RESCISSION: What will MBS Rating Agencies Do Now?

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

==================================

EVEN IF THE TRUST DID BUY LOANS WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE BONDS IF THE LOANS CAN BE CANCELED AT ANY MOMENT BY THE BORROWER?

This is going to be interesting. When investors realize that the “securitization” of loans, even as designed is contingent upon the power that a borrower has to cancel the loan things are going to change.

Think about it. We know with certainty that the notice of rescission is effective by operation of law when a borrower drops it in the mail. That means it is the same thing as a contested legal action in which the borrower won the case. Nothing can stop a borrower from dropping a notice of rescission into a mailbox.

We also know that there are two time limitations in TILA rescission. The first is the right of three day rescission where the duties of the “lender” are spelled out. We have seen a multitude of cases in which the “loan” was assigned out before the expiration of the 3 days. So if the borrower wants to cancel the deal, who does he notify? Thanks to Dodd-Frank and the FCPB Rules, notice to anyone in the chain is notice to all.

We also know that there is a three year period in which the borrower can cancel the deal. And we know that there is a common law right of rescission. The rules for enforcing TILA rescission and the rules for enforcing common law rescission are very different. The main difference is that TILA rescission is EFFECTIVE (by operation of law) on the date the notice was sent.

And we know that equitable tolling can extend the three years to many more years than three.

And we know that most REMIC Trusts never were funded, never acquired any loans, never were operational even during the 90 day cutoff period. BUT even if the REMIC trust was funded and purchased the loans, what exactly did they get? The answer is that they received an interest in loans that were underwritten by banks who had no risk in granting the loans. The kicker is that all that “bad” (intentional) underwriting can be undone at the stroke of a pen; and this time it isn’t a Judge or government official that has that power. It is the pen of the borrower that has all that power.

Lastly we know that upon TILA Rescission, the parties in the chain must cough up the canceled promissory note, file a satisfaction of mortgage, and return all monies paid by or on behalf of the borrower. That is a huge liability. Who pays that? Is it the investor because they are now the creditor? Investor appetite for that kind of liability is virtually nil because most of them are stable managed funds (e.g., pension funds that require Triple AAA rated investments). Is it the bank or servicer claiming the right to foreclose or otherwise enforce the note? Banks and servicers won’t like that since they don’t consider themselves the lenders. But under Dodd-Frank, they have trapped themselves. They foreclose and claim all the “benefits” of foreclosure, including deficiency judgments. How can they now say they are not liable for disgorgement required under TILA rescission?

Which brings us to the title of this article. Virtually every loan is subject to a notice of rescission, right or wrong, PLUS the fact that it creates a contingent liability, plus interest, plus attorney fees and maybe treble damages. What investor wants to put money up for an investment that could be canceled anytime by any consumer? What investor wants to put up money for an investment that could create a monstrous liability, relying on the banks to (1) handle the money properly and (2) underwrite and manage the loans properly. There are a lot of “if” in there. And rating agencies don’t like uncertainty.  Under such circumstances rating agencies should either give no rating or give a very low rating.

I don’t know whether the US Supreme Court realized that when they handed down the Jesinowski decision they were utterly destroying the value of mortgage backed and related securities. Knowing what we now know, who would want to buy the old ones, much less touch anything new being offered in the MBS market?

42 Responses

  1. So in other words there is a sense of urgency to send a recission notice because we very well know the banks will run crying to ghe government to….DO SOMETHING!!  THEY’VE CAUGHT US AND THEY’RE FIGHTING BACK!!    And of course the gov will do exactly as they ask…..

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy™ S II 4GLivinglies’s Weblog wrote:

  2. E-Tolle. … Will Rogers.
    Everybody knows that.

  3. “The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves.”

    Do you have any case law to back that assertion up? Personal experience?
    🙂

  4. There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves.

  5. What all brokers need to know. Another good one.

    http://activerain.trulia.com/blogsview/4614311/what-all-brokers-need-to-know-about-tila-loan-rescission

    Poor poor Judges that chose the wrong side of history

    NEVER AGAIN

  6. See the Judge in this case knows what’s going on and wants to be on the right side of history

    http://www.brookstonelaw.com/legal-news/brookstone-law-helps-homeowners-win-groundbreaking-battle-against-major-us-banks-mortgage-lenders/

    NEVER AGAIN

  7. A … That artice is 7 years old.

    Good Grief!

  8. A Man has not lost house.

    But the Banksters lost a big investor.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/02/21/uk-financial-soros-idUKTRE51K0AV20090221

    Poor Judges

    NEVER AGAIN

  9. A Man… Your attitude is why you lost your homestead.
    Its hard to pity someone who is without empathy.

    The War on Words saga continues.

  10. Poor Judges their goes the pension funds.

    Regarding Justice Scalia he knows what is going down in the lower courts.

    I pity the Judges that go against this ruling.

    NEVER AGAIN

  11. The problem I discern with the business of court is contracts require an agreement of the parties and.people are pro we because they do not trust the relationships created by the court business and by being pro we they keep the business from pretending it has an agreement of the parties to be there.

    Over time everyone has gotten used to people being g pro we as if its by choice to do business with the court business.

    What is ignored, I my opinion, is that the parties are strangers and one of the parties is there by coercion to protect their right to property in a civil suit where they have no familiarity with the opposition who claims to represent an unknown person who claims to have been harmed.

    Nothing decided in a business where property is at stake should be considered the law if the real parties are unknown and the harm is a lie, misrepresented as fact to receive and steal and get you to except when they didn’t use without reporting it to a law enforcement agency for a regulation agency and painting them by their name for what they did in the conspiracy.

    Let their evidence show they did conspire and did steal. A judge has no opinion in a civil suit.
    The evidence of the agreement, breach, and familiarity of the parties should be enough.

    A judge has no power to decide you don’t keep your property because he/she is familiar with the one who “says without contractual proof” they represent someone capable of being harmed or having a loss of right or property ”

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life

  12. Hey Bob, ever looked into Google Adsense?

    Or maybe Neil will work out a deal with you for a pop-up. They’re all the rage right now.

  13. IN RE RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLC, Bankr. Court, SD New York 2015, the case Rock cited, shows pro se litigant Rosier throwing every last granule of her Kool-Aid mix at the New York bankruptcy court in order to save her house from foreclosure. The court took a gigantic, well-deserved dump on all of her assertions, particularly the one about the Jesinoski opinion making it necessary only to send a notice of rescission in order to cancel the loan (even though she had waived rescission rights by entering into a loan mod agreement with the creditor).

    Here’s the sad part – she probably did get seriously injured in her loan process, but instead of attacking the injurious parties for damage resulting from those injuries, she listened to somebody like Garfield, and crafted a maniacal, kitchen-sink pleading that she just knew would destroy the creditor’s case. But, It didn’t

    She should have hired a competent professional to examine her mortgage, or at least she should have read up on MortgageAttack.com’s numerous articles showing why frivolous arguments won’t defeat a foreclosure effort.

    Bob Hurt

    727 669 5511

  14. As usual, coming out with nothing of value to share except how to thoroughly lose on the most insane arguments and thoroughly gut a house on the way out. Violation of Sherman antitrust was a real find!

  15. Are you all sufficiently scared now? Be very, very afraid you may be held in contempt…..Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, scary stuff!

    Follow the yellow brick road to see the man behind the curtain, screaming and bellowing….shit, it’s Rock and Christine! Follow us, we’ll get you there. Click your heels and say “there’s no place like home”, there’s no place like home, etc…there you have it!

    Us winners will show you the way, the only way…onward Christian soldiers….WTF

  16. @ Rock ,

    I really just came here today to see your posts… I see that you are moving on from directly attacking the Supreme Court which made the tremendous “error” of upholding the plain language and original intent of a law unpopular with bankers whose usefulness was diminished through years of misapplication and misinterpretation in lower courts and are now quoting the odd NY BK court case (or similar) that pleases your bosses.

    To be fair I agree with you that the mortgage transaction needs to be attacked ,, maybe someday you will see that in many if not most courtrooms the only avenue for attack allowed by the courts is TILA rescission ,, your bosses have maneuvered us into a position where a scalpel is unusable and we must use a large hammer.

    All of my discovery questions were answered with the same phrase both times. “No , and it wouldn’t help the defense anyway.” ,, that sir is a direct quote. If you have a way to attack the transaction when nothing about it will be revealed and the courts rule this to be a proper response I would like to hear it.

  17. @ Christine ,

    ” to be slapped with contempt for having filed a frivolous legal action. ”

    Maybe yes , maybe no ,, I understand that in the courthouse we are all persona non grata ,, except for the club-members … it is far far less frivolous than say a junk debt collectors suit which the court entertains without reservation and in the full knowledge that the debt they are collecting is cancelled and uncollectible ,, the junk debt collector files 100 cases at $200 a case and puts money in the judges pocket,, perhaps 2 people contest and the cases are dropped without a moments hesitation.

    Compare and contrast that to standing behind the clear words of TILA rescission. I rescind via notice in the USPS , that sets the wheels in motion … Where is the frivolity? I just see a machine being started… Are you saying that if the counterparty fails to perform you cannot file a suit to legally force acknowledgement of that fact and enforce the laws provisions?

  18. Poor Judges there goes their Pension Funds. And probably their careers will follow unless the Investors decide not to put all their vengeance on them. or maybe a pissed Beaurocrate.

    NEVER AGAIN

  19. The investors are pissed. And they will bring there vengance on the Banksters.

    NEVER AGAIN

  20. consumerrightsdefenders equitable tolling factors is in my opinion, the best way to restart the clock on fraud since most will think that although there is no statute of limitations on fraud; that their property was stolen too long ago to reset the clock on the theft.

    If they weren’t caught in the playing by the thieves rules (world), they’d discover something new about the theft of their property; somehing they didn’t mention way back when (when they were robbed) and.lodge a new complaint with an agency and shine the spotlight right back on the thief.
    The old complaint and the new complaint are viewed by more agencies and law enforcement.

    I didn’t state legal enforcement. I stated law enforcement.
    If you can publicize the complaint and then name names and disclose the injury these people will be revealed for what they hide in that court building under color of law.

    Not legal advice.
    Opinions are of value.to the one issuing it.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life

  21. Too bad Christine….that diet of nothing but organic piss and vinegar you’re on is leaving a bad taste in everyone’s mind.

  22. Oh, and I agree….

    NEVER AGAIN!

  23. TOLLE,

    I don’t touch GMOs if I can avoid it.

  24. You’re most welcome A MAN.

  25. Thank you E.Tolle.

    NEVER AGAIN

  26. Rock, see that iceberg up ahead? It’s a biggie! No matter….keep dancing that jig, what a great band! And have you ever seen so many stars in the sky!

    Christine, I’m kinda rushed, so I’ll keep this short.

    BITE ME!

  27. You are relaxing, having peaceful enjoyment of your property (some people call it a home, so they can use works like homeowner and control both terms, so for the sake of removing the control we will call it property, now they don’t control it by language alone)
    So you are having peaceful enjoyment of your property and someone delivers something to the property, whether they put it in the mail box you go to to recieve things for the property or whether they hired someone to knock on the door, disturbing your peaceful enjoyment since you aren’t expecting company, otherwise you’d be waiting on the knock, so disturbing the peaceful enjoyment someone was hired to give you something that was a demand.
    It stated you were being sued, (civil action for causing loss of right or property), and the document states that you have to be at some place and time in order to answer to that claim or they will decide to take your property, which you are peacefully enjoying right now.
    So you go to this place and have no idea what you are getting into, there is true plausible deniablity and true coercion, because you would not be there if it weren’t for that notice saying you caused some loss of right or took some property.
    You get into this place and there are these strangers, for some they are (unknown persons, and this is important because you would contract with known persons and have a meeting of the minds with them and there would be some consideration), but you are facing people who you have no idea who they are, they say their name is so and so and such and such and you take their word for it because you don’t know them, and they claim you caused a loss of right or property and they want it back and you know for a fact you caused none of them any harm and you have no idea who hired them,

    but they throw around names of businesses you may have signed papers with and claim to know the inside stuff on how you are or were working with those businesses and claim they have the right to make you continue to work with those businesses according to the information they have, or they will take your property in the name of the business that they are tossing information around that they know you have done business with them.

    What they don’t toss around is how in the helck they got the right to stand before you as an unknown person and tell you what you are to do when you conduct business, and they cannot tell you when you were paying things to the business how they applied the payments.
    why does this matter.

    Well business says they loaned you 10 dollars and you paid 13, but they are standing there saying you owe business more because they have an agreement with you to pay more than what was loaned since they gave you more time to pay it back, but neither of these unknown persons have any information on the arrangement,

    they are tossing around papers but they have no idea if you and someone in the business agreed that paying early you don’t have to pay more, or that if you find out someone else is interfering with your agreement you don’t have to pay these interfering people.

    They have no evidence that you have such and agreement, and you don’t have to have evidence of the agreement as long as you are paying who you agreed to pay. Once unknown people pop in, they are assuming the risk of the agreement but can’t force you to do anything you do not want to do, and certainly can’t use a prior agreement as a reason to rob you

    because you owed someone they are aware of and they have assumed now they can take their place when they loaned YOU no money regardless of who they paid for the right to collect from you, they LOANED YOU NO MONEY and you did not put your property up for collateral for any LOAN THEY ARE MAKING AMONG THEMSELVES.

    They can’t even prove you put your property as collateral for their shenanigans, but if you are stuck in their illusion, you will believe this because to you papers don’t lie (ah hem, papers can’t speak, so it takes someone who was there to explain what really happened) but if you want papers to tell the story, you can get caught in their illusion and be the participant of ‘now you see it, now you don’t’.

    Now, these unknown persons get together and decide regardless of what you say, you have no rights, and no remedy, that the unknown person is right and the unknown person making the decision is right, and you do not have any more peaceful enjoyment of your property, GET OUT!

    Unknown person A (the decider) writes up some papers and hires another hand to come remove you from the property, and unknown person B (the initiator of the claim) files papers (if papers could speak what story would they tell), to indicate you transferred, yes I stated that YOU transferred your property to them after the encounter,

    because they decided to assume that you contracted with them to agree to everything they did to you when they made you walk into that business with their claim of loss of right or property.
    Unknown person B had no power of attorney to act for you in any way, but to hide their act, (you can decide if it’s criminal or not by deciding whether what you experienced was a foreclosure from a creditor (not criminal) or theft of your identity to transfer your rights to property (could be criminal), to hide their act they pretend you were under a contract by gesture when you showed up at that date

    and time because why else would you go unless you believed you caused a loss of right or property, ignoring the fact that they threatened to take your property if you did not come to answer to that claim.

    When someone does something criminal to you, you don’t keep paying them to hurt you.

    You don’t pay their boss, or their bosses boss to decide whether they are right or wrong to have done that to you.

    You did not know how to speak their language when you got there, you did not know what they were doing so there was no full disclosure, you did not know the people there, so they were unknown persons, and what the helck did you get out of it, what was your consideration? Leaving them with the right to take your property from you?

    That is not a valid contract by any means.

    Now you walk away, and get on blogs and complain and that’s it. You try to figure out how to give them more money so they can help you get your property back like a bad casino visit.

    You walk in, they say your property is ours, and you try to buy it back thinking on this day with this unknown person you’ll get the chance to make right this mistake and be back whole, but you will not be whole because the first thing they stole was your peaceful enjoyment of your property and the second thing they stole was your property,

    except for the people who believe it was a foreclosure, I’m not talking to you, a foreclosure is done by the creditor, someone who loaned you money, and all the paperwork is in order so a foreclosure is not a theft, it is a legal term meaning they had a right to take back what they gave you, so this is not for the people who speak foreclosure language

    So when someone commits a crime you usually line them up and identify them and make them answer to the authority that regulates their business.

    How many actually complain?

    What I found out from my CFPB complaint was that the pretend did respond to the AG office.

    Shock(fracking)er, shocker, the AG actually took my original complaint seriously, did and there wrote the pretender to get answers and were responded to, but was that information in the initial suit to steal the home? Helck no! But was it in the response to the recent complaint, helck yes.

    Also, naming names really makes everyone who did conspire to take your property have to answer to the complaint as you have named them in their capacity, not as GOD, as they are no God, you named them in their capacity as the actor they were, working for some business, cause when they leave that office, they are just like you and me, acting like moms and dads, they have no power over us when they leave the office, they have no power over us when they are at the office.

    Their power is our perception, what was in the audio, how to argue and win everytime, gerry spence, it is our mind that has chained us in this nightmare, and we are doing what everyone else is doing, If you keep doing the same thing over and over, you can’t expect different results, in this case ‘you’ is every homeowner who keeps going to that “fracking” building and thinking they will get justice, when they have seen everyone that comes out has their property claimed by the unknown persons who are still in the building when you left.
    So you complain, and now they have to answer you in front of the regulator.

    But here, most will still roll over, because their answer is some document from the public showing you made an agreement with some business to pay them, but they don’t provide info that you paid in full, especially if your complaint was that you paid in full, or they don’t provide evidence they had the right to collect that purported debt, which would be required under a QWR, and they don’t prove things required under RESPA as in who is actually the creditor and who gave them power of attorney to pull you into court to claim they were owed the property, and if you name the one who sent someone out to make you leave your home,

    and you leave their titles off of them, they are just men and women and they have to answer what they do, and can they really tell a regulating agency their supervisor gave them permission to take the property? What do you think the supervisor is going to say, their manager gave them the right?, and the manager is going to say the Chief Executive Officer gave him the right? Really are they going to say anything like that?

    I don’t know how things will result, but I am pleased to know the AG did follow through as my response from them was they do not represent persons, and I had replied to the AG office, I am not the person, I am the people and the people are the state, and they do represent the interest of the people and the state.

    Interesting enough, in their response to the AG, the AG was asking for a QWR (and I’m not saying whether they were or weren’t or could or could not ask) and the pretender had a legal right to provide the information to settle the complaint, the pretender did not give the proper response to satisfy a QWR, or to satisfy the request of the complaint.

    Shortly thereafter the AG office issued a Cease and Desist to about 10 or more pretenders in the state, and shortly after that all 50 AGs got together and sued and won and got a settlement, but it’s still up to the people to bring their individual complaints to the public and in my opinion name names.

    Naming a business makes you sound, unintelligent, Bank of Amademedoit, told me I had to do something. Really, something called Bank_of_A_made_me_do_it actually spoke to you and told you to do something, and just what do you expect some agency to do with that information? Who at Bank_of_A_made_me_do_it told you and did they have power of attorney, and did they have authority to tell you or to make you do it, and who told them they could do it?

    While you learn their rules to play dodge ball to keep your property and they change the rules, they toss the same papers around in the agencies when you lodge a complaint, but if you know papers don’t tell the story, papers are not proof of anything, heck a digital copy of a paper does not mean it’s an original, just like the signature on a digital copy of a paper does not mean you signed it.

    (if you want to claim the picture or claim you signed the picture, or claim the paper they hold is something that was before you and you are obligated to the terms, then I’m not talking to you, you are still stuck in the illusion and I can’t break the spell)

    But if you can just read this and look at the box without being inside, they have as much as I’d have if I printed your papers out from your county court house, and I had a computer with a series of information about how you made payments to my business and how much I say you owe, and without someone with personal knowledge, all that mess is hearsay, and it’s you, you, you, and your belief, that makes this stuff continue to be against you and not against them.

    I know nothing, I do not know legal things, and I’m glad I don’t because legal things appear to not be lawful things and I want nothing to do with legal things, so I don’t even give legal advice.

    Question: Even if all of that stuff was legit, and I’m not saying it is, who gave the unknown person to use your name to transfer the property from you to anyone else? Answer that.

    A case is as strong as it’s weakest link.

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

  28. Also Rock, you said….

    “What the Sup Ct. didn’t realize was that there was so many nitwits that misunderstand the holding. No need for law suit within SOL–PERIOD!!”

    Would those nitwits include the 85 attorneys, licensed in 19 states, at Baird Holms, LLP?

    They say this on their website….

    “Justice Scalia, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, held that a borrower may rescind a loan simply by providing notice to the lender within three years of the consummation of the loan. But Justice Scalia went on to hold that the right to rescind does not depend on either the ability of the borrower to return the loan proceeds or on whether the lender failed to make the required disclosures under the Truth in Lending Act.”

    –PERIOD!!

    Since Rock won’t take it upon himself to read any analysis other than what’s published at the American Bankers Association, I’d invite others here to read for themselves this brief analysis….

    http://www.bairdholm.com/publications-feed/entry/revisiting-jesinoski-v-countrywide-home-loans-inc-a-poor-outcome-for-lenders.html

  29. Rock, that case you posted attempts to pull the wool over everyone here just like you tried in the other thread on rescission. That case isn’t at all similar to Jesinoski, in that the borrower had allegedly entered into a modification after her rescission was, or should have been, enforced. Anyone can see how that would throw sand in the gears.

    You’re continuing to post cases that have no bearing on the discussion and it shows just how low you’re willing to go to make a point, one not agreed with by SCOTUS. I don’t know, maybe you do it just to get laughs from your fellow call center employees at the sweatshop you work at. You’d best get back to work now.

  30. The Supreme Court used the wording of “Consumation of Loan” and not “Origination of the Loan” for a reason.

    in my opinion if they the so called lenders do not respond within 20 days with a lawsuit the case is closed unless we reopen it again with a quiet title lawsuit. The only thing we have to do as borrowers is record a “Notice of Rescission” with the county recorder. And if the County Recorder does not record We only have to sue the County Recorder.

    “we reverse the judgment of the Eighth Circuit and
    remand the case for further proceedings consistent with
    this opinion. ” Direct quote of the end of Justice Scalia.

    Again I am only a layman

    NEVER AGAIN.

  31. Be careful about the effect of the equitable tolling factor without some more research. Its a very shaky grounds for extending the 3 year statute under TILA.

  32. To our Rescission concerned homeowners and Neil:
    We cannot worry about the investors role or potential fraud claims they may have. Its nice to discuss this stuff at a coffee and tea brunch, but what is critical is that Americans need to call us today and get their TILA enforcement suits filed.

    Call Consumer Rights Defenders if you would like a consultation and some assistance at 818.453.3585 and ask for Steve or Sara.

  33. Sorry the borrower first mails the notice of rescission.
    Sorry Neil I disagree with having to file a Quiet Title action after the 20 days (if the banksters do not file a lawsuit) Quiet Title is not necessary. The only thing necessary especially in a non-judicial Sate is to go to the County Recorder and record a Notice of Rescission.

    NEVER AGAIN

  34. The borrower doesnt need to sue. The borrower files a notice of rescission at the county recorder office. Case closed unless the pretender files suit within the 20 days. The county recorder has to record a court order.If the county recorder does not record a court ordered void contract then we can sue the county recorder. The banksters are irrelevant and so is the low level judge who cannot go against the Highest court in the land.

    This is my layman’s opinion.

    NEVER AGAIN.

  35. Rock,

    I hadn’t looked into it. Point well taken. Come to think, I believe E. Tolle posted something from him a few weeks ago… just about rescission, to prove some specious point again…

    That should have tipped me off…

  36. The MERS was created very much like the phony gambling parlor in the movie, “The Sting”.

    In the movie, grifters acted the part of employees to the storefront that was “phonied-up” to resemble a legitimate gambling parlor.

    In the MERS, participants to any number of frauds were given access to the mortgage data-base they created after they paid a one-time $25.00 fee.

    No one, beyond those that paid the $25.00 fee, was ever supposed to gain any understanding of how the loans entered into the phony MERS gambling parlor were traded back-and-forth among the grifters that operated MERSCORP.

    The titles are now hopelessly corrupted.

    This is because they were traded behind closed doors in the absence of any coherent paper trail- the paper was destroyed after it was copied to disc: “Dematerialization”.

    Then, the titles and ownership of them were replicated any number of times… In other words, they are counterfeit and they were counterfeited any number of times: “Infinite Re-Hypothefication”.

    To make matters worse, the corrupt bankers operating this phony gambling parlor realized they were exposed to huge losses due to their meddling in subprime loans…

    So, they began placing bets against the borrowers’ abilities to pay the frauds the bankers had created.

    After all, the bankers and their lawyers vetted the borrowers for their ability to pay and then they created loans based on that inside information that ultimately placed the borrowers in hopeless situations.

    The corrupt supporters of the intentionally mislabeled “Federal Reserve” are also the owners of the DTCC and DTC and, as private banking entities, they also own and operate the MERS.

    The DTCC and DTC should be reporting on the bets- aka “derivatives”- the private bankers took against the borrowers’ ability to pay their loans, but, at the moment, that is something they steadfastly are refusing to do.

    Conversely, everyone should also know that the “government-sponsored-entities”, or, “GSEs” were also, once upon a time, owned and operated by the same private banking cartel that operates the MERS, the intentionally mislabeled “Federal Reserve”, the DTCC and the DTC.

    Since 2008, the GSEs have been managed by the federal government.

    The private bankers that essentially own our government, have placed bets, internationally, totaling 682 TRILLION Dollars.

    Those bets are only gonna pay off if the phony gambling parlor is successful and the foreclosures are allowed to go forward by defrauding borrowers and investors alike.

    The answer is not automatic weapons, canned hams, gold purchases and Glenn Beck; instead, the answer is: Investigate Wall Street, Prosecute the bankers, Jail the bankers and then close the intentionally mislabeled central bank – the “Federal Reserve”.

    Then, harvest the wholly-discredited “federal reserve Notes” and replace them with “Greenbacks- a viable currency, created by Abraham Lincoln, and currently available to the American People even now- they are stored in our public treasury.

    Then, re-open the central bank as a “PUBLIC UTITLITY” that enriches PUBLIC COFFERS-NOT PRIVATE POCKETS.

    The moral of the story: First, the private-criminal banking cartel hijacked the currency of the American People and now they are in the midst of stealing the only tangible assets We The People have left- our homes.

    The Borrowers were targeted by the system that is supposed to protect us because the criminal behavior, thus far, is beyond the ability of law enforcement to understand it and the investors were targeted because that is where the pension plans are.

    Plant more acorns We are gonna need more trees.

  37. Christine, I wouldn’t post anything from Vondran, he’s a known pretender defender! Just like Garfield, no one has found evidence of him EVER winning a case.

  38. javagold, read this post Jesonoski decision: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16081491038413644977&q=jesinoski&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47: it will clarify a lot of what these legal illiterates are serving up in their Kool-Aid.

    Again, the only methodology that works is attacking the mortgage transaction–PERIOD!!

  39. Java,

    http://vondranlegal.com/can-a-borrower-rescind-a-mortgage-loan-modification-under-truth-in-lending-tila/

    “Think about it. We know with certainty that the notice of rescission is effective by operation of law when a borrower drops it in the mail. That means it is the same thing as a contested legal action in which the borrower won the case. Nothing can stop a borrower from dropping a notice of rescission into a mailbox.”

    ???

    This blog is becoming increasingly more surreal by the day.I pity all the poor schlemiels who will be encouraged to “drop a notice of rescission into the mailbox” and subsequently sue… to be slapped with contempt for having filed a frivolous legal action.

  40. Any answer of whether MODIFICATIONS are included in rescission, if done within the past 3 years…..Why or why not ????

  41. What the Sup Ct. didn’t realize was that there was so many nitwits that misunderstand the holding. No need for law suit within SOL–PERIOD!!

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: