Eric Mains: “Acceptable Casualties”

At the request of Eric Mains, former FDIC employee, I am publishing his comments on the foreclosure situation and the the banking crisis.

ACCEPTABLE CASUALTIES

I thought quite a bit about what I would say regarding the experience of battling with a large bank for the last 6 years in a foreclosure action. One could complain about the forgery, the fraud, the denial of due process and equal protections under apathetic state court system(s), the shifty attorneys, etc. One could, but frankly it’s not worth the time or waste of space writing about it in just my particular case. You can read the complaint(s) I filed in both State and Federal court, read the trial transcripts, and draw your own conclusions as to the whole situation and legalities.

What is remarkable to me, and what is worth discussing, is not that my case has been the exception to large bank conduct in foreclosure cases, but how all too common it is. Now in hindsight, I am sure corporate counsel for Chase (and Citibank) is going to sternly chastise the law firm(s) involved for not checking into my background enough to realize I worked for the FDIC, in the division that closed down WAMU (after all it is all public information, along with our grade level and salaries). However, in their defense, they did do a pretty good job of keeping hushed up that they were employed/contracted with/ Black Knight (formerly LPS). LPS, for those not familiar, helped robo-sign loan documents and paid out a $120 million settlement with various state attorney general’s offices back in 2013. All in all though, I think most people would agree that mine is the better surprise. In any case, it is hardly shocking for anyone who reads the news to be aware that the banks have been involved in robo-signing and other creative activities to push through foreclosure cases, even after paying millions of dollars in fines to regulators and AG’s offices who gladly accepted their money. The thing that seems to attract the media’s and public attention is the robo-signing and fraudulent documents, and the focus tends to be solely on the HOW of it all being done. When the media does bother to pay attention (which sadly is very rarely, but we will get to that shortly) they don’t delve into the WHY of it being done. They need to, as that is the real story. It is the one that every homeowner and non-homeowner needs to be informed about.

If one digs deep enough, then one will realize why the financial crash of 2008 never went really away, regardless of claims to the contrary. The symptoms of the crash have been eased by the sheer amount of money being tossed at banks through programs like TARP and by mortgage bond buying by the Fed, but the cancer is still there. It does not take one long to realize that with fraud and forgery running rampant as it was in 2002-2008, that you can’t really “fix” an underlying 30 year residential note and mortgage that is already most likely fatally defective. You can’t assign something that was designed to have been assigned to a REMIC trust 90 days after closing (per IRS rules and the Trusts own PSA) and do it years after the fact… actually, you can try, it will just cause your investors to lose their tax exempt status and tick them off. Hence, we have a lot of lawsuits that talk vaguely about the “quality” of the investments, the “misrepresentations” of the Sellers, etc. Quite frankly it is time to put away the euphemisms and call what happened what it is. The “investors” (as in my case, whoever they may actually be) are suing because in a majority of the cases the “loans”, their “investments”, were simply never legally delivered to them. To put in nicely, they don’t hold jack squat. They are suing the bank “Servicers” involved, and the “Trustee’s”, because they did not do their jobs and now the problem simply cannot be fixed (at least not without first admitting that there is a problem). They need to work with the government and homeowners to fix the problem correctly, but it seems everyone involved have decided illogically that the homeowners are not involved in the equation. Now if you noticed all the “”quotation marks”” there is a good reason for that. You cannot be an investor in an investment that was never delivered to you. You cannot be a servicer on a loan that was not delivered to the entity you claim to be servicing it for. Nor can you be a Trustee for an insolvent Trust that does not hold any corpus. What the banks, government, and various agencies apparently have done for the last 8 years is use legal fiction to pretend the transactions have occurred. They have allowed the banks to account for transactions that are stated to have occurred, regardless it seems, in face of the facts.

That is part of the WHY of the situation. It is hardly controversial topic in that multiple writers have discussed securitization fail (as Adam Levitin has put it) in recent years. One can’t blame the government for its initial reaction to the crisis when it began in 2007-2008, knowing what they knew at the time. The REMIC Trusts, which are supposed to hold a majority of homeowner loans, are hopelessly cross collateralized and cross defaulted, covered by hedges, swaps, insurance policies, etc., affecting parties too numerous to count. I am sure when summit meetings between the largest banks and regulators were held, they realized the underlying issue. It was not simply that the banks or investors were going to lose money (or collapse) because homeowners were going to default on their loans, it was the huge tangle of commitments that had been made regarding loans and homeowner payments that threaded through multiple parties. This tangle was never disclosed or discussed with homeowners, even though it was central to their loans and should have been disclosed under Federal regulations such as TILA, RESPA, and REG Z. Banks and regulators hold the position the securitization does not involve the homeowners;  that it is an investor to seller issue, and homeowners are third party interlopers. This is where one, again, must call a very loud and emphatic, B.S.

Imagine if a mortgage broker had told a soon to be homeowner in 2007, ” By the way, just so you know, your loan may currently involve— or will very soon involve— a potential undisclosed third party. You will not be dealing with a traditional bank to homeowner loan if that is what you are expecting from this loan contract which you will be obligated under for the next 30 years to submit a large portion of your income under. Your “bank” will merely be a servicer in the transaction, and will in fact be incentivized to NOT work with you should you run into financial trouble in the next 30 years. This is because of fee’s that were not discussed with you that your bank (now “servicer”) will make if your loan starts to default. There are probably fees involved in this transaction that effect the pricing your loan that even I as broker am not aware of due to this structure…… But let’s skip that for now. Anyway, your bank will actually be incentivized through fee’s to see that you do go into default, rather than modify your loan or help you. Your loan payments are going to be so hopelessly commingled after you submit them, sliced, diced, and sent to other parties you never envisioned (and with insurance payments and cross collateralizations of your payments and your home as security for this transaction to boot) that a Rubik’s cube will seem easy in comparison to untangling the mess. By the way, this process involves shoddy processes we have already become aware of as mortgage broker(s), but we can’t even keep up with the demand for buying these loans from Wallstreet. So to the extent there might be forgeries or other problems that might affect title to your loan and home should you ever want to refinance it, sell it…… or Heck, if you ever buy one of them involved with one of these transactions, you might be screwed. But Hey, just ignore that for now! Oooops! Almost forgot, your monthly loan statement, which purports to reflect the transaction and payments you are giving monthly on your loan….. Yep, that will be a legal fiction, and not accounted for accurately. It will supposedly reflect the money that is going to the undisclosed third party that is supposed to be receiving your loan payments, but in fact the Trustee claiming ownership (on behalf of the undisclosed third party investors to your loan) does not audit or claim to know the veracity of the information and accounting for your payment as provided by the bank you thought was your lender (but who is now in fact your servicer). Now this matters, because perversely enough, when this party comes forward and claims to be damaged should you cease to make payments you can no longer afford to make, they may in fact still be receiving payments known as servicer advances from your servicer. These come out of the massive fees he is making from your commingled pool of loan payments. Yep, the claimed holder of the rights to your loan payments may not have even been damaged at all. Your bank, as servicer, may also have sold your loan and information multiple times, collected insurance payments and other compensation from your loan contract that it has not disclosed to anyone, even the Trustee claiming to hold your loan, so in fact they have been unjustly enriched as to you and the investors………Got it so far? Now, this is the kicker, and Trust me, you will love this part!!! The only one that will have been monetarily cheated will be you, but they will still claim they have been damaged and try to foreclose on your home in court and thereby double dip on their profits. Should you argue or try to get to the bottom of the transaction in court by exercising your due process rights, you will be painted as a deadbeat, someone trying to get a “Free House”, and shamed to the point of a possible full blown depression and suicide. Heck of a process, wouldn’t you agree? Now just sign, here, here, and here….”

Would the borrower have entered into that transaction with full disclosure? Was there a meeting of the minds between all known parties if he did sign? These are things that hundreds of years of laws regarding real estate and contracts, including the statute of frauds, cover and don’t look favorably on. The Banks will claim this was a buy –sell transaction, the funding of a loan occurred using their money (or table funded in some instances), and that the loan was then sold to the REMIC Trust. If we are finally allowed to look under the sheets, what we are likely to find is that the REMIC was in fact NEVER funded, that the banks pooled the investor money and funded the transactions directly, skipping the REMIC’s altogether. Simply put, the REMIC Trust entity claiming to be holding your loan, or foreclosing on it, never purchased your loan on top of not having been legally assigned the loan documents for the transaction.

 

Think that is an exaggeration as to what happened and is happening? If so, I urge you to read back over my case and others. Look into the ones where, sadly, an out gunned and on the ropes borrower did end up committing suicide out of despair after being denied any answers, recourse, or justice out of systems that should have been there to help them.  Other families just ended up on the streets, or in shelters, or had their lives ruined in multiple other ways. These are the ones the state and Federal governments failed. The court system failed homeowners, the AG’s failed them, and the major media outlets most certainly have failed them. There are undoubtedly many in the media who understand and know what is occurring, but choose to act like collective group of officer Barbrady’s with a, “Move along, nothing to see here”, because of potential loss of advertiser revenue and lawsuits. Think their editor’s would not stop them from running such a story? Watch the movie The Insider with Russell Crowe, which ironically was based on what happened in my metro with the tobacco industry, to understand just how badly what should be disclosed by an open and free press can be suffocated. In this whole mess, homeowners have been deemed to be acceptable casualties, collateral damage, because they are not economically important to the institutions that should be helping to fix the situation.

The above is the WHY to a great extent, so what should be done? I can only offer opinion, but I think the SCOTUS recently offered homeowners, courts, and the government a good way out of this mess with the recent Jesinowski decision. The court affirmed that Homeowners who choose to rescind their loans under TILA WILL, not should, but WILL be set back into the position they were in before the transaction occurred.  Even under the common law recognized right of rescission, which is less homeowner friendly, the law recognizes the parties right in an un-bargained for or fraudulent transaction to be set back to the point they occupied before the transaction occurred. It should not be, and is not the Homeowner’s, the court’s, or the government’s duty to perform an accounting for the transaction that the banks claim occurred with respect to the payments, selling, and servicing of the borrowers loan. If they cannot account for it, if they cannot show how they were damaged, if they cannot prove chain of title, then it is a speculative transaction and loss. The court can decide upon the equities of the situation after all the facts are presented, but the banks that lack the evidence to prove the preceding, by law, walk away without the home or any money from the homeowner. That would not be fair or equitable you say? That would be moral hazard? If you understand any of what  has come to light in the last decade regarding these attempted, but botched, attempts at securitization then you understand that there is a good chance the banks actually made undisclosed profits or other offsets on the borrowers contract. What is occurring is that they are probably trying to double dip, not recoup a loss. If you add all the offsets and profits up, the underlying contract has probably been satisfied, and equity and the law do not allow for the confiscation of your home because it harms popular and uninformed sentiment as to what has occurred in that homeowners case. Period.

Second, it is very hard to defend oneself in court and get to an equitable remedy if the government institutions that are supposed to protect us don’t allow access to information.  When they instead leave the institutions that are actively defrauding homeowners to police themselves, you are asking for problems. For instance, a question for the state AG’s in the LPS settlement, and other settlements…. When was the last time you posted a list of the loans foreclosed on (or in foreclosure currently) in your states that involved a firm involved with your robo-signing settlement? You have CONSENT ORDERS in hand, and you have access to these lists of loans (Just read the terms of your consent order). You have names of suspect robo-signers IN HAND. Out of the millions of dollars you collected, how hard would it have been to REQUIRE someone to post the most basic information regarding these transactions to a website, to REQUIRE the banks attorney’s to disclose that they used LPS or others to the court? To opposing counsel?……especially as these firms will claim, and by  the terms of THEIR SIGNED CONSENT ORDERS, that they have gone back and cleaned the mess up? Also, Why so Gung Ho to go to the trouble of providing defaulting homeowners the right to attend pre-foreclosure settlement meetings, without ALSO trying to ensure that the parties involved actually belong in the meetings in the first place? Can the bank on the other side of the table even legally modify the homeowners contract? Why not loudly inform homeowners of their right to rescission under TILA? Why not this, and a lot of other remedial action that would help to ensure that homeowners attending the meetings are not being once again victimized?  Well, it may be that receiving millions of dollars (in sometimes questionably allocated settlement money) tends to cloud ones vision……. it may be that forcing homeowners into settlements that may, or may not be, in the homeowners best interest saves the court system a whole lot of work through caseloads they would otherwise have to deal with…… and it may be that campaign contributions and other forms of influence tend to grease the wheels of justice, causing laws and rules of procedure to start to be ignored.  FYI, just in case the media gets really curious, maybe they want to take a gander at some of the entities set up to help struggling homeowners with their loans or seek “counseling”…. Who sits on the boards?  Notice any large banks predominating said entity? Not that there could be any potential conflict of interest with having an institution that may be defrauding (potentially) a homeowner sit on said board, ones who really might not want a homeowner  to be aware of their rights, or the true facts underlying the contract they entered into…. but it does bring a caution with it. There can be no doubt that home counseling services have helped homeowners in struggling situations, but there can also be no doubt that the homeowners may have not been getting the full picture of their options in certain instances.

For those who might wonder, given my occupation, do I somehow hate banks, or what is my particular beef?  The answer is NO. Banks are corporate entities like any others, they have thousands of good, intelligent, and caring people that work for them and who help borrowers. I could go schlepp for Chase Bank, Wells Fargo, Citibank or others, if I knew that they were being run by people who were not involved in the activities described. The problem is NOT “The Banks” as corporate entities. It’s that the culture and their adherence to laws and what is acceptable, flows from THE TOP DOWN. This goes for our regulators too, who operate in a revolving door system at the top. Greed and human nature being what it is, that is why we have regulations that are supposed to check our impulses to make bad decisions. However, herd mentality often makes the good choice a hard one to make, lines start to blur when you are about to score a multi-million dollar paycheck. I am not going to hold the moral high ground in writing all of this and in terms of being a flawed individual, as I have made plenty of screw ups in my past from DUI’s, to past due taxes, to just generally being a douchebag on certain occasions. However, I think most people are willing to forgive others flaws, as most people understand that others usually stop themselves at the point where their flaws and bad decisions might start to cost people their homes, their health, and the most basic rights we expect as Americans. My “beef” is that the board members and CEO’s of the largest banks have apparently ripped out their douchebag inhibitors, thrown then on the ground, stomped on them, then pissed on them for good measure. Their own employees and shareholders should expect, and deserve, MORE. The public deserves more. The regulators and AG’s should ENFORCE and REQUIRE more of the top management, or clean house in the form of prosecutions and consent orders when they do not. This has not happened, partly because of the illusion and threats from said banks that they will somehow take down the world economies (oooooohhh, burr, shiver) if they are effectively regulated in a way that ensures they act in an expected fashion. I have no doubt the management of the large banks thought they were justified in taking some of the actions that they did during the crisis, and indeed did so with the governments tacit consent in order to stave off the larger disaster about to happen. However, we are far enough removed from the crisis now (even though it is not gone), that the basic rule of law and consumers rights needs to be given more focus, not less. I can’t say much more. What is being allowed to occur is rotting out the heart of American business, people’s faith in banks and the government, and therefore is effecting the stability of the financial markets. It simply has to stop.  Think not? Just ask a college student today if he thinks he should be required to take a course on business ethics?  He will probably think it is the punchline to a joke. Why shouldn’t he? All he knows is that those who commit crime are not punished if they have enough money and power, and the government will not act unless embarrassed or called out by the media and public to do so (and even not then sometimes). If we are willing to forego our most basic constitutional rights in the pursuit of profit, and what we have laughingly twisted the word capitalism to mean, then we are quite simply and factually done for as a functioning democracy. This should scare EVERYBODY, and if not, all broadcasts of Honey-Boo-Boo, Duck Dynasty, and the Kardashians should stop, until the greater public does figure out why they should be scared. That is all I can impart as to my view of the situation, hopefully it proves to be worthwhile to those reading this. In either event, I have a sheriff’s sale to attend tomorrow, one of many as I understand it……

 

31 Responses

  1. GO MAINS!! Yeah Baby!!!!

  2. From Abigail Field’s analysis of Horace v LaSalle:

    “But wait, argued the bank, it doesn’t matter if if the trust owns the loan — it just has to be a “holder” under the Alabama version of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), and the trust is a holder. The problem with that argument is securitization trusts aren’t allowed to simply take property (remember property means real or personal) willy-nilly. In fact, to preserve their special tax status, they are forbidden from taking property after their cut-off dates, which in this case was February 28, 2006. As a result, if the trust doesn’t own the loan according to the PSA it can’t receive the proceeds of the foreclosure or the title to the home, even if it’s allowed to foreclose as a holder.”

    http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/04/01/court-busted-securitization-prevents-foreclosure/?a_dgi=aolshare_twitter

    Apparently I posted this at twitter last year and immediately forgot about it. Phyllis Horace v LaSalle bank National Association et al – AL 57-CV-2008-000362. There’s a link to the actual order.
    The real problem is that the trust being even a holder is not a fact in evidence.
    And being a holder doesn’t give them the rights to payment nor is it evidence of a transfer. The Alabama UCC may say that a note holder may enforce, but that’s not what the notes they crafted say and the note rules.
    But take note that the fraudster (bofa?) understands the difference between a holder and an owner.
    How is the trust a holder, anyway? Any one of 10 people could lay claim to any of these notes, if they can even find or produce a real paper note, by the alleg that so and so’s poss is its own (he’s my agent, he’s my poa, he’s my custodian, I know his uncle, we represent the trust). One thing is for sure, by the “trust’s” (read servicer’s) own argument, the trust wouldn’t be entitled to a credit bid as a mere ‘holder’. Even if the court had gone the other way, the trust could pay cash like anyone else (the anyone else must be arm’s length) at the trustee’s sale. This may be a new twist, or it may not because accepting money (sales proceeds) or a loan is the same acceptance of property, which many courts are calling discretionary (X Glaski), as in there’s a choice which can be made as to acceptance. But at least it establishes that banksters know the diff between a holder and an owner.

  3. speaking of MERS…this is very disturbing
    good luck all

    truly disgusting and so many make so much off this crap they spin

  4. Assignments being done straight from mers: 1) Apparently the coast is clear on the bk potential of anyone in the chain, or 2) if there is bk potential in the chain, they don’t care because they are pretending there’s no one else in the chain. The blank endorsement, under negotiation, could, have to ponder, find someone else had been in the act, and I say that with no clue or intent of intimating it might mean anything in regard to enforcement. But they are saying in the note, and further demonstrated by the assignments (or the right word might be admitting), that as to these notes, being a “holder” as defined in the default law UCC article 3 meant nothing as to the borrower. These particular notes aren’t moved by negotiation and only one who has taken the note by transfer from a guy who took by transfer etc and is entitled to payment may enforce the note against its maker. No one who is a “holder” by way of the UCC’s definition could enforce, nor would that guy have a right to an assgt of the collateral instrument.

    But what really stands out just now imo is that what they’re after with these late, current transfers is the credit bid of the trusts (to the extent trusts have credit to bid).

    We take a lot of things for granted we might not know we’re doing because they’ve been shoved down our throats ad nauseum, and imo one of them is that a holder of a negotiable instrument has a credit to bid. A credit belongs to the guy who paid for the note, does it not? If you gave me sam’s note to hold for you for ANY reason or if I stole it or even just found it, how would that give me a right to a credit bid?
    Even giving them the rest of the field (these are freely negotiable instruments), there’s a difference between a(n) (alleged) right to enforce and a right to a credit bid.

  5. And I Like Eric….
    LPS aka LuPuS. not so much…but Eric nails it. He could have expanded on those TILA and Regulation Z violations more.

  6. As In the Dollar no longer being the World Reserve Currency?

  7. Rock is like the friend that encourages you to commit suicide a classic Cyber Bully

    NEVER AGAIN

  8. RE: It won’t stop what’s coming. …

    Like the IMF. and World Bank for close ing. on the Federal Reserve pushing the Federal Reserve in to BK?

  9. let me correct that: “You had(sic) me going for awhile”

  10. Rock, you me going for awhile, but you really are a jagoff!

    As for the rest of you, I got a little advice from someone much older and wiser: when fighting giants, prepare to be un- noticeably stepped on. When the giants start slipping on our blood, then we can hit them in the eye!

    Keep the lawsuits coming, folks. The only way to slow down the foreclosures is to contest them.

    Exactly on point: when the truth is uncomfortable, go after the plaintiff and then the attorney. Shut everyone up at all costs. The judges are in on this one, guys. Don’t think for a minute that they’re not.

  11. Good. I am ready, too. Screw this. We have been duped for too long. Cannot wait for the new lawsuits by the giant insurance companies coming down the pike.

  12. johngault,

    i have a statement for you to see if you will do it. or not do it . a loan/mortgage/note. k.

    am lender, you borrower k.

    1/ i say to you am going to lend you 350,000 dollars, for 30 yrs at 6.75 percent. you pay me 2568 a month. k . oh by the way a MAY SELL YOU NOTE. THAT SOUND GOOD TO YOU. GREAT SIGN HERE,THERE AND ANYWHERES. and when you cant pay am going to have someone take your home. thats ok.

    2/ NOW i come to you and say look borrower this is the deal we are going to screw the government . am going to sell your note to these dummy for 30 times its value, and we will make the value on your home twice as much as it’s worth. k. so am going to give you 350,000 up front, then when i sell it to feds/treas/ for 30 to 40 times that amount i will give you haft the money. k , then we will do it , again and again, until we break the bank( feds/treasury. ) investors. so you will make 10 s of millions of dollars on a loan of 350,000. how does that sound.

    any american would of done # 2/ without blinking a eye. but wall street is and was greedy . the movie greed was about as close as you will get of the real wall street. and the one percenters.

    dont pay and tell them to get fucked. until they pay you all money they made on your property. as i have said many times, i will burn the house down. before just giving it over to them. i mean it.

  13. LOUISE, I HAVENT PAYED IN OVER 5YRS. NOTHING. ZIP, NATTER, AND AM READY FOR ANYONE THAT COMES ON PROPERTY. ASSURE YOU.

  14. Nailed it! Plain english!

    Euphemisms

    robosigning – forgery
    captured – corrupt
    settlement – bribery
    loan mod – cover up

    Add your own!

    No way settlements should be allowed to expire and banks be given a passing grade. As Helen Kelly said not one person should have to go through this! We need a complete stop to foreclosures, Watergate level investigation and restitution.

  15. “You can’t assign something that was designed to have been assigned to a REMIC trust 90 days after closing (per IRS rules and the Trusts own PSA) and do it years after the fact… actually, you can try, it will just cause your investors to lose their tax exempt status and tick them off. ”
    I disagree. I don’t believe, as I articulated the other day, that there’s anything optional about a secn trustee accepting a late assgt. He can’t*
    because the trust bens can’t. It’s true that a principal can sometimes
    ratify an act of its agent which would have exceeded the agent’s authority (the auth granted in their agreement), but a principal can’t ratify an act the principal couldn’t do itself. A long time ago, I posited that if “A” paid for a note but it wasn’t delivered, A had a right to delivery and had a security interest in the note until delivered, which might describe the situation between sellers and the trusts for lack of
    transfer / delivery. Normally, A could either say fork it over or sue to get it. That wouldn’t involve a new sale (tho the buyer would have to establish his right to delivery) – it would only involve delivery to complete the sale. The asignments being done today are postured as ‘new’ (current) sales. But even relying on an old one where delivery was withheld, I don’t think these trusts could now convert their security interests to anything else because in order to qualify as remic trusts, delivery wasn’t optional – security interests imo don’t qualify as true sales. The completion isn’t likely available after the cut-off date which required not a sec interest, but a sale. But imo, they ARE being postured as current events, not belated delivery. Further, these
    assignments being done today to trusts as current events don’t establish delivery of anything, which means to me that it’s no more than a (second) purchase and sale agreement which may or may not mean possession of the note were taken by the buyer / transferee. The only way imo possession would not be necessary is if the note evidenced a contract, not a negotiable instrument (which I also believe may be the case). Even if the restrictions recited in the note don’t support it being a contract, those restrictions still have to be met.

    *when a court says “voidable” v “void”, it implies that acceptance is
    optional and imo, it just isn’t because there’s no one who may accept even if he wanted to. And if I may, a reminder, that law was made (can there be any doubt that’s why they chose the word “void”?) so that trust investors wouldn’t face such a catastrophy as late acceptance of a loan (and one in default to boot) would occasion. It isn’t up to courts to disregard the legislated benefit given trust investors and thus put them in the harm’s way legislation precluded by the court’s giving new meaning to the word “void” (it does say ‘void’, right**?). Further, when language is clear and unambiguous, it must be given its meaning. The fact that the word ‘void’ was chosen for the benefit of investors doesn’t diminish its impact as an assertion by someone else. It’s not a contractual implication. It’s a legal one.
    **Obviously I’m relying on the remic rule using the word “void”, but even ‘avoidable’ doesn’t establish the acceptance which IS required.
    So to me, it becomes a question of fact: DID the trust accept a late
    assgt and IS that evidenced by the fact the action is being taken in the name of the trust (by Lord knows who). When acceptance of a late (sale and) assgt has such dire consequences, I don’t think the alleged representation of the trust may be presumed to be just that, esp with the fraudsters known propensity for bad acts (no cred). After all,
    merscorp members may act (or could) in mers’ name without mers
    being given instructions by any note owner. We know it’s the servicers paying either the attorney in judicial or the costs of non-j. Why should courts believe that when attorneys are paid by servicers that the representation is in fact for a trust? If courts blow us off, I guess we’ll have to start taking ads.

  16. China is fixing to create a rival currency system.

    The focus of the predatory central bankers is now fixed upon the Pacific Rim countries.

    The TPP is just another weapon to diminish the middle class here in the US.

    The English Banking system has opted for a new client state: Australia. They have done so fixing to leverage the American Dollar into oblivion using “Free Trade” in the East and Australian gold as collateral.

    First, they infiltrated our currency through fraud; next they created the income tax through the 16th amendment to pay that fraudulent scheme off.

    Now they have manipulated the stock market and undermined retirements, savings and pension plans as captives to that manipulation.

    Now they have destroyed the only “true” link to prosperity afforded the middle class in the past as inherent to their ownership of their homes; they have done so through a deliberate “Boom- Subprime Lending” and “Bust- derivatives paid-off as predicated upon fraudulent foreclosures” Cycle.

    Of course, property titles are now hopelessly corrupted and distressed property proceedings are being employed daily to hide the evidence.

    Article 8 in the Constitution allows “congress to ‘coin’ our money”; nowhere does it say, “private bankers with ties to foreign countries can create debt for American Taxpayers out of thin air, while employing fraud and computer screens”.

    Renounce the foreign predators; renounce the “Federal Reserve Notes”; restore the “Greenback” as a viable alternative to American Debt; pro-rate issues of “Greenbacks” to coincide with harvesting the TRILLIONS in hyper-inflationary “Federal Reserve Notes”.

    Investigate and jail Wall Street.

    GET MONEY OUT OF OUR POLITICS.

    Force American politicians to swear an oath to the Constitution while simultaneously rejecting subservience to “Corporatism” and the wholly corrupted and insolvent, “Federal Reserve”.

    Then return a central bank that enriches PUBLIC COFFERS-NOT PRIVATE POCKETS!

    Employ the IRS to toll the corporations and unwind the 682 Trillion Dollars in DERIVATIVES FRAUD!

    Restore the secret service to its rightful intention: combatting counterfeiting; restore public title and land registries; investigate the securities fraud.

    END THE MURDOCH MEDIA MONOPOLY. Break up the TBTF banks.

    RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW.

    REQUIRE VOTING AS MANDATORY AND ISSUE VOTER CARDS… TOMORROW.

    Only then may We The people redeem our common claim to our common birthright.

    Plant more acorns, We are gonna need more trees.

  17. “This tangle was never disclosed or discussed with homeowners, even though it was central to their loans and should have been disclosed under Federal regulations such as TILA, RESPA, and REG Z.”

    Unfortunately, even though his comments are given in summation (I take it), it’s still a very unsatisfying comment. What about loans made in good faith, that is, without knowledge of what was going to happen to these notes? But let’s say Joe’s Mtg Co., Inc.did know. What about its knowledge compels his disclosure to the borrower under TILA or RESPA? No question I’m no authority on Tila, say, but so far, I’ve only seen the deal the other day about the “character” of one’s loan as being something which might compel disclosure that one’s loan were going to be sliced and diced / whatever. Other than that, I don’t see that failure to disclose this falls under tila or respa. Maybe it does; if so, we need to know how. Since he made the assertion, perhaps he’d like to let us all in on it. I don’t mean that in a smarmy way. I hope he will.

  18. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

    Case No. 12-12032 (MG)

    DECLARATION CONCERNING DEBTOR’S SCHEDULES

    Date ______________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________________________________

    James Whitlinger

    Chief Financial Officer

    7/3/2012 / s / James Whitlinger

    I, James Whitlinger, Chief Financial Officer of the corporation named as debtor in this case, declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing summary

    and schedules, consisting of 622 sheets , and that they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

    Penalty for making a false statement or concealing property: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years or both. 18 U.S.C.§§

    152 and 3571.

    12-12020-mg Doc 685 Filed 07/03/12 Entered 07/03/12 16:26:26 Main Document

    Pg 623 of 623

    THIS IS WERE YOU WILL FIND ALL ANYONE NEEDS TO SEE.

    located at site of , kccllc.net case number 12-12020.

  19. as you know I have been researching my matter for now going on 5yrs, and I do allot on sec sites/ and edger sites, and the
    bk of res-cap.

    what I have found is amazing , and along with wells fargo site, ctslinks.com , found allot of info.
    but this is something that should tell all, that GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION AS OF 25 OCT 2006, STOP EXSISTING, AND A NEW COMPANY
    CAME INTO PICTURE, THAT WOULD BE GMAC MORTGAGE ,LLC.

    now as you know , ONLY SOMEONE THAT OWNS A ( ASSET ) CAN , TRANSFER, ASSIGN,SELL, OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT MIGHT COME UP
    WITH THAT ASSET. RIGHT.

    SO, 1/ as of the bankruptcy of res-cap and all affiliates, IN MAY 2012, they all had to give to court a complete accounting of assets that they own.

    I have gone through all 600 plus pages of gmac mortgage ,llc total assets . and found that they do not own any mortgages/note that we have.
    my mortgage and note. with that said,

    1/ first , mortgage and note, was sign and dated to some other party, without recourse, that borrower did not have any knowledge at time of
    origination and closing.

    had something to do with the funding of said mortgage /mortgage note! TILA/RESPA violations. did note find this out until last yr , 2014 after getting
    a full copy of closing doc’s from closing attorney. and that gmacm mortgage loan trust was part of the mortgage before signing the mortgage?

    2/ the first assignment on record at registry of deeds, is in august of 2012, from gmac mortgage corporation to mers, mers to fraudulent non-existent
    securitized mortgage trust, also affidavit’s were put on that are also part of the fraud, in that MERS,MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSYTEMS,INC,MERSCORP, HAD TO HAVE A LETTER OF AUTHORITY FROM GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION TO ASSIGN ANYTHING OUT OF MERS. AS OF OCT 25 2006, GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION WAS DESOLVED, NO LONGER EXSISTED.
    SO HOW COULD MERS,MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION,INC GET SUCH AUTHORITY??? FROM A NON-EXSITENT CORPORATION.

    3/ SO LET GO AHEAD, NOW EVEN IF GMAC MORTGAGE ,LLC, SAY’S THERE WAS A MERGER, SO WHY DIDN’T GMAC MORTGAGE DO THE
    ASSIGNMENT???, AT REGISTRY OF DEEDS?? IN 2012. WELL I DO KNOW WHY, THEY GMAC MORTGAGE CORP,GMAC MORTGAGE ,LLC
    DIDNT AND DOES NOT OWN THE MORTGAGE AND NOTE, THATS WHY. HOW, DO I KNOW THIS, YOU MAY ASK.
    BECAUSE I WENT THROUGH ALL ASSETS OF GMAC MORTGAGE ,LLC. ALL 600 PLUS PAGES OF ASSET’S THAT THEY REPORTED TO BK COURT, AS OF JUNE/JULY 2012 THAT WENT BACK TO 2011. AND MY MORTGAGE AND NOTE IS NO WHERE IN THE ASSET OF GMAC MORTGAGE , LLC.

    4/ ITS FUNNY TO ME EVEN TODAY, AS TO HOW THEY THINK THEY CAN FORECLOSE ON SOMETHING THEY DONT OWN,.

    SO NOW COMES, TRUSTEE TO GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1, AND AS I HAVE SAID FROM BEGINNING , THAT EVEN GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST WAS AT CLOSING TABLE, WITHOUT THE KNOWELAGE OF THE BORROWERS. AGAIN TILA/RESPA VIOLATIONS.

    BUT LETS LOOK AT CHAIN OF TITLE, THAT MUST BE DONE TO PERFECT A INTEREST IN THE MORTGAGE AND MORTGAGE NOTE, TO HAVE OWNERSHIP, TO BE HOLDER IN DO COURSE,IN COURT OF LAW.,
    GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, TO DESUCH BANK AND TRUST, DESCH BANK AND TRUST BACK TO GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, GMAC MORTGAGE CORP TO RESIDENTIAL ASSET MORTGAGE PRODUCTS,INC, BECAUSE
    OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF MORTGAGE AND NOTES, THAT WAS DONE 3 FEB 2006. SO AFTER THAT POINT.
    NO LONGER DOES GMAC MORTGAGE CORP/OR GMAC MORTGAGE ,LLC. HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MORTGAGE AND NOTE. NOTHING. CANT. SAY ANYTHING OR DO ANYTHING. BY SECURITYS LAWS AND CONTRACT LAW.
    NOW RESIDENTIAL ASSET MORTGAGE PRODUCTS,INC, SELLS THE MORTGAGE AND NOTES TO FRAUD TRUST, GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1. 27 FEB 2006. THEN FRAUD TRUST DESTROYS OUR MORTGAGE AND NOTES,TO SELL STOCK SECURITY CERTIFICATES USEING OUR MORTGAGES AND NOTES AS COLLATERAL FOR THE CERTIFICATES. BY THEM DESTROYING THE ONLY ORIGENIAL MORTGAGE AND MORTGAGE NOTE,
    IT WOULD BE IMPOSSABLE TO HAVE THEM NOW APPEAR IN ANY COURT OF LAW, SAYING THEY ARE ORIGENIALS.. IS FRAUD APPONED THE COURT. AS A SECURITY NOW
    BY LAW , THERE ONLY CAN BE , ONE OR OTHER SO BY DESTROYING ORIGINALS , THERE ONLY CAN BE A SECURITY CERTIFICATE. BY LAW
    THEY CAN NOT BE BOTH AROUND AT SAME TIME. DOUBLE JEPPERTY LAW CLAUSE.

    5/ NOW MY MORTGAGE/ AND NOTE HAS BEEN SPLIT/ DIVIED INTO AT LEAST 26 DIFERENT TRAUNCHES. CAN ANYONE TELL US
    WHAT TRAUNCH IS MY FULL MORTGAGE AND NOTE IN????? NO WAY. IMPOSSABLE. BECAUSE ITS PART OF A SINGLE TRUST ASSET,
    SO SHOW ME THE TRUST ASSETS. THEY CANT. BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUST TO PUT THE ASSET IN…THERE IS NO PROOF THAT ANY TRUST DOES EXSIST. NONE. THIS IS WHY ALL INVESTORS AND THE GOVERMENTS HAVE SUID ALL THESE BANKS FOR FRAUD, AND THE BANKS SAID WE NEVER HAD TRUST OR EVEN PUT MORTGAGES INTO THE TRUSTS, AS REQUIRED BY PSA CONTRACT. AND NY YORK TRUST LAWS.

    6/ UNDER THE FREE WRITTING PROSPECTUS I HAVE A COPY OF. IT DOES SHOW MY MORTGAGE IN IT, BUT IT SHOWS THAT , AS OF
    THE ISSING DATE OF THE CERTIFICATES, THAT MY MORTGAGE WAS PAID IN FULL, AS OF 2/1/2006..THATS RIGHT PEOPLE
    THE SECURITY AND EXCHANGE DOCUMENTS SHOWS, ISSUE DATE BALANCEPAID TO DATE, AS IN PAID IN FULL AS OF THAT DATE.
    IT SHOW MY MORTGAGE BALANCEPAID TO DATE AS 349,349.89. HUM.
    THEN ON SAME SECURITY AND EXCHANGE DOCUMENT IT GO ON TO SHOW THEM ( SELLING ) MY MORTGAGE FOR THE FRAUDUENT
    INFLATED APPRAISEL PRICE OF ( 500,000.00 ) DOLLARS. HUM???

    7/ SO AS FAR AS AM CONCERN THERE ISNT ANY MORTGAGE AND NOTE AFTER 2/1/2006. AS IT SHOWS AS BEING PAID OFF AS OF THAT DATE. LAW SAYS ONCE A DEBT IS PAYED ONCE , NO MATTER WHO PAID THE DEBT, A DEBT CAN ONLY BE PAID ONCE.

    8/ NOW THIS IS WHY I SENT OUT A TOTAL RESCISSION OF LOAN , MORTGAGE AND NOTE. ON 4 MARCH 2015. THERE WERE MANY
    PEOPLE/ENITTYS/AND ALSO REAL PARTY THAT FUNDED THE MORTGAGE THAT WE THE BORROWERS HAD NO KNOWLEGE WAS AT TABLE AND NEVER RECEIVE ANY TILA/RESPA DECLOSURES FROM. EVEN AS OF TODAY, 23 MARCH 2015, SO AS FAR AS AM CONCERN
    THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A COMSUMATED DEAL AS OF 23 MARCH 2015. FROM ALL PARTYS AT CLOSING TABLE.

    9/ THEY THE BANKS/OCWEN/TRUST/ATTORNEYS FOR THEM, ORLANS / HAVE TILL 1 APRIL 2015 TO FILE WITH THE COURTS, THAT THEY
    DO NOT EXCEPT THE RESCISSION, AND THIS IS WHY. 20 DAYS IS THE LAW. THE SUPREME COURT JUST SAID IT 3 WEEKS AGO. THAT THE BANKS HAVE TO FILE IF THEY BELEIVE THEY ARE RIGHT, IN THAT THE RESCISSION SHOULDNT NOT BE PERMITTED TO STAND. AND IF THEY DO NOT DO IT IN 20 DAYS. THEY LOSE ALL DEFENSE WHEN A BORROWER GO TO COURT TO HAVE THEM PAY ALL MONEYS THEY GOT FROM THE MORTGAGOR, ALL MONEY BANK MADE ON THEM , PLUS ALL PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM. ALL MUST BE GIVEN BACK TO BORROWER, THATS THE LAW.

  20. DB, I agree with you. Just stop paying.

  21. Well, Rock, you must be a fan of at least one of the 7 articles of propaganda, since you’ve used one in substituting an attack on the man for his argument. This is used to undermine and distract from an argument. He’s a ‘low level disgruntled employee’ and therefore his
    opinion isn’t worthy of consideration. But YOU haven’t supported
    that his comments are ‘nonsense’. If you can, don’t know about anyone else here, I’d like to hear your argument.

    From the blog:

    “Almost forgot, your monthly loan statement, which purports to reflect the transaction and payments you are giving monthly on your loan….. Yep, that will be a legal fiction, and not accounted for accurately.”

    That could be true. It may be that no borrower-payment on his loan
    is ever applied to his balance except after a default (and really, if then only on a sheet prepared for f/c based on another sheet kept as if the pymts were applied to one’s loan particularly. I mean, they
    put the loans in a big pot, stir them, and out come certificates with face values of 50 million in the aggregate, to be paid at X %, X being some
    “weighted average” of the rates on the notes and the certs over-collateralized. If certs are over-collateralized, and everyone made his payment, somebody’s payment or part of everyone’s payment is not being applied to the loan, but to something else.
    I see no dollar for dollar nothing here.
    The alleged purpose of sec’n was to use private money (the kind already in circulation) to enable more lending. And I think it could’ve
    been a good thing except for the other things those guys did, like
    the insurance, swaps, counter-swaps, and sticking their hands in the
    pot by whatever method, such that the loans don’t really create the
    payment or right to payment on the certs. The certs were or should have been sold on the notes being collateralized by real property to be paid dollar for dollar. But that wouldn’t work for the banksters because the only thing secn would actually do is comport with the reason they said they needed it – to provide more funds for lending. That wouldn’t make them gazillions of (other) dollars nor let them at the collateral.

  22. I HOPE THIS GUY IS SMART ENOUGH TO BE IN A SAFE PLACE, AND I HOPE THE LAWYERS ARE TO. THEY WILL BE AMONG THE MISSING VERY SOON.

  23. I HAVE SAID FOR YRS TO EVERYONE, STOP PAYING YOU OWE NOTHING PEOPLE.

    WATCH WHATS HAPPENS TO THE BANKS AND CONGRESS WHEN ALL STOP PAYING ON ALL THESE FRAUD MORTGAGES.

    WHAT I LIKE TO SAY. RUN FOREST RUN. HAHAHHAHAHAH

  24. ‘Words mean things’. I’ve been talking about the words in our notes which say they will be moved by transfer (v negotiation) and anyone who wants to enforce them must also have the RIGHT to payments.
    Imo, this is a good example of words meaning things. I was interested in seeing who insured the WTC on September 11, 2001 and only got
    as far as this from wikipedia when it occurred to me that it’s a good example
    Larry A. Silverstein was born in Brooklyn, and became involved in real estate, together with his father, establishing Silverstein Properties. Silverstein separated from his business partner, Bernard Mendik, in 1977, and bought a number of large office buildings in Midtown and Lower Manhattan in the late 1970s. In 1980, Silverstein won a bid from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to construct 7 World Trade Center, to the north of the World Trade Center site. Silverstein was interested in acquiring the entire World Trade Center complex, and put in a bid when the Port Authority put it up for lease in 2000. Silverstein won the bid when a deal between the initial winner and the Port Authority fell through oop as to the initial winner – sic), and he signed the lease on July 24, 2001.
    Soon after the September 11 attacks, Silverstein declared his intent to rebuild, though he and his insurers became embroiled in a multi-year dispute over whether the attacks had constituted one event or two under the terms of the insurance policy, which provided for a maximum of $3.55 billion coverage per event……
    In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center.[16] Silverstein was outbid by $30 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein’s bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001.[17] This was the first time in the building’s 31-year history that the complex had changed management.

    The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m2) of retail space. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal.[18] The agreement gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed.[19]

    The insurance policies for World Trade Center buildings 1 WTC, 2 WTC, 4 WTC and 5 WTC had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view, and the matter went to court. Based on differences in the definition of “occurrence” (the insurance policy term governing the amount of insurance) and uncertainties over which definition of “occurrence” applied, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of which definition of “occurrence” applied and whether the insurance contracts were subject to the “one occurrence” interpretation or the “two occurrence” interpretation.

    The first trial resulted in a verdict on April 29, 2004, that 10 of the insurers in this group were subject to the “one occurrence” interpretation, so their liability was limited to the face value of those policies, and 3 insurers were added to the second trial group.[22][23] The jury was unable to reach a verdict on one insurer, Swiss Reinsurance, at that time, but did so several days later on May 3, 2004, finding that this company was also subject to the “one occurrence” interpretation.[24] Silverstein appealed the Swiss Re decision, but lost that appeal on October 19, 2006.[25] The second trial resulted in a verdict on December 6, 2004, that 9 insurers were subject to the “two occurrences” interpretation and, therefore, liable for a maximum of double the face value of those particular policies ($2.2 billion).[26] The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.[27] An appraisal followed to determine the value of the insured loss.”

    The people who crafted our notes made it a point to use the words
    “transfer” and “right to payment”. imo, it was done for the lender’s benefit – to preclude enforcement by those with no rights (and thus save them the time and expense of needless law suits), but it’s also
    an assurance to the borrower. Whether or not it’s intended as an
    assurance to the borrower doesn’t matter. They put the language in
    there and it’s an integral part of the note. How ‘mers’ may transfer a note, and for consideration, as recited in the assignments, got the heck me. They’re relying on something for the proposition that mers may.
    We mostly think of the dot as an incident of the note. Weird as it sounds, I think in these assignments they are purporting the note is an incident of the dot. The bad news is there may be some justification (that or these are just more entirely bogus documents).
    The NV SC, in granting the claimant something against a borrower,
    purported with little or no explanation that something in some
    Restatement deal says the assgt of the collateral instrument takes the note with it. The lack of specific reference in that Restatement was more than frustrating, so to me it was a wholly unsupported finding
    and I haven’t fwiw gotten back to it to explore. Even if there WERE real support for such a proposition, how would it be that mers, even as thee ben, would be the party to receive the consideration, having paid none itself? If I can remember the case, I’ll link it here or quote. But in the meantime, words still mean things.

  25. This is a well done comment by somebody who actually knows “most” of what is going on. I say “most” because I can guarantee that it is even worse than this explanation.

  26. United States of America = Economic Apartheid

    NEVER AGAIN

  27. “One could complain about the forgery, the fraud, the denial of due process and equal protections under apathetic state court system(s), the shifty attorneys, etc.”

    “One could complain about the forgery, the fraud, the denial of due process and equal protections under apathetic state court system(s), the shitty attorneys, etc.”

    Fixed it.

  28. Rock the Cyber Bully is back

    NEVER AGAIN

  29. Some low level disgruntled employee, who has posted nonsense on this blog, is now making comments about his former employee. Big deal!

  30. Awesomeness. Exactly fucking right on the money !!!! It’s time to stop being afraid of the criminals and fight back the simplest way possible. STOP Paying. Everyone !

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: