DOJ Prosecuting INdividuals Who Contributed to Mortgage Crisis

see http://www.housingwire.com/articles/35631-doj-reportedly-pursuing-criminal-charges-against-jpmorgan-chase-rbs-executives

While this is an interesting first step, the DOJ and the media are still overlooking the most basic fatal flaw in the sale of mortgage backed securities, to wit: the certificates were not mortgage-backed, and in fact were bogus certificates from a non-operating entity controlled by the Investment Bankers. It was the perfect crime — invent a company, do an IPO and keep the proceeds.

The Trusts were created on paper but never used, never funded, and never did any business. In fact they never had a bank account. The certificates were sold as securities and were not protected by exemption because while they claimed to be mortgage-backed, they were not.

So the issue of the bad loans that were being hyped by the “ladders” of conduits and sham entities is the second point, not the first. The DOJ needs to do what people in litigation have been unable to accomplish — investigate the money trail and arrive at the same conclusion I did — that the money never flowed through or for the Trusts.

The entire securitization scheme was a scam. The money trail will show money flowing from the investors to the investment banks to various conduits and sham entities. It will also show that some of the money was put into a large cesspool of of the proceeds of sale of the certificates from which the banks covered their tracks by making enough loans so that it would not be apparent that this process was for the banks — in a program that was adverse to the interests of the real parties without adequate disclosure. If DOJ wants convictions, they should get to the root of the matter and start at the beginning — not plunge into the middle of the scam and try to make sense of it.

And such an investigation would reveal that the certificate holders were left without any rights to the notes or mortgages despite assurances to the contrary. Once DOJ puts the pieces in place they will see that the securitization scam was in fact a PONZI scheme where the payments received by investors were taken from a pool of money that consisted of their own money.

41 Responses

  1. In fact, the entire AFOREMENTIONED, operates like one vast CORPORATE TERRORIST GROUP who I would not ever conduct business with, & I certainly never signed no contract with “them” or “it,” ever.

    Furthermore, how fitting, the Friday following Thanksgiving is called “BLACK FRIDAY.”

  2. It’s called TORTUOUS FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION to PRESENT your own COUNTERFEITS & expect to RE-CASH them.

    Moreover, the CUSIP NUMBERS prove there’s FRAUD IN THE FACTUM & therefore FRAUD IN THE ESSENCE by way of U.S. BIRTH CERTIFICATE FRAUD by WALL STREET FIRMS WHO DO NOT ACT IN THEIR OWN NAME.

    Names like PHH MORTGAGE, FIRST MIDWEST BANK, AMCORE BANK N.A. MERS, THE ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEY, THE ILLINOIS SECRETARY OF STATE, THE BAR, THE JUSTICES, THE JUDGES, BAYVIEW LLC, LNR, WEST END TRUST, THE ILLINOIS HOUSE, THE ILLINOIS STATE AG, THE CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE, THE CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, ETC.

    FRAUDCLOSURE is CRIMINAL by its own CRYPTIC NATURE that it operates by use of its own DECEPTIONS.

    They’re trading FRAUD IN THE ISSUING OF CREDIT for peoples LEGAL RIGHTS on WALL STREET & that’s UNLAWFUL & it’s TREASON.

  3. They’re lucid gooses meaning, they’re high on their own narcotics poisons.

    Therefore, they should be DRUG TESTED before they’re even interrogated.

  4. The DOJ should formally question the investors regarding where the money came from they “invested.”

    Because of the FRAUD IN THE FACTUM, the money never existed.

    Therefore, the BAILOUTS were done to wrongfully condemn the innocent because the SECURITIES were contrived & that’s RACKETEERING.

    The proof of that is there’s no paper trail & that’s MONEY LAUNDERING to gain UNJUST ENRICHMENT.

    Who has legalized ACTS OF RICO under the guise of FRAUDCLOSURE?

  5. They call financing SECURITIES FRAUD – “bad loans?”

    They really know how to frost their own cake & eat it too “UP ON WALL STREET.”

  6. So if NEWT dealed into bogus investments in MOON COLONIES is he party to the fraud?

  7. examiner’s report or should I say just a few pages of that report, all should get full report . it does explain allot of the fraud. and the report should be used to show all fraud.

    http://www.rmbstrusteesettlement.com/docs/140%20Exhibit%206,%20Part%202.pdf

  8. djabelanger

    i know you get excited about detail, but if all he text in your posts is included in your associated link – please do not post the entire text – it is killing us!!!

    the link and your 2 sentence description would be so much more appreciated….

    thanks
    greg

  9. Your mortgage documents are fake! – Salon.com
    http://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/your_mortgage_documents_are_fake/
    Salon
    Aug 12, 2013 – Newly obtained filings from this Florida woman’s lawsuit uncover horrifying … In order for the securitization to work, banks purchasing the mortgages had to physically convey the promissory note and the mortgage into the trust. … notes, as well as the mortgage assignments, were “never delivered to the …
    About Us
    Articles & Resources
    Foreclosure Fraud
    General Counsel
    Payment Page
    Contact Us
    Foreclosure Fraud
    Home » Foreclosure Fraud
    Foreclosure Fraud in a Nutshell
    The untold story in the foreclosure crisis unfolding across America is that, following a foreclosure perpetrated by one of the October 2008 Bailout Banks (e.g. Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo) Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac suddenly appear as the record owner of Average Joe’s home. These federal government sponsored entities then go into local housing court and get a court order authorizing them to evict Joe. If Joe resists, these supposedly charitable institutions obtain a writ ordering the local sheriff to forcibly remove Joe from his home.
    Newt Gingrich recently admitted to accepting $1.8 million from Freddie Mac ($25,0000 to $30,000 a month during one span of time) for advising this proto-fascist entity. Gingrich claims that he supports Fannie and Freddie because he believes the federal government “should have programs to help low income people acquire the ability to buy homes.” But Fannie and Freddie don’t do this and never have. When government “helps” someone by subsidizing the purchase of something (through easy credit or lower-than-market rates), it makes that something more expensive. Helping someone buy something that is overpriced because of your help is not help. Fannie/Freddie subsidies not only hurt the low income people they intend to help, they hurt everyone by subsidizing, and therefore distorting, the entire housing market. Fannie/Freddie’s charity has now taken a dark turn. Like their Depression-era New Deal predecessor the Regional Agricultural Credit Corp., Fannie/Freddie are now repossessing homes at an increasing and alarming rate.
    Mr. Gingrich either does not understand economics – government subsidies make things more expensive, not less expensive, and therefore hurt their intended beneficiaries – or he is a vain, selfish, and cynical man with no interest in actually helping his neighbor.
    You decide.
    THE OCTOBER 2008 BAILOUT PAID OFF THE HOLDERS OF MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITES AND DERIVATIVE INSUREDS
    The facts indicate that the Federal Reserve “printed” at least 16 trillion dollars as part of the 2008 bailouts. The bigger questions, however, who got it, why and what did the Fed get in return? The Fed doesn’t just print money. It prints money to buy stuff. Most often this is U.S. Treasuries. That changed in October of 2008. In and after October 2008 the Fed printed new money to buy mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that were defaulting at a rapid rate. Want proof? Here is a link to the Federal Reserve balance sheet which shows that the Fed is holding over a trillion dollars in mortgage backed securities that it began acquiring in 2008.
    Why is the Federal Reserve holding all these MBS? Because when “the market” collapsed in September of 2008, what really collapsed is the Fannie/Freddie/Wall Street mortgage “daisy chain” securitization scheme. As increasing numbers of MBS went into default, the purchasers of derivatives (naked insurance contracts betting on MBS default) began filing claims against the insurance writers (e.g. AIG) demanding payment. This started in February 2007 when HSBC Bank announced billions in MBS losses, gained momentum in June of 2007 when Bear Stearns announced $3.8 billion in MBS exposure in just one Bear Stearns fund, and further momentum with the actual collapse of Bear Stears in July and August of 2007. By September of 2008, the Bear Stearns collapse proved to be the canary in the coal mine as the claims on off-balance sheet derivatives became the cascading cross defaults that Alan Greenspan warned could collapse the entire Western financial system.
    Part of what happened in October 2008 is that the Federal Reserve paid AIG’s and others’ derivative obligations to the insureds (pension funds, hedge funds, major banks, foreign banks) who held the naked insurance contracts guaranteeing Average Joe’s payments. To understand this, imagine that a cataclysmic event occurred in the U.S. that destroyed nearly every car in the U.S. and further that Allstate insured all of these cars. That is what happened to AIG. When the housing market collapsed and borrowers began defaulting on their securitized loans, AIG’s derivative obligations exceeded its ability (or willingness) to pay. So the Fed stepped in as the insurer of last resort and bailed out AIG (and probably others). When an insurer pays on a personal property claim, it has “subrogation” rights. This means when it pays it has the right to demand possession of the personal property it insured or seek recovery from those responsible for the loss. In Allstate’s case this is wrecked cars. In the case of AIG and the Fed, it is MBS. That is what the trillions of MBS on the Fed’s balance sheet represent: wrecked cars that Fannie and Freddie are now liquidating for scrap value.
    Thank you Mr. Gingrich. Great advice.
    BUT FANNIE/FREDDIE WASN’T MY LENDER AND WASN’T MY MORTGAGEE, SO HOW CAN THEY TAKE MY HOUSE?
    To understand how it came to be that the Fed has paid Average Joe’s original actual lender (the MBS purchaser) and now Fannie and Freddie are trying to take Joe’s home, you first have to understand some mortgage law and securitization basics.
    The Difference Between Notes and Mortgages
    When you close on the purchase of your home, you sign two important documents. You sign a promissory note that represents your legal obligation to pay. You sign ONE promissory note. You sign ONE promissory note because it is a negotiable instrument, payable “to the order of” the “lender” identified in the promissory note. If you signed two promissory notes on a $300,000 loan from Countrywide, you could end up paying Countrywide (or one of its successors) $600,000.
    At closing you also sign a Mortgage (or a Deed of Trust in Deed of Trust States). You may sign more than one Mortgage. You may sign more than one Mortgage because it does not represent a legal obligation to pay anything. You could sign 50 Mortgages relating to your $300,000 Countrywide loan and it would not change your obligation. A Mortgage is a security instrument. It is security and security only. Without a promissory note, a mortgage is nothing. Nothing.
    You “give” or “grant” a mortgage to your original lender as security for the promise to pay as represented by the promissory note. In real estate law parlance, you “give/grant” the “mortgage” to the “holder” of your “promissory note.”
    If you question my bona fides in commenting on the important distinction between notes and mortgages, I know what I am talking about. I tried and won perhaps the first securitized mortgage lawsuit ever in the country in First National Bank of Elk River v. Independent Mortgage Services, 1996 WL 229236 (Minn. Ct. App. No. DX-95-1919).
    In FNBER v. IMS a mortgage assignee (IMS) claimed the ownership of two mortgages relating to loans (promissory notes) held by my client, the First National Bank of Elk River (FNBER). After a three-day trial where IMS was capably represented by a former partner of the international law firm Dorsey & Whitney, my client prevailed and the Court voided the recorded mortgage assignments to IMS. My client prevailed not because of my great skill but because it had actual, physical custody of the original promissory notes (payable to the order of my client) and had been “servicing” (receiving payments on) the loans for years notwithstanding the recorded assignment of mortgage. The facts at trial showed that IMS rejected the loans because they did not conform to their securitization parameters. In short, IMS, as the “record owner” of the mortgages without any provable connection to the underlying notes, had nothing. FNBER, on the other hand, had promissory notes payable to the order of FNBER but did not have “record title” to the mortgages. FNBER was the winner because its possession of and entitlement to enforce the notes made it the “legal owner” of the mortgages.
    The lesson: if you have record title to a mortgage but cannot show that you have possession of and/or entitlement to enforce the promissory notes that the mortgage secures, you lose.
    This is true for 62 million securitized loans.
    Securitization – The Car That Doesn’t Go In Reverse
    There is nothing per se illegitimate about securitization. The law has for a long time recognized the rights of a noteholder to sell off pro-rata interests in the note. So long as the noteholder remains the noteholder he has the right to exercise rights in a mortgage (take the house) when there is a default on the note. Securitization does not run afoul of traditional real estate and foreclosure law when the mortgage holder can prove his connection to the noteholder.
    But modern securitization doesn’t work this way.
    The “securitization” of a “mortgage loan” today involves multiple parties but the most important parties and documents necessary for evaluating whether a bank has a right to foreclose on a mortgage are:
    (1) the Borrower (Average Joe);
    (2) the Original Lender (Mike’s Baitshop and Mortgages or Bailey Savings & Loan – whoever is across the closing table from Joe);
    (3) the Original Mortgagee (could be Mike’s B&M, but could be anyone, including Fannie’s Creature From the Black Lagoon, the mortgagee “nominee” MERS);
    (4) the “Servicer” of the loan as identified in the PSA (usually a Bank or anyone with “servicer” in its name, the entity to whom Joe makes his payments);
    (5) the mortgage loan “pooling and servicing agreement” (PSA) and the PSA Trust created by the PSA;
    (6) the “PSA Trust” is the “special purpose entity” created by the PSA. The PSA Trust is the heart of the PSA. It holds all securitized notes and mortgages and also sells MBS securities to investors; and
    (7) the “Trustee” of the PSA Trust is the entity responsible for safekeeping of Joe’s promissory note and mortgage and the issuer of MBS.
    The PSA Servicer is essentially the Chief Operating Officer and driver of the PSA. Without the Servicer, the securitization car does not go. The Servicer is the entity to which Joe pays his “mortgage” (really his note, but you get it) every month. When Joe’s loan gets “sold” multiple times, the loan is not actually being sold, the servicing rights are. The Servicer has no right, title or interest in either the promissory note or the mortgage. Any right that the Servicer has to receive money is derived from the PSA. The PSA, not Joe’s Note or Joe’s Mortgage, gives the Servicer the right to take droplets of cash out of Joe’s monthly payments before distributing the remainder to MBS purchasers.
    The PSA Trustee and the sanctity of the PSA Trust are vitally important to the validity of the PSA. The PSA promoters (the usual suspects, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., Merrill, Deutchebank, Barclays, etc.) persuaded MBS purchasers to part with trillions of dollars based on the idea that they would ensure that Joe’s Note would be properly endorsed by every person or entity that touched it after Joe signed it, that they would place Joe’s Note and Joe’s Mortgage in the vault-like PSA Trust and the note and mortgage would remain in the PSA Trust with a green-eyeshade, PSA Trustee diligently safekeeping them for 30 years. Further, the PSA promoters hired law firms to persuade the MBS purchasers that the PSA Trust, which is more than100 percent funded (that is, oversold) by the MBS purchasers, was the real owner of Joe’s Note and Joe’s Mortgage and that the PSA Trust, using other people’s money, had purchased or soon would purchase thousands of similar notes and mortgages in a “true sale” in accordance with FASB 140.
    The PSA does not distribute pool proceeds that can be tracked pro rata to identifiable loans. In this respect, in the wrong hands (e.g. Countrywide’s Angelo Mozilo) PSAs have the potential to operate like a modern “daisy chain” fraud whereby the PSA oversells the loans in the PSA Trust, thus defrauding the MBS investors. The PSA organizers also do not inform Joe at the other end of the chain that they have sold his $300,000 loan for $600,000 and that the payout to the MBS purchasers (and other derivative side-bettors) when Joe defaults is potentially multiples of $300,000.
    The PSA organizers can cover the PSA’s obligations to MBS purchasers through derivatives. Derivatives are like homeowners’ fire insurance that anyone can buy. If everyone in the world can bet that Joe’s home is going to burn down and has no interest in preventing it, odds are that Joe’s home will burn down. This is part of the reason Warren Buffet called derivatives a “financial weapon of mass destruction.” They are an off-balance sheet fiat money multiplier (the Fed stopped reporting the explosive expansion of M3 in 2006 most likely because of derivatives and mortgage loan securitization fraud), and create incentive for fraud. On the other end of the chain, Joe has no idea that the “Lender” across the table from him has no skin in the game and is more than likely receiving a commission for dragging Joe to the table.
    A serious problem with modern securitization is that it destroys “privity.” Privity of contract is the traditional notion that there are two parties to a contract and that only a party to the contract can enforce or renegotiate that contract. Put simply, if A and B have a contract, C cannot enforce B’s rights against A (unless A expressly agrees or C otherwise shows a lawful agency relationship with B). The frustration for Joe is that he cannot find the other party to his transaction. When Joe talks to his “bank” (really his Servicer) and tries to renegotiate his loan, his bank tells him that a mysterious “investor” will not approve. He can’t do this because they don’t exist, have been paid or don’t have the authority to negotiate Joe’s loan.
    Joe’s ultimate “investor” is the Fed, as evidenced by the trillion of MBSs on its balance sheet. Although Fannie/Freddie purportedly now “own” 80 percent of all U.S. “mortgage loans,” Fannie/Freddie are really just the Fed’s repo agents. Joe has no privity relationship with Fannie/Freddie. Fannie, Freddie and the Fed know this. So they are using the Bailout Banks to frontrun the process – the Bailout Bank (who also have no cognizable connection to the note and therefore no privity relationship with Joe) conducts a fraudulent foreclosure by creating a “record title” right to foreclose and, when the fraudulent process is over, hands the bag of stolen loot (Joe’s home) to Fannie and Freddie.
    Record Title and Legal Title
    Virtually all 62 million securitized notes define the “Noteholder” as “anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payment under this Note…” Very few of the holders of securitized mortgages can establish that they both hold (have physical possession of) the note AND are entitled to receive payments on the notes. For whatever reason, if a Bailout Bank has possession of an original note, it is usually endorsed payable to the order of some other (often bankrupt) entity.
    If you are a Bailout Bank and you have physical possession of an original securitized note, proving that you are “entitled to receive payment” on the note is nearly impossible. First, you have to explain how you obtained the note when it should be in the hands of a PSA Trustee and it is not endorsed by the PSA Trustee. Second, even if you can show how you obtained the note, explaining why you are entitled to receive payments when you paid nothing for it and when the Fed may have satisfied your original creditors is a very difficult proposition. Third, because a mortgage is security for payments due to the noteholder and only the noteholder, if you cannot establish legal right to receive payments on the note but have a recorded mortgage all you have is “record” title to the mortgage. You have the “power” to foreclose (because courts trust recorded documents) but not necessarily the legal “right” to foreclose. Think FNBER v. IMS.
    The “robosigner” controversy, reported by 60 Minutes months ago, is a symptom of the banks’ problem with “legal title” versus “record title.” The 60 Minutes reports shows that Bailout Banks are hiring 16 year old, independent contractors from Backwater, Georgia to pose as vice presidents and sign mortgage assignments which they “record” with local county recorders. This is effective in establishing the Bailout Banks’ “record title” to the “mortgage.” Unlike real bank vice presidents subject to Sarbanes-Oxley, Backwater 16-year olds have no reason to ask: “Where is the note?”; “Is my bank the noteholder?”; or “Is my Bank entitled to receive payments on the note?”
    The Federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision agree with this analysis. In April of 2011 the OCC and OTS reprimanded the Bailout Banks for fraudulently foreclosing on millions of Average Joe’s:
    …without always ensuring that the either the promissory note or the mortgage document were properly endorsed or assigned and, if necessary, in the possession of the appropriate party at the appropriate time…
    The OCC and OTS further found that the Bailout Banks “failed to sufficiently oversee outside counsel and other third-party providers handling foreclosure-related services.”
    Finally, Bailout Banks consented to the OCC and OTS spanking by admitting that they have engaged in “unsafe and unsound banking practices.”
    In these “Order and Consent Decrees,” the OCC and the OTS reprimanded all of the usual suspects: Bank of America, Citibank, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, MetLife, MERSCorp, PNC Bank, US Bank, Wells Fargo, Aurora Bank, Everbank, OneWest Bank, IMB HoldCo LLC, and Sovereign Bank.
    Although the OCC and OTS Orders are essentially wrist slaps for what is a massive fraud, these orders at least expose some truth. In response to the OCC Order, the Fannie/Freddie-created Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), changed its rules (see Rule 8) to demand that foreclosing lawyers identify the “noteowner” prior to initiating foreclosure proceedings.
    NEWT’S FANNIE/FREDDIE ENDGAME: PLANTATION USA
    Those of us fighting the banks began to see a disturbing trend starting about a year ago. Fannie and Freddie began showing up claiming title and seeking to evict homeowners from their homes.
    The process works like this, using Bank of America as an example. Average Joe had a securitized loan with Countrywide. Countrywide, which might as well have been run by the Gambino family with expertise in “daisy chain” fraud, never followed the PSA, did not care for the original notes and almost never deposited the original notes in the PSA Trust. Countrywide goes belly up. Bank of America (BOA) takes over Countrywide in perhaps the worst deal in the history of corporate America, acquiring more liabilities than assets. Bank of America realizes that it has acquired a big bag of dung (no notes = no mortgages = big problem) and so sets up an entity called “BAC Home Loans LLP” whose general partner is another BOA entity.
    The purpose of these BOA entities is to execute the liquidation the Countrywide portfolio as quickly as possible and, at the same time, isolate the liability to two small BOA subsidiaries. BOA uses BAC Home Loans LLP to conduct the foreclosure on Joe’s home. BAC Home Loans LLP feeds local foreclosure lawyers phony, robosigned documents that establish an “of record” transfer of the Countrywide mortgage to BAC Home Loans LLP. BAC Home Loans LLP, “purchases” Joe’s home at a Sheriff’s sale by bidding Joe’s debt owed to Countrywide. BAC Home Loans LLP does not have and cannot prove any connection to Joe’s note so BAC Home Loans LLP quickly deeds Joe’s property to Fannie and Freddie.
    When it is time to kick Joe out of his home, Fannie Mae shows up in the eviction action. When compelled to show its cards, Fannie will claim title to Joe’s house via a “quit claim deed” or an assignment of the Sheriff’s Certificate of sale. Adding insult to injury, while Joe may have spent years trying to get BOA to “modify” his loan, and may have begged BOA for the right to pay BOA $1000 a month if only BOA will stop the foreclosure, Fannie now claims that BOA deeded Joe’s property to Fannie for nothing. That right, nothing. All county recorders require that a real estate purchaser claim how much they paid for the property to determine the tax value. Fannie claims on these recorded documents that it paid nothing for Joe’s home and, further, falsely claims that it is exempt because it is a US government agency. It isn’t. It is a government sponsored entity that is currently in conservatorship and run by the US government.
    Great advice Newt.
    CONCLUSION
    It is apparent that the US government is so broke that it will do anything to pay its bills, including stealing Average Joe’s home.
    That’s change that both Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich can believe in.
    APPENDIX
    More and more courts are agreeing that the banks “inside” the PSA do not have legal standing (they have no skin in the game and so cannot show the necessary “injury in fact”), are not “real parties in interest” (they cannot show that they followed the terms of the PSA or are otherwise “entitled to enforce” the note) and that there are real questions of whether any securitized mortgage can ever be properly perfected.
    The banks’ weakness is exposed most often in bankruptcy courts because it is there that they have to show their cards and explain how they claim a legal right, rather than the “of record” right, to foreclose the mortgage. More and more courts are recognizing that, without proof of ownership of the underlying note, holding a mortgage means nothing.
    The most recent crack in the Banks’s position is evidenced by the federal Eight Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in In Re Banks, No. 11-6025 (8th Cir., Sept. 13, 2011). In Banks, a bank attempted to execute a foreclosure within a bankruptcy case. The bank had a note payable to the order of another entity; that is, the foreclosing bank was “Bank C” but had a note payable to the order of “Bank B” and endorsed in blank by Bank B. The bank, Bank C, alleged that, because the note was endorsed in blank and “without recourse,” that it had the right to foreclose. The Court held that this was insufficient to show a sufficient chain of title to the note, reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded for findings regarding when and how Bank C acquired the note.
    See also, In Re Aagard, No. 810-77338-reg (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2011) (Judge Grossman slams MERS as lacking standing, working as both principal and agent in same transaction, and exposes MERS’ alleged principal US Bank as unable to produce or provide evidence that it is in fact the holder of the note); In Re Vargas, No. 08-17036SB (Bankr. C.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2008) (Judge Bufford correctly applied rules of evidence and held that MERS could not establish right to possession of the 83-year old Mr. Vargas’ home through the testimony of a low-level employee who had no foundation to testify about the legal title to the original note); In Re Walker, Bankr. E.D. Cal. No. 10-21656-E-11 (May 20, 2010) (holding that neither MERS nor its alleged principal could show that they were “real parties in interest” because neither could provide any evidence of the whereabouts of, much less legal title to, the original note); Landmark v. Kesler, 216 P.2d 158 (Kan. 2009) (in this case the Kansas Supreme Court provides the most cogent state court analysis of the problem created by securitization – the “splitting” of the note and the mortgage and the real party in interest and standing problems that the holder of the mortgage has when it cannot also show that it has clean and clear legal title to the note); U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez, 941 NE 40 (Mass. 2011), (the Massachusetts Supreme Court denied two banks’ attempts to “quiet title” following foreclosure because the banks’ proffered evidence did not show ownership of the mortgages – or for that matter, the notes – prior to the Sheriff’s sale); and Jackson v. MERS, 770 N.W.2d 489 (Minn. 2009) (this federal-gun-to-the-head – certified question from federal court asking for state court blessing of its already decided ruling – to the Minnesota Supreme Court is most notable for the courageous dissent of NFL Hall of Fame player and only popularly elected Justice Alan Page who opined that MERS should pound sand and obey state recording standards)

  10. DB, you are right & you said:: “And therefore, because the depositor has transferred and delivered the loans to the trust, AND WE KNOW THIS HOW ! BECAUSE THE LAST TIME I KNEW IS THAT THEY SAID IN A FEDERAL SUIT, THAT NOT ONE MORTGAGE WAS EVER, TRANSFERRED TO ANY TRUST. By any chance, do you have the name of the federal suit? Thanks.

  11. certificates were the trusts’ YOUR A NUT, consideration paid for the loans. FIRST OF ALL , A PURCHASE AGREEMENT SAYS THE DEPOSITOR WILL PAY IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ISSUER THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF 598,987,98. AND WILL BE REFLECTED ON THE BOOKS OF THE ISSUER.

    It’s just that the trusts used their agents to transfer the funds. Happens all the time.

    FIRST OF ALL, SHOW ME A CERTIFICATE!

    Further, the only parties that can complain about a failure of consideration for personal property, are the parties themselves. CORRECT AND ALL MORTGAGES STATE IN IT THAT THE BORROWER MUST PROTECT ALL CLAIMS ON PROPERTY. THATS ALL CLAIMS AGAINST IT,ON PROPERTY RECORDS, ETC ETC

    This is very well settled law and NG knows it.

    And therefore, because the depositor has transferred and delivered the loans to the trust, AND WE KNOW THIS HOW ! BECAUSE THE LAST TIME I KNEW IS THAT THEY SAID IN A FEDERAL SUIT, THAT NOT ONE MORTGAGE WAS EVER, TRANSFERRED TO ANY TRUST.!

    the servicers can act and foreclose on behalf of the trust. SHOW ME WERE THAT SAYS THAT.?

    THE BIGGEST PROBLEM HERE IS THAT. FOR SOME REASON NO ONE HAS BROUGHT UP THE FACT OF.

    MERS,MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATIONS, SYSTEM IS A COMPUTER SYSTEM, AND IT CANT HOLD TITLE TO ANYTHING. IT A COMPUTER.

    AND THAT NOT ONE , NOT 1 – SECURITED MORTGAGE TRUST, IS A MEMEBER OF- MERS, MERSCORP,MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATIONS, SYSTEM.

    AND BETTER YET, THAT MOST DEPOSITOR IN A TRUST. WAS NEVER A MEMBER OF MERSCORP MERS ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS..

  12. call in to set up.

    * Usage of CUSIP Access is intended for one named user per user ID. As a reminder, CUSIP Access does not allow concurrent usage nor does it permit for sharing of logins.
    Business Hours:
    Monday – Friday 9 am – 5 pm
    1-877-287-4737
    1-212-438-6500
    Select option 6

  13. 11/21/12 Summary of Selected Opinion 99-026

    1/1mass.gov/ocabr/business/banking-services/banking-legal-resources/…/selected-opinion-99-026.html

    Licensed Mortgage Lender May Only

    Engage In The Business Of Making

    Mortgage Loans Under The Name As It Appears On The License – Q2 1999

    By the Division of Banks

    Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 255E governs licensure of mortgage lenders. No authority exists under said chapter 255E for a mortgage lender to conduct business under an existing license while also using a trade name for all or any part of its business. The intent of the licensing framework set forth in said chapter 255E is to ensure that a consumer knows the identity of the entity with which he or she is doing business. To allow a lender to use a name other than the name which appears on its license would be contrary to this intent and foster potential consumer confusion regarding the identity of the licensee. Accordingly, it is not permissible for a licensed lender to conduct business under more than one name.

    The Official Website of the Office of Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation (OCABR)

    Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation

    Home Business Banking Banking Legal Resources Opinions and Decisions DOB Selected Opinions Mortgages

    © 2012 Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

    Mass.Gov® is a registered service mark of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

  14. Bob G. apparently said:

    “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.”

    Uh, no. The mortgagee wasn’t identified as being AWL existing under your state. They were written as a corp existing in NY. Only they weren’t. The rest of your premise is also wrong, I just don’t have time to dissect it right now. Suffice it to say that once a fraudulent mortgagee, always a fraudulent mortgagee….meaning….if you weren’t a legit lender, the whole deal’s off. Or should be. That’s not how courts across the land have been ruling since day one, however. Just like the bias in pre-Jesinoski TILA, judges have been handing B of A millions of homes through the illegal AWL scam.

    As to your points about AWL, Inc eventually being registered in NY by Countrywide, wrong there too. AWL, Inc. was eventually registered by entities hoping to enter themselves into the battle, or should I say the spoils thereof, but that group had zero skin in the game. It WAS NOT CW, as they never incorporated AWL. Ever. They simply hoped they could capitalize on the FUND ’EM crap longer than anyone would pay attention. B of A/CW sued the interlopers for trademark infringement and won.

    But that’s the story right there. AWL was a trademark….NOT a legit corp and mortgagee and therefore not a true legal lender. Jeff Barnes is starting to make some strides in this area, and eyes should be on his pursuits. It could open a flood gate not unlike Jesinoski. We can hope so. How such a basic contract 101 illegitimacy could be allowed on such a grand scale is simply unbelievable.

  15. RE-POSTING HERE…

    Bob G., on November 22, 2015 at 10:25 am said:

    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.

  16. REPOSTING HERE…

    Bob G., on November 22, 2015 at 7:50 am said:

    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.)

  17. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on November 20, 2015 at 2:17 pm said:
    well any one , want to see what there cusip that is in all trust.
    Welcome to CGS CUSIP Access

    david

    went to CGS CUSIP Site to see how to sign up… couldn’t find it.
    Did you sign up? If so, any ideas on how any one of us could also use the tools there?
    thanks

  18. Sorry dont know why,but try this one. dcndamix1@aol.com,has to work.

  19. @ dc

    That e-mail address is bouncing off of the server, 3 separate messages:
    here–lllumpfish@aol.com
    is no good.

    Please either correct, or provide an alternate that functions.

  20. My broker who did every loan I have done and my mothers,sisters,and 15 or so friends,Wells Fargo was a client for 14 years when this started past loans paid on time and in full.
    Financial advisor,Ira,multiple accounts,my business,mothers business,things are very dif in Cali since prob the osama administration took over,Im a native and been here all my life and cant stand the thought of it anymore.
    There is zero regulatory support for anyone unless your in their biz or connected somehow or working for the state,city,county,I know I sound pretty negative but it has taken a toll.I have been very blessed in many ways but I will say I cannot let them take my house.
    The equity pretty much is all I have and yes I shouldnt have been risking it I know but the details behind my situation starting in 2011 are classic by the book bank fraud,predatory garbage,and the foul behavior was crazy just watching it unfold in front of me after all the years blew my mind.Thats all

  21. I dont expect much as I had the same case dif judge who dismissed at the demurrer stage and awarded the attorney for the escrow company 20k in fees based on an indemnity document that was never entered or signed and this she gave after the ruling to dismiss with out leave to amend.That lawyer moved my case to that court from downtown and lied several times in emails just to turn around and admit it.
    I printed them all.Had twodif lawyers hit me for 5k each and do 100% nada.Its very hard on the Westside of Los Angeles and very ruthless as far as lawyers and judges then you chuck realtors in the mix its very depressing,and I said this many times theres a few industries like title,escrow,realtors,lawyer,judges all have “Above the Law Status” on the westside.Sucks

  22. Hey I was counting mon,tues,wed,fri,mon,not sure about that fri after thanksgiving try me here–lllumpfish@aol.com

  23. @ dc

    Would you please provide an e-mail for contact off-blog?

    The reason is that your calculation of 5) business days to tender a reinstatement is erroneous.

    In fact, because of the Thanksgiving holiday, if you were to deposit a good faith tender into either a segregated account in the name of the offending party, or alternatively the court, by Monday, November 23, 2015, THAT IS 4) BUSINESS DAYS — NOT 5).

    Post an e-mail address for contact.

  24. You would think I would be doing this myself by now because my 5th lawyer was asking for a temp injunction and at this point I just need to stop the sale and save the equity and its a lot so I cant say what Im going to do at this point possible BK but after the holiday and weekends theres 5 business days exactly.
    This went down on the 18th and this judge is very good at looking at the documents[so they say] Im stressing.

  25. Dc
    Are you/ your lawyer going to ask for
    a permanant injunction pending outcome of your litigation and advancement of discovery perhaps arguing balance of harm for one thing ( actually none to them other than fees)
    Just a curious question im not a lawyer.

  26. Yes it is on the 1st and we had a TRO until this temp injunction,OSC thing on the 18 and it wasnt until the 19th I started doing the math and my lawyers said nothing.Now this is the judge who is doing the Bill Cosby case so ……….anyways he has not said anything yet,hes said to be prob the more fair of the judges at this court,and is known to give rulings by mail,he also gave the TRO and was very passionate even about that,but theres an appeal pending on the first case not to my knowledge as I dropped it and fired that lawyer[not really fired but walked away]and there was a default entered but I need to get this stopped at any rate,I have to,have to.

  27. http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/769036/download

    Anyone who has not rescinded; I wonder if it is because you believe the real creditor has been revealed to you. ie. the bank is on the up and up and gave you all the information and only committed fraud with everybody else.

    I wonder if you have contacted the CFPB for issues about the accounting of the loan payments, whether they are listed in an empty trust, or who knows what fraud has been discovered.

    Those that do audits, did they supply the results of the audit to CFPB in a complaint and make the bank answer through that agency.

    I can be certain they ‘have’ to answer the agency with fact, and the probably will answer you with more misrepresentation of facts.

    To no one in particular,
    The illuminated people say we agree to everything we experience.
    So hopefully if you are not in agreement, you are naming the people who have come against you, and not the name of the business they work for, as this blog post does indicate the DOJ is going after the people who work for these businesses to steal behind the veil of the corporation.

    If you have names of people who are doing you wrong, I would expect you have decided the illuminated are right, and everything you experience you agreed to and those you didn’t agree to has a criminal complaint for someone to investigate and someone to answer.

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

  28. Johngault-
    Do you have any info on cases where the MERS min # (18 digits) had only 17 digits on the AOM and what happe ed on those cases?
    As u are the resident MERS expert. Thx

  29. @ dc

    First, reinstatement is supposed to occur 5) BUSINESS days before a trustee’s sale. Your post isn’t clear what the exact intended date is, but may be December 1, 2015?

    In Kalifornia, there are two options: (1) An escrow of sorts, by depositing the claimed amount for reinstatement into a separate account (preferably a third party account) in the name of the perpetrator (here, WELLS FARGO) pursuant to Civil Code 1500 and providing notice and proof of the tender to the perp, along with a dispute of the amount, etc.; or 2) Deposit the amount in the court in conjunction with filing an action for declaratory relief in interpleader.

    If you choose 1), then also provide notice to the robe that a tender has occurred through an ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order; or did that already occur?

    More details please. Either way, If the sale is Tuesday, December 1, 2015, because of Thanksgiving, there are only 4 BUSINESS days until then — GULP! If so, you should tender into either the separate account or into the court, and provide immediate notice of the ex parte application for a TRO.

    And don’t forget to file a lis pendens.

  30. I could use a bit of input,my sale date is the first of december and the judge in santa monica had the OSC and pre injunction on 18 and has yet to say whats what and if I dont reinstate 5 days before Im ucked,I also have a lot of equity in my place but Wells Fargo screwed me around so hard from day one that I decided to take a stand.
    I hope it wasnt a huge mistake.

  31. @ david belanger

    That is a bailment for hire for the benefit of the bailee, and you are spot on.

    I posted on that issue a while back citing directly from American Jurisprudence.

  32. MERS HAS TO GO….. SAY NO TO A MERS MORTGAGE

  33. DB, Also no disclosure of MERS. We would not have done this transaction if we knew our titles were going to be transferred outside of the county Reg. of Deeds in an unseen database which would slander and/or cloud our titles. I, personally, was not given a copy of the signed Note and Mortgage only a copy of an unsigned document. I was informed by an attorney on the other side (without much in the line of brains) that all the Notes were shredded. Would I have signed on for that? No way.

  34. well any one , want to see what there cusip that is in all trust.

    Welcome to CGS CUSIP Access
    CGS CUSIP Access is a web-based service providing access to the entire universe of more than 14 million CUSIP identifiers (Corporate, Municipal, Government, Mortgage-Backed and Private Placement) and standardized descriptions.

    CUSIP Access Service Enhancement: The LEI will now be part of the CUSIP Access website, free to all subscribers. CUSIP Global Services will include the 20-character pre-Legal Entity Identifier (known as the GMEI in the US) in addition to “Business Card” information including legal name, registered address, role type and legal form with each entity mapped to its corresponding CUSIP/CINS 6 digit issuer code.

    CGS CUSIP Access is a web-based service providing access to the entire universe of more than 14 million CUSIP identifiers (Corporate, Municipal, Government, Mortgage-Backed and Private Placement) and standardized descriptions.

    CUSIP Access Service Enhancement: The LEI will now be part of the CUSIP Access website, free to all subscribers. CUSIP Global Services will include the 20-character pre-Legal Entity Identifier (known as the GMEI in the US) in addition to “Business Card” information including legal name, registered address, role type and legal form with each entity mapped to its corresponding CUSIP/CINS 6 digit issuer code.

    Benefits:
    Direct access to the CGS database via the Internet
    Real time updates every 5 minutes
    Fast search capability
    Fewer clerical errors

    Features:
    Basic search by CUSIP or CINS identifiers.

    Special search options:| Additional data on new CUSIP issues, including:
    • Issue Description
    • Issuer Type
    • Maturity Date
    • Interest Rate
    • Update Date
    • Dated Date • Bond Counsel
    • State Code
    • Insured by
    • FISN Description
    • Rate Type
    • First Coupon Date • Underwriter
    Indicators (Yes/No)
    • Callable
    • IPO
    • Pre-refunded
    • Depository Eligible

    Domestic Coverage:
    Corporate, Municipal, Government, Mortgage-Backed, TBA, Privately Placed Issues. International Coverage:
    CINS and ISIN identifiers. Additional Entitlements:
    • U.S. Syndicated Loans
    • U.S. Equity/Index Options

    * Usage of CUSIP Access is intended for one named user per user ID. As a reminder, CUSIP Access does not allow concurrent usage nor does it permit for sharing of logins.

    Business Hours:
    Monday – Friday 9 am – 5 pm
    1-877-287-4737
    1-212-438-6500
    Select option 6

  35. DID I MENTION: SENATOR SANDERS 2016?

    I MEANT TO.

    HERE: I’LL DO IT AGAIN:

    SENATOR SANDERS 2016

  36. Those in fraud closure are victims.

    The bankers end game was to keep us in the dark while they concealed, fully-paid loans, somebody else paid for- not them- and collected the proceeds from those fully-paid loans until the Truth finally came out.

    Recognizing this nonsense could’nt last forever, the banks then placed bets against those fully-paid loans called
    Derivatives…

    There are currently 1200 Trillion US Dollars owed to “Derivatives”.

    Those 1200 Trillion Dollars in “Notional Derivatives’ are owed to the “International Financial System- World Bank, IMF, Federal Reserve”… etc.

    In other words, all the central banks are under-pinned by US Dollars as the “Internationally Accepted Sovereign Currency”…

    So…

    RUN AROUND AND SCREAM “ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE”?…

    Or,

    RUN AROUND AND SCREAM “ISIS IS GONNA GET US”?

    Or,

    SEND AMERICAN TROOPS TO FIGHT OTHER PEOPLE’S WARS SO THE BANKS CAN CONTINUE DISTRACTING THE SIMPLE-MINDED UNTIL THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS ARE FOLDED, SPINDLED AND MUTILATED IN THE NEXT, PHONY, PROXY WAR????

    Take it away “Fox News- a foreign-owned lackey as propaganda and war machine for the likes of Mitt Romney” …

    “CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE, MY FRIEND”.

    NO, THEY REALYY ARE NOT AND I AM NOT YOUR “FRIEND”.

    HOW ‘BOUT, INSTEAD, WE THE PEOPLE JAIL THE BANKERS?

    THAT WAY WE CAN LEAVE PROXY WARS TO THE PROXYS.

    HOW ‘BOUT, INSTEAD, WE JAIL THE BANKERS?

    THAT WAY WE CAN LEAVE THE ZOMBIES TO MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS.

    HOW ‘BOUT, INSTEAD, WE JAIL THE BANKERS?

    THAT WAY WE THE PEOPLE CAN BEGIN TO PROPERLY PRIORITIZE OUR LIVES AND LEAVE A PLANET OUR CHILDREN MAY DERIVE SOME BENEFIT FROM?

    HOW ‘BOUT WE JAIL THE BANKERS, RENOUNCE THEM, AND REPUDIATE THEIR PHONY CURRENCY?

    THEN WE THE PEOPLE CAN RELEASE THE MONEY ABRAHAM LINCOLN CREATED, NOW WAITING IN OUR VAULTS: “THE GREENBACK”????

    There are 1200 Trillion Dollars owed to a phony scheme that was cooked-up by TRAITORS to this country ages ago.

    PEOPLE in foreclosure know it.

    That is why We The People MUST penetrate through to the phony hidden “Trusts” in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere and use those funds to restore order to the system.

    Hang Onto Your Wallets: Negative Interest, the War on Cash, and the $10 Trillion Bail-in
    Posted on November 20, 2015 by Ellen Brown

    OH! BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? LET’S BLAME ONE POLITICAL PARTY PRESIDENT FOR A SITUATION BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE INSTEAD!

    THAT WAY WE THE PEOPLE DON’T HAVE TO THINK OR PROTECT THIS BEAUTIFUL, FREE COUNTRY THAT OWES A DEBT TO ITS INDIGENOUS PEOPLES THAT WILL NEVER GET PAYED BECAUSE WE ARE TOO BUSY SMOKING BILL O REALLY’S BUNGHOLE.

  37. Grandma always said I done things ass backwards. … 😁
    Try enforcing an unenforceable contract.

  38. Defendant knew at the time of making the transfer that the purported mortgages were not enforceable but did not disclose this fact to the
    Grantor and Plaintiff.

    Defendant made the transfer with the Intent to defraud the Plaintiff.

    Therefore seeds exemplary and punitive damages.

  39. DB. .. Its called misrepresentation .

  40. this is a question for all my buddy, a question that should be ask of in court. as to did the borrower give,know,have knowledge of, and gave permission to part of. any securitzed mortgage trust???

    we all know about them saying they may sell the mortgage and note. that is not the same as, we will be selling your note and mortgage to a trust, and by doing so, we will be using your mortgage and note to make millions for us, the lender! that’s OK with you the borrower ?

    now by doing what they did, in selling our mortgage and note , WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION TO SELL OUR NOTES AND MORTGAGES TO A TRUST, THAT THERE WAS NEVER A MEETING OF MINDS BETWEEN THE TRUST, TRUSTEE AND THE BORROWER. MAKING ANY CONTRACT THAT THE TRUST SAY’S OUR NOTES AND MORTGAGES ARE IN . NULL AND VOID.

    AM I SEEING THIS RIGHT.

    NOW , lets see how you all would of done a mortgage with a lender that did all this. if knowing what we all know now.

    hello mr.k , let see what your mortgage will be, now you will mortgage your property for, 300,000 ok we know this, now we the lender will take one of the 4 mortgage notes, we made copys of, and deposits 1 at the treasury or federal reserve, and we the lender will get on that 300,000 dollar notE you gave to us, and we will get 30 times the value. so that will be, the amount of 9 million dollars, and we will use the other notes to even make more millions, from using , YOUR MORTGAGE AND NOTE. NOW THAT IS OK WITH YOU. RIGHT MR.K

    ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND. NO THAT IS NOT OK WITH ME.

    NOW IF YOU WANT TO SPLIT OF OF THE PROFITS YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE , BY USING MY MORTGAGE AND NOTE, THAN WE ARE TALKING.

    IS THAT WHAT YOU THE LENDER IS TALKING ABOUT?

    NO. WHY NOT.

    BECAUSE WE THE LENDER ARE GREEDY. SO YOU WILL NOT GET ANY PROFIT FROM THIS.

    SO JUST SIGN HERE AND HERE, MR.K.

    I DON’T THINK SO. BUT THANKS ANY WAYS , WHEN YOU WANT TO SPLIT THE PROFIT OF USING MY NAME, MY PROPERTY, FOR MAKING YOU, THE LENDER MILLIONS. HERE IS MY NAME AND NUMBER. JUST CALL OK MR LENDER. 50 PERCENT IS BETTER THEN NOTHING. RIGHT .

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: