evasion.

Bundling was a way to give these so called Blackstone, AIG and many others a way to become ” legal laundering systems”. Since the Patriot act did not address trust and escrow accounts for real estate this was the way to get under the radar with the “Banking Laws” and at the same time receiving insurance on non-existent accounts thus “Justifying pay outs” This is why the banks want to pay everyone off and keep things quiet. HSBC was not the only bank conducting bad behavior and financing terrorist and drug traffickers. The same one’s who conducted this activity would sell their own mother to avoid criminal charges. Bank Of America is under the protection of the CIA d/t their part with Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico and other “high risk operations”.

You have only scratched the surface my friend. American citizens who suffered from the “Mortgage Crisis, Life insurance fraud and blatant theft from multiple pension trust theft are the victims but this was merely a front for a much larger scheme right under American noses. You can thank the Bush and Chaney family along with Sullivan family for what has taken place. The Banks can not prove chain of Custody because they can not tell what is real and what is not at this point and in order to cover up the larger scandal many of the documents were destroyed in 2009 when they realized Elizabeth Warren and President Barack Obama and the FFETF would not be bought. Yes believe it or not President Obama is not part of the “Good Old Boy system” and well Warren is a female who will not be bought out of principle.

The HSBC scandal has scared them back to reality and now they must do anything and everything they can to cover up the larger scandal of violating UN sanctions and disobeying banking laws. Honestly until certain CEO’s have criminal charges pressed against them and subpoena the registry of deeds in multiple states the banking system will remain compromised and the leave the US at risk as well as other Countries. I have enjoyed many articles you have written but I believe you have not gone deep enough in order to shine a true light on the situation.”

67 Responses

  1. Drug money laundering is easy money as experienced by banks;

    Wachovia Busted Laundering Drug Money

  2. Wells Fargo & Wachovia (now WF) so far are the biggest drug money laundering banks as far as disclosed publicly:
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs
    “”For the time period of 1 May 2004 through 31 May 2007, Wachovia processed at least $$373.6bn in CDCs, $4.7bn in bulk cash” – a total of more than $378.3bn, a sum that dwarfs the budgets debated by US state and UK local authorities to provide services to citizens.” Quote from above link.
    This country is awash with drugs & drug money & nothing will stop it folks!!!

  3. The Banks operate in a free economy under the Department of Treasury. They are “above” the law if you live in a government run socialist country. So in the meantime the government sits on its hands, as it is caught in a quandary. The banks are purported to be part of a free enterprise while they are immune from that which defeats free enterprise

    registerclaims@live.com

  4. MERS disclosure describes MERS as being the bank’s agent. This is FALSE! MERSCORP is actually its agent

    WTF – Mers Corp. is a registered nominee used for an electronic platform as a dynamic member bank starker. It was created to construct long lived assets out of a bank line of credit that had a life of 180 days . Its traded by annuities fund managers “trustees” through Treasury reg 1.1031 tax deferred exchanges .

    Mers Corp is the “sellers” nominee representing one to another “member bank” for unpaid lines of credit used to fund common stock held as the depositors account . The Depositors are the bank tax payer LP obligated to the Fed. for shares charged on the 2008 TARP charges .

    where. . . .where, where you get off commenting on what you post here . Whats on your resume?

  5. From an AZ loan:

    “Disclosure Statement about MERS

    (MERS) is named on your rmortgage as the mortgage in a nominee capacity for AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER (Lender).
    MERS is a company separate from your lender that operates
    an electronic tracking system for mortgage rights.
    MERS is not your lender; it is a company that provides
    an alternative means of registering the mortgage lien in the public records. MERS maintains a database of the loans registered
    with It, including the name of the lender on each loan. Your lender has elected to name MERS as the mortgagee In a nominee capacity and record the mortgage in the public land records to protect its lien against your property. Naming MERS as the mortgagee and registering the mortgage on the MERS electronic tracking system does not affect your obligation to your Lender under the Promissory Note.”

  6. from Mortgage Servicing Fraud which I think picked up that case from Babcock Law:

    “Remember, MERS disclosure describes MERS as being the bank’s agent. This is FALSE! MERSCORP is actually its agent (IF MERSCorp is an agent at all – sic). These disclosure statements are never filed along with the mortgage in the public records.”

  7. from the case The A man linked on the 29th:

    “21. In Culhane, the court found that a borrower/mortgag
    or has a legally cognizable right under state law to ensure that any attempted foreclosure on her home is conducted lawfully especially where, as here, the mortgage contains a power of sale and the state’s law permits foreclosure without prior judicial authorization.

    22. The court finds that similar to the MASS foreclosure process, Rhode Island law provides the same dual basis for deviating from the general contract rule and authorizing a borrower to challenge a foreclosure based on a bad aom and to challenge the bad aom as
    void.
    23. “Standing exists for challenges that contend that the assigning party never possessed legal title and, as a result, no valid transferable interest ever exchanged hands. In this latter case, the challenge is to the “foreclosing entity’s status qua mortgagee.” Woods, No. 12 1942, 2013 WL 5543637, at *3

    24. “This Court’s decision finding standing is buttressed by Defendants’ extreme and incongruous argument that would allow… (the homeowner/borrower)…no relief because she ís not a party” to the trust agreement.

    25. “There is no principled basis for employing standing doctrine as a sword to deprive mortgagors of legal protection conferred upon them under state law. Culhane”

  8. Actually, a more likely scenario:
    saxon, after itself paying zero or using insurance or guarantee or tarp funds, sells the loan to REO for 150k, which allows reo to make a credit bid for the full loan amt allegedly owing on the note, say 300k, thus outbidding third party buyers at the f/c sale and possibly doubling their money on the resale. And now the homeowner has to take on not only the ‘MERS’ assgt to the trust, but also to saxon and REO. No, I’m not likely to give up on getting rid of MERS because

    MERS HAS TO GO

    and I am most assuredly interested in seeing MERS appropriately nailed for all the robosigning done in its name.

  9. On 11-29 at 12:03, The A man linked to a Judge Mcconnell case, which was capsulized (and thanks to whomever did so):

    “3. In March, 2008, MERS, as nominee for the originating lender, purported to assign the mortgage to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee.
    4. Six months later, Deutsche assigned the mortgage to Saxon and in 2009, Saxon assigned the mortgage to CM REO Trust.
    5. Saxon, on behalf of the CM REO Trust, initiated foreclosure.”

    Are they flipping kidding? MERS (read Saxon-employee) did a “tardy” assignment to a secn trust (by way of Deutsche), then the trust allegedly transferred the loan to a servicer (Saxon) – like to see the money trail on that sucker – which then sold the damn property to an REO outfit and then the purported servicer (Saxon) is trying to dispose of the real property for the REO outfit which already bought it. imo. In other words, the rat b’s shuffled the cards and skipped the true foreclosure by a true lender and sold the property to the REO group and the servicer is selling that reo for them by way of a foreclosure sale. Saxon, which is likely contractually bound to itself purchase the loan or is just plain getting another freebie, already sold the real property to CM REO Trust or I’m a monkey’s uncle. A dime to a donut what got sold to the reo outfit was the actual property since reo stands for real estate owned, not loans owned. Looks to me like Saxon isn’t exactly foreclosing: they already sold the house – to the reo group. Now they’re just making it “official”. When the loan was assigned to Saxon by Deutsche (and I’d sure like to see that assignment and the authority to execute it), I’d bet a lot that the reo group had already bought the home from Saxon and Saxon is just extinguishing the homeowner’s interest by way of a ‘foreclosure’ sale. I suppose this is the shape of things to come: servicers foreclosing on homes already sold: a nice, tidy-to-the-unwary paper trail culminating with servicers selling the real estate to some group and then kindly “foreclosing” for them. And I’d also bet TARP funds are involved if any money were paid out to Deutsche. Or, maybe Saxon just used the REO group’s money if it actually paid Deutsche anything.
    This is the first time that I’m aware of an alleged assignment OUT of a trust.

  10. Irrevocable Life Estates … Titles with no liens … BK remote
    is Equal to an AAA rating!

  11. Revocable Trusts are NOT protected from ____________?

    Irrevocable Trusts ARE protected from ______________?

    Is that BK Remote enough for you ?

  12. In a depo, Hultman said MERS ’99” version was created as a single purpose entity to hold mortgages to make ratings agencies happy that the “pool” mortgages were held by a bankruptcy remote entity.

    This is from an old note I found and not from a hultman depo I have. Someone else referenced this and I can’t tell who that was from my notes. Why would mers, the purported single purpose entity, holding mortgages make rating agencies happy when the trust is supposed to hold the mortgages? Anyone?
    Why would an spe be more valuable for ratings than a remic? I don’t believe it, but that doesn’t mean I won’t keep thinking about it. fwiw

    “single-purpose entity (SPE)

    A limited liability company or corporation that holds title to real estate and owes money to a lender as the result of a mortgage on the property, but which has no other assets or liabilities.The SPE will usually lease the property to another company, comprised of the same owners.That second company then executes leases to tenants,hires a management company or provides for necessary services,and generally incurs all liabilities associated with managing the property.This structure is usually required by a lender as a condition of extending a mortgage loan. It insulates the collateral from claims of other creditors. If the second company must file for bankruptcy because it is not able to pay creditors, that does not stop the lender from foreclosing unless the SPE also files for bankruptcy.If the SPE files for bankruptcy,it is much easier for the lender to lift the automatic stay and proceed with foreclosure because it has the only vote for issues such as approving a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 (see bankruptcy).If there were many creditors,consisting of the janitorial service,utilities,tenants,and others,then those other creditors could force the mortgage lender to acquiesce in a plan of reorganization that is not in the lender’s best interests.That process is called a cram-down.With only one creditor,the mortgage lender,there is no chance of a cram-down.(Do not confuse with a special-purpose entity, also abbreviated as SPE,which is much broader than a single-purpose entity.) Also called a single-asset entity (SAE).’

  13. JG,

    Oops,

    I mistakenly wrote “NG” as the recipient of my 7:45pm. I meant JG. And it you post your e-mail address, I’ll send you that appeals court decision. Absolutely nothing to do with MERS.

  14. KC,

    I’m completely losing you. The MERS bit was addressed to NG. Please, call me if you have a question but please, don’t hold the line here. Please?

  15. Christine … the biggest trap most fall for is the

    ” Five Years Free Rent” How does that Hurt or Harm You?

    What do You Say?

  16. ~~~~ The Federal Reserve ~~~~

  17. Christine,

    I didn’t use the MERS or the Securitization arguments.
    Nope! Nope!

    I think you mean .. our beef is with the pretender mortgagee “The puppet”

    The String Pullers … Like Ole’ Jamie Boy and his White Shoe Congressional Buddies?

  18. Ok, lets look at it this way

    .. Lets say I payoff the Note and want Title under the terms of a conventional mortgage.

    I want to place my assets into an Tax Deffered Living Iirrevocable trust to benefit my family during my life and after my death.
    Can I do that now?

    Why Not?

  19. KC,

    I’m looking at 5 years worth of damages. Won’t buy any of what you’re selling: it would defeat the purpose of my lawsuit. Thanks for the thought though but remember: for me, it was never about the house. It was about being conned, screwed over, lied to and cheated on by banks. The object over of which the con arose is irrelevant in my frame of mind: i can’t take it with me. What has mattered from day one is that some entities believed (wrongfully) that they were entitled to making my life difficult just for kicks and tried to use a damn house for that purpose. The house means nothing. Revenge and pay back, on the other hand…

    NG,

    I know I’ve come down hard on you over your apparent inability to get past the MERS issue for longer than ten minutes at a time. Don’t know if you’re fighting, in foreclosure, about to be or anything else. What I can tell you is this: playing the MERS card is a dead loser pretty much from the get go. Even in NY. In your neck of the woods and the entire West Coast, forget it! One case here and there, maybe but… as UKG posted, MERS is here to stay. And there is a very good reason for that: tackling the issue is simply humanly impossible. As impossible as undoing WWII and Hiroshima bombing or any country’s history. As impossible as bringing back the dead from those tragic events. Some things can’t be corrected.

    Homeowners can win. Not on the MERS card. MERS is quicksand for 99% of judges in America and… Canada, Australia, S. Africa, and many other Anglo-Saxon countries that got suckered into it. MERS is a worldwide atrocity. You may spend the rest of your life harping over MERS. Face it: it isn’t going away. Monsanto is going away: it is tangible. MERS is an electronic illusion as much as Corelogic, Santa Klaus or the big, bad wolf (pretty much exti9nct as we speak).

    I purposely didn’t play the MERS card. Or the securitization card. I happen to believe that it is exactly why I won on my appeal in federal court. And make no mistake: had my attorney even suggested playing either, I would have run for cover. Know why? MERS has absolutely no relevance to your relationship with your mortgagee of the day. Your beef is with the mortgagee. Not a “computer system”.
    And remember: MERS is in its third generation. Being tweaked and refined daily. But it’s still only a penniless, frickin’ data base and nothing more! If you want to go after somebody, go after the string holder. not the stupid puppet!

  20. JG,

    You can NOT create a Irrevocable Trust and Make Yourself Beneficiary!

    Two ways out …

    1. If you sue for Fraud and Conversion and Have it Voided

    2. When you are a Zombie (not with us anymore)

  21. …. Hire an Attorney!

  22. no, kc. I don’t care if you have quiet time or not, actually. I asked you pointed questions about specific stuff you said (and only about specific stuff you said – and exactly zero about MERS) which makes no sense and you chose not to answer because you don’t know or don’t want to answer. Okay. I was not asking for legal advice and wouldn’t ask you to do anything other than explain (read defend) indeterminable stuff you write, which you can’t or won’t. And I was actually disagreeing with you. Guess you missed that.

  23. Who wants to Play Whack a Mole?

    …… . File a Conversion Claim?

  24. RE: ” if mers is taken as the original lender’s agent, ”

    Does a grantor have the right to grant something to someone when it does not have that right itself? Like revoke an Irrevocable Trust for a borrowers unsecured debt? Naaaa ….

    There is ONLY one way to revoke an Irrevocable Trust… If there was Fraud in the Origination with the Intent to deFraud the Grantor, Settlor, Assignor …. Plaintiff

    Like conversion ……

    When its on the Face of the Contract …. Pfffft!!!

  25. Christine, remember when you walk away from the house you will lose your HSR. Try getting a loan (purchase, HELOC refi, mod) these days without that waiver.

    Think about it!

  26. You are 100% on Target Christine!

  27. “the Chinesr have decided “not to invest in foreign currency any more.”

    They don’t need to. Between China, India and Russia, we’ve lost half the land in this country. And all the national parks belong to the UN. Don’t believe me? Do some research…

  28. In my spare time .. I play a good detective in a bad movie.

  29. JG … you ask KC to many Questions.

    Legal Questions at that? No! No!

    I’m not an Attorney!

  30. RE: “Is MERS an agent for anyone – the original lender or successors or assigns? Where is the evidence MERS was anyone else’s agent, even if mers is taken as the original lender’s agent, ”

    KC asks .. if in some mortgage/dot it states nominee and beneficiary for the lender(strawman) right?

    Did the lender (strawman) sign the Mortgage/DOT?

    Show me the Agency Contract between lender and mers!

    Show Me Proof, the contract of Who You (MERS) are acting on the Behalf of?

    Or am I looking at it?

    The Creditor/Estate?

    Take the Mask Off the Strawmen one at a time….

    First take off the Lender Straman Mask ..
    .Look into the Mirror and Who do you See?

    Now take off the MERS Mask …..

    Look into the Mirror and Who do you See?

    Grantors Can Not revoke and Irrevocable Trust until such a time they can not take it with them.. croak .. oh, that was a burp… sorry

    *** only those in the boiling water are craoking.

    But what do I know …
    I just ask to many questions and think out loud to much.

    Anybody wanna tell KC to go to Quiet Time?

  31. KC: “Imagine this if you would, some Creep using Stolen Funds paid off your mortgage at closing, then proceeded to steal/transfer the title to your HOUSEHOLD ESTATE into an Irrevocable Trust under A New York indenture.”

    okay, but a tad dramatic or not quite accurate? I believe ‘some creep’ may have embezzled / stolen the investors money and paid off the old loan (which I admit hadn’t occurred to me before) and that might be a very big deal itself if it could possibly be actionable for the return of the funds against the guy paid off. They didn’t steal the title to our homes exactly. They only stole security interests and a form of title – not all of it (at least in states which used dot’s). When you say irrevocable trusts, I have to believe you that the assignment into the trusts would be irrevocable because I don’t know any better. What do you mean by a NY ‘indenture’? That the loans, what is irrevocable, is that the loans are CDO’s and not true sales? A sale, if it actually happens, isn’t an indenture. Do you mean to say that for non-delivery, irrevocable security interests (indenture) were created and if so, how did Buffet avoid them in rescap’s bk? Think bk 86’s the “irrevocable” indenture?

  32. usedkarguy@3:53 – sure looks that way, but I won’t believe we can’t
    prevail. And NG doesn’t help by refusing to say why he believes the investors funds were used (for one thing). How in the hell are we supposed to find a hidden trail with no clues? He also won’t concentrate on getting discovery in favor of article III and a “MERS’ assignment. How does membership in MERSCorp, a corporation, make MERS, a different corporation, those MERSCorp-members’ agent or anything? That or another agreement must make MERS an agent since the dot doesn’t. It makes MERS, a separate corporation, a nominee. Nominee alright – a party nominated to be novated, to take the place of, and I intend to prove it. I guess I’m just blowing in the wind about the trusts not being able to take title and that’s the biggest reason for MERS (that and the mtg loan contract being itself morphed, novated into a new contract between the trusts, the investors, the servicers, and the swap parties, but I’m not giving up because I sure as hey believe it. I do believe securitization novated the mortgage loan contract into a new agreement and a new agreement, a novation of an existing contract, extinguishes the old. The trust can’t have bens of the mortgage loans and also of another agreement for payment, or if not, maybe someone who disagrees would be good enough to explain how that could be. The investors interests are derivative but distinct from the mtg loans, and doesn’t a trust need beneficiaries to its assets? Am I misconstruing a remic trust? It can create a new obligation based on an existing one, but it can be different? HOW is that pass-through?? WHY does gnma say it will only guarantee something to the issuers, whom to get the benefit of that guarantee have to keep the investors whole and repurchase the loans? So gnma can now say it’s age-old (fha and va) insurance and guarantee, which I hasten to note is paid for by the borrower for the benefit of the lender, doesn’t go to the alleged lender, unless a thrid party, the issuer, becomes the lender by repurchasing the loan?
    Their what hurts?!

  33. What do we believe after all this time? What do we believe discovery would uncover and what makes us think that? If we don’t have these answers, we sure can’t convince judges that decisions can’t be made without the info. Is our best route the Glaski route, that the loans weren’t heretofore transferred to the trusts and if so, do we have factual basis – chapter and verse – to allege the assgt is void? What does it mean if a trust (or anyone) paid for a note but didn’t get it? In that state, does anyone have the right to enforce? (I think not, in which case if a late transfer to a remic is void unlike a tardy assgt to others, they’re ALL sol including on guarantees. The GSEs don’t insure non-delivery nor should they pay banksters who already got paid for notes they didn’t deliver so they could
    take AIG etc insurance or at least which might have allowed them to. Actually, the banksters shouldn’t get aig insurance proceeds since they already got the investors money and suffered no loss, right?
    Are these particular secured notes (if they are) regulated by Article III at all? Does jurisdiction require injury to be alleged and shown? Do the banksters allege breach of contract or merely rely on poss of a bearer note and article III? Why is anyone in ‘mere’ poss of a bearer note entitled to an assignment of its collateral instrument? If I get my hands on Joe’s note, why am I entitled to an assignment? What about the guy who paid for the note? (that was the subject of the stinking case I lost which said they were both – the note owner and the dot assignee – out of luck and neither could enforce; the note holder had an unsecured note at best and the dot assignee had nada. I think the court said the note holder should have seen to it he got the dot and he didn’t) What about MERS’ fiduciary to that guy who paid for the note? But MERS only has that fiduciary if MERS is the agent of the new note holder or if MERS fiduciary with the old note holder means he has a duty to assign the dot to the new note holder. What presumptions are being made by courts when “MERS” executes an assignment and are they reasonable presumptions? Like that MERS had authority to execute an assignment, which it has admitted it doesn’t get? Why doesn’t it? If it’s an agent, seems to me, MERS needs it. If a novated party, doesn’t need it. Is such an assgt by an agent void for lack of authority or does such an assgt neverless and only ‘relieve’ MERS of any interest / status IT may have had? If MERS is thee ben, the assignment would be binding. I think, but that’s for what it’s worth, which isn’t much if the note and dot have been bifurcated. There still bifurcated but with someone else as the dot assignee.

    Is MERS an agent for anyone – the original lender or successors or assigns? Where is the evidence MERS was anyone else’s agent, even if mers is taken as the original lender’s agent, such that assignments to others in the A to D path could be avoided? If MERS is a novated party in the coll instrument or if MERS’ presence bifurcates the note and dot, which NV SC ruled and I think one other, what all does that mean? **Is there a complete mortgage loan contract at all?** Why doesn’t MERS identify the party for whom it purports to act as agent? Isn’t it because it isn’t acting as an agent – it’s acting in its own (novated) right, and that limited to the dot unless another unseen agreement authorizes MERS to do a thing about the note? Does the language in the dot novate MERS and also give MERS the authority to act on the note without clearly saying so – “may foreclose” – but at any rate, there is no language authorizing MERS to ASSIGN the interest in the note, such as is being attempted in all current assignments. If MERS is thee ben and a novated party, that foreclosure language in the dot could be an attempt to authorize MERS to act on the note, without which the dot and its novated status is worthless. But it doesn’t change the bifurcation. Square one in a round hole that didn’t work: Consent Order / MERS IS thee ben and the note and dot are bifurcated ( I think fatally because the orig lender was not first named the ben and then an assgt done to the nominee ben).

    Is the note a contract that has been breached? It may be that only the security instrument, the dot, makes the deal a ‘contract’ to be breached. If that’s wrong, why don’t the banksters allege breach of contract? I don’t recall seeing one instance where breach of contract was specifically alleged. Implied, maybe, but not stated per se / verbatim. Why not?
    Can trusts foreclose with a credit bid and take title to real property or any asset which doesn’t generate “pass-thru” income? If so, then why are credit bids routinely “assigned”? Why is the creditor never identified on a short sale? The homeowner is still the seller, but the short sale requires the ‘approval’ of the creditor and Notice of that approval (or what’s the point?)
    Why is no creditor or the other party to a modification ever identified? I recently saw a “modification” and it wouldn’t pass legal muster for nothin’ in my opinion. Who is it binding? The servicer doesn’t even allege to be acting as agent for anyone and it also doesn’t identify itself as the party to be bound.
    Courts may not make presumptions where interpretation is required, where a thing is not properly apparent and or no legal presumption exists. When they do, the presumptions are unreasonable, errant, and appealable. Like they can’t presume that MERS is everyone and his brother’s agent, even if agency does exist (which if to exist must be expressed and created in the dot, it isn’t). The banksters would have to identify the B and C and they do NOT want to do that. And even if they did, the only ‘evidence’ they could or would offer of that agency is going to be nothing but hearsay. D, or anyone, may not rely on the ‘business records’ of another business. B and C are not going to be identified and they’re not going to show up and testify. Even if MERS were the agent of B or C – or anyone relevant – at one time, when it was an agent is key – was it the agent on the date of assignment? Courts are more than happy to stand on article III, for instance, but the presumptions being made as to the dot assgt nevertheless are ridiculous. There’s an unwarranted presumption that B and C were MERS’ members. But that only means a thing if we can demonstrate why there would’ve been a B of C. Or shall we just let courts act as if the notes went from A to the trusts when we at least think they didn’t? They had to go from the originator to the depositor at a minimum, right? That alone creates A, B, and C.

  34. Money laundering, kicking the can, turning a blind eye, stealing and hoarding and lying and cheating—just another day in the USA!
    The only way the world will change for the better is when humans figure out how to make virtues, altruism, and high moral standards desirable…until then, we are on a downward spiral…period.

  35. Imagine this if you would, some Creep using Stolen Funds paid off your mortgage at closing, then proceeded to steal/transfer the title to your HOUSEHOLD ESTATE into an Irrevocable Trust under A New York indenture.

    Inside Job!
    FIERRA Prohibits Profit (unjust enrichment from a perpetrated Fraud).

    Hence TARP!

  36. UKG, we are only F%^&ed for a while. The BRICS nations do not want to do business with us anymore, and the Chinesr have decided “not to invest in foreign currency any more.” That translates to not buying any more of our lousy treasury bills. The world is tired of America’s wars, ripoffs of their natural resources and lies. We are going to see some heavy duty things happening over the next 18 months. Fire Congress!

  37. UKG..

    . Do you know that when they charged off the loans in 2008, they basically said to the Investor .. Sorry for your losses, but you knew the risks? So goes our retirement investments.

    Investors sue for Misrepresentation. Not a Gentlemen.. A Cheat!

    The taxpayers bailed out the Banks because the Morons used Title to our Household Estates to back their own debt at a min of 10;1!

    I’m sorry, But how did my conventional 30year mortgage/lien turn into a LIfe Household Estate Irrevocable Trust under a New Your indenture?

    Not without my Permission.. You Don’t!

    Abandon Credit and Free Yourself from Slavery!

  38. Right you are, UKG. What’s really galling is that they’re obviously supporting the criminality due to their belief that if they act, the entire globe will implode like the house in Poltergeist. And yet, we all know that by doing their best Sergeant Schultz routine – I see nothing….nothing….nothing illegal that is, that the globe is truly going to implode due to their inaction. So yes, I concur….they’ve screwed our pooch and we’re truly fooked.

    The only thing I can figure is that they’re hoovering up the last of the goodies, sorta’ like the Grinch reaching in for the last few crumbs….only I don’t expect to see any of these ass-hats hearts growing at all this holiday season.

    Eggs, dream on my friend. And re-read Christine’s joke below to understand why Obama won’t do anything. He’s short exactly two balls.

  39. UKG .. correction, The World Bank WAS being used to run this Scam. Not Anymore!

    Why do you suppose the U.S. was relived of its duty to Name the President of the WB in 2010 … “The Gentleman Agreement”?

  40. WaMu is the evidence of what’s happening within the whole industry of securitization. The shit’s all gone, folks. The documents exist only in electronic format, and nobody signed UETA paperwork when they signed the note. The government has no option but to defend the bankers’ mistakes and keep everybody paying. I really think we’re fucked.

  41. this is indeed bigger than your house, my house, your note, my note.
    we could all be in for a world of hurt here very soon. I don’t what form it will take. But the governments of the largest countries are in on this scam. US (like U.S of A.), the Europeans, all of the controlling members of World Bank are definitely running the scam.
    But to what end? Is this all just a big game of “RISK” (Parker Brothers)
    but instead of armies and nukes their using fraud and gold?
    World wide slavery? Don’t think so, although most are already “debt-slaves”.
    Degrade all the currencies equally? You can’t do that, because China and India have most of the gold.
    Are they selling “We the People” off to the Chinese when the Dollar becomes worthless?
    I don’t know what the end game is, other than world domination.
    It’s going to be a bloodbath here in America, that’s for sure.

  42. E,
    Yes, whither the NSA on this stuff? I thought they could see and hear everything. They are supposed to be able to see your thoughts as you type. And they collect and store all the data. If Obama really wanted to redeem himself–which he obviously doesn’t because if he does, he won’t get to do the lucrative speaking circuit/corporate board memberships post-presidency–he’d order the NSA to immediately turn over all evidence in their possession related the big banks’ involvement in foreclosure fraud, money laundering, and the like. Then there would be prosecutions, trials, convictions, and incarcerations and/or executions. Then he would order that the NSA spying system be dismantled EXCEPT the part that watches the banks and the government because they have an established pattern of fraud.

    That’s the dream, anyway…

  43. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-03/ex-wamu-ceo-killinger-said-to-be-near-settlement-in-bank-failure.html

    Ex-WaMu CEO Killinger Said to Be Near Settlement With OCC

    By Jesse Hamilton – Dec 3, 2013 2:22 PM CT .
    .

    Facebook Share
    Tweet
    LinkedIn
    Google +1
    13 Comments

    Print

    QUEUE

    Q

    ..

    Former Washington Mutual Inc. Chief Executive Officer Kerry Killinger and two other bank officials are in settlement talks with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the last chapter in the government’s probe of the largest U.S. bank failure.

    The regulator is weighing a settlement with Killinger, former chief operating officer Stephen Rotella and David Schneider, former head of the home-loan division, over claims they mismanaged the Seattle-based thrift, according to a person who was briefed and spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks aren’t public.

    Enlarge image Ex-WaMu CEO Kerry Killinger

    Ex-WaMu CEO Kerry Killinger

    Kerry Killinger, former chief executive officer of Washington Mutual Inc., arrives to testify at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee hearing into the company’s collapse in Washington, D.C., on April 13, 2010. Photographer: Jay Westcott/Bloomberg
    .
    The person, who said the talks have entered the final stage, didn’t describe the terms being discussed. The details of a deal would need the approval of senior OCC officials.

    Washington Mutual, which was the nation’s largest savings-and-loan and one of the largest subprime lenders, became a public symbol of the excesses of the housing bubble. The thrift and its subprime arm “engaged in a host of shoddy lending practices that contributed to a mortgage time bomb,” the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said in a 2011 report.

    The bank was seized by regulators in September 2008 after reporting that it faced $19 billion in losses from soured mortgages. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) bought remnants of the thrift and has since struggled to unwind itself from liability for Washington Mutual’s faults.

    FDIC Settlement

    In 2011, Killinger, Rotella and Schneider reached a $64 million settlement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which liquidated the bank. The FDIC sued the three executives for failing to tend to the thrift’s safety while they received more than $95 million in compensation from 2005 until its collapse. Most of their payments under the settlement were covered by Washington Mutual’s insurance policy.

    The OCC’s separate investigation stems from the agency’s 2011 merger with the Office of Thrift Supervision, which had supervised Washington Mutual.

    Daniel W. Turbow, a lawyer at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati who has represented Killinger, 64, declined to comment. Rotella, 60, now CEO of New York-based StoneCastle Cash Management LLC, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Schneider, who until this year was CEO of Vericrest Financial Inc., an Irving, Texas mortgage servicer, didn’t return a message left at a phone number listed to his name in New Jersey.

    Bryan Hubbard, an OCC spokesman, declined to comment on the talks.

    Levin Report

    A Justice Department investigation into Washington Mutual ended in August 2011 without charges filed.

    The report from the Senate panel, which is led by Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, found that Washington Mutual “produced hundreds of billions of dollars of poor quality loans that incurred early payment defaults, high rates of delinquency, and fraud.”

    Killinger advised his bank’s board in June 2006 that the company should be “in position to grow its market share” in high-risk lending — including subprime loans — according to an internal memo published in the Senate investigation. The report said Killinger pushed a plan to “significantly curtail” low-margin, safer loans in a shift toward higher risk.

    Two months earlier, Schneider had given a presentation suggesting the bank should almost double its subprime volume by 2008, according to the Senate report. E-mails between Rotella and Killinger in 2005 showed Rotella also encouraging subprime and home-equity loan growth, according to the report.

    ‘Real Time’

    Killinger said in court filings in the FDIC lawsuit that examiners from the FDIC and OTS were stationed at the bank and aware “in real time” of business decisions the FDIC later challenged. Killinger, Washington Mutual’s CEO for 18 years, told Levin’s panel in 2010 that his bank could have survived the crisis but U.S. officials denied Washington Mutual help offered to other financial firms.

    When the FDIC deal was announced, Levin noted that the executives wouldn’t have to pay much of the settlement themselves. “The OCC, which inherited OTS’ jurisdiction over WaMu, may be able to impose civil monetary penalties against the former executives which likely would have to come out of their pockets,” he said in a statement at the time.

    Ronald R. Glancz, a former litigation division chief at the OCC who heads Venable LLP’s financial-services group, said any penalties arising from the probe would factor in the seriousness of the behavior and the net worth of the individuals. Insurance policies wouldn’t typically cover such payments, he said.

    Three Powers

    In addition to imposing a penalty, the OCC could seek restitution and block the officials from future banking jobs.

    “Those are the three powers they have,” Glancz said.

    Still, Glancz said, it’s “a bit of injustice” for multiple agencies to pursue people for the same behavior. He said that in some matters stemming from the 2008 credit crisis regulators “are sort of piling-on” to high-profile cases.

    Washington Mutual — in business for 119 years — had enjoyed a string of acquisitions and explosive growth in its final years, adopting a new advertising slogan in the months before its collapse: “Whoo hoo!” In U.S. history, the scale of its bankruptcy was eclipsed only by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

    JPMorgan, as part of its $13 billion settlement with the government last month, agreed it wouldn’t continue to press the FDIC to cover some of the losses from defective mortgage securities sold by Washington Mutual before it was acquired.

  44. Wells Fargo is pushing back against the government in the case where they are accused of falsifying FHA loan for FHA insurance coverage. However as I been reporting and that is that Wells Fargo is illegally foreclosing on the Washington Mutual Bank loans for Ginnie Mae who needs the fund to pay the Federal Reserve Bank.

    These loans cannot legally be foreclosed and these are not the party to receive the insurance payouts!

  45. ROFLMBO! Thanks for the Laugh Christine!

  46. So, how come the NSA hasn’t “learned” about all of this illicit behavior?

    Selective hearing?

  47. Once again, couldn’t resist… Life’s too short to pass up a good laugh.

    Five surgeons from big cities are discussing who makes the Best
    Patients to operate on.

    The first surgeon, from New York , says, ‘I like to see accountants
    On my operating table because when you open them up, everything
    Inside is numbered.’

    The second, from Chicago , responds, ‘Yeah, but you should try
    Electricians! Everything inside them is color coded.’

    The third surgeon, from Dallas , says, ‘No, I really think librarians
    Are the best, everything inside them is in alphabetical order.’

    The fourth surgeon, from Los Angeleschimes in: ‘You know, I like
    Construction workers…Those guys always understand when you have
    A few parts left over.’

    But the fifth surgeon, from Washington , DC shut them all up when
    He observed: ‘You’re all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There’s no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains, and no spine..
    Plus, the head and the ass are interchangeable.’

  48. Great quote from this article that I missed the first go-round: “…the largest threat to world peace now comes from the Banks.” Totally agree.

  49. Sorry, Bad copy n paste .. Here they are again …

    Bank OF AMERICA
    CORPORATION, BANK OF
    AMERICA, N.A., BANC OF
    AMERICA MORTGAGE
    SECURITIES, INC., and MERRILL
    LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
    SMITH, INC. f/k/a BANC OF
    AMERICA SECURITIES LLC
    Defendants

  50. KCs Chickens have Names …

    SMITH, INC. f/k/a BANC OF
    AMERICA SECURITI 
    BANK OF AMERICA
    CORPORATION, BANK OF
    AMERICA, N.A., BANC OF
    AMERICA MORTGAGE
    SECURITIES, INC., and MERRILL
    LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
    ES LLC
    Defendants

    Defendant MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC. f/k/a BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES LLC is and at all times herein mentioned a Corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina with principle offices located in the City of Charlotte, County of Hillsborough .
    .. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOEs I through 10 inclusive, and therefore sues BofA , defendants by such fictitious names.
    . Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained

  51. The Household Estate is the Warrantor with Subornation Rights.

  52. They redirected the Note and Mortgage to themselves (inside job), they presented us with a conventional mortgage.

    They transferred title prior to default.

    ( that’s what fc are covering up)

    They don’t want the houses … they want to force the Estate to waive claim to the Title so they can Wash It (hide the fraud).

  53. I don’t know how to explain this from a fc view.
    For years I have told you all here …. I’m coming into this situation in REVERSE MODE.

  54. Right On Christine!

    Hire an Attorney!

    And the rest of you can keep your comments to yourself … I’m already in T.O. … wont do you any good to tattle on me.

    HIRE AN ATTORNEY! EVEN NEIL AND MS TELL YOU THAT!

  55. Eggs,

    “I think Darlene is right–something bigger than just foreclosure fraud is going on”. True. Plenty of people are looking into. Those Karen Hudes, Catherine Austin Fitts, ICIJ and such. Bob’s point, though, is that this site used to give practical information to homeowners ready and willing to fight. Lately, it’s been a contest in opacity between NG and MS.

    Loading homeowners with editorials of doom-and-gloom and reminding them daily of their impotence before the enormity of the problem isn’t particularly conducive of decision making and action taking. And it is dangerous, to boot. It gives people a false assurance that knowing the complexity of the problem 200 years in the making will give them an automatic ticket to a win against their bank. Too many have pleaded crap they read here and got crushed for want of the most elementary common sense approach to their problem. If it took that long to create such worldwide corruption, chances are it won’t be fixed overnight. People need to be empowered with how-to instead of overwhelmed by constant reminders of how bad things are. That’s Yves Smith’s and Matt Taibbi’s declared mission. Not NG…

  56. Yeah Comingling of funds. All this was done so they could allegedly sell the same loans multiple times and who knows what else?

    That is why we should concentrate on who broke the chain of title and the entity that broke the chain of title also broke the contract making the contract void. At best they got an unsecured loan. And I emphasize at best.

    NEVER AGAIN

  57. Kc, can you spell it out rather than give clues, much appreciated

  58. Connect the dots …. What does Mortgage Fraud have to do with Losing our Gentleman Agreement to select the President of the World Bank?

    What is IMFs role in this Mess?
    What is the Federal Reserves Role in this Mess?

    Yea … We had a chance to do the Right thing and we Blew It!

  59. I totally agree–confirmation of all this would be nice. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before it comes out. Probably sooner rather than later. And I agree, Obama IS part of the cabal and does not have clean hands in any of this.

  60. I’d especially like to know more about the CIA being the bedfellow and caretaker of BOA. Not that I doubt it, but give us something on paper that we can wag in somebody’s face just prior to unleashing the guillo-blade’s problem solving descent. Schwiiiingggg! What a game changer that would be! NEXT! Hey look! It’s Jamie boy! You’re looking a little peaked today Mr. CEO. Cat got your….uh…. neck? Look on the bright side….you’ll never need to by a hat ever again. Never. And you won’t be needing these cufflinks anymore, so we’ll just give them to the poor, along with everything else you’ve absconded with during your entire lifetime. Prick!

    I can’t give Obama even one tiny bit of a hat tip over his handling of this mess. Anyone who would anoint that buffoon Geithner secretary, and then would attempt really really hard to place that rat-bastard Summers in as well is bereft of the right/wrong gene altogether.

  61. For God’s sake, we KNOW the mortgages are fake. We know MERS and the “trusts” are opaque. We know judges are willing to ignore long-standing precedent and statutory law to let this foreclosure fraud continue. We know endorsements, assignments, and affidavits were forged/robo-signed. I think Darlene is right–something bigger than just foreclosure fraud is going on.

  62. I get your point Bob, but I can imagine people saying the same thing about accusations of HSBC money laundering before it broke into the mainstream. And about LIBOR. And ISDAfix. And Madoff. Even if the above come off as conjecture, it’s conjecture that has a strong basis in reality. We all know that if one bank is doing something, they’re ALL doing it because they don’t want to be beaten out by the competition, even when (nay, especially when) it’s illegal. Doesn’t matter if it’s illegal, just has to be profitable. And then, just like HSBC, it’ll all come out and some paid-off judge will fine BoA or whoever a paltry sum and then it will continue.

  63. Interesting article, but I think it needs more rock solid facts and evidence.

  64. E-Tolle… LOL! No it wasn’t written by Stripes/Ivent. But if you’ve read my ramblings this week …. you should have found the clue.

    #2 HuDS
    #2 Notes
    #2 Mortgages/DOTs

  65. Was that written by stripes?

  66. Interesting piece…but totally bereft of evidentiary facts.

    How about posting something factual, that is not merely conclusory statements and bald accusations…but evidentiary facts to back up every allegation and every conclusion.

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: