“Legal Impossibility”: REMIC Trust does not own the loan, the debt, the note or the mortgage

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

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

see Glaski_Affidavit-Thomas-Adams_5-15

Hat tip to Dan Edstrom, Senior Forensic analyst for livinglies.

Thomas Adams, whose name sounds like one of the founding fathers, has submitted an affidavit as an expert witness in the Glaski case in California. He is completely qualified as an expert in securitization practices and documentation. He was one of the lawyers who worked on the first pooling and servicing agreements back in 1989. For those who have given up trying to convince a judge that the securitization aspect of their case is relevant, this affidavit should help.

He concludes that the Trust did not ever come to own the subject loan, and further (like the case Patrick Giunta and I won in January in Florida) he found that nobody in the chain ever owned the loan. He is right of course, but he boils it down into words that virtually anyone can understand — probably on first reading.

The opinion relates to a WAMU Pass Through REMIC Trust. And it involves Bank of America, Chase, LaSalle Bank, and California Reconveyance. He says that the Trust could not possibly own the loan because it is invalid according to the terms of the Trust itself. In a word he is saying that the alleged Transfer is void because

1.  The period of operation for the REMIC Trust was limited to 90 days. It was only during that period that the loan could have been purchased by the Trust. The alleged transfer took place 4 years after the operations of the REMIC Trust closed. Delaware law says the same thing as New York law: any act in contravention to the terms of the Trust are void. The PSA says the same thing.

2.  The subject loan was already declared to be in default at the time of the Transfer. Hence the loan was not a “qualified” loan under the terms of the PSA. {It also means that none of the presumptions under the UCC apply as to possession, holder or endorsement of the note}.

One of the interesting things that carried the day for the homeowners in the cases we have won and which might carry the day in the Glaski case is that if the Trust never purchased nor acquired the loan, then even the servicer who was named in the PSA has no claim to being the servicer unless they have another instrument from the true creditor to service the loan, which they don’t. If they did, they would be required to disclose the identities of the investors on each loan, which would give each borrower an opportunity to contact those investors.

The Banks have successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of thousands of Judges by piling up false paperwork, including “powers of Attorney” {why would you need that if the servicing rights were really transferred? If the servicing rights were truly transferred, then there would have been a purchase and sale agreement and an assignment of the servicing rights, not a power of attorney}.

Once the investors and borrowers start to compare notes, it becomes easily apparent that the original loan documentation was often completely false and withheld multiple material disclosures. As we have already seen in lawsuits by investors against servicers, the servicers are the real parties in interest in foreclosures, since it completes the theft that started when investors first gave their money to the investment bank who was selling mortgage backed securities issued by a REMIC Trust that was destined to be cheated out of the proceeds of sale of those MBS securities.

The Truth of the matter is that the investor money was never used to fund the Trusts who acquired the loans. The truth is that investor money was used in most cases to directly fund the origination of the loan, contrary to the trust (which was ignored by all parties). And the truth of the matter is that the investors have no privity with the borrowers, and are not protected by note or mortgage or their interest in an empty unfunded trust. Nobody has the right to use or enforce most of the notes and mortgages out there. But SOMEBODY has a right to demand money from the borrowers: it is the investors who have a claim based upon unjust enrichment.

So the bottom line is that there either is no loan contract or there is a loan contract. If there is a loan contract, which I say in most cases is not true, then it can be rescinded. If there is no loan contract, there is nothing to rescind. But since there is no loan contract there is nothing to enforce — by the Trust, the servicer, the subservicer, the successors, endorsees, or attorneys in fact. And if there is no loan contract then the documents evidencing the loan contract are worthless pieces of paper upon which no actually transaction exists — no matter how many times they refer to it in increasingly false and fraudulent documentation.

30 Responses

  1. Hello and good day My name is Michael Figueroa Jr. my father passed away in 2011 at that time my fathers sister became my personal reprehensive, and was my execution. She completely destroyed my life, took every thing I had. I thought I had a vision of how the end would be like. I put every thing on the line and tried my so very best to obtain the trust with little info I had. I believed I could not fail.

    when I failed went to my death ground, and death is what I wanted cause the fact my dream did not come to fruition, I just want to disappear. An the hate that I had was eating me from the inside.
    Now I know now that hate, is not a good thing and I am trying to forgive her for what she did if the hardest thing.

    I went to every lawyer that would talk to me an here me out. they all just said the case was to completed. and with no money down not a chance.

    the name of the trust is American housing trust IV recorded in Maricopa county recorder under Michael Figueroa recorder Number:
    19890414238 .

    People I am so very sorry for letting every one down..Hopefully the lord is not done with me on this matter.
    sincerely
    Michael A Figueroa Jr.
    The true owner of the trust in question.

  2. The assignment is like a promissory note. They are both just pieces of paper with writing on them. If they conform facially with the applicable statute then they are considered to be valid for the purposes of pleading. In truth, if you research it, you will see that a note is NOT the debt and neither is the assignment. The assignment is not the mortgage either. The debt is the debt and the mortgage is the mortgage. Seems simple, doesn’t it?

    The note is evidence of the debt and is admissible into the record if it meets certain standards regarding form and content. The assignment is evidence of a transaction in which the mortgage rights were acquired from the assignor by the assignee. For purposes of pleading, an allegation referring to these instruments is sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.

    But that is just the beginning and not the end as many have treated it. At trial, the party enforcing through judgment and/or foreclosure must prove the underlying transaction if challenged by the “borrower.” It is this difference between pleading and proof that has gotten us in so much trouble.

    If the robo-witness says yes that is the assignment and that is part of our business records, but then says he has no idea nor did he review any records to indicate that there was a purchase and sale of the note, mortgage or my shoes. IN that case the testimony shows on cross examination or voir dire that the witness is not competent to testify as to that transaction and the fact that it is in the business records only means that they had it in their business records — not that the transaction took place.

    So THAT is where borrowers are winning because the truth is that nobody is even willing to try to prove the original loan or try to prove the purchase and sale of the loan because that would mean opening the books of everyone in the chain, something that would most likely lead to indictments. SO right up until the point where the Judge rules against them, the banks are taking to the illusion of higher ground.

    When the Judge orders that discovery includes going into the underlying transaction or when the trial judge rules that line of inquiry is proper, the banks either dismiss the foreclosure or settle with the homeowner under seal of confidentiality. So while tens of thousands of people have “won” or settled their foreclosures on very favorable terms, nobody knows about it because of the confidentiality agreements.

  3. If you want me to respond to your comments, write them here:

    http://livingliesthetruth.com/2015/06/04/garfield-reaches-new-bozo-high-on-glaski-dope/

    We don’t need to provide LL with more traffic on such absurd issues.

    The borrower has no standing to enforce or dispute an assignment. PERIOD. Chain of assignment has ZERO RELEVANCE to foreclosure, PERIOD.

    Get a clue, Kool-Aid Drinkers!

  4. Oops- …. A chain of assignment which IS, not are, not possible,
    And CONVEY, not coney. Sorry

  5. Bubhurt-
    Regardless of what the courts have ruled, if the trust is nonexistent and is maintaining that “we are not the investor, please contact your mortgage servicer”, while the mortgage servicer continues to insist that they are indeed the investor, creditor, lender, noteholder or whatever, then we have a problem. In the default/foreclosure filings they are the only entities mentioned. Apart from MERS in many cases, but of course MERS is merely a “nominee” for the “lender” (originator), 99% of whom are bankrupt or simply ceased operations.
    What are we to make of this? Their entire court pleading is predicated upon a chain of assignments which are not possible, and as such coney nothing to anyone. Nemo dat. Rules the day.

  6. David, I see the so-called rescission notice as a CYA letter very quickly and sloppily done. Somebody is scared that they will be discovered for what they are and sued for it. Bring their fears to reality. My only caveat is that you do more research, because sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.

  7. Large difference between State Court, Administrative Court and Federal Court with authority, jurisdiction AND commercial code(s).

    Toad Opinion….knowledge IS power

  8. David, what’s up with this?

    “….OCWEN LOAN SERVING,LLC has excepted the rescission….

    Spelling error, or ulterior meaning?

  9. to christine rock for your viewing pleasure

    Orlans Moran File Number: 189.5527

    There is currently no sale scheduled for this property, the foreclosure sale that was schedule for may 5, 2015 at 1200 PM, has been

    canceled by our office, we were told by OCWEN to stop any further and future actions on this property. that William a Marshall SR, and

    Joanna l Belanger, had as of the 4 march 2015, rescinded the mortgage contract and mortgage note. and that OCWEN LOAN SERVING,LLC

    has excepted the rescission, along with WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1. there will no

    further actions taken , NOW and in the FUTURE will be taken by either party on this property, because of the acceptances of both parties to the

    rescission of the loan contract, mortgage, and note, dated November 8 , 2005. It has come to our attention that the loan contract, and mortgage,

    and mortgage note , has not been CONSUMMATED by the TRUE LENDER , THAT THE TRUE LENDER OF ANY AND ALL MONEY PAID TO ALL PARTY’S TO THE MORTGAGE TRANSACTION, THAT WAS GIVEN TO CLOSING ATTORNEY, WAS NOT GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, GMAC MORTGAGE CORP did not fund the loan contract or mortgage , and the mortgage note. The Truth in Lending Act (TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq, enacted on may 29, 1968, as title I of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (pub. L. 90-321 ). The TILA, implemented by Regulation Z (12 CFR 1026 ) , became effective July 1, 1969. it has come to our attention that the required DISCLOSURE

    were never given to William a Marshall , SR, and Joanna L. Belanger, prior to and during or afterwards the closing date of November 8, 2005. By the proper

    parties, and true lender or creditor of the mortgage contract, and note, Dated Nov 8, 2005.

    ORLANS MORAN PLLC
    P.O. Box 540540
    Waltham, MA 02454

    P 781 790 7800 | F 781 790 7801
    E information@orlansmoran.com

  10. ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: RE: URGENT!!! Orlans Files#: 1895527
    From: Information
    Date: Mon, May 4, 2015 12:38:15 -pm
    To: David Belanger, POA , DJABELANGER@HOTMAIL.COM

    Orlans Moran File Number: 189.5527

    There is currently no sale scheduled for this property, the foreclosure sale that was schedule for may 5, 2015 at 1200 PM, has been

    canceled by our office, we were told by OCWEN to stop any further and future actions on this property. that William a Marshall SR, and

    Joanna l Belanger, had as of the 4 march 2015, rescinded the mortgage contract and mortgage note. and that OCWEN LOAN SERVING,LLC

    has excepted the rescission, along with WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1. there will no

    further actions taken , NOW and in the FUTURE will be taken by either party on this property, because of the acceptances of both parties to the

    rescission of the loan contract, mortgage, and note, dated November 8 , 2005. It has come to our attention that the loan contract, and mortgage,

    and mortgage note , has not been CONSUMMATED by the TRUE LENDER , THAT THE TRUE LENDER OF ANY AND ALL MONEY PAID TO ALL PARTY’S TO THE MORTGAGE TRANSACTION, THAT WAS GIVEN TO CLOSING ATTORNEY, WAS NOT GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, GMAC MORTGAGE CORP did not fund the loan contract or mortgage , and the mortgage note. The Truth in Lending Act (TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq, enacted on may 29, 1968, as title I of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (pub. L. 90-321 ). The TILA, implemented by Regulation Z (12 CFR 1026 ) , became effective July 1, 1969. it has come to our attention that the required DISCLOSURE

    were never given to William a Marshall , SR, and Joanna L. Belanger, prior to and during or afterwards the closing date of November 8, 2005. By the proper

    parties, and true lender or creditor of the mortgage contract, and note, Dated Nov 8, 2005.

    ORLANS MORAN PLLC
    P.O. Box 540540
    Waltham, MA 02454

    P 781 790 7800 | F 781 790 7801
    E information@orlansmoran.com

    From: david a belanger ; djabelanger@hotmail.com
    Sent: Monday, May 4, 2015 12:06 PM
    To: Information@orlandsmoran.com
    Subject: URGENT!!! Orlans Files#: 1895527
    Importance: High

    Dear Whom it May Concern,

    I just spoke to John Mason at your office and he informed me to send this email that confirms that the Foreclosure Sale for this Tuesday, May 5, 2015 has been canceled. The property information is as follows:

    William Marshall, Sr.

    9 Rodman Street

    Shirley, MA 01464

    Orlans Files#: 1895527.

    We have A Complaint and Ex-Parte TRO Motion, we were going to file today in Middlesex County Superior Court. We have been informed by your offices that the Auction Sale date for this Tuesday has been canceled. We need an email referencing this so we don’t have to file the complaint mentioned herein.

    Your client OCWEN may not have informed you that we have filed a HUD Discrimination Complaint, which has been accepted that there was infact Discrimination and the matter . has been sent to MCAD (Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and they have also determined that there has been Discrimination which violates both 1964 Civil Rights act and Mass Civil Rights Satutes.

    As we are now in the Investigation phase of this Complaint, it would be a violation of 24 CFR 100.400 and Section 818 of Fair Housing Act.

    24 CFR 100.400 – PROHIBITED INTERFERENCE, COERCION OR INTIMIDATION

    ? 100.400 Prohibited interference, coercion or intimidation.

    (a) This subpart provides the Department’s interpretation of the conduct that is unlawful under section 818 of the Fair Housing Act.

    (b) It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of that person having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this part.

    (c) Conduct made unlawful under this section includes, but is not limited to, the following:

    (1) Coercing a person, either orally, in writing, or by other means, to deny or limit the benefits provided that person in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling or in connection with a residential real estate-related transaction because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

    (2) Threatening, intimidating or interfering with persons in their enjoyment of a dwelling because of the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of such persons, or of visitors or associates of such persons.

    (3) Threatening an employee or agent with dismissal or an adverse employment action, or taking such adverse employment action, for any effort to assist a person seeking access to the sale or rental of a dwelling or seeking access to any residential real estate-related transaction, because of the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of that person or of any person associated with that person.

    (4) Intimidating or threatening any person because that person is engaging in activities designed to make other persons aware of, or encouraging such other persons to exercise, rights granted or protected by this part.

    (5) Retaliating against any person because that person has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in a proceeding under the Fair Housing Act.

    Please send ASAP an email reply simply stating that the Foreclosure Sale scheduled for this Tuesday, May 5, 2015 has been canceled. If not we will be forced to appear in Middlesex Superior Court tomorrow to file a new complaint and argue an Ex-Parte Motion for a TRO and further arguing 24 CFR 100.400 Violations.

    Thank You for your prompt attention to this matter.

    David a belanger

    power of attorney

    William a marshall sr

    Joanna l belanger

    978-618-3105

    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Title 18, United States Code, ?? 2510-2521. This e-mail message and any attached files are the exclusive property of Botelho & Associates, LLC Law Offices, are deemed privileged and confidential and are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, forwarding, duplicating or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of this e-mail transmission is strictly prohibited and violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please so advise the sender immediately.

    My job includes exceptional customer service. If you would like to comment on the service you have received, please email your feedback to customercare@orlans.com

    Federal law requires us to advise you that communication with our office could be interpreted as an attempt to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose.

    ORLANS CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
    This e-mail and the documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individuals or entities named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mailed information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address above. The transmission is to be deleted and any items that may have been printed are to be destroyed. Thank you for your compliance.

  11. DC,

    “…and if you want to claim that most of the judges are fair…”

    Funny. I never, ever once said that. Ever. In 7 years, I never once have. Either as “Enraged” or as “Christine”. I have consistently talked about judges’ biases, their shortcomings, their ego and where they’re afraid of being caught with their pants down because they know they WILL be reversed and they want to prevent that by all legal means.

    I said what will, might, could, couldn’t, wouldn’t and WILL NOT work and I’ve been right so far. How do I know? Count the winners on this blog. Nothing to do with judges. Everything to do with the system, how to understand it and how to play it. Judges are nothing. Puppets playing a predictable role in a system they are paid to play. Worked for Rock, for Bob G., for me, for Shadowcat and many of Tnharry’s clients.

    I said all along: learn the system, loose the attitude. Judges don’t make laws, they merely interpret them, by mandate. They’re perfectly happy ruling within the laws they know and understand, as best they believe they can, based on their authority, mandate and knowledge, because… they hate being reversed on appeal by someone who might, actually, show that they didn’t understand as much as they thought they did. It’s a slap in the face. They don’t care for it. They do everything to avoid it.

    Can judges rule beyond the laws pleaded and referred to in motions? Hell NO! They are the judicial power. Not the legislative one! The battle against banks in NOT a court battler but a Congress one. Judges in civil cases can only rule on… contract, negligence, tort and the likes. REMIC? In your dreams! Get a grip on your country’s systems!!!

    Learn your system and learn to play by it or forever attack the wrong party, on the wrong issue and… lose your case each time. Garfield has helped manufacture more cases in favor of banks than anyone in the US since 2007. Know how? He blurred the lines between legislative, executive and justice and sold you on your ignorance. He’s made a ton of money. Did people here save their house?

    Attack away.

  12. If a state AG issues a cease and desist to 10 or more banks/servicers and they continue to steal homes and Quicken continues to underwrite the loans with an 800 number that has the letters MERS in it, how can the CEO of the ocmpany act as if they did not violate the False Claims Act.

    Personally just look and see one mortgage that is improperly underwritten and it’s proof it’s not the only needle in the haystack.

    So they don’t want to disgourge their ill gotten gains, and probably don’t have any discovery for the DOJ cause that would be like gov’t getting into their business right?

    So money can flow from the gov’t to them but not back from them to the gov’t when they are caught stealing!

    http://www.housingwire.com/articles/34073-quicken-loans-ceo-the-fha-has-been-hijacked-by-the-department-of-justice

    DOJ, my home is one stolen and underwritten by Quicken Loan employees in the middle of a moratorium on sales of foreclosed (stolen) homes where the AG specifically stated there were numerous violations of the trust law, contract law, state constitution and Vernon statutes and where the title companies were complicit and assisted in the theft.

    It doesn’t take long, my home is right smack in the middle of the 2007 – 2011 time frame it is Aug 2009 stolen, and in 2010 Quicken put their fat fingers on it and got more FHA money and guess what!
    Later those banks settled with the AGs, and offered $300 for the property they stole.
    Can’t you chase down the foreclosure settlement, the 4.9 million people offered a pittance for their sweat equity to purchase the homes?

    Can’t you find them, and then review the re-sell of their homes, and find Quicken Loans name on the transactions, in the 50 states in the middle of a cease and desist and investigation?

    What about the law firms Stern, and that Texas foreclosure mill firm that recently shut down, investigate there and find Quicken underwrote stolen homes and got paid from FHA.

    There’s more than one way to look at Quicken’s books as it supports the MERS system of property ownership.

    Dig deep enough and you may find collusion for purchasing properties in certain areas by certain banks when MERS decides to issue foreclosure notices…one area swath with Wells Fargo and another area full of Bank of America.

    Stay with it DOJ, there is no way they are innocent, they just don’t want you to know how guilty, they are!

    /www.housingwire.com
    Quicken Loans CEO: The FHA has been hijacked by the Department of Justice

    We know they loaned no money, and of course they won’t let you follow the money trail.

    Just look up the settlements, and find a consumer from that, their home was captured by Quicken, follow that dust trail.

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

  13. Thats one way to look at it.I think people say “steal my home or house”because as you know congress is also paid for and if you want to claim that most of the judges are fair go ahead thats your opinion.Looking at most loans from that era they have things in common,fictitious preparer,never notorized on the day of signing,never got closing docs until requested,and then the figures are completely dif.My HUD-1 says Wells Fargo paid 130k to my 2nd and thats not true as I paid it off two months prior to closing and have the cancelled checks so all people are trying to show is that these loans originated in fraud and thus maybe they would work with you on renegotiating the terms or rate but they dont.I could care less what they make on their end of the loan transaction but you see it is deeper than that they want it all and thats what they get,the payments,the insurance,the Investors cash then the house,so how is that a fair deal Cristine.

  14. That post was irrelevant 7 years ago. It was irrelevant 5 years ago. It was irrelevant 2 years ago and it’s still irrelevant today. Homeowners, who contracted a loan to park their butt in a house they never could afford cash, have NOTHING to do with where the money came from and whether banks honored whatever regulation with the investors they were held to. The only relevant issue for homeowners is… THEIR contract. The one they originally signed.

    So, what can homeowners argue?

    Standing: is the party suing me the proper party? (Transfer through MERS is NOT a defense, inasmuch as MERS is Congress-backed and Congress condoned). How can I plead standing without killing my case with naming MERS, knowing that MERS was sanctioned by Congress and judges are held to the law?

    Contract: did anyone default on the contract and who did first? (Rescission after defaulting on a mortgage payment is NOT a defense unless there is ample evidence that the other party defaulted FIRST. Hard to argue when one hasn’t done anything until AFTER defaulting and still doesn’t get what contracts entail!)

    Accounting: did my money go where it was supposed to go? So far, not one servicer can produce the accounting. Takes work and time to analyze but anyone with a high school diploma can add, subtract, multiply and divide. Otherwise, this country is in deeper shit than I thought!

    Garfield can editorialize ad nauseam on irrelevant tangents. Those who win are those who stick to basics. Now, of course, if people want to make a lousy house the only reason for their being alive while having no life whatsoever, it’s another story. Still, Garfield never tried a case, never won one and surrounds himself with people who… never tried a case and never won one.

    The intellectual level of Garfield cult members is going down… even Rciferri (self-proclaimed attorney) doesn’t come here anymore. So… losing pro se, with no understanding of the system whatsoever, gather here to… what again? Commiserate? Complain? Decree that “all judges are sold and paid for”? Claim that “my house was “stolen” from me because all judges are bought out and corrupt”?

    The Adams affidavit is only that. Glaski himself knows it’s a LONG SHOT. Apparently, it is the next gate to heaven, in Garfieldland…

  15. The first two times I wrote to the e-mail, I asked questions.
    They were nice and told me they could not give legal advice but if I had a complaint they would take it.
    So I told them thank you and I did have a complaint and would submit it later.

    A week later I submitted my complaint with two documents.
    I just happened to have certified copies of the entire case used to steal my home, so those come in handy when you have the exact page number in the file to steal the property, stamped and signed by a court employee

    There is a ton of things anyone can do wrong when stealing, but two documents were easy to use to sum up colluding or bid rigging or anti-trust activity.

    I got a nice response that they would investigate the complaint.
    from the msfraud.org article
    Department of Justice seeks information concerning foreclosure auction bid rigging or fraud
    doj-seeks-information-concerning-foreclosure-bid-rigging_5-15.html

    Fraud.
    Forms of Collusion
    Price Fixing
    Hold prices firm.
    Bid Rigging
    I remember Neil disclosing the credit bids at the auction where no money changed hands.

    Imagine collusion where the current trustee of the Deed of Trust is still around and does not do his duty to appoint a substitute but allows another company to appoint their self as substitute and does transfer the Trustee Deed over to them because they both have the same ‘client’. Is that not collusion. There is a Deed, an obligation to perform accordingly and because the beneficiary is gone the trustee abandons the post, and allows your property to be stolen by unknown persons through inaction rather than action.

    No one can exercise a power they do not have.

    So some company hires law firm to steal home.
    Some company is not assigned anything on the DOT,
    Some company has no standing
    Law firm employees self appoints their own employees as substitute trustee
    Law firm employees in their appointment of their selves state in the affirmative that they have already removed the prior trustee and all prior substitute trustees with no documented proof of their power to remove or power to self appoint.
    I guess we are supposed to take their word for it that it’s already done
    Current trustee knowing the DOT without a beneficiary has no enforcement by any other entity, especially with no assignment, sits idly by holding the title to the property and allows by inaction, another law firm to claim the position of trustee, and hands over the title, all to keep the real title owner from having physical possession of the property and the title.

    Uh!

    Their paperwork is that bad.

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

  16. If you look over most of these loans the limited power of attorney was only for 120 days after the closing,and that was for a reason so any assignment or transfer after that is void and illegal.If we still had laws.

  17. and Neil… I have been having a conversation with another long time fraudclosure fighter concerning the ruling law on assignments. His position is that HIS state law controls the last assignment of mortgage (AOM) to the foreclosing entity… and my position is that as the AOM is a part of the contractural agreements set out within the trust’s PSA AND that the PSA has within it a contractural agreement to be held by the laws of NY… therefore any assignment of mortgage must be governed by NY Law and not “HIS” states law (his state being any other state than the state the trust was created in).

    Your thoughts?

  18. Opinion
    Rescission is always an option if a signature ‘was’ involved, because we have no knowledge of the presumed state of the contract, void, voidable, unenforceable, unconscionable, invalid, etc, yet your signature is still out there as part of a transaction that my never consummate and we want to make it known we do not want to be a party to what we put our name to.

    Rescission is always an option.

    If someone sold me the Brooklyn Bridge and I find out I can’t take ownership, to say rescission is not an option so don’t do it, is I won’t say asinine, but let’s just say, my signature is still out there on a contract someone claims to have sold me the Brooklyn Bridge.
    As an adult with the power and authority to contract, it is my duty and obligation to rescind from contracts I no longer agree with and no longer want to be associated with.

    Dis-claim-r
    I don’t give use less things like legal advice
    I know no thing, even if I think I know some thing, I know no thing.

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

    Greater is He that is in me, than he that is in the world.

    When we all wake up; He, the Creator named and described in Genesis One who slept in Genesis two, who is within each of us, One;

    He of whom we are endowed by as stated in declarations of our ancestors to their posterity, recognizing His everlasting presence;

    He will not be asleep much longer.
    It’s time to wake up.

  19. elexquistor, the Ginnie Mae Mortgage Backed Securities must first relinquish the blank Notes to Ginnie Mae without any encumbrances. Under UCC3 the blank Note belong to Ginnie Mae period. The FDIC did not include the Ginnie Mae pooled loan at all because WaMu no longer have a claim to the Notes!

  20. Neil, spot on here, the REMIC does not own the “loan” PERIOD! Not one piece of paper I possess, indicates rightful ownership of the REMIC Trust or the entity trying to foreclose using the REMIC….completely false!

  21. This is why TILA is good for consumers. If they dont answer within 20 calendars the game is over. We the consumer dont have to get into all this mumbo jumbo (Which means lots of money and time to defend ourselves.)

    Once the 20 days are over, All that is needed is to go to the Courts to enforce the Rescission or cancellation. The only question is that if it is by operation of law Why do we have to go for Quiet title or get a court order.

    Logic says that all we have to do is go record a Notice of Rescission.

    I am not a lawyer but just an observer. I love the taste of Kool aid in the morning. I am a cult follower and I need to have my head examined hahahahahahahahahaha.

    NEVER AGAIN

  22. We have used securitization audits successfully, but proof of the truth contained in the reports must be presented properly under the rules of Evidence in your state. Don’t forget, most documents are or contain “hearsay” [out of court statements used to prove the truth of the matter asserted] and may be attacked and excluded as untrustworthy because of that exclusion.

    If you need litigation support on this issue, call us today at Consumer Rights Defenders at 818.453.3585 ask for Steve or Sara.

  23. I have 3 assignments all stating a bankrupt and out of business entity is assigning the note and mortgage to a trust that closed using MERS as nominee. Impossible!

  24. @CReed – what makes you think the FDIC cannot dispose of failed bank assets by other than purchase agreements?

    Consider that by law assets passed thru the FDIC are stripped of liabilities incurred by the failed bank surrendering the assets.

  25. Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal and commented:
    The Glaski affidavit submitted by Thomas Adams is the subject of this brief blog post by Neil Garfield in which he correctly points out that the REMIC trust does not own the loan, the debt, the note or the mortgage.

  26. Sept 25, 2008 the largest bank failure in the history of mankind and was declared a “failed bank” by the FDIC. Failure by other to understand that a blank endorsed Note that not has the debt purchase cannot claim the properties as there never was any financial interest!

    WaMu was dead and is dead after Sept 25, 2008 and could not sell the Ginnie Mae pooled loans because they already relinquished the blank Notes, so there was not a way JPMorgan could have purchase the Ginnie placed loans!

  27. question, if these mortgages we are being foreclosed 2 yrs but the come back still saying they own it.in almost on in court are not owned by the entity doing the foreclosure why does this continue. I have a problem my house was flooded and the check has to be made out to me and the bank. everyone i try to get with calls them the lender? i am i my 2nd foreclosure the 1st one they did not produce discovery me being very savy and looking at everything asked questions aboutt he cheok. and i was told do not cash it because wells fargo will not give you the money to fix the house to me thats not legal. the only reason insuranc to fix the housee companies wanted thebanks on the check is because homeowners were walking away and not doing the work so they think it is ok for bank to take the money ??? our system is horrible. 1st they let them try to steal our homes and then they dont let us fix the house when there is a disaster. wow but in the above we are told no one owns them ??????

  28. But just think of all the 1000s of houses that have already been fraudulently foreclosed and that continue to be fraudulently foreclosed.

  29. The missing step, of course, is that the loan contract returns back to either the original creditor or last valid assignment in the chain. Then you follow the succession of beneficiary interest from there. There TILA comes into play because of the necessity of the new beneficiary to notify you when they obtain the loan. It may be that if that requirement wasn’t met, you might be able to sue for forgiveness of payments for the period of non-notification (theory).
    In some cases it might be that the original creditor is defunct, with no successor in interest. If you are careful to state that as an alleged fact, rescission is not an option because the contract is void. Then the real effort begins, that of recovering your original promissory note and following the state laws if it is not possible to obtain it. Then the stigma of the deed of trust is removed and you have clear title to the property.

    IANAL (I am not a lawyer) and most of the above is legal speculation. You should not act on it without consulting a legal professional (so you can go after their malpractice insurance if they fail).

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: