Cesspools and Loan Pools: Ocwen Sells Servicer Advances for $600 Million

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

This is for general information only. Get a lawyer.

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

First of all let me thank all of you who wrote in sending me your prayers and best wishes. It worked. The surgery went fine and I recovering without complications.

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

see http://dsnews.com/news/11-16-2015/ocwen-closes-servicing-advance-securitization-worth-600-million

Servicer advances are just one of dozens of fractures in the armor of the banks if anyone took them seriously. The very presence of servicer advances means that people are being added to the loan contract, if it ever existed, between the alleged borrower and the alleged lender (pretender lender). The simplest way to put it is that the banks are forcing borrowers to do business with people they don’t want to do business with. And THAT is the point and purpose of TILA.

Here’s why: The banks may not pick up one end of the stick without picking up the other end. Back in 2007-2009 the banks were saying there were no trusts. They are currently saying that either the Trust or the holders of trust certificates have rights against the borrower to collect and enforce the loan (and of course they dodge the issue of whether or not the loan was actually consummated by the originator who supposedly loaned money to the borrower.

The basis for the bank’s assertion is that the loan was transferred to the trust. Therefore the Trust, acting through the Trustee can collect or enforce the note signed by the “borrower.” And therefore, the trust provisions (i.e., the Pooling and Servicing Agreement —PSA) gives rights to servicers to collect on behalf of the Trust who owns the loan.

The problem with this has become evident to many people now, starting with my declaration in 2008 that the Trusts were created but none of them became active because they never received the money from the sale of their certificates. So the Trust didn’t acquire the loan even if there are dozens of documents that have been fabricated and forged to say that the transfer took place. Ask one question in discovery about the transaction in which the Trust allegedly acquired the loan and the bank stonewalls forever.

The rule of thumb is that for every monetary transaction there MUST be some paperwork that will prove it. And the corollary rule is that for every paper instrument offered to prove an actual transaction there must actually be a monetary transaction. Otherwise the paperwork is false or at best the paperwork is inconclusive and proves nothing. The banks have successfully finessed the fatal defect in their failed securitization plan: the money trail and the paper trial can never be reconciled because the money trail lacks the paperwork and the paper trail lacks the money.

The problem is compounded as to notice of default, notices of acceleration, the rare instances in which modifications are offered, and even end of month statements. Since the Trust never acquired the loan, any notice or statement or instrument sent on behalf of the Trust is a nullity — they don’t have the loan, and they had no right to collect anything and certainly no right to enforce the “loan” documents. Hence the paragraph 22 defense gets traction every time when presented properly — even if it needs to go to appeal in order to get that result.

The banks have been highly successful at blaming the victim for the banks’ own behavior. This is particularly evident when we look at the very long periods of time between the alleged “default” and the act taken by the bank to get the foreclosure judgment or ordering the Trustee on the Deed of Trust to sell the property (after s ending a self-serving notice of substitution of trustee where the false statement is made that it is being sent on behalf of XYZ, the beneficiary under the deed of trust).

The bottom line is that the false servicers are making money every day that the proceedings are delayed. And during the same period, the “creditors” if we can call them that, are the investors who are getting paid exactly as provided in the PSA. So a “servicer” declaring that a “loan” is in default is wrong on many levels: 

  1. The investors have been paid, so if the action is brought by a “trustee” on behalf of the trust or certificate holders, it is based upon a default that does no exist even under the scenario painted by the bank narrative.
  2. The declaration by the servicer is wrong because they have no right to do so even if there was a default.
  3. The declaration on behalf of the REMIC Trust or the certificate holders is wrong because the Trust never acquired the loan. Hence it could not have possibly suffered a a loss due to the “default” of the borrower — i.e., the failure to pay an entity that has no right to receive the payments.
  4. The declaration injures the investors by diminishing the value of the security, assuming that the investors are secured.
  5. The declaration ruins the credit rating of the borrower who has good reason not to pay an entity that has no right to collect or enforce the debt.
  6. The declaration adds insult to injury. After stealing the money from the investors, the investment banks proceeded to make certain that the investors had no right to know the status of any loan nor to assert any rights in connection with any loan.
  7. Th declaration adds further insult to injury when it produces fabricated self serving documentation showing the “holder” of the note and mortgage as persons or entities other than the investors without whose MONEY nothing could have or would have occurred.

Some of the delays in actually getting to the point where the property is scheduled for forced sale are as long as 10 years. The banks will tell you that the reason for the delays is the volume. That isn’t true. If they had a valid loan contract that was enforceable they would have included such contracts in the overwhelming majority of foreclosures where the homeowner offered no defense or resistance. Those go through at the rate of about 3 minutes per foreclosure.

The real reason is, as can now be expected at every turn, much more convoluted. In delaying the foreclosure forced sale, the banks are racking up fees for “servicing” a “nonperforming” loan. And of course the investors do not and cannot know the status of any loan. They do not know that the payments they have been receiving are balanced out at the other end of the stick by a declaration of default. Hence they assume  their bogus asset-backed securities have value when in fact they have no value.

As part of the “servicing,” the servicers are sending payments to the certificate holders day in and day out without regard to whether the borrower has paid or not. It is called various things in the PSA but they all mean the same thing — servicer advances, Advances by servicers, etc. And it is framed as a volunteer payment until such time that the bank decides, in its sole discretion, that it cannot recover the amounts being “advanced” by the “servicer.”

Note that as stated above, the “servicer” is not an authorized agent of anyone except the Trust which does not own the loan so the Trust is not the owner of the loan and the servicer is not the authorized entity to manage the loan — until they try to force a Power of Attorney into the court proceedings without notice to the homeowner’s attorney. Those are mostly cases they lose and the homeowner walks away with the “free house” that the banks have been propagating as a myth but still successfully. They are getting the judge to take his or her eyes off the ball as to WHO is seeking a “free house.”

Since neither the Trust nor the servicer has any right to be collecting or enforcing the loan, the facts point to the Servicer as the real party in interest who is attempting to use the court system (successfully I might add) to steal the loan, steal the property and run off with the money and the free house. Sanctions should apply. Instead, they are awarded the foreclosure and they attack the proceeds of the foreclosure sale like sharks, now that the loan, its collection and enforcement have been rubber stamped by a Judge in a court order that is effective by operation of law.

Foreclosure ties the knot such that procedurally it is very difficult for the homeowner to get discovery or to investigate the facts before trial; and when the the judgment or sale is transferred post judgment to some other party that never had anything to do with the loan the homeowner either doesn’t know what to do with that nor how to get into court for a hearing on the real amount required for redemption. And of course the investors are not advised at all or if they eventually get notice it is long after the shark feeding frenzy is over.

As part of the “servicing” the “servicer” makes those advance payments to the certificate holders without any right of action to collect back the money from the certificate holders should they receive the money they were promised in the PSA, which is inoperative because the money was never put into the trust and the trust does not even have a bank account.

In Court the servicer says nothing about the servicer advances and when the subject is broached by the homeowner the witness knows nothing and so the court disregards talk about the the servicer advances. But what really happens is fascinating and destructive.

“Servicer advances” are made from a cesspool of money from investors in hundreds of trusts. The servicer theoretically could be said to have effectuated payment (pursuant to the terms of the PSA, not the note — which is different), but the “servicer advances” are actually payments from the cesspool — i.e., money from the investors themselves.

So the servicer advances are being paid with the investor’s money, not the servicer’s money or credit. Judges, who are too weary to attempt to understand this process will simply say that goes on in the backrooms of these players is not their concern; the only issue for the Judge is whether the borrower stopped payment according to the note, even if the parties on the other end are still being paid. Clearly there is no subrogation here and even if there was, there would need to be an accounting of how to split ownership of the note and mortgage — something that nobody has done because of obvious defects in the money trail conflicting with the documentary trail.

So all of the above discussion leads to one point: the servicers attack the sale proceeds claiming “recovery” of servicer advances they never made because the investors were paid with their own money. But they did so as volunteers where there is no right of action to recover those “advances” from the certificate holders who were paid and whose books and records shows that they have not experienced a default — which then led them to get more confident about these “derivatives” and buy more bogus mortgage backed certificates issued by a non-operating entity without even a bank account.

Greed tends to reveal what is really happening. Those advances that the banks told the court to ignore because it is all just back-room adjustment, are now the subject of bundling and sale and securitization claims — with the “servicer” getting the money instead of the investors. The investors don’t see anything wrong because they got paid what they were expecting regardless of where the money came from. According to the investors, on whose behalf the loan was declared in default, there is no default because they received payment in full and as they expected.

With the several recent announcements of closing on the sale of bundled servicer advances, the proceeds go to the servicer, not the investors. So the investors get to keep their “payments” received from the servicer and the “Servicer” gets to keep the proceeds of the claim to “recover” the “servicer advances.” I would argue that those proceeds should NOT be taken out of the sale proceeds and that they should be counted as part of the investors’ stake, thus reducing the amount due from the borrower. If the total money is actually received by the investors or which is received by their “agent” on behalf of the investors is an amount in excess of what the borrower owes, then the balance is due to the borrower under law.

This has a direct effect on the right of the borrower to redeem. AND it has a direct effect on the money judgment contained in the Final Judgment of Foreclosure. In my opinion it is ripe for a motion to set evidentiary hearing on the redemption amount and/or a motion to vacate the judgment because the “lender” failed to disclose all the money that was received on account of the subject mortgage. The fact that they did not allocate those moneys as such is not controlling. Under GAAP rules the receipt by the agent is receipt by the principal. The account is paid off in whole or in part or in excess of the loan receivable from what the investors thought was the trust — but the receivable of the investors turns out to be due from the investment bank. But the investors have no documentation establishing their right to the note or the mortgage.

Judges who fail to inquire about the lack of reconciliation between the money trail and the paper trail and disclosure the way they did 25 years ago are adding fuel to the fire.

The longer the servicers can stretch out the time between the time when the homeowner stopped payments and the time when the foreclosure sale proceeds, the more servicer advances were paid to the certificate holders. Since the “servicer advances” actually were “advances” out of the investors’ own money, and since the servicer was going to claim those advances, it makes sense to prolong the time because the more time that passes, the higher the value of the claim for “recovery” of servicer advances.

If you do the math here is what you get:

  1. The certificate holders have not experienced a default even though one has been declared allegedly on their behalf but really on behalf of the servicer.
  2. The certificate holders lose the rights they thought they had as to proceeds of foreclosure.
  3. The only way to close the deal on servicer advances is to have a foreclosure sale. This is why you see modifications being turned down as a result of “rejection” by the investor (who in reality never saw or heard of the borrower, the default, the foreclosure or the request for modification).
  4. The push toward foreclosure sale instead of workouts or modifications floods the market with homes just as Wall Street flooded the market with money that increased the price of homes far above their fair market value. This knowledge allowed the banks to bet against housing prices and to bet against asset backed securities and win every time. Thus the “servicers” at every turn are working against the interests of the investors and for their own interests.
  5. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been paid to those investors who had the muscle to take on the mega banks. Those were settlements because it was obvious that the investment banks were liable to the investors for breach of every conceivable duty that arose from a fairly straightforward indenture on the mortgage backed securities. There is a question of how this money was paid and why. If it was paid on account of the loans that the investors wished to reject but are now stuck with, then a portion of that settlement money should be apportioned to the balance due from the borrower — which results in a principal deduction for the borrower that is congruent with the theft by the banks.

The only real question is why are so many of the investors allowing this rape of their stable managed funds? Maybe that “Chinese wall” between investment banking and commercial brokerage isn’t so thick?

 

80 Responses

  1. It’s MORAL ROT by those who think we should not hold TITLES to our own person, by the most self centered egotists who ever lived.

    Whether it be the immoral ones on WALL STREET, or their shallow friends, they operate like one vast CRIME SYNDICATE of RELIGIOUS HATERS.

    If that were not true, they would not be operating like GANG BANGERS denying our LEGAL RIGHTS to our person.

    I met with numeous FC ATTORNEYS & they offerred the same “options” which were improper & IMHO, unlawful. They were not willing to defend my TITLES from FRAUD, even though my OWNERS POLICY from CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST says it protects my TITLES fromfraud.

    That’s what really makes the PLAINTIFFS DU JOUR CRIMINAL, & the JUDGES ignoring everything FRAUDULENT no different

  2. Moreover, if they weren’t trying to DEGRADE their victims by the utter embarassment of bringing the TORTLESS FRAUD SUITS, there would be no FRAUDCLOSURES.

  3. They don’t respond in LEGAL TERMS because they’re hiding their identity & that’s why the SECURITIES don’t exist.

    They’re FRAUD RACKETEERING with the intent of extreme DEGREDATION.

  4. What are my options now ? The Judge is probably going to deny my motion to vacate his summary judgment that granted Wells Fargo the foreclosure.

    – Do I amend my answer or counterclaim ?

    – Do I request leave to file an interlocatory appeal?

    – Do I wait until they eventually receive a Final Judgment and then file an appeal?

    – Do I file my own action? Before their Final Judgment is entered, and would it be thru the same state court, or file it in federal court? Seeking to have a court declare my rescission effective … But then would I open up the entire merits and validity question of the rescission? Does a court start adjudicating the merits of the rescission, if so , most courts would then resort to the same old tactics … I say the time for arguing the merits of the rescission is long past …the true creditor should have responded within the 20 days mandated in the statute if they desired to argue the merits.

  5. Therefore, pass the CROWN & SCEPTOR, & toss the TIARAS to the UNEDUCATED CONSUMERS of WALL STREET STOCK BROKER CREDIT FRAUD EXCHANGE MANUFACTURED fraudulently induced PUBLIC SLAVEDOM of fake PEASANTRY.

    Those FIRMS, LLC’s, etc, not operating in their own names like the LAW REQUIRES could very well be OBAMA, PELOSI, BIDEN, THE SEC CHAIR, THE MOB RACKET, HOLLYWOOD, THE MUSIC INDUSTRY, THE COPS, JUSTICES, JUDGES, MAYORS, SHERIFFS, or the neighbor next door.

    That’s MOB RACKETEERING to gain UNJUST ENRICHMENT & that’s why the SECURITIES don’t exist.

    FRAUDCLOSURE is complete moral corruption by people you can’t see.

  6. Who cares what the SEC thinks? There’s nothing but FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT of SECURITIES FRAUD on their WEBSITE.

    Therefore, they’re probably FINCEN in disguise, conducting BLACK OPS for the CRIMINALLY VOYERISTIC, BLACK MARKET SABOTEURS of the WALL STREET INVESTMENT FIRMS.

    AKA the ones who don’t operate in their own names.

  7. @ DwightNJ

    Absolutely.

    Generally, you are allowed to change the theory of the claims for harm and injury you’ve suffered, and even amend or add claims to fit the facts of the case.

  8. Kali … This second / newest foreclosure complaint by Wells Fargo was filed by them in May 2014

    Since they dismissed their first FC that was filed in Sept 2007 , and dismissed in Nov 2011 … You are saying that my counterclaim can be construed as still being timely against this 2014 wrongful attempted foreclosure? …possibly?

  9. @ Bob G.

    Another EXCELLENT provocative post.

    Please standby for a counter discussion or two.

    You’ve provided an assertion or two that must be fully digested before any attempted cogent response(s) from the west coast will be posted later this afternoon/evening; due to other in-disposing commitments during the balance of this Sunday.

  10. NG gets an idea in his head, and it doesn’t matter if it’s wrong, it still can’t be displaced even with dynamite.

    To Wit: “Investors are in the dark because they are getting paid exactly as provided in the PSA. They are getting paid by Servicer advances. The Servicers are using the investors own funds to make these payments to the investors.”

    Not true by a long shot. If Servicers were making such wholesale advances, investors would not be suing the investment bank sponsors of the trusts for damages caused by fraudulent reps and warranties. Enter any RMBS CUSIP into a broker’s price quote and see what comes up. If the price differs appreciably from par, its because the trust has defaulted on payment to that particular tranche, either because the entire tranche went bust or because of the waterfall provisions mandating that the junior tranches fund cashflow upstream to the senior tranches. Also, just look at the monthly investor distribution reports. All the junior tranches are hollowed out, with only the senior tranches remaining populated. And if we’re talking about hundreds of billions of dollars here, well the Servicers just don’t have that kind of money. Moreover, the investor moneys are not residing in some huge Wall Street slush fund. Those funds were used to pay the depositor, who paid the seller, who paid the original warehouse lender that funded the actual closings.

    Next, consider the statements that the trusts are empty and were never funded and therefore they couldn’t have acquired the loans because they didn’t have a bank account. The trusts can argue that their investor certificates were the only currency needed to give life to the trusts…they didn’t need the cash. The investor money flowed through the underwriters to the depositor, then on to the seller and the warehouse lender, all for the benefit of the trust. The money could have flowed through the trust, but that would have been an extra step or two. If it did, it would then have been paid out to the other deal parties as I’ve just described. The certificates were the trusts’ consideration paid for the loans. It’s just that the trusts used their agents to transfer the funds. Happens all the time.

    Further, the only parties that can complain about a failure of consideration for personal property, are the parties themselves. This is very well settled law and NG knows it. And therefore, because the depositor has transferred and delivered the loans to the trust, the servicers can act and foreclose on behalf of the trust.

    I know some folks here don’t want to hear this, but that’s the reality.

  11. @ Bob G.

    EXCELLENT ANALYSIS!!!!

    Thank you, as your analysis peels deeper into the layers of the onion and provides EXCELLENT insight into what the WIZARD OF OZ is doing behind the curtain.

  12. @ DwightNJ

    I don’t think your counterclaim(s) are without merit.

    Simply, the claim for damages can not be based upon TILA rescission in July 2007, which voided the transaction by operation of law, and no entity acted within the 20-day window to challenge the rescission.

    Instead, the damages arise from the wrongful foreclosure action(s) by WELLS FARGO, which began when, in terms of triggering the statute of limitations?

  13. THINGS THAT ARE CRITICAL FOR YOU TO KNOW IN A FORECLOSURE DEFENSE SITUATION

    1. The MBS trust does not receive the proceeds from the certificate offering. Here’s how this works. The trust issues the investor certificates in book entry form to the securities underwriters. The underwriters sell the certificates to institutional investors. The institutional investors wire their money to the underwriters. The underwriters take their cut, and then wire the net proceeds to the Depositor. The Depositor “deposits” (whatever that means) the mortgage loans/notes/mortgages into the trust. In practice, 60 million loan files two inches thick on average would extend a paper pile about 1,894 miles high. Too much paper to store. Solution was to image the loan docs electronically and then destroy the originals. Cannot have originals floating about because they’re negotiable instruments and susceptible to theft. Electronic instruments are not. Not enough armored cars in the country to transport 60 million loan files, and way too expensive. Cannot send the originals via USPS registered and insured mail, because the USPS will not insure more than $25,000 per envelope.

    2. The trusts monthly investor distribution reports will typically show mortgage insurance policies and premium payments made or being made. The policies should be asked for in discovery.

    3. The reason that a MERS mortgage assignment always shows up just before the foreclosure suit is commenced is because the mortgage must be in the name of the lender, otherwise the note will not be secured and a mortgage foreclosure action cannot be brought. The lender would have to sue solely on the note and obtain a civil judgment. The judgment might then be stripped or reduced in a BK.

    4. If you had a Countrywide mortgage or deed of trust, check to see if the mortgagee identified on the mortgage refers to the lender as being “America’s Wholesale Lender, a corporation existing under the laws of (your state).” You are not likely to find such a corporate entity listed on your Secretary of State’s website. If the mortgagee is different than the lender, then the note is unsecured, and the lender should be filing a claim against its title insurer and not suing you. The title insurer may end up with a claim against you, but that is debatable. And even if it does, it will be one additional step removed from the process, and probably will get little productive assistance from the “lender.” One other note in this regard: in NY, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. was registered with the Sec of State, and was using the assumed name of “America’s Wholesale Lender” to originate and write mortgage loans. NY’s Dept of Financial Services had authorized Countrywide to use the assumed name to write its mortgage loans, so I believe that the loans themselves are valid, whereas the mortgage probably isn’t.

    5. If you had a loan mod that reduced your interest rate, and the mod didn’t work out, then check the SEC website for your trust’s Prospectus Supplement, the 424B5 form. You may find that if the Servicer gives you a loan mod at your request, and the mod reduces your interest rate, then the Servicer must purchase the loan from the trust by depositing the purchase money into the trust’s Certificate Balance account. A typical condition is that the amount of loan mods for the group of loans that holds your note does not exceed 5% of your loan group’s total loans. If the Servicer purchased the loan, then the plaintiff trust has been made whole and lacks standing to sue you. The trust’s defense that you are not a party to the Prospectus Supplement or an intended third party beneficiary should be unavailing, because the Prospectus Supplement is not a contract amongst certain parties, but rather a required SEC disclosure form directed at the general public. Unlike the PSA argument, you are not an outsider trying to retroactively void an action by the trust. Rather, you are merely trying to ascertain whether the Servicer purchased the loan as was warranted and represented in the Prospectus Supplement. This goes to your affirmative defense of the plaintiff trust’s Lack of Standing, and is an appropriate discovery request. If you are successful, the action will have to be dismissed. The Servicer may try and sue you in a subsequent action, but there will obviously be complications, one of which might be that the statute of limitations will have expired. (And by the way, this is the reason that the Servicer doesn’t want you to play catch up on a soured loan mod. The Servicer wants to recover its purchase price, pronto.)

  14. Kali … I agree with you .. and I have attempted to explain it to the Court in some of the papers included with my motions on the rescission.

    This is why I believe the Judge did an end-around in order to side step this core question …he deliberately steered the discussion into one about tender …saying that my rescission letter never mentioned that I was offering to tender … He was trying to undermine the rescission and ignore the core question you’re pointing out which is …who is the true creditor of my loan who qualifies as the real party in interest who should have complied and/or acted inside the mandated 20 days?

    What can I do when a judge does this?

    The other danger I face is the courts twisting all of this into the view that I somehow invoked the courts jurisdiction to rule that my rescission was effective …but that wouldn’t be fair because my answer and counterclaim was filed 9 months before Jesinoski …so even if my TILA rescission counterclaims (2) are reviewed , I still believe that they do not invoke the court to go back in time to 2007 to adjudicate the merits of the TILA disclosure violations, tender, etc.

    The TILA rescission counterclaims state that I rescinded July 2007.

    1) one counterclaim was more or less asking the court to recognise my rescission and to make the plaintiff pay damages, etc.

    (this is a gray area , on one hand there is a 1 year SOL to sue ..on the other hand there seems to be commentary that says it can be raised indefinitely against foreclosures with no time limits applied…but that could have been talking about just generally raising your rescission as an affirmative defense to a foreclosure …. I would have never included this counterclaim if I knew what I know now … I do not want to be perceived as invoking the courts jurisdiction to decide anything in regards to whether my rescission was valid or not. But I think the Jesinoski decision protects me in the fact that my rescission was effective in July 2007 … The problem is that nobody knows if a court should be allowed to adjudicate an old rescission years later during a foreclosure action…this is why I’m pushing so hard on the 20 days and the issue of standing …20 day failure to comply or respond should bar any party from contesting my rescission 8 years later …and standing should be the other layer of protection that prevents Wells Fargo from being able to prevail in my case.)

    2) the second counterclaim simply seeks a declaration by the court declaring that the mortgage upon which this complaint was based is and was deemed void by operation of law pursuant to TILA and the mortgage is unenforceable.

    I’m really hoping the first counterclaim isn’t later viewed as me invoking the courts jurisdiction…this has been my biggest fear all along.

  15. From day one of this FRAUDCLOSURE DEBACLE, the FRESH PRINCE OF HOT AIR has been tryng to drain the people of these UNITED STATES out of holding TITLES in our names.

    Thst’s proven by the fact not one of his FAT CAT WALL STREET FRAUD ADMINISTRATORS has produced one LEGALLY VALID reason for FRAUDCLOSURE to this date.

  16. Maybe we should rub some GARLIC JUICE on our responses to their FALSE CAIMS IN TORT.

    It probably would be wise to carry some garlic with us to these courthouses ran by COUNT BELAVIA & the entire vampire consortium of GANG STALKING TITLE COUNTERFEITERS.

  17. @ DwightNJ

    Your asserted Fact #2: You rescinded the putative contract pursuant to TILA in 2007.

    The unanswerable/unknown Fact #1 that must be asked is: Who is the “true creditor,” or some entity that by operation of law would have standing to bring a challenge to the rescission within the 20 days, if any entity at all?

    The reason for prodding you with this core question is to interrupt your assertion before the court that WELLS FARGO purports to be the “true creditor” and real party with a beneficial interest in the NOTE.

    Just sayin’…

  18. As far as I’m concerned when a borrower rescinds under TILA they are performing their first step of the tender attempt …

    But the tender hinges on the creditor complying in 20 days …

    1) borrower rescind … The tender offer is automatically included, but other things must happen to …

    – determine who the true creditor is, that qualifies to receive the tender.

    – that creditor must accurately determine the math ..what was the amount financed, what closing costs and fees were paid, what payments were made, etc, etc. ..to calculate the balance owed.

    – the creditor must act in 20 days to remove the lien ..And return what is owed to the borrower..

    2) after the creditor has complied and taken steps to complete his duties …and calculate the balance for tender purposes..

    3) then the borrower may perform his next step of his tender offer ..he will have options …

    – go to a new lender and refinance to raise tender …

    – pay the tender with cash from his savings, inheritance or lottery win.

    – place the home up for sale

    – offer the house as the tender and walk away with the money the creditor returned to you

    Since tender was always a part of the remedy process, it makes sense that the initial act of rescission was in fact an offer to tender …

    And as the statute explains ..if 20 days goes by and the creditor fails to accept your offer …well then just keep the damn house because now the bank is committing more violations on top of the initial violation.

    This was a consumer protection law …it was not an invitation for lenders to continue playing games with those consumers by ignoring the remedy procedures.

    This is why I believe the 20 day rule should be applied without mercy to the lenders …the aim is to protect borrowers and allow them to get on with their lives, not to be tormented for the next 5 years .

  19. record 24 hr november snowfall in chicago n/e illinois…
    6″ south to 18″ north
    heart-attach thick-wet
    snowblowers non-functional – churns out “Slurpees”
    digging out
    the city has increased fines to $500 per house / per day for not shoveling
    $1000 for businesses

    wish they’d leave the banks buried…

  20. CREDIT BROKERING fiction is SECURITIES FRAUD.

    There is no monetary value or equity in what the WALL STREET gamblers did behind our backs.

  21. Keep in mind, TILA states also…
    The borrower may keep the property…..
    IF THE BORROWER HAS OFFERED TENDER and the creditor does not accept……..

    Did you offer Tender?

  22. If the creditor fails to comply …and the borrower rescinds but chooses not to file an enforcement in their 1 hear to do so, to allow a court to order the unwinding … I think the unwinding part of rescission then becomes a waived remedy by both sides.
    The end result should be that the borrowers rescission was effective and complete as per Jesinoski … and the unwinding part was waived by both parties waiving of the remedies. Borrower receives declaration by court stating that the mortgage is void.

    I cannot see where a court can supersede the federal statute that has its own remedies and timelines to act.

    Keep in mind that the statute also states that a borrower may keep the property if he has offered tender and the creditor has not accepted his offer ..after that seperate 20 day period, the borrower may keep the property with no further obligations.

    This shows the lawmakers intent because it proves that they were not concerned about the creditor ..in their eyes the creditor is a violator of the Truth in Lending Act ..and so if they wanted to play games with the borrower victims, then they will lose.

    This second 20 day window supports our assertion that the first 20 day window is just as crucial and devastating to the bank once they fail to comply. The lawmakers used the 20 day window in both parts of the statute where they mandate that the creditor comply.

    I just can’t see how a court can justify adjudicating an old rescission years after the fact …it would make the 20 day language meaningless

    It would make the Supreme Courts Jesinoski decision meaningless too if the courts felt they could come in after the creditor failed to comply and reach back in time to make those creditors whole again , this is not the courts problem and they have no business inserting themselves into it. What is done ..is done. The creditors chose their own demise when they failed to comply.

    How many homeowners have lost homes because they missed the time windows to appeal or answer or act ?? Millions, that’s how many.

    And the last time we checked we did not see any Judges crying for the poor homeowners who missed their time windows.

    Most of my affirmative defenses were dismissed with Prejudice because the court agreed with the bank that the statute of limitations had run on those defenses … So the same level of justice should be applied here when the creditor fails to comply with TILA in 20 days.

    We have already seen 40 years of abuse by the courts in how they took TILA away from the borrowers …and now that the highest Court in the land has spanked those biased judges with Justice Scalia’s big black leather belt …we are now seeing these judges standing in the corner with angry expressions on their faces and their pants pulled down to their ankles while the court clerk applies the lotion to his red behind.

    These judges will need to be dragged out in straight jackets before they agree to Grant the borrower the house.

    We need the higher courts to make this rigby, but will they?

    Oregon was a good start.

  23. Dwight, states vary on tax redemption. Call your local tax assessor office …they should be able to direct you to the right party.

  24. The taxes were being paid by the PMI escrow …how would I redeem them?

  25. The other bus drivers tell me that the Wall Street bankers give Christmas cards to their drivers with lots of money in them .. “They give money away like they stole it from somebody else” say the drivers.

  26. What I see…..
    Borrowers letting the SOL run on damages (even after rescission)
    I see the Pretenders letting the SOL to prosecute expire…

    A standoff per say ….
    Redeem those taxes and HOA dues or your goose is cooked!

  27. Dwight, Congratulations on the New Job!
    Transporting Banksters. ..hahahaha
    I shouldn’t laugh considering ….
    Would you do us all a favor and drop them off at the nearest toxic waste dump?

    Good Luck!

  28. CORRECTION:

    “…stand on…”

  29. @ DwightNJ

    Aunt Fannie admits in its own documentation that it is not a lender and holds no NOTEs whatsoever, and you are not indicating that Auntie is a named party, so do not get caught up in such a fallacy.

    These maneuvers are only the servicer(s)’ misrepresentation games.

    Presumptively, you stand of the ground that you exercised the TILA rescission within the 3-year window.

    Assuming arguendo, akin to the Oregon ruling I congratulate you for entering into the post-Jesinoski dimension.

  30. When I refinanced in late 2004 with Commerce Bank, they immediately stamped the note pay to the order of WAMU …we made our pymnts to WAMU until early 2007 when Wells Fargo took over as servicer.

    Fannie Mae claims they acquired the loan in Dec. 2004

    Fannie Mae told me on the phone in 2015 that they still own the loan, and it shows that on their website and MERS website

    The Wells Fargo reply to my QWR in 2014 states Fannie Mae owns it

    Yet the assignment of mortgage fabricated and bad dated to 2007 says that MERS as nominee for Commerce assigns note and mortgage to Wells Fargo for a sum of money ..as to imply that Wells purchased the debt?

    But in the complaint Wells states they are “holders” of the note and mortgage …and show a note endorsed to blank ..by WAMU

    The courts say that is all that matters ..a note in blank

    How does one get beyond their thinking?

  31. @ DwightNJ

    Peeling the layers of the onion, Washington Mutual Bank FA mysteriously ceased to exist in 2005, reincarnated in an alter ego a Washington Mutual Bank, which was put to an end in 2008 by the Comptroller of Currency, if I recall correctly.

    Whether an incarnation of Washington Mutual ever had a beneficial interest in the NOTE is the core question, e.g., as a result of lending its own money for consummation of the contract, because if it did not, then it was never a true lender/creditor/holder in due course of the NOTE, therefore having no beneficial interest in the NOTE, and nothing to negotiate for delivery, transfer and/or perfection.

    As a consequence, WELLS received nothing from an entity that had nothing.

  32. In a strange and ironic twist of fate , the free CDL training I received was from a big charter and commuter bus company who hired me to make commuter runs to and from Wall Street each day, picking up all the Wall Street workers and bankers .. Not sure if I will stay with that or eventually take a different job driving a truck.

  33. I passed the CDL pre-trip test, air brakes and road test .. NJ made it a lot harder to pass .. But I passed.

  34. Kali … Yes I filed a judicial notice and attached the Oregon case and the Jesinoski case.

    I also filed an objection over my hearing scheduled and noticed and then being taken off the calendar , denying me due process and hurting my chances to create a record for appeal.

    I also added errors made by the court in its decision to grant plaintiff summary judgment ..

    One question that will need to be addressed is … Can Wells Fargo receive a valid assignment of mortgage AFTER the borrower had already rescinded? Their assignment is dated 3 months after my rescission letter.

    Can a void mortgage instrument be assigned to another party who then records that assignment a year and 3 months after the rescission?

    WAMU went under in Sept. 2008 …Wells Fargo fabricated and recorded the fraudulent assignment Oct. 2008 , and back-date it to Oct. 2007

    We rescinded July 1, 2007

  35. @ DwightNJ

    It seems apparent that driving around NYC did you well.

  36. I never had a contract with Wells Fargo … I entered into what I thought was a refinance contract with Commerce Bank that was never legal, valid, completed and consummated .. but I rescinded it due to TILA violations … Wells Fargo has no standing and is not a real party in interest , they are nothing more than a player in the Ponzi scheme .. Sorry Charlie … Nice try but the Supreme Court has spoken.

  37. @ DwightNJ

    1) I hope the prospective job is a good fit.

    2) Any chance you filed a request for judicial notice of Jesinoski and the Oregon ruling?

  38. SC…you must have me confused with somebody else .. When I picked the stick up and beat the pretender lender over the head with it , its called rescission …Wells Fargo is a stranger to me who is trying to steal my home …rescission is the gate that keeps them from completing their crime.

  39. Dwight..assuming what you say is correct. ……
    Then why in Tarnations didn’t you pay the taxes,ins & HOA dues?

    And don’t tell me you had them escrowed!
    Escrow is NON existent under a rescission claim.

    Just like the banksters. ..you can not pick up one end of the stick without the other.

  40. As to TILA rescission, it is a statute with the remedy already in it, but it also requires timeliness and compliance by the creditor in order for the unwinding to trigger, otherwise the rescission is completed by notice, regardless of any unwinding ever taking place. The borrowers notice completes the rescission, and the creditors compliance inside the 20 days triggers their right to the unwinding process, an unwinding process that is required to unfold within 20 days of the creditor’s receipt of the homeowner’s notice.

    The unwinding process only unfolds after the loan has already been canceled by the homeowner’s notice. Rescission is complete by the notice. The unwinding process is governed by the 20 day clause of the statute.

    The lender must discharge his obligations in the unwinding process first to be in compliance of the 20 day unwinding portion of the statute, before the borrower has to tender the property to the lender.

    Although that process resembles common law equitable restitution, it is really a legal remedy because it is created by statute. And it all rests on the creditors compliance of the 20 day rule to be triggered.

    So both the procedures employed in Section 1635(b), and the time in which they must be completed, are the default procedures and time limits that apply unless the court orders otherwise. Example: if the creditor acts inside 20 days, the court may then become involved and order otherwise. Everything in regards to unwinding rests on the creditors compliance with the 20 day rule, because if it didn’t, then Jesinoski would make no sense, meaning that the borrowers notice was not effective unless the creditor agreed that it was effective, and of course we all agree that this is not the correct interpretation. So the borrowers notice “completes” the rescission .. and the unwinding process is there if the creditor complies.

    So to wrap this up and put a pretty little bow on it ..lets review, if the court doesn’t “order otherwise” before the end of the time limit (20 days), that it may not order it thereafter (years later when the creditor is crying and whining about this not being fair), because that would be in excess of the court’s jurisdiction, since the lender had an adequate remedy at law, precluding the court from acting in equity.

    Jesinoski determined a lot more than just what appears on the surface.

  41. So when JACK LEW calls the PRICE ADJUSTMENT DEVALUERS to base WALL STREETS DEVALUEMENTS upon something that’s really nothing he knows how much paper he can hang on JANET YELLINS board room wall.

  42. Clearly the FOREIGN INTEREST has hijacked GAMBLERS ANONYMOUS in the LAND OF LINCOLN & declared them ELECTORAL VOTES.

  43. Rumor has it the “six mary’s” room & board in the white house & conjure up demonic spirits the likes of BORIS YELTSIN.

    Therefore, the need for RAHM EMANUELS evil presence was eliminated.

    With that evil conjuring went the formal election process in COOK COUNTY. Only dead people may cast their votes whereas before, they were only comprised of the rigged voter tally sheets.

  44. The UNIFICATION CHURCH should be investigated for their role in this FRAUDCLOSURE debacle.

  45. The proof those dangerous MOB ENFORCERS work for the FEDS is they have no legal credentials, no badges & no legal jurisdiction to gather COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION by WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING, EAVESDROPPING or no such other INVASION of PRIVACY of NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZENS but do it, to terrorize & rob the innocent of their LEGAL RIGHTS unlawfully.

  46. What do these CREDIT BROKERING SCAMMERS do to protect their FRAUDULENT INVESTMENT GARBAGE?

    They hire FEDERAL SPOOKS. Those MOB ENFORCERS the FEDS deem to be “too dangerous to go to prison,” to VIOLATE our LEGAL RIGHTS & DOMESTIC TERRORIZE us into trying to force us to believe their lies.

  47. The FEDERAL BANKING REGULATORS should request from the SEC COMMISIONER HARRY WINSTON’S BUY/SELL/TRADE QUOTIENT from when the “BUBBLE BURST.”

  48. They sold BIDLESS CREDIT probably FRAUDULENTLY DERIVED by their old biddie wives who bought boatloads of DIAMOND ENCRUSTED TIARAS for their entire staff just to ring up MAIN STREET.

  49. Why would they want to give loan mods when they don’t have the proper legal documentation to provide that would qualify their BROKER-DEALERS to TITLE SWAP our identity unlawfully?

    They can’t cash in because they had no cash in the scams.

    It was hearsay & speculation by WALL STREET EXECS based upon CREDIT SWAPPING & they don’t want to disclose what those CREDIT SWAPPING BIDS were based upon.

  50. No valid written legal reason why you were denied the loan mod?

    Because they want you dead.

  51. The conclusion can be drawn from the HARP/TARP DEBACLE where nearly no one “got done.”

  52. What is it they’re rating?

    MEET THE FRAUD UNDERWRITERS, they’re perverted extroverts who finance SEXUAL INNUENDO & by doing so, they’re monetizing CONTRACTUAL OBSCURITY.

  53. These “PRIVATIZED” CREDIT BROKERING SCAMS have been going on since REAGAN was half senile in office Greg.

    That intended to cause the S&L CRISIS & none of the real crooks went to jail.

    1500 banksters who were self promotimg their own CREDIT BID RIGGING SCAM did, but none of the MOB BOSSES who ordered the hits were hung on CAPITAL HILL like they should have been.

  54. ALS sold its servicer advances to NationStar (ditched als’ and re-arose as NS) for 1 or 2 BILLION.

  55. maybe we need to step up our timeline and get notices out to congress/senate/president ASAP on this…

    http://www.housingwire.com/articles/35644-house-votes-to-change-qualified-mortgage-rules

    The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to change the definition of “Qualified Mortgage,” opening the door to a potentially seismic change in the mortgage lending landscape.

    By a vote of 255-174, the House approved the “Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act,” which would broaden the definition of qualified mortgages – those that qualify for the safe harbor – to include all mortgages held on a lender’s balance sheet.

  56. Correct typo: _INDUSTRY_INSIDERS

    Those who used INSIDER TRADING to intentionally crash the markets & CNBC’s LARRY KUDLOW reported that.

    They were never investigated criminally but instead their SEC buddies decided they would be better served trying to criminalize everyone else but the criminals who caused it.

  57. In regard to the link I posted previousy, who is working for who?

    The FEDS don’t bother investigating mobsters if they’re considered to be too dangerous to them?

    It sure seems like the bad guys must be working for them because that is heinously & outrageously criminal.

    To say that mobster is too dangerous to lock up is PROOF OF CONSPIRACY & reeks of MASS CRIMINALITY by “INDUSRY INSIDERS.”

  58. Mn, no need to act like a snot nose. I did not address you…you addressed me. FYI. .. you missed my point all together.
    End of Conversation.

  59. My comments

  60. Ok moderator….have not posted Murphy comments.

  61. Thursday 19 November 2015

    Shadowcat:

    Believe what you will. Facts and law fly in opposition to your belief.
    No matter how much land you think China, Trump, or anyone owns,
    the land is always “rented” via equitable title, not absolute.

    Your point is pointless, which is my point. I live in a fact pleading state,
    so my focus deals with facts, not beliefs that have no foundation in fact
    or law.

    However, if it is of no consequence to you, just disregard…

  62. Thursday 19 November 2015

    The right of rescission, particularly when the conventional thinking toward
    what 3 years after “consummation” could mean, keeps playing out in
    my head to figure out how to successfully engage a rescinded plaintiff.
    Actually, not just engage, but defeat.

    My thinking revolves around federal court for local courts have too much
    sway as to accepting the standing of the rescinded plaintiff as a given
    without requiring additional argument/proof as would be required in
    federal court.

    There is also the issue that TILA applies only to refinanced properties,
    not original purchase mortgages. Bob G made that point in another
    post, and it has validity. That does not mean it is an impregnable
    argument.

    What little I know about defending oneself in court is that one can argue
    whatever they want, provided there is some reasonable substance
    predicated on fact and not off-the-wall personal beliefs from those who
    [falsely] believe the way things SHOULD be, as opposed to the way they
    ARE. One has to deal in facts and reality, at all times.

    Jesinoski is not a silver bullet, there are very few so-called silver bullets,
    but it can and does provide one with ammunition, as it were, generating
    other ideas from the decided case.

    For clarity and purpose, this was the ONLY question being decided:
    [quoting from the case]:

    >The question presented is:
    >Does a borrower exercise his right to rescind a transaction in
    >satisfaction of the requirements of Section 1635 by “notifying the
    >creditor” in writing within three years of the consummation of the trans-
    >action, or must a borrower file a lawsuit within three years of the
    >consummation of the transaction?

    However, one can extract pieces from the case to formulate other
    arguments that are supported from other case cites within Jesinoski,
    and from other cases not mentioned in Jesinoski but still deal with
    rescission.

    Starting on p 14, and over to p 15, there is a discussion about rescission,
    in general. At the bottom of p 15 is a footnote that explains why the
    court referenced several dictionary definitions. If it were good enough
    for the supreme court, it is good enough for everyone. The footnote:

    >3 Because the statute does not define the term “notifying,” the Court
    >may look to contemporaneous dictionaries for its mean- ing. See, e.g.,
    > Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997, 2003 (2012)
    >(relying on “survey of the relevant dictionaries” to establish “ordinary or
    > common meaning” of statutory term).

    If that were the court’s basis for defining terms, anyone can use the same
    procedure to define the word “consummation,” It is not defined in the
    statute, except by reference to the right to rescind after 3 years of
    “consummation” of the loan.

    One could go to Black’s Law, a dictionary familiar to all courts, where
    the term “consummation” is defined [using 4th Ed Deluxe] as “the
    completion of a thing.”

    A fuller definition is found under the verb definition of “consummate:”
    “To finish by completing what was intended; bring or carry to utmost
    point or degree; carry of bring to completion; finish; perfect; fulfill; achieve.” There are a few cases one can reference and look to make
    more current within cases for one’s own state.

    Here is what I mean when I say one can argue whatever one decides,
    provided it has a sound basis. I GET TO CHOOSE WHAT THE WORD
    CONSUMMATION MEANS! In the process, you can be sure reference
    will be made to how the supreme court did the same in making its
    unanimous decision.

    With this approach, as an example, one would be telling the federal judge
    how he/she is to understand and use the word “consummate” rather
    than have the judge dictate how the word should be applied that could
    gut one’s argument right out of the gate. The rescinding plaintiff has
    absolutely no say, at this point. [After 20 days has passed]

    I have more thoughts to share but do not want to have any post be
    overly lengthy.

  63. … And as for 401k why would you want one if they invested in MBS what are they really worth, book keeping tricks aside

  64. Elaine
    Good properties are bought n sold ” by freinds of freinds” before we even knew it. I wish i could post what i know now but it wouldnt be smart im still in court.

  65. MN. .. It is my belief the two go hand in hand.
    Hence the amount of land China owns here.

  66. Ocwen could not give my a complete accounting of my loans. In reply to my QWR they could only give me an accounting history that started when my loan servicing was transferred to Litton loan Servicing back in 2008 when the ” originator” of my loan Fremont filed bankruptcy. My loan originated in 2005 and I had multiple accounting errors due to a loan number mixup and Fremont would credit the wrong loan the wrong amount. Question – how can Ocwen claim the amount they state I owe is correct without a complete accounting of my loan?

    Fremont modified my loan and claimed to be my “lender” on the loan mod docs in 2008 before I was switched to Litton. Litton modified my loan again when I was transferred to them – but on their loan mod docs they show the “lender” to be HSBC as trustee for FHLT… First time I ever heard of this trust.
    Question: Wouldn’t Fremont have known my loan was transferred to a trust before the trust cut off date back in 2005? How could they (Fremont) have been mistaken since they would have been part of transferring the documents to the trustee per the deadline listed in the PSA?

    Now I am with Ocwen and they won’t record a release of a security deed for my jr loan that a judge granted be stripped in a BK back in 2011. I have requested this in writing – I have received 2 form letters saying it takes time and they are working on it…in my state it should have been released within 30 days…
    Question – why won’t Ocwen release the stripped security deed?

  67. Thursday 19 November 2015

    Shadowcat:

    >How will The Trump feel when he find out that he doesn’t own the land
    > the. Trump building stands on … That China does and he is just a
    > renter?

    Nobody owns land in this country. It is always “rented” from the
    government. Government rent is called a tax. Trump knows this, if for
    some odd reason you believe this to be important.

    Neil made no reference to China. He referenced an allegorical “Chinese
    Wall,” which for your information, is a barrier for receiving information,
    an obstacle.

  68. As soon as we served discovery, things began to get very quiet. On a motion to compel to,produce accounting, everything went silent. They don’t possess one. All they have now is to intentionally bring fraud upon the court and perjure themselves. At the risk of being redundant, that is a felony.

    Elaine, is there any way to contact you?

    Neil…I hope at some point there will be more information on pressing criminal charges for all parties involved in the foreclosure. In too many cases it is done criminally.

  69. An opinion:

    These sound like FASITs all over again (see the Enron for the result). Thanks to Enron, FASITs were outlawed by Congress in 2004.

  70. Christine, read the very last statement by Neil about China.
    I believe you should tackle that one, but I will ask a question people understand.

    How will The Trump feel when he find out that he doesn’t own the land the. Trump building stands on … That China does and he is just a renter?

  71. This is so depressing. The information offered here has been the same since 2007 – when the dam burst – the story has never changed. We had the money to pay but after the steamroller Shapiro & Burson (now Brown) started rolling – they made it impossible. We couldn’t get anyone to take our money. We couldn’t get anyone to listen in 2009 all the way up until we were put out in September 2014 — our attorney begged for that– three weeks after my son’s wedding – how nice of the judge to make them wait. Eight years after the meltdown – thousands upon hundreds of thousands of homes have been snatched – lots of them remaining empty today left for vandals and squatters. Desirable homes in great waterfront locations (like mine) were snapped up. I had a greedy son of a bitch who waited FIVE YEARS to get my house. After seeing my house from his boat in 2009 after an employee of the foreclosure mill told him about it — he watched it and us like a pair of wounded birds. He eventually inserted himself into the lawsuit – using that slime-ball attorney Biramee who also defends the foreclosure mill attorneys. You can’t fight an innocent third party I was told by our attorney. I even made a personal plea to that heartless motherfucker not to take my home – he did anyway. We are 60 with a zero balance in our 401k. What a great country we live in. Thanks.

  72. Neil you stated, “The problem with this has become evident to many people now, starting with my declaration in 2008 that the Trusts were created but none of them became active because they never received the money from the sale of their certificates.” This is a false assumption.  If the Trusts were legally created they would than be registered in the State of New York or Delaware.  The PSA’s all state the Trusts are registered in one of these two states.  The alleged Trusts also tell the SEC they are a legally registered trust in the state of New York or Delaware.  But if you contact the various state agencies and branches of government the states of New York or Delaware they have no records of these alleged trusts.  If they are not a legal entity they cannot be in court let alone legally file a complaint. The way to beat the banks is through the accounting.  When homeowners are sued for foreclosure they need to file a counter suit. They need to challenge the legal existence of the alleged trust.  What is the alleged trust’s current address, what is the alleged trust’s current phone number.  We know the name of the trustee that is listed on the complaint.  The question is who does the trustee report to.  Who does the trustee answer too and how does the trustee communicate with the trust.  You need this information as it is ultimately the trust and not the trustee that has filed the complaint against you and the address and phone number the trust list in the PSA is not accurate. 

    You also need to ask the trustee if they are still the trustee of record or did they sign off on all their trustee duties.  You will find in most cases that the trustee listed on the complaint signed their trustee duties over to the master servicer,  (this is usually on of the to big to fail banks). You need the financial records and the transfer and or assignment records for your note for every party in the chain of custody of your note.  What you most likely find is your note was never funded nor where there any transfer of funds or considerations on the assignment of your note and or mortgage.  And as you say Neil you should find that the trust was never funded.  The banks cannot let this get out so the outcome should be a settlement outside of court.  If this came out in court the trusts would lose their tax exempt status and the banks cannot let that happen. Don’t take my word for this.  I ask everyone to check out the trust that is suing them.  Look the trust up on the SEC website.  Check the PSA document and you will get the listed physical address and phone number of the trust.  Skip trace the address and phone number.  Find out who currently occupies this address call the phone number.  Don’t be surprise if the address listed for the trust is in the same building as the underwriter for the trust.  The information on the SEC website will also tell you what state the trust is allegedly registered in.  Than contact the appropriate state for any and all information on the trust that is suppose to be registered in their state.  Follow that up with a Freedom of Information Act request for all information on the trust.

    But none of this is of any use to anyone unless they have a competent attorney to represent them.  And finding a willing competent attorney is like finding a needle in a hay stack.

    From: Livinglies’s Weblog To: scot.krueger@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 11:14 AM Subject: [New post] Cesspools and Loan Pools: Ocwen Sells Servicer Advances for $600 Million #yiv4419970334 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv4419970334 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv4419970334 a.yiv4419970334primaryactionlink:link, #yiv4419970334 a.yiv4419970334primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv4419970334 a.yiv4419970334primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv4419970334 a.yiv4419970334primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv4419970334 WordPress.com | Neil Garfield posted: “For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688This is for general information only. Get a lawyer.===========================First of all let me thank all of you who wrote in sending me your prayers and best wishes. It worked. The s” | |

  73. Oh… I DON’TDO BUSINESS WITH PEOPLE LIKE THAT!!!
    NOT EVEN WHEN THEY TRIED TO FORCE ME TO!!!!!

    TILA WAS ENACTED TO GIVE US A CHOICE OF WHO WE DO BUSINESS WITH!!!!

    THEY MONOPOLIZED THE MARKET!

  74. Amen Neil!
    Happy to hear your Recovery is going Well!!

  75. Questions to be studied:

    (1) How was the build up of Wolf’s case accomplished?

    (2) What did Goliath strike at Wolf with?

    (3) Wolf defeated Goliath with the support of whom and in what way?

    (4) Why was the jury persuaded to tip the scales of justice on Wolf’s behalf so strongly as to award $5.3 MILLION?

    The answers are contained in the previous link.

    Go to the Harris County Court Website (attribution) and review the register of action/docket (hint: images).

    An answer/roadmap is there for all the world to study.

  76. greg, on November 19, 2015 at 1:27 am said:

    kali & all

    as promised…
    here is the complete wolf v wells fargo as collected by kali – but in ONE complete zip file…(saves you 1-1/2 hours downloading 64 discrete pdf files)

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4032131/WOLF.zip

    greg

  77. Kalifornia, on November 18, 2015 at 9:23 pm said:

    New Link for Wolf v. WELLS FARGO. Other than the Third Amended Petition, the balance should be in the general chronological and procedural order.

    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxiFFqZR7JZ7eWZWWk5BN0cyY0U&usp=sharing

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: