Look First at the Loan Closing

In thinking about how to present the issues in cases where the loans are part of a securitization process, whether successful or unsuccessful, I realized that one of the things that I failed to do was bring the attention of the court to the the cornerstone of the transaction — the loan closing, rather than the the actual chronological first step which is the selling forward of empty mortgage bonds to investors. I realized that if I was sitting on the bench and the matter before me was the foreclosure of a mortgage that was facially correct and recorded in the county records, any argument that starts with securitization is going to seem like side-stepping the real issues. So I am working on going outside the chronological order of reality and starting with the middle point, which is the loan contract and loan closing.
Every contract must have an offer, acceptance and consideration. Every first year law student knows that. In the case of mortgage loans, the loan contract consists of
The problem is that the above scenario is not the usual scenario with 96% of all mortgages between 2001-2009. If I don’t give you the money, there is no contract and even though you signed the note, I have no right to record the mortgage because I never loaned you the money. You were fooled by the fact that money appeared at the closing table just as I said. But the money wasn’t my money and I didn’t lend it to you. But you signed the note and mortgage to me. What I have just done is probably fraudulent and certainly a table funded loan in violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Act. When the Judge says “did you sign the note?”, he is only asking half the required questions. The other half should be asked of the forecloser “did the payee on the note make the loan?” The answer in most cases is no, and in all cases as to the assignment of the loan, no value was paid by the assignee for the transfer to the assignee. The loan should either have been originated with the name of the actual source of funds on the note and mortgage or the assignment should have been recorded in the name of the trust when the loan was acquired. But then the wholesale rejection of common underwriting standards would have been exposed and most of the loans would never have been made.
The reason why Judges and lawyers are missing the mark in many cases is that the loan contract is not the one they are thinking about. In the great majority of loan contracts the actual source of funds is NOT the party who is named as Payee or mortgagee. The actual party who made the loan is either the group of Trust beneficiaries or the actual REMIC trust where the trust was funded. The loan contract is implied by law and undocumented. And the terms are not necessarily what was stated in the note and mortgage. The lenders agreed to a loan with different terms than the terms set forth in the note and mortgage.The contract for loan that everyone has their eye on is written but never completed. The originator offers a loan provided that the borrower agrees to the terms presented and executes the loan closing papers. In plain language the originator is saying “I agree to loan you money provided you agree to the terms of repayment and you execute the loan closing documents.” You agree and execute the loan closing documents but then the originator who made the offer does not make the loan. The result by any interpretation is that there is no enforceable contract. In fact, there is an implied duty to return the documents to the borrower marked canceled.

The originator has no documentation showing that it was acting as agent for the trust beneficiaries or the trust. Even if such documentation existed, it would have required that the originator act as agent for the Trust or the trust beneficiaries without disclosure to the borrower. Such a provision requiring non disclosure would violate Federal law (TILA) and would therefore be void.

But the money appears at the closing table anyway, unknown to the borrower, from the trust beneficiaries who thought their money would first be used to fund the REMIC trust where they would get certain tax benefits. The receipt of the money by the borrower creates an obligation to repay implied by law — the assumption being that it wasn’t a gift.

Thus when the Judge asks “Did you sign the note and mortgage” he or she is only asking half of the essential questions. The other half should be directed to the foreclosing party “did you make the loan”?

The forecloser would then be forced to explain why they should collect on a debt that was created outside of their cloud of parties and entities. This is why they don’t allege they are the holder in due course because THAT would require them to prove they have the note and mortgage “for value” and that they didn’t have actual knowledge of the borrowers claims and defenses. The borrower would only need to deny such an allegation thus forcing the burden of proof onto the forecloser — a burden that no forecloser these days can meet unless it is a local bank loan.

Instead of alleging that the Forecloser is a holder in due course, they carefully allege that they are the holder with implied rights to enforce because the documents appear to be valid on their face. But a holder is subject to the defenses available in any breach of contract action including non-performance — I.e. The denial that the originator ever made the loan. Then they stonewall discovery on questions about the wire transfer receipt that would reveal who made the loan. At trial the borrower should have objections and motions in limine after properly seeking to enforce discovery and getting no results except more objections.

If the homeowner raises the issue of payment of the loan from the originator they are properly challenging the existence of a valid contract, which was never formed because of the failure of performance by the originator. Most loans during the mortgage meltdown period fit this scenario.

The end result should be that the debt cannot be enforced by the foreclosing party because no entity in their “securitization” cloud ever performed the essential act required by the loan contract — performing the act of delivering money as a loan to the homeowner. Hence no debt was created between THOSE parties.

Non stop servicer advances are payments to the creditors — the trust beneficiaries (investors) — of the trust whether or not the borrower is paying the required payments under the note.

This could also  be grounds for challenging the default saying that there was no default from the creditor’s perspective because they continued to receive their expected payments. Or it could be grounds for saying they waived the default or that the default was cured while they were accepting the servicer advances. The creditor is only allowed to be paid once on your loan.

Assuming the court accepts that argument, you have established that there are not one, but two loan contracts — the one that the lender saw, and the one that the borrower saw. That would mean there was by definition no meeting of the minds, which is a basic term used in contract law. If the money from investors actually funded the trust, then they could argue that there was nothing wrong with the two contracts because the borrower’s loan contract was with the trust. But our retort would be that if the borrower’s contract was with the trust, why were they not on the note?

These are Razor thin distinctions that must be carefully argued or presented by an expert. The goal would be to discredit the initial loan transaction such that the loan was not secured because the real contract was an implied contract at law rather than the written one you signed. If the written one is void, then the debt exists, but it is not secured by a mortgage, hence there could be no foreclosure.

Collection could only be by the trust in a judicial case brought against you that could be discharged in bankruptcy. I don’t know how the homestead exemptions work in California bankruptcy court, so we would need to be careful about how this would be used. In any event, amounts received from insurance contracts and the like would be deducted along with offset for appraisal fraud — but realize that appraisal fraud can only go so far. You must prove what the real value of the home was (not presume or guess at it) at the time of the  loan transaction, which could be the modification or refi which would be when the real value had already plummeted while the loan amount was higher. The difference between the appraised value and the real value could be the an element of consequential damages, and if you can prove malevolent intent you could ask for punitive damages.

While I have been writing about these things for years it is only now that some judges are beginning to loosen up to listen to the realities of securitization — that it was a fraudulent scheme to deprive investors of their money and the promised secured enforceable loans. The investors all sued saying the loans were NOT enforceable even though they had supposedly been transferred into the trust. These are the lawsuits that the banks are settling every week or every other week for hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. The largest so far is Chase who just paid $13 Billion to settle claims of fraud, misrepresentation, and mismanagement of funds.

For more information about your loan, go to http://www.livingliesstore.com and get one of the COMBO’s.

46 Responses

  1. @iwantmynpv

    I have something important that i would like to discuss with you. Are you available for a phone call ?

    Contact me at GRG2615@Gmail.com and we can exchange phone numbers.


  2. 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


  3. Solly, you may have redeemed yourself.

    Todd, I’d like to speak with you as well. I will e=mail you.


  4. @Niedermeyer

    Your civil practice code should have a discovery section permitting you to strike the pleadings or compel or sanction for noncompliance with proper discovery demands. Check it out.


  5. masterservicer- interested in the advanced accounting, will comp for info. I’m a little thick, but have an MBA and been playing Monopoly since I was 5. tried to email to “registerclaims@live.com” but it bounced. email to todd@surefirehomeretention.com. I have detinue case for return of my personal property (note/DOT) that was “paid in full” on 22 Dec 2006, have one default judgment, waiting on 2nd, and other 4 defendants are squealing. Filed Req. for Order of Reference to Court Auditor to do the accounting on the value of that $483,000 note since the rules say I get my property back OR its value. I’m not a troll- in this game in many states- Case is Wetzelberger v. Friedman et al. No. 03-C-13-009963, Circuit Court For Baltimore County, Md. thx.


  6. @ Bob G.

    I am in Flori-DUH.


  7. Bob, the debt collection business is HUGE and multi billions are sucked out of consumers every year. They basically operate illegally most of the time. Somewhere on the Internet I saw that debt collection businesses go out of business if they operate within the law! Wonderful.


  8. Louise…there you have it. They must pay somebody to get them to sell them the note and then have the trustee agree to bring the note into the trust, so that as servicer, they can commence the foreclosure action. They didn’t pay anybody a dime and not get the original note or something close to it. By bringing it into the trust they get to say that the homeowner lacks standing to challenge or enforce the terms of the PSA. Something they couldn’t do if they just bought the note and foreclosed themselves.


  9. Bob G, I found some interesting stuff on Ocwen with regard to your pithy remarks about how they acquire these loans and what they do with them. Straight from Ocwen.com:

    “Residential Servicing – Services

    In 1988, Ocwen entered the business by purchasing non-performing/underperforming assets and improving the liquidation rate. Since then Ocwen has developed proprietary best-of-breed servicing and collection practices using scientific management, psychology and Six Sigma methodology. By being students of our business and investing heavily in technology, fifteen global operating centers and human resource development, we have become the industry leader in loss mitigation.

    Ocwen provides an array of services to mortgage asset owners and servicers:
    Purchase of servicing rights ;Subservicing
    Special servicing; Non-performing whole loan servicing
    Ocwen is capable of servicing virtually any loan type:
    All agency products – GNMA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae approved
    ARMs of all types, including Option ARMs
    Reverse mortgages
    Second liens, including HELOCs

    Which means they are the same ole bottom feeding debt collectors, except it isn’t credit card debt, it is “alleged” secured debt.


  10. Iwantmynpv….. Attorneys can add alright …. its the subtraction they have problems with …



  11. MS, LOL – Attorneys can’t add.


    I have been telling everyone for 3 years – don’t deny a transaction occurred. Your pleading starts with;

    The Defendant / Plaintiff (homeowner) intended to enter a contract for mortgage financing. Agrees that they are a party to a transaction, just not with the Plaintiff.

    Neil, you continue to confuse the crowd. The folks people sat with in most cases were correspondent lenders or mortgage brokers. Neither party Originated the loan. They were “fetch banks” with no money, and simply acted to close the transaction pursuant to the underwriting guidelines provided by the “aggregator” or in your terms Sponsor / Seller to the limited purpose entity.

    Not sure what MS does – but he / she certainly understands “selling forward” – that is the reason an interest swap exists / forward swaps exist, and why the NIM insurer has to approve the Master Servicer / Trustee liquidating the loans collateralizing the indenture..

    Finally, guess who owns all those senior tranches, and what really occurs through the residual tranches / collection tranche.


  12. @niedermeyer….what state are you in ?


  13. usedkarguy thank for the explanation and it make snese to me how this could be done, as we seen JPMorgan work with Madoff, London Whale and Greece, plus HSBC and others working with drug cartels.

    As I don’t pretend to know all the International side of this debacle as I see the Federal Reserve in this mess big time. But what I am counting on are the awakening of judges like Rakoff that put it out there why are not people being prosecuted for the crap of the involving these securities.

    The game to success in my opinion for what I want is set and that is that Ginnie Mae MBS which it clear that it was never set up on sound law. Until it changed since 1971, they never purchased a loan because by law they cannot, and what I believe was put in the Note’s wording were it says it can be transfer to lenders or assigned, but the law does not permit a non-lender that not regulated to lend get assigned the Note and is why Ginnie Mae is not on title anywhere.

    Once Ginnie Mae take physical possession of the Note it game over because that Note is no longer what it was intended to be because it has no debt attached to it, and in order for a Note to be a Note it must have a debt that the dictates agreement between the two parties!


  14. @ UKG ,

    Could you restate that differently please … I just want to make sure I’m getting the meaning right …

    foreign banks got paid off in new issue (or vault stock) held by our banksters (bac holding bac stock) as an asset in return for LOANING CREDIT?? or was the “credit” loaned (or sold?) actual cash from foreign investors (institutional clients of the foreign banks) who were looking to swap for ???

    I can’t see how this works unless it’s explained as a three or more way transaction..

    Help me see PLEASE.


  15. @ UKG ,

    What path would be best to make it impossible for a trial judge to NOT grant discovery with all the documented fraud… I quite literally got that snide answer “NO , and it wouldn’t help the defense anyway” , trial judge saw nothing wrong with that despite WF being hip deep in the doc fraud scandals ,, despite the fact that the plaintiff , although claiming to have the original note hasn’t produced it in 2 years (and they, WF, are the listed doc custodian) ,,, and the magic assignment just magically showed up in their imaging system (once again an image , not a real doc) with no explanation with no signatures , no dates , just a form with a “To: Wells Fargo” stamp…. their expert we deposed could give no explanation or additional info … I as a former datamanagement and datasecurity expert (and no doubt millions of others) could easily determine when it was created…with discovery or 5 minutes of time with a “special” userid..

    There has got to be a way to make the trial judge uncomfortable… this cries out for a due process or ethics complaint…


  16. Charles, I’ve been reading and talking Maher Soliman for five years. The only thing he’s absolutely correct about is that you do need a forensic accountant to explain the securities transaction we were a part of.
    The gist of it is that the foreign national banks supplied the line of CREDIT (not cash, not money, credit) for the funding of the stock swap that was funded with OUR NOTE being pledged as a CASH asset. The bank essentially borrowed the money on OUR SIGNATURE and paid back the foreign national banks with stock. Anybody remember when Wells Fargo was trading at $7? Anybody remember the Citigroup write off? That $7 stock Wells gave Deutsche amounted to a huge windfall.
    In the meantime, they are collecting the real estate with a phony mortgage in hand for a debt that was actually exchanged and derecognized (extinguished) with the stock swap.
    The investor money was mostly consumed as fees.
    What Maher describes is a PUT option executed by the foreign national banks. You have to understand that the banks are very interconnected. Deutsche is a big shareholder in Wells.
    Now that all sounds wonderfully conspiratorial. And it also makes sense. Remember, we had no idea what this alchemy involved. Maher obviously was on the inside. I have no doubt he knows the story. But will the story help you? I don’t think so.
    The unadulterated fraud being committed in the process of FORECLOSURE ITSELF, I believe, are your causes of action. The document fraud takes you to the courthouse. I think. We’ll find out in the 7th Circuit.


  17. MS I am trying to understand your math, as I know that Americans have $13 trillion in offshore accounts, and I have my belief where that money come from in the after effect of the originations.

    But if I am performing a refinance an its a cash out where I am paying off the mortgage at $70K and was paying out $20K in bills and another $10K to the borrower, which is $100K, where is the money you are saying that going to a offshore account? And the same for a purchase to the builder, where they are being paid $100K , and both situation we got a $100K loan.

    I am not saying it not happening because everything was going on, but I prepared and reviewed to many HUD Settlement Statement, which if they were not right it was coming out my paid. So what are you exactly saying? I not trying to be funny, as I am seriously trying to understand!



    Net Interest margin , excess spread, cost of financing, mezzanine financing , accrued value held in the senior tranche, margin account financing….not relevant to these argument at where these comments are going and given the fact attorneys cannot add ..

    Merry Christmas



  19. RIGHT ON Trespass Unwanted …

    I had “Wells Fargo” answer every stinking discovery question with the same answer “NO , And it wouldn’t help you anyway” .. I’m not making that up … they are that brash as to advertise that they own the judges… and they get MSJ’s with forged faked documents backed up by the silence of non-discovery … despite admissions and felony convictions of people like that LPS woman casting doubt on every document they submit.

    Before this is over we’re going to run into a shortage of rope.


  20. In thinking about how to present the issues in cases where the loans are part of a securitization process, whether successful or unsuccessful, I realized that one of the things that I failed to do was bring the attention of the court to the the cornerstone of the transaction — the loan closing,

    The closing takes place at sale – foreclosure sale for your failure to repurchase back title . Your being held to a back dating scheme …made legal under the older accounting rules held by the dying and dead FASB for FASB 140

    The recognition of assets are backdated to the date of origination in a reverse purchase and sale that derecognized a mortgage in favor of a depositor’s pledge of the wire at $250.00 price per share

    I call it the wire but the court calls it the mortgage’s basis in assets


    You people need to call and accountant —or pay that 1099A the tax man will be collecting on for the gap financing covered in a short sale of the equities (futures with a strike date of the foreclosure sale) held in offshore deposits and pledged overseas for trading Libor back 3 mo instruments into 30 days commercial paper). .

    Start making good on the charges as of midnight Jan 1 2013 . Damn taxed on the amount the lender charged off yet is allowed to repossess.

    Damn ! (wake the Funk up Tax payers )


  21. @ Ian ,

    I know what “NIM” stands for , what I was wondering was if what MS was getting at is that we’re arguing in the wrong venue , like complaining to a stock boy at the supermarket about some rotten food we bought , just to make it clear we found something disgusting in a can of beans, sure we may get our money back but shouldn’t we be complaining to the manufacturer?

    Clearly the board that hears administrative complaints about the trusts can overrule the actions of the trustees/ms’s and such and if necessary quash legal actions brought by the trusts.. The way I see it (and it’s evolving) is that we are unwilling participants that (like a reverse mortgage) became the sellers that deposited our title to create shares/certificates FOREVER QUEERING our title , something clearly against our own interests… The trusts cannot exist without us… and we were never aware of the ramifications of what was marketed to us as a simple loan… we were never notified that the parties we thought we were making a deal with were not relevant, we were not told that nearly every clause in “our” mortgage was a lie and was overruled/subordinated to a trusts rules. We were certainly never aware of the irrevocability of the deposit we did not know we were making…

    My question now is what arguments are relevant … I want to be made whole and be spit out of the trust.

    This is how the .01%ers buy property http://www.kpi1031.com/

    ?? Is this where you complain?? Delaware .. “CHAPTER 77. VOLUNTARY ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION”


  22. Ridiculous Neil,
    The State Attorney General investigation revealed so much that should have been the end. The Cease and Desist was to halt to much that, that should have been the end.
    The mortgage settlement should have been full settlement for what was paid into the property plus interest and penalties and that should have been the end.

    Now all I see is modifications that fix some paper defects, attorneys purchasing the homes at the foreclosure sale, or law firms offering the modifications and purchasing the property, or cities and municipalities claiming imminent domain and razing the properties, or someone doing averse possession to have a place to live in properties that were stolen where the true owner would be arrested if they re-entered.

    It’s ridiculous that the solution is to still ‘argue points’, and ‘fight for discovery’, and ‘force the other side to reveal their fraud’, and all this other nonsense.

    Judges should not sit the bench and judge a foreclosure if they aren’t trained in all the idiosyncrasies of mortgage contracts, contracts in general, trust law, securitization, and PSA and TILA issues, etc.

    People cannot be expected to learn this stuff in 21 days in non-judicial states, and even if they have their home stolen, there is no way they can figure things out timely enough to issue a proper appeal.

    All these dotting i’s and crossing t’s.

    A contract should be simple.
    Consideration. AND
    a meeting of the minds.

    Missing any of that, it’s not valid, and hide it under a Trust, it’s void, and hide it under securitization it’s voidable, and hide it under nominees or assignments and it’s unenforceable.

    I may be mixing terms, but the jist is…no good, no good, no good.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, People, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino


  23. Bob,

    And why would half the people whose salary we pay even have to exist? SEC included…


  24. Bob,

    “the[y] key is figure out how much they pay for these notes” [I would add: and to whom.]

    Right. And you, I and many others go back to… JDB, profit-and-loss and… IRS as the original sin. Ron Paul is wrong on a few things but his take on IRS and the Feds from day one has been… Oh Damn! Dare I say it?

    Right on the money!

    The same money people dutifully send there to keep it alive.

    Here is the thing: if anyone holds any true authority, acknowledged and recognized as such (and people do want, like and admire authority in society… just to keep it civil), why do IRS agents have to have guns? Why would you need the ability to intimidate or scare me if your mandate was legitimate and approved off by the majority of people, including myself?


  25. Agreed.


  26. “…the key is figure out how much they pay for these notes.”

    Bob G., that’s something about this whole scam that really disturbs me, and it reminds me of the Carlin routine about how it’s a big country club, and we ain’t in it. Wouldn’t the entire country be better served if those in financial distress were able to buy their mortgage back at the same pennies for dollars that these country club folks get them at?

    The only thing served by the present system is the cartel firmly planted in DC and Wall and Broad. We serve at their pleasure. They’ve commoditized and securitized our lives. It’s time they were stopped.


  27. here’s the reason they bring in defaulted notes:
    per the irs regs, they can’t make money buying and selling notes. that’s not allowed. all they have is interest income which is tax exempt. so they acquire defaulted notes, because they know that that is where the low hanging fruit is. they know that they can scam the homeowner out of thousands of dollars, and then the homeowner will be drained and will not be able to afford counsel even if they did want to put up a fight. so they then move to foreclosure which they probably obtain a judgment in 99% of the cases.

    that’s how they make money…from REO profits. those are taxable, but they throw off a lot of cash and profit depending on how much they paid for the defaulted note. they key is figure out how much they pay for these notes.


  28. “Since then, MSM has been publishing one mega settlement after the other. No one knows where the money is going.”

    Amazing isn’t it? The FED buys this worthless MBS bullshit to the tune of over a trillion bucks a year, laundering title to millions of loans, destroying evidence. The banksters rake it in big time, then have to pay the other FED, the federal government, some of the ill-gotten gain. Loot. The only things being eased quantitatively is the fear that any C-suite criminals will go to jail, as well as the SOL running down. This whole deal is a tightly packaged laundering device that makes Bernie Madoff look like an amateur.

    Then the IRS decides to simply suspend all laws concerning REMICs, as Obama’s white house, run entirely by banksters, decides that “they don’t want to use tax as policy”, an excerpt here from Yves Smith:

    As far as we can tell, this issue was first raised with the IRS in the summer of 2010, with a senior individual in enforcement who was up on REMIC by virtue of having revised the rules to allow for HAMP mods. She was initially very excited about it. When the attorney who had contacted her had not heard back as promised, he called her and she took the call and said she had been told not to speak to him. She said the question had gone to senior levels in the Treasury and had been referred over to the White House, which said that it did not want to use tax as a tool of policy. Another attorney told me later of securing a meeting at the IRS on the same issue. The staffer (apparently not as senior as the one in the first story) said that the parties intended to do things correctly and that was good enough. The attorney asked if he could call the IRS staffer and have him tell the IRS examiner that intending to do things was good enough the next time the attorney was audited. I’ve since been told by other lawyers that they have also brought up the issue of REMIC violations with the IRS and have been told that the IRS has no intention of pursuing it.
    So the IRS refusal to touch this issue seems to be common knowledge in legal circles.

    We’re being governed by criminals for the service of criminals. It’s one big circle jerk, and we’re not the jerkees.


  29. Bob,

    “Also, acquiring such a note under these circumstances would violate the Prudent Investor Rule as it applies to fiduciaries.” I hate to say anything but… every rule has been violted so far. Why not that one too?


  30. Nusteem:

    You don’t.

    It’s all vouchers and coupons on fiat money. Not one cent so far appears to have been disbursed to anyone from the numerous settlements entered into. Somehow, states appropriated the money in the big, infamous settlement and yhe most homeoners saw was a whole lot of $29.97 to compensate them for an entire house with equity and a brand new kitchen. No one here has gotten the “average $1,800” which, in and of itself, was already an insult. Doesn’t appear that so much was disbursed to any one homeoner all at once.

    Since then, MSM has been publishing one mega settlement after the other. No one knows where the money is going. Some Lalaland where money goes to die… A big money farm in Connecticut. Or somewhere.


  31. Neidermeier- NIM is net interest margin.


  32. MS ,

    AIG is currently attempting a clawback against BAC for their part in the fraudulent underwriting in OOMLT 2007-FXD2 which cost them $40M , this would be an administrative claim? OOMLT 2007-FXD2 now seems to be rolled into a “NIM” wrapper.. WF is MS/Trustee/Records custodian and bottle washer.. Is the homeowner who took out a loan which is a part of this a seller/creditor to the investors that bought certs in the NIM … and what can that homeowner claim?


  33. Isn’t that what many have said for years? Trace back the origin of the money that was allegedly “lent” at closing and follow where ours went as we were making payments?

    The only problem is that both require litigation and cannot be achieved other than through discovery. Very few people have been fortunate enough to get that far.


  34. Quote: “The largest so far is Chase who just paid $13 Billion to settle claims of fraud, misrepresentation, and mismanagement of funds:”
    Where do I collect my funds?????


  35. MS, Nice touch, calling names because you disagree with my opinion. I take it my point went over your head. There is no point to your administrative claim, not in my opinion. When what I am doing is walking into the game like everyone else and arguing
    ‘This’ is against the law.
    ‘This’ is what happened,
    ‘This’ is my proof.
    If it so happens ‘it’ was against the law, ‘it’ was what happened, and ‘it’ was sufficient proof……That is that.
    Neil said it like it is. It is simple. And it is wrong. NO ONE should have to scout out an attorney (top notch or crumby) to present unlawful acts. Some people might not want to do it themselves, might have too much fear they will lose.Some people would just rather hire someone else and that is a-ok with me. I have no problem with (good) attorneys or the like. I have a problem with the thought an average joe is too incompetent to be heard when the US in built on the backs of those average joe’s.The US maybe faltering but make no mistake it is because of the folks who work their asses off to make a living and rely on what we call “government’ to do it’s job. I need not go and trump the ordinary way of saying “this is against the law” with some administrative claim. I will be average joe, win or loose.


  36. MS ,

    While you’re here , why would a trust be renamed as a “NIM” I know it’s somewhat similar to REMIC because it is a tax advantage ,, I was looking at trusts that a few years ago were registered as ABC 2006 Trust and now they’re ABC 2006 NIM Trust … this is Delaware..

    What are the implications regarding your “file an administrative claim” advice..


  37. MS ,

    Administrative claim… at which entity or court and what should be claimed?


  38. I think they put the notes into trusts, because they do not know who owns what. The trust makes it look legit when it is not. Remember, the IRS is in on the scam as well. Shining everybody on is really the only way they have of justifying this fraud. Just my opinion. It is just another version of the Madoff Ponzi scheme, and, so far, it is working.


  39. Void Non Recourse Non Negotiable

    20% plus taxes, Ins & fees.


  40. Moron Said – How dare anyone argue the simplicity of the fraud, the violations, the damages, the criminal acts and out right slander of the banks you just wrote and have the outlook these felonious acts can only be argued or presented by an expert?

    That’s your government at work. You vote e and your congress passed legislation allowing for a securities private placement to cross over into real property law under a single UCC filing

    But it nevertheless wont work without charging off the assets and sending to the borrower a 1099 which constitutes dual consideration

    Your claims are wasted brought into court , least without making a proper administrative and your entitle to make and administrative claim. The courts have shown no interest in this subject matter and witch hunt for banker fraud – at least what you see as banker fraud

    The account holding your equitable interest succeeded by (1) having siesed the estate of title, (2) irrevocably transferring it into trust to trustee (3) converting real property equity into common stock (4) rendering it free of all liens and encumbrances (4) causing your claim to be subject to all previously entered liens of record (5) and now subject to an offshore holding (6) pledged as bank notes to foreign bank interest who are international central banks (7) for obligations owed the member bank (8) who financed the off shore entity (9) as a defunct SPE/SPV entity (10) under a highly deceptive merger and acquisition’s scheme amongst member banks

    Goober , what are you crying about …file and administrative claim and watch !



  41. Z, Mine was CW, BAC, BOA … CW (who was not on the note/mortgage and was not the owner/holder/HDC/mortgagee filed LP and Judicial Notice claiming just that Nov 2008 without the endorsed note or assignment of mortgage.

    Yeah, they tried to fix it for themselves (not us) with a All in One assignment of the Note and Mortgage in 2011.

    Three slanders to title — uninsurable/unmarketable


  42. Neil makes a good point about these foreclosers never alleging to be “holder in due course.” In my own losing lawsuit against BoA, BAC, Fannie, and MERS, they said that Fannie was the following things: holder, owner, investor. NEVER said Fannie was holder in due course, even when asked directly. However, I think that in the typical courtroom, “holder” vs. “holder in due course” is perceived to be a distinction without a difference.


  43. For Neil or anyone else that can riddle me this:

    Why would a REMIC trust acquire a defaulted mortgage note? Clearly it violates the REMIC statutes and is not a paying asset. Also, acquiring such a note under these circumstances would violate the Prudent Investor Rule as it applies to fiduciaries.

    Secondly, if the original note was funded for $200K, what would be a fair market price to pay for the defaulted version of that note, and why ?

    And please, if you can’t intelligently or authoritatively answer the questions, please pass on by.



  44. I hear you justme and I agree.

    It seem to me that Neil is asking the court to guess with him as to where the funds are coming from, but the larges bank who done most of the lender are having fund wired in from them and not some ABC Group. How does it look that banks in Wells Fargo, JPMorgan, BOA or Citi are the 4 larges bank with a $1 trillion in assets, and are needing another financial institution to wire them funds? Would this not be an automatic piece of evidence just with an other source providing the funds.

    However I don’t think this is the case, and when broker are originating these loans they are acting as agent of the larger bank or some larger mortgage with a warehouse line. But I feel your going down a rabbit hole with this argument, instead of what winning these case and that simply is what wrong sitting in front of your face with a securitized loan and that is, these other parties are not lenders and cannot purchase home mortgage loans…..PERIOD!

    I don’t understand wanting to bring in some they did not fund the loans, when you not simply do what already won, but your not still understand and that is a debt may or may not be due, but its a fact it not due to the party that claiming it in court. We know for a fact because of the regulations and the blank endorsement on the Notes this action.

    Now yes you got a if the bank that originated the loan is also the one charging that you owe them, which is why I believe they are settling these cases with investors so that in a sense they are rescinding these securities!


  45. to ‘justme’ – I feel the same way – f**k ‘experts’ – ones have become so-called ‘experts’ off the diligence and work of people like us staying with these issues every single day for years now . . . we handed the fodder over to the ‘experts’ with our queries, comments, research, diligence, etc., WE are the experts – they all admit these issues never occurred in history before; no law school training; they are all learning at the same time – but it is those who are in the trenches fighting these issues that are invoking the sources for the so-called experts and attorneys to take the knowledge – demand big bucks for it when it was us who handed it to them on a platter with our vigilance and diligent fighting – I agree with justme – screw attorneys they are turning out to be worthless and can’t be trusted because they don’t know anymore than most of those fighting.


  46. RIGHT ON! This is a fantastic collection and well worded sum up of most of the people on LL have been saying. Beautimus.
    My only objection, Neil, is this which you said:

    … “These are Razor thin distinctions that must be carefully argued or presented by an expert.”….

    I call BULL SHIT!

    How dare anyone argue the simplicity of the fraud, the violations, the damages, the criminal acts and out right slander of the banks you just wrote ………..
    and have the outlook these felonious acts can only be argued or presented by an expert?
    Shame shame.
    If this IS so bad, which it is…….why should anyone feel they can limit the people who can or can’t argue this?! SURE, maybe a plain jane will not succeed, but if they can prove how simple this is there is no reason they should not be heard. That’s BULL. Wrong is wrong, I don’t care who you are and neither should the Judges.
    It is one thing to have no clue and walk in reading print outs of the like to your and similar articles with no case law, no supporting state statutes, etc.
    It’s another thing to be a plain jane, a normal tom, and be able to go to court, lay it out, support it, and argue it- perhaps correctly or mildly incorrectly.
    Rights are rights, wrongs are wrongs. You prove that clearly – any one proves that clearly – they are trying. That is me. I am trying. I can’t afford a lawyer but more importantly- I do not want one. If I fail because I was right but presented it wrong
    – I did not fail. Justice did.


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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: