What is Evidence or Proof of the Existence of the REAL Loan?

For additional information or assistance please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.

————————————

It is a complicated answer. The following is NOT a comprehensive answer which would the length of a treatise.

see also Fla 4th DCA Beauchamp v Bank of New York Mellon, J Shahood reversed — Beauchamp v BONY-Mellon

The Beauchamp case brings to the forefront the issue of redemptive rights which has long been ignored. In short the 4th DCA decided that the redemptive rights are important. They decided that evidence of actual losses or damages must be established without relying on inadmissible hearsay. This is where the rubber meets the road. In order to do so the Plaintiff foreclosing party is open in discovery at the very least to showing actual proof of payment and proof of loss of the actual owner of the debt and/or holder in due course. Presumptions won’t do them any good unless the homeowner’s attorney fails to object.

Thus the real transaction with real money, in a real purchase of the loan must be established by the foreclosing party. That is part of their prima facie case. And these are liquidated contract damages — not subject to anything other than mathematical calculation of net loss. I doubt if the appellate court meant to empower the judge to “estimate” or enter a finding that is “good enough.” The homeowner, like the AMGAR program, has every right to pay off the net debt once it is established and thus prevent the sale of the home. In turn the homeowner is entitled to the recovery of the original note and mortgage or deed of trust.

Be careful because it is evidently a normal practice, contrary to current case law, for the foreclosing party in non judicial states to publish and record a self serving statement of standing in the form of a substitution of trustee. That substitution of trustee must be nullified or else the rest of the theories advanced by the homeowner might be deemed irrelevant.

The interesting thing on remand is what happens when the foreclosing party cannot show proof of payment (proof of actual transaction ) and tries to get the judge to assume that the loss is the amount on the note. If that were the case the 4th DCA would not have remanded for further proceedings to determine damages so that the borrower’s redemption rights could be established. Without a completely transparent introduction of testimony and BEST evidence of original transaction documents, there is no proof of damages and the foreclosure judgment must be vacated.

In loan transactions there usually is no actual written contract that says the creditor will loan money and the debtor will pay it back. So common law and statutory law must make certain assumptions about the loan contract — which still must exist in order for the note or mortgage to be enforced. This is till basic contract law — the elements of which are offer, acceptance and consideration each to the other. The stumbling block for most judges is that the presence of money at the table is automatically construed as consideration for the contract that is sought to be enforced.

In olden times there was no problem in using this heuristic approach to loan contracts, because nobody thought of some third party funding the loan WITHOUT a note and mortgage made out in favor of the actual creditor. But Wall Street found a way to do it and conceal it.

The actual debt — i.e., the duty to pay — arises by operation of law when the debtor receives the money. It is presumed to be a loan and not a gift. The paperwork is intended to provide disclosures and terms and evidence upon which both parties can rely. In this context before Wall Street saw the vulnerability, there was no problem in using the words “debt”, “note”, “mortgage” and “loan” interchangeably — because they all essentially meant the same thing.

The genius of the Wall Street scheme is that their lawyers saw the possibilities in this informal system. The borrower could not claim lack of consideration when he received the money and thus the debt was presumed. And with enough layers of deception, non-disclosure and outright lies, neither the borrower nor even the closing agent actually realized that the money was coming from Party A but the paperwork was directed to Party B. Nobody realized that there was a debt created by operation of law PLUS another debt that might be presumed by virtue of signing a note and mortgage. Obviously the borrower was kept in the dark that for every $1 of “loan” he was exposing himself to $2 in liability.

If the creditor named as payee and mortgagee was not the source of the funds then there is no underlying debt. The rules of evidence are designed to help the court get tot eh truth of the matter asserted. The truth is that the holder of the paper is NOT the party who was the creditor at “closing.” The closing was fictitious. It really is that simple. And it is the reason for the snowstorm of fabricated, forged and robosigned documents to cover up the essential fact that there is not one shred of consideration in the origination or transfer of many loans.

Each assignment, endorsement, power of attorney or other document purporting to transfer control or ownership over the loan documents is corroboration of the lack of consideration. Working backwards from the Trust or whoever is claiming the right to enforce, you will see that they are alleging “holder” status but they fail to identify and prove their right to enforce on behalf of the holder in due course or owner of the debt (i.e., the creditor).

Close examination of the PSA shows that they never planned to have the Trust actually acquire the loans — because of the lack of any language showing how payment is being made to acquire the loans within the cutoff period. THAT was the point. By doing that the broker dealers were able to divert the proceeds of sale of Mortgage Backed Securities to their own use. And when you look at their pleading they never state they are a holder in due course. Why not? If they did, there would be no allowable defenses from the borrower. But if they alleged that they would need to come forward with evidence that the Trust purchased the debt for value, in good faith and without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses — elements present in every PSA but never named as “holder in due course.”

Since the good faith and lack of knowledge of borrower’s defenses is probably not in hot dispute, that leaves only one element — payment. The logical question is why would the assignor or endorser transfer a valuable debt without payment? The only reasonable conclusion is that there is no underlying debt — there is paper but the power of that paper is at very best highly speculative. “Underlying debt” means that the alleged borrower does not owe any money to the party named as payee on the note.
Traveling down the line, seeking for evidence of payment, you don’t find it. Even the originator does not get “paid” for the loan but assigns or endorses the paperwork anyway. No reasonable business explanation can be found for this free transfer of the paper except that the participants knew full well that the paper was worthless. And THAT in turn is presumptive proof that there was a lack of consideration for the paperwork — meaning that the debt was owed to an outside party who was never in privity with the “originator.”
If someone has possession of a note, it is an original and it complies with local statutes as to form and content, the note is accepted as evidence of the debt, and the terms of repayment. The person who signed the note is at risk of a judgment against him only if he defaults or the note falls into the hands of a holder indue course. Of course if the note IS evidence of a loan that WAS funded by the named payee, that is a different story. But looking a little further up the line, you will eventually find that one or more alleged transfers of the paperwork did not involve payment. And the reason is the same as the above. In the end, the money came from illegal diversion of investor funds that were intended to be deposited with a REMIC Trust.

If the signer of the note denies that the transaction was complete — i.e., there was no consideration and therefore there is no enforceable contract, then the burden switches back to the “holder” of the note to step into the shoes of the original lender to prove that the loan actually occurred, the original lender was the creditor and the signer was the debtor.

58 Responses

  1. @DwightNJ agree that we need to look at context of settlements and the “crisis” that lenders use to claim “errors” and other bs. @Rock Garfield has been regularly attacking the underlying transaction and not recommending to use internet “theories” which is another favorite attack of banksters. Where I disagree with Garfield is that judges, lawyers etc need to be educated. There’s no excuse for them as Fleischmann, the Chase whistleblower is making clear. We need more blogs like this and the judges and lawyers that turned a blind eye to ENABLE FRAUD and destruction of our economy and property records need to be held accountable as well.

  2. I desperately need your assistance. Can someone take a look at this DOT and tell me if its valid. I am currently in a foreclosure with Wells Fargo and trying to fight them myself because I cant afford an attorney. I currently have a complaint in with the CFPB and would like to get an answer as quick as possible so I can present it to them as part of my case. If you look at the DOT it has Mortgage Lenders Network listed on there. Since they went out of business in 2007, does it void this DOT and break the chain of title? Please help. My email is jsmith5915@msn.com. I can email you the DOT. Please help

  3. To Rock
    Write me at cbrightlife@aol.com I attacked in fed court on contract and breach of statutes, lost, appealed and won a judgment. Persona non grata on this site which doesn’t like serious winners and caters to whiners.

  4. The issue is the breach of contract ?? It doesn’t any make sense that it would be the only issue when you had 50 states attorneys general lined up to sue the banks .. and the banks settled for billions of dollars?

    These facts don’t jive with Rocks agenda that there was only a breach of contract…. and Rock is saying the borrowers are the ones with the unclean hands because we breached the contract by defaulting.

    First you need to have a valid contract in order for either side to breach.

    UKG … so what is your opinion? Our only argument is that the banks breached the mortgage contract?

  5. thanks Rock. I get the feeling you’re not the wrench-thrower I accused you of being. You are correct that this site has spawned plenty of losing arguments. The issue is the breach of contract.

  6. usedkarguy, I agree with your comment, however the problem is the homeowner’s hands are “unclean” because he breached the contract; and that’s why the homeowner has to attack the whole mortgage transaction to identify errors, breaches, tortuous conduct, setoffs, etc., for a remedy.

    Most people don’t even understand what a court case really is, it’s just a question a party is trying to get answered. In the case of a foreclosure the question is, did the borrower breach the contract. If the answer is yes, goodbye home.The answer has got to be yes, but, the other side breached first, or there is an error that voids it, or I was fraudulently induced, etc., etc. Not, the loan was securitized, or MERS was involved, or the party to the contract got the money from someone else, or the other nonsense scammers and legal incompetents make. That’s why the courts laugh at Garfield’s arguments and the other legal incompetents that use them. Nobody has ever won making those arguments, because the question never got answered in the negative.

    BTW, good post on the TILA case before the US Supreme, it’s of extreme importance for homeowners.

    Which brings me to another point, this is the typical blog involving foreclosure, I see nothing posted to help homeowners, just a bunch of people whining about subjects they have no clue what their talking about, and then when someone does provide comments backed up with court holdings they get attacked. That’s why people that are competent in property law don’t waste their time here, and which I now don’ intend to waste anymore of mine.

    To those that understand I left the key that unlocks the door, open it and attack the mortgage transaction, to the rest I leave you to your own demise.

  7. Rock:
    unclean hands cannot prevail in a court of equity.

  8. @Ian origination fraud means that the borrowers were tricked and everything and everyone would be entitled to restitution as the no gain could come as a result of an illegal activity.

    Look at the later settlement where JPMorgan admitted to a few thousand government insured loan it had bad underwriting and falsified document to approve the loan and receive insurance cover from the Fed Gov. This $115 million or so settlement was like a couple weeks after its $13 billion settlement.

    What be done is to try and separate the Fed Gov harm from that of the homeowner so that it forces the Justice Dept to prosecute on behave of the private citizen.

  9. Chas reed- I don’t know if you all remember all the news reports leading up to the 25 billion dollar “settlement”. The banks were willing to agree to any demands brought by the state attorneys general with one exception: origination fraud. This was the sole sticking point which delayed for months and months the final “settlement”, of which practically nothing went to the victims of all these frauds. But origination fraud was off the table. There is more to it than meets the eye. Why were the banks/servicers adamant about removing origination fraud from the discussion and subsequent settlement? They agreed to practically everything else.
    Dig deeper!

  10. “[W]e interpret [the Massachusetts nonjudicial foreclosure statutes] to permit one who, although not the original fraudster himself, acts as the authorized agent of the original fraudster….

  11. Rock’s idea of a winning strategy is taking the life in prison instead of the death penalty for a client that claiming they are innocent. What winning? A modification with a party that has “No Standing”?

    DwightNJ says it best if there was no Fraud then why was there a $25 billion settlement which the key element was the DocX Forgeries? We are talking about this small firm creating 1 million forgeries and the same whistleblower in court now claiming even more Forgeries that MERS has committed.

    Lynn Szymoniak has a record with her legal team of winning over $100 million in her first claim for the Federal Government in just one case and the second case is estimated at over $10 billion.

    Rock not example how he going to win or cases he has won. What is it that he winning? The homeowner should pay a party that refuses to provide a receipt of sale!

  12. There is no obligation in a contract of sale referred to as a mortgage. Stronger Coffee, Louder Alarm Clocks and Harder Rocks . . .Wake Up America!

  13. E Tolle, I don’t provide contract examination services, I recommend strategies that work, not wishful thinking.

    You bring up Eaton. “[W]e interpret [the Massachusetts nonjudicial
    foreclosure statutes] to permit one who, although not the note holder himself, acts as the authorized agent of the note holder, to stand ‘in the shoes’ of the ‘mortgagee’ as the term is used in these provisions.” Eaton v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 969 N.E.2d 1118, 1131 (Mass. 2012).

    The courts are the final arbitrators, you can pay attention to what works, or keep dreaming.

  14. Rock … You keep waving the flag that says “over 100 years of property law” in support of the banks … but you fail to acknowledge the fact that the more recent Ponzi Schemes used by the banks and institutions is in it’s own separate, specialized category of current events .. you can’t play the ostrich and stick your head in the sand pretending the current mortgage fraud scandal never happened. If you continue to act as if you don’t believe there was fraud, then you will never have any credibility with any audience that you speak to.

    When you finally admit that there was, and still is a scheme, that is when you will finally receive respect from your listeners and readers.

    The facts clearly show that the 50 states attorneys general were all about to start suing the banks for the frauds and criminal activities. The only reason it never took place was because this administration put an end to it with the settlement billions of dollars paid as hush money.

    After the settlement, the AG’s from those states made it clear that it was now up to each victim homeowner to fight the crime in court. They took their cut of the pie and pocketed the monies , but they clearly left the door open for homeowners to pick up and continue the fight or they would not have stated so. So you need to admit there are crimes connected to this mortgage scandal, or you will never have credibility.

    So do you, or do you not .. admit the AG’s were about to sue the banks for criminal mortgage activities?

    Do you or do you not admit those prosecutions were stopped by the settlement promoted by the federal government?

    So how can you claim that our assertions and defenses have no merit?

  15. Wells Fargo or another bank come to court being placed in Title as the “owner in due course” as there is no place in titling for a “holder of Note”. So first only the entity that is owned the debt can present itself as the owner of debt. Any enter into the court system that other wise suggest or mislead the court that Wells Fargo is the owner is a fraud.

    Well Fargo first is not on the contract as the “holder in due course” or is there any receipt that Wells Fargo purchase the loan. The blank Note by itself only show a blank endorsement with WaMu as the endorser, yet WaMu no longer exist so we know for a fact that WaMu not the owner of the debt as they were shut down on Sept 25, 2008.

    So in the local county court there must have been some notification of a change in status in who if any other entity that has purchase the debt. The assignment of the security instrument (mortgage, deed of trust, security deed) can only be created at the same time as there initial origination or later sell of the debt, and done at the same time as the Note is signed by the homeowner borrower (initially) or lender at the point of sale. The lender cannot after the fact of a sale issue a security instrument change as its lost the ability to do so because it no longer has a financial interest in the property. This point is made clear in the WaMu Notes because the bank no longer exist.

    That WaMu no longer exist MERS cannot act as this agent where there is no existence of a unbroken link in ownership of a MERS member of this structured phoney electronic registry. MERS does not have a working agreement as the member that employed them is no longer in existence and the with the authority in WaMu no longer has any authority. The FDIC sold all of any loan WaMu owned to JPMorgan and later it was exposed in the Justice Dept settlement with JPM that they did not purchase the loans that Fannie owned and there were no slaes of Ginnie pooled loans.

    Where does a contract that exist between Wells Fargo and the homeowners who has submitted a security instrument transferring ownership? The fix is in on the Ponzi scheme where Wells Fargo not invested any monies but is using the homeowner’s payment to pay the investors of the securities, where the investors are unaware that the payments that are being paid to them are from this illegal transact that makes it appear as everything is legit! As long as the payment keep coming in the Ponzi does not look as if exist, however the challenge of ownership exposes the Ponzi because as with Madoff’s scheme monies stop coming in from new investor and nothing to payout. Homeowner stop making payment and the only way to make the Ponzi continue was to foreclose and not any modifications which would reduce the flow of higher payment base on 6% to as low as 2%.

    Ocwen caught in sending modification letter 30 days late and why? Because the appeal option of the HAMP’s for input errors is 30 days that the borrowers have to appeal, but all the borrowers don’t even realize that a “Borrower Notice” is to be sent or the 30 days exist, so it allow the servicer to for any reason to act as if they done a review of the modification request, and the homeowners had a chance to rebut the finding, however if the never received or the notification was outside the 30 day without it being challenged.

    I believe after this election the flaws in the enforce of this stuff can be address as President Obama not up for reelection, and yet another “I did not know” moment, did not effect this Midterm with another example of who running the Federal Government! AG Holder said they are going to prosecute some bankers, and this is clearly and easy crime to solve!

  16. Rock says, “….I’m not trying to beat people up…..”, and then goes on to call everyone voicing their opinion on this blog morons, dupes, legal incompetents, or scammers, when point in fact is that the only person I’ve seen on this blog who is attempting to gain $$$ is Rock himself, through his contract examination services. I have no issue with services such as these, if in fact they’re performed competently and for a fair price. But it greatly diminishes, at least to me, when a purveyor of such a service comes on a board like LL and flames everyone who holds a differing view to his as morons or worse.

    As to your opinion of this site’s owner, I’ve been reading his thoughts for well over a half decade, and it’s my belief that you and some other lawyers who wander in here have a skewed take on what he does. His premise, at least the way I see it, is to point out the fraud and criminality based upon his years on Wall Street, almost like a fact finder detailing the crimes in progress. Thought provoking analysis, period. He never gives advice as to exactly how to utilize his findings, as that would be giving legal advice, and I happen to know that there are quite a few Very Serious People in expensive suits who would love nothing more than to see Neil removed from his pulpit, and that would be the easiest path to that action.

    Rock, what you fail to admit, for whatever reason, is, like neidermeyer said very well, the notes are worthless, excepting the fact that they point to a control fraud scheme bigger than anything seen on the planet. Your m.o. here is laughable, as you have the easiest task ever to copy and paste cites from cases where the banksters won, as the courts have been kangarooing these issues for years.

    As an example of much of what is being discussed/argued here, look at Marie McDonnell’s Amicus brief in Eaton. Here’s the chain of Eaton’s loan:

    1. The Appellants state in their Brief that,
    “After the loan was funded, the Note was
    endorsed in blank and transferred to Fannie
    Mae, which retained Green Tree to service
    the loan.”

    2. On information and belief, this transfer
    from BankUnited to Fannie Mae occurred at or
    near the origination date of September 12,
    2007.

    3. Accordingly, BankUnited had no interest in
    the Eaton Mortgage to transfer on April 22 ,
    2009.

    4. Moreover, BankUnited had conveyed all right
    title and interest to Fannie Mae and could
    not sell the Mortgage for a second time to
    Green Tree.

    5. The Appellants admit that Green Tree was the
    Loan Servicer.

    6. The Assignment of Mortgage in question was
    executed by Monica Medina, Assistant
    Secretary of Mortgage Electronic
    Registration Systems, Inc. acting on behalf
    of BankUnited, FSB.

    7. Monica Medina is not an employee of MERS;
    and she was not employed by BankUnited on
    April 22 , 2009 when she executed this
    Assignment.

    8. In truth, Monica Medina is employed by Green
    Tree Servicing LLC at its headquarters in
    Tempe, Arizona.

    9. Thus, what we have here is a fictitious,
    self-dealing Assignment of Mortgage that
    contains false statements,
    misrepresentations, and omissions of
    material fact in order to deceive or
    defraud. It was prepared and executed by
    Green Tree without BankUnited’s knowledge,
    authority or consent.

    10. This Assignment was not prepared for the
    purpose of legally transferring the Eaton
    Mortgage to Green Tree. Rather, it is a
    litigation tool that was prepared under
    false pretenses to close the gap in the
    chain of title to so that Green Tree could
    prosecute the instant foreclosure, which it
    completed on November 4, 2009.

    Ms. McDonnell goes on to say:

    In preparation for writing this amicus brief, I called upon Register John O’Brien to search the Southern Essex District Registry of Deeds filings for other assignments that were executed by Monica Medina (“Medina”). As of this writing, eleven (11) assignments were provided to me for review. The results are astonishing and clearly establish a pattern and practice of assignment fraud. Medina executed the assignments on behalf of ten (10) different assignors in her dual role as a MERS Certifying Officer or as Authorized Agent for Green Tree.

    In my capacity as a Certified Fraud Examiner, I hereby certify to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that the above-described Assignment of Mortgage is fraudulent and therefore, it is void as a matter of law. Thus, everything that flows from this “breeder document” is tainted with fraud and must be revoked.

    I’d bet the farm that, like the facts in my own case, everyone on this board to a man and woman has the same self-dealing fraud in their case, rendering every act downstream as simply more fraud, and VOID.

    One more thing Rock….for you to come on this board and argue that MERS is totally acceptable and that it’s been proven in courts across the land shows that you are the village moron here, not the posters you berate.

    Ps. Sorry in advance for any formatting errors, as wordpress doesn’t like some or most of what I do.

  17. Ms. Wynn, actually the states pleading requirements have remained basically the same.

    However, there has been a heightened pleading requirement for Federal civil cases, but it has not been “raised lately” either, that has been around for going on eight years now.

    They require that plaintiffs include enough facts in their complaint to make it plausible—not merely possible or conceivable—that they will be able to prove facts to support their claims, which most homeowners/attorneys can’t do because their arguments go against over 100 years of property law.

  18. And tu for the edification. 😊

  19. Well Rock
    My point is the pleading standards have been arbitrarily raised lately, I bear witness to that. Your info is appreciated.

  20. Ms Wynn, I’m not trying to beat people up, I’m just trying to be your “smack in the face” to wake you up from all of the misconceptions you people have been duped into believing. Maybe, if I was charging you people tuition, you’d pay attention on how to save your homes.

    It’s obvious that the people who have come to this blog have either already lost their property, or are in the process of losing it. I’ve been trying to show you how to win, but you’d rather listen to the scammers, legal incompetents, who’ve never won a case.

    BTW, for you edification, the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt. In contrast to a criminal case, in which the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, in a claim for breach of contract the plaintiff generally must justify its claims merely by a “preponderance of the evidence” – i.e., by showing that the claim against the defendant is more likely true than not. The types of evidence to be shown in a contract claim are:

    existence of a valid contract,

    a breach by the charged party, and

    consequent damages.

    The standard is higher in tort claims and certain statutory claims, where the burden of proof is by “clear and convincing evidence.” This is a much more stringent measure of proof that lies somewhere between “preponderance” and “beyond reasonable doubt.” The elements comprising a business tort claim, such as fraud, are greater in number, and the measure of the level of proof (preponderance vs. clear and convincing) may vary based on the nature of the relationship between the parties (arm’s length vs. confidential, fiduciary relationship, etc.). These elements generally include:

    a representation,

    its falsity,

    its materiality,

    the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth,

    the speaker’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated,

    the hearer’s ignorance of its falsity,

    the hearer’s reliance on its truth,

    the hearer’s right to rely thereon, and

    the hearer’s consequent and proximate injury.

  21. Where we all find ourselves NOW – in court, is a result of being denied things that should have happened but did not I for one of many here, have had to try to peddle backwards on a unicycle up hill in the snow with no protection from the elements,( try not to beat people up for that Rock, we are where we are) as for breach of contract, the specifics need to be evidenced as who when where how beyond reasonable doubt- alleging things prematurely without being able to get to the beyond reasonable doubt might get a very bad result. It’s not easy. And the big point we on here need to keep in view is EACH CASE is different. The opposition produce documents that will be full of controversy to say the least, I have used that evidence, their own proffered evidence. That might be difficult to squirm out of, it leads to the question of who, when , where and what was paid. It’s the DEBT and unjust enrichment for taking my signature and abusing it for other contractual agreements that sealed our fates of loosing our homes. Neil says you can’t pick up one end of the stick without picking up the other, that is true, and it’s complex, the investor suits and settlements mean that’s true. pleading the whole Ponzi Scheme will be almost impossible as a pro se lay person with limited resources, they know that and piercing the corporate veil, well, we don’t have presidential cuff links either, do we.

  22. @ Rock ,

    If you are from WF HQ as Charles says please write me at brian_and_lilla AT yahoo.com … I don’t want to chat ,, I just want your name and e:mail to contact you after I destroy WF early next year… I’m unstoppable now. I have the cash to force discovery.

    But then discovery (which I will define for you as FINDING THE FACTS) doesn’t matter to you ,, you just want to support the lies in your forged paperwork.

    You don’t think the facts and truth matters ,, well buddy my house sold at auction a full year ago and I’m still in it because of obvious WF FRAUD… Now it’s my turn.. get ready to pay up.

  23. niedermayer, regrettably like most people on this blog you have no clue what you’re talking about. You’ve been scammed to believe over a 100 years of foreclosure law is wrong. Anyone that believes a “name on a contract means nothing” is delusional.

    “The standards applicable to standing in a foreclosure case are well settled. Standing is an affirmative defense and, as such, it is the defendant’s burden to prove that the plaintiff does not have standing. Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217, 252 (2010). It is not the plaintiff’s burden to prove it does have standing. Wexler v. Wirtz Corp. , 211 Ill. 2d 18, 22 (2004); Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Barnes, 406 Ill. App. 3d 1, 7 (2010) (foreclosure case).”

    For over 25 years, the Foreclosure Law has been interpreted as not requiring plaintiffs’ production of the original note, nor any specific documentation demonstrating that it owns the note or the right to foreclose on the mortgage.” Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Koren, 213 IL. App (1st) 130380 (Ill. App 2013).

    I given you the key that unlocks the door – attacking the mortgage transaction (contract). Use it, or lose your home like most dupes do.

  24. neidermeyer
    I’m clapping – well said

  25. neidermeyer well said! Rock come here from Wells Fargo HQ not wanting the truth to spread as it only take one of us to expose the entire crime and the flood gates are open!

  26. @ Rock ,

    I’m done with you ,,, you don’t understand that the equity position is the actual $$$$$ and not a signature?? Show me the actual purchase, the wire , the ledger entry , the check. If you don’t put up the money you aren’t the lender and your name on a contract means nothing.

    If you’re relying on that professor you must understand that his paper is based on the fantasy that he himself openly admits to (his page 4) … NOTHING was done as it should… and YES it certainly makes a difference. He takes real world decisions to bolster his fantasy world scenario… We must use real world decisions in a REAL WORLD scenario…

    His paper is good for beginner students only and only as a “this is how it should have worked” primer. This website is for the advanced class ,, most of us here have 3-7 years in the trenches , you can’t fool us even if it seems like we are all playing a part in that “blind man and the elephant” story ,, we all have our bits and pieces that we cherish…

    I actually agree with him in that eventually we need laws that are functionally equivalent in all states regarding real property ,, however I cannot condone his shortcut of letting all the ADMITTED FRAUD by the banks in the 1998-2008 timeframe be swept under the rug… Real Crimes have REAL CONSEQUENCES … and I want my pound of flesh.

  27. @ Poppy. WI

  28. @ T

    State please?

  29. Rock I was about it being a ex-homeowner, it was a guy from Alabama that sued the POLICE and won. Printed in Reuters Oct 22, 2014….my bag, but it the same abuse anyway!

    It like Lynn Szymoniak and her client on the Robo signing deal with DocX were she got $18 million before her attorney and they guy that brought her the evidence received ZERO! He is now suing.

  30. Rock it is time to become a whistleblower. You will make more money

    NEVER AGAIN

  31. Note: Black Knight (fka LPS) does home maintenance and breaks into owner’s home prior to sale of property by court … local police, judge, no one does anything about it (proof of collusion by banks/courts to defraud the public, to ensure their mutual-profits scheme). Evidence in-hand !

  32. nedermeyer, your statement: “And yet you fight the simple production by the plaintiff to show that they have an equity position in the contract??? You make no sense.” Sorry to keep peeing on your parade; maybe, this makes sense to you.

    ?Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendant must produce the original promissory note in order to commence foreclosure proceedings must be dismissed. Plaintiffs assert that unless Defendant produces the original note for both Plaintiffs’ and the Court’s inspection, Defendant cannot establish itself as an interest holder with the authority to initiate foreclosure proceedings. Courts in this circuit and across the country have summarily rejected these “produce the note” demands” Kalpak v. EMC Mortgage Corp. (M.D. Ga., 2011)

  33. Mr. Reed, would you please be so kind to provide that case?

  34. Last week I read were a ex-homeowner was awarded $500,000 and out of the deal he got $1,000 and the attorney got $499,000. Rock should like those terms. And people wonder why we don’t trust the system!

  35. A Contract by the plumber to preform brain surgery is not a valid contract due to the fact the plumber is not a brain surgeon. So why when there are these allege parties that are not home loan lenders and that are not mortgage loan servicer as allege to be the owner of the loans, then Contract Law talk go out the window.

    Let Rock answer why he thinks a non lender in Washington County School Board retirement fund, GM, or who ever buy a securities that does not contain a single mortgage loan but is buying the performance of loans. As the Fed buys a lot of securities its not in the business of making home mortgage loans.

    So at what point is it that the buyer of a securities a “holder in due course”? They are not because they purchase the loan, and let take the fact that WaMu no longer exist after Sept 25, 2008 and was not in possession of the blank Notes they gave away without a purchase occurring, means they forgave any debt associated with those Notes. It not up to either side to understand why this happen because dead men cannot talk, so the fact is what the fact is that there no debt to collect!

  36. “….only those with a low IQ doesn’t comprehend this….” [sic]

    That’s a classic right there….I don’t care who you are….that’s a classic….

    Rock, folks like you that keep denying the obvious, and even more, swearing to it in a court of law, will end up making small rocks out of large ones.

  37. neidemeyer, you really need to learn how contract law works. If your named in the contract YOU ARE A PARTY to the transaction!

    Again, only those with a low IQ doesn’t comprehend this well known fact.

    “Contracts are agreements between persons or legal entities (e.g.- corporations), in which one party agrees to perform a service or provide goods in exchange for the payment of money or other goods or services. The formation of a contract is accomplished when there is an offer and acceptance between the contracting parties. This offer and acceptance is sometimes referred to as a ‘meeting of the minds.’”

    http://www.floridabar.org/tfb/TFBConsum.nsf/0a92a6dc28e76ae58525700a005d0d53/6a653200b74c8a2085257405007a3ac3!OpenDocument

  38. @ Rock ,

    ********************
    Foreclosures are equitable proceedings
    ********************

    And yet you fight the simple production by the plaintiff to show that they have an equity position in the contract??? You make no sense.

  39. @ Rock ,

    ******************
    The answer to Mr. Garfield’s question is quite simple–It’s the contract the homeowner signed. Even a middle schooler understands that, it’s just the morons and scammers that don’t.
    *******************

    You’re going to have to “up” your trolling skills here sir … my note and everyone else here is completely invalid because the parties we signed with had no part in the TRANSACTION ,, and that fraudulent basis can support nothing… nothing at all.

    In 3 months time you will be gone from this site as I will at that time be able to share what is happening at this time but will not complete until early next year… I will not accept any agreement that silences me.

  40. @ Michael Keane ,

    I too have a firsthand account of destroyed noted in my case ,, my wife is/was friends with the local Option One branch manager … I have it on her account that they NEVER sent files to California but rather scanned and shredded… I have no doubt that was the case in most if not all of the high volume originators or any originator that sold directly to a securitizer..

  41. My issue is with the guy declaring the amount of debt and why it’s owed to THEM. FDCPA. And then ofcourse it looks awfully like its unsecured by real property and so that means there might be a misrepresentation issue . That’s an oxymoron !

  42. How does a general doctor perform heart surgery? The question is that he does not because he not license as a heart surgeon. So why is it so hard for attorneys to understand that in order to be on a mortgage contract you need to be a license mortgage home lender.

    A purchaser of a home mortgage loan must be able to act as a home mortgage lender itself and cannot ship out work they cannot do themselves by law.

    When it come down to assigning, modifying and foreclosing and a WaMu has been shut down, and the blank Notes were relinquished (bankrupt remote) there is a break down in chain of ownership. WaMu is the last lender on the contract as signing the blank endorsement, and now another has possession of the blank Note without any receipt of purchase.

    So 7yrs later even a moron cant see the reason the party with “No Standing” does not simply bring a receipt of purchase, because the fact is they is not one.

    One party in the homeowner has paid years in principal & interest payment while the claimer has paid nothing, yet the defense by the “No Standing” entity is that the homeowner wants a home for free? Is this not the pot calling the kettle black. The contract/Note is between a borrower and mortgage lender and not between some securities investor or doctor. So contract law in the favor of the homeowner and the equity is in favor of the party that paid monies toward the ownership of the property!

  43. The answer to Mr. Garfield’s question is quite simple–It’s the contract the homeowner signed. Even a middle schooler understands that, it’s just the morons and scammers that don’t.

  44. 10. ….there aren’t any cops on the beat

    9. ….financial regulators are very adept at doing a presto-chango from regulator to violator with zero consequences

    8. ….the FBI has determined that mortgage fraud is the lowest level of crime in the nation

    7. ….your state AG signed off on the criminality in exchange for mucho dinero

    6. ….it’s up to you to prove those facts in a court of law

    5. ….it’s up to the judge to throw your case in favor of the banksters and their pension plan in a court of pretend law

    4. ….President Obama has determined that nothing criminal took place

    3. ….AG holder has a sweet, tender spot for Wall Street and a sure to be filled wet dream of a corner office in an ivory tower with an ever-filled American Express card

    2. ….every single representative on the Hill believes the term “illegal foreclosure” is an oxymoron, at least as far as campaign contributions are concerned

    And the number 1 reason is….life is a swirling sucking eddy of despair filled with brief moments of false hope in an ever expanding universe

    Alternate ending….take it all back with a freshly served combo of boiled rope, lamp posts, and the steely schweeennnggg of the guillotine blade

  45. How can Wells Fargo and their Attorney’s get away with this?

    I am writing this letter to Virginia Bar Association as well as the Maryland Attorney Grievance Committee. First of all I know that this was an illegal foreclosure and do not agree with either of your assessments. Please examine all of the singed Attorney documents, and filed court documents and foreclosure documents. You will see that these documents are all dated back in February time frame, then take a look at the DOT that was posted to Baltimore County Public Records on April 3, 2014. How can you transfer ownership of a loan after the fact. Additionally, view the same DOT. It states that that the document was recorded back in 2005, but iI am writing this letter to Virginia Bar Association as well as the Maryland Attorney Grievance Committee. First of all I know that this was an illegal foreclosure and do not agree with either of your assessments. Please examine all of the singed Attorney documents, and filed court documents and foreclosure documents. You will see that these documents are all dated back in February time frame, then take a look at the DOT that was posted to Baltimore County Public Records on April 3, 2014. How can you transfer ownership of a loan after the fact. Additionally, view the same DOT. It states that that the document was recorded back in 2005, but it was clearly recorded in county records on April 3. How can this be justified in the law community. I can be reached at 443 677 2799, jsmith5915@msn.com. I would like my case looked at again bases on the fraudulent procedures used to foreclose on my home.

  46. Dear Sir you are wanting to return these item and the store’s policy is that you must have a receipt of purchase…period! What part of do you have the receipt don’t you understand? Did you purchase this product at this store is what we are trying to determine, but you bring a contract that does not list you anywhere on it as it is blank of your name and blank of anyone name that it was endorsed too.

    However the Mob is in possession of the Note and Rock is saying that they can collect on the blank Note! Rock is saying that the homeowner does not have the right to confront the actual holder of the debt if there is in fact one!

  47. What Rock wants is that the party claiming that they are owed should not have to simply provide proof of the debt. Under UCC 9 the party in possession of the blank Note wanting to collect must show the transferring of funds and there case is won, as there is no question of the transaction, however if you don’t present that evident what is that your asking for?

    The Note is an blank endorsement to a party in Ginnie Mae that admits it cannot and does not purchase the loans. Now since the custodian in Wells Fargo has admitted to working for Ginnie Mae who they say is the investor, by what authority does Wells Fargo work for to have themselves inserted on title not as the servicer or custodian because there is not option for that. Wells Fargo instead get place in title as the “holder in due course” by virtue of simply submitting the the assignment of the title. It doe not matter that they put they are in legal possession of the Promissory Note (not saying they own the Note as owner) which is taken as they own the Note because only a owner of debt can be in title!

    It 7yrs later and instead in all these case bring a cancel check to the courts, the BANKS are claiming they got no record of the cancel damn check or record of an electronic transfer of funds!

  48. What is needed is a nationwide, authoritative electronic records
    system, chartered by Congress with authority to preempt and override
    state law.

    So much for states’ rights.

  49. Rock and Neidermeyer,

    I should also point out, the amount of $43,000.00 he used to fund the second and third mortgage shows up as returned to him, on line 507 of the HUD form.

    When I questioned why he was paid this amount, the “originator” has subsequently returned no less than three conflicting answers.

    When I looked into this further, it turns out the “loans” never entered the REMIC until years after it had been closed.

    When I phoned the FHA resource center, Corina told me its not an FHA loan.

    When I contacted the FHFA OIG Hotline, Karen wrote to me to explain it is neither Fannie or Freddie. I am not a veteran.

    So, the “Loan” the “originator” claimed it gave me never entered the trust and is neither “FHA”, “VA”, or “F&F”.

    Of course I now understand it left the closing table, signed under the hand of my attorney as “Unassigned”.

    And I now know it was money funded by a third party to the loan.

    I absolutely believe it is a scam and it was used to defraud borrowers and investors alike.

    After all, it never entered the trust, so where has it been these many years?

    I feel all the loans were used to fund derivatives after the true Holders in Due Course allowed the fraud to play out.

    Currently those “notional” derivatives bets represent a shortfall of some 680 trillion Dollars, if the homes to which they were attached, any number of times, through remittance reports initiated by the banks, don’t go into “successful” foreclosure.

  50. @Rock here what not being mention and the is for loans that the debt was not purchase and the Notes that were endorsed in blank to a know entity that publishes that it does not purchase the debt and the lender of the monies is not in court claiming a debt due but a third party claiming the debt is due to them, but they got no proof they purchase the debt and even with statements that the Note was in a fire, the question is still, how did you become owner of the debt.

    This is not about stopping the originator from receiving what they are owed, but we are talking about parties that have “No Standing”! Your problem is you cannot understand that a party that makes of purchases a HOME MORTGAGE LOAN, must under the laws be a registered Home Mortgage Lender and not some doctor, plumber or mechanic, but a license lender of home mortgages.

    This Professor ignore the fact that a doctor operating on patients without a license may be a doctor but not a doctor operating under the law. A Loan Shark is a lender of monies, but they just cannot come into court with some claim of a debt from the transactions. Investors of securities are not purchasing home mortgage loans, but they are purchasing the securities.

    A Ginnie Mae MBS is insured at 100% of the principal investment, where let take Georgia where home values were under 50% the loan values and only a 10% insurance claim paid, so we got on $100,000 loan balance $60,000 if they purchase the loan and at least $100,000 guaranteed buying the securities coming!

    All that needs to be done to prove the claim is present the receipt of monies changing hand and this all goes away. However the reason the receipt is being fought 7yrs after the fact is that the receipt does not exist!

  51. Rock and Neidermeyer,

    The notes were destroyed. I personally destroyed thousands of liens and notes after we rendered them to computer disc.

    We used to burn them, in a barrel, to stay warm, in my brother-in-law’s backyard while we were drinking beer and watching football. We also, threw them in the dumpster and paid to have them shredded by a mobile shredding company.

    MERS is a national disgrace and, in my opinion everyone should visit “Landtegrity” and sign on.

    MERS, thanks to Mr. Garfield, we now know was intended, with MOM to obfuscate into infinity the true “Holders in Due Course” to the actual debt.

    The true H’sDC are intent upon concealing who they are for any number of reasons, not the least of which are severe tax penalties.

    Tertiary funding is illegal and it always has been… It should always remain so.

    In one of my loans my wife, children and I were told we could purchase the property with financing provided by a mortgage company, predicated upon a single loan of 5% for thirty years.

    It so happens the interior of the house had been damaged prior to our willingness to purchase it, as per the contract, which states, in bold font and in caps: “THE PREMISES ARE SPECIFICALLY SOLD ‘AS IS’.”.

    It turns out, the guy who said he was the Lender worked for the bank that owned insurance and a lien of $200,000.00 on the house.

    It also turns out, this guy and his pals employed a bogus description the loans we signed were “FHA”; they also used appraisal fraud to misstate the condition of the home at closing.

    This guy , the Sellers and their friends, including our own attorney, lied about the existence of the insurance and the existence of the $200,000.00 mortgage.

    These people, in what is now, at least in my opinion, a proven conspiracy, pulled the rug from under us at closing and coerced us into three mortgages as opposed to the one promised at the outset.

    Foolishly, I had “volunteered” to begin restoring the house before we closed; I had relied on our attorney to protect us and I also relied on the signed “Good Faith Estimate” and “commitment”.

    When they forced us to choose three loans, the alternative they told us was the loss of our investment up to that point, some $80,000.00 with the Sellers promising they would retake possession of the house and force us to sue to recover.

    We signed because we really had no choice.

    It turns out the guy that lied he was the Lender used his personal credit card to fund the second and third mortgage. I now have the evidence to prove it.

    The evidence exists as his personal Platinum Plus Visa credit card statement which shows he “Cash Advanced” $43,000.00 to fund the second and third loan.

    I am intent upon proving my family was deliberately targeted by these people and I have evidence showing precisely that, as it exists in their own handwriting, along the margins of the credit card statement.

    So, this guy deliberately deceived my family promising a single, fixed loan. Then he and his pals created any number of now provable frauds which he subsidized by paying for them with his own credit card.

    This entire mortgage fiasco is a deliberate scheme of “Boom-and-Bust” organized by the banks.

    It is not about one “Buddy” lending another “Buddy” some money. It is about satisfying the loan at or prior to the closing at a low interest rate and then committing a fraud through conversion by taking the same financed amount and selling it into the secondary market to investors at a higher interest rate (see the recent 14 BOA settlement, for example; also, recollect the LIBOR scandal)).

    The banks thereby collect the difference “up-front” as a “windfall” to themselves. Thereafter, borrowers continue to pay on loans someone beyond their knowing has already paid for them… The True Holders in Due Course.

    The investors are defrauded with claims from servicers the loan has defaulted, whether it has done so or not.

    On another of my loans, Bank Of America put us in default while the loan was current and, in fact, they did it twice.

    In Barofsky’s book “Bailout”, pgs 95-7, he explains the banks’ willingness and encouragement, borrowers should skip three months payment in order to gain a modification.

    Those 90 days then enable the banks to cover their tracks through “dual-tracking” and obfuscation into infinity of the True Holders in Due Course.

    These people need jail time and plenty of it.

  52. neidemeyer, let’s get back to my scenario. I borrow this money from you and regrettably your property goes up in smoke and with it goes the promissory note and mortgage.

    Foreclosures are equitable proceedings, would it be fair to you that just because you couldn’t produce the paperwork, the judge ruled against you?

    Law is reason, logic, fairness and common sense, does the following scenario pass that test? Of course not. In the REAL world, you’d get your money or the property.

  53. @ Rock ,

    I have no problem with you ,, but this professor completely ignores the documented fraudulent activity , the fact that the notes as such were destroyed physically shortly after execution and legally by the creation of securities (including his precious “PETE” argument) .. he spends most of the article pretending we’re in the 1980’s and this is a simple situation of my local bank selling to a regional bank to buy and hold to maturity… he loves MERS and decries that some states have seen the truth that MERS is not a real participant/owner and does not require notice , and he wants to establish a national mortgage registry , over-ride all state laws to favor ucc3/9 (I favor having a “model” presented and all states re-writing to the model ,, and requiring transparency and MANDATORY RECORDING of assignments) , his arguments about maintaining paper files being too burdensome are a joke… it only becomes so when you trade mortgages like penny stocks.

    I have property in a country that was ravaged by the Japanese in WW2 , mortgage and land records were destroyed and it has lead to immeasurable harm… We have had in the last 100 years or so two solar flare events that have created damage very similar to what a Nuclear EMP would create… Can you imagine what would happen if all our records vanished with no way to recover in just a few seconds… even if some survived they would be unreliable as banks play at not paying taxes (recording fees) on assignments…

    I’m not some loon who knows nothing about modern data processing ,, I was a storage administrator and security specialist for Martin Marietta prior to them being acquired by Lockheed.

  54. neidermeyer, the noted professor also said: “The debt exists not because of the merits of the legal positions these defense lawyers took; for the most part, their arguments LACKED MERIT and sometimes bordered on the frivolous.” (emphasis mine).

    Courts have described defense counsel’s arguments as frivolous in plenty of cases. See, e.g., Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Sims, No. 1-13-0543, 2014 WL 258643, at *2 (Ill. App. Ct. Jan. 21, 2014); Dempsey v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 49A02-1303-PL-218, 2013 WL 5533140, at *3 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2013); Anderson v. Barclays, Capital Real Estate, Inc., No. 2012-CA-00736-COA, 2013 WL 5976621, at *2 (Miss. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2013); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Merlo, No. 2012-T-0103, 2013 WL 6228276, at *4 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2013). Of course, pro se litigants can file frivolous actions as well. See, e.g., Balch v. HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., 128 So. 3d 179, 181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013).

    Again, this argument of where the money came from is just another frivolous argument.

    For example, you and I are friends, I ask you if I can borrow 1000K, you want to help me out, but you don’t have the dough. So you go to your brother and tell him, “I want to help my buddy Rock, could you give me 100K,” so you brother does. I sign a contract with you for the 100K. Clearly, my contract is with you, not your brother, even a moron can understand this.

    Now, I gave all of you the key that unlocks the door, and that’s attacking the mortgage transaction. Question is, are you going to use it, or continue making arguments even a child understands are nonsensical? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/homeowners-receiving-multimillion-dollar-awards-155900638.html

  55. @ Rock ,

    Your professor , Dale Whitman , on page 4 of his writing explains that what follows is A FANTASY and that laws were broken willy-nilly ..
    ***************
    II. HOW MORTGAGES ARE TRANSFERRED

    This section describes the functioning of the system of mortgage transfers currently in use for residential loans in the United States. Readers who are already familiar with the system may wish to skip this section. The description is idealized in the sense that in practice, particularly during the heated market of the early and mid-2000s , participants sometimes omitted some of these steps or performed them carelessly.

    ******************

    I have no problem with REAL purchases and sales ,, I have a problem with FRAUD ,, and this bank toadie Whitman has no problem with FRAUD.

  56. ……neither the borrower nor even the closing agent actually realized that the money was coming from Party A but the paperwork was directed to Party B. Nobody realized that there was a debt created by operation of law PLUS another debt that might be presumed by virtue of signing a note and mortgage. Obviously the borrower was kept in the dark that for every $1 of “loan” he was exposing himself to $2 in liability.
    *************************************
    I disagree with this … the closing agent/title companies knew and are liable , they saw where the wire transfers came from and the inconsistencies in the money flow between successful closing or a cancelled closing ,, they saw the “wrong” party names as beneficiary on the title policy … everyone ,, especially those who have remained current ,, need to sue on those grounds.

  57. More total nonsense!

    Dale Whitman, Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Missouri-Columbia, has written an explanation of how things work in the REAL, not fantasies written by legal incompetents:
    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/WHAT-WE-HAVE-LEARNED-FROM-THE-MORTGAGE-CRISIS-ABOUT-TRANSFERRING-MORTGAGE-LOANS.pdf

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: