Fannie and Freddie Slammed by Massachusetts AG

Martha Coakley gets it. Read her letter. Being a politician she does not say that the abstract fear of strategic defaults on all loans across the board is absurd. Well, actually she does say it. Principal reductions and ending patently illegal policies preventing homeowners from buying back their own property at auction are at the center of the solution to the foreclosure mess along with one more thing: things will change when we get the answer to the question IF THESE POLICIES HURT LENDERS, INVESTORS AND BORROWERS, WHY WOULD ANYONE LISTEN TO A THIRD PARTY WHO BENEFITS?

fhfa-letter-051414

As the new head of the Federal Agency administrating Fannie and Freddie, Watts, replacing DeMarco, signals a major change in policy and regulations. The question is whether he means it. There is no doubt at the White House that the economy will continue to be dragged down by foreclosures. Their answer to the problem lies in modifications with “principal reductions” and loosening some standards for lending and securitization.

While the modification policies should be changed, this isn’t enough. Modification has been used as a tool of Wall Street to lure unwary borrowers into the illusion of immediate relief only to be faced with terms that are worse than the borrowers had before when underwriting was virtually nonexistent — albeit with some fees and other “skin in the game” restrictions that could slow up some of the continuing securitization fraud.

The issue is still the same and the fear is still there — will the entire system collapse if we stop putting the full brunt of the foreclosure mess on the backs of unsophisticated homeowners who were induced to buy loan products that were filled with false pretenses, false assumptions and nonexistent review, verification and other underwriting procedures.

At this point, considering the rampant appraisal fraud, homeowners should be given an opportunity to regain equity and have some skin in the game — as opposed to the all or nothing proposition they are fighting in court with complete strangers to their transactions 000 alleged by parties relying on evidentiary presumptions rather than real facts of each transaction.

In 2007 I proposed amnesty for everyone and that everyone share in the the losses from civil and perhaps criminal fraud caused by the banks taking money from investors and applying it to loans that were guaranteed to fail and then scaring government into thinking that the world would end if they were called on this predatory and illegal practice on the basis of being too big too fail.

Too big to fail is a myth. First, the banks can’t collapse because they are cash rich off shore. Trillions were siphoned out of pension funds, taxpayers and insurers and guarantors taking so much money that the federal reserve had to engage in various schemes of direct and disguised quantitative easing (like buying mortgage bonds that were worthless at 100% of par value). The losses claimed by the banks were also fictional.

At this point everyone at the levers of power knows the truth. The trusts were never funded and the trusts never acquired the loans. This places the investors in the position of being undifferentiated and unattached creditors for loans they funded but were never  given proper documentation in the form of notes payable tot he investors and mortgages pledging collateral to the investors, leaving them as unsecured creditors.

But now the government is committed financially to a policy of continuing fraud started by the banks which is the same thing that is happening in court. The issue is not whether a deadbeat homeowner will get a free house (that is a choice presented by the banks in a false set of presumptions). despite the dire straits of investors in worthless and fraudulent mortgage bonds, homeowners are mostly willing to offer new notes and new mortgages that reflect economic reality. No, those deadbeats are nothing of the sort. They are hard working, play by the rules people who simply want a fair deal and they are willing to shoulder the loss forced on them by the banks.

Want to test it out? Call us about our AMGAR project — 7 years in the making — in which we call the bluff of the banks. It takes money, but the investors are starting to line up to help, and the homeowners with independent assets to offer the money rather than the foreclosure are racking up wins in case after case. Watch the banks back peddle as they reject the money in favor of their much needed foreclosure judgment and sale so they can report the loan was a bust — and therefore the money the banks received in servicer payments to the investors, insurance tot he banks, guarantees and other proceed from other obligors won’t need to be paid back.

And if played properly, the tax revenue due from the banks for violations of the REMIC provisions, part of which will fall on investors who fail to make their case against the broker dealers who sold them that mortgage crap, will more than offset the lack of revenue on Federal and State levels. All they need to do is give up on too big to fail and give up on thinking that killing the middle class is a good idea because the burden must fall somewhere. In fraud, the burden falls on the perpetrators not the victims although it is rare that restitution ever equals the loss. Virtually every foreclosure is merely the court’s complicity in the continuing fraud.

Remember the playbook of the bank attorneys into undermine your confidence until the very last second when they submit their voluntary dismissal in court. Call their bluff, offer the money based upon YOUR terms or the terms of an investor who is willing to make the commitment. Your terms require proof of ownership and proof of balance after credits for third party payments. you will find they don’t own the loan and the balance of the loan has already been paid down or paid off entirely.

Don’t just file motions to enforce discovery. File motions with affidavits from forensic analysts that explain why you need what you are asking for. You’ll get the order. And as soon as you get the order, the offers of settlement will start pouring in.

For information and further assistance please call 520-405-1688 or 954-495-9867. We provide help and guidance to professionals that know foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, modifications, short-sales, Hardest Hit Funds and other Federal, State and private programs. Remember to ask about AMGAR. It is time to strike back. Let the other side start feeling the pain.

see http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/business/Melvin-Watt-shifts-course-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.html?ref=business&_r=0

 

24 Responses

  1. Let me clarify;

    In the testimony I provide, I can show without any doubt the failed mortgage industry’s conversion from fee simple encumbrances to lenders been allowed to transfer and convey title to their funding source at settlement

    Borrowers most substantive and prevailing claim is NOT a wrongful foreclosure but having been denied their reversionary right to repurchase back title transferred away at the onset of the loans origination.

    A reversionary right is held by the transferring party under a repurchase agreement . Your deed of trust or mortgage is prima facie to claims for title transferred and conveyed into trust to trustee where it states “…subject to all existing liens of record.

    Your deed clearly allows for severalty for terms amongst the BORROWER and Borrowing entity as Trustee and transferee in advance of a default.

    Under GAAP and FAS 140 is cancellation of the debt. A foreclosure is by novation subject to tax payer enforced Auditor Reasonable Assurances, Auditor Attestation Reporting, SAS No. 55 and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, The FASB defines the related party transaction cyclical in which related transactions are conveniently grouped and for which specific polities and procedures are established by the entities management

    lawyerssupport@outlook.com

  2. Back to the truth of the matter , I wAs triggered into sharing this. Like my case (s) you can take one fact and combine it with another and together it brings new clarity to the situation and thus demonstrates the nature of THE truth. This is my direction – towards the truth, single persistent unwavering pursuit, this desire never fails. It’s not about the house but more about my legal rights and equal treatment in court- despite being pro se. We can’t fix the global financial system or the lack of reform and oversight of compliance, it’s a case of giving the heroine addict the keys to the pharmacy the formulary and discounts for volume of your fav drug. Our courts and legal rights we must fight for because that is written and we must hold on tight to the belief that there are good judges who also pursue THE truth and be allowed the relief the law provides, as a pro se litigant or represented by council the same rules of law apply.

  3. Well JG. Let me say this – I raised the controversy in my appellate case 9th circuit 12-16192 ( and I’m waiting for what seems like forever to get my hearing – undecided ) that one entity is named on the 1099a as ” lender” and a ” trustee” for MBS investor ” trust” had actions in two courts at same time in opposite capacities and one court lacked jurisdiction ( small point tongue in cheek) but I can’t get a 1099c from the irs – I have not conceded to 2010 1099a because I do not believe that the entity named was the lender. IRS says – ummm hear crickets.

  4. DW – I’m looking forward to the day when someone files suit against a party who’s issued a 1099 when it wasn’t the party whose name was used to foreclose. I’ll do anything I can to support that hummer. (I really don’t know what we’re waiting for)

  5. Statute of frauds is bloody common sense if you are ” collecting a debt” you better know who for and be able to show how come
    And if you claim you are ” lender” to irs you better be able to issue a 1099c. As a release and it better be beyond a shadow of doubt. Thats why we have the darn statute.

  6. elexquisitor said:
    “As for the agent of an agent of an agent discussion, the CA law seems to be that transactions regarding real estate cannot be based on oral agreements, but are required to be written. ”

    That’s the statute of frauds and it’s pretty much universal, with variances from state to state.

    “By extension any instructions from a principal to their agent regarding a real estate transaction regarding title must be written. Further, a party claiming a relationship must prove it; as opposing party can’t prove a negative.”

    While that’s logical, it’s yet a good catch. And what is implied there is that anything involving an act by one for another as to real estate must
    be granted and acknowledged in written form, and that would include authority to foreclose or hire a law firm. An agent, or anyone with any authority over another’s real property, must also acknowledge in writing its acceptance of the right or obligation (akin to my belief that an assignment itself requires acceptance by the assignee, also overlooked by all). Otherwise, there could and would be more suits over what one did or should have done (which is why generally all realtor’ agencies to sell must be in writing) MERS doesn’t sign the dot; neither does the lender, so obviously the (any) relationship isn’t created in that document itself. Doesn’t mean a relationship doesn’t in fact exist. Just means to me it has to be created and affirmed elsewhere – the borrower’s autograph can’t bind either MERS or the lender. NO agreement which I’ve seen between members and MERSCorp grants MERS the right to assign the beneficial interest (or anything relevant thereto) in the dot. In fact, what I’ve read establishes and retains someone else’s right to execute assignments – the member, by way of its employee wearing a MERS’ hat, and then ONLY if the note has been sold to a non-member. That agreement was created and executed prior to the consent order, before actions could no longer be brought in MERS’ name. It’s more than disheartening to me that no one considers WHY MERS had to enter that Consent Order – because its m.o. was a load, that’s why, and while that’s obvious, the real
    fallacies in that m.o. have been left unexplored by the legal community imo to the significant detriment of all who executed a “MERS mortgage”. What’s equally disheartening to me is the legal community’s deference to inane banksters’ arguments that any relationship is created between a lender and MERS in the dot, as that’s impossible without both their signatures – and that’s agency / contract law 101. Courts declare relationships not demonstrated routinely, and we let them. Had MERS or MERSCorp and the lender signed the dot,
    it might be that the dot itself created and affirmed the rights and or obligations of MERS and the lender. What’s recited therein is that MERS may foreclose, so had it been signed by the alleged agent and its principal, maybe MERS could foreclose. But it does NOT mention assignment. (Imo the actual language in the dot makes MERS a ben, not an agent and that was the intent. The impossible alleged agency (if reliance is on the dot) really only came up post-Consent Order. A true agency may in fact exist, but it isn’t created in and by the dot. Period. It’s nothing short of a disgrace that an agency is said to be created in that document.
    You mentioned Levitin; he, for instance, is capable imo of exploring the highly relevant if not just plain dispositive basis of the Consent Order, but to my knowledge hasn’t.

    As to authority for servicers to act for lenders and hire and pay law firms and then bill the lender post-foreclosure, that authority may exist, but there is never any evidence it does, which is crapinski. Problem is, courts presume it’s the trust’s action, which at one time might (key word) have been a reasonable presumption. It isn’t now, when servicers have their own motivations (which may well be odds with the interest of the investors) to choose a particular course of action for an alleged default. I don’t know how one convinces a court it isn’t the act of the trust, that the trust isn’t the one hiring a law firm, so that one might reasonably demand evidence of the authority for a servicer to do this act for its alleged principal. There’s no doubt in my mind evidence of that authority is required – the rub is demonstrating to the court that it’s the servicer who is acting (allegedly) on behalf of the lender so the court will see that it must have evidence of the authority. Discovery would out this, but when courts rely on poss of a bearer note and a “MERS” assignment, for instance, one won’t get to discovery easily. And NG and all others that I know of don’t explore and discuss a right to evidence and facts solely in the possession of one party or anything else which mandates discovery. Neil talks non-stop about what discovery would find, but what good is that if one never gets to it? Our salvation may be in Rule 26, which I believe mandates certain disclosure without a formal discovery plan in place (and if it does as I think but can’t support this minute, it’s some bad act to not disclose info which bears on the rights of the parties).

  7. Elexquisitor, there was a time when I would have scoffed at a comment being deleted by LL admin. No more.

    Another possibility is that wordpress will auto-boot you if you have more than one link. If that wasn’t the case, it just might be the Ministry of Truth striking again. Sad.

  8. Yes TU, they have to go. Now not later.

    JG, I have an issue with laundered titles, no matter how sweet they smell after the laundry. I have a bigger issue with this government fiddling while everything burns around us. Like Nero of old, Eric Holders’ busting medical marijuana patients in Washington state, where they’re legally allowed its use by state law, while the largest crime wave in history surrounds us all.

    We all know that all Ponzi schemes fail, – UNLESS – they’re ordained by the government. They then simply become protected acts. Illicit acts.

    Definition of illicit (adj)
    il•lic•it – [ i líssit

    1. illegal: not allowed by the law
    2. unacceptable by prevailing social standards: considered wrong or unacceptable by prevailing social customs or standards

    Everyone knows this to be the case, that well established laws, as well as social norms, are being trashed by a small group of transnational corporations that have purchased our government, including the supreme court. (LL’s spellchecker just wanted me to capitalize supreme court. No way. All disrespect intended. Misprisioners one and all.)

    I used to think that this Ponzi scheme would eventually collapse, as they always do given time. I no longer believe that. If, in fact, the edges become so flawed in the securitization scheme that there can no longer be any denying that the entire deal was a heist, the only way that the very serious people will deal with the issue is by a blanket redo. And I know I don’t have to elaborate here on how badly the borrower’s side of these deals always are – 100% of the time. Get ready to take it in the shorts yet again.

    Adam Levitin, who I quote a lot on this forum, tried to steer CONgress in the direction of a blanket fix in his testimony entitled “Robo-Singing, Chain of Title, Loss Mitigation, and Other Issues in Mortgage Servicing”, given before the house financial services committee way back in 2010. One striking thing….he went on the record as stating (paraphrasing here) that this entire deal is either a multi-trillion dollar fiasco that will completely annihilate our planet, or, “at best”, it’s millions of fraudulent foreclosures….and what was the response from our elected representatives? Crickets. Oh wait….I forgot….they watched silently as treasury and the fed along with the criminals at the OCC canceled the agreement that many of us entered into to receive compensation for the theft of millions of homes, instead allowing the criminals to write down second mortgages that were worth less than zero. The best CONgress banksters can afford.

    As to a global settlement, he said:

    Congress would do well to ensure that federal regulators are undertaking a thorough investigation of foreclosure problems and to consider the possibilities for a global settlement of foreclosure problems, loan modifications, and the housing debt overhang on consumers and financial institutions that stagnate the economy and pose potential systemic risk.

    Oh God! How I love a good laugh! In conclusion, Levitin states:

    This suggests that the best course of action is a global settlement on mortgage issues, the key elements of which must be (1) a triage between homeowners who can and cannot pay with principal reduction and meaningful modifications for homeowners with an ability to pay and speedier foreclosures for those who cannot, (2) a quieting of title on securitized properties, and (3) a restructuring of bank balance sheets in accordance with loss recognition.

    A critical point in any global settlement, however, must be removing mortgage servicers from the loan modification process. Servicers were historically never in the loan modification business on any scale, and four years of hoping that something would change have demonstrated that servicers never will manage to successfully modify many loans on their own. They lack the capacity, they lack the incentives, and the lack the will.

    I especially like item #2, quieting titles, – IF – they’re done on an individual basis, using established property law. That’s the only way to see that borrowers aren’t shafted. What a novel idea, using established law.

    All I can see 3.5 years on is a heavy emphasis on the “speedier foreclosures” part. There’s no longer any need for foam on the runways….the banks have been given quite a bit of foam and funding, thanks to our silence. And CONgress has failed to act on a single point Levitin raised, even though he suggested that by failing to do so, “we may well be confronted with an unmanageable crisis. More crickets in the halls.

    CONgress is what’s unmanageable here. Except when it comes to how well they manage lobby dollars. They have to go.

    Vote out all incumbents. TINA! (THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE!)

    It’s a good read, if you’re into very serious tragedies. It’s just too bad that we, the people, are front and center in the raging melodrama.

    http://financialservices.house.gov/media/file/hearings/111/levitin111810.pdf

  9. I am wondering what happened to my original post responding to yet another commenter’s post that both gave insight on court tactics and were both deleted within a couple of hours of posting. I’m guessing LL has been hacked and recommend the administrator of this site change the administrator password immediately.

    As for the agent of an agent of an agent discussion, the CA law seems to be that transactions regarding real estate cannot be based on oral agreements, but are required to be written. By extension any instructions from a principal to their agent regarding a real estate transaction regarding title must be written. Further, a party claiming a relationship must prove it; as opposing party can’t prove a negative. And third, in a motion for summary judgment, the presumption goes to the defender of the motion, and so the party presenting the motion must show all facts necessary to support their allegations. So the Appellate court in my case should be able to show written instruction or ratification of their proposal (as neither party offered the argument) that a principal requested action on the part of one of their agents, and written documentation that an agency relationship existed regarding real estate in the material supplied by the parties in their appendices. In this case I actually supplied the documentation of agency in order to show the perjury of the banksters in their discovery responses regarding agency.

    IANAL – I am not a lawyer.

  10. johngault, on May 17, 2014 at 1:59 pm said:

    IF “A” has the authority to bring an action for “B”, is evidence of that authority required?

    My response,

    Yes, they have to have evidence of that authority.
    I thought I could stand and state it was fraud.

    I had wasted $2500 on an attorney who spent it ‘researching’ and telling me that the bank thinks they are the creditor so they are the creditor.

    I was robbed in 21 days.

    I have a copy of every page from the case used to rob me and in there is a power of attorney from A to B without a single signature but with a notary stamp.

    —————————————————————————————–
    I don’t know if it’s a universe pulse that will kill them, or the return of some group from outer space or inner earth that will remove them, or a solar flare from the sun, or they pack like sardines in some place and get sealed by earthquake lava, or whatever but I can say, the voices of the people are moaning louder and louder and as a collective, our conscience has decided we no longer want to journey with them in our presence.

    They have to go.
    Wheat / chaff separation is a strong desire and I hear it echoed so much more now from different sources discussing different things.

    Our will be done.

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

  11. AA – we’re on the same page. When I saw that, I felt like the disease was owed an apology.

  12. Just For Shit’s & Giggles,

    MERS (Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome) has now spread to 16 countries since first appearing in Saudi Arabia in 2012. MERS causes similar symptoms as SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) — including a fever, cough, and shortness of breath — but is nearly three times as deadly with a 30% fatality rate. Both MERS and SARS are caused by coronaviruses, which can infect both humans and animals.

    The MERS coronavirus. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

    More than 500 cases of MERS have now been reported worldwide, with the U.S. reporting its first case in April. That’s a sharp rise from last November, when only 153 cases were confirmed across nine countries. The WHO recently stated that the spread of MERS is a “serious concern” but not yet an “emergency,” stating that it did not “see increased evidence for person-to-person transmissibility.”

    However, a recent report from Columbia University, King Saud University, and EcoHealth Alliance confirmed that the MERS virus originated from camels and could possibly be spread by touch like SARS. SARS infected over 8,200 people and killed 775 during a 2002-2003 outbreak.

    There are no approved vaccines or treatments for MERS, but three biotech companies — Inovio Pharmaceuticals (NYSEMKT: INO ) , Novavax (NASDAQ: NVAX ) , and Nanoviricides — are currently developing vaccines for the disease.

    Inovio’s approach to MERS: Synthetic DNA
    Back in November, Inovio announced that preclinical tests of a vaccine for MERS showed “robust and durable” immune responses in mice.

    Like most of Inovio’s other pipeline candidates, the experimental MERS vaccine was constructed from synthetic DNA which is thought to be potentially safer than traditional vaccines. Synthetic DNA vaccines replicate the virus’ DNA footprint to elicit an immune response, but they are not alive, cannot replicate, and cannot spread within host cells. Inovio’s MERS vaccine reportedly induced levels of antibodies and T cells — both crucial in clearing infections caused by the virus — to rise in mice.

    Inovio does not have any marketed products. Its most advanced treatment, VGX-3100, is currently in phase 2 trials for cervical dysplasia — abnormal changes to surface cells on the cervix that can lead to cervical cancer. Inovio plans to release top-line data from that trial in mid-2014, which is considered the next big catalyst for the stock.

    Inovio’s most notable partner is Roche (NASDAQOTH: RHHBY ) , which signed a deal worth up to $412.5 million with the company last September to co-develop two therapeutic vaccines for prostate cancer and hepatitis B.

    Novavax’s approach to MERS: Recombinant DNA
    Novavax, which mainly focuses on producing vaccines for influenza and RSV (Respiratory Syncytial Virus), has also been developing an experimental MERS vaccine. However, like Inovio’s vaccine, Novavax’s vaccine hasn’t advanced beyond animal trials yet.

    Like Inovio, Novavax also avoids using weakened or killed viruses in its vaccines. Whereas Inovio creates vaccines with synthetic DNA, Novavax pieces together viruses with recombinant DNA, piecing together DNA from various sources (usually surface proteins of a virus or pathogen) to create customized vaccines to elicit specific immune responses.

    Novavax’s most prominent backer is the U.S. government. In March 2011, the Office of Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority awarded Novavax a contract valued up to $179 million to develop recombinant vaccines for the prevention of seasonal and pandemic influenza.

    In late April, Novavax reported positive top-line data from a phase 2 trial for its RSV-F vaccine for women of childbearing age, causing shares to rally 18% in a single day. The stock has rallied nearly 100% over the past 12 months.

    Nanoviricides’ approach to MERS: Bind and dismantle
    Nanoviricides is smaller than Inovio and Novavax, but it offers a radically different way of combating MERS.

    Rather than develop vaccines, Nanoviricides is developing drugs that bind to viruses with virus-binding ligands in an effort to dismantle them. On May 5, Nanoviricides announced that its experimental MERS vaccine, built on that virus-binding technology, was ready for animal testing.

    Nanoviricides currently has six main pipeline candidates for influenza, eye viral diseases, HIV, herpes, and dengue — but none of these candidates have advanced to clinical trials yet. Investors should also note that unlike Inovio and Novavax, Nanoviricides is not backed by any major pharmaceutical or government collaborators.

    The Foolish takeaway
    Inovio, Novavax, and Nanoviricides are three companies to watch as health officials across the world struggle to understand MERS. If any of these treatments show promise, they could receive accelerated approvals due to the urgent need to treat the disease, especially across the Middle East. Of course, it’s important to note that all three of these companies are clinical (or pre-clinical) stage biotechs, so they are not for the faint of heart, and investors may be better served staying on the sidelines and watching these companies.

  13. From Martha Coakley’s letter to the FHFA:

    “A related statute, Massachusetts G.L. c. 244, § 35C(h), prohibits
    a creditor that sells a property to a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt organization from conditioning such a sale on a requirement that the property not be resold or rented to the former homeowner. ”

    On what basis is any bankster conditioning a sale on such a req? Anyone know? Isn’t that discrimination of some kind?

    E.tolle, I absolutely agree fwiw with everything you said, and as usual, you said it well. However, if a homeowner wants to “buy back” his home at market value, laundered-title or not, for some it beats the hey out of a sharp stick in the eye. I’d like to think that the program referenced, even if it does launder titles, doesn’t have that at its heart even as it’s a consequence.
    It’s a (messed up) compromise imo for those without the wherewithall (and that to me includes the desire) to fight the criminals as long as our dear govt refuses to recognize the organized criminal activity. True, without those programs, maybe some of the 500 families who have allegedly benefited in MA would have helped push the line a few badly needed inches, but their choice, I’d say. (You have to know by now – right? – what I personally think of the predatory lending which found many people in a position such that they would acquiesce to such a compromise – predatory, illegal, immoral lending perpetrated by those charged by law with the responsibility of seeing to it that people did not bite off more than they can chew, as well as those rat-b’s who offered unconscionable – and unexplained – teaser rates. Baiting someone into an agreement known to be one which would cause that someone to lose his home imo is cause to lose one’s birthday, succinctly).

  14. What I’m trying to say with my ‘authority deal’ is that without evidence of a servicer’s authority to bring a legal action for a lender, the lender isn’t present in the action / courtroom. imo.

  15. IF “A” has the authority to bring an action for “B”, is evidence of that authority required? I’d say evidence is always required. Don’t know why it wouldn’t be. Because the party utilizing that authority claims it has it without even having to say it has the authority? Even is a trust / investors are factually the creditor, why is it presumed a servicer has the authority to hire a law firm and pay one (and bill the trust)? I acknowledge that I’m presuming it’s the servicer factually bringing the action by hiring and paying a law firm, but I think we’ve got enough info to support that proposition, don’t we? If we do, then why isn’t evidence of the authority required? I just don’t believe that anyone may do anything for another of a legal nature without evidence of the right (or obligation) to do so.

  16. Back in the “old” days, there probably wasn’t a conflict of interest between a servicer and a lender. If the yeahoo factually bringing the action in someone else’s name (servicer brings action in trust’s name) because it has the authority to do so, why are we ignoring what by all accounts has become (these days) a conflict of interest? Probably same reason – reliance on bearer note and mers’ assignment = who cares (not a court) about anything else. And why are we (I guess read courts) presuming a servicer has such authority (to bring an action in the trust’s name)? Servicers don’t even have to allege they have such authority when factually they’re the ones hiring and paying law firms. What the heck makes the presumption of their right to do so a valid presumption? A PSA may grant them this authority, but where is it?

  17. NG, under your Hooker post, you said:
    “That isn’t because it is right that I should have a judgment against you and for me, it is just because the rules work that way. But even after that you still have some options to set aside the judgment or action on the alleged debt that doesn’t really exist.”

    NG, why do you say such things and then leave it at only what you’ve said? Stop with the “debt doesn’t really exist” already as the first line of defense, even if it were true already. Filing a false claim is a tort – an actionable one. I’ll grant, of course, that the “rules work that way” in so far as an unanswered complaint will end in a default judgment, but it’s not a judgment on the merits, is not res judicata (as I recall), and IS a tort. In my own lay opinion, it could also involve an allegation of attempted larceny, or like that (have to determine the right allegation in a civil action – v. a criminal action – or allege “10” causes of action alternatively) if anyone had the guts – get the h off the defensive. (They do NOT have a corner on the best defense is an offense, but we’ve handed it to them.) It’s also contractual interference, isn’t it? If one’s loan is owed to X, and therefore is the property of X, and “Y” attempts to benefit itself, esp to the detriment of X, Y has tried to deny and deprive both (true) parties to the agreement the benefit of the bargain. It’s further an actionable abuse of process and may be third party breach of fiduciary if a fiduciary exists between X and Y, which fid may exist, but not necessarily if there really is no relationship between X and Y. If Y is factually a servicer, it owes the borrower at least the duty of fair dealing. You keep going on with this stuff when what is needed is other “stuff”, like a dissertation on the right to discovery when the evidence is singularly in the possession of someone else. If you continue to ignore what the note says about who may enforce (one who has taken the note by transfer and is entitled to payments*) and not appropriately argue that there should be no reliance on the UCC without a first and foremost reference to the terms of the agreement (is this not contract law 101?), the result will always be the same = Lost Property.
    *1) take 10 – the UCC is DEFAULT law, looked at in the absence of a defining contractual agreement. If a note or any agreement says otherwise, as I say these particular notes do, the note is NOT enforceable by a bearer. 3) Poss of a bearer note is not indicative of a right to an assignment of any collateral instrument (or tell me why beyond speculation – black letter law – or beyond the banksters’ propaganda that a coll instrument follows a note)** and these particular notes may generally not be enforced without the coll instrument (first course of action for breach is one against the collateral, i.e. “security first” (many states), which imo makes the note zip without the coll instrument). 4) A person in possession of a note doesn’t necessarily incur a loss / injury, that which is necessary to invoke jurisdiction. X may simply NOT bring someone else’s claim (rpii). And if X attempts to bring a claim with no factual basis, it’s what I said above.
    If I find a note in the park**, am I entitled to an assgt of its coll instrument? In the first place, the only thing an assgt to me, a thief, (or to anyone) is prima facie evidence of is that the assignor has assigned whatever, if any, interest it may have had. As to a coll instrument, one may not convey more than one has. MERS has no beneficial interest (unless it is thee ben) to convey. By its own acknowledgment, MERS is merely a public record placeholder. Where’s that argument? If someone like MERS, here aka the ben assigns the note to me, a thief, since I’m a thief and not a note owner with rights as defined in the note (taken by transfer and entitled to payments), among other things, the note and dot are bifurcated and unenforceable. Where’s that argument? “MERS” assigns and has assgts recorded for improper reliance on the validity of the assgt and as to what is being, what can be, assigned by them since MERS, a computer system (!), may only assign what it has, which is a nominal status. How is that not accurate (even if there were e v i d e n c e MERS could assign that nominal status – and where is that again?) If MERS is merely a nominal ben, a placeholder in public record, why is there a presumption by courts that MERS may assign anything? An agent COULD assign ‘anything’, as along as it’s authorized to do so. Where is that authority to be found? No where that I know of. WHY the presumption, esp that MERS may assign ben interest and not just it’s nominal status? As an agent (bah), MERS can’t even assign its agency to anyone.
    **What is the factual diff between me finding the note in the park and me finding it in a file cabinet, say (or a digital copy in my computer network)? The UCC DOES intend to make certain notes enforceable by bearers (read hang on to your notes), but not these, and even if it did, it remains default law when nothing else, no other laws or the agreement, resolves the right to enforce.
    If all we’re going to allow and tolerate is reliance on bearer note provisions of the ucc and a “mers” assignment, why not just give them our homes and save ourselves the trouble? If those are the bomb, what argument is there? There’s no need for discovery, no need for nothin’. We can’t let this trojan horse into the courtroom unassaulted or it’s game over. imo.
    MERS AND SECURITIZATION HAVE TO GO.

  18. loan products that were filled with false pretenses, false assumptions and nonexistent review, verification and other underwriting procedures.

    Why don’t You Just Call It by it’s real name……Lying, Cheating, Stealing, Conniving, Bullying, Wire Fraud, Racketeering, Predatory Lending, Mortgage Fraud.

    What The Hell are You being So Nice For.
    The Only Thing that will make up for this is Vigilante Style Payback,
    The Charles Bronson way.

  19. From the FHFA letter Neil posted:

    “Since its creation in 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has played a critical role in guiding the recovery of our nation’s housing market. During that same period, our office, along with Attorneys General from across the country, has worked to address the underlying causes of the foreclosure crisis, and to stabilize and rebuild the hardest-hit communities.”

    That’s pure revisionist bullshit. Anyone with half a brain watching the worthless antics of AG’s across the nation would understand just how deeply captured they are, all 50 of them. The only thing they’ve stabilized in housing is the free-for-all cash-grab by hedge funds and private equity cleaning up what’s left of the walking dead housing market. And by the way, the hardest hit community is the United States of America, from sea to shining sea. But they all turn their heads and say, in unison, “what, me worry?” That’s the springboard for 50 governors-to-be.

    Each and every one of these clowns is guilty of misprision of felony, and in a sane society they’d be hauled into a tribunal court and allowed to plead for their freedom.

    “Specifically, we believe that buyback programs implemented by credible not-for-profit institutions, and loan modification programs that permit principal reductions for distressed borrowers, are key to helping homeowners recover from this foreclosure crisis and restoring a healthy economy.”

    What these buyback programs would be key for is efficiently laundering millions of broken chains of title, period. More deadbeat borrowers foaming the runways for the beltway’s beloved banks. The only thing missing is a Wall Street flag atop the capitol, the white house, and each state capitol building. Not a single shot fired. Just waived dollars.

  20. THIS IS GREAT ….I LOVE YOUR POSTS AND ALWAYS LOOK FORWARD TO THEM …THANK YOU!!!

    ________________________________

  21. I have proof that Martha Coakley ignored our Formal Complaint back in 2007. This was before the crash in 2008 but we had a Preponderance of Evidence, We also had proof that the Division of Banks was guilty of “Dereliction of Duty”. We all know its like the Fox guarding the Hen House! They protect their own?

  22. Is the system rigged? who knew? do your homework and find out about the judge

    http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/are-foreclosure-cases-rigged/Content?oid=3922254&showFullText=true

    NEVER AGAIN

  23. @java ,

    you betcha ,,, 99%+ of those people are wiped out and will not recover (until the next generation possibly) ,, the entire TBTF QE-Infinity con job is about to crash the USD ,, others here with stories about the end of the petrodollar and new world reserve currencies have validity… bottom line … we are currently in a depression ,, without political will to reverse course it will deepen … and like the Great Depression ,, if you rely on others and especially if you rely on the banking system to finance your business ,, you are going to fail … cash is king ,, real assets are even better … I’ve said it before ,, my favorite quote from the depression was “The best steak is sold for a nickel a pound ,, but nobody has any nickels” .. my ancestors were lucky ,, one grandfather was a theater electrician in NYC … and theaters thrived because people needed an escape … another grandfather was a fireman (also in NYC) … steady public paycheck…

    Hold on , it’s going to be one helluva bumpy ride … we’ve only crested the first hill on this one.

  24. Is this too late, for all all the homes Fannie and Freddie, already fraudclosed on ???

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: