About that Contract With the Investors (Trust Beneficiaries)

The deal offered to and accepted by the the real lenders (creditors/investors) who ended up being trust beneficiaries to an unfunded trust with no assets, was that there would be multiple co-obligors so there was practically no way on earth that the investor could lose money — except of course in the case of fraud.

AND fraud is what happened because the co-obligors were part of a vast system in which the loans were not securitized, not collateralized and not enforceable by any of the parties who seek enforcement.

They ARE enforceable by investors but only under implied contract theory; and because the title to the loan was stolen by intermediaries the mortgage encumbrance to secure the debt is simply not there. But it is being treated as though the mortgage encumbrance was valid. Eventually you will start seeing decisions that nullify the mortgage, nullify the note as to enforcement or but use the note as partial evidence of part of the deal.

The contract that the investor relied upon when he made the loan, includes multiple parties, none of which were disclosed to the borrower and most of which received very liberal compensation that was also not disclosed to the investor or the borrower. Whether disclosure was required to the investors is not my concern. But disclosure to the borrowers is obviously required but was routinely and universally ignored.

Dan Edstrom has provided his list of parties. As a senior securitization analyst, this is pretty complete. The point here is that the party borrowing the money agreed to a different deal than the the one offered by the lender. Neither the lender nor the borrower truly understood that they were both getting screwed in much the same way. And as most of you know, the Banks will do ANYTHING to stop borrowers from meeting up with lenders to compare notes. The conclusion of that meeting would most likely end in jail time for thousands of people. Here is a list of the co-obligors, conduits, transactions in which intermediaries claim (or have, with or without knowing it) some interest in the “securitized” transactions (i.e., the loans):

 

Codebtors
sub-servicer
master servicer
trustee
trust
swap provider
cap provider
FDIC Repurchase Agreements
PMI provider
pool insurance provider
certificate guaranty insurance policy
each investor (subordinate, mezzanine, non-offered, etc.)
fraud insurance policy
bankruptcy insurance policy
originator (buy back agreements)
sponsor (buy back agreements)
depositor (buy back agreements)
reserve funds
TARP funds
corporate guaranty
Surety Bonds
Letters of credit
Blanket Fidelity Bond
Mortgage errors and omissions and professional liability insurance policy
Excess proceeds
Excess recoveries
Foreclosure Profits
Investment earnings

 

44 Responses

  1. And just in case you were starting to feel sorry for bankers, brokers and all the money makers, fret no more. Funny how this made no headlines anywhere. It is still part of the Big Scheme of Things… And people still waste their time dissecting what happened, how, when, where and why. Guess what? The people below don’t seem to have the same urges to “understand”. They are doers. Of the worst kind but doers nevertheless. And they’re united. Should we learn something from uniting and doing to undo what they created?

    They’re still getting richer. Can you say the same thing?

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/wall-st-bonuses-over-all-are-predicted-to-rise-5-to-10-bond-traders-excluded/?_r=1

    Investment Banking November 6, 2013, 8:01 pm

    Wall St. Bonuses Over All Are Predicted to Rise 5 to 10% (Bond Traders Excluded)
    By RACHEL ABRAMS

    Lucas Jackson/Reuters

    Bonuses for top bankers are expected to be flat, according to one survey.When it comes to compensation, it looks as if 2013 is going to be remembered as a pretty good year to have worked on Wall Street, unless you are a fixed-income trader.

    Financial advisers, asset managers and underwriting investment bankers can expect their 2013 bonuses to rise as much as 15 percent, according to a closely watched compensation survey to be released on Thursday. Over all, Wall Street employees can expect year-end bonuses to grow 5 to 10 percent on average, the second consecutive year of increases, according to the survey, produced by Johnson Associates.

    Bonuses for bond traders, who had a terrible year because of interest rate instability, could drop by just as much or more.

  2. So thru the use of a discounter (? or not), discounted the notes and substituted the collateral (the property) for bonds and used something (20% of ?) to (pre)pay the loan or MBS certs (or if not prepay, then provide acct – funds – for payments) for five years, at which time something becomes due. Asked like I have a clue, which I don’t. But THIS causes me not to abandon this string:

    http://www.astdefeasance.com/2012/01/cmbs-refinancing-prospect-dims-as-2007-deals-mature-sp-says-bloomberg/

    Take a good hunt and peck around astdefeasance dot com and save what you can while you can. Just a thought. As thee ben, could MERS substitute collateral on mtg loans with the note holders? No, think not, but don’t know of course. On CDO’s? Maybe. But why? What does it mean that
    “Nearly every fixed-rate conduit/CMBS loan originated since 1998 requires the borrower to defease a loan before selling or refinancing”

    Well, this ‘borrower’, in sentence above, can’t mean the mtg loan borrower, so imo, someone else is borrowing or this sentence from wikirealestate on defeasance is just bunk or poorly stated or got me.
    I don’t know what to think about this, honestly, fwiw, but it IS troubling, as in is there something absolutely elementary none of us knows about and if so, why don’t we?

    Taking a page from Bob’s book, I’ll say please don’t respond if you can’t make sense or don’t know (although discernable speculation ain’t all bad)

  3. And sorry buddy but an expert who writes “prima fascia’ is highly suspect in anyone’s book.

  4. MS,

    Asking for complete case caption isn’t libel, slander or anything else. it’s due diligence and until you provide some proof that you do, indeed, impact positively on the landscape, I have absolutely every right in the world to doubt your word

    Insulting people for being prudent doesn’t speak well of your character and many people win… without your input anyway. I would be one by the way… Your way or the highway is the most childish attitude any self-proclaimed expert can demonstrate.

    The fact of the matter is that you can’t articulate properly what you write for anyone to be able to use it and you come across as a peddler. Give full case captions and how homeowners cases were positively impacted by your intervention. Until then…

  5. CA Court of Appeals 2010
    Graupner v Wells Fargo , SPS Fairbanks
    Court of Appeals remands back to the trial court on expert testimony

    (2 day depo. after having to survive difficult motion in limine (limb-in-nay) n. from Latin for “threshold,” a motion made at the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may not be introduced in trial. This is most common in criminal trials where evidence is subject to constitutional limitations, such as statements made without the Miranda warnings (reading their rights).

    Christine – grow up – 27 wins to date . Three US Trustees sought counsel to defend themselves using a two year statue of limitations for fraud (after I testified) .

    – Note I was held to an inquiry by prosecutor for the US Trustees office and they could not verify ANY one allegation made by morons like Chirsitine

    But they do monitor these ongoing libelous statements . Write back Christine , …..Bait !

    Now as for NG – seems like your going a different route as of late maybe – yeah ? Been reading what I published have you . ?

    How you make an about face this late in the game is beyond me ol chap. Really .

    Keep up the Bull Chisel bottom feeders ….A loser is a loser and “C” you and “T” have to go …

    careful ….

  6. Ian – I don’t know without looking. Maybe one’s signature is on the debt instrument itself (co-debtor) and one becomes a co-obligor by way of a separate agreement. Don’t know. If you get a finite answer, please tell us.

  7. BIG DECEMBER 2013 OCWEN SETTLEMENT FOR 2.1 BILLION

  8. The Blank Allonge in the closing file we were provided “says” …

    “No Recourse”

  9. They sued my Husband, Me and our Heirs. (Household Estate)
    Why Me?
    Why our Heirs?

  10. 2008.. One Act .. CWHL LP filed Judicial Notice for FC and Deficiency against the “HOUSEHOULD ESTATE”.

    C is Cookie ..

  11. RE: ” substitute collateral ”

    “The Value of the Household Estate” based Present/Futures.

    Now the problem I have is this … the application includes All Household Assets at the time (not just the borrowers)….. My properties, Assets I was heir to, not just my husbands assets and properties he was heir to. By the way …. he passed up his. Yep! And I have been fighting Like Hell to Protect Mine!

    No Mod! No BK! No Hardship! Just Buttwipes!

  12. justme,
    Thanks for the audit info

    http://ffrf.org/images/FFRF%20v%20Geithner%20-%20Parsonage%20Exemption.pdf

    A lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 702, contending that certain federal income tax exemptions received by ministers of the gospel under 26 U.S.C. 107 violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.
    107(2) violates the establishment clause in the Constitution under the holding in Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 US 1 (1989), because the exemption provides a benefit to religious persons and no one else, even though doing so is not necessary to alleviate a special burden on religious exercise.

    Court ruled it 107(2) unconstitutional.

    43 pages. Lots of legal terms. I like the use of construction in the legal document. They taught us Webster’s to keep us ignorant of their language, and then to see them use their terms in their rulings, it makes sense why no one could ever really “””understand”””” when they are alive in their courts; because we don’t talk like they do on a regular basis and they didn’t teach us to talk to them in their language.

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

  13. cross these t’s, dot these i’s, deobligate a few million here…..few million there…..ah heh!
    HUD audit. I like audits. You do not have to. I like the responses more.
    http://www.hudoig.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2014-FO-0002.pdf

  14. Would co debtor be the same as co-obliger?

  15. I applied for a loan in 2005 from Finance America LLC, Finance America LLC went out of business 6 months later. Three years later, a conveyance and full reconveyance were recorded in the county of records. IT is my understand that by recording a full reconveyance the note has been satisfied. Why would that happen? I do not mind if no longer have to pay my mortgage. In 2012, i requested a copy of my note with original signatures and endorsements from GMAC twice. The first time they sent a copy of the note. The second time again a copy of the note and an allonge endorse by Gina Gerwig from Finance America LLC to Residential Funding Corporation. In 2013, again I asked for the copy of the note, This time from Ocwen LS. They too provided a copy of the note an copy of the allonge. But this time, the allonge had an additional endorsement by Judy Faber from Residential Funding Corporation to JP Morgan. It gets more interesting. Both endorsements are RUBBER STAMPS. Let am add more… I asked GMAC in late 2012 when did Residential Funding Corporation acquired the note. They said in 2007 from Finance America LLC. How can this be if Finance America LLC went out of business in early 2006?

  16. “Nearly every fixed-rate conduit/CMBS loan originated since 1998 requires the borrower to defease a loan before selling or refinancing.”

    Wth? This might make some sense to me if it said the lender, not the borrower (taken as the note maker), had to substitute collateral before selling a loan (but why is that?). I would just think they meant the lender but for the word “refinancing”. Whaddup with “refinance”? It also mentions a fixed rate. What comes to mind about that is that fixed rate loans are less likely to be paid off (prepaid) by a refinance than arm’s. Think wikirealestate just has a nutsoid definition? Anyone have any idea what this might mean? Nothing, it’s garbage?

  17. If that stuff applies to our loans, what does it mean if there’s been a substitution of collateral within two years, which MS appears to believe happened by way of “MERS”? Just more illegality? What does it mean if our notes or payment streams or wth are collateralized by something other than our homes? This isn’t to say I believe it (how would I or any of us know?); I just started off to define what i think is traditional defeasance and our loans: collateral agreement is toast when note is paid (okay and to clarify it’s not a defeasance ’cause’ – it’s a ‘clause’). Cripes. I sure hope we really don’t have to learn of this bs because still when a bankster shows up with an alleged original note, who’s going to give any more of a rusty than has been given to anything else to date (which is why I favor holder v hidc arguments)?

  18. dammit, ms. Must you make an adversary of everyone who doesn’t agree with you or even those who think you’re full of it? How bout you don’t? And you’re damn right we don’t want to learn what you think you’ve got even if you’ve got it BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT CONVEY IT, for the 10th time. Find someone who can express a thing for you, will you? As for your demeanor, there are days when, and I’d bet a lot I’m not alone, I’d rather chew off the other arm than ‘win’ anything if doing so is on stuff coming from YOU. You’z a nasty old coot and you are not a teacher. Knock it off already, will ya? I’m only addressing you at all because of that defeasance stuff at 8:20 which you can’t explain or even copy correctly, as usual. It’s a defeasance “clause”, not a defeasance “cause”. Collateral instruments are released when the debt they secure is paid as a matter of law, even if not so stated in the loan governing documents to the best of my knowledge and it’s been two years or so now since I looked at that part of this (see defeasance clause generally). But according to realestatewiki, there’s a another definition which I think is the one you struggle to explain:

    ” Defeasance is a substitution of collateral (news to me – sic). It is not a simple prepayment but a 30-45 day process that usually is coordinated with a sale or refinance (jg: must mean sale by lender?). Typically, the borrower (here the lender?) uses proceeds from the SALE or refinance (of the loan?) to purchase a portfolio of U.S. government securities (why U.S. govt securities? huh?) that is sufficient to make all of the remaining debt service payments. The securities are pledged to the (new lender on a CDO?) lender, and the (new) lender (to whom the old lender is indebted?) releases the real estate from the lien of the mortgage (Is this your infamous exchange, MS? Don’t even think about going off on me). The note, which remains outstanding, and the portfolio of securities are assigned by the borrower (read bankster?) to a successor borrower who makes the ongoing debt service payments. Nearly every fixed-rate conduit/CMBS loan originated since 1998 requires the borrower to defease a loan before selling or refinancing.
    (HUH?) Note that REMIC regulations prohibit defeasance during the first two years from the date the loan is securitized (not the date the loan was closed).”

    Now, I don’t get and not sure I believe what I can get, at least some of it. This may just be a really rotten definition of this deal. All parens are my notes / questions. Best I can make of it is that somehow the collateral, real estate, for these loans has become something ELSE when the notes are sold. But I have no way right now to know if any of this applies to our loans on residential, owner-occupied properties, nor if it does, what all it means. I’ve said before that I’ve heard that loans can’t be securitized til they’re seasoned (borrower and no one else made so many payments) for a specific time. The last sentence above makes me think there might be a relationship between that scenario and our loans: there is no substitution (exchange) of collateral allowed for two years with REMIC’s. Why that is, I can’t even speculate unless it’s tied to the seasoning requirement.

  19. christine I did not know that masterservicer was this Maher Soliman, and if so that would have to factor into his claim and what Neil been talking about as far as the funding of the loan theory.

  20. CR,

    Makes no difference where it originated from. It is a general audit. How does that apply to your specific case? Judges want specifics. Otherwise, their hands are tied.

    If you want to use generalities, file a class action. If you want to win your specific case, use specifics.

    MS is all fluffy and empty generalities and insults for those of us who call him on them. Nothing there to waste any time on.

  21. christine the audit is form the Office of Audit Financial Audit Division and is suppose to be an independent audit of Ginnie Mae.

    The Audit does not say that there is an international bank ring, but when you read the BS that Ginnie Mae has given this auditor as how it get authorization of these loan properties, who know Ginnie Mae is smoking crack and is going down because it makes no legal sense at all!

  22. “…but that changed with the audit and opening my mind…”

    Did you pay MS for some audit? Try to get that admitted in court. How much did you pay? Unless MS comes to testify for you (and provided that you know how to get him in to your court), anything he writes is in-ad-miss-i-ble.

    Hearsay.

  23. KC,

    It makes no difference if “he is right”. Where is the proof that he can articulate it in a court of law and where is the proof that ONE document he has generated was:

    1) Introduced in any case
    2) Considered in the ultimate decision
    3) Beneficial to the homeowner.

    Don’t start me on his having testified in court to anything he is “right” about. Never happened. MS is strictly, inadmissible hearsay. He will cost you $2,500 and upwards for… nothing! Use it at your own peril.

  24. christine I am not saying I am stopping the way I a pursuing this case as yesterday with Neil posting to me they finally get what I was talking about with WaMu.

    I am not pursuing MS way at this in my battle because I think it does muddy the water for just going after who on the Notes and title, on WaMu because that clear. But I do see after reading how Ginnie Mae turned this auditor around that MS thought are maybe valid! But if it involves getting foreign bank records as to them doing business, when we cannot do it here seem to be a major roadblock.

    I just at this point not knocking another valid road, is what I am saying. I did at first think MS was sending us on this wild-goose but that changed with the audit and opening my mind that I was the only one right in the path I was taking.

  25. Pssst …. You and I both know he is right

    We are still working on his behavior modifications, you don’t just change overnight after 25yrs of being an arrogant jerk.

  26. Charles Reed,

    Just for the hell of it… Many testimonies have been posted here. From Robo-signors to bank managers. Public record.

    Maher Soliman? None. Nada. Zippo. Got more of your life to waste on him? Remember, every second you give him is one second you will no longer get back. Life is passing you by and…

  27. … wild goose chase…”

  28. Charles Reed,

    “If MS has been this witness in cases about what he is saying…”

    IF.

    No evidence so far. And you’re not anywhere closer to winning as you were before you first addressed him. The only thing you have accomplished is waste hours and hours on the wold goose chase he sent you.

    No evidence, no credibility.

  29. christine after reading the Ginnie Mae audit that justme gave me a link too, it made the picture clear what MS had been talking about, and let look at why it took Szymoniak v. Ace 1 1/2yr to become unsealed.

    I know see clearly what the MS is talking about but it not saying what we are saying is wrong. I say it all wrong and we all come to a conclusions isolated because there are a handful of us on earth, who have been able to unravel part of this caper, but in our experiences.

    If MS has been this witness in cases about what he is saying I see the federal gov sealing any and all those cases because its foreign banks, our bank and the Federal Reserve Bank. I believe there are more than one way to skin a cat!

  30. Mortgage payments are prepaid the first five years
    Borrower payments are credited towards the next five years

    Lenders haircut actually covers the 1031 tax deferred exchange and conversion required in years six . (Five percent note) The loss otherwise suffered upon bifurcating present and future by way of an 80 – 20 senior sub arrangement is reimbursed by offering borrowers a HELOC – the vehicle used to draw the borrower back into the guarantees

    Mortgage $100,000 discounted to $80,000 is sold to a counter party under the stipulation the Lender – not the borrower – will pay the amount due a bond holder on demand

    Where the Senior piece is charged off under TARP and the junior piece is owed the bond holder the short tile scheme allows for options traders to write down the mortgage value and sell it back at a strike price allowing the seller and issuers to be made whole – while the domestic counter party is put out of business under a M&A consolidations scheme

    Your ….this is so tough to understand and I can see why so many want no part of the argument attacking the transacting by parties behind the scene’s.

    But we are going into court none the less and are optimistic the court , upon requesting the court take judicial notice for complex and convoluted subject matter, will see the need to adjudge the purported lenders servicing agents claims as an unsecured creditors judgment and clerks order for entry for abandonment of title – not the enforcement of a secured lien with a conventional foreclosure.

    everyone’s an expert —-\

    registerclaims@live.com

  31. 7 years of Why? How? Who? When? Where?

    Nothing about STOP IT AND STOP IT RIGHT NOW!!! People still think that:

    1) they have a lot more to lose by acting today instead of posting ad nauseam the same questions;
    2) asking endless questions will make… someone, somewhere, somehow, someday take notice and act upon it for them;
    3) some kind of non existent status quo can be preserved for a little while longer, just by asking, until…
    4) someone, somewhere, somehow, someday does take action.

    Doesn’t work that way. There is no status quo. No stagnation without death. What doesn’t move forward moves backward. Water knows it. Air knows it. Iceland knows it. China sure as hell knows it and is moving forward worldwide. There is no such thing as standing still and progressing. And there’s no “someone else” to rely on.

    Except in people’s mind. Those people who get up in the morning
    fearful, live their lives fearful and die… fearful. In the end, everybody dies. Did asking the same questions over and over and over help them improve their lives? Did it make one iota of difference in the big scheme of things? Did it change anything, anywhere? Did they get the house, the return of their pension fund or a semblance of mental and emotional peace?

    Unreal.

    MS,

    I saw some progress. You came up with names of cases you allegedly shone as an expert in. We now have a whole lot of… 6! But would you believe it? No trace of you anywhere because… you conveniently fail to give the entire case caption, you omit the court and… well… con job all over again. Remember: if you testified, it is public record. And before you go there, don’t try to argue that any of those cases was gagged: it hardly ever happens and when it does, judges have good reasons. You really don’t strike me as one…

    Bring up the goods, buddy. Your credibility is still next to… zero!

  32. Mortgage Practice and Law Sec Edition Werner

  33. CA Sec.11.09 Conflict with defeasance clause (reinstated) Where the mortgage describes a promissory note and also states that it secures certain advances, but defeasance cause states that the mortgage will become void when the promissory note is paid. [making no reference to future advances , the future advances are not secured by the mortgage).Malkove v First Natl. Bank 326 So 2d 108 (Ala 1976).

    Hence the reason for the FDCPA 30 day letter and all affirmative defenses causal to the mortgage made void when the promissory note is paid.

    registerclaims@live.com

  34. MS I get what you saying and not thinking of it until you brought it to light, plus justme gave out a link to the recent audit done on Ginnie Mae and right there you could fit in what your talking about.

    I still think it easier to work with the “lien issue” because the judges are just now understanding after 5yrs that the parties claiming to be on actually don’t own the loan.

    So I do see your fight that these entity supplied the monies, but by proving that monies how were the borrowers harmed? But if you deal with the “lien issue” the harm is the property is the homeowner’s, and the best that these folks could hope for is a unsecured loan.

    If the loan was given, does it mean the loan did not need to be paid back? That the problem I have with the offshore bank extending the monies, and were the term agreeable at the time you borrowed it, and so what changed to make the rate & term not agreeable?

  35. Editor – The deal offered to and accepted by the the real lenders (creditors/investors) who ended up being trust beneficiaries to an unfunded trust with no assets,

    OMG no way – I cannot believe this is the information this site is using in a court of law

    The real lender is the beneficiary held to the payoff demand that was never paid off .

    *** The wire into settlement is credited into a depositors account used to fund a Special Purpose Entity.

    The mark to market value of the mortgage is converted into the SPE is financed by the member bank for the purchaser who is the lender

    The member bank takes the originator’s obligation or prepaid interest washing it into cash flow by way a friendly overseas counterparty Bank

    The 80 percent discounted mortgage yield’s a 20 percent prepaid interest for the bond holders (member bank formed the SPE as the “investors” term and therein and cash flow is sold (washes it) into revenue and net operating income coming back in a reverse transaction.

    Editor – was that there would be multiple co-obligors so there was practically no way on earth that the investor could lose money —
    **Prepaid interest is what guaranteed the return necessary for the rating agencies

    except of course in the case of fraud
    **Everything …I mean everything including the demise of the FASB for IASB was amended to avoid fraud claims

    registerclaims@live.com

  36. “The only way the banks were able to pull off this scam was for everyone in these transactions to act honestly, ethically, and in good faith.”

    How to bankrupt a casino? Simple: refuse to play its games. If the game was -and still is- rigged, how come people still flock to the banks in droves? 7 years into it, people still go play. Mind boggling…

    Then again, the puny 10% necessary to revolutionize everything peacefully was camping in front of Walmart on the day after Thanksgiving to get “the best bargain”. On credit. People need to get their priorities straight.

  37. Neil you have been saying all along that the trust were never funded and you are absolutely correct. The only way the banks were able to pull off this scam was for everyone in these transactions to act honestly, ethically, and in good faith. That is everyone but the banks. The banks relied on their perceived reputation to pull this off. But back to the trusts. The trust were not only not funded but most were never ever legally registered. If you check with the states of New York or Delaware depending on where the trust is allegedly formed you will find there is absolutely no records of these trusts. Also most trustees filed terminations papers on behalf of the trust with the SEC. This usually happens 90 days after the cutoff date. The trusts never were never created or at least were never legally recorded..

  38. One can see that Ginnie Mae had plan the Fraud that taken place as they had these loan conveyed to them, eliminating any chance at a modification because if there was a modification it messes with the book of “investors” who who have less income coming in per month and extend these loan out to another 30 or a added 40yr loan term!

    What Ginnie Mae did on Feb 2, 2010 one day after the effective date of the VA HAMP was to put out a undated FAQ which it said if your servicer is telling you that you “investor” is Ginnie Mae that they are wrong and that Ginnie Mae is not a lender and does not make home mortgage loans, and does not buy or sell home at all plus they don’t sell or buy securities.

    Ginnie Mae goes on to say that the reason MERS has them down as the “investor” in that system, so that Ginnie can contact the party of a MERS of defaults. Ginnie Mae is engaging in disinformation so as the average Joe throw their hand in the air and only listen to people were deadbeats because its easier to understand!

    Ginnie Mae does not own anything and is not entitled if they can not provide proof that paid one single red cent for anything!

  39. I noticed you labeled it Codebtors, and knowing a debtor is not a creditor, there is no reason for a debtor to have Foreclosure profits.

    How are they going to explain that? Only a Creditor can foreclose. Since when does a creditor take property and give profits to a debtor? Never. The debtor was before the judge claiming to be the creditor and claiming to have a loss of right or injury and “”” stole “”” the property of another with the help of the judicial system.

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

  40. That’s a lot of money disbursed to all those parties who had no right to be included in the transaction, they had no consideration to the borrower who is the key party to the creation of the transaction, nor the investor who put up the funds.

    In my world, investor is the US Treasury, and borrower is the living male or female who signed and created the contract that started the creation of the money.

    Considering of One knew who the Investor is, and how the borrower was initially approved for the funds, and how the banks monetize debt and bundle and sell it over and over and over.

    Wow.

    There is a saying, ‘One monkey don’t stop no show’.
    I’m beginning to believe a money wrench has been thrown into the mix and now all that was hidden is being seen and the fraud is deep.

    You can’t see fraud if you don’t know where to look, and these guys were really good at pointing everyone in the direction of ‘there’s nothing to see here’.

    Wow.

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

  41. “My act of conscience began with a statement: “I don’t want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship is recorded. That’s not something I’m willing to support, it’s not something I’m willing to build, and it’s not something I’m willing to live under.”

    Days later, I was told my government had made me stateless and wanted to imprison me. The price for my speech was my passport, but I would pay it again: I will not be the one to ignore criminality for the sake of political comfort. I would rather be without a state than without a voice.

    If Brazil hears only one thing from me, let it be this: when all of us band together against injustices and in defense of privacy and basic human rights, we can defend ourselves from even the most powerful systems.” Edward Snowden

  42. This too shall pass. Don’t know when. Have a pretty good idea how and people, more than ever, are holding on to their guns. There’s a reason for it…

    JFK: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

  43. And they should go to jail for their crimes. It is disgusting that banks inflict economical and psychological pain on every american home owner.

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: