Mystery Solved! It’s the Servicers Who want the Foreclosure NOT the Certificate Holders or the “Trust”

See http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/news/servicing/mortgage-servicers-resume-securitizing-repayment-rights-1060096-1.html

So here is absolute proof that the real party in interest in the foreclosures are the unsecured servicers and also proof that the “default” never occurred. Notice how Freddie Mac figures in. Despite all denials and lies in court it is obvious that the servicers are, through one means or another, advancing payments to the certificate holders regardless of the payment status of the borrowers. And there are other people paying the creditors (certificate holders) as well. That means the secured creditors of the homeowner got paid, which means there is no default and they never declared one.

And THAT is why you rarely see US Bank as Trustee for the blah blah Pass through Certificates Trust hereby declares a default in your obligation; they don’t say that because neither the Trust nor the certificate holders have been short-changed, even as the servicer declares a default and moves toward foreclosure. This also explains why they don;t modify nearly as much as they should — they don’t collect their servicer advances that way. They only collect when there is a foreclosure and the property is sold. Why do they make those payments? Simple: They pay the certificate holders (1) so the certificate holders (investors) are kept in the dark about the real quality of the loan pool and (2) to lull the investors into a false sense of security such that they buy more of these worthless mortgage bonds.

The new “creditor” is the servicer who made the advances BUT they are unsecured. The only reason for the push for foreclosure is to make money selling new certificates of new securitization vehicles based upon the repayment rights of the servicer NOT the payments of the borrower. That means that the only party interested in the foreclosure is the servicer who (a) wants to stop making payments and (b) wants to collect on the unsecured volunteer payments the servicer made to creditors of the homeowner.

The story is that the servicers need to borrow the money in order to pay the certificate holders, but that isn’t true. They would never take that risk when the whole model is based upon the absence of risk. A close look at any REMIC prospectus, reveals a provision that says that some of the money of investors will be deposited into a pool that can be used to pay the investors their expected return on investment — i.e., their own money. Yes it’s a Ponzi scheme, but it is disclosed (not that anyone read it). AND the truth is that ALL of the invested money was pooled into accounts that had nothing to do with the REMIC trust.

And THAT is why the banks cannot connect the dots between the alleged loan closing, at which investor money was being used, and the paperwork which shows payees on the note and mortgagees on the mortgage as parties who have no relationship with the investors whose money was used to fund the loan. Bottom Line: The Banks are stealing from both ends.

Excerpts from the article:

There are some new features that issuers have to build into servicer advance trusts under the new rating criteria but “it’s been workable and issuers are finding ways to get deals done that work,” said Tom Hiner, a partner at law firm Hunton & Williams who has advised on a number of such transactions.

New Residential Investment Corp. is currently in the market with a $1.5 billion deal dubbed NRZ Advance Receivables Trust 2015-ON1. The real estate investment trust recently acquired the assets of Home Loan Servicing Solutions from Ocwen Financial; this deal refinances two existing securitizations, HLSS Servicer Advance Receivables Trust and HLSS Servicer Advance Receivables Trust.

The advance facility is backed by reimbursement rights to private-label mortgage-backed securities.

In June, Ocwen completed $450 million servicer advance refinancing of its Freddie Mac financing facility (formerly OFSART). The transaction securitizes the reimbursement rights to funds advanced on mortgages insured by the government-sponsored enterprise. S&P’s ratings on the notes issued by the deal, Ocwen Freddie Advance Funding LLC’s series 2015-T1, 2015-T2 and 2015-VF1, ranged from AAA to BBB and pay a weighted average interest rate of 2.225%.

In a July conference call discussing second-quarter earnings, Ocwen executives said the deal was positively received; it was upsized by $50 million and the advance rate on the notes was 8 percentage points higher than the facility it refinanced.

Hiner expects much of the market activity in the next two quarters to come from refinancing portions of the often unrated variable funding note commitments extended by bank lenders during the S&P moratorium on rating deals with term ABS.

This trend could result in a total of 10 to 12 term ABS deals by the end of the third quarter, according to Hiner.

The new deals have new features to address S&P’s recalibrated rating methodology, which takes into account the potential for extended timelines for reimbursements, the liquidity risk of the notes under stressed conditions, and the servicer’s ability to continue advancing based on its credit quality.

Timelines are further adjusted based on the actual recent experience of the servicer in recouping advances. The criteria establish “standard” reimbursement curves along with “above standard” and “below standard” ones for different advance types and rating scenarios.

The new methodology also includes a more stringent liquidity reserve fund requirements; this requirement varies according to the geographic diversification of receivables in the master trust.

“In a high-stress scenario, you could have potential issues where you didn’t receive cash from the receivables because you may not be liquidating properties as quickly,” said Jeremy Schneider, the agency’s director of RMBS ratings.

Hiner also expects to see more additional deals backed by repayments rights to advances on agency mortgages, similar to Ocwen’s. While servicing mortgages guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie is not as capital intensive as servicing nonagency mortgage securitizations, Hiner thinks that more participants with agency servicing portfolios will look to the ABS market for funding.

S&P’s older criteria for rating servicer advance receivables securitizations was not tailored for agency RMBS, simply because it had not seen many deals backed by IOUs from Fannie and Freddie. “But now there is more of an appetite,” said Waqas Shaikh, S&P’s managing director for RMBS ratings. The new criteria takes this into account.

Nationstar is the only other issuer to previously place agency notes under its Nationstar Agency Advance Funding Trust in January 2013.

There might not be any more deals from New Residential, however. The REIT said during its second-quarter earnings call that it has $3.5 billion of additional financing to fund increased balances of servicer advance receivables and upcoming maturities. The company acquired $5.1 billion of reimbursement rights through its purchase of HLSS; its portfolio now totals $8.5 billion.

And Ocwen, which has so far sold $66 billion of agency MSRs, is in the process of selling another $25 billion, according to its second-quarter earnings report. However, the issuer intends to remain in the agency space. On the company’s April 30 conference call to discuss operating results for the first quarter, CEO Ron Faris said Ocwen did not intend to sell any of its Ginnie Mae MSRs and would not completely exit GSEs or servicing or lending. The issuer still has $34 billion in GSE servicing rights and approximately $8 billion of GSE subservicing, and plans to continue to originate and service new Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA loans.

However, Ocwen executives said that they remain “optimistic” that the company will eventually be able to resume purchasing mortgage servicing rights based on discussions with the New York Department of Financial Services and the California Department of Business Oversight. The servicer’s ability to acquire new MSRs is currently restricted as part of last year’s settlements with the two regulators over its practices.”

Dan Edstrom senior forensic analyst for livinglies, says –This article lists many of the major servicers – some of whom have outright denied making payment advances in response to discovery from homeowners …
  • So homeowner is obligated to make payments
  • The note references others obligated also (guaranty / surety)
  • The PSA references the obligation and requirement to make advances of principal and interest
  • The PSA references the ability to make use of an “advance facility” to fund advances
  • Investors purchase securities (providing funding through the advance facility)
  • The funds from the advance facility investors are funneled through the trust to certificateholder investors to cover all payments that were required but were not made on the pool of loans in the trust
  • The servicer skims off their fees from the funds, which means they were paid their servicing fee even though the homeowner may not have made any payment
And of course the advance facility is a securitization, so there are other fees that are now spread across each of the “loans” that have missed payments, adding to the costs and fees charged to the homeowner and most likely ultimately paid by the original trust investors (it costs them money for the process where by they are paid even though the loan payments are not performing, and then the payments are pulled back from them later when the property is “liquidated” by foreclosure, shortsale or whatever).
The entire process is a scam. The investors would make more money of loan workouts were done instead of forcing homeowners into foreclosure.
Thx,
Office: 916.207.6706

72 Responses

  1. can we demand from the IRS every single document filed in their record using one’s assigned SSN under the fear of identity theft and so one could validate or deny each instance?

  2. @ Deb Wynn ,

    Actual plaintiff was Wylbur Ross’s AHMSI with the aid of LPS … “Wells Fargo as Trustee” was the named plaintiff but had no actual role or knowledge of the suit… I don’t think the FDIC would have any info or influence… AHMSI was just a rogue junk debt buyer and servicer … HUD? maybe?

  3. Neidermeyer
    I went to fdic under FOIA –
    ” all files were transferred ” upshot, ask servicer, response nothing, but i did get letter from their ” other” council ( same as the trustee for the ” bla bla trust series for cert holders my elbow”) have to sue them for the info regarding those embarassing questions under foia. Six years sol to file btw under foia.

  4. Anyone ever heard of this site on the link , do the theories he raises sound legit ..scroll down to get see points about the mortgage … http://stopthepirates.blogspot.com/

  5. BobG. I want you to tell me how to make my 1099a fraud into money. This is what I want now. $$$$$. And I don’t see NG helping anyone achieve that. Please contact me as always at javagold@horserun.com

    My 1099a not only had Servicer and Fannie Mae addresses mixup and combined they had 3 dates incorrect on all 3 correspondes of 1099a they sent , including the wrong year !!!!!!!

  6. Its deception SC to abuse a signature given under false rep

  7. This is no surprise but since we’re here what should be filed in the following situation:

    My FC was filed in the name of the TRUSTEE (WF) who had no knowledge of the FC suit per depo from mouthpiece from servicer#2 substituted in 1 year after suit inception by servicer#1.

    The suit was filed by a law firm that knew the claimed plaintiff was not a party and that they were intentionally hiding the real plaintiff.

    Real plaintiff party (servicer #1) bought loan as distressed in May 2008 after they knew it to be paid in full at 22.5% of face value.

    I have the actual Trustee docs from WF proving that payments were made up to and after suit origination.

    Servicer#1 and Law firm filing case are not named/protected by agreement with servicer#2

    HOW DO YOU GET THE LAW FIRM TO DISCLOSE WHO ACTUALLY HIRED THEM AND PAID THE BILLS? Just file a suit and demand disco? There’s gotta be a better way to get that info…

    Suit dismissed by agreement by me and servicer#2 , currently pursuing TILA rescission from actual lender who received 100% payoff (documented in $650M lawsuit ended in 2014) and sold servicing to servicer#1.

  8. Conversion..
    Anyone want to play Whack a Mole?

  9. They stopped sending 1098s. .. when I stopped filing them.

    No 1099s. …..

    No Standing to Invoke Jurisdiction of the Court.

  10. So DB. … That makes me a lender? Foreclosing on the borrower?
    How much money do I owe? How much money is owed me?

    Creditor sells something they can not get back………irrevocable?

    Where did my money go?

  11. B8-7-01: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) (04/15/2014)
    This topic contains information about MERS, including:
    Naming MERS as the Nominee for the Beneficiary in the Security Instrument
    Use of MERS Rider in Specified Geographic Areas
    MERS Registration
    Use of the MIN
    Mortgage Assignment to MERS
    Search guide content
    BACK TO PART B
    Naming MERS as the Nominee for the Beneficiary in the Security Instrument
    A lender that wants to register a newly originated mortgage (but not a co-op share loan) with MERS may prefer to designate MERS as the nominee for the beneficiary in the security instrument, thereby eliminating the need for a subsequent assignment of the security instrument should the lender sell (or transfer servicing of) the mortgage to another lender that is a member of MERS. In such cases, the applicable security instrument must be modified to:
    show MERS as the nominee for the lender,
    define and name the originating lender, and
    obtain the borrower’s acknowledgment of MERS’ role in the mortgage transaction.
    Changes that must be made to create a standard MERS security instrument for each jurisdiction may be found in the Instructions document for each state-specific security instrument (see Security Instruments), with the exception of loans secured by property located in certain geographic areas. As described below, a Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Rider (MERS Rider) (Form 3158) must be used in these jurisdictions, and the security instruments must be changed in accordance with the Instructions to the MERS Rider, which is posted on Fannie Mae’s website. As the MERS Rider must be used in these specified states,

    post-closing assignments into MERS are prohibited.

    The lender is responsible for the accurate and timely preparation and recordation of the security instrument and the MERS Rider, when applicable, and must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the information on MERS is updated and accurate at all times.
    Even when MERS is named as the nominee for the beneficiary in the security instrument, it has no beneficial interest in the mortgage. All actions that MERS takes with respect to a mortgage are based on the instructions initiated by the originating lender, Fannie Mae, or the servicer. The originating lender remains responsible for all of its Contractual Obligations and any liability that it or Fannie Mae incurs as a result of the MERS registration or any MERS transaction. In addition, the lender is solely responsible for any failure to comply with the provisions of its MERS Member Agreement, Rules, and Procedures and for any liability that it or Fannie Mae incurs as a result of the registration of the mortgage with MERS or any specific MERS transaction.
    Use of MERS Rider in Specified Geographic Areas
    In the states listed below, lenders must use the MERS Rider (Form 3158) when a newly originated mortgage loan (but not a co-op share loan) will be registered with MERS. Lenders must also follow the Instructions to the MERS Rider to make changes to the standard security instruments for the following states:
    Montana,
    Oregon, and
    Washington.
    As the MERS Rider must be used in these specified states, post-closing assignments into MERS are prohibited.
    MERS Registration
    If a lender registers a mortgage with MERS before delivering it to Fannie Mae, the lender must ensure that the Mortgage Identification Number (MIN) is registered in MERS and names itself as the investor. Additionally, the lender must include the MIN in the delivery data. After Fannie Mae purchases or securitizes the mortgage, Fannie Mae notifies MERS to update its records to reflect Fannie Mae’s ownership interest in the mortgage.
    Note: For loans registered in MERS iRegistration where MERS is not named as the nominee for the beneficiary in the security instrument, the MERS MIN should not be reported on the loan schedules.
    If a lender registers a mortgage with MERS after Fannie Mae has purchased or securitized the loan, the lender must name Fannie Mae as the investor during registration and notify MERS of Fannie Mae’s ownership interest in the mortgage. (The MIN will not have been included on the Loan Schedule or Schedule of Mortgages.)
    Use of the MIN
    For each MERS-registered mortgage, the lender must indicate the MIN on the security instrument and related documents, regardless of whether the lender retains the documents or sends them to Fannie Mae’s DDC or to the applicable document custodian. Because the status of a MERS-registered mortgage can change, the lender is not required to include the MIN on the mortgage note. Additionally, the lender is still responsible for making sure that the document custodian has sufficient information to determine whether a mortgage that is included in a subsequent transfer of servicing is registered with MERS at the time of the transfer. The lender must have adequate controls in its processes to enable it to readily identify MERS-registered mortgages.
    The lender can choose from the following options:
    place the MIN on the note when the mortgage is registered with MERS and, if the MERS registration is subsequently terminated for any reason, notify the document custodian to delete the MIN from the note;
    wait to advise the custodian of the status of the MERS registration for a mortgage until a change in status actually occurs; or
    notify the custodian about the status of the MERS registration for a mortgage at the time of a servicing transfer by providing the custodian with a listing of all MERS-registered mortgages that are included in the transfer and a certification that any and all other mortgages included in the transfer are not currently registered with MERS. (The listing may be prepared by the lender or, with the lender’s authorization, by MERS.) If there are more MERS-registered mortgages included in the transfer than there are unregistered mortgages, the listing may instead identify the unregistered mortgages—and, in that case, the certification should state that any and all other mortgages included in the transfer are currently registered with MERS.
    Mortgage Assignment to MERS
    If the originating lender is the beneficiary for a mortgage that it registers with MERS, the lender must prepare an assignment of the mortgage to MERS.
    By delivering a MERS-registered mortgage to Fannie Mae, the lender:
    warrants that MERS is the mortgagee of record (either by being named as an assignee in a recorded assignment of the security instrument or as nominee for the beneficiary in the security instrument);
    warrants that the MIN is valid and properly registered in MERS naming the lender as the investor; and
    agrees that, in the event that either its membership in MERS or the MERS registration for an active mortgage is terminated for any reason while Fannie Mae has an ownership interest in the mortgage, the servicer is responsible for preparing and recording an assignment of the mortgage from MERS to itself, and then preparing (in recordable form) an assignment of the mortgage from itself to Fannie Mae and delivering that assignment to Fannie Mae’s DDC (or to the applicable document custodian).
    Lenders are not required to include a copy of the assignment of the mortgage to MERS in the delivery package they submit to Fannie Mae’s DDC or the applicable document custodian. Lenders also are not required to prepare and submit an unrecorded assignment of the mortgage from MERS to Fannie Mae (unless Fannie Mae specifies otherwise for a particular transaction or transactions).
    Related Announcements
    The table below provides references to the Announcements that have been issued that are related to this topic.
    Announcements Issue Date
    Announcement SEL-2014–03 April 15, 2014
    Announcement SEL-2012–06 June 26, 2012
    Announcement SEL-2011–04 May 24, 2011
    Announcement 08-37 December 19, 2008
    david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on September 6, 2015 at 7:31 pm said:
    Found this case out of NC that may be a useful template for MA.
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1363736178793034319&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
    Skinner v Preferred Credit, 638 S.E.2d 203 (2006)
    •”The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the trial court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident trust which holds notes secured by deeds of trust on North Carolina real property;”
    •”The question presented is whether North Carolina courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over the 1997-1 Trust. To determine whether a nonresident defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in North Carolina, our Court employs a two-step analysis. First, jurisdiction over the action must be authorized by N.C.G.S. § 1-75.4, our state’s long-arm statute. Dillon v. Numismatic Funding Corp., 291 N.C. 674, 675, 231 S.E.2d 629, 630 (1977). Second, if the long-arm statute permits consideration of the action, exercise of jurisdiction must not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Id.”
    •”We hold that North Carolina courts lack personal jurisdiction over a nonresident trust that has no connections to this state other than holding mortgage loans secured by deeds of trust on North Carolina property. Because we decide this case based on personal jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to address when the statutes of limitations for plaintiffs’ claims began to run. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.”

  12. ANYONE WANTING TO SEE A REAL 1099-A , AND WHO IT SHOWS AS LENDER=HOMEOWNER. AND BORROWER=BANK PLEASE SENT ME A EMAIL. AT DJABELANGER@HOTMAIL.COM

  13. That’s a good trick. Sell the paper you created at ridiculous rates. Here I mean selling paper with teaser rates that adjust to some index (libor, generally) plus monster-margin. Sell it, retain servicing, remove one’s own risk factor (now zip) and still get the high return you couldn’t get anywhere else on any amt you advance, which over years may be a LOT. WS strategy: get fabulous return with zero risk (by claiming subrogation / right to reimbursement). That must be what is known as “default servicing” and why to do it. It’s briliiant and total crap if the right to reimbursement doesn’t exist and or isn’t under the note because if reimbursement isn’t under the note, false default is called and false numbers are submitted and claimed to be owing (same as with fnma loans where the at-least 4 payments aren’t credited to the loan balance. 4 payments on millions of loans! That’s a lot of money, esp since they built in, but didn’t disclose, the fnma g-fee to the rate to cover them. Many if not all sub-primes are self-insuring, meaning they too added some X to the rate to cover default. It probably didn’t cover the default but what’d they expect when they created garbage predatory paper? So they claim right to reimbursement as long as in their sole opinion it’s prudent to keep making advances. FNMa’s g fee is, last I knew, submitted monthly to fnma by the servicer, so I think the ant built into the rate on non-agency’self-insuring’ loans must go into some account, also. But since they claim rights of reimbursement, as to non-agency loans, that build-in may be pure profit, said acknowledging I know nada about default-swaps. .

  14. Did any of you listen to the audio at least the first hour I posted in the previous post.
    There was discussion of the 1099A, clear discussion in that audio.

    This site does not allow anyone to type two links in the same post,
    If One does that, the post goes into mo-der-ut-shun and may show up long after people have moved to a different post.

    Just take the link to the site and add the directory to the end of it and you get to the MP3
    http://archive.logosradionetwork.com/category/rule-of-law/2015-rule-of-law/
    Aug 21 1st hour is discussion about debt collectors having purchased the spreadsheet of the debt, not the debt, and the creditor having [repudiated] sold the debt and cannot get it back; and discusses the 1099 [fraud]. Once a debt is accelerated, the interest disappears, and only the debt it owed.
    I imagine people who finance a home for 30 years, and with the amortization scheduled the people would pay 3x’s the purported loan over that 30 years, but once any one accelerates the debt, the interest disappears, and if from all money paid the initial purported loan is paid, then there is no purported default, and they cannot legally take the property trying to collect the interest [from the amortized principle].

    Aug 27 discusses rescission

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

  15. Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal and commented:
    The mortgage servicers have started to securitize repayment rights again as discussed in this Neil Garfield blog post.

  16. Thing is God knows how many others they did exactly what they did to me by the same means and methods ( pattern)

  17. I’ll keep you posted – but I’m still in battle and I must be careful
    In your case UKG they will be prepared in my case they never thought I would prevail – hence they already hung themselves

  18. ” rog” lol
    nice save ,!

  19. hi rog…will have to catch up with you on a phone chat soon.

  20. Bob G, How are you buddy? I agree that all these posts by Garfield are like getting the punch line without the joke. I am interested in the 1099 claim because I’m sure to get one eventually. We’re pushing the short sale right now but that will never fly because Wells DOES want the foreclosure. Second one actually. I’m more than done with this shit, but I read the blog just to see if anybody actually makes a pertinent argument about something. Not blowing smoke; I know you’ve got your noodle working all the time. And I’m always happy to hear what you’ve got to say.
    Deb, you know I love you, babe. But Bob is very astute on this subject.
    Listen and learn.
    Best to all!

  21. For those in non judicial states
    Bevilscqua v Rodriguez, mass: Supreme Judicial Court 2011
    ” one who sells under the power of sale must follow strictly it’s terms, so, where a foreclosure occurs in the absence of authority, ” there is no valid execution of the power, and the sale is wholly void.
    That is the case law.
    So my point re an entity/ servicer on 1099a calling itself lender on the one hand and servicer on the other along with a trustee in court as a seller of real property after getting the home with credit bid ( see my point) with a 90k difference in accounting between the trustee deed upon sale and the 1099a – we have a problem with an unauthorized body enforcing the contract under power of sake clause and judgements based on incorrect facts and amounts stated. This is only one point in my case(s) but it is a fundamental one. I may be a basket case
    But I have cited law and facts already established. I am simply sharing not advising,

    Research for your self and if possible hire professional council do not rely on this info I am not an attorney.

  22. Well JG they sure as heck went into a song and dance to mislead the Court when challenged.

  23. “The advance facility is backed by reimbursement rights to private-label mortgage-backed securities.”

    “reimbursement rights”….

    “reimbursement rights”…

    Where is this reimbursement right created? Next to novice, perhaps, other than vocabulary here, but what distinguishes a voluntary payment from a guarantee (maybe nothing on this one) from a surety with rights of subrogation. From the hip on acct of reaching back quite a ways, sureties have rights of subrogation. Subrogation would mean right to payment under the note. The others, if they even have a right to reimbursement, which I say they don’t, have no right UNDER the notes. While I can no longer rattle off this stuff if I ever could, I still know enough to know that distinctions must be made and supported.
    Since servicer accounts must surely be trust accounts with zero balances (money in and out = zero) and the only “in” permitted is payments on the borrower’s accounts FROM THE BORROWERS, these advances should be being made from other accounts or they’re commingling. imo. And as I’ve said opined before, when we only see the servicer’s alleged records of the borrower’s payment, when the servicer or someone else is making payment to the creditor, the servicer has usurped the position of that creditor against the borrower. If a third party is paying the creditor (whether he’s the creditor by fact or equity), does non-disclosure of this fact rise to fraud? I personally can’t see how it doesn’t. Obviously, the problem is and has been getting at this info and we’ve made about zero inroads, unfortunately. Not disclosing advances is itself a violation of the rules of procedure, at a minimum, but that doesn’t help, either, without a path to establishing the advances. It’s been years since I (and any number of others) started drawing attention to advances and FNMA’s guarantee and yet here we are. And, long and short, most courts still see this unlawful and criminal behavior out of banksters as a victimless crime since the borrower is seen to owe SOMEbody. Bah!

  24. And I apologize to everyone for sinking so low

  25. But.. I wouldn’t, call you , Bob
    I’ve been in court long enough to know you are not ” da man”

  26. thanx, deb! you da man!

  27. So y’all with a 1099a issued by the servicer who may or may not be the lender call Bob
    There I’ve made it right now.

  28. Double metaphor

  29. Seriously. Bob you hold your beliefs and I’ll hold mine, do not think about that puck where it is – think about where it’s going. ( Gretsky)

  30. You Go, Girl !!!

  31. Of course I will win and I don’t need no ” Bob” hanging on to my tailcoat.

  32. I’m protective of this site community because it is where I began to realize that my financial decisions were sound at the time I signed that deed of trust and it gave me the idea that I might fight for what I had worked all my life for and that I did not heed to blame myself and roll over, that was a decision I may live to regret but no thus far.

  33. deb, what are you going to do with your 1099a claim? i asked you if you wanted to see about turning it into money. no reply. you’re just a BS basket case, deb. you have no intention of winning…you’re all about being the poor victim. woe is you. you don’t want a solution, you just want someone to listen to you. it’s just so therapeutic, isn’t it.

  34. Bob
    You have no idea why such as myself chose to blog on here
    because quite simply your reasons are different totally transparent to me. whatever your business, it will fail hence you are STILL writing on here.

  35. tell us how you can use it deb. tell us. and i don’t know it all…if i did, i wouldn’t be complaining about ng providing further guidance and instruction, would i?

    for many folks here (you know who you are), you’ve been hanging around here for years crying in your beer and commiserating amongst yourselves. this, for you, is free victimization therapy. many hang here for years, long after their foreclosure is dead, kinda like Nicole Kidman and her children in “The Others,” unable to face reality. they eventually move on, to make way for a fresh new crew of victims, and then the multi-year cycle repeats, with new dead and soon to be dead.

    what will you do if and when NG dies, and posts no more? will you still hang out here and post to each other day in and day out? to what end?

  36. “And THAT is why you rarely see US Bank as Trustee for the blah blah Pass through Certificates Trust hereby declares a default in your obligation”

    I’m not sure why NG says this when these days, post-closing assgts to the ‘trusts’ are rote. Servicers artificially propping up the derivatives’ values is in fact a reason for servicers to pay the trusts when borrowers don’t, because he’s right about this: without artificially inflating that value (return on investment), no saps would be buying these pieces of dog dobbage. But, to the extent the bs machinations and misdeeds of the home lending industry are now crystal clear, anyone who buys this crud imo is aiding and abetting serial crime and forcing the middle class into obscurity. Good and honest hard-working Americans used to be employees of legitimate servicers. Even that job is being outsourced out of this country. They want only to pick up one end of the stick and “they” now imo includes those who purchase these derivatives. They no longer have the luxury of ignorance. But it’s not news in my book. To help insulate the trustee, they’re getting POA’s out of someone allegedly authorized on behalf of the secn trust so that others, such as the servicer, who will then call the shots. As I’ve said, this is surely wrongful amendment to the trust agreement. Attorneys should make it their business to find out if these amendments are 1) lawful or not and 2) how much as a matter of law such a trustee may delegate.

    As to what NG says, they just give a POA to the servicer who then purports to act in the name of the trust. Same game, just another layer of paint on the pieces.

    MERS HAS TO GO AND TAKE SECURITIZATION WITH IT

  37. … AND the best thing at THIS time is the victory of Jesinoski

  38. None of it works unless THE JUDGE SAYS SO

  39. The links point to who is secured in their claim – that’s my point

  40. etolle…here’s the deal my friend. why write stuff that you can’t back up with hard evidence, admissible in form? where are his wins? he’s an atty slugging it out in the foreclosure defense arena. so where are his wins? if he’s not writing to help folks, what’s the point? example: neil has pounded the table on this TILA rescission thing, hasn’t he. so show me the money! show me where this is working! is that too much to ask?

  41. Sorry the links make good points
    That’s all I said
    Bob you have a big problem narcissism the worst thing anyone could have because no one can help you because you already KNOW IT ALL
    I’m not an attorney I’m not offering legal advice I have been accused of ADD by a person with narcissism
    Lotta weight that carries

  42. Bob G., it’s humorous how you pop up on Neil’s site consistently with varying shades of how Neil should make a cogent court-worthy case….how he shouldn’t bother writing an analysis unless he includes a road map complete with diner stops and pointers to the largest ball of twine or coolest barbed wire collection. What’s that all about?

    I’ve been hanging around here longer than I’ll admit and I don’t ever remember Neil once saying, “Here’s how you do it!” I can’t recall him stating, “This will achieve the desired result….do it” He has never, in my witnessing, ever described his views as end alls or even as worthy of stamping for court delivery. He’s just a guy like you and me, save for the fact that he is one hell of a lot more educated on the chicanery afoot and was the first that I know of to reveal it. Prove me wrong.

    And, have you noticed how, even at this late stage, no one else is discussing it anywhere – anytime? You’d think, given the enormous nature of this crime spree and the complicit nature of everyone involved, it’d be above the crease of every paper across the land. Capture’s complete.

    Answer this one question….why do you feel it’s Neil’s job to put any of this into a legal format so that you can take it to court? Does he owe you something? Are you a third cousin or a friend of his bride? What gives?

    ps. I had a banana in Iceland once. No big deal.

  43. parts 1 & 2. totally useless info for anyone on this board.
    i think that you have ADD. i asked you if wanted to make some serious money with this claim. your response….crickets. trying to make money with some folks here is like trying to grow bananas in Iceland. pointless endeavor, fool’s errand.

  44. Here’s link for part two -it’s 2010 but good points
    http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=223&itemId=2913

  45. Apologies for any bla bla bla
    But it eventually gets to the point if you pay attention.

  46. I’ll say this the 1099a is only part of it
    It plays in very nicely with the other stuff they did to me

  47. Neil this is old news to me. My loan is absolute living proof of everything you say here. JP Morgan Chase has always been the holder and servicer of my note and mortgage. They reneged on 2 loan mods because they did want to foreclose to further cash in on their fraud. I have been a part of any and all federal lawsuits ever having anything to do with Chase. They are crooks right down to their knuckles. There never was a pooling and servicing agreement on my loan from the get go simply because there never was an investor. I have got them red handed and can produce a paper trail from the origination of my loan. I want to nail them bad but I am tired of the broward county scam bunch of lawyers and believe me there are plenty of them. I want to sue federally. If you are interested, let me know. Thanks. Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 18:16:18 +0000 To: lsnider52@hotmail.com

  48. deb…you can go on with your blah, blah, blah for hours on end. and my eyes would glaze over, but i’ve long since learned to tune out stuff like that. so i don’t even hear the exact words you’re speaking…all i hear is blah, blah, blah.

    but now, deb, you’ve said something that got me to sit up and pay attention. it’s the 1099a stuff. are you interested in making some serious money with this little diddy?

  49. Ok onward, so why then does the ” atty in fact for” go to court for a ” trustee for ” bla bla trust” for certificate holders – (you know the one who ” bought” the property under credit bid at a public auction,) and thAt same atty was the atty FOR the servicer who ” serviced” the loan
    Where is the lender, who is the lender? says its same- servicer on 1099a so let’s define lender, did they put up the funds ? did they loose the face value of the note minus the market value that they got selling it and what happened to my 80k in mortgage payments that the same servicer received.
    1099a x amount debt owed, trustees deed issued same day – extra 90k added to debt owed, really.

  50. Bob
    Bugger off

  51. Neil is not the enemy
    And no one who has blogged on here any length of time thinks he walks on water either, but he gave us a forum and it’s free, that’s it, do not expect anything else for free, and I never ask for anything , for free,a fair exchange only.

  52. i know, deb, but you’re crazy about me anyway !

  53. Bob you are so not funny

  54. everybody needs luck, deb. but they also need skill and need to live in Realville.

    and i don’t need customers, especially the kind that post here. and once again, an inability to focus is your undoing. i’m not asking for help. i’m saying that if the guy has a way to help, he should lay it out, rather than give a lot of folks here false hopes. and btw, i’m not one of them.

  55. oh, pleeeze deb, spare us.

    won’t be surprised if you start singing the Star Spangled Banner next.

  56. Let’s see you tell everyone they are on coolaid, then you ask for help, you tell everyone they are windmilling and then you ask for help
    What the heck is it you want, customers yes, because YOU KNOw how to win. The word is JUSTICE.

  57. Good luck to you BOB too
    with such an attitude you will need it.

  58. And while I’m on my soapbox
    The term ” foreclosure defense” is redundant
    It should be called the American people’s last stand, it’s that important I believe. LAW of the LAND must hold up.

  59. wonderful, deb…let us know how that all works out for you.

    but that was not my point in my initial post. i want to know how to use this, if it can be used at all. i’m not interested in how evil all these guys are. that’s not news.

    f the guy is gonna post something, he must think it’s pretty important. so if it is, tell us how, and tell us how to use it. otherwise, it’s a waste of everyone’s time. and that causes 40-50 more posts of sheer nothingness and nonsensical tilting at windmills.

  60. And BOB
    There is no answer – it’s case by case baby step by baby step order by order, motions for reconsideration and motions to set aside,day by day week by weeks, year by years.

  61. My case is where it is by the grace of God and because I can do it, and the enemy is in fact surrounded, to get to that position they played their moves I played my moves the case EVOLVED in its complexity, they tied themselves up, BUT THE JUDGE DECIDES…. And I will go forward.

  62. Bob Bob Bob
    It’s a no brainer that it’s not that easy.

  63. that’s not an answer that anyone here can use, deb. i can’t take neil’s post and go into court and say “look here, judge! garfield solved it!” the judge is going to say “ya lost me bob. how does that specifically help your case?”

    there’s nothing in neil’s post that helps you frame a successful affirmative defense, upon which you can launch a successful motion for summary judgment. if there is, i don’t see it.

    anyone else here see it?

  64. We have to get the legal concept that from fraud nothing can follow,
    And with proof and the CONTINUANCE of the practices and PATTURNS of wrongful actions in our courts, that have caused devastating consequences, being widespread and far reaching damage.
    It’s madness and it doesn’t work. But they don’t care, that I get.

  65. elaine…you’re right about baltimore county. i know something about that. nasty forum for homeowners.

  66. Well girls, here’s the problem. If Neil doesn’t tell us how to use this revelation to win, then what do we have here? Zip.

  67. It’s out… And the 1099a is big problem for them

  68. Exactly! It doesn’t freaking matter! This is why the majority of us could not get a modification. Modifying would have uncovered the ponzi scheme. Besides Judges in Baltimore County just don’t care – ‘you didn’t pay – you can’t stay!” and summarily toss you out of your house without a look back.

  69. Don’t forget about the 1099-A lies as well.

  70. Exactly !!!!!!! As I have been saying all along.

    But also saying unless something changes quickly. It doesn’t freaking matter. House Fraudclosed. They win. We lose.

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: