Summary of LivingLies Findings Re Residential “Mortgage” Foreclosures

We are always evolving either in the way we look at or express the original ideas and strategies I proposed back in 2007. Here is a summary that litigators might find helpful in preparing their pleadings or motions to enforce discovery.

—————-

SUMMARY OF PRESUMPTIVE FACTS

The facts upon which this blog is based are summarized as follows:

Actions relating to misbehavior of the banks in connection with the securitization of debt — and more specifically collateralized debt — and with final specificity, the securitization of debt secured by residential property.

Based upon information, interviews and analysis, Neil F Garfield, has taken the position that the REMIC trusts were in most cases unfunded. Thus they could not possibly have entered into transactions in which they originated or acquired loans because they lacked the funds to pay for the origination or assignment — despite “documentation” to the contrary. With the REMIC Trusts inactive, no entity pretending to be authorized by the Prospectus or Pooling and Servicing Agreement has any actual authority to act for or on behalf of the Trust or Trustees without the action being void under New York laws governing common law trusts.
Specifically broker dealer firms took the money from investors, but never funded the REMIC Trust and instead held the money in their own account. This is partially based upon our information that no Trust account was ever established in the name of the Trustee named in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, that the Trustee did not administer any trust because of the absence of the res, and that the money was diverted from the Trusts for the nearly exclusive use and benefit of the broker dealer who accepted the payment of money by investors, who were “issued” uncertificated or certificated “mortgage bonds” issued by the trust whose value was derived from collateralized residential loans held or passed through the REMIC trust.

The “bonds” were issued in nominee street name, non-objecting, giving the broker dealer the opportunity to purchase insurance, guarantees, co-obligations from third parties, proceeds of credit default swaps all of which were made payable to the broker dealer who has neither reported the receipts nor paid or credited the investors with those proceeds. Large sums of money were skimmed off the top, making return of principal virtually impossible (tier 2 yield spread premium), and requiring the “presence” of loans bearing average interest rates much higher than those expected by the investors based upon much lower credit worthiness of the borrowers — a direct violation of the restrictions on stable managed funds, who constituted a majority of the investors.

Several “layers” (Goldman calls it “laddering”) of nominees were used at closings with the borrower such that there was no documentation protecting the investors as they had been promised in the trust document — the pooling and servicing agreement and the Prospectus distributed to prospective investors. Instead, like the “mismanagement” of the money, the documentation was also fraudulently diverted from the benefit of the investors and thus the promissory notes and mortgages (or deeds of trust in non-judicial states) were executed in favor of an entity controlled by the broker dealer — usually a new thinly capitalized entity (“originator”) that is currently no longer in business — that had did NOT make any loan to the borrower, nor did they cause any loan to be made to the borrower through any legal means. From the moment the borrower was tricked into signing documents at “closing” his title was clouded, there was no known party to whom payment could be sent to payoff the mortgage and receive a valid executed satisfaction or release of mortgage together with the return of the promissory note marked “canceled.”

This strawman at closing, called pretender lender, never receives delivery of the note, mortgage, closing documents or even wire transfer receipts from the closing with the borrower. The wire transfer is accompanied by wire transfer instructions that prohibit the escrow agent from delivering any overage to the stated (pretender) lender. The borrower is deceived, contrary to the requirements of Reg Z and TILA, into thinking that the lender is the payee on the note. In fact the lender is a group of investors. The broker dealer was acting, contrary to law, as a commercial bank (conduit) for the funding of the loan transaction.

Investors, insurers, guarantors and other third party co-obligors (unknown to the borrowers) have sued the broker dealers for committing fraud in two respects: (1) creating unenforceable loan documents and (2) mismanagement of money. Many other claims were made without suing. They have all been settled, some for large quantities of money that still represent a minute fraction of the money stolen from investors and compounded by wrongful foreclosure of property using unenforceable documentation corroborated by fabricated instruments and pursued at the behest of investment banks like Goldman Sachs when the borrowers could have entered into settlement, workouts, or modifications that would have protected the real parties interest (the investors and the borrowers).

Those investment banks have pretended to be the principals and have issued instructions to servicers to conclude as many of the loans as possible in foreclosure — an action that benefits the investment bank through closure, but harms the investor and the borrower.

 

75 Responses

  1. and what if you KNOW who the parties of interest or the claimed investors are? what do we do with this information. I have all of that and don’t know how to present it. Sometimes I wonder if someone in the Serivcer’s employ handed over all of these documents hoping that it would be revealed, the attorneys do not seem interested, and i have spent a fortune and lost more than $140,000 in equity.

  2. How does this affect or aid in a foreclosure defense in a state other than New York? Is there any case law, anywhere, that litigators can use in presenting their cases?

  3. 18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio, or television

  4. Needcaselaw- the whole GMAC/ RESCAP thing was a knee jerk reaction to the Jeffrey Stephan robosigning case w atty Tom Cox in Maine. There isn’t alot of news on it right now.

  5. Good thinkin’ Ian. The rip-off is done on every single angle, because they get away with it. When some of these banksta thieves go to jail, then the rip-off will start to go away. There is no punishment for the crimes they commit.

  6. I’m a little surprised – especially with the title of this piece, which echoes the “Residential” name of most of the GMAC entities – that Livinglies has not touched at all upon the story “exclusively” reported at

    http://www.marinkapeschmann.com/2014/04/24/exclusive-ny-judge-in-largest-bankruptcy-case-in-history-receives-irs-sec-whistleblower-filing/

    I have not yet followed it up – but hope that it is true and will not simply be swept out the door like most everything else in the In Re Rescap proceedings.

    Has anyone heard any more on this? Anyone “whistle blowing” on others?

  7. Tnharry- remember who we are dealing with here- perhaps a 1099c was SUPPOSED to be issued, and simply wasn’t. Wouldn’t surprise me. After all, that would put the borrower, the IRS and anyone else on notice that the debt has been extinguished and forgiven and the creditor has elected to take a 100 cents on the dollar hit to earnings to put it behind them. But here comes the “servicer”, offering 2 cents on the dollar for the “servicing rights” and the creditor/holder/mortgagee/bank/lender blah blah blah figures ” what the hell, we can dupe the auditors again” by not Declaring the assets as uncollectible and having to reinforce their tier I capital. After all, the IRS, FDIC, SEC,DOJ, don’t give a rats ass what these entities do. How’s that sound?
    As far as Neil’s post- how many people would have signed their docs if it was stated in bold print” when you are done paying for this house In 30-40 years, no one can give you clear legal title to you house. And in the meantime, your interest rate, tied to LIBOR, will go up but not necessarily down due to planned manipulation of the rate so that the manipulates can get awesome bonuses? And you, mr homeowner, will pay many tens of thousands of dollars extra due to said manipulation?

  8. 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

    Action arises out of Defendants’ loss of its investment by congressional enactment under the Troubled Assets Relief Program “TARP” for charging off and writing down the outstanding balance against purchaser and all other defendants and or indispensible parties to claims that include the purchasers and registrant against the titleholder and consumer household.

    I wish I could remember the Plaintiff in this case ….

  9. Deb, don’t forget FKA (formally known as) and successor (of liability).

  10. Heard of DBA. Failed bank resurrection of sorts.

  11. Go to your local land recording office and see how many properties have a title attached that have Ginnie Mae as the holder of the debt? Non have Ginnie Mae or some Trust for a Securities because these folks are not lenders of home mortgage loans.

    We are dealing with trillions of dollars in loan in securities and if these loan in the securities could be owned by the holder of the blank endorse Notes why are they simply not recorded in the records as the owner of the Notes?

    We are talking about a process if market are working correctly such be not a big deal where its reflected in the record that the owner is A, B or C and not simply reminding in the name of A who no longer exist because the federal government has shut the bank down and determine that they are a “failed bank”!

    What part of “failed bank” means that the failed bank can act as a non-failed bank? They been strip of their rights to to be a bank, so they cannot perform as a bank and a bank/lender is who the borrowers have entered into a contract with, and not a group that not registered or regulated cannot legally hold up to the contract.

    Ginnie Mae does not hold the debt period, so what is that they are claiming as they are only in an agreement with the investors as the insurer for the investors. The investor does not own the loans, they own securities which is the “egg” which is a byproduct of the “chicken” that the investor does enter into a deal to own, as there is no 100% guaranty as in the purchasing of home mortgage loans. In some states the property values were at 50% LTV and a portion of the losses are covered by the mortgage insurance!

  12. tnharry – that’s a proposition which may be factual for all I know without more research. But, the way I’ve gotten it is this: there’s a diff between a charged off* debt (think that’s the phrase I’m looking for –
    “charged off”) and a ‘written off’ debt (admittedly those scenarios are new to most of us non-accountants). I believe while in the former status, the debt may be collected, but in the latter may not because the latter is an election of remedies (a tax deduction basically), and it may be that a 1099 should have issued instead of an attempt by a debt collector to collect on a dead horse, even if these things are done as rote.
    *That’s the one I think may be a “book entry”. It’s done first, before the move to “written off”, way I’m now getting it as a non-accountant. I surely could be wrong, but I’ve gotten it that’s the trail, maybe even required. I still think what else I’ve said is true – that anyone who wants a write-off, including say cc debt holders and, must make an attempt to collect before being entitled to the write-off. I can’t just take a write-off for my brother in law’s 5k he owes me without first trying to collect. Those are IRS rules to preclude bogus write-offs, aren’t they? At any rate, I believe once a debt is in “write-off” status, it’s uncollectible.

  13. What gives the security instrument the ability to exist? Its the Note but if the Note does not exist as a Note because the debt is not transfer buy a sell the holder of the Note has not got anything.

    In the case of Ginnie Mae we know for a fact they don’t purchase the debt because it cannot place the taxpayer in debt, plus as Ginnie Mae says it does not originate home mortgage loans, buy or sell them or the same for securities.

    WaMu has a BK and did not have claimed these loans and the court did not address it because the Notes in a bankruptcy remote procedure the under UCC 9 if the holder of the blank endorse Note is not the originator that the holder simply has the burden of proof that they purchase the loan and an exchange of monies were made. Simply show the receipt!

    MERS only act because it works for the “holder in due course” only and not a trust or servicer who’s name is not recorded on the face of the Note. Now does a debt remain by the relinquishing party? No because they have no contract at the time of death with no way to regain possession of the Notes because it has no monies to payoff the post debt of the securities that cash draws were made by the “issuer” of the securities which is the lender.

    The debt no longer exist because the holder of the debt is not holding the Note and the title is not valid because both are not held by one but by two in Ginnie (Note) & WaMu (Debt) and now WaMu is dead and cannot bring an action to court for the debt. Plus WaMu is no longer an bank so it cannot act as a bank, and MERS cannot act for the non-bank.

    FDIC was to be involved in the sale of WaMu’s loan to JPMorgan on Sept 25, 2008 but we all know now that the sale did not include Fannie & Freddie owned loans and we know that the Ginnie Mae pooled loan are placed into the pools by relinquishing the blank endorse Note.

    So without a Note that has an endorsement to the party claiming it, we know for a fact that they are in title because they are not on the document that determines ownership!

    All that needs to be done is that Ginnie needs to show that they are a register “mortgage bank” and has a receipt for the purchase, and had an assignment dated the day of sale so that that instrument can be recorded so that the collateral can be liquidated, if not an assignment was granted by the endorser then what you have is a unsecured debt at best. But there is no way of WaMu endorsing the Notes in the name of Ginnie after Sept 25, 2008, because that the day the bank die!

  14. the hoa lien was wiped out but not the underlying debt. and the “write off” is just an accounting issue – it is not an automatic forgiveness of debt. was a 1099-c received or another such document that would evidence the forgiveness of debt? without those, the debt against the person survives even though the lien against the property was lost through the foreclosure. foreclosure isn’t a debt forgiveness plan like bankruptcy – it only removes the liens. the underlying debts remain owed by the original debtor.

  15. @ JohnGault ,

    *******************
    @neid @12:19 – then you’re basically saying it’s res judicata, right?
    *******************

    That’s my take on it … they danced around how the $1,700 came off the amount they claimed was owed (1% of mortgage amount) ,, they were careful to not mention the foreclosure at all so I would definately say that is going to be my (my b-i-l’s) argument in the next round.

    The real evidence in the case is in the lawyers own hand ,, his client notes in his time/money worksheet (yeah he’s padding the bill and adding it to “what’s owed”) … shows the $0 balance/write off, his note that the relief given my b-i-l in the FC was “unjust” (litigate it bitch! you can’t just proclaim the court was wrong!) as a reason to harass him and claim the debt existed , shows the ledger DOES exist because he billed to review it ,, he even notes the date of the write off in his notes (and it can therefore easily be produced).

    And I’m going to really stick it to the lawyer and his client , the interior decorator/saleswoman from the RE management company about their perjured testimony … he got very snotty in his reply when I objected to his “report” showing the money owed (which he called a ledger) which was self defeating and not allowable as a business record…

  16. I said:
    “….MERS has no authority to execute an assgt to C for B because it’s agency died with B. C would have to go to court to get its right to the dot because there is no one who may legally assign it.”

    That’s not exactly accurate. When a corporation becomes toast, its assets belong to its shareholders or like that. Of course I forget, even tho I knew last week! But at any rate, they belong to ‘someone’, not no one. Whomever that is would have the authority to transfer a note (probably takes an “in-house” agreement, a designation by whomever –
    individuals – comprising that “someones, say), or to execute an assgt of the dot. But it wouldn’t be a “corporate” transfer or assignment. And MERS, or anyone, could no longer act on behalf of the now former corporation, because as I said, any agency died with the corporation.
    The reason I say “bs say I” is because I still believe mers is the one and only beneficiary and assigns in its own right, not as an agent, and further, the language in both the dot and the assgt is nothing more than carefully crafted smoke screen and a red herring. As thee ben, l & s, MERS would still be the ben even if the Lender transfers the note and then that guy transfers, until MERS assigns the dot to the guy to whom the lender transferred the note and that guy reassigns the dot to the current note owner. But the carefully crafted language isn’t quite adequate or factual, because MERS isn’t the nominee of those other parties; it’s only the nominee of the original lender (but still thee ben) and then it’s just thee ben until it assigns.

    Let’s say YOU bought the note from the original lender. Is MERS your nominee? Heck no, but it is yet thee ben until it assigns to you. You are a “successor or assign” of the orig lender as to the note, but not the dot. And it’s starting to look to me like the guy who bought the note (legitimately) without getting an assgt of the collateral instrument has a security interest in the collateral instrument, which is a different dynamic than one paying for a note and not getting IT, where I have posited the note buyer has a security interest in the note and its collateral. I’m now opining that one who pays for a note and receives it – a true and valid sale – has a security interest in the collateral instrument it secures. So I’m saying, if I haven’t before, that if you paid the orig lender for a note and it was transferred to you, but you didn’t get the assgt of the dot, you have a security interest in the dot by way of Article 9 (doesn’t just apply to non-delivery of the note). So, while MERS’ remains thee ben, if MERS is an agent, as a matter of law, you have a sec interest in the dot. But if MERS is thee ben, you might be s’d, b’d, and tattooed, because if another party, not the note owner, is thee ben, no security interest would attach when there’s a failure to assign the dot. But they had no legit business naming a third party as the original ben for whatever the h true reason(s) they did so. An assignment from the orig lender to MERS would have 86’d the problem I see there – the original bifurcation – but it wouldn’t change the fact that with a third party ben, a collateral instrument under any argument wouldn’t follow a note or the fact that MERS is thee ben. IF that Restatement thing is good for reliance and it says a note and its coll instrument may be REunited, assigning to MERS wouldn’t pose the problem of orig bifurcation, but MERS would still be thee ben and remain so until it assigns in its OWN right (which is what they’re doing – look at the actual execution of a dot.)
    lay opinions

  17. @neid @12:19 – then you’re basically saying it’s res judicata, right?
    Rj applies to issues which COULD have been litigated in the first deal, I believe, and from what you’re saying, the HOA missed any opp to sqauwk about any money owed. Seems to me they’re actually lucky FL has a statute which provides the 1% to HOA’s which didn’t act.

  18. neidermeyer – I think that’s along the same lines as those for other junior lienholders. Some if not all states have a statutory time to cure a senior lien to protect the junior, or as you say, do SOMEthing.

  19. I wish I could help, I don’t know anything about HOA/Condo dues. We have a Neighborhood Association Fund we donate to.

    But it sounds to me like they lost their chance to title and recovery from sale………… , unless the dues are considered an unsecured debt.

  20. I don’t take pleasure in watching sinners suffer, I pray for them instead.

    But I have my moments Charles …… and this is one of them.

    But let me pull myself up off the floor first, I fell off my chair laughing!

  21. @ KC ,

    Condo Associations automatically get an unrecorded lien against all units here in FL, that lien amount was wiped out in the FC ,, Condo Assoc. got 1% (statuatory limit / max amount) from the bankster in the foreclosure. The condo association had the ability to get 100% by filing first or bidding on the unit or even protesting the fc judgement … they took no action…

  22. KC your crazy if you don’t realize that a party who got no claim to the property that a person owns is damage by the false claim of ownership because it not CW or WaMu claiming damage.

    But the damage to the federal government is that they been tricked into purchasing a property at a fraudulent foreclosure sale and the servicer has claimed a insurance amount that they are not owed and its what JPMorgan just did on $613 million to the FHA & VA.

    This is not about me personally but about the damage to the federal government. Nobody care what happen to you or I, but they do care about the government being ripped off. Where your head been all this time.

    I file a whistle-blower claim which means if to recover funds for the US Treasury!

  23. Oh, I know exactly what you are talking about !

    I ASK YOU AGAIN … WHAT HARM DID THAT CAUSE YOU?

    You are past the point of recovery,
    … so I don’t even know why I am having this conversation with you!

  24. Question? LOL

    Did the banksta list the Condo Assoc as a defendant in the fc suit or did they list the fees in the figures they were fcing on (as if they the banksta had already paid them)? Possibly listed as unrecorded lien in the fc complaint also?

    I assume that would make a difference.

  25. KC you show your lack of what we been talking about here in your questioning. now this is about Ginnie Mae securities.

    First the reason BOA is having a hell of a time is because they worked with brokers who worked as an agent of Countrywide and close the loan in the name of CW and CW had to first have the titled recorded before uploading this information into the MERS system.

    Also CW worked with correspondent banks who originated the loan in their name and the title was assigned in that name of that lender and when the loan is accepted and sold to CW there is also an assignment that is suppose to be recorded transferring title/lien.

    Now as the loan in both cases are in the possession of CW from broker who only an agent or by correspondent bank who has endorse the Note over to CW, the loan are then pooled and certified for the MBS and the Notes are signed endorsed in blank and relinquished to Ginnie Mae. Ginnie Mae does a batch message through GinnieNet to upload the information for Transfer Beneficial Rights-Option 1.

    The borrowers by law have a contract in the Note that between a lender and borrower as only a lender can act as a lender. The contract is a two way contract and not one sided and as long as the Note and Debt are together and held by a register home mortgage lender the borrower owe the debt, but if the party calling a loan due does not possess both Note and debt they cannot be placed in title/lien without both and cannot bring this action to court when not in title as the “holder in due course”.

    The loans are in the Ginnie Mae pools and when in 2008 BOA and CW arrange for BOA to take over its operation but that does not include the Ginnie Mae pooled loan because the Note is suppose to belong to Ginnie and the investors as they are the underlying collateral.

    What occurred is that the Notes, debts and titles/lien are forever separated and cannot be reunited because neither Ginnie or the investors are listed on the Notes as the owner of the debt, and they have no proof at all of proof of purchase of the loan because they are not purchasing loans, as you can lose money buying loan but also you must be a register home loan lender, because you must be able to act like a “mortgage bank”!

    Ginnie Mae does not originate, buy or sell a home mortgage loan or create or sell MBS. The investor who is purchasing a Ginnie MBS is insured up to 100% of their principal investment they are not signing up for the possibility of 50% loan losses.

    KC, after 2008 CW & Washington Mutual Bank don’t exist and they are the one that possess to debts of the Ginnie pooled loans but they did not possess the Notes as Ginnie possesses them without a legal way to transfer them back, and the bank no long exist and the debt been wipe clear because the companies don’t exist and cannot and are not calling this debt due.

    In the same manner that JPMorgan purchase $308 billion in WaMu assets for $1.9 billion, the government loans are a total loss because the OTS seized the bank and the FDIC declared them a “failed bank” and the bankruptcy remote procedure has backfired, because these loans all have lien that are in the name of WaMu with blank endorsed Note from WaMu, were is impossible to have the title/lien transfer to anyone else on the planet.

    Because you signed up with A does not mean your obligated to Z this the paperwork is not in order. This is business not some feel it right type bs. Either you possess a contract that you can enforce or you don’t but borrowers are not obligated to pay Ginnie Mae or the investors and that why MERS has created forgeries as the link been broken with MERS because WaMu no longer exist!

    Ginnie Mae has ask for the titles….they already now know the answer. These loan are not foreclosed so Ginnie Mae knows they were put in the pools with blank endorsement and all CW and WaMu loans are going to have endorsement that are blank and BOA and Wells don’t have assignment to them form the two now out of business banks!

  26. This Crap Needs to Stop!
    I Know how she Feels, a Big Butt Banksta accused me of felony forgery for sending them a copy of my checking account statements.

    I never … would never and didn’t!!! The payments were debited NOT NSF! GRRRRRRR! Still gets my britches in a knot~

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2014/04/28/free-mary-mcculley-more-details-emerge/

  27. @ KC ,

    The receiver is the receiver for the BK Condo Assoc. ,,, takes some real “brass” to simply decide the court was wrong and walk right back in 4+ years later to the same court and sue as if the debt wasn’t decided in a prior case (that the plaintiffs lawyer reviewed!) ,, they never mentioned the fc ,, just claimed money owed with no background info in their initial filing ,, they know they have to hide the fc ruling…

    I’m going to hit them real hard.. the lawyer himself screwed up and offered testimony in his writings and in an affidavit ,( didn’t stick to just the facts ).. notice of intent to rely , demand for production , my own MSJ with counterclaims and FDCPA damages (laid groundwork with our first filing)… we’ll also file a bar complaint but not mention it in these filings.

    facts WERE … 1.) condo assoc failed to fc on him ,, let debt build .. 2.) allowed bank to FC , condo assoc. debt wiped out in fc judgement 3.) Condo assoc acknowledged write off and according to plaintiff lawyer it’s in the general ledger … 4.) Condo assoc failed to contest or appeal allocation of funds from fc …

    NOW 1.) we have numerous dunning notices which always forget about the written off part , that sounds like extortion to me. 2.) acknowledgement by the lawyer the debt was written off 3.) affidavit of indebtedness that gives a story/recitation that ends just before the “written off” part .. HMMMMM.. They won’t give us a look at the ledger 4.) OH , this is a profit sharing deal .. a contingency … lawyer makes $0 if he does the right thing and says debt is $0

  28. If your friend already has a final fc judgment, filing a bk to protect himself from future claims over the estate may be a wise thing to do.
    Other wise …. Just like the Energizer Bunny … they will still keep coming as long as they think he still has juice left in him they can squeeze.

  29. I believe they are Neidermeyer, but would need to ask an attorney to confirm. Possible the HOA went into receivership?

    What I had seen here is that the fc deeds were not filed for months and in some cases years or not at all after the fc sale.
    According to public records… ‘THE OWNER of Record is still responsible for tax, ins, up keep & maintenance to code, HOA fees, sewer and all ….. these fees were not included in fc judgment and incur after the fact as they (the owner of record) are sued on them.

  30. @ KC ,

    Question for you …. kinda unrelated .. but maybe not …

    Is a “Court Appointed Receiver” an officer of the court ? ,, still working on my b-i-l’s debt case … the plaintiff (receiver) stepped in it when they let slip in a doc that the debt was “WOBD” (written off bad debt) , to me anything written off is at $0.00 and stays there … and the lawyer for the receiver had in his contemporaneous notes that he reviewed the docs that he now refuses to cough up…

    My b-i-l’s debt to the condo assoc. was wiped out in the foreclosure per the final judgement … but this biatch decided on her own that it was in error and sued … Who can just decide a decision was wrong and act on it as if it never happened? IN THE SAME COURT!!! Isn’t that REALLY a great way to P.O. the judge?

  31. The Note and Instrument together with the Note?

  32. Ok, no one want to play the Question Game with me,
    I believe I will go hunt worms.

    Many Blessings to All

  33. The defendants allege the plaintiffs note …….

    The plaintiff creditor didn’t make the claim and now sold as free and clear of claims to another … I’m to Rich for My Britches Like Kind?

  34. JG, chew on this awhile,

    1. How do you convey or grant something you didn’t get?

    2. How can Legal Title be Granted to MERS in the Security Instrument and on the unrecorded Warranty Deed granted to another party by you … all at the same closing?

  35. Charles,
    A. Specify the lien are you talking about?
    B Who is recording the liens and for what?
    C. You admit you borrowed the money, so you owe it right?
    D. What difference does it make to you who you owe now?
    E.Did it cause you harm?

    F. ail Why is the Estate a Creditor and a Debtor?

    “The Question Game”

    If you don’t answer the questions, I will assume you don’t know the answers.

    Buzzzzzzz

  36. Problem as the State of PA is suing MERS is because they did not record assignment. MERS does not get to walk in and tell a State what should be and what should not be recorded. Once this only common sense solution is won all other states will follow.

    If your an actual owner of the debt then there is no reason that the entity should not be in title. However in order to lend monies for a home mortgage loan one must be a register home mortgage lender.

    Loan Sharks are not down at the court recording a lien!

  37. Moron!! How did the Estate become a Creditor?

  38. (and MERS says they only hold legal title to the interest of the true ben – bs, say I

    Well .. who granted title free and clear of all lien and encumbrances to MERS?

    If the Trust was created in the Instrument that created the Estate….?

  39. johngault one thing, just because you operate on someone does not make you a doctor, and just because you may have provided funds for a home mortgage loan does not make you a lender because like a unlicensed person doing any thing you cannot come to court claiming a debt owed.

    If the trust, servicer or whomever could they would be on title but they are not even registered in MERS as members, because by law they cannot lend is why these banks are settling.

  40. Try to get title ins for that sale JG…..

    CTT says must have proof MERS was paid off.

    Has anyone been able to get that proof?

    *Tickles*

  41. as Trustee of XXXXX estate(/beneficiary)
    Buttwipe as Sub Trustee (for who) (and what trust)?

  42. Example

    Buttwipe as POA for XXXXX as Trustee of the XXXXX Family Trust.

  43. PS – an agent may not do an act, like execute an assgt, as if in its own right. It must identify with specificity its principal and sign accordingly – “as agent for”.
    more lay opinions no one believes!

    NICE!

  44. NICE!!!

    a BK trustee may avoid unnoticed interests even if he has actual knowledge of those interests! That’s the power of notice or lack thereof

  45. PS – an agent may not do an act, like execute an assgt, as if in its own right. It must identify with specificity its principal and sign accordingly – “as agent for”.
    more lay opinions no one believes!

  46. Error .. I said … sale contract for deed

    I meant purchase and sale contract for title.

  47. OMG – Know how I said Buffet got those gazillion loans out of a bk
    “free and clear” of other claims? (He’s at it again in another bk – the one or ones of the 51 companies) A bk trustee takes free of unnoticed interests*, so he may avoid those interests and sell the assets free of them. What interests would be unnoticed? Everyone’s! Only MERS is of record at recorders’ offices (and MERS says they only hold legal title to the interest of the true ben – bs, say I), i.e., any alleged interests of trusts are UNnoticed – unless by way of a UCC or sec’n type notice (somewhere other than the land records which legally provides constructive notice). If Neil is right and no trusts were ever actually created with the funds of the investors, there was nothing to register / notice anywhere since the trust acquired neither the loans nor security interests in them. If the investors’ funds were used to buy loans but not thru a trust, the investors by operation of law may have security interests in the loans, but don’t they remain UNnoticed and thus avoidable in someone’s bk?! (But imo this doesn’t change the fact that the investors, if they acquired security interests by law, should have benefitted from any third party payments, so they may well be owed those funds, if any. But, damm, the banksters will just bk those claims IF the law doesn’t afford the investors add’l security interests in any third party payments — so need as a matter of law 1) security interests in loans paid for but not received and 2) security interests in third party payments made to non-delivering seller on those loans or no claim against BK estate of those 51’s.
    Someone called these BK’s an “exit strategy”, appropriately so imo.

    *a BK trustee may avoid unnoticed interests even if he has actual knowledge of those interests! That’s the power of notice or lack thereof, which is why i believe one may sell his home subject ONLY to the interests of record – MERS**. Mers isn’t an agent, but if it were, it lost its agency status when the party for whom it claimed agency became toast (but beware the two year litigation potential for outofbusiness entities, tho even so, the ‘agency’ is still toast). The language in the dot doesn’t establish MERS’ agency, certainly not for “successors and assigns” as “MERS” purports. And there’s never any evidence that the current claimant is a successor or assign of the original lender. etc. etc. just because it’s the current claimant, though it’s assumed anyone is.

    ** MERS would have to demonstrate its agency status for anyone in the chain of the dot and if anyone of them became toast during MERS’ alleged agency with them, that’d be the end of that: MERS was “agent” for A and then the note went to B, for whom MERS was also an “agent”. B became toast before the dot was transferred to C. MERS has no authority to execute an assgt to C for B because it’s agency died with B. C would have to go to court to get its right to the dot because there is no one who may legally assign it.
    strictly lay opinions

  48. Stealing? roflmbo

    Excuse Me Charlie, but they (the trustee/beneficiaries of the deceased family estate) agree we had a sale contract for deed. They agree that we PAID THEM IN FULL! They admit their patents trust was left open by their parents attorney for years after sale.
    And they are not contesting the QT as they had to obtain their own attorney is this matter. And I am perfectly willing to work with the real party whose money was used to fund fraud without their knowledge or consent.
    OH BOY!

    Have at him AGAIN Christine.

  49. KC the next think you have a comment from me is when victory is at hand and your misery will be so deep at the point, you will not be able to control yourself! I see your still living in the dead people house, but I am surprise the the ghost are not screwing with you at night, for stealing!

  50. Oh Charles, now that’s not fair, I’m not either, you don’t like me because I tell you the Truth, the Truth hurts you, your in denial.

    Denial seems to be a lengthy stage with you … and I for one am annoyed with it. So I am going to Keep slamming you with Reality so that when it slaps you in the face … you will be better prepared for your family.

    You just keep coming back for more …
    The Make-Up Sex must be Great! (especially if you copy write)

  51. KC your this negative old chick who is as crazy as they come. You never have positive stuff to talk about and you will be the one that posting the crazy stuff until everybody else has stopped. You have not clue what I am talking about and I as to what your talking about, so why don’t we stay out of each others lane?

  52. Closing fees,
    down payment,
    mo payments,
    tax,
    ins,
    maintenance
    and legal fees ……

    $80,000 out so far on $149,000 loan

    How is that for a short term Squeeze?

  53. Neil … plezzzzzz, The Sh’t is getting Deep!

    RE: ” You have no stake in what we talk about here”

  54. Blahh Blahh Blahh Charles!

    Did you file a claim way back when with you know who? I did!
    Do you want to know why?
    Because I wasn’t going to let the taxpayers take a hit and pay something we were and are perfectly capable of ourselves.

    Especially when Sumbutty was committing fraud against them and us and the investors.

    Again Charles, tell us how you saved your house.
    Did you hire an attorney? An Expert witness? A Whino?

    I doont know … but your Whistling a song wrote by another.

    Why do you want paid again?

  55. KC in the next few days this is going down because it not going to drag int the Nov election. It does not matter what was going on 6yrs ago by the attorneys as they are like Neil and yourself and cannot see the if there are two party and one has no financial interest they don’t have the right to call a debt due!

    Last week you had Democrats say that the Democratic program was only the forming of the runway and that there was a recorded report that there was a systemic problem with the banks that caused homeowners financial harm.

    Understand if these banks owned these loans Ginnie Mae could not stop them from transferring their loan to another servicer, so as far as what Ginnie Mae is demanding of the serviciers they already know the answer too.

    You have no stake in what we talk about here, so it hard for you to understand, but I get it there are not other places for you to vent. Your very smart person but your out of your league here because it not about you, and we are out of your league with the estate deal because its not effecting us.

    Have you notice I not ask for help or received help from here as I came to the party with my own ideal and research!

  56. I’ve heard your over the time frame allowed to file a claim if you’ve been two years removed.

    But I’m not an Attorney and I don’t Give legal advice.

  57. Liabilities including but not limited to, credit issues on false defaults, damages to title, unjust enrichment….

    And if your really fast!

    Fraud on the Face of the Contract
    Fraud in the Inducement

  58. Nope! Wrong Again Charles! Its the issue with the previous fc actions by the wrong parties name and standing and title …. uh huh

    But then again … at the rate you are moving, you will be spinning your wheels for the next 10yrs.

    Its a Long Time Til Payday.

  59. Charles, your silly. Homeowners and Attorneys alike have been advising them for at least 6yrs ( to my knowledge).
    When they know … they act and prevent acts.

    Why? you ask? Well … its the Liability.

    Ding Dong Ding

  60. Javagold the cases already foreclosed the documentation is on recorded at the court houses, and this cannot be taken back. As what been happening in New York as the judges are now on point and kicking this crap back at the banks.

    What I see is there some large deal with at least the homeowners in Ginnie, Fannie & Freddie securities that have no receipt of purchase because it a done deal. Ginnie has already I believe laying the ground work when it stop BOA from transferring any more of the Ginnie Mae pooled loans and wants to see the all the servicers securities instruments.

    Ginnie Mae already knows the answer to this ordeal and that is that loans transferred after they been placed into a securities will not have the proper instrument because its legally impossible for the title to be transferred. Now I think they will stand of UCC 9 that as long as the originating lender still has possession of the Note then they don’t have to provide proof and these cases will need to go to court still, and a judge is going to have to make that decision.

    The trick was to make the originator the custodian of record and actually not physically transfer the blank endorsed Notes, that way the holder of the debt did not actual relinquish the physical possession! However why they killing BOA is because Countrywide did not transfer the Notes but also could not sell them, so BOA is caught holding the bag, as Wells Fargo is with the Washington Mutual Bank loans!

  61. JG, are you ok?

    I hope I didn’t scare you folks over there at “Title Source”
    into a frenzy.

  62. Java, I wished you would have at least gone to a bk attorney and see if you had any options. I consulted and paid bk attorney 2x to pull the plug… but my husband stubbornness and pride, income, in addition to the assets we had to protect prevented us.

    Guess What…BK wasn’t going to help us get .. ” IT”

    BK attorney now BK trustee. Good Man! Reminds me of Bill Black.

    OUR attorney.. also does bk’s, but we are not a bk client.

    He is an All Around Specialist!

  63. Charles, you state what it comes down to…..but what about the million of homes ALREADY fraudclosed !!! ???….how does anything coming down to, help them.

  64. Here is what the entire things is going to boil down to and that is dd you have the Standing in a State Court to bring a foreclosure claim, and if you got no receipt of purchase your done, because you cannot create this documentation and that the problem with the cases so far.

    I believe they were trying a there work around for file not foreclosed and all the other loans in securities with blank endorsements, to destroy this documentation and rework it with these borrowers some type of modified paperwork.

    One cannot claim a debt without possessing that debt and the Notes are not legally Notes if the holder of the Note is not the holder of the debt. This also separates the the title as the wrong party is recorded as the current “holder in due course”!

    Neil going to be to late for the party or on the cases he working on will probably not be able to find pockets that are still in business!

  65. Bill .. uh huh
    But Who bails ’em?
    Uggghhhh

  66. Tnharry, Of course your Right! The money is still owed! Period!

  67. Estate Attorney?

  68. Tnharry .. you lil’ stinker.
    Go Back to the Office and don’t collect your lunch money.

    Behave! If there is one thing you should know by now … Neil doesn’t talk about procedure. That’s stuffs you pay an Estate, Title and Mortgage Special Attorney to take the fuzzy stuff with the Accounting records up against each other.

    American Standoff
    No Standing, Quiet Please!

  69. KC, the foreclosure lawsuits try to foreclose stating the trust is the entity that is foreclosing. I know, because they tried it on me.

  70. RE: ” its not the trust that are calling the loans due as they are not in title ”

    Nuff said ….

  71. Hey, Charles, I looked up Lynn Szymoniak’s new case. It is another whistleblower suit in SC.

  72. Having no financial document to support this theory, Neil going to ride this dog into the ground. The proof that out there is that these clown don’t don’t actual own the loans once they are placed into these securities.

    So let think about it, its not the trust that are calling the loans due as they are not in title so it not them listed as a party to the cases and no way to proof there involvement of providing monies, yet the Judge is granting this discovery?

    Rep Cummings is requesting a hearing on the 4.2 million review process of the Independent (wink wink) Foreclosure Review Board, but attorney are not rushing to get these borrowers, but they trying to dream up some fraud of funding with not a bit of evidence to offer up other than some theory?

    However we should hire these guy to go down this rabbit hole? Did not the winner of the last Government vs. Bank in Lynn Szymoniak file her another case of Forgeries and bad government securities on Feb 5, 2014?

  73. And Countrywide to BOA to FHA to Recontrust, et.al. ? “Title” Companies ?

  74. so these are the presumptive facts upon which all NG’s theories are based. what happens if any or all of them are wrong? the whole thing crumbles down??

  75. If BOA was ORIGINATOR of lending at closing since day one and the servicer of mortgage since day one but Freddie Mac is investor also since day one …..BOA did change account number for no logical/reason , other than a week after asking about HAMP.
    Would this raise red flags for NG crew ?????

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: