Why the Mortgages Cannot Legally Be Enforced

“The note is not a secured transaction (in and of itself)” — Dan Edstrom, senior forensic analyst for living lies.

from the point of view of Article 9 there can be no foreclosure of a mortgage without the party claiming rights under the mortgage showing that they purchased the mortgage for value

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-

After completing another two trials — one of which went exceedingly well (I will be commenting on it in the next few days) — and receiving more inquiries about the same things I am revisiting the UCC. It seems that everyone is paying attention to Article 3 but nobody is paying any attention to a very simple proposition in Article 9. The important thing to remember is that the UCC is not some sort of guideline. It has been adopted as state law in all 50 states, most without any major revision. It is the law — and courts are supposed to follow it, not rewrite it. Of course they can’t do that unless the foreclosure defense attorney raises the issue.

*

Transfers of “property” (meaning real property, or personal property — which includes legal rights) can be accomplished in a number of ways. Gifts, loans, purchase and sale, endorsement, assignment, etc. So in our context, the transfer of negotiable paper (note not in default) or non negotiable paper (mortgages etc.) can occur legally in the stroke of a pen. But being the transferee is not the same as having all rights to the paper or property.

*

So if a courier picks up a bearer note, it has been transferred by delivery from Point A to the courier. Theoretically this would alow the courier to take the note to the maker and demand payment, and to sue for payment on the note. The courier would have standing because of legal presumptions. As the possessor of the note he is presumed to be the holder. But as holder of the note he is NOT presumed to be a holder in due course.

*

Follow the statute. So what are the rights of a holder? To make demand and sue on the note. On a motion to dismiss he is presumed to be entitled to enforce. The mistake by the courts is that they don’t allow for that presumption to be rebutted by evidence from the maker. If the courier wins at trial then the debt is merged into the judgment. (Remember the debt was merged into the note when the note was executed — otherwise there would be two liabilities for the same loan).

*

These are all rules about enforcing the NOTE. And the huge mistake the courts have made is that they have not followed all the applicable statutes. Ownership of the mortgage instrument even if assigned with all the right formalities does NOT allow the possessor or assignee to sue for foreclosure UNLESS the possessor assignee has purchased it for value.
*
So the interesting thing here is from the point of view of Article 9 there can be no foreclosure of a mortgage without the party claiming rights under the mortgage showing that they purchased the mortgage for value. What is interesting is that this flips back onto Article 3, which governs notes (as opposed to Article 9 which governs mortgages). If the statute adopting the UCC requires purchase of the mortgage to enforce it, it has the effect of requiring the holder of the note to be a holder in due course — a purchaser for value, in good faith without knowledge of the maker’s defenses.
*
But of course the banks and servicers and trusts never allege they are holder in due course because there was no purchase transaction.
*
If the courier DID purchase the mortgage for value (which is never the case) then the allegation that he is a holder rather than a holder in due course would give rise to a problem. Since payment was made, then the only way the courier would NOT be a holder in due course would be if the courier did not purchase it in good faith and DID know fo the borrower’s defenses, including lending violations etc.
*
If the courier did NOT purchase the mortgage or pay for transfer of the note, then the courier is neither a holder in due course nor may he foreclose on the mortgage.
*
But the courier could theoretically win in a suit just based on the note. The notion that the mortgage follows the note (etc.) is true as to ownership but not as to rights to enforce.
*
If the courier DID purchase the mortgage for value (which is never the case) then the allegation that he is a holder rather than a holder in due course would give rise to a problem. Since payment was made, then the only way the courier would NOT be a holder in due course would be if the courier did not purchase it in good faith and DID know fo the borrower’s defenses, including lending violations etc.
*
But the courier could theoretically win in a suit just based on the note. The notion that the mortgage follows the note (etc.) is true as to ownership but not as to rights to enforce. Banks and servicers and their lawyers are exploiting this confusion to win millions of foreclosure cases in which they DID have standing to sue on the note (Article 3) but they did NOT have standing to foreclose on the mortgage (Article 9) — even though they may have owned the “paper.”
*
So transfers are not the end of the story.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
P.S. It would seem that our senior forensic analyst is sounding more like a lawyer every day …. READ THIS from Dan Edstrom, DTC Systems, Inc.
The note is not a secured transaction (in and of itself). The obligee of the note is the one entitled to repayment of a debt. The security is for repayment of the debt to the obligee, the one entitled to repayment. No security arises to a party that did not pay money to acquire the note (if they didn’t pay value they have no security to enforce). The security only arises to the specific amount A debt is owed, and only then to the one owed the debt.  A judgment on the note would entitle the alleged holder to be paid, but it would seem this would only be valid if issued in conjunction with a bond protecting the maker against double payment.
*
Further each payment to a party that did not pay value would be unjust enrichment, which is why the so called holder is subject to the defenses of the maker (real and personal) including the defense of lack of consideration and/or failure of consideration.  The “holder” who paid no value might be  entitled to be repaid the value they paid. They don’t have the ability to show even sufficient consideration, because there isn’t any. Further, to the extent the consideration might be nonmonetary, there were no promises passed between the parties.
*
Look to the intent of the parties.  The homeowner attempted to enter I to the transaction to give a security interest to the LENDER, and gave up a valuable Constitutional Right by way of contract. The right to the LENDER to foreclose, not the right to a party holding the note but which paid no money, who also has an interest adverse to the party that actually paid money.
*
The provisions in the security instrument apply to a lender, not some holder who is not even licensed as a lender.
*
And it would seem that there are conditions for repayment and the power of sale that are specifically for a lender and not for some party who at most might be considered a 3rd party incidental beneficiary with no ability to enforce the security instrument as a contract.

47 Responses

  1. Wrongful Foreclosure Lawsuits in California and Cutting Edge Foreclosure Defense Strategies
    Attorney CLE Credit 6hrs

    October 15, 2016 | San Francisco, CA

    9:00am – 4:00pm

    ONLY $295 REGISTRATION FEE

    REGISTER NOW

    Co-Hosted by:

    Rodriguez Law Group, Inc.
    Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC

    Sponsored by:

    CFLA

    Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC
    The Nation’s Leading Resource for
    Mortgage Securitization Auditing,
    Chain of Title Analysis, Quiet Title and Training

    Download Class Syllabus (PDF)

    Recent L.A. Times Article on Wrongful Foreclosure Lawsuits in California

    latimes.com | March 6, 2016
    During the bust that followed last decade’s housing boom, hundreds of thousands of Californians lost their homes to foreclosure. It was a process later found to be rife with problems, such as overwhelmed bank employees who sometimes didn’t even read the foreclosure documents in front of them. But challenging foreclosures on the basis of paperwork problems proved to be mostly futile, given California courts had ruled that borrowers who weren’t paying their mortgages didn’t suffer financial harm.
    Read more

    Location

    San Francisco Marriott Marquis
    780 Mission Street
    San Francisco, CA 94103
    P: 415-896-1600

    Instructors

    Patricia Rodriguez, Esq. & George M. Hill, Esq.

    Syllabus

    Download Class Syllabus (PDF)

    Introduction – Outline of Todays Lecture & Lecture Topics

    Introduction (9:00 – 9:05) (PROD & George)
    Pre Litigation Analysis (9:05 – 9:20) (PROD)
    The Process of Non Judicial Foreclosure In California (9:20 – 9:35) (George)
    Litigation of Real Property Ownership/Title in California (9:35 – 10:30) (PROD)
    15 MINUTE BREAK (10:30 -10:45)
    Litigation of Possession of Real Property & Unlawful Detainer (10:45 – 11:30) (George)
    CA State Court Analysis of Real Property Claims and Title Actions (11:30 – 12:30) (PROD)
    LUNCH (12:30 – 1:30)
    Analysis of California Homeowner Bill of Rights – SB 900 (1:30 – 2:15) (George)
    California SB 900 – The Application of the Law
    California SB 900 – Understanding The Relevant Provisions
    15 MINUTE BREAK (2:15 – 2:30)
    Federal Court Analysis of Real Property Claims & Title Actions (2:30 – 3:30) (George)
    Forum Analysis; Filing of Both Federal & State Cases Simultaneously (3:30 – 3:50) (PROD)
    Closing Remarks & Comments (3:50-4pm) (George & PROD)
    Pre-Litigation Analysis – PROD

    Understanding Loan Originators
    Understanding Securitization Audit Experts
    See Redacted Hybrid Audit
    The Process of Non-Judicial Foreclosure In California – George

    The Notice of Default: The Bank is giving the Homeowner notice that according to the Bank Homeowner owes the bank and hasn’t paid.
    The Notice of Trustee Sale: This is notice to the Homeowner that the bank is electing to sale the property under the allege authority of the Deed of Trust
    The Trustee Sale Date: The date the bank sales the house
    Delaying Trustee Sale Dates
    Advertisements of Trustee Sale Delays
    Litigation of Real Property Ownership/Title in California – PROD

    Complaint
    When to File?
    What to Write? Upon belief – Plaintiffs allege
    What to File? Summons; Civil Case Cover Sheet; Attachments; Complaint; Complaint Signature Page; Exhibits
    How to File? Filing/Serving Defendants – Jurisdiction Specific
    Temporary Restraining Orders/Preliminary Injunctions: Note Use of Bonds
    Lis Pendens: A two page document which attaches the lawsuit over title to the property; thus when it’s sold at a trustee sale date no one but the bank will buy the lawsuit – bank must buy it back
    Answer: Defendant has 30 days to Answer – unless Trustee files objection to non-monetary status – if Plaintiff objects – Defendant is given 30 days from proof of service of objection to non-monetary status
    Three choices: Admit, Deny, Demur (motion to dismiss in federal court)
    Demur Hearing
    Case Management Conference – CMC – Case Management Conference Statement
    Trial Set – 6 months out from initial filing of Complaint
    Discovery
    Request for Form & Special Interrogatories, Documents, Admissions; Depositions
    Trial – 4 to 5 Days
    Litigation of Possession of Real Property & Unlawful Detainer In California – George

    KEY = The Plaintiff must prove three issues
    Defendant in possession
    Defendant properly served with three day notice to quit
    Plaintiff has a duly perfected security interest
    Temporary Restraining Order – temporary stop to the sell of the house
    Preliminary Injunction – permanent restraint from selling the house the entire duration of the litigation
    Unlawful Detainer Action
    Complaint: Three elements: proper notice; still in possession; plaintiff has right to possess
    Answer – 5 days for homeowner; 10 days for renter
    Motion to consolidate with matter involving Title
    If judgment entered – motion to stay judgment until after Title matter decided – irreparable harm (for actually homeowner residing on premises)
    Not granted – must appeal BC by law MUST be granted
    Wedgewood v. Brown-Wilson: Court reversed a trial court because Plaintiff failed to provde duly perfected title as mandated by CCP Section 1161 and a trustee’s deed upon sale is not prima facie evidence of a duly perfected title contrary to previous holdings in the appellate division. Riverside – not published so persuasive case law.
    California State Court Analysis of Real Property Claims and Title Actions – PROD

    Proper Defendants – Originator, Servicer, Trustee of Securitized Trust; Foreclosure Trustee (if applicable) and MERS (if applicable)
    Proper Origination Documents
    Uniform Residential Loan Application
    Type of mortgage and terms of loan
    Property information and purpose of loan
    Borrower information
    Employment information
    Monthly income and combined housing expense information
    Assets and liabilities
    Federal Truth-In-Lending Disclosure Statement
    Amount of payment
    Income v. payment
    Buyer’s Closing Statement
    New loan charges
    Loan processing fee
    Banking fee
    Appraisal fee
    Processing fee
    Breach of fiduciary duty
    Conspiracy to defraud
    Settlement Statement
    Adjustable Rate Note
    Balloon Rider
    Failure to disclose balloon payment Uniform Residential Loan Application
    Type of mortgage and terms of loan
    Property information and purpose of loan
    Borrower information
    Employment information
    Monthly income and combined housing expense information
    Assets and liabilities
    Federal Truth-In-Lending Disclosure Statement
    Amount of payment
    Income v. payment
    Buyer’s Closing Statement
    New loan charges
    Loan processing fee
    Banking fee
    Appraisal fee
    Settlement Statement
    Processing fee
    Claims of Origination / Fraud
    Fraud – Allegations need to meet specificity requirements
    Actual Fraud – California Civil Code § 1572(3)(5)
    Knowledge of borrower’s lack of ability to afford monthly payments due to income
    Violations of Business & Professions Code §17200 Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) [Fraudulently Procured Documents];
    Substitution of Trustees, Corporate Assignments, and Assignments are red flags for transfer problem
    Violation of UDAP [Fairness Doctrine]
    Intentional Misrepresentation
    The misrepresentation of a material fact;
    Knowledge of falsity (scienter);
    Intent to induce reliance
    Actual and justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation; and resulting damages
    Negligent Misrepresentation
    the misrepresentation of a material fact;
    false statement is made without a reasonable ground for a belief in the truth of the misrepresented fact
    intent to induce reliance;
    actual and justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation; and
    resulting damage
    Fraudulent Concealment
    affirmative duty to disclose all material facts;
    concealment of facts in order to induce plaintiff to enter into a transaction or relationship;
    resulting damage
    Cancellation of Contract
    California Civil Code §1670.5, §1689, §3412
    Existence of written instrument
    That is void or voidable
    Grounds for rescission / when facts discovered
    Reasonable apprehension if left outstanding may cause serious injury to Plaintiff
    Violation of Finance Lender Law
    California Finance Code §§ 4973, et seq., 22000, et seq. and 50000, et seq.
    Plaintiff must allege that their loan is covered under this provision. A consumer loan more than $417K is not covered. No exceptions to this rule have been identified.
    Conspiracy to Defraud
    Falsification of loan application
    Set up borrower for certain default
    Waiver/Promissory Estoppel
    Contractual issue – bank has told HO to stop making payments to be considered for a modification; thus, the bank has waived any right to enforcement of the terms of the contract under the note; it gave that right up to enforce the contract by telling the home owner to stop making payments; homeowner relied on that waiver, stopped making payments for a modification, is denied modification, – bank cannot then come back and state it is entitled to enforce the payments
    Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
    Outrageous Behavior
    Injury Breach of Contract
    Make sure to allege all elements
    What is the breach? Find a provision in the Deed of Trust to support the breach of contract claim
    Breach of Oral Contract
    Existence of a contract
    Terms that establish obligation
    Specify whether contract is oral, written or implied by conduct
    Plaintiff’s performance or excuse for non-performance
    Defendant’s breach
    Resulting damage
    Breach of fiduciary duty
    Conspiracy to defraud
    Falsification of loan application
    Set up borrower for certain default
    Statute of Limitations – The SOL has passed for most if not all of our claims. Therefore, we must allege that Equitable Tolling applies, otherwise, the court may dismiss without leave to amend.
    Servicing Fraud (aka Fraud By The Loan Servicer)
    Unjust Enrichment
    Unwarranted fees/overcharging
    Violation of Buss. & Prof. Code Section 17200 (Overcharging of Fees – Unfair, Business Practices)
    Unlawful, Unfair, or Fraudulent business practice
    Instituting improper or premature foreclosure to generate unwarranted fees
    NOD inflates default amount
    NTS shows balance owed which is too high
    Other Statutory Violations
    Violation of 2934(a) (Substitution of Trustee)
    Occurs when trustee named in the recorded substitution acted as trustee prior to the date of executon of substitution = unlawfully initiated foreclosure;
    Substitution is executed but not recorded prior to or concurrently with notice of default;
    Notice of substitution NOT mailed to all interested parties;
    Affidavit NOT attached to substitution confirming that such notice was given;
    Substitution is effected AFTER notice of default recorded but prior to notice of sale.
    Notice of sale must be re-sent with substituted trustee information, otherwise the sale is void.
    Effective date drastically different from recordation date.
    Violation of 2932.5 (ONLY APPLICABLE IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS)
    Occurs where a notice of default or notice of sale is recorded prior to a valid assignment. The entity recording the NOD and/or NTS does not have authority to record the document as they have not received any beneficial interest.
    This statutory violation has SERIOUS LIMITATIONS. Several courts have found this section inapplicable to deeds of trust and only apply it to mortgages.
    California district where Calvo v. HSBC Bank was upheld:
    1st District: Hayes v. EMC Mortgage: April 9, 2012;
    2nd District: Calvo was in this district: September 11, 2011;
    4th District: Herrera v. Federal Nation Mortgage: May 17, 2012;
    6th District: Derbrunner v. Duetsche Bank: March 16, 2012.
    There are no cases published or unpublished in the 3rd or 5th districts that have mentioned or upheld 2932.5 in regards to the above. Excerpt from Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage: “we conclude the trial court appropriately sustained the demurrer to the first cause of action without leave to amend since section 2932.5 is inapplicable to deeds of trust.”
    Below is a map of California and how it is districted as reference:
    map

    Analysis of Selling & Fraud For California Complaints
    Understanding Securitization
    Mortgage Backed Bonds – bonds are not created equal
    Table Funding – illegal for a bank to NOT use its own money
    Originator – bank that originated the loan
    Sponsor/Seller – middle bank bought note from originator and sold it to depositor to package in the trust – most missed the closing date
    Depositor – bank that sold the Note to the investor
    Lack of Standing
    Cause of Action – yes
    Title doesn’t matter – only substance
    Each court will determine differently whether or not it is a named cause of action
    Injury – each time the note was illegal sold the equity in the home significantly decreased
    MERS – Mortgage Electronic Registry
    Every mortgage is supposed to registered on this system
    Intended during the 1990s to cut recording costs/fees for the banking industry; also helped hide chain of title from the public
    Approximately 65 million mortgages MERS is beneficiary or nominee
    Each time the NOTE was transferred by law there was supposed to be a duly signed assignment (from Originator to Sponsor/Seller to Depositor); this did not occur in most cases.
    Viable Causes of Actions Against MERS
    Violation of CCP 2932.5 – not valid
    Violation of B&P Code 17200
    Wrongful Foreclosure (Lack of Standing) – for failing to transfer the loan to the trust by the closing date – See Glaski v. Bank of America
    Agent/Principal Issue
    NOTE: Current Case Law and the Importance to Distinguish Cases
    It is imperative to distinguish these new cases from prior precedential cases already decided on similar issues: Gomes; Jenkins
    Role of Glaski v. BOA
    In a 2013 United States Court of Appeals Case, in the Fifth District of California, the Appellate Court held that a borrower may challenge the securitized trust’s chain of ownership by alleging the attempts to transfer the deed of trust to the securitized trust (which was formed under New York law) occurred after the trust’s closing date. This case is the highly analyzed Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., et al, Court of Appeal, Fifth District of California, Case No. F064556.
    Glaski held as follows: That transfers that violate the terms of the trust instrument are void under New York trust law, and borrowers have standing to challenge void assignments of their loans even though they are not a party to, or a third party beneficiary of, the assignment agreement. Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., et al, Court of Appeal, Fifth District of California, Case No. F064556.
    The Glaski Court specifically noted “We reject the view that a borrower’s challenge to an assignment must fail once it is determined that the borrower was not a party to, or third party beneficiary of, the assignment agreement. Cases adopting that position “paint with too broad a brush.” Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 290. Instead, courts should proceed to the question whether the assignment was void. Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., et al, , supra.
    Note through a current application of Glaski be aware of the following
    State courts do not fully understand the implications of Glaski and are reluctant to follow its legal conclusion
    Federal Courts are not favorable to Glaski.
    Alternate theories when applying Glaski must be used as part of your analysis.
    NOTE: Opposing Parties will argue that Glaski should be analyzed as a minority view held by citing the decision of Jenkins v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497.
    Therefore, it is imperative that arguments be raised to distinguish your claims from the Jenkins case, specifically; that and wrongful actions, inter alia, the absence of proper assignments of the Note and Deed of Trust to the securitized Trust, preceded any alleged default on Plaintiff’s behalf whereby triggering the purported election to sell under the Deed of Trust. (Further analysis can be found be looking to Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 804.)
    Yvanova V. New Century Mortgage Corporation (B247188; 226 Cal.App.4th 495; Los Angeles County Superior Court; LC097218.)
    In the matter of Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action brought by Yvanova against New Century Mortgage Corporation as well as numerous other financial institutions alleging the mortgage and deed of trust on the plaintiff’s residence were improperly securitized and assigned from the original lender to several successive mortgagees and trustees, and ultimately improperly sold at foreclosure.
    On August 27, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted petition for review as to the issue of whether a borrower indeed has standing to challenge an invalid assignment after the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The California Supreme Court held: “The petition for review is granted. Briefing and argument is limited to the following issues: In an action for wrongful foreclosure on a deed of trust securing a home loan, does the borrower have standing to challenge an assignment of the note and deed of trust on the basis of defects allegedly rendering the assignment void?”
    Keshtgar v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (B246193; 226 Cal.App.4th 1201, mod. 227 Cal.App.4th 321c; San Luis Obispo County Superior Court; CV120282.)
    In the matter of Keshtgar v. U.S. Bank, N.A., the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action brought by Keshtgar against U.S. Bank, N.A. and various other financial institutions alleging that after plaintiff executed a note secured by a deed of trust on the real property, the deed was allegedly assigned to U.S. Bank, N.A. as trustee for the certificate holders of the Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust. Plaintiff alleged that U.S. Bank did not receive an assignment of the note, was never in possession of the note, never acquired the rights of nor is it a successor to the original lender or any other entity, and as such, U.S. Bank did not have the legal ability to exercise any rights under the deed of trust, including the power of sale.
    On October 1, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted a petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in the civil action. The Supreme Court has ordered briefing be deferred pending the decision in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., which presents the following issue: In an action for wrongful foreclosure o a deed of trust securing a home loan, does the borrower have standing to challenge an assignment of the note and deed of trust on the basis of defects allegedly rendering the assignment void?
    Mendoza v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (C071882; 228 Cal.App.4th 1020; San Joaquin County Superior Court; 39201100267960CUORSTK.)
    In the matter of Mendoza v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. the Californa Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action brought by Mendoza against JP Morgan Chase Bank and various other financial institutions alleging, similar to Yvanova and Keshtgar, improper securitization and invalid assignments and that Mendoza has standing to challenge the improper securitization of the loan.
    On November 12, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted a petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in the civil action. Similar to the Keshtgar matter, the Supreme Court ordered briefing deferred pending the decision in the Yvanova matter.
    Further Legal Analysis:
    Ibanez – Massachusetts (View Oral Arguments)
    Phyllis – AL – Summary Judgment – Breach of Contract 3rd Party Beneficiary
    In re Doble (2011) WL 1465559 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.)
    Bank of New York v. Silverberg, 2011 NY Slip Op 5002, 6.
    In Re Jessie M. Arizmendi, 09-19263-PB13, United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of California, 2011
    Aguilar v, III v. Bear Sterans Resid. MTG., et. al.,
    Kanno v. First Liberty Mortgage, Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case Number 539556, 2010
    O’Dell v. Washington Mutual Bank FA et. al., United States Central District Court of California, CV 10-09195 GAF (PLAx), 2011
    Javaheri v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et. al. , United States Central District Court of California, CV 10-09195 GAF (PLAx), 2011
    Robinson v. Countrywide; Herrera v. Deutsche Bank
    Bloomberg Level Three Audit
    Shows exactly how many times the note has been sold and into which trust (classes); in some instances the note has been sold multiple times as if it was the first time the Note was sold – CLEAR SECURITIES FRAUD
    Shows the note has been paid off – answer to tender rule
    Lona v. Citibank: Tender exceptions – should be alleging that there is a tender exception in addition to the allegations that tender has already occurred
    Unjust Enrichment – Payments made to entity who is NOT the lawful note-holder
    Violations of Business & Professions Code §17200 Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) [Fraudulently Procured Documents]
    “Agency/Principal Relationship & Power of Attorney – violations of additional statutes to be used as underlying violations of Buss. & Prof. Code Section 17200
    Express or implied agreement
    Granting authority for one party to act on behalf of another
    Actions of agent bind the principal
    Substitution of Trustees, Corporate Assignments, and Assignments are red flags for transfer problems
    Security First Rule
    Lender must foreclose before looking to borrower’s other assets
    Either judicial foreclosure and seek deficiency judgment OR nonjudicial foreclosure
    Violation of CCP 726 if lender accepts payments from Plaintiff WHILE foreclosing
    HAMP Guidelines – Breach of Contract
    Qualification under HAMP guidelines
    Trial Period Modification Plan
    Borrower complies with all requirements under trial mod
    Lender nevertheless fails to provide permanent modification or fails to suspend foreclosure proceedings
    Slander of Title – Publication of disparaging statement about title to real estate; statement is false; made with malice; pecuniary damages
    Quiet Title – Seeking court order to establish ownership of property; plausible claim to title
    Declaratory Relief -Validity and enforceability of subject loan agreement (contract law)
    Illegality
    Public Policy
    Unconscionability
    Damages (Injury-in-fact)
    Down Payment
    Payments
    Improvements
    Difference between modified amount and non-modified amount paid
    Equitabel Estoppel – Post Foreclosure
    Negligence – no duty, causation
    Governing Rules
    Individual clerk/judge rules
    Local County/Court Rules
    Civil Code of Procedure
    Analysis
    Facts of the case
    Precedent – Stare Decisis
    Elements – Many of the causes of actions do not allege ALL of the elements (e.g. duty, excuse form performance, provision in contract that was breached, etc.)
    Analysis of California Homeowner Bill of Rights – SB 900 – George

    Procedural History
    Refer to CA Senate Rules Committee Conference Report for SB 900
    Enacted by CA Senate and Assembly on July 2, 2012
    Signed into law by Governor on July 12, 2012
    Effective Date: January 1, 2013
    Expires: January 1, 2018
    Goals of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights
    Stabilize CA housing economy
    Stop foreclosure abuse by lenders and servicers
    Ensure meaningful foreclosure alternatives for borrowers
    Meeting the Goals
    Expand existing foreclosure protections and add new protections to apply to broadly defined “mortgage servicers”
    Prevent mortgage servicers from proceeding with a foreclosure until certain contact with or notice to the borrower
    Prevent the recordation of a notice of default or notice of sale while a foreclosure prevention alternative is in process
    Require a single point of contact for the borrower once they have requested a foreclosure prevention alternative; and
    Give borrowers the right to sue the mortgage servicer for injunctive relief, actual damages and treble damages, for violation of the Act and the right to recover their attorney’s fees and costs if they prevail
    California SB 900 – The Application of the Law
    Eligibility
    First lien Mortgages and Deeds of Trust
    Secured by owner-occupied residential property
    Containing no more than four dwelling units
    Large Lenders
    Most of the provisions of the Act only apply to lenders that foreclose on more than 175 residential properties per year.
    Some provisions, including dual tracking, apply to smaller lenders, as well
    Exclusions
    Entity Borrowers
    Investment Property
    Borrowers in default who are already in bankruptcy
    Borrowers who have already surrendered their property to lender
    Borrowers who have contracted with someone or an entity whose primary business is advising people on how to extend their foreclosure and avoid their contractual obligations under the loan
    California SB 900 – Understanding The Relevant Provisions
    Mortgage Servicer Defined
    A person or entity who directly services a loan, or who is responsible for interacting with the borrower, managing the loan account on a daily basis either as the current owner of the promissory note or as the current owner’s authorized agent, or subservicing agent to a master servicer by contract.
    “Mortgage Servicer” does not include the trustee or the trustee’s authorized agent acting under a power of sale in a deed of trust
    Prevent lenders from contracting with separate entities to manage and service the loans to avoid application of the current laws
    Dual Tracking
    The Act seeks to prevent a lender from proceeding with a foreclosure, while at the same time negotiating with a delinquent residential borrower on a loan modification
    If Borrower submits a complete application for modification, the Mortgage Servicer may not record Notice of Default or Notice of Sale until loan modification process has been completed and the time for an appeal of any adverse decision has passed
    NOD can be recorded:
    If borrower doesn’t accept offer within 14 days
    If borrower doesn’t appeal denial within 30 days
    If borrower accepts the offer but defaults
    Changes to Loan Modification Process
    Mortgage servicer must provide a written acknowledgement of receipt within five days of the receipt of the document(s) or completed application
    Written acknowledgment of receipt to the borrower must include a description of the loan modification process, its timeframes and any deadlines, any expiration dates for documents submitted, and specify any deficiencies in the application
    Written response if the lender denies the application. This written notice must include the specific reasons for the denial and the deadline for the borrower to appeal the denial (30 days).
    Mortgage servicer is not obligated to evaluate applications from borrowers who have already been evaluated or afforded a fair opportunity to be evaluated for a first lien loan modification prior to January 1, 2013, unless there has been a material change in the borrower’s financial circumstances
    Single Point of Contact Established
    Single point of contact throughout the loan modification process and with at least one direct method to reach the point of contact.
    The mortgage servicer must ensure that the single point of contact has the knowledge, responsibility and authority to:
    Communicate to the borrower the process by which the borrower may apply for available foreclosure prevention alternatives;
    Coordinate receipt of all necessary documents and notifying the borrower of any missing documents;
    Timely, adequately and accurately inform the borrower of the current status of the foreclosure prevention alternative;
    Ensure the borrower is considered for all of the foreclosure prevention options offered by the mortgage servicer; and
    Have access to persons with the power to stop foreclosure proceedings
    Single point of contact can be a team of personnel, each of whom is knowledgeable about borrower’s current situation
    Does not apply to small lenders
    New Notice Requirements
    After Notice of Default Recorded
    Within 5 days of the recording of a notice of default, the mortgage servicer that offers foreclosure prevention alternatives must send a written notice to the borrower informing the borrower of foreclosure prevention alternative
    Does not apply to any borrowers who have already exhausted the loan modification process described above in Civil Code section 2924.6.
    Postponed Trustee Sale Date
    Postponement of at least 10 business days require written notice to the borrower of the new sale date and time within five business days of the date of the postponement.
    Failure to comply does not invalidate an otherwise valid trustee’s sale
    No Application Fees or Late Fees
    Prohibits mortgage servicers from charging borrowers application fees for a first lien loan modification or other foreclosure prevention alternative.
    Forbids a mortgage servicer from charging borrowers late fees under the loan for the period during which the loan modification is under consideration, while a borrower has filed an appeal of the denial of a loan modification, or the borrower is making timely modification payments.
    Right to Sue Mortgage Servicers
    Borrowers can sue mortgage servicers for injunctive relief before the trustee’s deed upon sale has recorded, or if it has already recorded, to sue for actual economic damages, if the mortgage servicer has not corrected any “material” violation before the trustee’s deed upon sale recorded.
    If a court finds that the violation was intentional, reckless or willful, the court can award the borrower the greater of treble (triple) damages or $50,000.
    A violation of the Act is also deemed to be a violation of the licensing laws if committed by a person licensed as a consumer or commercial finance lender or broker, a residential mortgage lender or servicer, or a licensed real estate broker or salesman.
    Court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to borrower as the prevailing party.
    Lenders defense: Compliance
    Violation of California Civil Code of Procedure 2923.3 – Requirements of an Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee sale be sent to borrower
    Did you receive a notice of trustee sale?
    Did you receive a notice of default?
    Violation of California Civil Code of Procedure 2923.4 – Requires meaningful review of borrower for loss mitigation
    Were you reviewed for a loan modification and/or other loss mitigation efforts?
    Violation of California Civil Code of Procedure 2923.5 – Cannot record a NOD until contact is made with borrower re loss mitigation options
    Were you contacted regarding any loss mitigation options?
    NOD filed without due diligence to contact borrower and assess financial situation and explore options to avoid foreclosure
    Certificate of compliance by agent
    Only applies to owner-occupied principal residence
    Only remedy is postponement of sale (Mabry v Superior Court)
    Violation of California Civil Code of Procedure 2923.55 – Further requirements for a bank to legally record a NOD – specifically can not record a NOD while a borrower is under loan modification review
    Was a NOD recorded while you were under review?
    Was a NTS recorded while you were under review?
    Was there a sale while you were under review?
    Violation of California Civil Code of Procedure 2923.6 – Bank can not record a notice of default, notice of trustee sale, or conduct a trustees sale while a complete loan modification is under review
    Did you submit a loan modification?
    Was the application complete?
    When did you submit the loan modification?
    Has a notice of default/notice of trustee sale been recorded? When?
    Has there been a trustee’s sale? When?
    Violation of California Civil Code of Procedure 2923.7 – Bank must provide a single point of contact for all borrowers who request and are being reviewed for a loan modification (or other loss mitigation alternatives)
    Did you request a single point of contact?
    Were you given a single point of contact?
    Violation of California Civil Code of Procedure 2924 (a) (6)
    No entity shall record or cause a notice of default to be recorded or otherwise initiate the foreclosure process unless it is the holder of the beneficial interest under the mortgage or deed of trust, the original trustee or the substituted trustee under the deed of trust, or the designated agent of the holder of the beneficial intrest. No agent of the holder of the beneficial interest under the mortgage or deed of trust, original trustee or substituted trustee under the deed of trust may record a notice of default or otherwise commence the foreclosure process except when acting within the scope of authority designated by the holder of the beneficial interest.
    The entity foreclosing must be the original lender, assigned beneficiary, original trustee or valid substituted trustee. If this does not exist, there there is a violation.
    It is also imperative to analyze the recorded documents, any securitization analysis report, etc.
    Violation of California Civil Code of Procedure 2924.8
    Upon posting a Notice of Sale, a trustee or authorized agent shall also post a specific notice, concurrently with the Notice of Sale, by first-class mail in an envelope addressed to the “Resident of property subject to foreclosure sale.”
    Violation of California Civil Code of Procedure 2924.85
    All borrowers must notify any potential tenants of the recorded Notice of Default prior to signing lease agreements.
    Do you have any tenants?
    Did you notify them of the NOD prior to signing the lease?
    Violation of California Civil Code of Procedure 2924.9
    Within five business days of recording a notice of default, a mortgage servicer that offers one or more foreclosure prevention alternatives shall send a written communication to the borrower advising the borrower of loss mitigation options.
    Did you receive a Notice of Default?
    Did you receive a notice of loss mitigation options?
    Was the notice received within five (5) business days of recording the NOD?
    Violation of California Civil Code of Procedure 2924.10
    When a borrower submits a complete loan modification application or any other lien modification application, the bank/servicer shall provide written acknowledgment of receipt of the documentation within five (5) business days of receipt.
    Have you submitted a loan modification?
    Did you receive a notice each time acknowledging receipt of the documents?
    Were all notices received within five (5) business days of the documents arriving at the bank/servicer?
    Violation of California Civil Code of Procedure 2924.11
    If the bank/servicer approves a loan modification in writing prior to the recordation of a notice of default, the bank/servicer cannot subsequently record a Notice of Default.
    Were you approved in writing for a foreclosure prevention?
    Was there a notice of default recorded after this approval?
    Did you decline the written foreclosure prevention?
    Violation of California Civil Code of Procedure 2924.12
    Prior to the recording of a trustee’s deed upon sale a borrower can seek injunctive relief to stop the sale of the property.
    Have you received a notice of trustee’s sale?
    Was the notice of trustee’s sale recorded?
    Violation of California Civil Code of Procedure 2924.15
    Sections 2923.5, 2923.7 and 2924.11 applies only to first lien mortgages or deeds of trust that are secured by owner-occupied residential real property.
    May be able to bring a claim for a non-owner occupied property under a violation of B&P Code 17200.
    Violation of California Civil Code of Procedure 2924.17
    A declaration recorded pursuant to a notice of default, notice of sale, assignment of a deed of trust, or a substitution of trustee shall be accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence.
    Recorded documents must be reviewed to determine if there is a violation.
    Violation of California Civil Code of Procedure 2924.18
    If a complete application for a loan modification is submitted by the borrower, the bank/servicer cannot record a notice of default, a notice of sale or conduct a trustee’s sale while the complete loan modification application is pending AND until the borrower has been provided with a written determination by the mortgage servicer regarding the borrower’s eligibility for the requested loan modification.
    Were you under review for a loan modification?
    Did you submit a COMPLETE application?
    Was a notice of default recorded while under review?
    Was a notice of sale recorded while under review?
    Was there a sale while under review?
    Were you denied a loan modification while under review?
    Were you provided a written denial?
    Were you given thirty (30) days to appeal before a notice of default, or notice of sale was recorded?
    Were you given thirty (30) days to appeal before a sale actually occurred?
    Federal Court Analysis of Real Property Claims & Title Actions – (George)

    Rescission (15 U.S.C. s. 1635)
    (a) Disclosure of obligor’s right to rescind: Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the case of any consumer credit transaction (including opening or increasing the credit limit for an open end credit plan) in which a security interest, including any such interest arising by operation of law, is or will be retained or acquired in any property which is used as the principal dwelling of the person to whom credit is extended, the obligor shall have the right to rescind the transaction until midnight of the third business day following the consummation of the transaction or the delivery of the information and rescission forms required under this section together with a statement containing the material disclosures required under this subchapter, whichever is later, by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, of his intention to do so. The creditor shall clearly and conspicuously disclose, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, to any obligor in a transaction subject to this section the rights of the obligor under this section. The creditor shall also provide, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, appropriate forms for the obligor to exercise his right to rescind any transaction subject to this section.
    (b) Return of money or property following rescission: When an obligor exercises his right to rescind under subsection (a) of this section, he is not liable for any finance or other charge, and any security interest given by the obligor, including any such interest arising by operation of law, becomes void upon such a rescission. Within 20 days after receipt of a notice of rescission, the creditor shall return to the obligor any money or property given as earnest money, downpayment, or otherwise, and shall take any action necessary or appropriate to reflect the termination of any security interest created under the transaction. If the creditor has delivered any property to the obligor, the obligor may retain possession of it. Upon the performance of the creditor’s obligations under this section, the obligor shall tender the property to the creditor, except that if return of the property in kind would be impracticable or inequitable, the obligor shall tender its reasonable value. Tender shall be made at the location of the property or at the residence of the obligor, at the option of the obligor. If the creditor does not take possession of the property within 20 days after tender by the obligor, ownership of the property vests in the obligor without obligation on his part to pay for it. The procedures prescribed by this subsection shall apply except when otherwise ordered by a court.
    (c) Rebuttable presumption of delivery of required disclosures: Notwithstanding any rule of evidence, written acknowledgment of receipt of any disclosures required under this subchapter by a person to whom information, forms, and a statement is required to be given pursuant to this section does no more than create a rebuttable presumption of delivery thereof.
    (d) Modification and waiver of rights: The Bureau may, if it finds that such action is necessary in order to permit homeowners to meet bona fide personal financial emergencies, prescribe regulations authorizing the modification or waiver of any rights created under this section to the extent and under the circumstances set forth in those regulations.
    (e) Exempted transactions; reapplication of provisions
    This section does not apply to— (1) a residential mortgage transaction as defined in section 1602(w) [1] of this title; (2) a transaction which constitutes a refinancing or consolidation (with no new advances) of the principal balance then due and any accrued and unpaid finance charges of an existing extension of credit by the same creditor secured by an interest in the same property; (3) a transaction in which an agency of a State is the creditor; or (4) advances under a preexisting open end credit plan if a security interest has already been retained or acquired and such advances are in accordance with a previously established credit limit for such plan.
    (f) Time limit for exercise of right: An obligor’s right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of consummation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property, whichever occurs first, notwithstanding the fact that the information and forms required under this section or any other disclosures required under this part have not been delivered to the obligor, except that if
    (1) any agency empowered to enforce the provisions of this subchapter institutes a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this section within three years after the date of consummation of the transaction, (2) such agency finds a violation of this section, and (3) the obligor’s right to rescind is based in whole or in part on any matter involved in such proceeding, then the obligor’s right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of consummation of the transaction or upon the earlier sale of the property, or upon the expiration of one year following the conclusion of the proceeding, or any judicial review or period for judicial review thereof, whichever is later.
    (g) Additional relief: In any action in which it is determined that a creditor has violated this section, in addition to rescission the court may award relief under section 1640 of this title for violations of this subchapter not relating to the right to rescind.
    (h) Limitation on rescission: An obligor shall have no rescission rights arising solely from the form of written notice used by the creditor to inform the obligor of the rights of the obligor under this section, if the creditor provided the obligor the appropriate form of written notice published and adopted by the Bureau, or a comparable written notice of the rights of the obligor, that was properly completed by the creditor, and otherwise complied with all other requirements of this section regarding notice.
    (i) Rescission rights in foreclosure
    In general: Notwithstanding section 1649 of this title, and subject to the time period provided in subsection (f) of this section, in addition to any other right of rescission available under this section for a transaction, after the initiation of any judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure process on the primary dwelling of an obligor securing an extension of credit, the obligor shall have a right to rescind the transaction equivalent to other rescission rights provided by this section, if—
    (A) a mortgage broker fee is not included in the finance charge in accordance with the laws and regulations in effect at the time the consumer credit transaction was consummated; or
    (B) the form of notice of rescission for the transaction is not the appropriate form of written notice published and adopted by the Bureau or a comparable written notice, and otherwise complied with all the requirements of this section regarding notice.
    Tolerance for disclosures: Notwithstanding section 1605 (f) of this title, and subject to the time period provided in subsection (f) of this section, for the purposes of exercising any rescission rights after the initiation of any judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure process on the principal dwelling of the obligor securing an extension of credit, the disclosure of the finance charge and other disclosures affected by any finance charge shall be treated as being accurate for purposes of this section if the amount disclosed as the finance charge does not vary from the actual finance charge by more than $35 or is greater than the amount required to be disclosed under this subchapter.
    Right of recoupment under State law: Nothing in this subsection affects a consumer’s right of rescission in recoupment under State law.
    Applicability: This subsection shall apply to all consumer credit transactions in existence or consummated on or after September 30, 1995.
    Truth In Lender Act Section 1641(g)
    (g) Notice of new creditor
    In general – In addition to other disclosures required by this subchapter, 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 such transfer, including—
    (A) the identity, address, telephone number of the new creditor; (B) the date of transfer; (C) how to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the new creditor; (D) the location of the place where transfer of ownership of the debt is recorded; and (E) any other relevant information regarding the new creditor.
    (2) Definition: As used in this subsection, the term “mortgage loan” means any consumer credit transaction that is secured by the principal dwelling of a consumer.
    Review the recorded documents and the file to determine if there have been any transfers. If the original lender is not the foreclosing party – which is determined by looking at the notice of default and notice of trustee sale – then there must have been a transfer which may be evidenced by a recorded assignment.
    12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(1) – If the servicer deems the loss mitigation application to be incomplete, the servicer must act affirmatively to complete the application. The servicer must exercise “reasonable diligence” to obtain any documents and information it claims to require to complete the application. “A complete loss mitigation application means an application in connection with which a servicer has received all the information that the servicer requires from a borrower in evaluating applications for the loss mitigation options available to the borrower. A servicer shall exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application” Reg. X, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(1).
    12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(A) – When initially made aware of a communication that can reasonably be deemed to be an application for loss mitigation, the servicer must promptly conduct a review to determine whether the communication represents a complete or an incomplete application. “If a servicer receives a loss mitigation application 45 days or more before a foreclosure sale, a servicer shall: (A) Promptly upon receipt of a loss mitigation application, review the loss mitigation application to determine if the loss mitigation application is complete” Reg. X, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(A)
    12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B)
    If the servicer determines that the application for loss mitigation is complete, it must send the borrower a notice acknowledging that the application is complete within five business days of receipt of the application. “Notify the borrower in writing within 5 days (excluding legal public holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays) after receiving the loss mitigation application that the servicer acknowledges receipt of the loss mitigation application and that the servicer has determined that the loss mitigation application is either complete or incomplete. If a loss mitigation application is incomplete, the notice shall state the additional documents and information the borrower must submit to make the loss mitigation application complete and the applicable date pursuant to paragraph (2)(ii) of this section” Reg. X, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B)
    The servicer must provide a written notice to the borrower describing the documents and information needed to complete the application “Notify the borrower in writing within 5 days (excluding legal public holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays) after receiving the loss mitigation application that the servicer acknowledges receipt of the loss mitigation application and that the servicer has determined that the loss mitigation application is either complete or incomplete. If a loss mitigation application is incomplete, the notice shall state the additional documents and information the borrower must submit to make the loss mitigation application complete and the applicable date pursuant to paragraph (2)(ii) of this section” Reg. X, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B)
    12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(2)(ii) – The “written notice” notice must include a “reasonable date” by which the borrower should submit the missing documents and information. “The notice required pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) of this section must include a reasonable date by which the borrower should submit the documents and information necessary to make the loss mitigation application complete” Reg. X, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(2)(ii)
    Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) requires a notice of incompleteness within 30 days. SD 09-08 specifically incorporates ECOA’s notice provisions. SD 10-01 expressly states the notice provisions, which precisely mirror ECOA’s notice requirements: Within 30 calendar days from the date an Initial Package is received, the servicer must review the documentation provided by the borrower for completeness. If the documentation is incomplete, the servicer must send the borrower an Incomplete Information Notice …. If the borrower’s documentation is complete, the servicer must either: Send the borrower a Trial Period Plan Notice; or make a determination that the borrower is not eligible for HAMP and [send a Non Approval Notice]. See SD 10-01
    2014 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Mortgage Rules Overview
    Governing Rules
    Judges Standing Order
    District (Northern, Central, Eastern or Southern) Local Rules
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
    Analysis
    Facts of the case
    Precedent – Stare Decisis
    Use of Glaski (see above)
    Forum Analysis & Filing of Both Federal & State Cases Simultaneously – (PROD)

    Closing Remarks & Comments – (George/PROD)

  2. @David, Charles others good info though. Definitely can be useful when ready for court, pursuing damages. Void note on basis of TILA rescission or void substitution of trustee in CA strong steps to force pretender lender to prove their case.

  3. We all have to let media, elected officials know the crisis is NOT over!
    http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/08/foreclosure_crisis_continues_t.html

  4. A title search give you the idea of why there not a lien placed on the property. And in this case I am talking about Washington Mutual Bank’s (WaMu) Ginnie Mae MBS where we know for a fact that it was legally impossible for about lender to purchase these federal loans placed into WaMu MBS.

    They fake most of you out playing as if JPMorgan purchase $140 billion dollars of loans for $1.9 billion along with billions of dollar of brick and mortar bank operation. However the FDIC could not sell loan that were suppose to be the underlying collateral for the WaMu MBS.

    If you got any doubt that this did not occur just look at this week when the FDIC settled of a settlement to JPM for $645 million let you know for $1.3 billion cannot buy $140 billion in loans that there no way to transfer the Notes because they are the possession of Ginnie Mae that Wells Fargo Bank is the custodian of!

    This is why Neil is talking about UCC9!

  5. You guys still ain’t getting it. Title search, audits will only show what’s on the record. You want to show broken chain, clouded title, void instruments, docs etc.

    If I were Travesty I would file CFPB complaints, bk whatever it takes to stop sale but quit trying to figure it out and “fixing” it for them. Sounds like he has plenty to assert broken chain of title, invalid transaction, unreliable evidence of authority etc.But DON’T ADMIT ANYTHING, default, debt etc to these strangers to the purported loan, court.

  6. Here the deal and that is that Wells Fargo was trying to hide the fact of what they were doing and they transferred a lot of loans to Ocwen and Ocwen is now in legal trouble as they like Wells were not underwriting these loans for any of the HAMPs as was verified that no “borrower notices” where forward to the homeowner. You see with every underwritten loan the notice starts the 30day rebuttal period of the NPV!

    Have a title search run and it will show what the chain of title is (cost$100)

  7. Our 20 years home foreclose and sold for $75.000 2015 by Bank of America . $83.000 1995 Countrywide with VA loan,when my husband retied from Army. Never barrow any money it was first mortgage,Since 2008 While applying over and over for modification loan due to my fathers illness finally we get On DEC 2012 for $127.000 modification loan ,but after we made 5 payments ,on May 2013 BOA sent us back only last payment and told us our home went To trustee sale by Shapiro&ingle foreclosure.As we asking BOA How why where the other payments gone , [bank told us stop paying for] and same time we were asking immediate [Due to foreclosure] Home Afordable Modification Program [HAMP] help .Mean time we were writing letters and looking for more legal help.We write and call all Legal aid,Hud,Us Justice dep, Attorney gen.Dep Va,[since my my husband retired from military]Harp,Tarp.Hope line . NC Congressman David Rouzer,All local Federal housing foreclosure agencys Countrywide/BOA settelment,OCC ,CFPB and President OBAMA so far we get bullied with no help and lost 21 years only home we had. BUT It is funny That BOA claim giving free homes for veterans .. I guess they take from one veteran to give others.. live the veteran homeless.

  8. travesty of justice… before you do anything else… see if your mortgage was was a MERS loan. Go to the website and plug in your information, and then look for the section that provides investor information… go to freddie’s website and get the exact day they purchased your loan, send a discovery demand for the lender title policy… the mortgagee clause will will show that your loan was securitized into an agency trust with Freddie, go over your appraisal, with a qualified attorney and file a counter claim against Freddie for origination fraud claiming they knew or should have known that their bank agents conspired with the former GSE to knowingly originate mortgages with inflated property values.

    Do not listen to anyone that tells you not to hire an attorney with a solid background in finance… they are not cheap, but you cannot do this yourself.

  9. my servicer is , OCWEN LOAN SERVICING. BUT IT’S WELLS FARGO N.A AS TRUSTEE, FOR BLANK A BLANK TRUST.

    SO I CHECKED ON THERE SYSTEM. ON PHONE, AND ASK WELLS FARGO TO CHECK THE LOAN NUMBER , AND IF THEY HAVE SUCH A LOAN WITH THERE BANK. NOPE. NOTHING THERE. THEY SAID, I KNOW THIS. BUT JUST CHECKING.

    SO THEY SENT ME TO THE MORTGAGE UNIT, TO SEE IF THEY HAD ANYTHING. NOPE NOTHING THERE. EITHER. HUM. I KNOW THIS.

    SO I FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE CFPB , ABOUT IT. AND ASK
    THEM HOW COULD A BANK THAT SAYS THEY DONT OWN MY MORTGAGE AND NOTE, NOW COME INTO COURT AND SAY WE DO, BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. SO AM ASKING THE BANK. WELLS FARGO&COMPANY, THE PARENT, TO GIVE ME A LETTER FROM THEM STATING THAT . WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, AND ALL OUR AFFILIATE’S, AND SUBSIDIARY’S, DO NOT HOLD THE MORTGAGE AND NOTE . AS THEY DONT.

    SO THAT WAS SENT TO THEM TODAY BY THE CFPB. AND I SENT THEM ONE MYSELF. SO WE WILL SEE WHAT THEY SAY.

    IF WHAT AM ASKING FOR COMES BACK, AS TO SAY WHAT I THINK THEY WILL SAY. LOOK OUT. THEN I WILL TAKE THAT DOWN TO REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND FILE SUIT ON THEM, FOR ALLOWING A ASSIGNMENT PUT ON MY LAND TO SOMEONE THAT DOESN’T OWN MY MORTGAGE AND NOTE, AND HERE IS THE LETTER FROM CEO, AND BOARD OF DIRECTOR STATING THEY DONT OWN MY MORTGAGE AND NOTE. .

  10. you said wells fargo is servicer, so on your foreclosure notice who is wells fargo servcer saying they are foreclosing for. abc no trust, 2006, etc.who names.

  11. Here is the deal and that is that there are only two party with a financial interest in government insure loans as the bank lent the money and the borrower is paying a principle & interest payment. One party in the lender put the idea of a loan in a MBS which is not a tangible item and the borrowers are not even award of this post financial arrangement.

    The FDIC declared WaMu a “failed bank” on Sept 25, 2008 and if an action of default was not address before the bank stop existing can never be brought forward after the fact as WaMu does not exist. Its why the OCC made Wells Fargo Bank pay $70 million penalty for not correctly calculating the escrow accounts on loans applying for the HAMP, FHA HAMP and VA HAMP, as WaMu loans were included into this fraud!

    WaMu took a gamble and allowed Wells to take possession of all the 1.3 million government insured loans of the bank, but loss $140 billion in those loan and was part of the $335 billion the bank lost!

    Remember by law Ginnie Mae cannot buy or sell a mortgage loan!

  12. If you make the note issue only a matter of stopping a foreclosure you’re probably screwed or your lawyer screwed you. Note issue should support specific claims of fraud and comes back to basics of contract alot of us started with but were ignored. Don’t admit/ acknowledge default, valid debt, party and use your own discovery of different note copies, forgeries etc that supports note theory, false claims, broken chain etc.

  13. Travestyofjustice all you got to do is read Holms v. Wells Fargo Bank Freddie Mac and remember the $13 million judgement.

    It sound as if Fannie like Freddie and they don’t have a paper trail of purchasing the debt. Its clear that Commerce Bank was acting as a bank funding the loans in a correspondent lending arrangement as my bank in Great Western Bank (Omaha NE) was in, and we would use the rates of several different large bank and promise that we would sell the loan to these banks.

    We who fund the loans with our bank’s money and from two week to a month the loan would be reviewed by their purchasing/closing dept and a check was sent to our mortgage dept that the deal was done. We cut a check from our funds for the entire purchase of the property being purchase and that amount was accounted for plus the yield we locked that loan in, and that loan had to be delivered by the lock expiration date of the lock, or we would have to eat that loan and it would remain on our books until we could sale it of refinance the person out of that loan!

    We would sign an endorsement to whatever bank as in Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) or Wells Fargo Bank etc and it would state that banks name. When those FHA or VA loan were placed into a FHA or VA pool of loans that were Ginnie Mae it would have a blank endorsement and as with WaMu and this is a fatal mistake of the Ginnie Mae program!

  14. @ David …. I am in New Jersey

    The servicer, Wells Fargo is foreclosing on my property

  15. 7 CFR 1962.27 – Termination or satisfaction of chattel security instruments.

    (e) Satisfaction or termination of lien when old loans cannot be identified. When a request is received for the satisfaction of a crop or chattel lien, or for the termination of a financing statement and the status of the account secured by the lien cannot be ascertained from County Office records, the County Supervisor will prepare a letter to the Finance Office reflecting all the pertinent information available in the County Office regarding the account. The letter will request the Finance Office to tell the County Supervisor whether the borrower is still indebted to Rural Development and, if so, the status of the account. If the Finance Office reports to the County Supervisor that the account has been paid in full or otherwise satisfied or that there is no record of an indebtedness in the name of the borrower, the County Supervisor is authorized to issue a satisfaction of the security instruments on Form RD 460-4 or other approved form or to effect the satisfaction by marginal release, or a termination on Form RD 462-12 as appropriate.

  16. § 8-102. DEFINITIONS.
    (a) In this Article:

    (1) “Adverse claim” means a claim that a claimant has a property interest in a financial asset and that it is a violation of the rights of the claimant for another person to hold, transfer, or deal with the financial asset.

    (2) “Bearer form,” as applied to a certificated security, means a form in which the security is payable to the bearer of the security certificate according to its terms but not by reason of an indorsement.

    (3) “Broker” means a person defined as a broker or dealer under the federal securities laws, but without excluding a bank acting in that capacity.

    (4) “Certificated security” means a security that is represented by a certificate.

    (5) “Clearing corporation” means:

    (i) a person that is registered as a “clearing agency” under the federal securities laws;

    (ii) a federal reserve bank; or

    (iii) any other person that provides clearance or settlement services with respect to financial assets that would require it to register as a clearing agency under the federal securities laws but for an exclusion or exemption from the registration requirement, if its activities as a clearing corporation, including promulgation of rules, are subject to regulation by a federal or state governmental authority.

    (6) “Communicate” means to:

    (i) send a signed writing; or

    (ii) transmit information by any mechanism agreed upon by the persons transmitting and receiving the information.

    (7) “Entitlement holder” means a person identified in the records of a securities intermediary as the person having a security entitlement against the securities intermediary. If a person acquires a security entitlement by virtue of Section 8-501(b)(2) or (3), that person is the entitlement holder.

    (8) “Entitlement order” means a notification communicated to a securities intermediary directing transfer or redemption of a financial asset to which the entitlement holder has a security entitlement.

    (9) “Financial asset,” except as otherwise provided in Section 8-103, means:

    (i) a security;

    (ii) an obligation of a person or a share, participation, or other interest in a person or in property or an enterprise of a person, which is, or is of a type, dealt in or traded on financial markets, or which is recognized in any area in which it is issued or dealt in as a medium for investment; or

    (iii) any property that is held by a securities intermediary for another person in a securities account if the securities intermediary has expressly agreed with the other person that the property is to be treated as a financial asset under this Article.

    As context requires, the term means either the interest itself or the means by which a person’s claim to it is evidenced, including a certificated or uncertificated security, a security certificate, or a security entitlement.

    (10) [reserved]

    (11) “Indorsement” means a signature that alone or accompanied by other words is made on a security certificate in registered form or on a separate document for the purpose of assigning, transferring, or redeeming the security or granting a power to assign, transfer, or redeem it.

    (12) “Instruction” means a notification communicated to the issuer of an uncertificated security which directs that the transfer of the security be registered or that the security be redeemed.

    (13) “Registered form,” as applied to a certificated security, means a form in which:

    (i) the security certificate specifies a person entitled to the security; and

    (ii) a transfer of the security may be registered upon books maintained for that purpose by or on behalf of the issuer, or the security certificate so states.

    (14) “Securities intermediary” means:

    (i) a clearing corporation; or

    (ii) a person, including a bank or broker, that in the ordinary course of its business maintains securities accounts for others and is acting in that capacity.

    (15) “Security,” except as otherwise provided in Section 8-103, means an obligation of an issuer or a share, participation, or other interest in an issuer or in property or an enterprise of an issuer:

    (i) which is represented by a security certificate in bearer or registered form, or the transfer of which may be registered upon books maintained for that purpose by or on behalf of the issuer;

    (ii) which is one of a class or series or by its terms is divisible into a class or series of shares, participations, interests, or obligations; and

    (iii) which:

    (A) is, or is of a type, dealt in or traded on securities exchanges or securities markets; or

    (B) is a medium for investment and by its terms expressly provides that it is a security governed by this Article.

    (16) “Security certificate” means a certificate representing a security.

    (17) “Security entitlement” means the rights and property interest of an entitlement holder with respect to a financial asset specified in Part 5.

    (18) “Uncertificated security” means a security that is not represented by a certificate.

    (b) Other definitions applying to this Article and the sections in which they appear are:

    Appropriate person Section 8-107

    Control Section 8-106

    Delivery Section 8-301

    Investment company security Section 8-103

    Issuer Section 8-201

    Overissue Section 8-210

    Protected purchaser Section 8-303

    Securities account Section 8-501

    (c) In addition, Article 1 contains general definitions and principles of construction and interpretation applicable throughout this Article.

    (d) The characterization of a person, business, or transaction for purposes of this Article does not determine the characterization of the person, business, or transaction for purposes of any other law, regulation, or rule.

  17. TravestyOfJustice, who is trying to foreclose on you, in what named entity. and were are you located/ am in mass!

  18. @ Iwantmynpv. …. What is your opinion of the best tactic to use for the homeowners? Attack the origination? The initial funding? How?

    What about those of us who have not been told our loan is part of a mbs trust?

    I believe mine was, but they have never divulged any info about it.

    I refinanced with Commerce Bank 2004 …

    They immediately signed endorsed the note Pay to the order of WAMU

    WAMU was about to go under and Wells Fargo became my servicer

    Wells Fargo replied to my QWR saying Fannie Mae owns my loan and that they became owner in 2007 at the time WAMU was exiting and Wells Fargo was becoming my New servicer …

    But Fannie Mae told me on the phone that they aquired my loan in December of 2004 … The origination refinance was Oct. 2004 when Commerce table funded and signed the note to Washington Mutual

    MERS also shows Fannie Mae as owner of my loan ..as does the Fannie Mae website …since 2004 …yet Wells Fargo says since 2007 ??

    And on my homeowners insurance someone had them put in as the first mortgages as Am Trust Bank of Ohio, who was connected with Fannie Mae mbs ?? They went out of business.

    So it appears Fannie Mae owns my loan, yet have never told me of a trust or anything? They might not have any proof of where it is?

    Why didn’t Fannie file the foreclosure against me if they own the loan?

    So in my case I can’t even argue about trusts and PSA’s …my plaintiff is a third party servicer Wells Fargo ..

    Before I lose my house, I deserve to at last see the proof of funding at the origination in 2004 refinance …the chain of title and proof of purchase from Washington Mutual upon closing when the pretender lender Commerce Bank immediately signed it over to WAMU PRIOR to the closing …

    Fannie Mae claims they owned my loan at the same time, from the point of 2 months after origination in 2004

    So where is the proof WAMU sold it to Fannie Mae in 2004?

    Wells Fargo is foreclosing …they say they are holders of the note and mortgage and that is all that is needed to foreclose…and the courts agree

    Wells Fargo contradicts Fannie Mae and says FNMA became owner in 2007 …not in 2004 as Fannie and MERS both say.

    Discrepancies abound.

    Who really owns this loan? And who can prove they purchased it?

    This is the basis of my complaint to the CFPB…they sent my complaint to Wells Fargo …and the reply has supposedly been sent.

    I will post Wells Fargo response to the CFPB inquiry …

    In the meantime I will be working with my attorney to craft my appeal of my case …We are waiting for court transcripts

    Wells Fargo has the final judgment and can still take my house while IT is under appeal

    They don’t stay sheriffs sales while foreclosures cases are being appealed .. You would need to put up a bond

  19. (18) “Uncertificated security” means a security that is not represented by a certificate.

    (b) Other definitions applying to this Article and the sections in which they appear are:

    Appropriate person Section 8-107

    Control Section 8-106

    Delivery Section 8-301

    Investment company security Section 8-103

    Issuer Section 8-201

    Overissue Section 8-210

    Protected purchaser Section 8-303

    Securities account Section 8-501

    (c) In addition, Article 1 contains general definitions and principles of construction and interpretation applicable throughout this Article.

    (d) The characterization of a person, business, or transaction for purposes of this Article does not determine the characterization of the person, business, or transaction for purposes of any other law, regulation, or rule.

  20. § 8-201. ISSUER.
    (a) With respect to an obligation on or a defense to a security, an “issuer” includes a person that:

    (1) places or authorizes the placing of its name on a security certificate, other than as authenticating trustee, registrar, transfer agent, or the like, to evidence a share, participation, or other interest in its property or in an enterprise, or to evidence its duty to perform an obligation represented by the certificate;

    (2) creates a share, participation, or other interest in its property or in an enterprise, or undertakes an obligation, that is an uncertificated security;

    (3) directly or indirectly creates a fractional interest in its rights or property, if the fractional interest is represented by a security certificate; or

    (4) becomes responsible for, or in place of, another person described as an issuer in this section.

    (b) With respect to an obligation on or defense to a security, a guarantor is an issuer to the extent of its guaranty, whether or not its obligation is noted on a security certificate.

    (c) With respect to a registration of a transfer, issuer means a person on whose behalf transfer books are maintained.

  21. § 8-116. SECURITIES INTERMEDIARY AS PURCHASER FOR VALUE.
    A securities intermediary that receives a financial asset and establishes a security entitlement to the financial asset in favor of an entitlement holder is a purchaser for value of the financial asset. A securities intermediary that acquires a security entitlement to a financial asset from another securities intermediary acquires the security entitlement for value if the securities intermediary acquiring the security entitlement establishes a security entitlement to the financial asset in favor of an entitlement holder.

  22. § 8-104. ACQUISITION OF SECURITY OR FINANCIAL ASSET OR INTEREST THEREIN.
    (a) A person acquires a security or an interest therein, under this Article, if:

    (1) the person is a purchaser to whom a security is delivered pursuant to Section 8-301; or

    (2) the person acquires a security entitlement to the security pursuant to Section 8-501.

    (b) A person acquires a financial asset, other than a security, or an interest therein, under this Article, if the person acquires a security entitlement to the financial asset.

    (c) A person who acquires a security entitlement to a security or other financial asset has the rights specified in Part 5, but is a purchaser of any security, security entitlement, or other financial asset held by the securities intermediary only to the extent provided in Section 8-503.

    (d) Unless the context shows that a different meaning is intended, a person who is required by other law, regulation, rule, or agreement to transfer, deliver, present, surrender, exchange, or otherwise put in the possession of another person a security or financial asset satisfies that requirement by causing the other person to acquire an interest in the security or financial asset pursuant to subsection (a) or (b).

  23. U.C.C. – ARTICLE 8 – INVESTMENT SECURITIES (1994)

  24. § 8-407. AUTHENTICATING TRUSTEE, TRANSFER AGENT, AND REGISTRAR.
    A person acting as authenticating trustee, transfer agent, registrar, or other agent for an issuer in the registration of a transfer of its securities, in the issue of new security certificates or uncertificated securities, or in the cancellation of surrendered security certificates has the same obligation to the holder or owner of a certificated or uncertificated security with regard to the particular functions performed as the issuer has in regard to those functions.

  25. neil, and everyone else. DONT FORGET THIS. ONCE A MORTGAGE WAS CONVERTED TO A STOCK CERTIFICATE. ALL RULES CHANGE. THE NOW, DESTROYED MORTGAGE AND NOTE. REMEMBER , UNDER SECURITY LAWS. YOU CAN NOT HAVE , A STOCK CERTIFICATE AND MORTGAGE / AND NOTE REPRESENTING THE SAME OBLIGATIONS. TO BE OPERATING AT SAME TIME.

    AND YOU ALL SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/8/8-401

  26. iwantmynpv, yes you are correct. This is getting to be a bunch of gobbledgook and you will find yourself tossed out on your once front lawn by the time this crap all plays out. lawyers will come up with anything and drag it out for an eternity until you are broke and homeless. if you have the time and strength and KNOWLEDGE to keep fighting, more power to you but if you dont, cut your losses while you still can and move on. Nothing is going to change anytime soon and remember you will not be taking the house to the grave with you. If there is any hope of a lawyer getting some justice for you, I say it lies with a personal injury attorney for pain and suffering more than anything. we all know the banks scammed the homeowner, investor, the govt, but it apparently does not matter.Dont fall for new court tricks/laws, until the attitude changes with the judges, no new approach will make a difference either. Face it us homeowners have been robbed. Just remember a lesson bought is a lesson taught.

  27. usedkarguy, the only problem with the investors complaint… third party homeowners have no right to stand in their shoes or bring an action based on the terms of the Trust Agreement, PSA or other corridor agreements.

    Homeowners should answer every complaint… stating that the homeowner is either the owner or holder of the property at suit , or has been given the authority to defend the action by the deeded holder. When homeowners start talking about their individual capacity in terms of being recognized as corporation, we can really throw all the vague pleading shit out the window.

    As far as homeowners understanding the UCC or getting discovery based on anything other then possession, it’s a short road to summary judgment, and they will be telling that story to the sheriff as he/she are moving the family’s belongings onto the front lawn.

    “but, but Mr. Sheriff… my note was a security instrument and the mortgage was transferred pursuant to 9 versus 3, and my note was physically delivered pursuant to UCC 3 versus 9.

    To which the Sheriff quickly responds… “Mr. Smith, where would you like as to drop the couch” Section 3 of the law or section 9 of the lawn… section 2 is already filled with the items from your kids bedroom.

    Folks, get a lawyer… attack the loan for deficiencies that occurred at inception, versus, second market transfers.

    The Judge could not give a rat’s ass about how the loan got to the guy suing you, they only care that someone gave you money and you did not pay it.

    This is how it is being played out… with a new twist. Now the servicer is suing with rights of possession, and then placing the in stead after the judgment of foreclosure and sale has been issued, all based on an Affidavit from the same servicer… which points to a COPY of a note that bears an indorsement in blank.

    It’s a big scam, and the consumer is the only a small part of the show.

  28. usedkarguy has it right. Once again, investors were sucked in purchasing cash flow, versus ownership rights of the assets that were pooled. The notes are not endorsed because the notes are actually pledged as collateral with the BIS to secure the swap transaction(s).

    Folks should be looking a little more closely at the tranches and whom the certificate investors truly are for the highest tier.

  29. Many of the notes were never sold nor transferred. They were PLEDGED. They also never made it to the “bankruptcy remote SPV”.
    How many of you have really found the source of funding on your original transaction? How many of these foreclosures are executed by FAUX PLAINTIFFS with no recorded interest or proper endorsement chains? Virtually all of them. Copies of copies, cut and pasted signatures, rubber stamped endorsements, or no note at all. Original notes are non-existent. And if they do exist, they never moved. Funding, consideration, and forgery are the issues. And the PSA will be used by the borrower to prove the fraudulent non existent transaction. UCC is very clear, and they go from 9 to 3 depending on the story they decide to tell. It’s all phony.
    And Hammer, the investor complaints make great exhibits, don’t they?

  30. The Pretender lender in my case quickly added a fake endorsement.

  31. So if I followed your logic – where would the funds have come from?

  32. Masjesticone the original lender creates a Ginnie Mae MBS out of their loans that are free of any debt but to the lender, and they pool all these loans together and sell the creation with does not involve purchasing mortgage loan as these folks are not mortgage lenders and they cannot purchase mortgage loans legally.

    So what the investors are doing is giving the lender who is now called the issuer, and they extent draws of money against the MBS, so the lender/issuer is returning the draw it taken to make more loans and that what they are returning to Ginnie Mae as a payback. This is a post home loan closing event and actually has nothing to do with the buying back a loan because no loan was sold. The reason the Blank Notes were relinquished is bank would run off and sell these loans when they were committed to the Ginnie Mae MBS!

  33. The way I’ve attacked it was to point to the settlement statement claiming payoff and demanded paid note. So I challenged the purported transaction from the start. Then when “New” investor came in I demanded proof of their transaction and asserted it was not a valid transaction per the settlements and contract. Also looking at UCC. For the first time it seems an INVESTOR is taking this approach and acknowledging harm to homeowners! Schneider v Chase qui tam case.

  34. So, even if the Original Lender is the one who wants foreclose, they would still have to buy the loan back.

  35. Your correct Ginnie never purchases anything but what the lenders are purchasing back is the advantage the lenders took from the investors who purchase the 100% insured MBS! The investor are not purchasing mortgage loans but a MBS.

    This is were most get confused when there is a talk of a buy back, but the homeowners are not involved in the transaction and most 99.9% did not know who Ginnie Mae was!

  36. Remember – Ginnie insures the loss. So if they have to purchase it back from them, they insure the loss. Ginnie never puchases anything.

  37. That seems contrary, because actually Ginnie says that if they intend to the Pretender Lender wants to foreclose, they have to purchase it from Ginnie because everything was transferred absolute.

  38. The UCC9 says if the requesting lender is the originating lender then no proof of purchase is needed, however if that not that case then the entity requesting the loan due must present proof of purchase.

    It only make sense that since Ginnie Mae is caught that the blank Notes are not being relinquish because once the Blank Notes are physically transferred there no legal way to transfer the Blank Notes back as Ginnie by law cannot purchase the debt and cannot petition the courts to act on a Note that does not have a financial interest in. Ginnie Mae is not listed as the owner on these Notes!

  39. Now it appears they aren’t even transferring the docs to GINNIE MAE but still securitizing the loan.

  40. So Mortgages cannot be legally enforced because they never purchased the Note? How are you guys framing your arguments as it relates to the Banks alleging that they lent you money?

  41. I ask again… what commercial entity are you signing for, on behalf of to be subject to UCC anything? It is not within the provisions or either the Note or the DOT except where “local laws” are specifically mentioned!!!!
    and even if it were… UCC 3 can not apply as it does not fit the “general definition” “an unconditional promise to pay” and does not fit the exact definition, “payable on demand”.
    so it is not a “negotiable instrument as defined!!! Grrrr and can not be treated as one… and can not be converted into “bearer paper” nor allows for an assignment but only a “transfer” a “taking” and “is entitled to payments under this Note” to be called the “Note Holder”
    And the DOT does not secure the Note!!!! a copy of the alleged Note!!! or an alleged assignment of an alleged copy of the alleged Note!!!
    It only secures the “debt evidenced by the Note to the “Lender at its option” and at the Lenders initiation of the action, not anyone else.

  42. I don’t have a court case but I have a HUD 2010 investigation and a filed SEC Whistleblower case from Feb 2012 that just been verified by my Senator that yes it was received, and it not been adjudicated yet after over 4yrs.

    However you can read about Wells Fargo Bank being order to pay the OCC $70 million on May 26, 2016, for miscalculating the escrow of the Fed Gov HAMPs and instead Wells Fargo illegally foreclosed on these Ginnie pooled loans while they were not owner of the debt. As in the case of the 1.3 million WaMu Fed Gov insured loans!

  43. Do you have a court case I can look up? What say you when the Mortgage company tries to endorse the Note and say that they are the Holder?

  44. The deal is that the Ginnie Mae MBS were not underwritten for any of the HAMPs and instead illegally foreclosed. Take Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) who was seized on Sept 25, 2008 and in doing so they showed they did not have any financial interest in the 1.3 million government insured loans (FHA, VA, USDA) as the loan Notes were relinquished to Ginnie Mae when they were placed into the MBS. Remote bankruptcy procedure when the Notes are sign endorsed in blank and physically transferred set in motion a one way non-reversible event because the debt was not purchase and the holder of the blank Notes cannot petition any court as under UCC9. Neither Wells or Ginnie or HUD is able to present evidence of a purchase and they have no claim!

  45. @ Charles Reed – I don’t get what you’re saying. What happened in your case?

  46. The English Central Bankers learned, early on, they should manipulate their intended victims from a place of concealment.

    As “puppet masters”.

    James Comey was on the executive board of a Chinese-English hybrid-bank, “HSBC”, aka “Hong Kong-Shanghai Banking Corporation” while that bank was using American Mortgages to launder terror and drug cartel money!!!!

    If you’re having a sandwich, call on James Comey;

    When it comes to the Clintons: He’s full of baloney.

    He’s not fixed for a hero

    More : submarine sandwich

    And there’s evidence now he can’t provide for a manwich.

    But his chicken is good

    And while his feathers are yellow,

    The Clintons have plucked him; he’s now boneless and mellow.

    He once was a slaw man but he’s now into a pickle

    While his digestion has turned and his appetite fickle.

    The United States is presently, under attack and that attack is being conducted from within our financial center. The attack comes, in the nature of a “Palace Coup”.

    The criminal, banking cartel attempting to use our own financial well-being as a weapon, directed against US, is doing so, in service to a Criminal Erosion of our Property Rights (fraudulent “REMIC Trusts” concealing fraudclosures of American Homes), the value of our currency (1200 Trillion owed to inter-bank, criminal behaviors, ie: laundering terror and drug money) and a coordinated effort, within Law Enforcement, to ignore and refuse to adhere to the “Rule of Law”.

    Eric Holder’s DOJ and Loretta Lynch’s DOJ know Bank of America, Wells Fargo and “HSBC” banks are using American Mortgages to launder terror and drug money.

    OUR OWN LAW ENFORCEMENT IS SELLING THE UNITED STATES DOWN THE RIVER SO A FOREIGN, CRIMINAL BANKING CARTEL CAN ROB US OF OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS!

    THEY ARE DOING SO IN ORDER TO COLLAPSE THE FINANCIAL CENTER OF THE US!

    THERE ARE CURRENTLY 1200 TRILLION FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OWED TO THEIR INTER-BANK CRIMINAL BEHAVIORS!!!!

    Every true patriot should ask themselves:

    “How is it that the English managed to preserve their currency, while every other currency (the wholly-insolvent, now-“hyper-inflationary”, “federal Reserve Notes”, included) has been targeted for destruction”?

    Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, the criminal, English-based, Central Bankers have managed, yet again, to preserve their currency of choice, “The English Pound”.

    President Obama, the Judas Goat…

    Uncle Tom at the tiller of the Big Banker’s Boat.

    Once colored a “donkey” for the DNC vote

    Now sinking, with Warren,

    Two turds that won’t float.

    President Obama is currently holding Fannie and Freddie hostage in order to rob minorities of their ability to use F&F to purchase a home.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-is-the-obama-administration-trying-to-keep-11-000-documents-sealed-20160418

    The President kidnapped F&F in 2008 and has been robbing the homes within the portfolios of “loans” within F&F and the investors to those portfolios of “loans”.

    The criminal bankers, like Hank Paulsen, from Goldman Sachs, explained 10% of the funds generated by F&F would be taken until the financial system stabilized. The President allowed this scam to go forward.

    The President did so in order to steal 100% of the profits owed from the “loans” within Fannie and Freddie so he could reward his masters, the criminal, English-Based, Central Banking Cartel, with those profits.

    The President is trying to help his masters, the criminal bankers, to re-capitalize after they have destroyed themselves. (Google: “1200 Trillion and derivatives”, an impossible sum of money for any bank, or group of banks, to ever pay back).

    The President’s actions in concealing the central bankers’ “Insolvency”, is a NATIONAL DISGRACE” and his … er … ehem … “Law Enforcement Officials” are simply fronting for a Criminal Cartel.

    At the moment, Obama is “Lynching” the Nation.

    He is now just a scaffold for Clinton Castration.

    He reached within his chest of drawers

    To pack the Bureau with Clinton whores.

    The first of which, Loretta Lynch,

    Is just another Clinton Donkey;

    Grinding DNC organ,

    For the Clinton Monkey.

    And We The People must never forget the HSBC Banker:

    Now FBI Director Comey:

    A peerless Coward and Corruption’s Homey…

    So, PBO thought to himself: “While that monkey’s on Clinton’s back,

    “Let’s hire ourselves an FBI Hack”:

    Loretta the Mule.

    A sterile result for all to see, of Law Enforcement that sits to Pee.

    The thoroughly-bred Mule,

    Now on plantation,

    That won’t raise a hand to save the Nation.

    Lorretta Lynch and Eric Holder

    Two crimes of inaction; each bolder-than-bolder.

    Eric Holder, held US down while the banksters robbed homes in every town.

    They used the “MERS” to murder our dreams,

    And poison our children through criminal schemes.

    While, not so much as a one, has gone to jail,

    Through Holder’s NONSENSE… Of “Too Big To Fail”-

    I VOTE HOLDER, THE FIRST ONE TO NAIL.

    Barack Obama: no “American Lion”;

    While not quite above, putting the “lie-on”,

    For the crime that is Clinton; Democracy’s Canker

    And the Treason to Britain, as a “Federal … Reservation… Banker”.

    Now, not so much a riddle, while once there was Biddle;

    A “Tubman” to “Jackson”, Obama’s inaction, smacks of coercion and political faction.

    There’s nothing “Left” of Obama,

    While he’s now “Right” in the middle…

    A panned-cake, filled with BS of Bought-and-Sold,

    A nutless brownie, now burned by the griddle.

    Senator Sanders, We The People, Abe Lincoln’s Greenback Dollar.
    Investigate and Jail the Clintons
    Investigate and Jail the Bankers
    Investigate and Jail the Media as a full-blown Foreign Propaganda
    Investigate and Jail any politician that doesn’t go on the record to explain the intentionally mislabeled, “Federal Reserve” is a foreign, privately-owned and operated, front for an international criminal Cartel.

    Impeach Loretta Lynch. She is another Clinton Apologist and an international disgrace to LAW ENFORCEMENT!

    The Clintons and their fellow, corruption, aka, American Politicians, are also an international, Criminal Disgrace.

    Bring charges against Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer for criminal negligence.

    They and their law firm, Covington-Burling and The bankers and the corrupted political class have destroyed legal title to every home within the MERS- the “REMIC Trusts” are altogether, wholly-fraudulent.

    (see: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3399&context=wmlr),

    Read,the article, above, particularly p. 116, wherein, the author, Professor Christopher L. Peterson, formerly of S.J. Quinney Law School, now chief counsel of enforcement for the CFPB, explains the “MERS” as created as a “shell company” that is being used to “PRETEND” TO OWN SOME 70 MILLION RESIDENTIAL TITLES TO PEOPLE’S HOMES!)

    “PRETEND TO OWN PEOPLE’S HOMES”!!!!

    The two “shell companies” the bankers and corrupted politicians are using to rob the American Electorate are: 1) The Mortgage Electronic Registration System; the “MERS” … and 2) Residential Capital; “RESCAP”.

    3rd parties (drug and terror cartels) are cleansing their criminal proceeds, using 30-day, monthly mortgage payments, on “loans” that have already been paid, in-full, up-front, at the beginning of the “loan”…

    BEFORE THE FIRST PAYMENT WAS EVEN DUE!

    THINK ABOUT IT: THE BANKERS STOLE OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY (THE PENSION PLANS); THEN THEY PAID THE “LOANS”, IN-FULL; THEN THEY CLAIMED THOSE “LOANS” ENTERED LAWFUL ACCOUNTS (PROPERLY-RECORDED, IN REMIC TRUSTS); THEN, THEY STOLE THE PAPER CONTRACTS TO THOSE “LOANS” (THE LAWFUL TITLES); THEN, THEY USED THOSE TITLES TO CREATE BETS ON WALL STREET!

    The Pension Plans of the Police, firemen, teachers and municipal workers were stolen by the banks and the government, to pay the “loans” off before a single penny was due from the defrauded homeowners.

    Then the criminals created phony, hyper-fraudulent, “REMIC TRUSTs” with equally-phony, Pooling and Servicing Agreements “PSAs” to “PRETEND” to the SEC those “TRUSTS” are legitimate… They are not.

    There are no assets (homeowner “loans”) in the “REMIC Trusts”! They are EMPTY!!!!

    THE TITLES TO THESE HOMES ARE IRREVOCABLY CONTAMINATED AND NOW FRAUDULENT! (some 70 million American Homes).

    Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer and Covington-Burling’s activities, through their creation of the “MERS” and the robbing of fees owed to lawful recording among 3142 American Counties, have cost communities, across America, Billions, lost to legal accounting of lawful residential titles, that should have been used for “representative government” and fresh water for children…

    These criminal behaviors and criminal actors, are now responsible for the deaths of, at least, 11 children, in Flint, Michigan…

    To say nothing of the death of “representative government”.

    The Attorney’s General throughout all fifty states are also complicit in Criminal Negligence, through their inactivity, even as they refused to do their job in order to take a “pay-off” of 25 million dollars.

    (http://www.housingwire.com/articles/schneiderman-banks-agree-25-million-mers-deal).

    The English-based, central bankers, currently in residence to the intentionally-mislabeled “Federal Reserve (neither “Federal”, nor, possessing ANY “Reserves”)”, have hijacked Obama’s chapter 11 restructure of GM and they are using Fannie and Freddie to mask their “Insolvency”:

    https://timhoward717.com/2016/04/12/truth-unleashed-governments-scheme-exposed-full-unsealeddocument-release-enclosed/

    The Criminal, English-based, Central Bankers have destroyed themselves (Google: “1200 Trillion Dollars and Derivatives”) and they are attempting to install a new puppet: whether Trump or Clinton…

    Clinton deregulated “Derivatives”; now there are 1200 Trillion (an impossible amount of money, 20 times the combined GDP, of every country on this planet), owed to these criminal “bets”. It is a deliberate attack (as those fedbucks are now worthless) against what the bankers would like the American Electorate to believe is, “American Currency”.

    IT IS NOT “AMERICAN CURRENCY”. WE THE PEOPLE DON’T OWE IT…

    THE CRIMINAL BANKS OWE IT!!!!

    The good news is: Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, makes zero allowance for a privately-owned and operated, Criminal, Foreign, Cartel to manipulate American Currency.

    Not only have they have concealed, for 100 years, they are an imposter, they are, just now, hijacking our electoral process to install a puppet; whether Clinton or Trump, in order to conceal 1200 Trillions owed to their multitude of criminal behaviors.

    The Obama Administration is allowing it.

    Repudiate and Jail the Bankers; renounce their phony “Fed” “Notes”.
    Repudiate the phony Bankers’ debts; replace those with pro-rated Greenbacks.
    Jail any politician or media representative that doesn’t, immediately, confess the intentionally-mislabeled “federal Reserve” is a FRAUD of epic proportions.

    It is simply “TREASON” to allow any other procedure to go forward.

    Every true Patriot should question why the Chinese Yuan is now a minority partner in the American financial system: the intentionally-mislabeled, “Federal Reserve, neither Federal, while privately-owned and operated”, nor, possessing ANY “Reserves- our currency is created, out-of-thin-air”!

    WHY?

    Why is the present FBI Director concealing the crimes of a Chinese-English-hybrid Bank????

    Why is the DOJ of Holder and now, Lynch, concealing the crimes of a Chinese-English-hybrid Bank????

    American soldiers died while American Politicians and American “Law Enforcement” were busy concealing a criminal laundry, robbing homes and pensions, in order to steal property rights, in order to launder terror and drug money.

    Don’t believe me? You don’t need trust me.

    Instead, read this analysis of the “Deferred Prosecution Agreement- DPA”, below, written by Federal Judge Gleeson:

    Case 1:12-cr-00763-JG Document 23 Filed 07/01/13

    Federal Judge Gleeson and now, Federal Judge Ann Donnelly are both aware, HSBC is in violation of the “Anti-Money Laundering Acts”, “The International, Emergency Economic Powers Act”, “The Bank Secrecy Act” and “The Trading with Enemies Act”.

    In fact, as part of the sanctions imposed by Judge Gleeson, Wells Fargo and HSBC are now forbidden the “Servicing” of any new “loans”.

    American Soldiers had their homes stripped in foreclosures, predicated upon, counterfeit titles, forgery and fraud, so American “Law Enforcement” and Corrupted American Politicians could curry favor with criminal banks owned by foreign cartels.

    American soldiers died, at the hands of these cartels.

    Every true Patriot should ponder why it is the English Pound has managed to survive, intact, while every other currency on the planet has been undermined, in service to British lies about a phony war in the Middle East.

    In fact, the British used the American CIA, in “Operation Ajax (1953)”, to remove a democratically-elected president (Mossadeq), of the Iranian People. He was promising to eject the British and return the Iranian oilfields to the Iranian People.

    The US then installed Shah Pahlavi, a degenerate murderer of the highest order; American Awareness of the “Islamic Revolution” was born.

    Prior to British and American LIES, the Iranians were promising a “Bourse” to sell their oil to countries using any money, other than the US Dollar.

    Enter the EURO.

    The phony war in Iraq conspired to destroy the Euro and the victims it has consumed while continuing to consume Libya and Syria, in its aftermath, scream at the top of their lungs for retribution…

    Hence a phony “War on Terror”.

    The bright and shiny, “Brexit Bauble”, demands further scrutiny and it will never suffice, beyond a distraction, until the Criminal, English-based, Central Banking Filth are stripped of their ability to manipulate the well-being of America’s Finances, our service women and men and American Citizens… to say nothing of every Citizen of every Nation the present, Criminal Cartel destroys, while masquerading as the United States.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-money-exists-in-the-entire-world-in-one-chart-2015-12-18

    ~ Michael Keane copyright 6/25 2016
    Please feel free to share on FB.

    https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/08/24/new-york-judge-orders-release-of-hidden-documents/#comment-451045

  47. Here is my deal that anyone that read any of this for that last 4yrs knows this is the agreement I submitted in my Feb 2012 SEC Whistleblower claim, and I wrote about it here for at least 3yrs!

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: