Paatalo’s question Shatters Chase-WAMU Chain of “Title”

WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order to make it easier to serve you and get better results please take a moment to fill out our FREE registration form https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583 
Our services consist mainly of the following:
  1. 30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  2. 60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  3. Case review and analysis
  4. Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
  5. COMBO Title and Securitization Review
  6. Expert witness declarations and testimony
  7. Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
  8. Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.
======================
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

Bill Paatalo, whose case opened the door for homeowners on the issue of rescission and other matters discussed on this blog, asks the central question: His telephone number is 406-328-4075. If the WAMU process involved destruction of documents, no endorsement and no assignment, then how can Chase retroactively correct this fatal deficiency in the absence of producing proof of the money chain? Courts have been ignoring this question but the tide is definitely turning.

But his question has a much wider scope. The same question applies to the mergers and FDIC deals across the country that occurred in the aftermath of the mortgage meltdown.

see http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/if-wamu-admits-to-destroying-the-chain-of-title-how-can-chase-retroactively-correct/

Read his article and his support and you will see that the fatal defects exists. Courts have been ignoring this because of their improper presumption that the transaction really occurred when the loan was originated. But all evidence points to the contrary and no evidence points to any other conclusion, to wit: nearly all the loans were table funded (and therefore predatory per se under REG Z). and that means that the “originator” was not the lender, creditor or source of funds for the origination or acquisition of the alleged loan.

The argument in opposition is “Where do you think the money came from?” THAT is not argument. It is obfuscation. The fact is that the ONLY parties with the real answer to that question refuse to reveal the truth. It is hardly a reason to shift the burden of proof or the burden of persuasion to the one party with the least access to the truth.

At some point the courts must stop accepting self-serving statements from counsel as the basis upon which they issue a ruling.

38 Responses

  1. Massachusetts’
    Non-Judicial Foreclosure Process What does it mean to be a non-judicial foreclosure state? It means that borrowers do not get a day in court in front of a judge before they are foreclosed upon. It means that Massachusetts built its legal process on a strict honor code. Since foreclosing entities are not required to go in front of a judge, our law literally expects them to behave even more scrupulously and honestly than if we did require foreclosures to be reviewed by a judge1 well that doesn’t happen.

    so TILA does the same for borrowers, as the banks get in a Non-Judicial Foreclosure Process,
    the STATUE IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. IT SAYS WHAT IT MEANS. and the supreme court put there
    stamp on it. all a homeowner has to do is send a letter. The statute explains, in terms the Court regarded as “unequivocal,” how “the right to rescind is to be exercised: It provides that a borrower ‘shall have the right to rescind, by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the Board, of his intention to do so.’” Because that language “leaves no doubt that rescission is effected” by the borrower’s notice, The Court responded: “Nothing in our jurisprudence, and no tool of statutory interpretation, requires that a congressional Act must be construed as implementing the closest common-law analogue.”
    Section 1635(a) nowhere suggests a distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions, much less that a lawsuit would be required for the latter.

    when i sent out ( letter/notice ) to banks,and all others of rescission. that was and has the same affect as the banks sending a notice to foreclose. and the only way a homeowner can
    stop that notice to foreclose is a order from a court, and how we do that , is we have to file
    in court to stop it/ argue against it, and challenge it, and dispute the notice /letter/ and ask the judge to vacate the FORECLOSURE SALE.

    NOW REVERSE THAT.

    that is why there is that 20 day period, for them to , DISPUTE THE RESCISSION, BY FILING IN COURT, just as we have to file and ask judge to vacate the foreclosure action, to dispute there action on trying to foreclose on us. it is the same. but in reverse. by operation of law, AND ONLY A JUDGES ORDERS CAN VACATE THAT ACTION., the mortgage and note, are void, cancelled, as of the date it was mailed. that is why they hate it. and they know, the only
    person that can come into court to get that vacated, is the TRUE CREDITOR. THE ONE THAT GAVE MONEY.
    Section 1635(a) nowhere suggests a distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions, much less that a lawsuit would be required for the latter.

    SO JUST AS IN US DISPUTING THERE FACTS TO FORECLOSE ON ME. AND HAVE SO MANY DAYS TO DO THAT IN, OUR I WOULD LOSE MY HOUSE, THEY HAVE TO DO THE SAME TO SAVE THERE FACTS. LET ASK YOU PETER.

    WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ME, IF I DIDNT GO TO COURT AND ASK JUDGE TO VACATE THE FORECLOSURE SALE? HOW MANY DAYS DO I HAVE TO GET THAT DONE?

    AND AFTER THEY FORECLOSE ON ME, AND MAYBE 3 MONTHS OR SO GO’S BY, AND I GO INTO COURT AND ASK THE JUDGE TO VACATE THE FORECLOSURE SALE. AND THE BANK SAYS , WAIT YOUR HONOR, THEY HAD TIME TO DISPUTE AND GET A COURT ORDER TO STOP FORECLOSURE SALE, AND THEY DIDNT DO THAT IN THE REQUIRED TIME. TELL ME WHAT THE JUDGE WOULD SAY TO ME. ? BECAUSE WHAT THE JUDGE WOULD SAY THERE IS THE ONLY THING HE CAN SAY TO THEM NOW THAT THEY HAVE NOT COMPLYED TO THE STATUES. AND THE BIG THING IS THAT THEY DO NOT
    HAVE AVAILBLE , TO SAY WE HAVE THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE. OBJECTION YOUR HONOR, THEY HOLD NOTHING, THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE WAS VOIDED AND CANCELLED AS OF MAILING, AND IF THEY WANTED TO DISPUTE THE NOTICE OF RESCISSION, THEY HAD 20 DAYS TO DO THAT, AND THEY DIDNT.

    so point is . 1/ i sent out rescission notice/ letter on this date.
    2/ bank received / got/sign for letter/notice on this date.
    3/ 2ND Demand letter went out on this date.
    4/ bank received/got/sign for 2nd Demand notice.

    Like Neil Garfield said in his radio cast last night when we enforce them violating 15 U.S.C 1635;

    Wherefore please enter an order that commands them to return the cancelled note, file the release of void of encumbrance and;

    Susan L. Decker-Stone & Douglas H. Stone

    Plaintiff

    V.

    Deutsche Bank National Trust Company third party intervenor

    Counter Party JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, third party intervenor

    John Doe 1 to infinity intervenors

    Defendants

    Now Come, Susan L. Decker-Stone & Douglas H. Stone, the Plaintiffs and Michael McArdle as their attorney on their behalf and respectfully move this honorable court to enter Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce three statutory jurisdiction duties under 15 U.S.C 15-1635 to enforce and cure the banks violation of their duties.

    It is clear neither the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, decision nor the statue itself is open to any interpretation at all. The lower Courts, the federal Courts, the United State Congress or the Executive Branches of Government, have all collectively and unanimously stated the contract, if it ever existed, the Note and the Mortgage are void by operation of law.

    1. The Plaintiffs’ rescission was mailed, April 13, 2015.

    2. More than twenty days have expired since the mailing of the rescission notice

    3. the Defendants, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. receives the rescission notice and have done nothing in response and therefore they are in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1635.

    Wherefore please enter an order that commands the Defendants and any of their subsidiaries or related trust or corporate entities, agents, employees, successors and assigns to return the Plaintiffs’ cancelled note, prepare and file the release of the now void Plaintiffs’ mortgage encumbrance of record and;

    a. Return all the money that the Plaintiffs have paid against the account of their Note and Mortgage.

    b. Pay Plaintiffs all the monies paid to any third parties as compensation arising out of and/or related to the origination of this consumer mortgage loan transaction.

    c. Permanently enjoin the applicable specific parties, that are not public entities like the court, from attempting to use the Plaintiffs’VOIDED AND CANCELLED Note and Mortgage for the enforcement of foreclosure or any collection or enforcement of this purported debt.

    .

    d. To expunging all Registry of Deeds records of the Defendants , the now void plaintiffs mortgage, foreclosure affidavits , assignments, etc, etc,

    Respectfully submitted

  2. FW: news

    News & Knowledge
    Effective May 20, 2009 a New Notice is Required to be Given to Consumers Under the Federal Truth in Lending Act Within 30 Days After the Sale, Transfer or Assignment of a Mortgage Loan
    06.04.09
    Jacob “Jake” A. Lutz, III

    The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009

    On May 20, 2009, the President signed The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. The new law contains a number of provisions, including amendments to the HOPE for Homeowners Program, protections for servicers of mortgage loans who modify mortgage loans, and extensions of the credit facilities from the U.S. Treasury to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. However, Section 404 of the Act amends the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to require that a new notice be given to consumers within 30 days after the sale, transfer or assignment of the consumer’s mortgage loan.

    Notice Requirement Effective on May 20, 2009

    The new notice requirement became effective on May 20, 2009 and applies to any sale, assignment or transfer of a mortgage loan occurring on or after May 20, 2009.

    Civil Liability and Attorneys’ Fees for Failure to Comply

    The new requirement has real teeth because Section 404 also amends Section 130(a) of TILA to provide that the failure to give the notice can result in liability for actual and up to $2,000 statutory damages per violation, plus plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees. Class action lawsuits can also be brought for systematic violations, subject to a $500,000 cap.

    Section 404 Requirements

    Section 404 of the Act amends Section 131 of TILA to add a new subsection (g) which provides that, in addition to other disclosures required by the TILA, not later than 30 days after the date on which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of the transfer. The notice must include the identity, address and telephone number of the new creditor; the date of the transfer; how to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the new creditor; the location of the place where transfer of ownership of the debt is recorded; and any other relevant information regarding the new creditor.

    Definition of Mortgage Loan

    For purpose of the new notice, the term “mortgage loan” is defined to include any consumer credit transaction that is secured by the principal dwelling of the consumer. Therefore, it applies to first mortgage loans, subordinate mortgage loans, home equity loans and any other credit transaction that is secured by the principal dwelling of the consumer.

    Obligation on Purchaser, Assignee or Transferee

    The obligation to give the notice is on the purchaser, assignee or transferee of the mortgage loan and not the seller of the mortgage loan. However, the giving of the notice could become complicated in securitizations and may fall by default on the servicer of the mortgage loans backing the securities issued in the securitization

  3. FW: news
    david belanger 1/18/16 Flag this message
    To: james.eldridge@masenate.gov, ag office, CFPB, scheduling@warren.senate.gov, susandecker77@gmail.com, marie@mcdonnellanalytics.com, securities@sec.state.ma.us, ago@state.ma.us, william.brownsberger@masenate.gov, registry@sec.state.ma.us

    From: djabelanger@hotmail.com
    To: peter.calabrese@calalaw.com
    Subject: news
    Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 13:15:33 -0500

    News & Knowledge
    Effective May 20, 2009 a New Notice is Required to be Given to Consumers Under the Federal Truth in Lending Act Within 30 Days After the Sale, Transfer or Assignment of a Mortgage Loan
    06.04.09
    Jacob “Jake” A. Lutz, III

    The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009

    On May 20, 2009, the President signed The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. The new law contains a number of provisions, including amendments to the HOPE for Homeowners Program, protections for servicers of mortgage loans who modify mortgage loans, and extensions of the credit facilities from the U.S. Treasury to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. However, Section 404 of the Act amends the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to require that a new notice be given to consumers within 30 days after the sale, transfer or assignment of the consumer’s mortgage loan.

    Notice Requirement Effective on May 20, 2009

    The new notice requirement became effective on May 20, 2009 and applies to any sale, assignment or transfer of a mortgage loan occurring on or after May 20, 2009.

    Civil Liability and Attorneys’ Fees for Failure to Comply

    The new requirement has real teeth because Section 404 also amends Section 130(a) of TILA to provide that the failure to give the notice can result in liability for actual and up to $2,000 statutory damages per violation, plus plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees. Class action lawsuits can also be brought for systematic violations, subject to a $500,000 cap.

    Section 404 Requirements

    Section 404 of the Act amends Section 131 of TILA to add a new subsection (g) which provides that, in addition to other disclosures required by the TILA, not later than 30 days after the date on which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of the transfer. The notice must include the identity, address and telephone number of the new creditor; the date of the transfer; how to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the new creditor; the location of the place where transfer of ownership of the debt is recorded; and any other relevant information regarding the new creditor.

    Definition of Mortgage Loan

    For purpose of the new notice, the term “mortgage loan” is defined to include any consumer credit transaction that is secured by the principal dwelling of the consumer. Therefore, it applies to first mortgage loans, subordinate mortgage loans, home equity loans and any other credit transaction that is secured by the principal dwelling of the consumer.

    Obligation on Purchaser, Assignee or Transferee

    The obligation to give the notice is on the purchaser, assignee or transferee of the mortgage loan and not the seller of the mortgage loan. However, the giving of the notice could become complicated in securitizations and may fall by default on the servicer of the mortgage loans backing the securities issued in the securitization

  4. Those reddit posts and comments display an unbelieveable (to me) lack of knowledge regarding the Independent Foreclosure Review carried out by the DOJ. Some of the homeowners whose homes were illegally foreclosed received checks for $300. When DOJ staffers arrived at BOA to review documents, they were greeted by a battery of attorneys and denied meaningful access to files and employees. The company which orchestrated the IFR, Rusk Consulting, was manority owned by a FRB member. 450,000 checks mailed to homeowners bounced.

  5. E. Tolle

    I think Krieger was excited about the court throwing MERS under the bus..

    “MERS again was used to facilitate (as a “cover” for the misdeeds of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.). This was deemed by the Court NOT to be in statutory compliance with the state’s Uniform Commercial Code!”

  6. Terry Evans I live in Georgia also I understand what you are saying the samething happen to me. I am still in my house.

    Can we talk off form? reginald3541@att.net. Cell 678 558-3565

  7. ****NOTE: EXCELLENT article addressing the issue of [CONDUIT] ORIGINATORS

    Mortgage Origination Channels for UberNerds

    First of all, the picture is complicated by the fact that there are two basic mortgage markets: the primary market and the secondary market. Some terms tend to shift in meaning between the two, as does the perspective (say, from “buyer” to “seller” or “lender” to “investor”). Furthermore, some terms have regulatory meanings that make sense to insiders and cause hopeless confusion among civilians (like the dreaded term “origination.”) So some questions simply do not get short answers, unless you want to stay puzzled for a long time. It’s faster just to read a longish post, trust me.

    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/09/mortgage-origination-channels-for.html

  8. terry evans says , I had given up on my foreclosure but I just received a 1099 for 205,378 dollars from Carrington mortgage. My FHA mortgage was purchased by GNMA in 2009 after the DOJ shut TBW down. Found out that the DOJ and HUD settled with BOA on the faulty servicing job on TBW mortgages for 200 million. Also they transferred the servicing to Carrington. Now HUD tells me that my mortgage is not insured by FHA and the foreclosure sale stands and property was not transferred to HUD. GNMA audit in 2012 states that GNMA owns 20000 of the TBW purchased mortgages that cant be audited because they have no documentation. Audit in 2016 states they still cant audit these mortgages. How can GNMA transfer the servicing of mortgages that they cant document. Matt martin with FHA sent me a letter stating my mortgage is not insured by the FHA and Carrington as the lender sold it to recoup some of its money. GNMA purchased this mortgage in 2009 because it was supposed to be in default. Is Matt Martin with HUD the same Matt Martin that started MMREM. MMREN sent a lawyer firm in ga information to post a deed in the court house stating that Carrington mortgage for Bank of America was deeding this property to someone else for the sum of 54,000. corelogic e-filed a pt 61 for 21,800 for bank of America. Carrington sent me a letter that they received a draft from BOA for 129,724 dollars and it was part of the mortgage. That amounts to 206,424 dollars. Bank of America denies foreclosing but corelogic sent an assignment transferring the note and security deed not the property to Carrington. GNMA and the FHFA need to talk. The last letter I received from Mccalla Raymer in 2013 states that the property will soon be transferred to HUD. Yall decide who the crooks are. I hope Keri Fullbright and Amy Foster with HUD reads so I can send them their e-mails from 2012. Mrs. Foster TOLD ME THAT HUD KNEW ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS. So now who are the crooks. Does anyone know if Matt Martin with FHFA and MMREM the same person.

  9. Former U.S. Congressman Issues The Following Warnings:
    – Currency Collapse is INEVITABLE by the Spring of 2016

    – IMF Warning: World Reserve Currency could change as soon as Spring of 2016. Here’s what to do ahead of the change.

    – Fiscal Crisis WILL Cause Federal Gov’t to target 401k’s & IRA’s for additional revenue

    – Dollar on its last days as China prepares with this big announcement.

  10. Information regarding our securitization activities is further described in Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. As part of these activities, assets are generally sold to bankruptcy-remote subsidiaries. These bankruptcy-remote subsidiaries are separate legal entities that assume the risk and reward of ownership of the receivables. Neither we nor these subsidiaries are responsible for the other entities’ debts, and the assets of the subsidiaries are not available to satisfy our claim or those of our creditors. In turn, the bankruptcy-remote subsidiaries establish separate trusts to which they transfer the assets in exchange for the proceeds from the sale of asset- or mortgage-backed securities issued by the trust. The trusts’ activities are generally limited to acquiring the assets, issuing asset- or mortgage-backed securities, making payments on the securities, and periodically reporting to the investors. Because of the nature of the assets held by the trusts and the limited nature of each trust’s activities, most trusts are QSPEs, in accordance with SFAS 140. In accordance with SFAS 140, assets and liabilities of the QSPEs are generally not consolidated on our Consolidated Balance Sheet; therefore, we account for the transfer of assets into the QSPE as a sale.
    Certain of our securitization transactions, while similar in legal structure to the transactions described in the foregoing (i.e., the assets are legally sold to a bankruptcy-remote subsidiary), do not meet the isolation and control criteria of SFAS 140; they are accounted for, therefore, as secured financings. As secured financings, the underlying automotive finance retail contracts, automotive leases, or mortgage loans remain on our Consolidated Balance Sheet with the corresponding obligation (consisting of the debt securities issued) reflected as debt. We recognize income on the finance receivables, automotive leases and loans, and interest expense on the securities issued in the securitization; and we provide for credit losses on the finance receivables and loans as incurred. Approximately $118.6 billion and $124.6 billion of our total assets were related to secured financings at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Refer to Note 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion.

  11. oops contractor had wrong address , oops. sorry. hahahahahahaah

  12. you burn down house, do give it to them. i will personalty bulldozer the house before given it them.

  13. Maybe so but it didn’t stop them from an auction of my property to fannie mae and then they just stole my home about three weeks ago. The courts are not helping ANY homeowner and the attorneys just sit back and wait. My home was up for sale 160 days prior to the court giving a writ of possession. How do you fight them when you have NO money?

  14. Question: If IndyMac was closed by the FDIC on July 11, 2008. did they have standing to file foreclosures in August 2008 or at any time
    up to March 2009 when they were sold to One /west?
    What is your opinion and why?

  15. Yes Louise, we’re on the event horizon! Which will be a wonderful change after so many years stuck in Twilight Zone repeats.

  16. E.Tolle: Well said. like the “black hole” reference. My crystal ball says some of this “fraud” is going to come out big time in 2016. Powerful year with powerful things happening.

  17. shelly- who was lender on note mortgage, and what state

  18. As to Neidermeyer’s post, I don’t get why Krieger is saying the Dimant case is “Nash on steroids”. Although out of two different Florida courts, the rulings appear the same to me. Not to discount their importance, but what is it that I’m missing as to the steroids reference?

    Now the perfect soufflé is baked by combining the non-legal-entity status of AWL found in rulings like Nash-Dimant-Pagano-Silberstein, with the total voidness of fraudulent (called faulty by the MSM) assignments from the Yvanova ruling.

    But the million dollar question remains….how long will it take for courts across the land to come to the same sane understanding that a fraudulent assignment can be voided out? And a void assignment from a void ab initio pretend lender (AWL) is a black hole that even banker lies can’t escape from.

  19. I used Mr. Paatalo for case analysis. He is awesome! Thank you Bill!

  20. The New “Big Short”? – Australia’s Housing Bubble Is “In the Grip Of Insanity”

    well worth reading …

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-24/new-big-short-australias-housing-bubble-grip-insanity

  21. Description of Covered Assets
    According to Bank of America’s Annual Report released on February 27, 2009,
    the asset pool of $118 billion is projected to include approximately $81 billion of
    derivative assets and $37 billion of other fi nancial assets. Assets expected to be
    covered may generally include pre-market disruption assets (i.e., originated prior to
    September 30, 2007) and the majority are assets added to Bank of America’s books
    as a result of the acquisition of Merrill Lynch. Types of assets expected in the asset
    pool may include:166
    • leveraged and commercial real estate loans
    • collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”)
    • fi nancial guarantor counterparty exposure
    • trading counterparty exposure
    • investment securities
    Although an agreement with Bank of America has not been reached, it is
    expected that assets excluded will be generally similar to those excluded in the
    Citigroup agreement, other than certain foreign assets that would have not been
    allowable under the Citigroup agreement, but may be permitted for Bank of
    America.167 As of March 31, 2009, the AGP agreement with Bank of America had
    not been fi nalized

  22. this shows all the money that was guarantee through tarp. what each bank was getting.

    https://www.sigtarp.gov/Quarterly%20Reports/April2009_Quarterly_Report_to_Congress.pdf

  23. ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT RULING: NASH ON STEROIDS! http://cloudedtitlesblog.com/2016/02/22/st-lucie-florida-circuit-court-ruling-nash-on-steroids/

  24. @ shellystotalbodyworks

    Although this will not likely to be news to you, and the case does not specifically address void assignments, the Washington Supreme Court case of Cashmere Valley Bank v. State of Washington Department of Revenue is instructive.

    You may be able to file a request that the Washington Court of Appeals take judicial notice of Kalifornia’s Yvanova opinion issued last week on the ability to challenge a void assignment.

  25. I should add allegedly DBNTC filed the complaint in a non judicail state stating they represented the Long Beach Mortgage 2006-4 trust that does not exist. They did not file a case representing themselves.

  26. In Washington State we have the Marie McDonnell audit that was paid for by the Mayor of Seattle and city counsel but refuse to make public that states out of 197 assignments investigated one hundred percent of the assignments are Void, Void abinitio and fraudulent. I have a declaration from the SEC of Delaware that the trust is not statutorily registered so DBNTC using an assignment from JPMorgan Chase per attorney in fact by a DBNT employee states JPMorgan Chase is successor in interest to WaMu, and waiving an alleged authentic note in the air in court that was never filed in the court with two different copies of an alleged note filed in the court, says we hold the note so all else is moot and the judge bought it and now I am Appeals court. see this certified copy of Maries report. My fraudulent assignment is in King County Washington where this audit was done. So now I am in the Appeals court.

    http://www.registryaudit.us/seattle/

  27. For each of these mortgage
    loans, MERS will serve as mortgagee of record on the mortgage solely as a nominee in an
    administrative capacity on behalf of the trustee, and does not have any interest in the
    mortgage loan.

  28. @ Javagold

    Out of curiosity, was there a timely appeal of the trial court’s judgment?

    I ask because of the imminent issue of victims having to undertake collateral attacks on erroneous judgments, and the development of the civil procedures therein.

  29. This is a great argument if you can actually get a judge who will LISTEN! @louise; @javagold – I had the exact same thing with PROOF in black and white. Not one judge in Baltimore County Maryland gave me the time of day let alone look at ANY of MY documents. My third and final attorney finally got me a court ‘date’ with the judge. We went the day of the ‘hearing’ which was cancelled. The reason? The judge wanted to hear from ‘the other side!” The foreclosure mill hadn’t bothered to answer and wasn’t going to show up. So my hearing was postponed! In what other court does that happen? If the other side doesn’t show up it’s too bad for them. After five years the greedy asshole who wanted my waterfront house got it. I was so desperate I personally begged and and groveled to him via tear-stained letter not to take it. He did anyway in March 2015. One year later I am still getting calls about ‘refinancing’ that property.

  30. I still don’t any of you can beat my assignments of fraud. The assignments actually go in date order Bank B to Bank C before Bank A assigned to Bank B. It’s all there in black and white for any honest person with common sense to see and judge for themselves. Argued pro se that what’s the purpose of assignments if this doesn’t matter. Judge ruled against House still fraudclosed on. They may think it’s over and done with. But I don’t. I’m coming back until this fraud is handled with a fair and equitable solution !!!!

  31. now remember most depositors in securitizations are not members of merscorp. hahahahah

    david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on February 23, 2016 at 12:52 pm said:
    dont see any merscorp/mers/mers/ mortgage electronic registration systems,inc. included. in that sale.
    david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on February 23, 2016 at 12:50 pm said:
    you all need too look at the , purchase and sales agreements, of mortgages from originator/seller and depositor/purchaser, in your securization. as i will show you, what mine says.
    SECTION 4. Record Title and Possession of Mortgage Files. The Seller hereby
    sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and conveys to the Purchaser, without
    recourse, but subject to the terms of this Agreement and the Seller hereby
    acknowledges that the Purchaser, subject to the terms of this Agreement, shall
    have all the right, title and interest of the Seller in and to the Mortgage
    Loans. From the Closing Date, but as of the Cut-off Date, the ownership of each
    Mortgage Loan, including the Mortgage Note, the Mortgage, the contents of the
    related Mortgage File and all rights, benefits, proceeds and obligations arising
    therefrom or in connection therewith, has been vested in the Purchaser. All
    rights arising out of the Mortgage Loans including, but not limited to, all
    funds received on or in connection with the Mortgage Loans

  32. Hang in there Louise ,, we all have fraud in our cases and the assignments are the easiest to prove , I too have “no assignment” , a “late AHMSI” and an “impossible” assignment from 2014 that actually has 4 signatures with a robosigner seller and notary … all 4 employees of the “transfer to/buying” party…

    I’m restricted from suing that company but the robosigner on the “sell” side of the form claims to work for another company and is not protected..

  33. The first assignment in my case that allegedly assigned the Mortgage to AHMSI was completely defective in that it was filed AFTER the foreclosure action was commenced and served. Them, two years later opposing counsel helped to create an assignment that assigned the Mortgage (Note) from ABC (bankrupt and defunct) to a trust that closed years earlier. All fraudulent. There is a third assignment from the defunct ABC also to the closed trust signed by a known robosigner, who was actually removed from her position as notary for fraud.

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: