STANDING IS NOT A MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION

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

This article is no substitute for advice from a competent attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. Get a lawyer.

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

The Banks are getting increasingly obscure in their pleading and proof because they do not have any actual transactions in the chain upon which they can rely to collect or enforce an alleged “loan.”

They are relying upon the appearance or illusion of actual transactions because there is all this activity of multiple parties supposedly “relying” on the alleged “transaction” chain. But what if the chain of originators, successors and agents is composed ENTIRELY of fee based servicers and thee is no lender nor an assignee who actually paid value of the “loan” and the Loan documents?

Everyone knows that the Banks are certainly not being forthright. With their fabricated, forged, robo-signed, fraudulent documents for which they get sanctioned once the homeowner reveals the defects in their allegations and proof, when you drill down to the reality, nothing adds up. In all transactions affecting ownership or authority to represent there must be a clear chain of transactions that reveal the existence of the funding or acquisition of a loan contract. In other words, it might be enough to PLEAD certain ultimate facts upon which relief could be granted, but it is quite another thing to prove the facts alleged.

The funding of the loan contract is needed to establish consummation of the loan transaction — i.e., without the payee having been the the funding source of the loan it not only violates numerous disclosure requirements, it also reveals that there was a lack of consideration for the note and mortgage executed by the homeowners. If there is a lack of consideration between the payee on the note and mortgage, then there is no consummation because there is no contract. Basic contract law. The fact that the alleged “borrower” was duped into signing documents that named the originator as the lender is not proof that the instruments are genuine and enforceable. Such documents should never have left the “closing” table, much less be transmitted or recorded.

The same holds true for alleged transfers of the loan contract. Even if there was consideration when the loan was originated and even if that consideration came from the payee on the note, in order to assert ownership over the loan the successors must offer more than a multiple choice answer to who is the owner of the loan.

If the Trust, as asserted by Defendant, never paid for the subject “loan” documents then at best, assuming the trust actually exists, the Trust would in actuality be “holding” the loan on behalf of some other entity or entities. If so they have not revealed it in their pleading or proposed proof. And if they did not pay for the “loan” then  who did? But the even more intruding question is if they didn’t pay for the “loan” why didn’t the alleged assignor require payment for such a “valuable” asset? The only credible answer is that the assignor did not demand payment because it was merely performing a fee-based service in which it agreed to misrepresent itself as the assignor without a warranty of title which ordinarily would be required by any bank, large or small, if they were accepting such a document as the basis for a transaction.

In one case I offered the following comments:

The plaintiff is curiously not identified except that Wells Fargo asserts it is the “trustee” for a “series.” That is not the name of a trust, nor does it actually identify for whom Wells Fargo says it is the Trustee. In truth, Wells Fargo is most likely using the name of a fake trust in order to gain an advantage for itself. Trust law is like contract law. If there is no consideration there is no trust. The consideration is called the “res”, which is the asset signed over to the trust, whether it be cash or other property. If the so-called trust never paid for the “loan” then the assignment to the trust raises more questions than it answers. In this case they assert that they have already “made” their case for standing — when the documents they filed leave us with nothing but questions. And the biggest question is a multiple choice question in which we must sift through the various parties in a broken and convoluted line of parties, none of whom had any authority or ownership over the loan, note or mortgage.

They have stated that a prima facie case has been “made.” This is designed to distract the Judge. If the Judge is not re-focused, the Plaintiff will argue that the court has already decided and the Plaintiff has already established that the prima facie case already exists, as to standing, which virtually concludes the case. Prima facie cases are not “made” in Pleadings. They are “made” at trial.

First the “prima facie case” has not been made, because there has been no evidence allowed by the court.

Second the allegation is contested by Thomas. If a party could establish a prima facie case by pleading there would never be a need for discovery or a trial.

Third, The endorsement on the note is cryptic, partially crossed out and is obviously subject to cross examination of a witness who would attempt to establish foundation for the endorsement.

Fourth it is signed by someone Belenda Luke, “Group Leader,” for National City Bank (FKA crossed Out) “OBM” Harbor Federal Savings Bank. A prima Facie case could hardly be made on the basis of such a cryptic signature from an unknown person on behalf of a bank that no longer exists, where the signatory is not an officer but a “Group Leader.”

Fifth, and most importantly, the so-called contested endorsement is undated — which is at variance with custom and practice in the banking industry. Defendant will produce a witness at trial that will assert that custom and practice in the industry, to assure the validity of any transaction upon which a bank would rely, would be confirmed by (a) having a date on the instrument and (b) confirmation of the authority of the person whose signature appears on an instrument that is material to the proposed transaction. In this case the proposed transaction is foreclosure. But Plaintiff is attempting to pull the wool over the court’s eyes in assuming that the court would not require the same precision that is required by Plaintiff or any other bank.

Sixth, the attached assignment contains the same type if irregularities — Michele Fisher signs as “loan Review Administrator” on behalf of National City Bank “O/B/M” Harbor Federal Savings Bank, and purports to assign what they assert is a valuable asset based on the signature of someone who does not carry a title of any office within the Payee on the note nor the alleged successor by the alleged merger. Then Plaintiff attaches a corrective assignment that abandons the fist assignment.

Seventh, the corrective assignment is purportedly executed in front of a TEXAS NOTARY which states that “document is being recorded to complete Assignee entity name in the first assignment.” It was prepared by a returned to RMAC in Texas. Attention “Collateral.” It is apparently signed by Linda Genneken Chapa with the title of “Vice President” of Roosevelt Mortgage Acquisition Company, who is then executing the instrument on behalf of PNC Bank NA, neither of whom show up in the chain of title before or after the alleged assignment.

Eighth, there is no allegation nor any document that establishes actual authority to execute on behalf of other entities. Plaintiff is relying upon the snow storm of documents to cloud the vision of the court.

The assignee is asserted as Wells Fargo “not in its own Behalf” but rather on behalf of as “trustee” for RMAC REMIC Trust Series 2009-9, which is not necessarily the name of a trust and is certainly at variance with custom and practice in the industry of naming trusts with the word “trust” in it. In any event the alleged trust has no history of ever being in existence — i.e., the Defendant contests the existence of the trust in that there is no evidence that any ACTUAL Transaction ever occurred with a trust by the name asserted or any similar name. Defendant asserts no payment was made, and if there was such a payment the Plaintiff would have asserted that it is a holder in due course which would allow it to enforce the note without being required to respond to the maker’s defenses.

THUS IN ANSWER TO THE PLAINTIFF’S REPLY — WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE CHOICE ANSWERS ARE THEY RELYING UPON AND ASSERTING THAT THEY HAVE “MADE” STANDING?: (A) HARBOR FEDERAL (B) NATIONAL CITY (C) ROOSEVELT MORTGAGE ACQUISITION COMPANY (D) PNC BANK (E) WELLS FARGO BANK (F) AN UNNAMED or PARTIALLY NAMED TRUST THAT CONTAINS NO RES, NO BUSINESS, NO ASSETS, NO BANK ACCOUNT (F) RMAC?

36 Responses

  1. NOTICE; for and on the record: any original writings; interpretations or other expressions posted on this blog/website by greg (lawman@gmx.us) is/are the sole copyrighted property of greg (lawman@gmx.us); effective upon each moment of creation; with all rights reserved and none waived; with any other adhesion clause(s) to the contrary within or without this blog/website; notwithstanding; no license to use any such copyrighted property for another’s profit is granted or presumed; in G-d i trust.

    //s// gregory-george gary: hufnagel-groeper clan…
    Date: now for then

  2. The unlawful BAILOUTS makes everything they do & have done since, unlawful, treasonous WAR CRIMES.

  3. The day the WALL STREET REFORMIST MOVEMENT wanted to RE-ESTABLISH their own COUNTERFEITS by being BAILED OUT UNLAWFULLY was the day they hijacked the U.S. CONSTITUTION.

  4. Therefore, the WALL STREET FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED “REFORM” GOVERNMENT deserves the 5 FINGER SALUTE from We The People.

  5. Moreover, the name of that WALL STREET EXTORTION POLICY is the UNLAWFUL PRIVITIZATION OF OUR LEGAL RIGHTS by their FASCIST WAR CRIMINAL INVESTMENT BROKERAGE HOUSES on WALL STREET.

  6. I was horrified when I heard the story of one young college freshman girl who died of some unknown thing & the family donated her organs & the hospital kept her on life support to harvest her organs.

    They couldn’t save her life but they did that?

    Or when my brother in law was dying it cost $$10,000.00 per month for one dose of PROCRIT.

    That’s not only criminal, it’s evil & that’s WALL STREET GREED, it’s one vast EXTORTION POLICY.

  7. They’re FALSE PERSUASION is precisely why I don’t believe in DRUGS, legal or otherwise & I don’t drink.

    They’re RELIGIOUS PERSECUTORS who use DRUGS & BOOZE to MIND CONTROL & destroy the FREE WILL of the people.

    Furthermore, I don’t do business with DRUG PUSHERS.

  8. Moreover, with OBAMA & his unlawful ROBOPEN use of the DIGITIZED SIGNATURE, which is SECURITIES FRAUD, there is no protection from IDENTITY THEFT.

  9. Furthermore, WALL STREET GREED is precisely the reason why I would never ever donate organs, blood, tissue or nothing to no one ever.

    Organ Donation is victimization because it makes innocent people unknowing targets of the GREED of others.

  10. Patrick,

    Just picking a little at the terminology.
    I have no opinion on the request.
    I do wonder if you wanted just a Default or default judgment.

    a person is a corporation, it has no life.
    you can look in any code, business, property, transportation, and find the definition of the person.
    Also, a law dictionary, blacks, bouviers will show it’s an artificial entity.
    So their person and your person are in court.
    Corporate personhood, Citizens vs. United.

    Also,
    . Sells securities on Wall Street, based upon the person’s life,
    would have been better phrased if it stated
    . Sells securities on Wall Street, based upon the people’s life,
    [of course with evidence, most cause of actions have to have more info to build upon, I think, but I don’t know legal things. I avoid them because they don’t apply.]

    If you have the BC bond info that Cede and Co has ( or DTC – Depository Trust Corporation has), it would have been added clarity to include the certificate information so the value it contained could be validated. But then again, if they have that certificate number, with a few signatures among their selves, they will be in it pilfering it for all that’s left.

    One last thought,
    A certified copy of the UCC-1 from the secretary would probably need to be part of the record, I mean do they even do discovery to make sure what you state is fact?

    Again, I don’t know legal things. I do have a 5th edition Blacks Law dictionary, I have tried to write a regular english sentence and looking at even and, but, and or, will leave confusion in the completed sentence depending on how it is written.

    There are groups that have ask their members to write down their Deed of Trust, and define the terms within according to the meanings in the legal dictionary, and afterwards, these people can see the fraud in the words of art they use that looks like English but has Latin and other language roots.

    I do not give legal advice, i do not know legal things.
    I know nothing.

    Best success to you.

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

  11. If F. LEE BAILEY were living today, & he were the head DA in the U.S.A., SUBPOENA the DOCS of the ILGA would most likely be how he would end the FC FIASCO by the WALL STREET ANTIGENS.

  12. Wherefore, We The People of the STATE OF ILLINOIS, pray & respectfully request THE ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, submits its CORPORATE HOLDINGS SHEETS & its TAXABLE WITHOLDING CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE DOCS from 1999 up to today for PUBLIC VIEWING on C-SPAN ASAP or on no less than 30 days from our honorable request.

  13. Moreover, the WALL STREET BROKER-DEALERS CREDIT EXCHANGE RATE TRADING is INSIDER TRADING based upon FRAUDULENTLY RATED CREDIT QUALITY.

    We have STANDING to sue them for their UNLAWFUL EQUITY STRIPPING of the value of our LEGAL TITLES.

    They’re not worth the value of the EQUITY they stole, therefore, they belong in prison.

  14. What can be said regarding INVESTOR IMPROPRIETIES that were intentional?

    RED FLAG SECURITIES = BLACK NOTE SECURITIES FRAUD

    The INVESTMENT BROKERS & their firms don’t want to take credit for their BOGUS SALES & want to CRIMINALIZE us by unlawfully CYBERDUMPING them on WE THE PEOPLE.

    Let’s STATE OUR CLAIM is UNLAWFUL USE OF THE DIGITAL SIGNATURE.

  15. Moreover, when JUDGES say “SOMEONE IS OWED THIS MONEY,” their incriminating themselves because the real cse that’s being hidden is the INVESTOR WAR over INVESTMENT FRAUD they knowingly engaged in.

    That can only mean they’re WALL STREET CYBERSPACE PIT BOSSES who want everyone to believe their own FACTLESS, BASELESS INNUENDOS.

    They’re FOREIGN COUNTERINTELLIGENCE OFFICERS trying to control their own crime spree unlawfully.

  16. Their true identity is being hidden.

    They could be HAMAS, the PLO, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, the KKK or some other CRINE SYNDICATE TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

    That’s why these FRAUD SUITS don’t follow DUE PROCESS LAWS. When they’re delivered they’re SERVED IMPROPERLY because the PLAINTIFFS real identity is never disclosed.

    Therefore, there’s numerous LEGAL IMPROPRIETIES involved when the WIZARD OF ODDS is hidden behind the betting table in WALL STEEETS CYBERCASINO.

  17. The WALL STREET BOARD OF DIRECTORS thinks standing means their UNLAWFUL BETS by trading the LEGAL RIGHTS of U.S. CITIZENS is our problem.

    Their evil cast & crew think U.S. courtrooms is the extension of their WALL STREET CASINO & should support their illicit gambling problem up in
    CYBERSPACE.

    Just say no to their DRUGS.

  18. npv,

    Differs from state to state. You may want to review CPLR 2215 for starters, pal.

  19. @ BLD A cross motion for what “dismiss”. That does not get to discovery… Get a lawyer pal.

  20. Those are some interesting theories, Patrick.

    What outcomes have resulted from their being presented, and pleaded?

  21. in my case I would say prove that you are not the owner because all the evidence I have seen shows chase is the owner, but they have stalled working out any kind of anything with me claiming the investor has to approve. add that to lost paperwork, a 4 year class action where they would not even speak to me and they racked up a judgement amount on me that is disgusting.

  22. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT-FORT MYERS MIDDLE DISTRICT
    Patrick Lorne Farrell, Sui Juris,Sui Generis, Executor of Trust, Plaintiff
    vs.
    LEE COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER
    JOHN CARLIN- JUDGE
    SHERRA WINESETT- JUDGE
    JOHN DURYEA- JUDGE
    GREGORY GOETZ-LAWYER
    BRADLEY-ARANT- LAW FIRM
    MONICA WILSON- LAWYER
    MARK AYERS- LAWYER
    ROBERTSON ANSCHUTZ- LAW FIRM
    LINDA DOGGETT-LEE CO. CLERK
    CRAIG VILLANTI- 2ND DCA JUDGE
    CHRISTINA MCADAMS- 2ND DCA CLERK
    JOHN TOMASINO-SUPREME COURT CLERK
    JOHN STUMPF-CEO WELLS FARGO
    WILLIAM ERBEY-CEP OCWEN LOAN
    Defendants

    CASE NO. # 2:15-CV-634-fTm 29MRM
    CIVIL RICO; FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE; REAL ESTATE FRAUD; tRUTH IN LENDING ACT;Fraud upon the Court;respa; QUIET TITLE

    NOTICE TO THE COURT OF AFFIDAVIT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND
    RES JUDICATA WARRANTING JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF
    COMES NOW Plaintiff Patrick Farrell who notices the Court of Affidavit and recent Res judicata that warrants this court to issue Default Judgment as asked for on NOV 23rd.
    TAKE MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FACTS THAT:
    Plaintiff filed 07-CA-14942, a Truth In Lending Act, Mortgage Fraud lawsuit in state court NOV 14,2007. Defendants ignored that and every pleading made by plaintiff for 8 years, resulting in an illegal summary judgment APR 30, 2014 in violation of TILA and state laws regarding mortgage fraud and Rules regarding litigation procedures in related case 07-CA-16767.
    The entire proceedings were void as defendant never filed a copy of the necessary note or mortgage until NOV 26,2008, and an assignment of only the mortgage [not the note] until JAN 13,2009.
    JAN 2008 plaintiff filed UCC-1 liens and other documentation liening on all property associated with the loan note mortgage property etc. in the court and Lee Co. Records.
    Plaintiff notified the court of his status as SECURED PARTY CREDITOR, which is based on the FACT that my Birth Certificate [BC] is used as predicate for a $1,000,000 bond, which allows the U.S.Treasury to collateralize my life and the Federal Reserve to print money.
    The BC goes to the DTC = Depository Trust Corporation, who indeed makes a Cestue Que Trust.
    They are located at the TOWER OF POWER in New York City. On the 41st floor is STANDARD AND POOR’S who values the trust based upon births and deaths and the Consumer Price Index.
    Then CEDE and CO. Sells securities on Wall Street, based upon the person’s life, within the matrix that is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INC.
    In DEC 1999 the COMMODITY FUTURE MODERNIZATION ACT [CFMA] was passed, in part allowing the Depository Banks, Investment Banks and Insurance Companies to open the doors for lending and credit, which led to the financial crisis in 2008, by using multiple financial derivatives based on only one home. In my case IMPAC SECURED ASSETS-2005-2 was the plaintiff in 07-CA-16767, but judgment in 2014 was for IMPAC MORTGAGE HOLDINGS-2005-6.
    Both of these trusts were empty of any loans as per the UNITED STATES D.O.J.
    According to the IRS these trusts were out of business in 2008, so how can they continue to foreclose for full value at $450,000? Racketeering and fraud by defendants, that’s how.
    Plaintiff filed 2:09-CV-16-FTM-29SPC on JAN 12,2009, a 44 page class action RICO, describing fraud asking for $100,000,000 in damages and that did in fact occur due to that lawsuit.
    JULY 28,2011 the U.S.Treasury, the IRS and the Federal Reserve made and filed a UCC-1 financing statement in Mass. For $14,000,000,000,000, 14 Trillion, to pay off all mortgage debts, mortgage bonds, CDO’s Collaterilized Debt Obligations, CMB’s Collaterilized Mortgage Bonds and CDS’s Credit Default Swaps, including Plaintiff’s which was filed on his UCC-1 In JAN 2008.
    That UCC used 300 million people with arms and legs as collateral.
    The law and res judicata state that he [Plaintiff] who filed a UCC-1 first, gets paid first.
    NOV 6, 2015 in the CAUSE NO. 2011-36476 WOLF vs. Wells Fargo Harris Co. Texas, the jury awarded the Wolf’s $5.4 Million, for the same issues on herein Plaintiff’s case, a fraudulent assignment of mortgage, which did not assign the note, which did not assign the debt, and was made years after the alleged trust closed, voiding foreclosure.
    IN THAT CASE was the clue to the entire “mortgage mess.”
    From McDonnell Property Analytics was an exhibit called SECURITIZATION FLOW CHART.
    Therein, it reveals that the “investors” for these faulty fraudulent “trusts” was CEDE AND CO.
    SUMMARILY, after the CFMA was passed, it opened the door for the DTC and CEDE to use my and 300 million americans with arms and legs, theoretical equity as investment collateral, WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION, OR DISCLOSURE THEREOF.
    This voids any and all contracual nexis.
    ESSENTIALLY, no one Lent any money for home loans, CEDE and CO. just simply extended our own credit to us, and ALL the parasites in between, i.e. Defendants, banks, law firms, act as if a loan was made, when in fact, the extension of my own credit from my own birth certificate, was used for my benefit, with defendants, by merely having access to names, addresses and account numbers, executed foreclosures by merely saying they were the “HOLDERS” of any note, but not the Holder in Due Course, a requirement under the UCC, or an actual owner.
    If you did not get that go back and read it again.
    Because I filed a TILA first and defendants ignored that, the 8 year foreclosure case is Void.
    Because I filed my UCC-1 first [along with 3 BILLS OF EXCHANGE for $1,000,000] any debt associated with the home, loan,note,mortgage is discharged.
    And that is without even talking about American Home Mortgage Bankruptcy case 07-11049 where the alleged trusts foreclosing on me were discharged, bankrupting GMAC who tried to sell their toxic debt to OCWEN for only 3%, which voids the $450,000 summary judgment.
    Regulation Z allows for only a 1% charge for this extension of credit, which is not a loan.
    WHEREFORE Plaintiff moves the Court for an ORDER of Default against defendants and set a hearing for damage amounts and attorney fee’s.

    WITHOUT PREJUDICE-U.C.C.-1-308

    _________________________________
    Patrick Farrell as Trustee for the PATRICK FARRELL IRREVOKABLE LIVING TRUST
    in Propria Persona-Attorney In Fact-Sovereign-Secured Party Creditor-
    signed “without the united states” and without prejudice/UCC 1-308-
    UCC-1 Filing # 2007-356-2344-8 [12/22/07]-Wash. St.
    2904 NW14th Terrace-Cape Coral, Florida-[33993-9998]-D.M.S.R. SEC.112.32
    239-558-5729 p.farrell13@yahoo.com

  23. Neil writes above,
    . Trust law is like contract law. If there is no consideration there is no trust. The consideration is called the “res”, which is the asset signed over to the trust, whether it be cash or other property.

    res is a Latin term.

    We deal with terms that are used and not clarified and you can’t win in a battle when you do not know the weapons, language, used against you.

    Many people file their case using the English language, and the terms are not the same.

    While in English they claim they do ‘not’ have a thing,
    in Latin, the use of surrounding words could indicate possession of the thing.

    I do not know many who write their suits copying from other cases, and tweaking the language in the case to make it read according to English grammar rules, and throw their entire case because they do not comprehend the language, and the judge is sitting there looking for such writings to claim there is no case and rule by summary for the opposing side.

    Mike Maloney Hidden Secrets of Money series,
    Money as Debt
    “Third World and developing nations are familiar with”, quote from
    Chris Martenson-$40 Trillion Lost in Next Crash (youtube video)

    If you gonna fight, at least have an idea the rabbit may appear to be insignificant, but the hole he is in, is deeper than initially thought.

    I heard an audio,(hearsay), where a guy filed a complaint with CFPB and after a year he thought there was nothing going on, and then he received a check in the mail, I assume from some settlement of what ever happened in the dispute, with notice that cashing that check was not final settlement if they wanted to pursue their own lawsuit at a later date.

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

  24. well that should prove that chase was the originator and the true lender of my loan and on my credit , the WAMU loan shows paid off by chase would that not be a good argument to show that Chase is in fact the holder of my note and mortgage

  25. Chase could not purchase a Fed Gov loan in a Ginnie Mae pool or a Fannie or Freddie loan as they were already purchase. Chase could have purchase WaMu in-house loans because it was there own portfolio loans.

    Remember Chase only forked over $1.9 billion and Wells Fargo was servicing 1.3 million at just $100,000 per loan is $130 billion in loans!

    If you refinanced with Chase before they failed and you included your WaMu loan it would appear that your debt is with Chase. It does not now matter about your WaMu debt as it no longer exist.

  26. Charles reed, what if you refied with chase with consolidation of a WAMU loan before Chase Acquired WAMU. Did Chase really absorb WAMU loans?

  27. endorsement is a joke, the fact that the note it is not dated when endorsed is evidence of fraud. they do not want anyone to be able to backtrack. Power of Attorney is another joke. yes the fraud does not begin until there is an “alleged default”. since when is foreclosure an equitable resolution when nothing about the foreclosure process is equitable.

  28. You’ve got it all wrong NPV. There’s this fellow, a higher-up, named Greenspan, and he says he’s found a flaw, referring to his economic philosophy. To quote, “I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

    So, rest assured that as soon as he figures out what went wrong and gets over his shocked disbelief, things will be righted for sure. Shortly, Wall Street will come to their collective senses and realize that greed is not good, and that we all need to pull together and buy the world a Coke or whatever.

    It’ll all end well.

    Also, I heard that Obama has boldly stated that he’s standing between our pitchforks and the bad guys and all of their armored assault vehicles, so our fearless leader is itching to come to our rescue before he leaves office. Or is he simply itching due to a rash like I had last week?

    And if I have one more Scotch, standing will be a lot more iffy than Neil went on about.

  29. npv,

    Fire back with a cross motion.

  30. Charles Reed, they are not clueless… they are a part of the fraud.

  31. @ BLD, yeah you would be amazed at what they submit… In most cases they submit a motion for summary judgment.

  32. Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) on Sept 25, 2008 had 1.3 million loans mostly government insured being serviced by Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo continued to this day to service and foreclose on these loans.

    Once a FHA, VA or USDA loan is placed into a Ginnie Mae MBS there is no such thing as repurchasing a loan because there no initial purchase. What occurs is when a loan goes in default there is a pay back of of the monies that the lenders drew against the loans as part of the MBS.

    People fail to understand how a MBS works, but it is naming a group of loans that are pooled together in name only, as the loan are not purchase and cannot be purchase as Ginnie Mae is prevented from purchasing any loans or selling any loans.

    The homeowners are not under any obligation to repay the investor that purchased the MBS as that transaction is solely between the lenders and investor. The investors of the Ginnie Mae MBS are paid after the mortgage payment are accredited to the homeowner account, next that monies in principal & interest becomes the lender’s monies to do what it wants and they pay their debt of the P&I to investors of a post transaction.

    If the Ginnie Mae MBS fails the product is insured at a 100% of the investor’s initial balance investment! The investor did not purchase mortgage loan because it could not as they are not lenders and the losses would have been 50% of cases instead of 0% as the Federal Government insures the MBS at 100%!

    However here we are year 7 after the FDIC declaring WaMu a “failed bank” and the fact that JPMorgan did not and could not purchase the FHA, VA, USDA, Freddie or Fannie loans. Yet we got a Justice Dept that clueless to how MBS are formed and performed!

  33. Neil,

    Outstanding. If only to get into the hands of more homeowners being duped into the existence of the ‘trust’.

    Serve discovery. You will be amazed as to what they submit.

  34. Neal, whether it was fractionally created or strictly balance sheet funded – there was “credit consideration” paid at funding to the purported borrowers. Whether the proceeds of the certificate / debenture offer(s) was paid through the Trust Entity or direct to the Seller’s or warehouse lenders through the Depositor is irrelevant unless it was a “best effort” underwriting, which they were not.

    Don’t be confused with the quote ” Time to time”.. The underwriter and Depositor purchased all the certificates, and may have sold them pursuant to the shelf offering. Nothing illegal about that.

    As you are already aware, the notes are not indorsed and the assignments of mortgage to the Trustee do not occur until a default, at which time they are assigned to the collection account, and used as collateral toward servicer advances. You know this stuff already. Instead of writing something vague, take a day or two off and recover..

  35. And that being said…..
    They go after the Advances on tax & INS., legal fees..

    Standing on the Sidelines
    Still waiting on some Serious Criminal Prosecutions .

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: