Gieseke-The “Creditor” consists of the Investors not Servicer



The Illusion of Creditor

Gieseke Remand Order 5 20 16 from 9th Circuit (3)

“As it stands, the “creditor” consists of all investors in all trusts created by each investment bank. But nobody is acting as if that is true.”


And for those who thought they could get away with lying and cheating forever, let me say this: anyone can get away with almost anything — at first. But eventually if you keep doing it you are going to pay the price. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal) has made it clear that it will routinely reverse any decision that involves the trial court accepting void assignments or in which the court rules that the borrower has no standing to raise the issue of ownership and standing based upon a void assignment on the grounds that the borrower was not a party to the transaction.
Just to be clear, that whole line of reasoning was flawed from the start. If you witness a murder, will your testimony be blocked because you were neither the murderer nor the victim? The very notion of due process means that all parties have an opportunity to pursue the truth and not be stuck with some legal presumption that is based upon a false statement of fact.


The importance of the Geiseke decision is that several states are involved and it likely to have strong persuasive impact on courts across the country. However, don’t think the party is over for the banks. They will continue to raise the standing issue (i.e., the borrower was not part of the assignment transaction) and judges will continue to say to borrowers until they absolutely cannot, that borrowers have no standing the raise the issue as to whether any of the implied transactions actually exist.


The same is true with the identity of the creditor, a closely related issue. It is black letter law, as they say, that every borrower should know the identity of his or her creditor. But like other issues, the courts are still asking “what difference does it make?”
But as to the standing issue on void assignments, here again we have a procedural due process issue. Isn’t it a finding of fact without any evidence for a court to say that the borrower was neither a third party beneficiary nor party to the transaction? How can that happen without evidence? Doesn’t that mean that the court must see the fictional transaction? This entire issue is about letting the banks steamroll over the borrowers and investors — where the bank or service takes the loan as its own, in direct conflict of interest to the actual creditors — the investors.

The banks don’t want this issue to surface because of a dirty little secret — in a legal sense there is no creditor that they can identify. And the borrower is completely faultless in that event. The borrower did not steal the investors’ money. The borrower did not create fictional trusts that were never active and the borrower did not create dark dynamic pools in which money was going in and out of the pool every second.


If the banks had obeyed the law those trusts would have been active for at least 90 days. But they were not active. But if they had been active there would be a definable group of creditors — the investors in that trust. As it stands, the “creditor” consists of all investors in all trusts created by each investment bank- not the loan servicer.

To Contact Attorney Charles Marshall:

Phone number: 619.807.2628, 619.755.7825
Original Order:

14 Responses

  1. this is were am coming from, so far no one has standing to be in court,. especially a trust that we know doesn’t exists,
    there is no proof on any kind, they do. we have all doc’s that say they dont. now i also call again to the security and exchange commission asking for proof of what i have said to you, and has been told to me , many times from them. but want something on there letter head explaining it.. THAT SAYS they have no idear if the company filling did what they filed.
    that anyone that files anything with the security and exchange commission, meaning anything filed, registration,prospectus, a pooling and servicing agreements, etc,etc. does not mean that that company followed through with what was filed. they said to me that congress
    did not give them authority to check on them as to what they filed, to make sure they followed though on what was filed. so again who is watching the fox, in the chicken coop? NO ONE. EVERYTHING IS BEING ASSUMED IT WAS DONE.
    so no one knows. again this is why all banks have been settling all charge of fraud, because they did not follow through anything that was filed.

  2. See 1031 Exchange, Community Property
    See 1031 State Martial Laws & Tenancy

  3. See IRS code section 1031
    1031 Exchange Tenancy in Common

  4. I’ve been wondering about that recently, since I found out that the trusts are, at least sometimes, common law trusts, that are strictly contractual, and not controlled by statute, and furthermore, they are not registered in any way.

  5. Consumer Rights Defenders chimes in:
    Trusts are a little different in structure and purpose here. The beneficiaries are the owners of the rights to payments from the trust corpus specifically as a REMIC and under the Pooling and Servicing agreements that form the trusts. They are creditors of the trust. They may not be the creditor under a specific Note, we cannot opine about this presently…but you guys can research this point.
    The Trust can only act through its Trustee in specific litigation, however as a matter of trust law…and the trustee cannot represent itself in most courts without a lawyer.

    Where we beat up BONY Mellon in 2014 was that their expert did not understand HOW the Note was deposited into the TRUST or if it was done in conformity with the P/S agreements….so their lawyers gave up and dismissed the case.
    See Fields adv. BONY Mellon on our web site at for more or call us today at 818.453.3585.

  6. The banks need foreclosures to keep them liquid. The dirty paper could get cleaned up in quiet titles. If a foreclosure property is REO it appears like an asset on the books – although it should be considered a liability because until it is cashed out the value is unknown and there are taxes, maintenance, insurance, and other liabilities pending in association with real estate.

    Congress could change the laws on booking these RE liabilities and it might be a game changer. But they are so afraid of a complete crash that they are paralyzed when it comes to the banks…it means they lose their cushy pensions and investments too.

  7. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
    It too the courts long enough – didn’t it?!

  8. The banksters need foreclosures to wash the asset.
    White Wash the Titles.

    You need Quiet Title to was assets too……

  9. Java,
    The Secretary of Housing & Urban development.

    They didn’t take kindly to the servicers actions & claims.
    Think..Buy Backs & In house bank loan offers,

  10. Also I need an answer please.

    Where does Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stand in all this fraud against the homeowners?

    How do they get Servicers to foreclose for them when they don’t make an appearance in court. They say they are the owner of mortgage ?? Yet there is never any assignments to Fannie or Freddie ????

  11. So who wants to help me in NJ open up a wrongful fraudclosure. I already did all the black and white paper documents research. Way to many mistakes to list here. Can’t get any lawyers in NJ to understand the wrongful fraudclosure !!!

  12. Thank You Neil!
    Investor, homeowner & taxpayer.

    SoCial 7 that!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: