27 Responses

  1. What we need to do is take a survey, the population being made up of mortgage borrowers between the years 2002-2008. Why these years would become apparent with the results, which can be predicted before ever tallying the results. It would be a one question survey:

    “Upon loan origination, was it required, in addition to completing a loan 1003 loan application, that you also provide specific documents for verification and loan qualification purposes, or did you simply have to complete a loan 1003 loan application?”

    My bet would be that most everyone who was in receipt of a loan prior to September 2005 was required to submit documents to a human person which were used to verify loan qualification. Most nearly everyone subsequent that date was not required to submit anything by way of supporting documents.

    This gives us two separately defined groups:

    GROUP A: borrowers whose loans were humanly underwritten and verified.
    GROUP B: borrowers whose loans were underwritten entirely by automation

    We can argue about the underlying reasons for economic collapse all day long, as there are certainly many, but one fact remains as being integral. This is acknowledging that there were borrowers that never, ever should have been approved for a loan, yet were. It was this very small subset of borrowers in Group B however, those that defaulted nearly immediately, that is within the first through third months out of the gate. It was these ‘early payment defaults (EPD’s ) that spread throughout the investment community causing fear, bringing into question the quality of all loan originations, thereby freezing the credit markets in August 2007, a year later the entire economy collapsed.

    Of course, it is much more complex than that, but the crucial piece that provided the catalyst was these EPD’s. It was the quality of the borrowers from these EPD’s that became the model by which was used to stigmatize all borrowers. What was needed was a fall guy, to first lessen the anger towards the bailouts in providing a scapegoat, and second to divert attention away from the facts underlying the lending standards the failed and/or intentionally purposeful failure of the automation. From my research, it was with purposeful intent come hell or high water is my mission in life to bring forth into the public light.

    Putting intent aside for the moment and just focusing on the EPD’s and the domino effect they caused which resulted in millions of borrowers, from both Groups A and B, to lose their homes or struggling to hold on. How could one small group of failed borrowers affect millions of other borrowers, especially those who were qualified through the traditional methods of underwriting?

    The answer is an obvious one, coming down to the one common element that is the structuring of the loan products, that as it relates to the reset. Anyone whose reset occurred just prior and certainly after the economic collapse was as the saying goes…..Screwed. It is within is this, that the Grand Illusion lay intentionally concealed and hidden. It is within the automation wherein all the evidence clearly points to the fact that a mortgage is not a mortgage but rather a basket of securities….Not just any securities, but debt defaultable securities. In other words, it was largely planned to intentionally give loans to those whom were known to result in default.

    But, even without understanding any of the issues as to the ‘basket of securities” there is one obvious point that looms, hiding in plain sight, which I believe should be completely exploited. This as it directly relates to our mortal enemy, that which takes the name of MERS. I know there are those that disseminate the structure of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc and Merscorp as it relates to the MIN number and want to pick it apart, and all this is well and good. However, they miss the larger and more obvious point that clearly gives some definition.

    There is one particular that every one of those millions upon millions of borrowers, those in both Group A and Group B along with the small subset of Group B, all have in common. ……MERS. MERS was integrated into every set of loan documents, slide past the borrowers without explanation without proper representation in concealing the implied contracts behind the trade and service mark of MERS.

    MERS does not discriminate between a good or a bad loan, a loan is a loan as far it is concerned, whether it was fraudulently underwritten or perfectly underwritten. If it is registered with MERS the good, the bad, the ugly all go down, and therein lays an issue that is pertinent to discussion.

    MERS was written into all Fannie and Freddie Uniform Security Instrument, not by happenstance, rather mandated by Fannie and Freddie. It was they who crafted verbiage and placement within the document. Fannie and Freddie are of course agency loans, however nearly 100% of non-agency lenders utilized the same Fannie and Freddie forms. Put into context, MERS covers both agency and non-agency, and not surprisingly members of MERS as well. Talk about fixing the game!!

    It would seem logical, considering we, the American Taxpayer own Fannie Mae, that we should be entitled some answers to some very basic questions……The primary question: If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mandated that MERS play the role that it does, why than were there no quality control measures in place, and should they not have been responsible for putting in some safety measures in place?

    The question is a logical one; any other business would have buried in litigation had a product it sponsored or mandated, as the case may be here, resulted in complete failure. From the standpoint of public policy, MERS was a tremendous failure. Why? The answer derives itself from the facts as laid out above regarding the underwriting processes and the division of borrowers: Group A and B.

    This becomes a pertinent taking into account Fannie Mae on record in its recorded patents.

    US PATENT #7,881,994 B1– Filed April 1, 2004, Assignee: Fannie Mae

    ‘It is well known that low doc loans bear additional risk. It is also true that these loans are charged higher rates in order to compensate for the increased risk.’

    System and method for processing a loan
    US PATENT # 7,653,592– Filed December 30, 2005, Assignee: Fannie Mae
    The following from the Summary section states:

    ‘An exemplary embodiment relates to a computer-implemented mortgage loan application data
    processing system comprising user interface logic and a workflow engine. The user interface logic is accessible by a borrower and is configured to receive mortgage loan application data for a mortgage loan application from the borrower. The workflow engine has stored therein a list representing tasks that need to be performed in connection with a mortgage loan application for a mortgage loan for the borrower. The tasks include tasks for fulfillment of underwriting conditions generated by an automated underwriting engine. The workflow engine is configured to cooperate with the user interface logic to prompt the borrower to perform the tasks represented in the list including the tasks for the fulfillment of the underwriting conditions. The system is configured to provide the borrower with a fully-verified approval for the mortgage loan application. The fully-verified approval indicates that the mortgage loan application data received from the borrower has already been verified as accurate using information from trusted sources. The fully-verified approval is provided in a form that allows the mortgage loan application to be provided to different lenders with the different lenders being able to authenticate the fully-verified approval status of the mortgage loan application’

    Computerized systems and methods for facilitating the flow of capital
    through the housing finance industry
    US PATENT # 7,765,151– Filed July 21, 2006, Assignee: Fannie Mae
    The following passages taken from patent documents reads:

    The prospect or other loan originator preferably displays generic interest rates (together with an assumptive rate sheet, i.e., current mortgage rates) on its Internet web site or the like to entice online mortgage shoppers to access the web site (step 50). The generic interest rates (“enticement rates”) displayed are not intended to be borrower specific, but are calculated by pricing engine 22 and provided to the loan originator as representative, for example, of interest rates that a “typical” borrower may expect to receive, or rates that a fictitious highly qualified borrower may expect to receive, as described in greater detail hereinafter. FIG. 2b depicts an example of a computer Internet interface screen displaying enticement rates.

    If the potential borrower enters a combination of factors that is ineligible, the borrower is notified immediately of the ineligibility and is prompted to either change the selection or call a help center for assistance (action 116). It should be understood that this allows the potential borrower to change the response to a previous question and then continue on with the probable qualification process. If the potential borrower passes the eligibility screening, the borrower then is permitted to continue on with the probable qualification assessment.

    Underwriting engine 24 also determines, for each approved product, the minimum amount of verification documentation (e.g., minimum assets to verify, minimum income to verify), selected loan underwriting parameters, assuming no other data changes, (e.g., maximum loan amount for approval, maximum loan amount for aggregating closing costs with the loan principal, and minimum refinance amount), as well as the maximums and minimums used to tailor the interest rate quote (maximum schedule interest rate and maximum number of points) and maximum interest rate approved for float up to a preselected increase over a current approved rate. It should be appreciated that this allows the potential borrower to provide only that information that is necessary for an approval decision, rather than all potentially relevant financial and other borrower information. This also reduces the processing burden on system.

    The two patents above was Fannie Mae’s means of responding to its competition, that being the non-agency who had surpassed the agencies in sales volume (those stats I will have to dig up and repost as they are not handy at the moment), as the non-agencies had dropped all standards back in and around September 2005.

    The point being though, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mad were the caretakers of MERS, so to speak, inasmuch as mandating MERS upon the borrowers. Had there been safety measures in place that caught the fact that the loans that were dumping out quickly, that is the EPD’s, there might have been a stoppage in place, thereby preventing MERS from executing foreclosures upon every successive mortgage.

    I know that this is all BS though, because it is a cover up, a massive one that cuts into the heart of the United States government. This is perhaps one avenue by which to get there, as the questions asked are easily understood, as opposed to digging into the automation processes which people apparently are not ready to accept as of yet.

  2. The MIN number = copyright registration number??

    My investigation is leading down this path as a possibility…..

  3. A contract, that is the ones that the borrowers signed is not at all represented in anyway that borrowers could have possibly understood…..Hell, we can’t even understand to this day….WHY? because we all are living in the real world, when in fact the schemes concocted are all rooted in the virtual world.

    Welcome to the ‘Smart Contract”

  4. Everyone still wants to believe this is about real property, when in fact the answers to the questions that we all seek are not at all rooted in real property…..but rather in general intangibles:

    Read and learn:


    Word Mark WELLS FARGO (SM)
    Goods and Services IC 036. US 102. G & S:
    Banking and Trust Services.
    Serial Number 72154936
    Filing Date October 10, 1962
    Registration Number 0779187
    Registration Date October 27, 1964
    Owner (REGISTRANT)
    Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA

    MAC N9305-176
    LEGAL Assignment Recorded
    Attorney of Record Felicia J. Boyd
    Prior Registrations 0074391
    Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
    Register PRINCIPAL
    Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECTION 8(10-YR) 20040113.
    Renewal 2ND RENEWAL 20040113
    Live/Dead Indicator LIVE


    Goods and Services IC 036. US 100 101 102. G & S:
    Mortgage Lending Services.
    Filing Date September 20, 2001
    Published for Opposition September 17, 2002
    Registration Number 2658789
    Registration Date December 10, 2002

    Owner (REGISTRANT) Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.
    MAC X2401-06T
    1 Home Campus Des Moines IOWA 503280001
    Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
    Attorney of Record Felicia J. Boyd
    Register PRINCIPAL
    Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).

    Attorney of Record: Brian J. Laurenzo
    Mortgage Lending Services

    10/12/1989 – Cancelled 5/12/1997
    Banking Services Namely Credit Card Services
    Attorney of Record: Richard E. Backus Esq.
    Wells Fargo & Co
    Delaware Corp
    420 Montgomery St
    San Francisco CA 94104

    Nottice the Wells Fargo Bank (SM)
    Banking & Trust Services
    First Use 4/9/1962
    Wells Fargo June 30, 1936 ‘Stage Coach’
    Registration Date 6/29/1965
    Wells Fargo Bank
    California Jurisdiction
    464 California St
    San Francisco CA
    1st Renewal 6/29/1985
    Filing Date 10/17/1962

    FIRST USED 3/18/1852
    1/1/1927 First Use ‘American Trust;
    ‘Wells Fargo’ 6/30/1936
    Wells Fargo Bank American Trust Company
    Jurisdiction: CA
    464 California St
    San Francisco CA

    CIRCLE WITH ‘V’ in middle and other braches with leaves
    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    national banking association
    1525 West W. T. Harris Blvd, Charlotte NC 28262
    first use 12/31/2003
    This logo was created with intent

    Wells Fargo Bank NA as LENDER? on all ‘Mortgages’ purchase real estate first in secret c/o REal Estate Attorney’s who act as TRUSTEE’s for SERVICERS Securities sales related to insurance, real estate, banking and all agents, dealers, brokers, distributors of valuation services conceal from consumer they are purchasing individual variable annunities / loan products and the beneficial interests are cashed in and reason new Assignment or Deed of Trust recorded in public domain to attach new lien/encumbrances/restrcitions, and through Summary Judgment get Real Estate Lawye Judge in Court of Equity to Clear Title for STATE!
    real estate development services in the field of mixed use communities, namely, commercial, retail, residential properties.
    First Use 12/31/2003 – Office of Comptroller of Currency approved merging Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. out of business May 2003. See Letter South Dakota Business Entity Inactive documents – OCC stated Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. could be merged out of existence as long as ‘Wells Fargo Bank NA’ mortgage corporation business done inside of ‘Wells Fargo Bank NA’ Was it? Does all of the retail sales of mortgage loans of third parties, and all of the sales of insurance individual variable annunities/loans products sold during Origination, Servicing and Defaults flow through Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.? What does the OCC mean?

  6. Ken Dost and Nancy Drewe have worked closely together now for months connecting the processes with fiduciary accounting relationships of Insurance Secondary Market selling ‘mortgage loans’ to consumers wihtholding disclosures of (CONCEALMENT) of private encumbrances, private liens, private credits, private records not recorded in the public domain which are recorded, tracked, exchanged, converted, conveyed, traded,

  7. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which indemnifies our securities lending clients against borrower insolvency. Few other third-party securities lenders can offer this combination of strength and expertise.

  8. Posted below is a portion of a patent, the patent actually that describes the financing and funding of mortgage loans. It is assigned to JP Morgan Chase and a currently active patent, meaning that it is still being used, which can be overwhelming demonstrated in dozens, if not hundreds of contractual agreements…..The name of the patent is Electronic Collateral Management System and Method, the link for the entire patent is posted at http://automated-destruction.com/ The blog is just being setup and will eventually contain diagrams, patents, research data, and much more (Whatever it takes to get people to understand we are dealing 100% automated systems, and the valuing of intellectual properties, having nothing to do whatsoever with real property…from the MERS side of the fence that is….

    Victory can not be attained if we don’t know the enemy or understand their schemes…do now though

    The point of this, lets call it ‘raw dump’ and chat, is to demonstrate to everyone there exists a definitive timeline of events. We do not have to second guess or make supposition was that was done…It is all hiding in plain site…..The details, the intent, the planning, execution, and the subsequent cover up of all that has occurred over the past decade……A materially factual account can be documented….It is not easy to understand, but once you get it you’ll be a raging spitfire because what was done is that bad.

    Inasmuch as the patent section below, there is a great deal packed into several paragraphs, and it is not even the entire process. Lacking are details specific to the trade agreements, described by other patents. Also lacking are specifics to the several guarantors and insurance agreements, credit defaults swaps (repurchase agreements), and does not name the third parties specific to name or industry (Escrow and Title agencies).
    Hint: better the gains going after Escrow and Title attorneys and the insurance industry.

    Mortgage banks therefore borrow capital from other banks (hereinafter referred to as “warehouse banks”) that have greater capital resources and can fund the mortgages. Mortgage banks have a financial interest in granting as many mortgages as possible because they earn processing fees upon closing of each mortgage and because they earn interest on each mortgage. The greater the number of mortgages granted, the higher their income. In order to increase the number of mortgages they can
    provide, mortgage banks look to sell existing mortgages to third parties (hereinafter referred to as “takeout investors”) to recoup the capital lent to mortgagors as soon as possible. By selling existing mortgages to takeout investors, the mortgage
    bank can return capital to warehouse banks, keep its transaction fees and a percentage of interest on each transaction and grant additional mortgages on an ongoing basis.

    When a takeout investor expresses interest in purchasing mortgages from a mortgage bank, a managing party (hereinafter referred to as a “primary custodian” receives the mortgages and related papers from the mortgage bank. The document transfer results in a bailment in that all documents and details relating to the mortgages are received and retained in the primary custodian’s possession. After the primary custodian receives the mortgages from the mortgage bank, it typically securitizes them, classifying mortgages of similar tenor. The primary custodian reviews the mortgage-related documents to make sure that they are in proper form. After the primary custodian has reviewed the documents and created a database of information relating to the mortgages, he provides the mortgages to the takeout investor for review. The mortgages are forwarded to the takeout investor along with a bailee letter stating that the mortgages are owned by the mortgage bank and are being provided to the takeout investor for evaluation and potential purchase purposes only.

    The takeout investor typically reviews the mortgages for thirty to forty-five days to determine whether or not to purchase them. During this period, the mortgage bank’s money is tied up in these mortgages, the mortgage bank (who still retains title to the mortgages until the takeout investor decides to purchase them) looks to finance the mortgages during this interim period in order to raise additional capital to grant additional mortgages.

    The mortgage bank locates another party (typically, but not necessarily, an “investment bank” to supply capital in exchange for a pledge of the mortgages for the thirty to forty-five day period. The investment bank effectively provides a loan to the mortgage bank which is collateralized by 20 the mortgages. In some cases a three way deal known as a forward take out agreement will be entered into between the mortgage bank 10, the investment bank and a third party under which the mortgage bank receives a loan from the investment bank which is collateralized by the mortgages and the third party agrees to purchase
    the mortgages from the investment bank in the event that the mortgage bank defaults on its obligation to pay back the loan. Whatever arrangement is made, the mortgage bank receives money from the investment bank which it can use to issue or originate additional mortgages.

    In order to collateralize the loan, the mortgage bank provides blank assignment sheets with the mortgages’ documentation to the primary custodian. In the event that the mortgage bank defaults on its loan obligation, the primary custodian will complete the blank assignment sheets and transfer title to the investment bank or, in the event of that a forward take out agreement has been entered into, to the third party who has agreed to purchase the mortgages in the event of a default by the mortgage bank.
    the investment bank enters into a further transaction with an investor (typically a large institutional investor such as GE). In this transaction, the investor provides a loan to the investment bank In this transaction, the investor typically equal to the amount of money the investment bank loaned to the mortgage bank, but at a lower interest than the investment bank is receiving from the mortgage bank. The investment bank earns money on the spread between the two rates and by charging various processing fees to the institutional investor. The investment bank also frees up further capital to make additional loans.

    In the foregoing description, each individual mortgage is treated as a single asset sold or pledged from party to party. In fact, the transactions typically involve a large number of mortgages, indeed revolving sets of mortgages, which are sold as a package known as whole loans. For example, the investor may provide a $10,000,000.00 loan for a period of 30 days at an interest rate of 5%. While the investor may not be concerned with the individual mortgages that secure its loan, it wants to be sure that the quality and total value of the mortgages in the package is sufficient to protect its investment. Some system is needed to ensure that the investor will always have a portfolio of mortgages meeting criteria set by the investor (and agreed to by the investment bank 16) that will protect their investments. To this end, a custodian (hereinafter referred to as a
    “master custodian” typically electronically manages a large number of trust receipts backed by mortgages (for example, 100 mortgages worth a total of $100,000,000.00) provided by the primary custodian. The master custodian selects a subset of trust receipts backed by mortgages (using agreed to criteria) which is then used to secure the investor’s investment. The investor is then given a trust receipt backed report certified by the master custodian and backed by a trust receipt held by the master custodian stating that there are sufficient assets in the subset of trust receipts assigned to the investor to secure the investor’s investment in accordance with the criteria set by that investor.

    It is very complex, but either we tread water or we gather all the facts wherein we can no longer be pushed aside.

    I know, I know…too complicated….diagrams on the way

  9. Reference Ian……Over the past couple of years enough information has been gathered that should smoke the banksters asses, along with the Title companies, escrow, and real estate attorneys…..

    all this information is going to be posted on a separate blog to expose what has been done to this country….We all have been lied to in a big, big way……set about to chase shadows that don’t exist….

    What will be posted is the truth as it was planned out and executed….it is the job of the attorneys to set about bring all this to a legal conclusion…..My belief is that public opinion will sway heavily our way because what was done to us, the borrowers, is just a small fraction of what was done to the whole nation….

    ken Dost

  10. kwddost- where did you get the info you posted earlier? Is there more? This could be the proverbial smoking gun. Please link us all to it. Anyone else have thoughts on this? It is, as written,or provided, out of context, so I don’t know what to make of it. To whom is it addressed? Thanks-



    As used herein, registered land assets are interests in real property land titles that may be held in book entry (or other) form such that they are suitable for sale or sale, transfer or exchange into and between both capital market and real estate market participants. Registered land assets may offer a fixed rate of return under contract as well as equal or superior collateral value and yield when compared to high-grade corporate bonds and certain mortgage-backed debt instruments of equal duration. For example, in accordance with one embodiment of the invention, a ten year registered land asset may deliver a total return consistently higher than equal term interest rate swaps, many high quality corporate bonds and 30-year mortgages.


    Bonded Asset: A registered land asset wherein the issuer guarantees the performance of registered land asset contract terms directly and/or through an insurance policy, which guarantees the embedded call settlement price at maturity. A government agency, a qualified non-profit enterprise and a local housing authority are examples of issuers that may guarantee registered land asset contract terms directly.

    Embedded Call: A land purchase option that is part of and trades with the registered land asset. Generally, the land may be repurchased at a specific price and time established during registered land asset contract origination.

    Free Asset: A registered land asset wherein the embedded call has expired.

    Holder: A registered land asset contract owner.

    Income Asset: A registered land asset wherein land sale proceeds paid in exchange for the land title underlying the registered land asset are greater than the present worth of its calculated land par value, but less than the appraised market land value determined at the time of the exchange, and wherein a ground rent is due to the holder for a period of time.

    Investor: Investors may include, but are not limited to, high net worth investors that meet the definition of an “accredited investor” as defined in accordance with law, including high net worth investors interested in like-kind property exchanges and institutional investors including, but not limited to insurance companies, pension funds, mutual funds, real estate investors, developers, and dealers

    Land par value: The sum of all future economic values a leaseholder/issuer might expect as compensation for its land.

    Leaseholder/Issuer: A current or prospective landowner that causes the issuance of a registered land asset.

    Leasehold estate: Improvements and personal property above the land, including, but not limited to, all existing or proposed buildings, machinery, wells, septic systems, storm drains, paved parking lots and landscape features.

    Originator: An entity qualified to offer a registered land asset contract.

    Purchase Partner Leasehold Mortgage: A mortgage associated with a leasehold estate that is subject to registered land asset contract provisions, and that may be recorded with the registered land asset and be accessed by a registered land asset contract originator or servicing agent.

    Registered Land Asset: A financial product representing a leased fee equity interest in land, typically recorded in an electronic land title registry, which is available for sale, transfer or exchange within and between the capital markets and the real estate markets via a bookkeeping and/or book entry method. Typically there is a registered land asset contract associated with the registered land asset product, which defines any terms associated with a land use, ground rent and an embedded call.

    Sponsor: An individual or entity providing capital to consummate the sale of land associated with a registered asset. Such an entity may include a special purpose entity.

    Zero Coupon Asset: A registered land asset wherein land sale proceeds paid in exchange for the land title underlying the registered land asset are equal to or less than the present worth associated with land’s par value, and wherein no ground rent is due.

    The capital to underwrite and consummate the sale may be provided by a sponsor. The sponsor may represent itself, one, or several investors, or entities. An originator typically delivers a registered land asset application and any associated contract terms to an underwriter (typically appointed by the sponsor) for review. A ground lease encumbers the land and conveys specific land use rights to present and/or future leaseholders. These land use rights, (together with any other registered land asset contract terms) enhance the marketable value of the leasehold estate. These enhancements may build up the economies of the leasehold estate as well as its mortgage collateral values.

    A holder (which may be a capital investor) buys a registered land asset from the sponsor. An indenture trustee or a transfer agent typically represents the holder. Each registered land asset is recorded in an electronic land title registry under the management of a special purpose entity (“SPE”) for the duration of the registered land asset contract.

    All registered land asset contract types originate with an embedded call. As stated above, the embedded call may enable a leaseholder to purchase the land title underlying its leasehold estate at a predetermined price and date.

    A registered asset identifier (“RAI”) identifies each registered land asset once recorded within the land court having jurisdiction over the land title and stored in an electronic land title registry or other data repository. All data and analysis associated with the registered land asset may become an addition to a data set associated with the RAI. In this manner appraisal, engineering and other data may be accumulated. The accumulation of data associated with registered assets enables qualitative comparison analysis and each new registered land asset origination may become an information resource. As sales of registered assets and leasehold estates begin to accumulate, repeat sales analysis and forecasting become possible. Consequently, market performance may be measured as a basis for risk analysis and market pricing.

  12. Trademark products seemed important to the USTPO…..This from Ownit Mortgage’ fourth and final attempt in getting its ‘Right Loan’ Mortgage loan product as a registered Service Mark…..Dated 1/18/06, filing a in use in commerce a couple of years earlier….

    Applicant also argues, inter alia, that the lack of evidence of instances of actual confusion supports a finding of no likelihood of confusion. However, the extent of actual use of the marks by the respective parties is unknown, making it difficult in an ex parte case such as this to see how much of an opportunity there has been for actual confusion to take place. Further, it is well settled that the relevant test is likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion. It is unnecessary to show actual confusion to establish likelihood of confusion. Weiss Associates Inc. v. HRL Associates Inc., 902 F.2d 1546, 1549, 14 USPQ2d 1840, 1842-43 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and cases cited therein.

    Applicant also argues that the purchasers of its services are sophisticated, making confusion less likely. However, the recited services of the respective parties are not limited to professionals with extensive experience in the trade, but are stated broadly, and would include services offered to ordinary purchasers, who may obtain mortgages only a small number of times in their lifetimes.

    It may be presumptuous to believe that these purchasers are sophisticated or experienced in these matters, and indeed they may not be. Even assuming arguendo that they are sophisticated or knowledgeable in applicant’s field, this does not necessarily mean that they are sophisticated or knowledgeable in the field of trademarks or immune from source confusion. See In re Decombe, 9 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 1988); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983); TMEP

    ….What do you say to the borrowers in this case Mr/Mrs Attorney General’s …..? or I guess we are down to the last hold out….how about it Mr. SCHNEIDERMAN.. ? Not one word in the entire document refers to Ownit as a lender, yet it is represented as so on the loan documents…..

  13. Forget modifications which are the biggest FRAUD offering NOTHING. Let us help you sue, with or without an attorney to get started!
    Consumer Rights Defenders – Attorneys and their staff are here M-F 9-4 PST, for you. Leave message or email if we are unavailable at 818.453.3585.
    [We work piecemeal, and low cost to keep you in your home. The lawyer can come later for appearances and depositions, settlement conferences and trial. Good preparation [good discovery] destroys the lender pretenders and banks. We know how to bring them to the settlement table. SUE and stop wasting time with modifications.
    God bless Neil for his patriotism and concern!
    Steve Nelson or Sara Stephens


  15. Can you resend me the article from today Modification Lies I deleted by mistake thanks terri parker

  16. Consumer Rights Defenders now, adds more attorneys and staff to assist the borrowers in foreclosure. BUT, read this article before you call us at 818.453.3585, ask for Sara or Steve.
    Too Big to Jail
    Wednesday 2 November 2011
    by: Robert Scheer, Truthdig | Op-Ed

    Robert Rubin. (Photo: Center for American Progress / Flickr)

    Can we all agree that a $1 billion swindle represents a lot of money, and the fact that Citigroup agreed last week to pay a $285 million fine to settle SEC charges for “misleading investors” demonstrates a damning admission of culpability?

    So why has Robert Rubin, the onetime treasury secretary who went on to become Citigroup chairman during the time of the corporation’s financial shenanigans, never been held accountable for this and other deep damage done to the U.S. economy on his watch?

    Rubin’s tenure atop the world of high finance began when he was co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, before he became Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary and pushed through the reversal of the Glass-Steagall Act, an action that legalized the formation of Citigroup and other “too big to fail” banking conglomerates.

    Rubin’s destructive impact on the economy in enabling these giant corporate banks to run amok was far greater than that of swindler Bernard Madoff, who sits in prison under a 150-year sentence while Rubin sits on the Harvard Board of Overseers, as chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and as a leader of the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project.

    Rubin was rewarded for his efforts on behalf of Citigroup with a top job as chairman of the bank’s executive committee and at least $126 million in compensation. That was “compensation” for steering the bank to the point of a bankruptcy avoided only by a $45 billion taxpayer bailout and a further guarantee of $300 billion of the bank’s toxic assets.

    Those toxic assets and other collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps were exempted from government regulation by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Rubin helped design while he was treasury secretary and which was turned into law when Rubin protégé Lawrence Summers took over that Cabinet post.

    In arguing that the derivatives market in housing mortgages and other debt obligations required no government oversight, Summers told Congress, “First, the parties to these kinds of contracts are largely sophisticated financial institutions that would appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counterparty insolvencies. … Second, given the nature of the underlying assets—namely supplies of financial exchange and other financial instruments—there would seem to be little scope for market manipulation. …”

    Oops. One wonders if Summers, who went on to be president of Harvard after playing such a disastrous role in the federal government, ever asked his mentor Rubin what went wrong. After all, it was Rubin who was a honcho at the “sophisticated financial institution” of Citigroup when, as the Securities and Exchange Commission filing against the bank explains, Citigroup structured and marketed a $1 billion toxic asset to investors without disclosing that it was simultaneously betting against that asset.

    Back in January of 2008, knowing full well of the chicanery of his own bank and others with which he was quite familiar, Rubin nonetheless told an audience at Cooper Union in New York that the turmoil in the markets was “all part of a cycle of periodic excess leading to periodic disruption.” CNNMoney, reporting on his talk, noted that Rubin “doesn’t seem particularly alarmed. … And the economic problems that he did acknowledge were blamed on just about everyone but the major financial players.”

    Rubin, who became a key adviser to the Obama campaign, has long cultivated an image as a do-gooder by making philanthropic contributions that deflect attention from the consequences of his own grievous actions. He has played a major role in shaping Obama administration economic policy not only through former aides like Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner but through the Hamilton Project, which he has funded at the Brookings Institution. The Hamilton Project has had much influence over the Democratic Party, and President Barack Obama as a young senator was the project’s first public speaker.

    But facts these days tend to intrude in ways inconvenient to the superrich, who assume they can control the narrative. This month the Hamilton Project released a depressing assessment of the results of the era of radical market deregulation that Rubin’s policies launched, particularly as it had a horrendous effect on children.

    Referring to the “Great Recession,” dismissed by Rubin at its inception as a mere blip in the business cycle, the report noted that the family income of the median child in the U.S. has fallen nearly 14 percent in the past five years and is now 7 percent lower than in 1975, concluding that while the income of the top 10 percent of families with children has increased 45 percent in the last 35 years, “half of America’s children are worse-off than their counterparts 35 years ago.”

    That’s a telling obituary for the illusion, fostered by Robert Rubin as effectively as anyone, that the 22 percent of children in the United States who suffer below the poverty line and the offspring of multimillionaires like Rubin are living in the same America.

    Court ), Saguache, CO 81149
    Homeowner Bruce McDonald wins in Colorado against ONE WEST

    Case Number: 2010CV6
    Division:3 Courtroom:
    THIS MATTER comes before the Court on One West Bank F.S.B.’s and Federal Home
    Loan Mortgage Corporation’s Motion for Relief from Final Judgment, filed March 18, 2011, and
    orally argued on July 28, 2011. The Plaintiff, Bruce C. McDonald, is represented by Erich
    Schwiesow of Lester, Sigmond, Rooney & Schwiesow. Defendants, One West Bank
    F.S.B.(“OneWest”) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), are
    represented by Victoria E. Edwards of Akerman Senterfitt LLP. The Court having reviewed the
    motion, responses, replies, matters of record, and otherwise being informed makes the following
    Plaintiff, Bruce McDonald, filed a complaint in this case on March 2, 2010, and amended
    the complaint on September 16, 2010. The amended complaint requested this Court to find that
    Defendant OneWest did not have standing in case no. 2009CV42 and therefore the C.R.C.P.
    Rule 120 Order Authorizing Sale is void; that Defendant OneWest could not and did not convey
    good title to Defendant Freddie Mac; that Freddie Mac had notice of this action through the
    EFILED Document
    CO Saguache County District Court 12th JD
    Filing Date: Oct 3 2011 10:46AM MDT
    Filing ID: 40144354
    Review Clerk: Brandie Taylor
    2010CV6 D55 Page 2 of 10
    Notice of Lis Pendens filed on March 3, 2010; and, that Plaintiff remains the owner of the
    property subject to foreclosure and the foreclosure sale that purported to divest him of title is
    Defendant One West Bank was served on October 1, 2010, and Defendant Freddie Mac
    was served on September 17, 2010. Neither party filed a responsive pleading to the amended
    complaint within the time required by the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure nor did they appear
    in the case.
    Plaintiff submitted a Motion for Entry of Default on October 29, 2010, and filed a
    Motion for Entry of Default Judgment on November 1, 2010. The basis of Plaintiff’s Motion was
    that neither of the Defendants appeared within the required legal time. On November 19, 2010,
    the Court entered a default judgment in favor of Plaintiff, quieting the disputed property in the
    Plaintiff. The Court also entered default against Defendants on November 26, 2010.
    On March, 16, 2011, counsel for the Defendants entered her appearance. And on March
    18, 2011, the Defendants filed a motion for relief from judgment.
    Defendants argue that the default judgment should be vacated. Defendants complain of
    the following: (1) Plaintiff alleged he attempted to serve Defendants’ out-of-state counsel but
    failed to disclose that he knew Defendants were represented by local counsel in Colorado in a
    federal case; (2) Plaintiff should have in good-faith attempted service on Defendants’ local
    counsel in Colorado before attempting service on their legal representatives in California and
    West Virginia; (3) Plaintiff should have warned local counsel that he was seeking a default
    judgment; (4) Plaintiff represented to the Court that he made all efforts to serve Defendants; (5)
    2010CV6 D55 Page 3 of 10
    Plaintiff knew how to serve Defendants in Colorado; (6) Plaintiff engaged in improper litigation
    Defendants also argue that the default judgment violated Defendants’ due process rights
    and is void as a matter of law. The Defendants point to previous litigation whereby, based on this
    Court’s ruling in a Rule 120 case, the Defendants had a Public Trustee foreclosure on the
    disputed property. Essentially, Defendants argue res judicata.
    In response, Plaintiff argues that the allegations of bad-faith and misrepresentations are
    unfounded, that Colorado law does not require him to warn Defendants of applying for default
    judgment when Defendants have not appeared in the case, and that the orders issued by this
    Court in a previous Rule 120 action have no preclusive effect on this quiet title action.
    The Plaintiff and the Defendants have submitted requests for judicial notice. Both
    requests are granted and the Court makes the following findings of fact based on judicial notice
    of the relevant documents:
    1. On or around May 27, 2003, Plaintiff obtained a loan for $198,000.00 from IndyMac
    Bank, F.S.B. (Pl’s Ex. 1 A.) The loan was secured by property located at 4434 Rarity
    Court, Crestone, Colorado. (Pl’s Ex. 1 B.) Defendant OneWest became servicer of the
    loan (Pl’s Ex. 1. E.; Ex. 2), and in 2009, the Plaintiff defaulted on the loan, with a
    remaining balance of $200,912.31. (Pl’s Ex. 1. D.)
    2. Defendant OneWest filed a Rule 120 Motion for Order Authorizing Sale on
    September 11, 2009, in case number 2009CV42. On February 4, 2010, this Court
    found, inter alia, that there was a reasonable probability that a default existed as
    alleged in the motion and granted an order authorizing sale of the disputed property.
    3. On March 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this case, 2010CV6, seeking to void
    the order authorizing sale, and on March 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of lis
    pendens. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on September 10, 2010, adding
    Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) as a defendant.
    2010CV6 D55 Page 4 of 10
    4. On June 29, 2010, Freddie Mac filed a complaint alleging forcible entry and detainer
    against Mr. McDonald in case number 2010CV30.
    5. On July 22, 2010, Plaintiff also filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for
    the District of Colorado against present Defendant and other unknown defendants.
    (Pl’s Ex. 1. Fed. Compl.) On December 27, 2010, the case was dismissed for failure
    to state a claim (Pl’s Ex. 5).
    6. On September 17, 2010, this Court held a hearing in case number 2010CV30 to
    determine whether the 2010CV30 action would be stayed until the issue of ownership
    was resolved in this case, 2010CV6. Freddie Mac was represented by Castle
    Meinhold & Stawiarski, LLC, and Mr. McDonald was represented by current counsel
    Erich Schwiesow.
    7. The Court heard arguments from both parties on whether the 2010CV30 should be
    stayed. Mr. Shwiesow did not represent that his client would pursue either a federal
    action or a state action. The Court finds that Mr. Shwiesow represented that his client
    would pursue and litigate this case, 2010CV6. At that point, it was clear that Freddie
    Mac’s counsel knew of the 2010CV6 litigation.
    8. On September 17, 2010, Plaintiff served the Amended Complaint on Freddie Mac.
    9. On September 27, 2010, Plaintiff served the Amended Complaint on OneWest.
    10. On November 19, 2010, this Court entered default Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and
    against Defendants and on November 26, 2010, this Court entered default in favor of
    Plaintiff and against Defendants. Notice of Default was served on Freddie Mac and
    OneWest on December 7, 2010, and December 15, 2010, respectively.
    11. Defendants did not appear in case no. 2010CV6 until March 18, 2011—three months
    after Defendants were served with Notice of Default—when Defendants filed a joint
    motion for relief from final judgment.
    12. On July 28, 2011, this Court heard arguments on Defendants’ Motion for Relief from
    Final Judgment. At the hearing, defense counsel expressly refused to argue excusable
    neglect and pressed arguments based on fraud and bad faith. Defense counsel thus
    waived their argument for relief of judgment based on excusable neglect.
    13. The Defendants have proffered no evidence on why they failed to timely respond to
    the complaint.
    2010CV6 D55 Page 5 of 10
    Defendants ask the Court to vacate the judgment. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 60, the court
    may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for, inter alia, mistake, excusable neglect,
    misrepresentation, misconduct of an adverse party, judgment is void, and fraud. “To set aside a
    judgment under C.R.C.P. 60(b), the movant bears the burden of establishing by clear and
    convincing evidence that the motion should be granted.” Goodman Associates, LLC v. WP
    Mountain Properties, LLC, 222 P.3d 310, 315 (Colo. 2010) (citing Borer v. Lewis, 91 P.3d 375,
    380-81 (Colo. 2004)).
    1. Excusable Neglect
    Defendants assert, “[they] did not bring their motion under the ‘excusable neglect’
    standard of C.R.C.P. 60(b)(1).1
    Defendants assert that Defendants’ counsel assumed that Plaintiff would pursue either a
    federal action or a state action, but not both, and former counsel’s failure to notify Defendants of
    Rather, they brought the Motion under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(2) for
    misconduct of an adverse party.” (Def.’s Reply, p. 5.) Defendants reinforced their position not to
    argue excusable neglect at the hearing by explicitly stating they were not pursuing relief under
    the excusable neglect standard. Nevertheless, the Court notes that Defendants have seemingly
    argue for relief pursuant to excusable neglect despite their clear and explicit intentions not to do
    so. The Court finds and holds that the Defendants have waived their excusable neglect argument
    and will not consider it as a basis for relief from judgment. The Court further finds that even if
    the Defendants did not waive its excusable neglect argument, there is no excusable neglect.
    1 Defendants’ filings confuse notions of notice in service of process with notice for default judgment. In later filings
    the confusion continues and is exacerbated by Defendants’ raising new arguments not included in their original
    2010CV6 D55 Page 6 of 10
    the possibility of the state court action establish a basis for the Court to find excusable neglect.
    As to the latter argument, there is no misrepresentation since Plaintiffs’ counsel informed
    Defendant Freddie Mac that he intended to pursue 2010CV6 at the hearing in 2010CV30. This
    Court has found that Plaintiff’s counsel clearly expressed his intention to pursue 2010CV6 and
    did not represent that he would stay 2010CV6, if the federal action was pursued by separate
    counsel on behalf of Plaintiff. The whole reason for the hearing was Plaintiff’s request to stay
    litigation in 2010CV30 (a forcible entry and detainer action) while ownership was litigated in
    this case, 2010CV6.
    The Defendants have failed to proffer evidence of excusable neglect for failing to appear
    and defend in a timely manner. Defendants argue that Defendant Freddie Mac’s previous counsel
    assumed that this case, 2010CV6, would not be litigated by Plaintiff and failed to inform Freddie
    Mac about the existence of this case. Defendants did not proffer evidence tending to establish
    either of those propositions. Nor did the Defendants establish why they failed to litigate after
    they were served with process—which occurred after Freddie Mac’s previous counsel learned of
    this case. In summary, the arguments pressed by Defendants are directed towards some formal or
    informal notice of the action directly to an attorney rather than shedding light on Defendants’
    failure to file a responsive pleading after proper service.
    The Court further finds that though the Defendants’ may have had a meritorious claim,
    and some equity may favor the Defendants, the failure to provide evidence of excusable neglect
    requires that this Court will not set aside default judgment based on excusable neglect grounds.
    Such argument was waived and, in the alternative, Defendants did not meet their burden in
    establishing excusable neglect.
    2010CV6 D55 Page 7 of 10
    2. 60(b)(2) Misrepresentation or Other Misconduct of an Adverse Party
    In the Motion for Relief from Judgment, Defendants argue that Plaintiff had a duty to
    serve process on Defendants’ counsel and not on Defendants’ out-of-state registered agents, that
    Plaintiff should have informed the Court that he did not serve Defendants’ counsel, and failing to
    notify Defendants of the state action violated Defendants’ due process. To support their position,
    Defendants cite C.R.C.P. Rule 4, C.R.S. § 13-1-125, Mason-Jares Ltd., v. Peterson, 939 P.2d
    522 (Colo. App. 1997), and Matter of Bonfil’s Estate, 543 P.2d 701, 705 (Colo. 1975).
    Service of process on corporations is clearly defined by C.R.C.P. 4 and section 13-1-125
    C.R.S. (2010). Proper service on a corporation, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 4(e)(4), requires serving
    “the registered agent for service as set forth in the most recently filed documents in the records
    of the secretary of this state or any other jurisdiction.” Section 13-1-125 provides that service
    must be made to the registered agent within the State of Colorado if one exists. Here, neither
    Defendant maintains an agent for service of process in the State of Colorado. Therefore, serving
    process on the Defendants’ out-of-state registered agents is authorized and proper to apprise the
    Defendants to appear and defend in this Court
    The holdings in Mason-Jares and Matter of Bonfils simply do not apply to this case.
    Mason-Jares held a “judgment was void because service of publication did not satisfy due
    process where plaintiff discovered defendants’ location during publication process.” In re C.L.S.,
    252 P.3d 556, (Colo. App. 2011) (citing Mason-Jares, 939 P.2d at 524, for the proposition that a
    judgment entered in violation of due process is void). The crux of Mason-Jares is that the spirit
    of the law requires actual notice must be given, when possible, to an actual party whose rights
    are affected by litigation. See id. The need for service by publication ceases to exist if actual
    2010CV6 D55 Page 8 of 10
    notice is possible through personal service. See Bray v. Germain INV. CO., 98 P.2d 993 (Colo.
    1940). Here, personal service was achieved, and therefore, actual notice was achieved and the
    due process concerns found in Mason-Jares—actual notice v. constructive notice—do not exist.
    This Court can find no basis in the law to extend the holding of Mason-Jares so as to require
    personal service on opposing party’s counsel, simply because the parties are involved in
    litigation elsewhere. Nor does Mason-Jares stand for the proposition that parties must be notified
    of an application for default judgment when the same parties and attorneys are engaged in other
    As for Matter of Bonfils, that case distinguished the different effects extrinsic fraud and
    intrinsic fraud have upon judgments. Here, there is no basis to assert a fraud claim, especially
    where Rule 4 authorizes, and C.R.S. § 13-1-125 does not restrict, service of process on
    Defendants’ out-of-state registered agents. In order for a fraud to exist, among other things, there
    must be a misrepresentation. Because this court finds no notice requirement exists, there can be
    no misrepresentation. There is no misrepresentation in not doing that which is not required.
    Misrepresentation occurs when a party fails to disclose what the party has a duty to disclose.
    None of the authorities cited in Defendants’ Motion give rise nor imply such a duty. Therefore,
    there was no misrepresentation to the Court since Plaintiff had no duty, nor reason, to inform the
    Court that Defendants’ counsel was not served.
    The Defendants’ remaining contention is the alleged duty of the Plaintiff to warn the
    Defendants of an application for default judgment.2
    2 This argument was first raised in oral arguments and again in OneWest Bank FSB’s and Federal Home Loan
    Mortgage Corporation’s Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Relief from Final Judgment, filed August 9,
    “By rule, notice of an application for default
    judgment is only required ‘if the party against whom judgment by default is sought has appeared
    2010CV6 D55 Page 9 of 10
    in the action.” Goodman Associates, LLC v. WP Mountain Properties LLC, 222 P.3d 310, 323
    (Colo. 2010) (citing C.R.C.P. 55(b)). Defendants made no appearance in this action, so notice
    was not required.
    Nevertheless, Defendants cite California case law for the proposition that Plaintiff had an
    ethical duty to warn Defendant’s before applying for default judgment. Though the Court finds
    the California case law somewhat persuasive, C.R.C.P. Rule 55(b) is clear. Pursuant to this rule,
    “[i]f the party against whom judgment by default is sought has appeared in the action, the party
    (or, if appearing by representative, the party’s representative) shall be served with written notice
    of the application for judgment at least three days prior to the hearing on such application.”
    C.R.C.P. Rule 55(b). Clearly, under Colorado law, notice is only given to those parties who have
    “appeared” in the case and not pursuant to rules of professional conduct.
    3. Res Judicata
    Defendants further argue that “…the issue of whether defendants had authority to
    foreclose was already decided in the Rule 120 action, and that Order serves as res judicata in this
    quiet title action, where plaintiff has improperly attempted to relitigate the issue of title.”
    (Defendants’ Supplemental Brief, p. 4.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff that res judicata does not
    apply to a C.R.C.P.Rule 120 proceeding. The plain language of this rule states in part, “Neither
    the granting nor the denial of a motion under this Rule shall constitute an appealable order or
    judgment. The granting of any such motion shall be without prejudice to the right of any person
    aggrieved to seek injunctive or other relief in any court of competent jurisdiction, and the denial
    of any such motion shall be without prejudice to any right or remedy of the moving party.”
    C.R.C.P. Rule 120(d).
    2010CV6 D55 Page 10 of 10
    Defendants cite Golden Cycle Corporation v. Cresson Consolidated Gold Mining and
    Milling Company, 497 P.2d 714 (Colo. App. 1972), to support their proposition that a Rule 120
    provides res judicata as to matters pled and determined. Golden Cycle applied res judicata to a
    default judgment in a “foreclosure proceeding.” It is unclear from the opinion whether the
    “foreclosure proceeding” was held pursuant to Rule 120 or Rule 105. Nevertheless, a judgment
    issued therein rather than merely an order authorizing sale as is the case in a Rule 120
    proceeding, which leads this Court to believe that Golden Cycle applied res judicata to a judicial
    foreclosure proceeding and not to a Rule 120 proceeding. (See C.R.C.P. 120(e) (“If no response
    has been filed within the time permitted by section (c)…the court shall dispense with the hearing
    and forthwith enter an order authorizing sale”). Thus, the Court finds that the Order Authorizing
    Sale in case number 2009CV42 is not res judicata as the issues presented in this case.
    West Bank F.S.B.’s and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation’s Motion for Relief From
    Final Judgment be and is hereby DENIED.
    DONE AND SIGNED THIS 3rd DAY OF October, 2011.
    Martin A. Gonzales
    2011.10.03 10:23:37

  18. Hi all,
    Funny when we were loan shopping in 2006 Wells Fargo kept calling me to bring over my financials but the Bank Manager was very condescending. We were planning to get married. My current husband was depositing quite a large amount of money from a wind fall and had made a large deposit, the comment about how long have you known each other was enough to tell the Wells Fargo broker to move on, he did however send a non solicited declination letter to the homeowner we had made an offer on her home and had a closing scheduled the following week. That was ridiculous and do not tell me Women are still not minorities, I experience it at least once a week. It saddens me, I cannot trust anyone. It was fun when life was not first about “let me do a background check” on you before I can make eye contact. Anyway I am not even one tiny bit shocked Wells Fargo is really the one who will be caught holding the bag. It (theoretically) is only a holder for their quarters (Big Banks ) until the big guy is looking the other way and the entire nightmare will begin again with a tweaked system change here and there. I for one have my life in a locked down vault feet into the earth. Good Luck finding my stash.

  19. Wells Fargo is the ringleader, isn’t it??

    Am I looking at all the sec files in the wrong fashion, or was every bank that has gone under or been sold, taken over or bought by the TRUSTEE that was managing it’s assets before failure?

    JPMorgan Chase as TRUSTEE for Wamu, Wells Fargo TRUSTEE for Wachovia, etc etc – there is a pattern here…

    Are they messing up loans on purpose, then bankrupting so to get the “assets” but not the liabilities? On average changing names every 10 years?

    This is beyond my comprehension – does anybody else see this?

    Also found this strange entry (I couldn’t copy/paste so I wrote it out)

    In MEXICO A Letter of Intent by Buyer and Seller:

    Buyer (name not stated)
    Seller Punta Vista SA de CV

    Property: condominium project known as Punta Vista III in Punta Mita, Emiliano Zapata, Nayarit, Mexico, public deed # 18241 located in the municipality of Bahia de Banderas, Nayarit, Mexico in the name of the Mexican Corporation Punta Vista SA de CV.

    Down payment and Letter of Intent to be deposited in the escrow account of Stewart Title Guaranty Co.
    Down payment will not generate interest and will be credited to the balance of the purchase price after all payments made under agreement.

    Wire funds to Stewart Title at the following address:

    Wells Fargo Bank, NA
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    ABA 121000248
    Acct No. 4030000772
    Beneficiary: Stewart Information International, Inc.

    (the small o in the Swift code is just as you see it above)

    I was looking for a connection between Wells Fargo and the Title co that the loan broker used to close my refinance – funny thing was that the previous mortgagee was Wells Fargo HM and refused us a refinance but referred us to another lender who closed with Stewart – and our first payment was due to – you guessed it – Wells Fargo HM!

    Could it be that Wells Fargo is conspiring with Stewart Title, I wonder if those “non-interest-bearing” international funds that come from Mexico are being taxed. Funny Stewart Title is using Wells Fargo Bank, NA.

    Hope this helps somebody – I don’t understand it but I know it’s fishy

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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,834 other followers

%d bloggers like this: