Can you really call it a loan when the money came from a thief?

The banks were not taking risks. They were making risks and profiting from them. Or another way of looking at it is that with their superior knowledge they were neither taking nor making risks; instead they were creating the illusion of risk when the outcome was virtually certain.

Securitization as practiced by Wall Street and residential “mortgage” loans is not just a void assignment. It is a void loan and an enterprise based completely on steering all “loans” into failure and foreclosure.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

Perhaps this summary might help some people understand why bad loans were the object of lending instead of good loans. The end result in the process was always to steer everyone into foreclosure.

Don’t use logic and don’t trust anything the banks put on paper. Start with a blank slate — it’s the only way to even start understanding what is happening and what is continuing to happen. The following is what you must keep in mind and returning to for -rereading as you plow through the bank representations. I use names for example only — it’s all the same, with some variations, throughout the 13 banks that were at the center of all this.

  1. The strategic object of the bank plan was to make everyone remote from liability while at the same time being part of multiple transactions — some real and some fictitious. Remote from liability means that the entity won’t be held accountable for its own actions or the actions of other entities that were all part of the scheme.
  2. The goal was simple: take other people’s money and re-characterize it as the banks’ money.
  3. Merrill Lynch approaches institutional investors like pension funds, which are called “stable managed funds.” They have special requirements to undertake the lowest possible risk in every investment. Getting such institutional investors to buy is a signal to the rest of the market that the securities purchased by the stable managed funds must be safe or they wouldn’t have done it.
  4. Merrill Lynch creates a proprietary entity that is neither a subsidiary nor an affiliate because it doesn’t really exist. It is called a REMIC Trust and is portrayed in the prospectus as though it was an independent entity that is under management by a reputable bank acting as Trustee. In order to give the appearance of independence Merrill Lynch hires US Bank to act as Trustee. The Trust is not registered anywhere because it is a common law trust which is only recognized by the laws of the State of New York. US Bank receives a monthly fee for NOT saying that it has no trust duties, and allowing the use of its name in foreclosures.
  5. Merrill Lynch issues a prospectus from the so-called REMIC entity offering the sale of “certificates” to investors who will receive a hybrid “security” that is partly a bond in which interest is due from the Trust to the investor and partly equity (like common stock) in which the owners of the certificates are said to have undivided interests in the assets of the Trust, of which there are none.
  6. The prospectus is a summary of how the securitization will work but it is not subject to SEC regulations because in 1998 an amendment to the securities laws exempted “pass-through” entities from securities regulations is they were backed by mortgage bonds.
  7. Attached to the prospectus is a mortgage loan schedule (MLS). But the body of the prospectus (which few people read) discloses that the MLS is not real and is offered by way of example.
  8. Attached for due diligence review is a copy of the Trust instrument that created the REMIC Trust. It is also called a Pooling and Servicing Agreement to give the illusion that a pool of loans is owned by the Trust and administered by the Trustee, the Master Servicer and other entities who are described as performing different roles.
  9. The PSA does not grant or describe any duties, responsibilities to be performed by US Bank as trustee. Actual control over the Trust assets, if they ever existed, is exercised by the Master Servicer, Merrill Lynch acting through subservicers like Ocwen.
  10. Merrill Lynch procures a triple AAA rating from Moody’s Rating Service, as quasi public entity that grades various securities according to risk assessment. This provides “assurance” to investors that the the REMIC Trust underwritten by Merrill Lynch and sold by a Merrill Lynch affiliate must be safe because Moody’s has always been a reliable rating agency and it is controlled by Federal regulation.
  11. Those institutional investors who actually performed due diligence did not buy the securities.
  12. Most institutional investors were like cattle simply going along with the crowd. And they advanced money for the purported “purchase” of the certificates “issued” by the “REMIC Trust.”
  13. Part of the ratings and part of the investment decision was based upon the fact that the REMIC Trusts would be purchasing loans that had already been seasoned and established as high grade. This was a lie.
  14. For all practical purposes, no REMIC Trust ever bought any loan; and even where the appearance of a purchase was fabricated through documents reflecting a transaction that never occurred, the “purchased” loans were the result of “loan closings” which only happened days before or were fulfilling Agreements in which all such loans were pre-sold — i.e., as early as before even an application for loan had been submitted.
  15. The normal practice required under the securities regulation is that when a company or entity offers securities for sale, the net proceeds of sale go to the issuing entity. This is thought to be axiomatically true on Wall Street. No entity would offer securities that made the entity indebted or owned by others unless they were getting the proceeds of sale of the “securities.”
  16. Merrill Lynch gets the money, sometimes through conduits, that represent proceeds of the sale of the REMIC Trust certificates.
  17. Merrill Lynch does not turn over the proceeds of sale to US Bank as trustee for the Trust. Vague language contained in the PSA reveals that there was an intention to divert or convert the money received from investors to a “dark pool” controlled by Merrill Lynch and not controlled by US Bank or anyone else on behalf of the REMIC Trust.
  18. Merrill Lynch embarks on a nationwide and even world wide sales push to sell complex loan products to homeowners seeking financing. Most of the sales, nearly all, were directed at the loans most likely to fail. This was because Merrill Lynch could create the appearance of compliance with the prospectus and the PSA with respect to the quality of the loan.
  19. More importantly by providing investors with 5% return on their money, Merrill Lynch could lend out 50% of the invested money at 10% and still give the investors the 5% they were expecting (unless the loan did NOT go to foreclosure, in which case the entire balance would be due). The balance due, if any, was taken from the dark pool controlled by Merrill Lynch and consisting entirely of money invested by the institutional investors.
  20. Hence the banks were not taking risks. They were making risks and profiting from them. Or another way of looking at it is that with their superior knowledge they were neither taking nor making risks; instead they were creating the illusion of risk when the outcome was virtually certain.
  21. The use of the name “US Bank, as Trustee” keeps does NOT directly subject US Bank to any liability, knowledge, intention, or anything else, as it was and remains a passive rent-a-name operation in which no loans are ever administered in trust because none were purchased by the Trust, which never got the proceeds of sale of securities and was therefore devoid of any assets or business activity at any time.
  22. The only way for the banks to put a seal of legitimacy on what they were doing — stealing money — was by getting official documents from the court systems approving a foreclosure. Hence every effort was made to push all loans to foreclosure under cover of an illusory modification program in which they occasionally granted real modifications that would qualify as a “workout,” which before the false claims fo securitization of loans, was the industry standard norm.
  23. Thus the foreclosure became extraordinarily important to complete the bank plan. By getting a real facially valid court order or forced sale of the property, the loan could be “legitimately” written off as a failed loan.
  24. The Judgment or Order signed by the Judge and the Clerk deed upon sale at foreclosure auction became a document that (1) was presumptively valid and (b) therefore ratified all the preceding illegal acts.
  25. Thus the worse the loan, the less Merrill Lynch had to lend. The difference between the investment and the amount loaned was sometimes as much as three times the principal due in high risk loans that were covered up and mixed in with what appeared to be conforming loans.
  26. Then Merrill Lynch entered into “private agreements” for sale of the same loans to multiple parties under the guise of a risk management vehicles etc. This accounts for why the notional value of the shadow banking market sky-rocketed to 1 quadrillion dollars when all the fiat money in the world was around $70 trillion — or 7% of the monstrous bubble created in shadow banking. And that is why central banks had no choice but to print money — because all the real money had been siphoned out the economy and into the pockets of the banks and their bankers.
  27. TARP was passed to cover the banks  for their losses due to loan defaults. It quickly became apparent that the banks had no losses from loan defaults because they were never using their own money to originate loans, although they had the ability to make it look like that.
  28. Then TARP was changed to cover the banks for their losses in mortgage bonds and the derivative markets. It quickly became apparent that the banks were not buying mortgage bonds, they were selling them, so they had no such losses there either.
  29. Then TARP was changed again to cover losses from toxic investment vehicles, which would be a reference to what I have described above.
  30. And then to top it off, the Banks convinced our central bankers at the Federal Reserve that they would freeze up credit all over the world unless they received even more money which would allow them to make more loans and ease credit. So the FED purchased mortgage bonds from the non-owning banks to the tune of around $3 Trillion thus far — on top of all the other ill-gotten gains amounting roughly to around 50% of all loans ever originated over the last 20 years.
  31. The claim of losses by the banks was false in all the forms that was represented. There was no easing of credit. And banks have been allowed to conduct foreclosures on loans that violated nearly all lending standards especially including lying about who the creditor is in order to keep everyone “remote” from liability for selling loan products whose central attribute was failure.
  32. Since the certificates issued in the name of the so-called REMIC Trusts were not in fact backed by mortgage loans (EVER) the certificates, the issuers, the underwriters, the master servicers, the trustees et al are NOT qualified for exemption under the 1998 law. The SEC is either asleep on this or has been instructed by three successive presidents to leave the banks alone, which accounts for the failure to jail any of the bankers that essentially committed treason by attacking the economic foundation of our society.

91 Responses

  1. Yup totally blank page after fraudulent transfer from tbtf bankster to non bank. Doesn’t need at least a friggin title?

  2. This was not valid securitization. The securities were NOT derived from balance sheet assets which is required for a true securitization. So, we will get all sorts of invalid endorsements, assignments, discharges, and whatever else follows. Only way to cure the invalid documents is, unfortunately, foreclosure. Have to not only go to the origination of the refinance, but also to the prior recorded loan. And, if multiple refinances, prior to the prior one. Records? Destroyed. Need to have kept your own. Wire transfer? Not good enough. Have to then dig deeper. But, never focus on the last the refinance question.

  3. Anybody else seeing rubber-stamped endorsements in the middle of a blank piece of paper attached to notes used in foreclosure? Pay to the order of blank by I.M.Goofnuts all by itself.
    you know who I’m talking about…

  4. Great case Kalifornia. Still have a ways to go. Gets to the basics of contract law that should be focus, everything else tangential or background imo. Will help in countering bankster script repeated by officials and lawyers. Example of consideration and agreed transaction. We are always told any benefit and signature is all you need for contract.

  5. Most interesting case..neither party mentioned the missing signature

    …as mentioned in the footnote at the end. 😂

  6. Excellent Work Kalifornia!

    Exactly! A contract induced under misrepesentation/Trickety is VOIDABLE/ RECINDABLE !

    Especially when the royalties of the gift benefit a 3rd party and not ones own family estate.

  7. @ All:

    To be read broadly and cleverly, for your consideration is a Kalifornia Supreme Court Case on the issue of consideration, or lack thereof, for a contract to be valid — or not.

    More to follow…

    Simmons v. Cal. Institute of Technology, 34 Cal. 2d 264 – Cal: Supreme Court 1949

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17853078418934237133&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=4,5

  8. The Trustee is Holding Everything & Managing Your Beneficial Interest.

    Using your Signature as Authication & Authorizing Signature to Administer Your Estate they are creating a Constructive Trust and Delegating To Do Business In a Blind Trust.

    Until you understand the Trust structure and how it works,.
    You will NEVER take back the Power

    Hire Someone who understands,
    I know nothing, even if I did, I did’nt.
    I needed the bankster to pull the Trigger …. Suicide 🙈🙊🙉

    I am not licensed to practice law, nor do I give legal advice.

    I can Tell you That by Profession I AM THE MASTER OF REDIRECTION AND AS SO…THE MASTER SERVICER NEVER HAD A CHANCE.

  9. Godspeed

  10. I’m referring to the security instrument , the mortgage.

    I’m trying to explain how it is a cloud on title..
    And why its VOID,

    I didn’t need luck, I have God & I had an attorney.

    Good Luck to You!

  11. Shadowcat – There was no security — that is the problem. Once in default no security. The security is gone. The refinances were not valid. We were told they were valid but they were not. The “refinance” was just a restructuring of reported default debt. No value needed. Can’t transfer a charge-off asset. That is why we have a mess. But, good luck to you!!!

  12. Example…

    NOW COMES PLAINTIFF XYZ FSB, DOING BUSINESS AS CHRISTINE TRUST, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT AS TRUSTEE SOLELYFOR BCCAT2014_4TT

    That’s when you Nail Them!
    Hammertime 😂

  13. When I said en force the contract because one party failed to perform and is in breech of contract.,.

    We May …at a future date.
    Well…did you or did you not ?

    Implied con tracts cloud title.. .

    If a trust is the borrower or co-signer in a mortgage
    The trust must be listed as a borrower on the mortgage.
    And sign in trustee capacity

    A mortgage that fails to do so is VOID

    I WILL EXPRESS IMPLIED TRUST ?

    BUT I SHALL DENY BEING THE TRUSTEE UNTIL THE OTHERS PARTIES FAIL TO DENY OTHERWISE AND BY OPERATION OF LAW THE JUDGE SAYS SO. Them yep,,In Trustee

    Washing Titles & Covering Up Fraud with Foreclosures

    BAD TRUSTEE !!!!

  14. ANON, there are no collection rights without Value 1st.
    Without Value there is no right to attach to the collateral or enforcement rights under the security .

  15. Shadowcat – no value necessary if it was not a true mortgage to begin with. Loan was already reported in default prior to “refinance.”. Collection rights to debt transfer by assignment and not by value..

  16. The holder/plaintiff/servicer has given no value..
    When the lender is the borrower .
    That’s why they claim holder status, no Skin in the Game/Value.

    Without Value underr UCC9…
    Their is No authority to attach & enforce under the security agreement.

    Where did KCs money go?

  17. For attachment & Enforceability of a security instrument ..
    Requires Something to be done to move forward.

    ITS REQUIRES VALUE be exchanged.

    STANDING ON THE SIDELINES…STILL WAITING

  18. From a Friend, “While You’ve Been Sleeping”
    Scroll down to the bottom to the video bar where it says listen in here.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/2017-02-08/more-unbeliebeable-facts-us-goverments-own-financial-reports

  19. Try this or copy to browser
    http://teamupsignup.weebly.com

  20. address not connecting

  21. You can contact me here bit.ly/Si8EL5
    I’ll send email to invite u to private area and link to site that will give u idea of approach. Getting ready to make public if makes sense.

  22. Hammertime– agree — need to be able to get somewhere. This does NOT mean give up individual battles, by all means, continue. Experts here I am sure can help. However, we need to do more. Let me know more about your small group and how to contact you.

  23. Anon agree with everything u said but I would say the problems are being addressed in some places while Wall St interests are still the priority for both parties. I’m working with a small group to show how banksters continue to violate laws as well as the bias and corruption we face in agencies and courts. We want to do a group effort with a specific strategy from our perspective for a solution that comes from us. It’s been a challenge with all we’re going through but believe there’s potential.

  24. The problem is that we can’t get this information to anyone. The courts don’t understand or won’t understand. CFPB was set up for consumer complaints, after the crisis, but they can’t and won’t help individuals. We used to be able to go to our state DOJ. But, DOJ now sends complaints to the CFPB who can’t and won’t help. Senators/Congress don’t get it and won’t help. Doubt this administration will help anymore than the last administration who did nothing. Media portrayed homeowners/borrowers as the bad guys because that is what they were told. There is no place to go. Have to put faith in courts and that is not working, but we have no choice. Rare a court will understand or help. Homeowners were told their home was was valued at far more than it was worth at time of teh so-called “refinance.” Then, crisis was exposed, and home values collapsed and adjustable interest rates increased. Trapped, people defaulted on loans that they never realized were already classified as a default loan before the refinance. National Settlements occurred without investigation, and without any worthwhile compensation to the real victim homeowners.

    Have to beg for a modification – which is questionable in itself. How do you modify a loan with a defunct stated lender on fake refinance?

    And, there has been a cultural decline as a consequence of what occurred. .

    Does anyone know a good and fair journalist who can comprehend? Hard to find. The fraud lives on today. It is not over. It continues. There is nowhere to go.

    Many thanks to Neil who keeps the issues alive. A very smart guy, who needs more public/congressional exposure.

    As always, the truth will eventually be told. But, too late for most. Can’t fix what went wrong until it is acknowledged as to what really went wrong.

  25. It’s not what MERS can or can’t do. You WILL find fraud in their “data” and that is a source for counterfeit notes and bad debt collectors.

  26. MERS Facts:
    MERS has always responded to DOJ as never signing anything.
    MERS is a Rent a Name. Mirror Mirror
    MERS went into BK in 2002
    Everyone Knew MERS want real.

    MERS Reconstructed in 2012
    MERS maintains to DOJ. It doesn’t sign anything.

  27. Sounds like conspiracy, unclean hands in that context. Servicer should no longer be “active” if payment servicer. They could also be claiming to be beneficiary/investor fraudulently to gov’t or thru MERS. Any combination of fraud besides securitization FAIL possible. Where Garfield and many of us have been saying q uadrillions of derivatives make no sense. Violation if on transfer not given notice of debt validation and/or beneficiary, investor.

  28. Hammertime..fraudulent Misrepestation of amount owed.

  29. The loan was kept off balance sheet from the start gate…
    As the notes were not recorded with the mortgage as it would be in a traditional mortgage.

    The recorded mortgage is an encumbrance…not a mortgage lien.

    It creates a cloud of..We May or May have Nots.

    How the mortgage is endorsed in signing capacity is a VOID
    If not disclosed and endorsed in proper legal capacity.

  30. Hammertime — you are correct. It was presented as a mortgage. People paid for the costs for a mortgage.

    Shadowcat — good point.

    What was on financial institutions balance sheets were the toxic securities to the shell fake trusts. When the banks were bailed out, the government purchased the toxic securities and then sold to distressed debt buyer in a joint private/public program. The problem is that securities must be DERVIED from an asset -which they never were. Don’t want to repeat, but securization is the removal of an asset from on balance to off balance sheet. If this is case, then when a loan is paid off, or defaulted, the loan is removed from the trust to go back onto balance sheet to remove as an asset due to paid status, or charge off due to default. This does not happen for these loans,, the servicer for the bogus trust continues to debt collect for the distressed debt buyer.

    Does anyone think this is a violation of the FDCPA when that debt buyer is not disclosed by the servicer?

  31. Its homestead exemption rights they need waived .

    A Mortgage that fails to list the trust as a borrower or Cosigner on the Mortgage is VOID .
    An Implied Trust doesn’t cut the Mustard.

    We May..?

    Well…Did You or Did You Not?

    Nail’em!

  32. Shadow fraudulent claim of taxable income -> IRS fraud?

  33. An onymousNJ in similar situation. Used defense note/deed void after no court action by bankster in unlawful detainer. Past year to file for TILA damages but will assert note/deed void and other damages after unlawful foreclosure. UD court did not take up title issues but noted behavior of bankster and local government and that I could sue to “get my home back”. I gave up possession without waiving title rights.

  34. Your Honor, effective 20 days from receipt , the Plaintiff/Defendant has failed to follow mandatory guidelines of providing me with a payoff as I had offered tender. By doing so, not accepting tender, they rendered themselves without remedy .

    But when a creditor loans themself money as trustee or a party with beneficial interests in the trust … The Creditor is the Trustee .

    stated another way…
    The Borrower is the Lender!!

    Creditors of Beneficial Interests holders are Unsecured!

  35. Good info but you can’t throw TILA out the window. Was the “loan” as presented as you understood. Was the lender a or the lender, terms etc. If not then TILA violation. We were DECEIVED to believe there was a loan, mortgage so we have the right to rescind and cancel.

  36. Shadowcat. Partly right — the collection rights to the charge off is treated as income. That is – any cash collected is reported as income. But an income statement and Asset/Liability statement are two very different things. These loans are on no one’s Asset/Liability Balance Sheet. Without financial balance sheet accounting — just a debt.

  37. Charge Offs can not be sold as an asset …

    TRUE: But the charge off becomes taxable income.

  38. 20 Days and Done !!! The link below is to a previous article posted here on livinglies, … I wish I could have just copied these articles and included them in my Appeal …the Appeals judges should be required to read these articles and web blog … Unfortunately our appeals are limited to a certain number of pages … See how numbers always mean something to the courts? …except for the 20 days in TILA..
    https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/rescission-20-days-and-done/

  39. Will be interesting to see what happens AnonymousNJ My guess they will avoid the issue

  40. All of my worrying about my Appeal being lost over the issue of tender is due to the courts continuously disregarding the meaning of “20 Days”

    My appeal is really going to boil down to whether the Appellate penal of judges believes that the “20 days” stated in the statute has any legal meaning, purpose or effect.

    If they choose to ignore the fact that the servicer / non-creditor failed to act in the 20 days stipulated in the statute …then it will be interesting to see what their explanation and reasoning is ..that allows courts and creditors to ignore the 20 Day window with no consequences.

    Why is the 20 days stated if it doesn’t mean anything?

    Why do defendants lose the right to raise affirmative defenses because the statute of limitations has run out on those statutes?

    Why must you file for an appeal in a certain amount of days?

    So all of a sudden the 20 days in TILA Rescission means nothing?

    In NJ the courts precendent case seems to be Sherzer ..where the Court uses the part of TILA that allows a judge to change the order of sequence by making the borrower tender first … They love this little loophole because no homeowner has hundreds of thousands of dollars laying around to tender first ..

    My case is going to come down to the 20 day rule ..

    Anyone’s opinions on what the purpose and legal effect was of congress including it in the statute would be appreciated.

  41. ANYONE HERE, STILL THINK SCALIA JUST DIED
    IN HIS SLEEP ???

  42. Javagold – yes. No different from credit card debt. Footnote 35 to Inspector General TARP oversight Committee – November 2010 report: “Both the note and the mortgage need to be properly transferred. Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.” This is why people can only get loan modification – if they are lucky. Refinances were just restructuring of a debt — like settling with a credit card company over the credit card debt. And, so is a loan mod.

    I know courts have said that the mortgage follows the note, or vice versa. But, this is wrong. The last valid contract borrower had was with the Lender PRIOR to the refinance. That contract was gone when the “refinance” converted the loan into a debt – to be collected by a debt collector.for an empty shell conduit that held nothing but collection rights. If the mortgage is not an asset, or never was an asset, on someone’s balance sheet, the debt is unsecured. .

    Does anyone know whose balance sheet these loans are held as an asset? No one know because these loans are not on anyone’s asset balance sheet. . Charge-offs can not transferred as an asset.

    This is why we have bogus documents. . .

  43. I have been saying from 2009 here at LL, this debt is UNSECURED DEBT !!!

  44. A Thief who uses fraudulent documents to access your Social Security Monies….making you both the borrower and lender ?

  45. IAN is correct.

    This is a start…
    Title 18 1001
    Ficticous Conveyance of Language
    Title 15 1692e sec8ff
    False and Misleading Statements
    Title 18 242
    Deprivation Under Color of Law
    Title18 1341
    Mail Fraud..Using US Mail to deliver fraudulently conveyed documents
    Title 18 961
    RICO RICO
    PERGERY, RACKETEERING, TRICKING INTO JOINING A FRAUD

    Title 18 241
    Knowledge Of The Crime AND DID NOTHING TO STOP AND FIX IT
    Makes Them All Participants !!!

    AHA

    “We May” is a Future transadverb verb ..
    Meaning it does not exist in now time, its in the Future.

    Teach

  46. Ian is correct. All these loans are collected by debt collectors – whether or not one has ever defaulted. Yes – mostly all refinances. These loans went from on a bank’s balance sheet PRIOR to the refinance – and then straight to off balance sheet conduit after the refinance. For a securitization to be valid, the loans first had to have been first onto a bank’s balance sheet as asset. This did not happen. They went straight to a “shell” off balance sheet conduit. It is the security underwriters that purchased the “debt” and created the empty shells to hold it. These loans are not on anyone’s balance sheet, thus not an asset, and not a valid mortgage. Thus, not subject to closed end TILA violations. Can’t be rescinded. However, people were told it was a valid mortgage even though it was just restructured debt at the refinance. A purchase loan could be included, if one assumed prior owner’s “debt” with or without knowledge of it. But, purchase loans are few –mostly “refinances” that were not really a true refinance.

    Question is – where did the security underwriters purchase the debt from?

  47. To all- i have thought long and hard as to why all subprime/securitized loans were ONLY refinances. No purchase money loans, not a one. The loans all went from on-balance sheet portfolio loans to off-balance sheet SPV held loans, removed from sight and accountability.
    We know that the Federal Reserve is holding 3 trillion in MBS following their QE purchases of 85-100 bn$ /month for several years. And we know these MBS are for the most part worthless.
    When you hear “this call is from a debt collector…..”, we know that the FDCRA deals only with unsecured debt. A normal mortgage is secured, not unsecured. In dealing with a regular bank, they never preface their call with “this call is from a debt collector….”
    Anyone have anything to add to these musings?

  48. TILA turns the tables on burden of proof and banksters must be scared if they don’t show up or they know the system is corrupt. They have 20 days to vacate the rescision that’s the law. Judges ignoring this are helping banksters steal our homes under the color of law. When u sue for damages when bankster doesn’t take court action u possibly open the door.

  49. The practice of a creditor lending money to itself as the trustee OR
    to the benificaries upon the security of an interest in the in the land trust.
    The practice of a creditor lending to the trustee of the land trust OR the benificaries thereof upon the security of trust property OR their interests in the trust..
    EVEN THOUGH THE CREDITOR & TRUSTEE ARE THE SAME.

    The refinances are HELOCs. .focus on the purchase loans.

  50. Shadowcat — still need to know – whether judicial state or non-judicial state – what the heck happened to prior loan?. Without that – no explanation as to empty REMIC trusts. FDCPA applies to both judicial and non-judicial. And, TILA does not apply if the prior loan was not reported as paid by you because the current loan, if prior not reported as by paid by you, is not a mortgage, and not subject to TILA. . So — was prior loan reported as paid by you or not by the last refinance?. This applies to all. Robo signing does not count.

  51. Illinois Property
    765 ILCS 415/

    Land Trustees as Creditors Act

  52. Going about this the wrong way. If the loan was never a valid mortgage to begin with – Jesonski does not apply. TILA does not apply. RESPA does not apply. So — need to find out the particulars as to what happened to prior loan when the last refinance was so called executed.
    Until you find that out — nothing stands. And, that is what people have been missing.
    Where did the loan come from? And who was paid off, if anyone, by the last refinance? Are you recorded as paying off the prior loan? How was it reported? Most likely it was a GSE loan. How are you reported to them? Who paid it off – or PAID OUT??? Very different. .
    Must start at the very beginning. If you don’t do that, may have nothing, as TILA doesn’t even apply if never a valid mortgage to begin with. Doesn’t apply

  53. The truth is the Truth in Lending Act of 1968 never had any teeth. From the beginning courts routinely refused to enforce the provisions legislatively intended to be of the most benefit to consumers, those provisions relating to the order of tender.

    Common law rescission had been around for a long time. The order of tender required the borrower to tender either money, or property, back to the lender. Only then was the lender required to tender to the borrower. The intent of TILA was to put the borrower on stronger, more equal, footing by requiring the lender to tender first, and only then was the borrower required to tender. Statutory rescission was thus born.

    Instead of enforcing these provisions, the statutory rescission order of tender, courts unilaterally usurped power the legislature hadn’t given them by exercising … (cough) … judicial discretion, reordering the tender sequence intended by TILA.

    There was no penalty for the courts refusals to enforce the law. In fact the legislature allowed the tail to wag the dog and in the early 80’s changed 15 USC 1635 (b), adding a sentence to the end, “The procedures prescribed by this subsection shall apply except when otherwise ordered by a court.” See in entirety here:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1635

    Why was this legislative change made? Lifting a paragraph from Yamamoto is informative:

    “These changes followed in the wake of decisions by this court and others which held that the statute need not be interpreted literally as always requiring the creditor to remove its security interest prior to the borrower’s tender of proceeds. See, e.g., Palmer v. Wilson, 502 F.2d 860, 862-63 (9th Cir. 1974); Ljepava v. M.L.S.C. Props., Inc., 511 F.2d 935, 944 (9th Cir. 1975); LaGrone v. Johnson, 534 F.2d 1360, 1361-62 (9th Cir. 1976); Rudisell v. Fifth Third Bank, 622 F.2d 243, 253-54 (6th Cir. 1980); Powers v. Sims & Levin, 542 F.2d 1216, 1220-22 (4th Cir. 1976); but see Gerasta v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank, 575 F.2d 580, 585 (5th Cir. 1978).” Yamamoto v. Bank of New York, 329 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2003).

    The language “need not be interpreted literally” translates literally to “we won’t enforce that law.”

    The first, and oldest, case cited, Palmer v. Wilson, was decided on appeal in 1974. The case likely started in the district court shortly after passage of TILA in 1968. Rescission under the Truth in Lending Act of 1968 never had any teeth.

    Justice Scalia, in his opinion that favored Jesinoski, correctly held “rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor.” Did he realize such effect is rendered ineffective through the application of judicial discretion in the sequencing of tender?

    TILA lacking teeth I doubt the lenders, or courts, are worried about … being gummed to death.

  54. Well thats one of the missing points in the state courts discussions when they demand tender prior to forcing the non-complying creditor to return the note and remove the mortgage lien …there are multiple things to establish that are never addressed …

    – was the loan valid, legal and consummated ?
    – who is the Creditor?
    – has an independent accounting been conducted to prove the true valid amount owed?
    – how much do they owe me?
    – what does the 20 days stand for?
    – If they ignore for over a year and don’t act do they waive their remedies?
    – when they ignored and fail to comply are they responsible for the lost equity that the consumer lost due to declines in the market value?
    – tender first prevents the consumer from refinancing with a new lender in order to raise the tender funds and keep his property ..

    In my case the home was worth 300,000 when I rescinded

    Now its only worth 200,000 …they cost me 100,00 in lost equity due to their non-compliance

    The court wants to ignore all these questions and just give the free house to a party who is waving fabricated documents around, who is this stranger? And by what authority is he acting as owner / creditor?

    Lots of unanswered questions …

    The courts just want to know if you have The money to tender ..

    Very unfair

  55. My understanding is that claims, damages can be considered in calculation of tender. i have an article somewhere.

  56. This is the current NJ precedent regarding tender by 3rd District Court which covers NJ…here the judge ruled against the consumers TILA Rescission because they couldn’t tender the money ..they had rescinded in time and had filed a lawsuit to enforce the rescission and collect damages …the court wanted them to tender first which prevented them from raising the tender through sale of refinance of the home ..very unfair …even the Consumer Financial Protection Beurea says that tender can be raised after the creditor performs its duties , it would allow a consumer to go refinance with a new lender and in turn create the tender needed … Here the Court demanded tender first ..this is what my Appeal is going to have to overcome in NJ…but I believe that Scalia did address the Tender issue in the Jesinoski decision ..and this is my argument against the Court demanding I tender first …also combined with the argument that Wells Fargo the servicer has no standing and deserves no tender
    http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2007cv05040/244558/136/

  57. douglas, I would think you name all of the parties and plead racketeering as well, even though that can, however, muddy the waters.

  58. There are various exceptions to the tender rule, rescission etc but we’re never given the full story of the actual law. This was key point of Jesinoski as to actual plain wording of the law lower courts were imposing their interpretations. Could b a dumb question can u recommend a good attorney in NJ?

  59. 9th District Court of Appeals addressed the tender issue in this 2014 decision before Jesinoski was decided. Here the Court found the the trial court erred in serptting conditions that the consumer must tender or show ability to tender …but here the consumer was the Plaintiff

    http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020140716142/MERRITT%20v.%20COUNTRYWIDE%20FINANCIAL%20CORP.

  60. Oops!
    I requested payoff and offered tender.
    They ignored me too!

    They kept cramming a in-house loan mod application down my throat while I kept trying to shove tender up their ass for my husbands loan.

    Standing on the sidelines.

  61. Anyone else have comments on Jesinoski? Yes, understand that many fighting for their families. What Neil offers in this post, may be bigger than Jesinoski — as many courts are ignoring and therefore ignoring rescission.

  62. ANON…. I’m sorry …my posts are off topic in regards to this thread .. Yes I do understand the bigger war that we need to win …but right now I’m in a battle for my own life and the roof over the heads of my wife and children … The TILA Rescission battle is one of the fronts in the war against the banks and the corrupt courts.

    The Supreme Courts ruling in Jesinoski was one of the few glimmer of lights we have seen in a very long time. Its also an important battle in the bigger war.

    But yes, I agree that the banks and courts are working in a unified effort to cover up the fraud conducted against the American citizens.

  63. Guillaume is contrary to the U.S. Supreme Courts holding in Jesinoski.
    So if the Appeals Court denies that my Rescission was effective , they are reversing and overturning the U.S. Supreme Court who says that my Rescission was effective ..no court is empowered to overturn the Supreme Court. …if they try to wiggle their way thru this, I’m sure it will be by stating the wording of the statute that says “a court may change the sequence…”

    But that loophole was probably meant for cases that were timely filed where a creditor acts within 20 days ..remaining in compliance ..and the judge gets involved?

    But its troublesome that there is language in the statute that allows a court to change any of the sequence …unless we are misinterpreting that part of the statute …maybe NG can write about that part and why it was included in the statute …where it says a court may determine the steps …hopefully we can get some clarity on that , its critical to my case.

  64. But, that is not happening. One case will not change what is going on around the entire country. Neil exposes the fraud well here. We need to work together. Legal Services did not respond well in US Bank National Association v. Guillaume, when the judges asked – who owns the loan? Opportunity was gone.

  65. The point missing in all of this tender first issue is …if the Creditor was to comply and fulfill their duties …it would then allow the homeowner to then go to a new lender and refinance his home in order to pay the tender amount.

    When the Judge asked me if I have the 180,000 dollars ..my response to him was “I have the house and its worth more than that” …

    He didn’t understand my point …that I had equity and could either refinance or sell …pay the tender and still have 100,000 left

    He would respond by saying …”well that’s what we are doing , giving them the house”…

    But the points he was missing is …

    – They are not the Creditor …they do not own the loan

    – My home is worth more than The tender amount

    – This is a foreclosure action filed against void instruments

    – The plaintiff lacks standing to foreclose, their standing was based on void instruments

    – The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

    – The creditor failed to act in 20 days

    – I have no obligation to pay the servicer Wells Fargo anything

    – The case must be dismissed with prejudice

  66. AnonymousNJ — we are not going to expose the fraud one case at a time. While we have no choice but to try to do this, we need to do more as a whole. Either judges just don’t get it, media has blind sighted them, or they are told what to do – none of which justifies the decisions. NJ one of the most difficult. In NJ, there was an opportunity in US Bank National Association v. Guillaume, but that opportunity was blown at oral argument. .

  67. (This is the part of the NJ Supreme Court case in Guillaume where they held the borrowers must first tender before a TILA Rescission can be granted …. This is the case my Judge cited in rejecting my rescission. He also cited Yamamoto case which is cited in the Guillaume case. So who will the Appeal Court side with? Their own NJ Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court? … The Judge in my case stated that Jesinoski only held that a lawsuit was not needed ..he doesn’t believe Jesinoski addressed any other issue than that one issue)

    Here is the relevant part of the Guillaume case that is now precendent in NJ…..

    “The Samays also argue that the trial court erred in holding that Marot could not rescind his loan because he was unable to tender the balance owed, less any credits due to him; and this was notwithstanding the fact that Marot had received just one physical copy of a notice to cancel, in violation of the disclosure provisions under TILA. Lance alleges that the trial judge erred in interpreting TILA’s “plain, clear, and unequivocal statutory and regulatory mandates regarding rescission.” Furthermore, according to Lance, even if Marot can’t repay the loan as part of a recession, Lance is entitled to the extinguishment of First Equity’s interest as a first mortgagee because Marot has the right to rescind. Again, we disagree. Judge Wilson properly applied the holding in Guillaume, supra, that requires re-payment as a condition to rescission under the circumstances presented here. Guillaume, supra, 209 N.J. at 458.

    The purpose of TILA is to “assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit.” 15 U.S.C.A. 1601(a). The statute “requires that consumers be provided ‘material disclosures'”, Guillaume, supra, 209 N.J. at at 480-81 (quoting 15 U.S.C.A. 1601(a)), and a creditor must “clearly and conspicuously disclose . . . to any obligor in a transaction subject to [rescission] the rights of the obligor” to exercise that right. 15 U.S.C.A. 1635(a).

    Specifically, TILA “provides for the remedy of rescission.” Guillaume, 209 N.J. at 481. “[I]n a transaction subject to rescission, a creditor shall deliver two copies of the notice of the right to rescind to each consumer entitled to rescind.” Truth in Lending (Regulation Z), 12 C.F.R. 226.23(b)(1). “If the required notice or material disclosures are not delivered, the right to rescind shall expire 3 years after consummation, upon transfer of all of the consumer’s interest in the property, or upon sale of the property, whichever occurs first.” 12 C.F.R. 226.23(a)(3). When exercising the right to rescind, “the consumer shall notify the creditor of the rescission by mail . . . or other means of written communication.” 12 C.F.R. 226.23(a)(2).

    “Rescission essentially restores the status quo ante; the creditor terminates its security interest and returns any monies paid by the debtor in exchange for the latter’s return of all disbursed funds or property interests.” Guillaume, supra 209 N.J. at 481 (quoting McKenna v. First Horizon Home Loan Corp., 475 F.3d 418, 421 (1st Cir. 2007)). “Although the statutory language calls for rescission by the lender prior to the homeowner’s tender of the balance of the loan, . . . TILA ‘need not be interpreted literally as always requiring the creditor to remove its security interest prior to the borrower’s tender of proceeds.'” Guillaume, supra, 209 N.J. at 481 (quoting Yamamoto v. Bank of N.Y., 329 F.3d 1167, 1173 (9th Cir. 2003)).

    In Guillaume, supra, the Court held that “a foreclosure court has the discretion to deny rescission under TILA if the defendant cannot tender the balance of his or her loan.” Guillaume, supra, 209 N.J. at 482-83. Here, Judge Wilson properly exercised that discretion, holding that Guillaume permitted the court to require the tender of the outstanding loan amount contemporaneously with the extinguishment of First Equity’s security interest in Marot’s home. After considering the Supreme Court’s decision, Castle Point’s limited violation of TILA,4 and the equities between the parties, Judge Wilson clearly explained:

    TILA has set a threshold which is pretty low, which indicates that . . . they mean business. But for me to sit here and say I am not going to follow a New Jersey Supreme Court opinion that is exactly on point and less than three months old . . . would really be completely inappropriate.

    . . . [R]escission is not an available remedy here because tender cannot be made. There hasn’t been a mortgage payment made on this house in many years. And [Marot], as unfortunate as his situation may be, . . . is not in the same situation as the Guillaumes. It is a wholly different issue that they are in as opposed to what [Marot] is, unfortunately, in. But the failure to send, even assuming that it was a failure to send a second copy informing the borrower of a right of which he was fully aware[,] to allow rescission for that seems to me to be inappropriate.

    And “upon” is clear in the statute. It means “upon.” Vitiate the security interest. Tender me the money. It is clear in [Guillaume], and the vast majority of federal and court cases that have decided this that tender is to be simultaneous.

    Marot concedes that he is unable to tender the balance of the loan. As a result, under TILA, his attempt to rescind is invalid.

    The mere right to a rescission does not guaranty its award, because underlying such relief is the court’s ability to place the parties in the same position they occupied before the transaction. The equitable goal of rescission under TILA is to restore the parties to the status quo ante ,” Am. Mortg. Network, Inc. v. Shelton, 486 F.3d 815, 820-21 (4th Cir. 2007), which requires that the creditor terminate[] its security interest and return[] any monies paid by the debtor in exchange for the latter’s return of all disbursed funds or property interests,” Guillaume, 209 N.J.at 481 (quoting McKenna, supra, 475 F.3dat 421 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing 15 U.S.C. 1635(b))). Thus, where the borrower cannot tender the funds paid to him or on his behalf, less any credits to which he may be entitled, that equitable goal cannot be achieved. Judge Wilson properly exercised her discretion here where Marot could not tender those amounts.

  68. My case is finally in the hands of the NJ Appellate Court … This fight began in 2007 after a 2004 refinance with Commerce Bank. The Note was endorsed pay to the order of Washington Mutual at closing. We faithfully sent our monthly payments to them until 2007 when we received a letter from Wells Fargo claiming they were now becoming our new serrvicer .. When we asked the simple question “who owns our loan?” , we were met with a Mexican hat dance of spin and double talk, they made references to “the investors” associated with Fannie Mae.
    When we researched and googled our rights we discovered TILA and that led us to review our closing disclosure docs ..of course we were never given our Right to Cancel notices which now gave us the right to rescind and get away from this table-funded, deceptive, predatory loan.
    We mailed the rescission letter within the 3-year window allowed. We were current on our payments up to the point we rescinded. Long story short .. Wells Fargo replied to our July 2007 rescission by mailing us a letter dated August 2007 referencing a “problem” that we had reached out to them about and “they were here to help their customers” …and that was followed up by them filing a foreclosure complaint dated September 2007 saying we defaulted on our July payment ..when in fact we had rescinded and stopped paying.

    Their first complaint .. I was told by every lawyer I spoke to that my Rescission was meaningless unless I had the 180,000 to tender to the plaintiff Wells Fargo …so I fought it pro se by raising standing and fraud as my arguments .,this led to them submitting a certification by the Wells Fargo attorney that included an obvious computer download image of the original Note from the closing …because there was not any rubber stamped blank endorsement from Washington Mutual. The original had been endorsed from Commerce to WaMu ….and now Wells Fargo was in court in 2010 foreclosing on a note that was endorsed to a bank that went out of business in 2008.
    After pointing this out to the Judge, he got angry with me and mocked me in front of a packed courtroom , basically calling me a “deadbeat who borrowed money from this plaintiff and didn’t want to pay them back” .. The Note certified to with the missing endorsement? His reply to me about that was “well thats the way they did business, its none of your concern..what we are here for today is that you borrowed money and didn’t pay it back…this is why we are here, not to look at how the banks conduct their business” …

    He said he would allow them 3 months to bring the note in so that they can show They have it and then it would proceed to Sheriffs sale.

    The next day the Robo-signed scandal broke wide open and the NJ Attorney General, the NJ Supreme Court Chief Justice and the NJ Administrator of the Courts held a press conference stating they were concerned that the banks faulty documents submitted in foreclosure cases was a threat to the integrity of the state’s judicial system. They were announcing that steps were going to be taken to prevent this type of abuse , etc., etc.

    Now when I returned to court .. I had my Judge eating out of the palm of my hand .. He was sooooo nice to me …soooo respectful and polite …

    He demanded Wells Fargo bring in witnesses to testify about the docs and transfers … They quickly submitted an order requesting the case to be Dismissed. … Nov. 2011

    Now they sat and allowed all of my potential affirmative defenses to run, all of the statutes of limitations regarding fraud, etc. apparently have statutes of limitations .. They filed a complaint in May 2014

    This time I made sure the TILA Rescission was front and center ..along with the other issues of standing , fraud, fabricated forged assignment, discrepancies between the different notes and the fact that a rubber stamp endorsement was added in 2010 by Washington Mutual who went out of business in 2008 …

    Nothing mattered … Wells Fargo motioned to dismiss almost all of my defenses and counterclaim …including the rescission.

    The Judge agreed and dismissed them all with prejudice. Agreeing that I was time-barred from raising most ..agreeing that I could not raise TILA Rescission 3 years after consummation…etc, etc.

    Then Jesinoski came out … So I motioned for reconsideration ..

    The new judge on the bench was a meaner, nastier little man with a constant scowl on his face like someone had pissed in his cheerios

    He would have none of this …he was determined to make my case to away and disappear from his docket ..he granted summary judgement for Wells Fargo while dismissing my motion based on Jesinoski ..he said that I never offered to tender the money back to Wells Fargo and that he felt I was “just trying to get the house for nothing” …during the hearing he would ask why I didn’t offer the tender amount owed in my Rescission letter? “You state that you are rescinding but you fail to offer the tender you owe them .. I find that to be inadequate” he snarled

    “Do you have the 180,000 dollars with you today?” he giggled and snorted …as the other attorneys in the courtroom laughed along with him …. “Go ahead..humor me ..do you have the 180,000 dollars?” He giggled from the bench as all of his clerks and court personnel looked on with embarrassed looks on their faces ..disgusted by this mans giggling behavior as he threw families out of their homes.

    He cited a NJ Supreme Court case … Gulliame? Where they say a borrower must first tender before a lender is made to Cancel a note and remove the mortgage in a TILA Rescission.

    Now its in the hands of the NJ Appellate Division

    Will they continue to reject TILA Rescission based on a borrower not tendering ??

    This is the precedent set by their own NJ Supreme Court.

    How can an Appeals Court change the state’s Supreme Court precedent?

    My appeal stands on the wording of the statute and the clear words and instructions of the unanimous Supreme Court of tbe United States in Jesinoski ..which states that the tender first requirement is not applicable here ..and that the Creditor was required to comply in 20 days …they failed to comply ….and that Wells Fargo is not even the Creditor …nobody has come forth alleging to be the owner of this loan, here we have a servicer who asserts they are Holders ..

    We have a judge who believes I should pay this servicer 180,000

    We have NJ case law that clearly demands a borrower tender first in any TILA Rescission …clearly no rescission has ever been granted in NJ

    So Even though I cite Jesinoski .. I feel sad and defeated …this fight has gone so long and it’s emotional effects have now finally taken their toll on me .. I just feel completely beaten and defeated ..physically and emotionally.

  69. Neil does a good job here, but he fails to answer question — “where did the (fake) loans come from?” Ninety-Five percent of them in these so called trusts were refinances. A refinance should simply move a loan from one bank’s asset balance sheet to another bank’s asset balance sheet – if the refinance does what it was supposed to do and pay off the existing loan. It didn’t. None of these REMIC trust loans were EVER on any bank’s asset balance sheet. In order for a securitization to be valid, loans are removed from on balance sheet to off balance sheet. That did not occur as the loans were never on any entity’s balance sheet. Charge-offs cannot go onto another bank’s balance sheet. So, where did the loans come from? They were never assets, and not being treated as assets now. They are are just churned collection rights. Fake debt. Top tranche investors in these (fake) trusts were Freddie/Fannie. Community Reinvestment Act required that certain loans “funded” by the banks had to be sold to the GSE’s. So, why would Freddie/Fannie have to indirectly invest by buying the top tranches?

    To neidermeyer – yes — you are correct — “they altered the trust reports (colatteral reports) after AIG paid out 100%”

    Is it too late that the public is finally catching on as to what really went on? Can we get anyone’s ear? Has the truth been stalled to allow bad bailouts, bad settlements, and Statute of Limitations to run? Who is responsible for cover -up?

    Need to stand together and let someone know — we know the truth. Petition?

  70. @ UKG ,

    I was thinking differently than just monetary exposure. WF was named trustee , and of course trust was empty.. however they altered the trust reports (colatteral reports) after AIG paid out 100% to BOA and notes were sold by actual underwriter (BOA) to a 3rd party (AHMSI) last day of April 2008 to hide prior data and enhance income to new buyer when they foreclosed or paid off notes when refinanced or homes sold.

    What I was getting at was they were actively involved in the fraud part of the equation ,, not just adding to the smoke screen. I am very close to filing my wrongful FC suit … The fraud straw man is proven in another federal case so my void at inception argument is also proven and all the assignments are void as none shows the correct starting point.

    The ugliness is that I will be suing WF when the actual “bad guy” is AHMSI and OCWEN (via LPS’s Attorneys) … and Bank of America (the real bad guy) is unharmed… I’m thinking I should name multiple defendants. I don’t want WF to be able to kill my case with the “we just lent our name” argument.

  71. Niedermeyer, their exposure is the servicing advances they have been paying on the bond if your loan is still active or not in BK or foreclosed.

  72. Losing it:Obama did nothing for anybody except Moochelle.
    Courts are indeed blocking homeowners at every turn, and now that the foreclosure defense attorneys are catching up to me and you and Bumstead, the various Bar associations are going after those lawyers via the lawyer regulation boards.
    I personally have lost in state court, two adversarial chapter 13’s (paid off my car while I was hanging out), Appeals Court, 7th Circuit, and then did a Chapter 7 (no debt left on the note, stuffed ’em for their legal fees, and now only the res remains, and I OWN IT). Just agreed to a stipulative order to avoid sanctions, and the dance continues. Wells is on their sixth law firm, and I wait patiently for them. Going on 12 years here, ain’t about to give up now…..
    You can do it, too. The game is still being played the same way. I just saw a foreclosure go through with a rubber-stamped endorsement-in-blank in the middle of A BLANK PIECE OF PAPER attached to the note in the complaint. This is the caliber of documentation being used to steal these homes from people. But as long as people lay down and take it, they’ll keep getting away with it.
    Write the FBI in your jurisdiction. Not to say “hello”, but include the forged and phony documents like trailing endorsed notes and bogus mortgage assignments. Contest any affidavit filed with a linked-in profile you can refute and see what comes back from that affiant. It’s all garbage.
    Anyone been contacted by their bond insurer? Maybe asking you to contact your servicer? Tell them they’re on notice as an involuntary plaintiff for the fraud in your loan servicing and forced default.
    Niedermeyer, how are ya?

  73. Reblogged this on UZA – a people's courts court of conscience and commented:
    Well said, thank you; of course the biggest fraud is UCC fraud; the loan is created by means of money of exchange aka bills of exchange; and, then they claim against money-of-account, peoples’ money; these two money systems must be separated; that’s where the ’32-’33 Glass-Steagall acts come in;

    Hoever, the biggest lie of all is the BAR legal system; the banks and bar are foreign entities of a feudal system; they operate under law-of-the-sea; they have no jurisdiction on republican lands or any land, for that matter; up until 200 nautical miles from the shore; the law of the sea is merely commercial transactions between legal fictions, having no parity with the tangible; they use semantic deceit under color of law to garner semblances of consent; thereby committing barratry [piracy] and personage;

    In layman’s terms, they get you to agree that the document mentioning a fictitious “address” is your tangible property; and, then take it away; also, under their feudal system the title deed names one as “tenant”, not “owner”; the scams are vast;

    Common sense dictates to remove the divided bar; we need community courts without the legal fiction; without any bar member; ask yourself, how can we have a feudal system ruling over sovereign people? Unless of course we were vassals all along;

    To echo Jefferson, we need to restore the power of banking back into the hands of the people where it rightfully belongs;

    Conclusion: community banks and courts will solve most of our woes; in peace

  74. Thank you Neil for your info. I feel so bad you are in the florida/ Arizona bar you have signed a no -disclosure you are not allowed to tell us the truth. Judges are not allowed to have the truth in court. That is the sadest issue here. The fact our signature creates the credit for banks. This needs to be research and uncovered by all. Please google the USA 1933 bk of the USA. We are not in the bar were can expose this and stop this entire debt scheme

  75. Neidermeyer. .. Great Question !
    Very Deadly I Presume!

  76. Yes Ronda extreme other people’s money, identity, title etc. Like we’re showing there are multiple icebergs designed to steal our individual and national wealth. Very important message that needs to get out. We are dealing with TRAITORS at every level, in every part of our government and courts.

  77. Hammerrime. I think Neil does a
    Swell job in his article to explain the depth and size of the iceberg, as we refer to the unfathomable bank corruption once the tip of the iceberg was exposed by the phony bank account scheme, to make their customers’ bank accounts “their money”.

  78. Clarification. In order to collect the FDIC INSURANCE ON A DEFALT the banks have to accomplish one of two things. A Foreclosure sale or a modification to determine what their losses are. Then they collect 95 percent That’s why they take the time to inflate your loan for you with fees and interest. a lot of thought went into this scheme.

  79. Losingmyhome…..the banks love money more than people

  80. I. Relieve the federal attorney general cannot pursue racketeering charges against all the banks since he signed a $25 billion settlement for their fraud practices. So
    Now we each have to go thru our state AGs to get compensation for the bank gang rape.

  81. so ronda scott, is that the smoking gun? why they need the foreclosure after the default insurance is all paid up? they file a fdic claim to get more money?? wow they are relentless. why do they hate the american people so much/

  82. The games will continue as long as they can keep filing claims for FDIC insurance from fraudulent foreclosure. We have to end the pot of gold. All the court cases would stop if there was no longer a motivation to go to foreclosure court.

    STOP FDIC Stop Loss Agreement that was put in place BY THE BANKS.

  83. Yes, Losing this is more than manufactured defaults and foreclosures it was a manufactured crisis. They need to be shut down yesterday and we need a reset stronger than Iceland. Trump and Wall St are ramping up their endless greed. Fannie, GSEs are being prepped for privatization by Onewest CEO Mnuchin, Treasury nominee, with government covering their losses. Our worst nightmare of corporate takeover. Think Flint, MI and their toxic water.

  84. re: line item #21 …

    If Wells Fargo was the named Trustee ,, as well as the “record custodian” and “master servicer” and not merely a “rent a name” .. what is their exposure?

  85. Hammertime, I agree with you its time to stop the games

  86. there are other issues that are addressed and i think its time. the economy went bust and prices fell more than in 1/2. so tell me how does a family pay a mortgage on a home that is worth less than 1/2 they paid and not eat, pay the electric, have phone? those are the real issues that Obama tried to handle. He turned to his advisors and they came up with the hamp modification. The problem from the beginning there was NO regulation. banks were denying hamp modification and giving in house modification? and then when a family tried to pay this in house they were refused a statement so these families even if they are now in foreclosure will never know if the money the paid on a modification ever was subtracted from the principle. then came the game. they wanted more people in foreclosure. all customer service reps in all the banks were told to say the same thing if some one wanted to apply for the hamp. they were to say the homeowner had to be 90 days late. we are all not rocket scientists but after 8 years of learning we find out the PMI, LPMI ect pays off at the 90 day mark. They also must take out some foreclosure insurance that once the judge signs the foreclosure they get money. otherwise why would they want our homes./ why not re do the mortgage at property value so we can stay there (that would be in a nice world and we do not live in a nice world) so why is no one writing about the fact that millions of people have been coerced into foreclosure by the banks. why are the aloud to continue foreclosure like business as usual when we all know true facts?

  87. Exactly grandest theft at global scale. Trump, Obama, Warren, Sanders every politicians must account for this. Full moratorium on foreclosures and stolen homes must be returned.

  88. It would be intersting to know if Citi used Urban Settlement Services or any other “attorney in fact” in preparing supposed modification agreements for people. As we know the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Colorado recently ruled in favor of property owners in proceeding with racketeering charges against Urban and nasty, phony Bank of America. A nationwide move on racketeering against lenders on behalf of many state attorneys would seem to be a great thing to puruse.
    Also how many people are victims of initial loans with Countrywide Home Loans, since Bank of America supposedly bought Countrwide back in 2008 at about the same time our crooked government under FHFA and GES took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A lot happening back in 2008 and the main question I always ask is “where is all the BILLONS of dollars that were supposed to go towards helping property owners with the initial Bails outs, National Mortgage Settlement, USJOD epic case against nasty old B of A for nearly $17 BILLION.
    Looks to be like we ALL got scammed by our own government is siding with the lenders????

  89. What’s really scary is they are still doing the same thing today.

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: