A homeowner who retained our services to investigate his mortgage loan just recently scored a major victory in US District Court in Oregon in Barnes v. Chase Home Finance.

Our investigation revealed that the borrower, Timothy Barnes, had the extended right to rescind his loan under TILA/Regulation Z due to material disclosure violation by the original lender. We assisted Mr. Barnes in drafting the appropriate notices to rescind his loan and he subsequently elected to send the notices and rescind.

At the time the first notices were sent, Chase Home Finance was the servicer. Chase failed to respond appropriately to the rescission notice. Chase subsequently decided to transfer servicing to IBM Lender Business Process Services. Notice of Chase’s failure to rescind and/or respond according to the requirements under TILA/Reg. Z was provided to IBM. IBM also failed to respond according to the regulations and refused to rescind.

Mr. Barnes subsequently drafted and filed a Pro Se complaint in federal court. Chase and IBM have been playing games in this case and they filed a Motion to Dismiss (predictable). The federal magistrate assigned to the case seems to have a real bias for the banks and handed down a terribly misguided decision dismissing Mr. Barnes’ claims. He objected to the magistrate’s jurisdiction and essentially appealed the woefully wrong conclusions.

Judge Anna Brown analyzed the issues, pleadings, etc. and handed down a near complete reversal of the magistrate’s decision. Her brief has since been published on WestLaw and multiple legal databases since it so complete. She goes into great detail on the actual law which we stand on in this case.

CLICK HERE to get the slip copy of her brief published in WestLaw. It goes through the entire history of this case in great detail along with her reasoning and findings.

This is a major score for the homeowners in Oregon especially but really all over the US. I have been saying for years and years that TILA Rescission is a complete defense to foreclosure and provides the most comprehensive remedy to a homeowner when PROPERLY applied.

The key issue is that most attorneys do not truly understand TILA Rescission and really don’t know how to apply it and argue the elements. That’s ok if they have an expert like myself helping them but it’s so important for homeowners to understand that TILA Rescission is an excellent tool to fight with when you have the statutory right to rescind.

The other problem I have seen though is that most of these “forensic auditors” out there who are not experts, many, if not most are actually scammers, and the few who aren’t an outright scam have no clue how to properly apply the elements of TILA rescission and analyze the issues to elicit if the homeowner has the right to rescind. In fact, I have seen many many cases where the homeowner thinks they can rescind but really don’t have the right under TILA to do so.

Yes, there are instances where fraudulent inducement or fraudulent concealment or mortgage fraud may provide for a claim of common law rescission but that is completely different from TILA rescission. It’s important to have an expert truly analyze your loan.

For Tim Barnes, way to go. Great victory and anxious to see how this case progresses now that we have a real judge involved who cares about the law. Way to go Judge Brown. It’s refreshing to see a judge who takes the time to understand the issues and truly cares about applying this consumer protection statute properly, without bias.

Article by Peter Harper

A mortgage recast is more like mortgage modification but it mainly involves re-amortization of your home loan. The need for mortgage recast in general comes up in case of three situations. One is when you would want to pay down the principal and get the home loan amortized. The second situation is when a homeowner is in financial hardship and thus may want to extend the term of the home loan. Another situation is when negative amortization happens on a home loan, recast is done.

Why is recasting on mortgage done?

Mortgage recasting is done in order to lower the monthly payment on your mortgage. Thus, it is more like mortgage modification as the loan term gets changed and the payment on the mortgage is reduced. Through mortgage recasting the cost and the hassles of refinancing your mortgage gets reduced. There are many such lenders who offer the homeowners the chance which can help them in to lowering their monthly payments through recasting or re-amortization.

Amortization is when the payments against the mortgage are made and when the loan amount reduces as a result of this. Thus, negative amortization is just the opposite of this where the loan amount grows as a result of less than minimum payments made by the borrower.

The amortized loan lowers the fixed amount of money that you are required to pay each month against the home loan so that at the end of the mortgage, the principal amount gets paid off. Thus, you can use a mortgage calculator in order to understand fully the amortization schedule which shows as to how the monthly payments are broken down into the payment towards the interest and the payment against the principal amount borrowed.

Typically the homeowners do not recast the home mortgage under a situation where they make additional payments against the principal. Rather the loan gets foreshortened and this is because additional payments towards the principal reduce the outstanding balance of the loan, along with the expense on the monthly interest. In this case as the monthly payment do not change, so the loan gets paid off faster.

However, sometimes the main idea of the homeowners, in making the additional principal payments is not mainly to reduce the loan but to lower the monthly payments on the mortgage. In such a situation the home loan is required to be recast. The lender in case of recast is required to base the payments against the home loan as per the new term, thereby the lower balance of the loan and also the remaining home loan term.

But again, not all of the mortgage lenders may offer their customers the provision to recast the home mortgage. The main lenders in many cases sell off the loans and these get originated to investors. The investors in general are not much interested in providing this level of provisions and flexibility to the borrowers and so these home loans may not have the recast option. However, it is always better to talk to your lender about the mortgage recast and if you can get such a provision.

Other than this in case of the negative amortization loans or also as known as the pick and pay loan, you may be able to recast the loan. Though these loans offer you various advantage and various low payment options, this is quite a troublesome kind of loan. This is because the loan amount grows and at a point of time it becomes really tough for you to make the payments against the home loan. So, in such cases the loans can be recast and in this case the loan payments grow higher in order to lower the principal amount which you had borrowed.

Here are some reports and excerpts from other sources regarding Congressional Insider Trading:

Forbes

You want strict ethics rules? Start at the top — with the shining example of the noble knights of the House of Representatives, which bans all gifts from lobbyists and imposes a $50 limit on gifts from anyone else. And no, you can’t give an infinite number of $49 gifts to Larry Lawmaker. Sayeth the holy rulebook.

Okay, so maybe you can give an infinite number of $9.99 gifts, and meals are specifically designated as such. Feel free to make your case to Rep. Portentous over a daily lunch at Arby’s. But still: pretty tight rules, eh?

Except that one thing you can do as a member is study pending legislation and regulatory changes, call up your broker and instruct him to trade on that nonpublic information. Do this as often as you want; you will suffer no penalty. There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted.

Doesn’t that give you a cozy feeling, knowing that nonpublic securities info is helping make your friendly local politician more secure as he daydreams new ways to prevent, limit, or appropriate for his own reelection purposes – sorry, the needs of the Republic!– your financial success?

Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON—Chris Miller nearly doubled his $3,500 stock investment in a renewable-energy firm in 2008. It was a perfectly legal bet, but he’s no ordinary investor.

Mr. Miller is the top energy-policy adviser to Nevada Democrat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who helped pass legislation that wound up benefiting the firm.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid’s office, initially defended Mr. Miller’s purchase of shares in the company, Energy Conversion Devices Inc. He said the aide had no influence over tax incentives for renewable-energy firms, and that other factors boosted the stock.

Mr. Miller isn’t the only Congressional staffer making such stock bets. At least 72 aides on both sides of the aisle traded shares of companies that their bosses help oversee, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of more than 3,000 disclosure forms covering trading activity by Capitol Hill staffers for 2008 and 2009.

The Journal analysis showed that an aide to a Republican member of the Senate Banking Committee bought Bank of America Corp. stock before results of last year’s government stress tests eased investor concerns about the health of the banking industry. A top aide to the House Speaker profited by trading shares of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in a brokerage account with her husband two days before the government authorized emergency funding for the companies. Another aide to Republican lawmakers interested in energy issues, among other things, profited by trading in several renewable-energy firms.

An analysis of financial-disclosure forms for 2008 and 2009 compiled by the website LegiStorm shows that several hundred congressional aides bought or sold stocks. At least 72 traded the stocks of companies their bosses write laws for.

A number of aides invested in financial stocks. Karen Brown, an aide to Sen. Mike Crapo (R., Idaho), a Senate Banking Committee member, traded Bank of America stock on seven occasions in 2009, according to filings. She bought a total of between $3,003 and $45,000 of the bank’s shares in three trades on April 17 and April 27 and sold between $51,002 and $115,000 in September. Her minimum gain during that period would have been 43%.

At the time of the purchases, Bank of America was discussing with the government the findings of “stress tests” used to gauge the safety of U.S. banks. On May 7, 2009, BofA shares surged when the stress-test results were made public, easing investor fears.

After it was contacted by the Journal, Mr. Crapo’s office said the trades were made by Mrs. Brown’s husband, “independent of any direction from Mrs. Brown.” The office said Mrs. Brown has since filed an amended financial-disclosure form.

Terri McCullough, a 41-year-old aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had several successful trades in 2008 in a Charles Schwab brokerage account with her husband, Howard Wolfson, a former spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Mr. Wolfson says he bought about $2,000 worth of Freddie Mac and $2,700 worth of Fannie Mae on July 11, 2008, just two days before the Fed authorized emergency funding to Freddie and Fannie. Mr. Wolfson says he bought the stock after reading a news story on the possibility of the U.S. taking over one or both mortgage-finance companies.

As the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi was briefed by the administration and Treasury Department officials about the steps they were taking in the financial crisis. Ms. McCullough served as Ms. Pelosi’s chief of staff, though she focuses on social issues and matters concerning Ms. Pelosi’s San Francisco-area district.

In one day Mr. Wolfson bought and sold Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae shares as the stocks jumped about 40%, for a profit of about $2,000, he said. The couple made a total of $20,000 on trading in 2008, he said. Mr. Wolfson says that he made the trades on his own, without telling his wife or getting any information from her.

Ms. McCullough said: “I was not involved in discussions regarding Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, and I was unaware of the Bush Administration’s or Congress’s plans regarding them. I do not make trades and had no knowledge of the trades my husband made in 2008 until after they were made.”

READ MORE

 The Atlantic

When Congress isn’t sending billions in taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street firms, some of its legislators appear to be using information unavailable to the general public to personally profit on stock trades.

So says a study just published in Business and Politics. A portfolio that imitates the stock purchases of House members outperforms the market by more than 6 percent in the course of a year, its authors found. “A previous study of the stock returns of U.S. Senators in a leading finance journal indicates that their portfolios show some of the highest excess returns ever recorded over a long period of time, significantly outperforming even hedge fund managers,” they wrote. “Until now, there has been no similar study of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.”

Now we know that from 1985 to 2001, the specific interval used to generate the data, senators do the best, House members follow, and the average American investor brings up the rear.

I like his writing style… this article is a fun read, while somewhat tragic, when you understand what is and has been happening in our country. It is also highly instructive and articulates well many of the pertinent issues in this foreclosure scam around our country – which is nothing more than the seizure of homes and wealth in a massive transfer of money and property to the 1%.

While I don’t agree with everything going on in the Occupy Wall Street protests, I do identify with the 1% vs. the 99% concept. It is a reality nonetheless in this country. While Obama and his cronies are trying to use the protests as political currency to create some illusion that they support these people, their policies, when laid bare, simply enforce, support and exacerbate the 1% vs. the 99% issue which is nothing more than “someone” deciding that they can transfer anyone’s money or property to “someone” else. This is wrong  - whether it’s accomplished through fraud or through governmental policy – tax policy or otherwise.

Government’s role is and should be to protect all players in our system from fraud and should be focused on ensuring the system is free from manipulation, fraud, misrepresentation and such. Then, true capitalism and the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit of Americans can thrive and do what “we” do best. Some will get rich and deservedly so. Some will become poorer because they want to be lazy or maybe because they have no such aspirations to innovate, thrive or ‘get rich’. Either way, the freedoms our country was founded on will create a dynamic, thriving place for all of us to live in where opportunity to create wealth and decide your own future will, once again, rule the day.

Enjoy this fantastic article. Thanks Gregory!

Dividing the Mortgage Loan and Affirming the Consequent
by Gregory M. Lemelson 

Background: A post Ibanez world

In January the Massachusetts supreme judicial court held in US Bank National Association vs. Antonio Ibanez that a note holder may not foreclose on a property in order to redeem a debt, if they are not also the holder of a valid mortgage (that is to say also with a valid assignment). We outlined the details of this case and its implications in our article “Ibanez – Denying the Antecedent, Suppressing the Evidence and one big fat Red Herring” on January 11th, 2011.

The issue before the SJC in Henrietta Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association and Green Tree Servicing, LLC is whether the assignee of a mortgage security alone (fraudulent assignments aside), without any direct or indirect interest in or claim to the underlying debt, can seek to recover the debt through foreclosure.

Oral arguments in the case were heard on Oct. 3rd, 2011.

It is important to note that in Ibanez, the SJC was not willing to overturn long standing legal principles simply because of recent “innovation” in the way banks chose to record their security interest in real property (e.g. MERS), or because of the extraordinary liability such a ruling would have on what basically amounted to four years of mostly illegal foreclosure activity in the Commonwealth.

The Ibanez article published last January predated Eaton by some ten months, and since the SJC reviewed Eaton “sua sponte”, there was no way to know at the time, that Eaton would make it all the way to the SJC, so the following comments taken from the article are perhaps prescient:

” It is possible that from the banks perspective an invalid assignment of the note is the more serious concern for the following reasons:

1. Without first having proper ownership of the debt, the bank can not initiate any collection activity, let alone foreclosure.

2. Notes (ownership of the debt asset), may be subject to further contention in bankruptcy proceedings where many creditors have a vested interest in the assets of a defunct mortgage lender, particularly since these notes are often sold in bankruptcy for a fraction of their face value.

3. The trusts that are supposed to contain the validly conveyed notes will in fact, not actually contain them (because they are not bearer paper), thus violating the representations and warranties made to investors who purchase these securities. Therefore, it is unsecured debt, and potentially, no debt at all upon which to collect payments.

6. Even if the notes obtain a valid conveyance, or confirmation of conveyance at a later date, it is still may be impossible to place them into the MBS’s:

a. It will have been longer than 90 days (the typical expiry period to transfer assets into the trust)

b. If it is a foreclosure matter, the loan is in default (the PSA’s do not allow for the addition of defaulted loans)

c. Any effort on the part of the trust to insert old or defaulted loans would jeopardize the trusts favorable REMIC status – thus further harming already impaired returns.”

As pointed out in the Ibanez article, clear title to the property is important. If the assignment of the mortgage is invalid, then there is a “cloud on title”. The banks recognizing this, brought Ibanez before the land court of their own volition in order to clear this “cloud on title”. One of the key mistakes counsel for Eaton made, perhaps in their effort to establish the more serious problem of legitimate possession of the note, was overlooking the validity of the Mortgage assignment, (still incredibly important) which, as with most securitized loans, was so clearly fraudulent (see Amicus brief of Marie McDonnell). Incidentally, this was of particular interest to the court during oral arguments, however, because the issue was never raised by Eaton’s counsel in its complaint, it could not be addressed by the court. Thus the opportunity to cite the authority of Crowley v. Adams 22 Mass. 582 (1917) which concerned the fraudulent conveyance of a mortgage without a note, was lost. Within the context of discussing the assignees knowledge of the fraud, the court held:

“[the assignee] should be held to have known as to each transaction, the possession of the note was essential to an enforceable mortgage, without which neither mortgage could be effectively foreclosed.” Id. at 585.

This was a error on the part of counsel, and eliminated a potential fifth source of authority in Eaton, as we wrote in January:

“1.If there must be a perfected interest in the mortgage (according to MA law) at the time of foreclosure, then how many foreclosures have taken place in Massachusetts with the same profile as Ibanez, and are thus invalid?

2. Clear title is important – In the statement of the case, the banks actually brought the complaint before the land court as independent actions in order to “remove a cloud on the title” – thus the banks recognize that such defects are a problem for future conveyance. All MA homeowners should be worried about the same (discussed further below).

3. To foreclose on a mortgage securing property in the commonwealth, one must be the holder of the mortgage. To be the holder of the mortgage, the bank must:

a. Be the original mortgagee

b. Be an assignee under a valid assignment of the mortgage

c. It is not sufficient to possess the mortgagor’s promissory note (bearer paper). Apparently most if not all securitized mortgages were endorsed in “blank”, in other words to the bearer.

4. The notice requirements set forth in G.L.c. 244, ss 14 unequivocally requires that the foreclosure notice must identify the present holder of the mortgage. This likely was not the case in past foreclosures in MA. For future foreclosure actions the question is can the real mortgage holder be found and will they cooperate in assigning the security interest?

5. Assignees of a mortgage must hold a written statement conveying the mortgage that satisfied the statute of Frauds or even the most basic elements of contractual requirements.

AG Coakley acknowledges that “the securitization regime was required to conform to state law prior to foreclosing, to ensure simply that legal ownership ‘caught up’ in order that the creditor foreclose legally in MA. The lenders, trustees and servicers could have done this, but apparently elected not to, perhaps on a ‘Massive Scale’ ” Saying that they “could have done this” within the context of MA law is one thing, within the context of IRS tax code, or NY trust law, is another.”

Further the article points out that a holder of the mortgage without the note, really only holds the security instrument in trust for the debt holder (thus anticipating Eaton), as pointed out in the following taken from the Ibanez article:

4. The holder of the mortgage holds the mortgage in trust for the purchaser of the note, who has an equitable right to obtain an assignment of the mortgage, which may be accomplished by filing an action in court and obtaining an equitable order of assignment. If the average MBS has 5,000 notes for example, then we have to assume 5000 separate actions would have to be filed in court to ensure they are truly “Mortgage Backed Securities”, and that is only if the REMIC status isn’t jeopardized by such a revelation or action.”

However, the impasse for banks is the fact, that even if the court recognizes the authority of MERS to assign the mortgage to the foreclosing entity (usually the servicer), the following conditions still must be met:

a) The assignment must still be a valid assignment (most are not)

b) There must also be a valid assignment of the note to establish who exactly owns the debt.

The vast majority of these loans were sold into securitization trusts and are merely endorsed “in blank” (if they can even be found in the trust at all). Most schedules attached to the trust documents include little or no information on the details of the particular loans (as was the case in Ibanez), or sometimes include the address of particular properties, but no information on the barrowers, or curiously the loan amounts. Other failures include post-dated or otherwise invalid notarizations, and fraudulent signatures etc., which are all suggestive of fraud.

Given this, to speak of Eaton merely as a question over the validity of MERS and its assignments is incorrect. Even if Eaton is not affirmed by the SJC, the issue of validly conveyed notes, remains of vital importance.

That having been said, we believe the Appellants chances of prevailing are precisely zero, or maybe less. Taken together with Ibanez, this means serious problems for the bond holders in these securitization trusts and their bank administrators. With all the nuance of every day speak we could muster, we think it is put best by saying just; some of the debt-servants might escape. That isn’t to say that all measures won’t be taken to try to prevent this outcome.

On contemporary Pheronic thinking and the Pyramids that debt-servants build

We believe that this situation lends itself to the possibility of violence, as tragic an outcome as that is and would be. On June 3rd, 2011 we published our follow up to the Ibanez article entitled simply “On the ethics of mortgage loan default”. Four days later, the Essex county registrar of deeds John O’Brian, who we quote in the article, stopped recording fraudulent mortgage assignments (which many if not most are). It seems logical that this would be a “wake-up” call to the average homeowner, particularly since other registrars are prepared to follow suit. With the registrar’s decision, it has become a fact that title may no longer be recordable and ownership is in question. As it turns out, the homeowner who faithfully sends in monthly mortgage payments for years or decades (in an effort to “do the right thing”), may have no more clear ownership rights in the related property than a perfect stranger.

As the article “On the ethics of mortgage loan default” spread throughout the Internet with countless links and references, we were surprised to find comments that included (not unlike the allegory of the cave) the desire that the author “be shot”. We were equally surprised when the Hacktivist group “Anonymous” (which was not our target audience either) featured the article prominently in several of their sites.

It has been said “the rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender”. Perhaps in our Naiveté, we did not understand the sensitivity around the suggestion that a servant might want to be free one day. Nor did we recognize that the powerful human inclination to denial might elicit more than just a passive reaction. Like the prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all – later puts their life in danger from those who remain in the cave. Yet, the source of the light is truth and intelligence and those who would act prudently must see it.

These implications give rise to powerful questions in the current context. One such question regards the difference between a debt and a moral obligation? Why do we confuse the two so often in our society? Such that those who seek forgiveness of debt, are made to feel as if they are violating a moral code, or a cultural taboo? Perhaps the explanation lies in a more clear definition of the two. A moral obligation is something that can be forgiven with some flexibility, there is hardly exactness involved.

A monetary debt on the other hand can be calculated with the accuracy and immutability of math and the related science of accounting, and grown with the power of compounded interest, and therefore, in proper monetary debt, exist the possibility of subjugation in perpetuity, or at least for the entire natural life of the debtor.

Oddly, our society adds insult to injury in this failing of human civilization, and as if this dreadful revelation were not enough, adds on top of these accurately calculated and compounded financial obligations, the fallacy of a moral obligation, and in so doing the debt-servant is made to feel guilt regarding his moral character as well as his failure to pay.

When this sleight of hand is wedded to exhaustion (a pre-existing condition of many debt-servants), the odds of one actually fighting back against such a system, corrupt though it may be, are only minute. It must have been a genius who figured out that slavery with chains is inefficient. If a human could be conditioned to believe he is a free man, when he is not, and that already disillusioned he might be convinced that he is also a rich man, when he is not, then chains and their related complications are wholly unnecessary. All that is necessary then is to lower his idea of freedom and wealth substantially, and provide him with cut-rate imitations.

Under these circumstances, the average man would in fact work extraordinary hours, even if his paycheck was essentially diminished to less than zero by his existing debts (thus requiring him to take on new ones), and if by chance he was able to save, those funds too would be safely transferred to the hands of strangers (through “innovations” such as 401K’s, which could be convenient deducted from his paycheck electronically and instantly). These strangers are there to help the debt-servant loose what meager savings might be possible through sub-par investments (like internet stocks) which he never understood, but which is broker was always paid for trading.

Notably, this shell game can never be revealed to a debt-servant, because then he would understand that he is not really a free man, even though the real law is “…not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts”, and yet this inclination of the heart is often resisted, even with violence. Nonetheless, In this law of the heart lies “a desire” which is so great that it over powers all other human constructs, including offensive debts.

In this respect, surely a few folks in Europe must have believed that the entire trade in chained slaves made the United States look like an economically and operationally primitive bunch – for the cost of that variety of servant is actually much higher, and had a far smaller pool of candidates, namely those with a particular tint to their skin. Yet, telling someone that they are inferior based merely on the color of their skin is a hard sell year after year. Conversely, telling someone they are free, when they have never tasted real freedom because they were born into debt, is easier to maintain, because it deals with more subtle issues, and the likelihood of confusion with moral obligation, and exploits the power of human denial.

The earliest evidence regarding market places and trade indicate that if you have something to sell that is of far lesser value than you are indicating, than it is wise to have the greatest physical distance possible between yourself and your counterpart – for in such a trade lies the inherent possibility of a violent reaction to the discovery on the part of the unsuspecting buyer, particularly when accurate accounts of credit and debt are kept and ruthlessly enforced. Some of the oldest recorded documents in history are of this variety; they are surprisingly, accounts of credit and debt. Perhaps human history is really a history of subjugation then. Cultural anthropologists are quite familiar with this idea of credit and debt in (even ancient) market places. It’s an old story. However, Americans are bread as consumers, not as economic or cultural anthropologist, because in that knowledge rests power, and power, by definition must belong to a coterie. For the greater the number of those subdued, the greater the power of the few who would subdue, just as with money, power deals only in transfers.

That is why the average American home owner is not allowed to have the true owner of their mortgage debts revealed – they are the counter party to an impolite deal. In these trades great profits were made, and in the pricing of the assets, great misrepresentations regarding intrinsic value. Wealth destruction therefore is a misleading expression in describing what happened; the accurate term is wealth transfer. During the housing “Pyramid” (this term is far more accurate than “bubble”, because it accurately describes an order) one of the greatest logical errors of all time was sold; that the intrinsic value of a home, which had within it the possibility of calculating (accurately) fair price was tied instead to a hyper speculative measure, that which is inherently impossible to price with any degree of accuracy, and which is immaterial; our notion of an ideal. As one might imagine, no price is too high to live an “ideal” – think of it as a seller’s paradise. After, a difficult stock market collapse, and an even more difficult terrorist attack, why would anyone be interested in mere stocks or bonds? After all the very place where these electronic slips are traded was very nearly destroyed. This new investment was allegedly concrete, and also patriotic. Americans were led to believe they had “…discovered a pearl of great value”, the only security whose price could never go down – it was like a “Dream”, like an “American Dream”.

However, when loan documents were to be signed a new broker suddenly appeared. Without any forewarning, with a name that was not before heard, or with anyone who had actually seen him, or understood how he operated, he made a subtle but powerful arrival on the scene. His name is Mr. MERS, and he instituted even greater secrecy than stock brokers and fund managers. Few have seen his physical appearance, or pulled back the curtain, it’s uninteresting anyways, because Mr. MERS is nothing more than a relational database, which only a very small fraction of the world’s population have access to (even democratically elected bodies, such as county recorders have no such access). He brokers the movements of trillions of dollars in capital. He is a construct of your trading partner, and because of his existence, you can never have a “level playing field”, or hope of a fair trade. In this brave new world, the requisite distance that precedes a bad trade, is no longer a measure of geography, it is a piece of software.

With this surreptitious matrix of relational database fields safely in place, how are all those houses, like so many stone blocks cut by ancient hands, turned into a pyramid? The answer seems self-evident; through a pyramid scheme naturally.

How would a contemporary mass exodus from such bondage look? Just as Fannie Mae and Green Tree divided the essential components of their security, It might look like ordinary debt-servants parting and dividing a sea of concrete, and traversing the depth of high rise buildings in New York, just as “by faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land”.

The people in New York are criticized for their lack of direction, the fact that they appear to be lost in a veritable desert – but they are free, and in their hearts live an almost child-like innocence that we should desire to have. After all, their predecessors spent a good deal more time lost, and through it discovered a greater revelation, one that would lay the foundation to ultimate answers.

The popular accounts promulgated by Adam Smith and the contemporary science of modern economics as we were made to understand them, rely on more than one myth regarding the engineering of debt, and its related instrument – money. These underlying misrepresentations give rise to the possibility of great abuses, for the very nature of trade, and all else which rests upon it is thus misunderstood.

There are many reasons to despair over the future of our fragile state in the US today. However, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is not one of those reasons. By upholding the rule of law, and observing the incredibly important, and notably democratic foundations of land recording practice in the commonwealth they serve as a beacon for the rest of the country to follow and impart hope. This comes at a time when such hope is in scarce supply. If it is God’s will, than the light of wisdom handed down from prior ages on this point will shine through the darkness that has been created by corrupt forces. We can only hope.

A Road Map for Homeowners: Four Authoritative Guidelines

In Massachusetts law there exists four authoritative guidelines by which property may be foreclosed upon in order to redeem a debt (Five if Crowley v. Adams is included from above). Incidentally division is not a problem for these four authorities, for they stand equally well alone as they do in combination as requirements to validly exercise the power of sale of real property. Both the spirit and the letter of these sources are echoed in laws of other states, and as such can be taken as fundamentally universal. They are as follows:

The Common Law and the problem of Division

In Summary Eaton dealt with the following three realities of long standing Massachusetts law:

1. The assignee of a mortgage with no claim to the underlying debt cannot foreclose.

2. A mortgage separated from the debt it secures has no value in and of itself; it can only be held in trust for the note holder (naked title)

3. The trust relationship implied for the benefit of the note holder does not empower a mortgage assignee to foreclose as a “fiduciary” at any time.

It should be offensive even to the casual observer that in the case of Eaton, as would be the case for most home owners today, a valid promissory note memorializing the debt was and is missing. Who held it at the time of the foreclosure, how they obtained it, and what relationship they had if any to the appellants was and is still unknown.

Although a photo copy of the note was produced with the typical “endorsement in blank” markings, the appellants provided no document or other information indicating when the note was endorsed or who held it either then or now. The required assignments between intermediaries were never produced. Interestingly neither of the defending entities offered any testimony or other evidence in either court action to resolve these all important questions or otherwise identify the holder of the note. However, they did concede, that it was not the foreclosing entity Green Tree, LLC.

Conceivably this is because they do not know, and they do not want to know, and maybe they would even like to forget. Perhaps the note it is evidence.

Not surprisingly counsel for the appellants, despite this revelation, argued that the whereabouts and history of the promissory note was “irrelevant” and that they were entitled to foreclose nonetheless.

After a careful review of the full history of the mortgage foreclosure law in Massachusetts, as well as the related statutes and appellate decisions, The Superior court didn’t exactly see it that way – determining that no decision had ever overturned the established common law rule that a mortgage assignee must hold the note in order to enforce it through foreclosure.

Needless to say, this is of great concern to the banks, as predicted in the Ibanez article (cited above). Given the audacity of their claims, we believe it is reasonable to assume these folks would, if given the opportunity “send an orphan into slavery or sell a friend”. It has been difficult and time consuming to discover that notes were sold multiple times into multiple trust, thus creating a out-and-out pyramid of securities, upon which even more derivatives could be sold. However, something even more simple and obvious has been taking place in broad daylight, something peculiar that has been overlooked – the awkward problem of entire houses being stolen, by folks who have categorically no financial interest or otherwise is the properties.

Since this is the direct opposite of “The American Dream”, possibly the moniker “the American Nightmare” is appropriate.

Taking a step back, it is awful to consider that GreenTree, LLC had no interest in the debt, no interest in holding the property pre or post foreclosure, and had no material interest in the entire affair whatsoever, and yet they were the entity which sought to foreclose (or steal). Does it not appear as Les Trois Perdants with GreenTree, LLC acting as a shill?

For centuries promissory notes and the mortgages securing their repayment were held or assigned together. The separation of these two instruments, until recently was an anomaly and exception. Albeit no longer an anomaly, but rather the general business practice of approximately the last ten years, the SJC reaffirmed in Ibanez, that a trust implied by operation of law gave the note holder the right to sue to obtain an equitable assignment of the mortgage (U.S. Bank v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 (2011) – which implies surprising possibilities (e.g. every note allegedly held in every securitized pool, would have an individual and related suit to perfect it’s claim). Implications aside, the court’s ruling established nonetheless a method by which the note holder (the person to whom the debt is owed) could be empowered to collect payment.

Incidentally, long before the bifurcation of the notes and mortgages was ubiquitous, this operation of law was periodically challenged by mortgage assignees who believed that they, as “mortgagees” could simply foreclose in their own names. However, since the 19th century, and as pointed out above, the SJC has ruled otherwise. In a series of decisions it articulated the rule that a mortgagee who has no interest in the debt underlying the note cannot conduct a foreclosure, insisting instead that that right is reserved for a holder of a valid note along with a valid mortgage.

Green Tree, LLC and their Government handlers suggest that the parts of the whole, when taken independently have the properties of the whole. That is to say in this case, that since the mortgage contains the power to foreclose, the mortgage must have with it all the powers of the note – this proposition is patently wrong, and is the fallacy of Division. The instruments may function properly together, but have incomplete authority independently – and that is exactly what long standing statute (as outlined below) has upheld.

In Summary, Ibanez brought to light that banks holding only notes have only an unsecured debt – that is to say one that could be negotiated like any other. Eaton, on the other hand brings to our attention something of far greater importance; namely that a holder of a mortgage alone (even if validly assigned), without proper ownership of the underlying debt, has in fact nothing.

Call us speculators, but if SJC affirms the lower court’s decision we have a funny feeling more than one banks share price might be adversely affected.

In the end, suggesting independent authority of the mortgage, regardless of any concern for the note or the debt is just a bad argument – it’s not only “Division” it is also a great candidate for the “Non Sequitur” argument of the year award.

GreenTree, LLC – Affirming the Consequent

A thorough discussion of Massachusetts foreclosure law can be found in Howe v. Wilder, 77 Mass. 267 (1858). which resolved a foreclosure dispute by holding that a mortgagee, without the note, could not foreclose on the mortgage.

The court goes on to elaborate that because the party who would otherwise seek to foreclose was owed no debt, he cannot recover possession:

“For in pursuing such a suit [the party] has only the rights of a mortgagee, and is limited by the restriction imposed upon him…if nothing is found due to the plaintiff, it follows by necessary implication, from the provisions of the statute, that he can recover no judgment at all; none to have possession at common law, because that is expressly prohibited; and none under the statute, because where there is no condition to be performed, there can be no failure of performance, and no consequences can follow a contingency which in nature of things can never occur.”

Suggesting that by being an assignee of the mortgage, encompasses the right to foreclose is simply “Affirming the Consequent” and is just another logical fallacy.

MGL 244 § 14 and the Straw Man

Bifurcating the note and the mortgage was an extraordinary circumstance when the legislature decided the subject laws. At the time these laws were ameliorated there was no reason to explicitly delineate between the debt and the mortgage instrument securing it. To argue, as Green Tree has, that the term “Mortgagee” as used in MGL 244 § 14 means also “naked mortgagee”, (a mortgage holder not having any interest in the underlying debt) is a “Straw Man”. This suggestion overlooks the historical context in which the law was authored, the rise of the mortgage securitization industry, its related practices and the compulsory changes to recording which has taken place over the last decade. It is to overlook the privatization of land records that (as far as we know), no elected official or law maker had blessed beforehand.

If Green Tree’s argument were accurate, they would not assign the mortgages to third party servicers at all, and rather continue to foreclose in MERS name (more efficient) as had been the practice until several states supreme courts ruled against it, citing the fact that MERS had no economic interest in the mortgage, which is “but an incident to the note” or “a mere technical interest” (Wolcott v. Winchester) – this of course reaffirms the spirit of the law which Henrietta Eaton asserts in her complaint.

In particular the court stated that the assignee of a “naked Mortgage”:

“…must have known that the possession of the debt was essential to an effective mortgage, and that without it he could not maintain an action to foreclose the mortgage.” Wolcott v. Winchester, 81 Mass. 462 (1860)

Despite all of this, the bright idea of the securitization industry was to simply transfer the mortgage instrument to the servicer – a related party, sort of.

If Eaton is not affirmed by the SJC, we might as well make Three Card Monte our national pastime and get rid of baseball altogether. In such a scenario handicapping the future of the US economy and the ability to affectively and profitably speculate in the CDS market will be “duck soup”.

The authority of the UCC codified at G.L.c. 106

Because the common law involves a great deal of common sense, it just so happens to be mirrored in the Uniform Commercial Code. In particular G.L.c. 106. Article 3 of the UCC governs the negotiation and enforcement of negotiable instruments, including promissory notes secured by mortgages. Section 3-301, like the common law, provides that one must hold a (valid) note in order to validly enforce it. This rule serves the purpose of protecting consumers and barrowers against the very real possibility of double liability created when a debt is enforced. As in the current matter, Green Tree, LLC or any other mere mortgagee (even if they could get a valid assignment), would have no power or authority to discharge the actual debt. Thus if the operation of law were in any other capacity than it currently is, the mortgagee could foreclose on a property, while the debtor would still be left with a valid debt outstanding to an entirely unrelated party.

This lends itself to the requirement for transparency. During the oral arguments before the SJC, one justice asked why it mattered if the homeowner knew to whom they owed their debt. The answer is that homeowners have an important role to play in the outcome of the final settlement and discharge of their debt, and are above all the most interested party in ensuring that their payments are in fact reducing the outstanding principle balance as they are made. Otherwise, they may as well be directed to make their payments to any random stranger. It is absurd to suggest that a debtor be required to simply make payments to anybody who asks for it. That is to suggest that he is not only a debtor-servant, but also a mindless sheep – then again, perhaps that is the desired outcome.

In fact the entire matter may only be possible in a non-judicial foreclosure state, for if it were a civil complaint for the collection of an amount due, than would the debt instrument itself not be scrutinized as a first priority in the proceedings? Perhaps small unimportant questions like who actually owns the debt and is bringing the action would be relevant under such circumstances.

The authority of loan contracts

In the end, the entire action by Fannie Mae and Green Tree, violates the very contract which is being disputed. Even if no other statues or laws had operated or ever existed, Eaton’s argument would survive on this one point alone – and Eaton is not unaccompanied – she stands with some 60 million other homeowners in the US with virtually identical contracts.

In the case of Eaton standard mortgage loan documents were used, and they essentially all look alike. The terms of Eaton’s mortgage contract, as with virtually all others, authorizes only the note holder to exercise the power of sale. The one concession Green Tree, LLC made was that they are not the note holder and have neither argued, nor provided evidentiary support for the claim, that a foreclosure by anyone other than the note holder was necessary (not that it would be possible).

A bitter Fruit: Double Liability

It has been said, “By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?”. No, because “every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit” . Is Green Tree’s lawyer actually advocating that homeowners should just rely on the banks and servicers to be “nice guys” and not go after the debtors twice? It is already known that certain elements in the industry were willing to sell the same note multiple times into multiple pools which given Burnett v. Pratt, 39 Mass. 556 (1839), presents interesting problems for RMBS investors, who were essentially their business partners. If the architects of these systems can sell the same note twice, to their own business partners and customers, why would they not try to also collect twice from their debt-servants, who rank many orders below business partners and real customers?

If the severity of compound interest is not enough, the result may be plan “B” – “doubling up” where needed.

If the fact that being named on a valid mortgage is not sufficient to authorize a foreclosure, than automatically the question becomes who holds the note? The answer to the latter question is a bit more serious, for in the answer lies a good deal more than the banks would like to reveal.

Does greed have rational limits? It does not and it cannot because greed is not rational to begin with. Since nobody knows how the foreclosing mortgagee would actually go about paying the note holder, are homeowners to rely on a system of document management (which usually involves an Iron Mountain truck, and a whole lot of paper shredding) to ensure that debt-servants are set free if they ever pay off their “debts”?

Did barrowers really sign up for that when they signed their mortgage and note? If not, when and where are the limits?

It’s only a matter of time

Homeowners must examine the assignments on their mortgages and notes. If a foreclosure is imminent, a preliminary injunction should be sought in order to have an opportunity to examine the documents thoroughly and also to give time to the SJC to issue its ruling – Jurisprudence matters. When the final Eaton ruling is taken together with Ibanez, there will be a sea change – it’s only a matter of time.

It seems reasonable that in a world where bandwidth intensive videos can be encoded and uploaded over a high speed 4G network from the New York Stock Exchange and on the Internet in 30 sec. using a smartphone with 64 gigs of memory (that can fit on a SanDisk card the size of your fingernail), and join billions of other files that have highly accurate GPS data embedded in their metadata, that finding a note for multiple six or seven figures debt and bringing it to court with you would really be no big deal – but apparently it is.

Foreclosures that took place before Ibanez, likely involve an assignment of the mortgage which is invalid because it would have been assigned post foreclosure (as was the common practice at the time), thus invalidating a huge number of existing foreclosures.

For foreclosures or those facing foreclosure in the post Ibanez era, than it is highly likely that the assignment of the mortgage is both invalid and fraudulent, as Mrs. McDonnell so accurately points out is endemic in most registry of deeds. If it’s the note than that servicers intend to rely on, they may need to dream up a new strategy, because those are all “missing” as we see in Eaton. New strategies it seems are now in short supply.

A few more questions and thoughts

The “pump and dump” is as old as “market places” are. Whether it’s a street vendor in morocco extolling the virtues of his wares he wants to sell, or a the salesmen of shares in Netflix and Linkedin at impossiblele valuations – this “pump and dump” technique often is done with considerable misrepresentations, which result in artificially high prices for a time, and makes true price discovery impossible for buyers.

If you’re on the wrong side of the transfer, as a buyer of such stocks or bonds, you would have claims against the salesman – it’s called securities fraud. Now this ‘old time’ operation has been executed in the real estate market as well, and real estate, although most people don’t think of it this way, is also a security just like any other (it’s really not the American Dream, as has been sold – because as pointed out above, when something goes beyond the parameters of a mere security, to that of a “dream”, no price is too high). Just like stocks, these securities were pumped, and then dumped (but only after the related CDS’s were purchased by the architects).

What’s being described is an activity based on fraudulent misrepresentations, like most other such schemes. The “Pump” part involved a lot of paper shuffling, so that when the “dump” took place, the profiteers could not be easily identified. The same is true today. That is why debt-servants are not allowed to know their lender-masters – because it is the beginning of the paper trail, and as any certified fraud examiner will indicate, it all starts with the paper trail.

By focusing the attention of the court and the people on the intricacies of the letter of the law – even though they are wrong at that as well, the banks are taking attention away from the more obvious question, which is why? Why fight to interpret the law that way? That is the real question: Why. Why not produce the note. Why not reunite the note with the Mortgage?

Why would notes go missing? These are not credit card bills, they are documents outlining typically multi-six figure sums, or seven figure sums in some cases. Isn’t it logical that these documents would be kept in a safe place? And tracked? How could so many notes just disappear?

Why would the SJC and the American people at large not be alarmed by entities who foreclose on a property and yet have no idea who actually holds the debt?

The securitization process, in which so many notes were resold is subtle, but complex and riddled with a taxonomy that makes it as understandable as a foreign language to the casual observer. Yet, more careful scrutiny reveals that there is nothing even vaguely sophisticated about it’s operation.

The business of taking homes without any debt being owed is so obvious and simple so as to lend itself to denial. For example, one member of the SJC panel actually asked the attorney for Eaton why the barrower needed to know who owned the debt that they were paying? We thought maybe it was a joke – sadly it may not have been.

Yet, we know that notes have been sold multiple times into multiple pools and trusts, thus creating multiple creditors.

Any consumer should want to know if there debt is actually going to be discharged, and in order to know this, they would have to know who the actual debt holder is.

These debts are not secured. They are negotiable. This week alone, there was talk of bankruptcy proceedings for Eastman Kodak and American Airlines, Friendly’s, after more than 80 years in business, including operating during the last depression, actually did file. As commercial entities, they will be allowed before, during and after bankruptcy to work with their creditors in a completely transparent way.

Why is the average American expressly forbidden this simple aspect of business dealing? Though they entered into such obligations at far greater disadvantage than their corporate cousins?

It is clear that by introducing multiple parties that there are conflicting incentives and interests. It was surprising that the SJC brought up inadvertently during the oral arguments that the lender may have contractually sold their rights to have any say whatsoever in negotiations with the debt holder.

It is now well established that the servicers have the greatest financial incentives to foreclose, and apparently answer to no one, perhaps not even the lender, who nobody appears to be able to find.

The following question regarding Green Tree, MERS and the Eaton case are worth asking:

- Why would they go to such great lengths to keep the “lender” or holder of the debt in “secret”? What is there to gain? Would it not be much more expeditious to just reunite the note with the mortgage and then foreclose?

- Foreclosing with just a mortgage used to be an anomaly? But now it is the rule – what changed? Why would lenders take such an extraordinary risk with trillions of dollars?

- Does the claim that the notes are “lost”, or “missing” seem credible in light of the extraordinary technological world we live in?

- Is the imbalance in power between the home buyer (as signer) and the lawyer (as author) of the contract important? 99% of home buyers had no clue what they were signing – their attorney’s didn’t understand the assignee aspect of MERS or how it functioned either.

- Why would the servicer hide the debt holder? Why go through all of this trouble? Is it because it is really the US government by proxy of Fannie and Freddie?

- Were the notes used in a pyramid scheme? Were they sold multiple times intentionally in order to accommodate increasing degrees of leverage that the derivatives market required to sustain itself?

- What is the size of the global derivatives market which rest (at least in part) upon RMBS securities?

- Are RMBS pools really “Dark Liquidity” or simply “Dark Pools” and is that why MERS is necessary?

A final note on reverse transfers

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts servicers in possession of mortgages only (which is basically all of those who represent securitized notes) are barred by common law rule, by statute, by the Uniform Commercial Code, and by the terms of the mortgages themselves from conducting foreclosures. If they have already done so, those foreclosures are void. We believe these principles do and will extend beyond the commonwealth eventually to all of the US.

The reason the banks are fighting this is because there exists a very real fear that homeowners stuck with inflated debts, which are the equivalent to indentured servents, might actually gain some negotiating power to settle these debts, at prices which not only reflect the prudent risk management which should have taken place in prior years, but also the related and more realistic asset prices which should have prevailed at the time of the original transactions.

From a purely business point of view, the asset prices were inflated, and the average home buyer with a home loan vintage 2002-2007 had little or no choice in the setting of those prices. However, there is another group who did, and they were writing “loans” and selling them as fast as the CPU and the RAMM on MERS’ servers would allow them (thankfully cloud computing, with its superior ability to process data, and elastic memory and bandwidth wasn’t yet widely used).

Yet the securitization industry and their very elite and very wealthy captains are not having any of that – because it is a reverse transfer. To be a debt-servant is to be the servant of another man by force. Humans are not designed or built for that – that is a construct of an unfortunate human condition, which we should want to change.

How a mortgage payment can be made with fidelity every month into a authentic black hole, and the attendant psychology which enables this behavior is beyond the scope of this article. The Common Law, the MGL and UCC and even the contracts themselves make it clear though, if a mortgagor expects a discharge of the debt, they need to know who exactly they are paying.

Taking a step forward requires some courage, but less than those who have taken to the streets in NY, Boston or other cities – they are doing really hard and courageous work. Not paying a mortgage in light of the a priori evidence cannot even qualify as an act of civil disobedience. The average homeowner and mortgagor is not called to such a high calling in this instance – they are merely called to follow the mundane laws of the land which have been set down for over 150 years. It is just simple prudence. It is the lack of denial, and a willingness to recognize the truth, no matter how unpleasant. Participation in the system as it is, while concurrently declining to examine the issues intelligently is not defensible.

Paradoxically the hand of the strong which moved to Divide (the notes) and Affirm (title interest) – when taken in God’s hands, has destroyed (the notes) and preserved (the legitimate ownership).

So I get a personal check from another person today. Her check was written from Regions Bank where she banks. So Regions Bank is close to me and I drive there to cash the check… of course, I park and walk inside to do my deed because I know I’ll get ugly stares from the teller at the drive thru if I try to cash the check being a non-Regions Bank account holder along with being told to come inside anyways. For the record, I used to have my accounts at Regions Bank but they nickel and dimed me to death and I swear every employee of theirs goes through “How to Piss Off Customers” training while riding those stupid green bikes.

So anyway, I walk in to cash the check and walk up to the counter, give the teller my drivers license and signed check. He comes back to me in about a minute and says, “sir, are you no longer a Regions account holder?” I say yes, that’s correct I left your shitty, thievin bank two years ago. No, I didn’t really say that… I just nodded and said yes, no longer an account holder. He says, “sir, you’re gonna have to go see that lady over there at the desk so she can fingerprint you before you can cash this check.” No foolin, he really said it just like that. I guess I had that look of criminality but I was clean shaven and I think I smelled alright.

So I go see this fingerprinting bank policewoman. Her name is Rosaria. I say, “hi, the teller said I need to come see you to get my fingerprints to cash this check.” She says, “sir, I’m busy I’ll be right with you.” So much for that nice, warm fuzzy feeling…So I sit down in the chair at her desk area. She looks at me like I’m invading her space and then says “sir, you need to remove your hat inside the bank.” (I was wearing my Tampa Bay Lightning hockey hat with pride). I said, “what?” with, I’m pretty sure, a look of WTF did this lady just say to me? Not a question… no, it was a demand.

She says in a more stern peed off tone, “sir you need to take that hat off inside the bank.” I said, “are you kidding me? I have have NEVER been inside a bank where I’ve been told to remove my hat.” She says, “sir, you need to take the hat off now for your security and mine!” What? Do you think my hat is going to assault you, you crazy woman?

I said “this is freakin ridiculous I cannot believe you’re actually serious.” I take my hat off in compliance and protest while trying to rub out the hat head I know I have. She must be feeling really good about herself now, embarrassing a potential customer.

So now, as if this isn’t enough, she now says, “I’m gonna have to call the account holder to see if she has authorized this check.” I said, “what? are you kidding me? I’ve cashed checks at banks for decades where I’m not an account holder and I have never been told to remove my hat and then you gotta call the account holder to see if this is legitimate. I’m giving you my stinking license, I’ve removed my hat as if I’m some criminal so you’re bank cameras can get a good shot at my hat head and now you want to call the account holder? What if she doesn’t answer the phone?”

She says, “sir, if you’d just be patient, let me make the call..” So she makes the call, gets voice mail, leaves a message. Then she calls her colleague in crime in the next office over on the phone and wants colleague to see if there are any other phone numbers on file for the account holder. Nope, only that one phone number. So she looks at me with disdain and says, “sir, I’m sorry but I need to talk to the account holder before I can cash this check, if you’d like to wait out there…”

I interrupted her mid sentence and by now I’m sure my face looked criminal and I about leapt over the desk to grab the check and my license and stormed out saying “forget it lady, I’ll go to my friendly community bank where I have an account and cash it there…”

True story. Could NOT believe it. Still don’t. Leave Regions if you bank with them, PLEASE! They completely suck ass. Bank of America too… Wells Fargo and Chase too now that I think about it.

Seriously, go to a local credit  union or community bank. Just pull YOUR money out of these suck ass institutions, let these shitty employees get laid off when they start to go under and give your business to a bank and employees who actually care and don’t treat you like a criminal. Un-flippin-believable.

No, believable now that I think of it. I’m going to go into that suck-ass branch once a week with the biggest damn hat I can find and just walk around for a few minutes and tell Rosaria how much she needs to get a life – and a new job.

Want to know what I’m talking about? CLICK HERE. (by the way, don’t put in your email address… just click the link below the email address field to go to the main site. Obama would love to have your email address…)

Can you believe this site is “Paid for by Obama for America” – get a life (and a new job BHO). Paid for by American taxpayers is what it should say because this is the truth… We’ll make sure you get a pink slip in November 2012 and can’t use taxpayer money in attempts to silence (the taxpayers).

These idiots really think they can push American Patriots around! What is exciting for me is that this bonehead is really (and finally) galvanizing Democrats and Republicans alike! He’s bringing centrist, moderate Americans together again! Amen! Keep it coming BHO. You just keep being yourself with your cronies. You think Jimmy Hoffa Jr. intimidates me? Think again… You think Eric Holder, George Soros, Lisa Jackson, John Podesta, Tim Geithner, Chuck Schumer or anybody else like these socialists mean anything to a hard working American Patriot? Think again.

You’ve declared war on regular Americans. You’ve abandoned the core of this country and we are going to deliver a stunning blow to your machine in November 2012. You will not silence me and you will not silence a patriot in any state, of any color or of any particular belief. We bleed red white and blue and we will bleed to protect our country and our freedom of speech.

Thank you for waking us from our slumber BHO and your band of socialist liberals. Thank you. America will be great again because of you, in spite of you. Peace out.

Here’s the link for you to take (literally) ONE MINUTE of your day to do YOUR PART: http://signon.org/sign/do-not-support-the-florida?source=c.url&r_by=533269

Folks, if we aren’t willing to take a minute here, a minute there to voice our collective dismay and outrage over these types of practices, then we are truly lost as a country and you might as well get used to being a servant and a pee-on. Seriously. We either stand together or we will all lose separately and in our own ways. The money-hungry, greedy elite are making their moves now and in serious ways. Get it now or forever lose your voice.

http://signon.org/sign/do-not-support-the-florida?source=c.url&r_by=533269

Just click the link, voice your outrage in a couple sentences and hit submit. If you can’t do that then go read the bill word for word.

This story just flat pisses me off and makes my blood boil… the damn federal government wastes BILLIONS every year and one could make the argument that we waste BILLIONS every day fighting other people’s wars, allowing fraud and corruption to run amuck throughout every level, nook and cranny of the massive bureaucracy in our federal government; yet, these snakes at HUD don’t even have the decency to figure out how to keep a 101 year old woman in her home who got a reverse mortgage? Incomprehensible… and I still want to know how they foreclosed and booted her to the sidewalk on a reverse mortgage! Reverse mortgages are supposed to be due and payable upon the senior’s death… Texana is still living!

I would like to encourage every reader of this story to send HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan a scathing email! Let him have it with every bit of emotion that this story builds within you! Seriously folks, don’t hold back and while you’re at it, let the communist OBAMA have it via a carbon copy of that email. I won’t even give Obama the respect of calling him President anymore, he’s just an idiot occupying space for 14 more months.

Here are the two email addresses for you:

HUD Secretary: Secretary.Donovan@hud.gov
Barack Obama:  Oh yeah, I forgot, BHO is too exalted to give us servants his email address, CLICK HERE to submit a form with your message.

All of you in government need to go. You let stuff like this happen on your watch and you deserve to be thrown out in the street. Why does this happen? Because you have let the bank executives get away with crime after crime after crime. As a regular citizen, I would have gone to jail years ago for the same crimes the banks and politicians have committed over and over and over. Shame on all of you. I’m disgusted and I can’t wait to see you thrown on your backsides in November 2012!

Watch in horror:

If the bank or servicer or trustee commit fraud in the process of trying to foreclose, they deserve every sanction they get for that which could and maybe should include the extinguishment of the deed of trust or mortgage. That’s for the court and jury to decide, case by case.

But this soap box argument that dismissing a foreclosure case or finding in favor of the homeowner or against the servicer is NOT the same as giving the homeowner a free and clear house. Let’s just be clear and be able to articulate this point when in court and this issue comes about because it is this exact sentiment that I believe causes judges to skew their rulings because they truly think their ruling will amount to a “free and clear” house.

CLICK HERE to shop the store! Please give us your feedback…

News flash: it was never about the American taxpayer or homeowner. The lies are so bold-faced these days it’s shocking. They literally couch the entire TARP bailout and HAMP program as protecting Americans and our “way of life” and then in the same breath implement programs that do the exact opposite and protect the antithesis of the “American citizen.”

Watch and be shocked (or maybe not so much…)!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Journalist Maxwell wrote:
Bondi wasn’t even in the state.
She was in Kona, Hawaii.
Bondi was attending a meeting of the Conference of Western Attorneys General, an organization comprised of “the chief legal officers of 15 Western states and three Pacific territories.” (Someone needs a new map.)
Bondi’s staff said taxpayers paid only the conference’s $625 registration fee.
Before Bondi makes another trip to Hawaii, she needs to provide better answers about what’s happening in her office here in Florida — and make things right.
And the state needs to stop the revolving door that taxpayers not only fund, but which often ends up smacking them in the face.
smaxwell@tribune.com or 407-420-6141
(read more here…)
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-07-30/news/os-scott-maxwell-revolving-door-0731120110730_1_special-counsel-bondi-claims-investigators

CWAG Hawaii Event Website (July 10 – 13, 2011)
http://www.cwagweb.org/hawaii/index.html
(The website introduction states:) The Conference of Western Attorneys General, CWAG Chair New Mexico Attorney General Gary King and Hawaii Attorney General David Louie invite you to the 2011 CWAG Annual Meeting in Kona, Hawaii. Join your colleagues as CWAG explores the most pertinent legal issues during the days and the evenings enjoying the tropical paradise of Hawaii at our social events.
The information in the website includes travel tips and hotel information to facilitate early air and hotel arrangements.
We hope to see you in Hawaii!

ONE OF THE MANY IMPORTANT EVENTS OF THE CWAG HAWAII CONFERENCE THAT PAM BONDI FELT COMPELLED TO ATTEND…
http://www.cwagweb.org/hawaii/CWAG11_Agenda.pdf
Sunday, July 10
8:00 am – 1:30 pm Attorneys General and Family Catamaran Snorkel Sail
(AG’s and AG Families Only — Closed to Public)

Some of the other very important events include cooking training, photography training, henna tattoos, fitness training…
http://www.cwagweb.org/hawaii/CWAG11_Social_Agenda.pdf

Some of the noteworthy speakers/topics: (Hint: not one word about fraudulent foreclosures/ fraudulent docs in land and court records/ investigating crooked mill attorneys, etc…or did I miss something..?)
Alliance Partnership Briefing
(AG Staff only — Closed to Public)
Alliance Partnership staff will provide an overview
of the Alliance Partnership Program and details on the
international component which has 31 State Attorneys
General Offices in the United States, Mexico’s Federal
Attorneys General Office (PGR) and all the State Attorneys
General Offices in Mexico collaborating in the training of
Investigators, Forensic Scientists, Prosecutors and Judges
across Mexico.

The Future of Agriculture — Can the World’s Food
Needs Be Met?
• Scott S. Partridge, Vice President for Global Strategy,
Monsanto Company

Futuristic Uses of Wireless Technologies
• Tammi Terrell, Vice President and General Manager —
San Diego/Nevada/Hawaii, AT&T

Enhancing State Revenues and Increasing Efficiency
Detecting Fraudulent Tax Returns
• Andy Bucholz, Director of Market Planning, LexisNexis
Risk Data Solutions

Improving the Contracting Process —
A Business Viewpoint
• Steve Calkins, Senior Vice President,
Business Solutions Division, Office Depot, Inc.

Commerce and Taxes in New and E Marketplaces:
Current State Tax Issues from New Business Models
• Rick Salzman, Executive Vice President
and General Counsel, TracFone
• Laurie Smalling, Director Business Strategy, Public
Affairs and Government Relations, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
• April Ammeter Sakane, Vice President and Associate
General Counsel, DIRECTV
• Mark Schichtel, Senior Vice President
and Chief Tax Officer, Time Warner Cable
• Braden Cox, Director, State Public Policy, Amazon

Protecting Intellectual Property
Moderator: Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna
• Brad Smith, Senior Vice President and General
Counsel, Microsoft

Debt Collection Initiatives
Moderator: Massachusetts Attorney General
Martha Coakley
• Fred Blitt, President, National Association
of Retail Collection Attorneys
• Richard Munroe, President, Debt Buyers Association
• Gary Portney, President, Convoke Systems, Inc.

Golfers with handicaps:

• below 10 will have their green fees increased by 35%.
• between 11 and 18 will see no increase in green fees.
• above 18 will get a $20 check each time they play.

The term”gimmie” will be changed to”entitlement”and will be used as follows:

• handicaps below 10, no entitlements.
• handicaps from 11 to 17, entitlements for putter length putts.
• handicaps above 18, if your ball is on green, no need to putt, just pick it up.

These entitlements are intended to bring about fairness and, most importantly, equality in scoring. In addition, a Player will be limited to a maximum of one birdie or six pars in any given 18-hole round. Any excess must be given to those fellow players who have not yet scored a birdie or par. Only after all players have received a birdie or par from the player actually making the birdie or par, can that player begin to count his pars and birdies again. The current USGA handicap system will be used for the above purposes, but the term “net score” will be available only for scoring those players with handicaps of 18 and above.

This is intended to “re-distribute” the success of winning by making sure that in every competition, the above 18 handicap players will post only “net score” against every other player’s gross score. These new Rules are intended to CHANGE the game of golf and bring HOPE to millions of underserved working stiff (albeit shitty) golfers across the country.

Golf must be about Fairness. It should have nothing to do with ability, hard work, practice, and responsibility. This is the “Right thing to do.”

Now, I literally bit my fist after I heard this and looked at my wife with combo of shock and horror at what I had just heard. Some 4 days later, we are still talking about this and still cannot believe it!

Just watch the video below and pay close attention at the 15 second mark… at the 20 second mark POTUS just completely jabs the middle of this country with his words and definitely his “world-view” of who are the rank and file in this country, who have bled, are bleeding or will bleed if necessary to defend her.

VIDEO PROOF

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtjIPF274Uo

I think the President of the United States deserves to send me and my wife an apology because I truly take offense at this statement especially in light of the fact that we are working our arses off to keep up with federal debt-induced inflation and the fact that his spending money we don’t have means the dollar in my pocket everyday is worth LESS! I take offense at his world view and his jet-setting, golf club hopping lifestyle while Michelle does her More of Me World Tour.

Working stiff…. kiss my stiff arse nobama. I work hard enough to be afforded good success in this country and maybe I make a bunch a money (like more than $250k per year) and then you want to come shove your sticky fingers in my face and take more of what I worked stiff for to give more of it to some illegal alien who doesn’t pay taxes and gets food stamps and to ensure that all your waste and pork in DC gets covered on my dime. Not only do I think you’re a jerk for acting this way, I think you’re clueless. Worst part is, you just keep blaming other people instead of having an “Ah Ha” moment and being humble enough to admit that your policy and world-view will simply tank the greatest country on earth in one presidential term. Get a clue!

Why not the Luminate a LivingFib Combo Title & Securitization Audit? Because it’s none of what I just described.

1. It’s almost 100% boiler plate language; (by the way, the Title Report is worth $150, $25-75 for hard costs and $75 for 100% profit for the attorney who’s doin that title report for you, wink wink)
2. It’s does NOT contain the specificity and particularity required to state a real claim (based on every report I have seen thus far);
3. It guesses almost 100% of the time on which trust you’re loan is in (based on every report I have seen thus far and if they’re guessin on your report you’ll be left guessin why the judge dismissed your claim);
4. It is highly software-driven (based on the fact that every report sent to me was highly identical to all others and I even saw one with a different law firm and attorney’s name on it, guess old LivignFibbs is “licensing his software” you think?);
5. It cannot produce what it’s proponents claim (ie. specific knowledge of what trust your loan is in)

So, I’ll go look for some of these reports in my email history and will try to post a few here so any of you getting to this post BEFORE you waste $1500 can avoid such calamity. Call me if you have any questions.

And, while I’m at it, be SUPER-CAUTIOUS before hiring anyone who is trying to sell you a “Forensic Audit” or any such variation of that name. Anyone who calls what their doing a “forensic audit” is highly likely to be a scam artist like them there folks over at livvingfibbs.com. Seriously. There are legitimate services out there that can help a homeowner investigate their mortgage loan for predatory lending, fraud and forgery claims along with analyzing the loan for federal disclosure violations or any possible rights of rescission under common law theory or the TILA but be wise, marketing gimmicks and fibbers abound using the term “Forensic Audit” and you’d be best to just keep moving there Sally.

To see a customized mortgage loan investigation report, contact me and I’ll help you understand the real difference. It’s not hard once you can compare and see what the scammers and fibbers are trying to sell.

I am just going to go out on a limb here and predict that we are at the very beginning of this scandal and that Pam Bondi is in a heap of deep doo, at least politically speaking. This has bad news written all over it for the new Atty General of Florida and I support all efforts in getting to the real truth of what’s happening here in Florida.

It really is wrong to see what amazing crimes the banks and their robo-employees are getting away with. If I didn’t see it everyday with my own eyes and see no one going to jail for this stuff, I’d say you were a quack and that there was no way that any white collar criminal could get away with this stuff so often in such massive quantity. Especially when you marry these crimes to the confiscation and illegal seizure of people’s homes! Frickin amazing….

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law on July 21, 2010. The Act modifies the timelines for qualified written requests (QWRs), outlaws various servicing practices, greatly increases the liability for specific RESPA violations, and makes several TILA adjustments.

Shorter QWR Timelines are NOW IN EFFECT
Servicers now have less time to acknowledge receipt of a QWR along with less time to properly respond to QWRs. The Act changes the receipt acknowledgment deadline from 15 days to only 5 days for a proper QWR (Qualified Written Request). The Act also modifies the substantive response deadline from 60 days to just 30 days while permitting a one-time 15-day extension, if the borrower is notified with the extension and also the reasons for the delay; but even using the extension, the time frames are nonetheless short so servicers are going to be challenged to act quickly. Procedures for promptly responding to QWRS are now even more imperative however don’t be surprised if servicers pay sloppy attention to these issues.

Important thing to WATCH OUT FOR: The Designated Address Tactic

Many servicers may already have designated an address for QWRs, but don’t or won’t publicize this address (others put it in the fine print of your mortgage statement). A servicer may well set up a particular and exclusive address for QWRs by sending notice towards the borrower in a notice of transfer, or a separate mailing. 24 C.F.R. § 3500.21(e)(1). Such an address should assist servicers process these requests in a timely fashion but don’t be surprised if many try to use the address as a potential safeguard to protect them from liability, if the borrower sends the QWR towards the wrong address they might make the claim that they weren’t properly notified.

So here’s a borrower practice tip: Call your Servicer before you send a QWR and specifically ask for the address to send a Qualified Written Request to. Verify who you spoke with, what date and time and make them repeat the address twice to make sure you have it right.

Common Prohibitions & Requirements

Servicers ought to also be aware of the new general RESPA prohibitions regarding force-placed insurance, as well as charging fees for responses to QWRs and common responses. The Act imposes new requirements for escrow accounts. For example, after receiving a full payoff, any escrow balance must be returned within 20 days. The Act also implements a 10-business day deadline to respond to a request for the identity and address with the owner, or assignee, with the loan.

Damages

The Act raises the available damages for failing to respond to RESPA requests as required. The available damages for each violation under 12 U.S.C. § 2605 changed as follows:

(1) Individuals: actual damages plus $1,000 increased to actual damages plus $2,000; and

(2) Class Actions: the cap for class action lawsuits increased from the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent with the servicer’s net worth to the lesser of $1,000,000 or 1 percent.

TILA
In addition, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act adjustments several sections with the Truth in Lending Act. Escrow accounts are now mandatory for many first mortgages, including all loans guaranteed by a state or federal government. The Act requires servicers to credit payments as with the date of receipt, unless a delay will not result in a charge or negative credit report. Also, payoff statements should be sent within a reasonable time, but no extra than seven days after a written request.

Conclusion

The most crucial points are that servicers ought to speed up internal actions to meet these new deadlines, and that the damages available for RESPA violations have doubled. Servicers must take note that they can limit liability for potential QWR violations by requiring that particular requests be sent to a particular and exclusive address. If the borrower sends a QWR towards the wrong address, the servicer may well be able to avoid liability altogether. So watch out for these tricky, deceptive servicing tactics. It’s shameful that any of these companies does this.

It’s really quite simple. Be honest with your customers. Don’t tack on usurious fees and don’t try to get one over on them. What surprises me the most is that the average consumer doesn’t realize that the major servicers are all subsidiaries of the major banks. Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citigroup, etc.

Servicing is where so much of the damage is being done to our housing market yet NO ONE boycotts the big banks. I for one will never have a checking account or get a loan from any of the big banks. They can forget it… you should send a clear voice as well.

Hey Obama… kiss my arse. You need to take the pill of all pills. Reality pills!

As a patriot, I’m disgusted that the American President has this ideology in his flippin brain to begin with. Unreal. Get a life.

FRAUD ON THE COURT… IT’S SO EASY A CAVEMAN COULD DO IT

For all of those blow-hard pontificators out there who think everyone in foreclosure deserves to be evicted, I have this to say, “Fuck you!” And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

I rarely waste my time on these people because their comprehension level doesn’t permit any thought that conflicts with their preconceived notions. There is a name for people like that, morons.

It comes down to this, unless you have been in a coma for the last ten years, we now know for absolute certain that the American mortgage loan was the lynchpin of a massive international Ponzi scheme.

If you have been in a coma, welcome back, you will not fucking believe what happened while you were out.

A third of American men don’t have jobs. Really! You can look it up. You remember Google, right?

Remember that budget surplus? It is now a massive $15 trillion dollar hole or nearly a hundred percent of GDP.

For anyone interested in the facts about where we are financially, the site below is fantastic. Please go there. You don’t need to be an accountant but all of the important numbers are right there. I keep saying that there will be no way out of our financial calamity, look at those numbers and see what you think.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

29% of mortgages exceed the value of the home, our governments are all broke, and one by one going bankrupt.

Austerity will probably turn out to win the contest for word of the year.

The plan to solve all this? Well there isn’t one.

As a matter of fact, this is how they want it. The idea is that we should all embrace a period of “shared sacrifice.”

Every day they dig the hole a little deeper, secure in the knowledge that they will be exempt from actually sacrificing anything.

A whopping total of 91 people now own almost everything on the planet. And all over the country a crackdown on free speech is well underway.

They say it’s for our own good. If we really knew what was going on we would know too much and presumably they’d have to kill us. They need to keep almost everything secret from us because these are strange and dangerous times that our forefathers could never imagine when they crafted our Constitution, they say.

Note how many of our problems they suggest they could solve by just tweaking the Bill of Rights. Why not? We don’t use most of them anyway.

The police now routinely arrest people for videotaping them and the Supreme Court recently made warrantless searches the law of the land. Police are public officials performing duties in public and if they feel threatened by being observed and monitored they should seek other employment.

Besides, where can you go today on not be on camera. Everywhere we go we are on camera. It still startles me to see a life size image of me floating above the toilet paper in the supermarket. Remember when we thought that Nineteen Eighty-Four was fiction?

As for the Fourth Amendment,  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The Supreme Court nullified that Amendment on May 16, 2011.

The lone dissenter was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who wrote the following. Remember, this isn’t me saying this; it is a Supreme Court Judge who sees it my way.

“The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”

“How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and … forcibly enter?”

Again, that’s not me but the only Supreme Court Judge not bought and paid for by the global elite.

And just like Orwell’s Nineteen Eight-Four we have had ten years of endless wars and constantly shifting enemies, and the middle class has just about been wiped out.

We’ve been conned. We were the most productive workers on the planet, driving quarter after quarter of increasing GDP and then we were robbed of our livelihoods, our homes, our retirement funds, our social security and our Medicare. All through fraud; massive pernicious, pervasive fraud.

There was fraud in the design of debt backed securities, fraud in the design of the loans, fraud in the creation of the paperwork for the phony loan pools, fraud on the investors, fraud on borrowers, fraud on non-borrowers, fraud on county records and now routine fraud on the court in attempt to try to fix the broken title by unlawfully foreclosing on the property.

And talk about easy pick’ens. Ninety-six percent of all foreclosures go uncontested. In non-judicial states like California it is probably higher.

Anyone can file a Notice of Default.

Nationwide, robo-signed documents are prohibited in only a few counties. Any robo-signed document is a bald forgery created by a party with no legal claim. One way or another most are filed anonymously. So because anyone can, some do. Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, you know too big to fail folks, bailout babies, stealing homes that they have no right to.

Time and time again they get away with it and when they are held accountable there is no penalty. In one recent settlement the offender was fined 2% of their illegal gain but they get to keep 98% of what they stole.

But the only ways they can steal our homes is if we or the courts let them. The only way they can do it is with fraudulent paperwork. In the past, when forgeries and perjured testimony were discovered, courts extracted harsh penalties.

Lawyers, whomever they represent are considered to be officers of the court. They are also expected to conduct themselves ethically.

No lying, no fabricated evidence, no made up witnesses, no bribing the other lawyer, no bribing the judge, arcane and naïve notions now it appears.

Most courts don’t seem to mind and dismiss the obvious forgeries as irrelevant in light of the fact that the borrower is in default.

Never mind that the borrower may have been steered to default after applying for a HAMP modification or through a now well documented series of servicing gimmicks.

It is important to be mindful of the real purpose of the loan and how it was used. Its real purpose was to back a bond issue of an aggregate amount and then default.

If the idea was for the pool to default, it didn’t really matter if there were loans enough to cover all the bonds, just make it look like there were enough loans.

This activity impacts a broad area of law extending from real property to complicated financial theory and includes taxation, trust law, commercial code and title law and homeowner’s lawyers are just now starting to grasp the complexity of the issues. This cocktail is further complicated by virtue of the level of deceit that permeates every attempt to mine down to the truth.

There is an old saying in the law; if you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law, and if you have neither, pound the table.

For several years I have been dissecting these cases from all over the country and what has been going on in many of our courtrooms is that bank lawyers have been getting away with pounding the table with stacks of phony documents bought and paid for right of the menu at Lender Processing Services subsidiary DOCX.

The DOCX menu offers these and other products; NA01 Create Note Allonge, $12.95 plus shipping and handling.

Missing all those pesky intervening assignments? No problem for just $35 a-pop you can have as many IA03s as it takes to fool a judge.

But wait, there’s more!

If the whole damn file is missing they have a limited time offer to recreate an entire phony file, the CF01 goes for just $95 exclusive of third party costs. See how easy it is?

I’m a smart guy. Why didn’t I think of setting up a print shop that specializes in forgeries of legal documents? Lawyers would love it. They would never lose a case. I guess somehow, I just thought that would be wrong if not illegal.

There are various evidentiary standards for the variety of matters that come before the courts. These are called burdens of proof and you may have heard terms such as “beyond a reasonable doubt” or the lower burden of “a preponderance of the evidence”.

In foreclosure cases, in many courtrooms, there is no burden whatsoever and no amount of evidence favoring the homeowner is persuasive.

The evidence submitted by the banks themselves is generally sufficient to prove conclusively that they are not the creditor, if one even exists.

The only reason that an assignment would need to be made by the servicer out of an often bankrupt entity to a closed pool, two years after the fact is because the rules of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement were never met. The deeds, mortgages, notes, all with a proper chain of indorsements, were never delivered to the custodian for the trust.

In fact the trusts could not receive the notes at any time because they cannot own any property, just receive the pass through payments of tranches of either interest or principal payments.

The documents didn’t go to the custodian for the trust or they would have them. That is what is so funny. There are no actual loans in the loan pools, just references to loans. The trust holds nothing and for all the talk about loan securitization, it really didn’t happen.

Indeed, the loans were not originated for the purpose of financing property transactions they were originated to be references in multiple loan pools. Bank of America admitted as much recently in a Florida case.

“Indeed, it appears that many loans and other mortgage-related assets have been double- and even triple-pledged to various constituencies.”

There you have it. Exactly what I have been saying for years. But it does beg the question, why stop there? After two or three do they start to feel guilty? Hell no!

Every time they do make an admission it turns out to be a gross understatement.

Remember, that the investors actually buy bonds, not pieces of mortgages. The loan pools allowed Wall Street to create the illusion that there was actually something of value underlying those bonds.

They funded the bond buyers revenue shortfall each month with the investors own money, just like every Ponzi scheme, the new money coming in keeps the victims clueless until the thing collapses under its own weight. Think of Bernie Madoff on Steroids.

It’s so obvious a caveman could see it. Judges have yet to check their own titles and it’s almost as though they just don’t want to believe what is going on.

When you strip away the hateful rhetoric that attempts to shift the blame for America’s collapse onto the middle class, you discover that the issues go to the very heart of who we are and what our judicial system stands for.

Judges side with crooked bankstas to avoid the “moral hazard” of giving away “free houses”. But what of the far greater “moral hazard” of justice only for the rich and well connected?

If there is a class of people who can do whatever they want with impunity, why do we even need judges or an expensive court system? In the last few years, many average Americans have felt the brutal sting of a court stacked against them. As more and more people, having lost faith in a system of justice controlled by corrupt entities, unavoidably seek other methods of balancing the scale, restoring the dignity of the courts will be nearly impossible.

And then what would America stand for? This is more than a fight for our homes; it is a fight for our legal system and democracy. How far do we want to lower the bar?

George W. Mantor
The Real Estate Professor
Founder, American Foreclosure Resistance Movement
http://www.realtown.com/gwmantor/blog
http://www.gwmantor.hersid.com/

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”  –  Mahatma Gandhi

Let me say this from the outset… there is a wide range of people and companies out there (including even some attorneys) who are selling “Forensic Audits.” They vary from outright scam artists to slick salespeople performing some [overly simplistic] level of some sort of a mortgage loan transaction audit but who charge exorbitant prices for the services and, ultimately, the work product they produce rises to the level of a scam as well because their fee and what they produce are universes apart – so I deem that a scam as well – that’s just my humble opinion of course.

There is one fairly high profile retired attorney out there operating a very popular blog selling extremely high-priced garbage [in my opinion]; unfortunately, many of his victims, I mean clients, have purchased this “audit” are left with many pages of virtual nothing-ness that they will never be able to use in a court of law. Quite ironic that it’s coming from an “attorney” or “counselor at law” – so to speak.

But, I don’t think any of you reading this right now are actually surprised of the story of another attorney or ex-banker taking advantage of people because they have a license, degree or bar number and using that “credential” to sell people on a scam. There are many prisons with such people calling those places home for these types of crimes.

So, now that I’ve spent a minute on the soap box, let me get to work to explain the difference between a “Forensic Audit” and a “Mortgage Loan Compliance Analysis” because there is a difference – like night and day. I think it’s a good place to start to say that I come from the mortgage banking industry and I have over a decade in actual experience in the inner workings of this industry and I have had to demonstrate continued competence in the actual compliance with the very laws we are looking into to see if these loans complied with these laws. I challenge you to find a “forensic mortgage loan auditor” out there in or even around the mortgage banking or finance industry. You won’t. You will find compliance officers. You will find fraud investigators. You will find compliance analysts and underwriters and risk managers. The closest thing might be the field of Forensic Accounting. But you will never find a legitimate forensic mortgage loan compliance officer using the term “forensic audit” or “forensic auditor” or even “forensic loan audit.” This is simply some deceptive marketing term invented by slick scammers who could probably sell a lot of people a box of coal and pass it off as a box of diamonds.

“Forensic” literally means “suitable for use in a court of law.” So the layman’s translation means that whatever report or whatever you might get from a “forensic auditor” must, and I mean MUST, withstand the legal scrutiny of a judge, jury and opposing counsel.

So, I’ll just dive right in here and make a point: you can use the word “forensic” if – and only if – your work product is deemed suitable for use in a court of law. So that’s the lens that any and all investigation by YOU as a homeowner MUST use in conducting your due diligence if you’re in the position of needing help to defend yourself from foreclosure or the potential illicit collection of mortgage loan debt.

I will say this… if you see ANYONE pitching a “Forensic Audit,” I would just turn and run. Even the simple use of that title – forensic audit – should set of alarm bells. What is it a forensic audit of? What does that even mean? Really, it doesn’t even tell you anything – other than it’s a slick marketer using a buzz term to sell you something. The question really is or should be – “will it be suitable in a cour of law?”

Conversely, a Mortgage Loan Compliance Analysis is EXACTLY what it’s name implies plus a bit more. What do we do? We analyze the mortgage loan documents for actual compliance with Federal Lending Laws. Did the original lender provide the borrower with the mandated loan disclosures from the date the borrower applied for the loan through to the closing or ratification of the mortgage loan transaction and were the material Truth in Lending Disclosures such as the APR, Amount Financed, Finance Charge, Amount of Payments and Payment Schedule were properly and accurately computed – this is a mathematical process that requires a very comprehensive understanding of Regulation Z, Section 226.4 along with the Official Staff Commentary for that section. It’s also an investigation and analysis of the transaction to see if the original lender [and any mortgage broker involved] that may have been involved complied properly with underwriting guidelines and a look into any possible mortgage fraud or predatory lending violations such as bait and switch tactics or even forgery of the borrower’s initials or signature on loan disclosures or loan closing documents. Finally, it’s also an investigation into whether the lender and/or broker was properly licensed. All of these issues are examined, documents analyzed, TILA disclosures re-computed for accuracy and comparison and then all of this is [or should be] rendered in a report or affidavit format along with any and all supporting exhibits such as the loan documents and other components of the investigation.

Now, here’s the clincher… a “Forensic Audit” is almost always going to be a collection of boiler plate fluff with a few specifics strewn throughout the template to pass this garbage off as legitimate. However, any real scrutiny of these documents by someone who knows what to look for – or worse, a judge or creditors rights attorney – will easily reveal the  fact that 99% of these “forensic audits” aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on [ie. utter worthlessness]; which is real shame seeing that the homeowners who get suckered into these scams have precious few economic resources. They deserve a real service and a real work product that will actually stand up in a court of law.

A real mortgage loan compliance analysis and investigation will be highly CASE SPECIFIC. For it to be considered “forensic” in any sense of the word, it MUST be specific to YOUR CASE, not boiler plate. And judges HATE boiler plate, non-specific pleadings and if you try to throw a boiler-plate, template of a “forensic audit” at a judge in your case, you are asking for his/her wrath not to mention being completely discredited which never has a happy ending. I always tell people who are inquiring to hire me that there is no shortcut to these analyses and investigations. A mortgage loan transaction and any corresponding foreclosure case is like a fingerprint… no two of them are the same. Yes, you have a set of laws and guidelines that apply to all transactions but no two transactions are the same, period. Any and all work product must reflect that level of specificity if it is to be considered “forensic” in any way and has any chance of actually helping you make valid claims in a court of law.

So here’s my tip to help any homeowners facing foreclosure reading this: ASK for attorney references even IF they are an attorney. Ask to see their credentials. Ask for actual samples. Ask to see actual court cases their work product has been filed in and/or used in. Ask for customer references. Two words: DUE DILIGENCE… plus four words: DON”T BELIEVE THEY HYPE.  Because your money can either be completely wasted or put to very good use depending on WHO you hire and what they produce. Finally, call or email me… I’ll send you a couple samples with borrower info redacted so you have something to compare the garbage to. Hopefully this helps a bit… Good luck and happy hunting.

Below is the actual Google Map picture of the compound and this directly matches with the CIA’s map and sketch of the compound which has been released to the media. If you want to view the actual view of Osama Bin Laden’s compound on Google Maps, Google Earth or Satellite, CLICK HERE.

Click on any of the pictures below for a large view of them.

A zoomed in photo…

What the CIA released…

The full Petition can be downloaded HERE.
My Affidavit can be downloaded HERE.
The full Appendix to the Petition can be downloaded HERE.

Below is the full press release from the ACLU’s website.

ACLU Charges High-Speed Florida Foreclosure Courts Deprive Homeowners of Chance to Defend Homes

PETITION FILED IN STATE APPELLATE COURT SAYS ‘MASS FORECLOSURE DOCKET’ IN LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IGNORES PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IN RUSH TO CLEAR CASES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 7, 2011

CONTACT:
Derek Newton, ACLU of Florida, (786) 363-2737; media@aclufl.org
Will Matthews, ACLU national, (212) 549-2582 or 2666; media@aclu.org

CAPE CORAL, FL – The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a petition in a Florida appellate court charging that the foreclosure court system in Lee County systematically denies homeowners a fair opportunity to defend their homes against foreclosure.

The special “mass foreclosure docket” established in December 2008 operates under rules that differ substantially from those that govern the rest of Lee County’s civil cases and was designed to speed through as many foreclosure cases as possible without providing homeowners facing foreclosure a meaningful opportunity to develop their cases or present defenses, according to the petition.

“Operating against the backdrop of well-documented disarray and fraud in mortgage documentation, the shortcuts taken in Lee County courts mean that homeowners may never have a meaningful opportunity to refute faulty evidence supposedly supporting foreclosure,” said Larry Schwartztol, staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program. “By elevating speed over accuracy, Lee County subjects homeowners to foreclosure proceedings that violate the due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”

The petitioner in the ACLU’s case, Georgi Merrigan of Cape Coral, FL, is facing foreclosure after leaving her job as a flight and ground paramedic to care full time for her husband, who suffered massive injuries in a catastrophic car accident. Merrigan has every intention of vigorously contesting her foreclosure case. But because Merrigan’s case is assigned to the “mass foreclosure docket,” the ACLU charges that she cannot get a fair shot at defending her home. The ACLU’s petition asks that Merrigan’s case be re-assigned to the general civil division so that she will be afforded due process under the Florida and U.S. Constitutions.

“No one should ever have to go to court with the deck already stacked against them,” said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida. “Nowhere does it say someone is entitled only to the justice we have time for. We can’t allow the basic protections of due process to be the victim of judicial shortcuts.”

The ACLU’s petition is the culmination of a months-long investigation into foreclosure court systems throughout the state of Florida, where media reports have long suggested that the constitutionally-protected due process rights of homeowners have been ignored in a rush to push foreclosure cases through the courts. With one in every 288 housing units in foreclosure, Lee County has the highest percentage of foreclosures in the state of Florida, arguably the epicenter of the nation’s foreclosure crisis.

According to the ACLU’s petition, officials in Lee County seek to clear the foreclosure court docket as quickly as possible, at the expense of complying with basic procedural rules. Despite explicit instructions from the chief justice of the state supreme court that reducing the backlog of foreclosure cases should not “interfere with a judge’s ability to adjudicate each case fairly on its merits,” judges move through cases at lightning speed, sometimes seeing as many as 200 cases a day, according to the petition.

“Despite the extremely high stakes for homeowners, procedural violations in the ‘mass foreclosure docket’ are rampant,” said Rachel Goodman, an attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program. “Homeowners face systemic handicaps, and banks get a pass in proving their cases because the courts have effectively suspended the rules that give homeowners a chance to review the evidence against them.”

About 25 percent of Lee County’s population is black or Latino, and government data show that the foreclosure crisis across the country has disproportionately impacted communities of color. According to a recent report by the Center for Responsible Lending, nearly 8 percent of both African Americans and Latinos have lost their homes to foreclosures, as compared to 4.5 percent of whites. Additionally, the indirect losses in wealth that result from foreclosures as a result of depreciation to nearby properties will also disproportionately impact communities of color. The Center for Responsible Lending report estimates that by the end of 2012, the African American and Latino communities will be drained of $194 and $177 billion, respectively, in these indirect “spillover” losses alone.

# # #

A copy of the ACLU’s petition is available online at: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/2011-04-MerriganPetition.pdf

Georgi Merrigan, Howard Simon and ACLU of Florida Associate Legal Director Maria Kayanan will be available today in front of the Merrigan home at:

Thursday, April 7, 2011
1:30pm
2723 SW 17 PL
Cape Coral, FL 33914

The lower court granted summary judgment anyway, presumably because the Judge felt that well-established case law in Florida didn’t matter that the exhibits attached to a complaint are controlling when the allegations conflict. Just one more example… well, you know that already!

Here you go…

36 Fla. L. Weekly D738a

Mortgage foreclosure — Standing — Error to enter final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of plaintiff where, although unverified amended complaint alleged plaintiff was holder of note and mortgage, this allegation was contradicted by copy of note attached to amended complaint — When exhibits are attached to complaint, contents of exhibits control over allegations of complaint

SHAKIL KHAN AND DINA KHAN, Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D10-3288. Opinion filed April 8, 2011. Non-Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Emerson R. Thompson, Jr., Senior Judge. Counsel: Craig R. Lynd, Matthew D. Valdes and Jonathon C. Blevins, of Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, PLLC, Orlando, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellee.

(ORFINGER, J.) Shakil and Dina Khan appeal a final summary judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of Bank of America, N.A. We reverse.

In its amended complaint to foreclose a mortgage on the Khans’ home, Bank of America alleged that it was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage. However, the copy of the note attached to the amended complaint bears an endorsement from Bank of America to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as trustee for the holders of Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-B. The Khans correctly raised the issue of Bank of America’s standing to prosecute the foreclosure based on the assignment of the note to Wells Fargo Bank.

The proper party with standing to foreclose a note and mortgage is the holder of the note and mortgage or the holder’s representative. See Taylor v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust. Co., 44 So. 3d 618, 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); BAC Funding Consortium Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So. 3d 936, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). While Bank of America alleged in its unverified complaint that it was the holder of the note and mortgage, the copy of the note attached to the amended complaint contradicts that allegation. When exhibits are attached to a complaint, the contents of the exhibits control over the allegations of the complaint. See Hunt Ridge at Tall Pines, Inc. v. Hall, 766 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Because the exhibit to Bank of America’s amended complaint conflicts with its allegations concerning standing, Bank of America did not establish that it had standing to foreclose the mortgage as a matter of law. As a result, the trial court acted prematurely in entering the final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of Bank of America. We, therefore, reverse the final summary judgment of foreclosure and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. (PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.)

The article below published on Bloomberg.com a few days ago is focused on the root of a really big problem for the banks. The greed of the big banks is going to ultimately lead to their demise. I mean this seriously, not figuratively. They are going to be consumed by their greed – and their sloppy arrogance.

The big banks own all the major servicers. They are subsidiaries of the banks or the bank holding companies.

The big banks own a number of the major loan originators. They are subsidiaries of the banks or bank holding companies.

The big banks own or operate a number of the largest investment banks and trustee divisions. They are subsidiaries of the banks or bank holding companies.

The players in the Mortgage Backed Securities world are largely controlled by the big banks. A loan/note when being securitized is supposed to pass through several conveyances on its way to being converted to a security. These transactions were supposed to be true purchase and sales from one entity to the next. The Pooling, Trust and/or Servicing Agreeement(s) spell this out in crystal clarity.

The big banks failed to follow their own agreements. The investors that got screwed years ago when big banks were selling shit to them might not get so screwed after all if they all get together and sue shit out of big banks.

Homeowners should find a plethora of ways to use these issues to reveal major issues of fact in their case. Clear title is a huge problem on millions of already foreclosed homes. Some title insurers already changing policies and not writing title insurance on a foreclosed home.

News Flash: Big Banks Swallowed by Their Own Greed – Coming Soon to a city near you… Also coming to every American Citizen… Government-Run or Government-Backed Title Insurance. Mark my words… it’s coming.

BofA Mortgage Morass Deepens After Employee Says Notes Not Sent

By Prashant Gopal and Jody Shenn – Nov 30, 2010

Testimony by a Bank of America Corp. employee in a New Jersey personal bankruptcy case may give more ammunition to homeowners and investors in their legal battles over defaulted mortgages.

Linda DeMartini, a team leader in the company’s mortgage- litigation management division, said during a U.S. Bankruptcy Court hearing in Camden last year that it was routine for the lender to keep mortgage promissory notes even after loans were bundled by the thousands into bonds and sold to investors, according to a transcript. Contracts for such securitizations usually require the documents to be transferred to the trustee for mortgage bondholders.

In the case, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith H. Wizmur on Nov. 16 rejected a claim on the home of John T. Kemp, ruling his mortgage company, now owned by Bank of America, had failed to deliver the note to the trustee. That could leave the trustee with no standing to take the property, and raises the question of whether other foreclosures could similarly be blocked.

Following the decision, the bank disavowed the statements by DeMartini, whom it had flown in from California to testify. It was the policy of Countrywide Financial Corp., acquired by Bank of America in July 2008, to deliver notes as called for in its securitization contracts, according to Larry Platt, an attorney at K&L Gates LLP in Washington designated by the bank to answer questions about the case.

“This particular employee was mistaken in what she said,” Platt said in a telephone interview.

Attorney Analysis

Wizmur’s ruling is being scrutinized by lawyers for borrowers seeking to stall repossessions as a way to press lenders to modify their debt. Attorneys for homeowners have already won cases by calling into doubt the legitimacy of affidavits used to take back properties.

“If this is correct, many, many, many foreclosures already occurred in which this plaintiff didn’t have the note,” said Bruce Levitt, the South Orange, New Jersey, attorney representing Kemp. “This could affect thousands or hundreds of thousands of loans.”

Companies that service loans, including Bank of America, temporarily halted home seizures in the wake of disclosures that they relied on employees to sign thousands of affidavits without reading them, a practice that has become known as robo-signing. The attorneys general of all 50 states are jointly investigating foreclosure practices of servicers.

Bank of America, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, is the largest U.S. mortgage servicer, overseeing $2.09 trillion of loans as of Sept. 30, according to industry newsletter Inside Mortgage Finance.

Investor Impact

The Kemp case is also being examined by lawyers for investors in mortgage-backed securities. Owners of the bonds have been cooperating in an effort to force sellers to take back loans, saying they were misled about their quality. The Wizmur ruling may give investors an additional opportunity to push for mortgage buybacks on grounds that the bonds weren’t created in keeping with securitization contracts.

“It may mean investors who think they bought mortgage- backed securities bought securities that aren’t backed by anything,” said Kurt Eggert, a professor at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California.

The potential impact of DeMartini’s testimony may depend on the outcome of a broader dispute between homeowner and industry lawyers about whether missing or incomplete paperwork subsequently can be fixed, Eggert said.

‘Not Customary’

Wizmur, chief judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, said during hearings that the Countrywide securitization contract covering Kemp’s loan called for a trustee to take possession of the promissory notes, which represent the borrowers’ obligation to repay their loans.

The judge asked DeMartini whether the notes ever move to follow the transfer of ownership, according to the transcript of the August 2009 hearing.

“I can’t say that they’re never moved because, I mean, with this many millions of loans as we have I wouldn’t presume to say that, but it is not customary for them to move,” DeMartini said.

“This is something that would concern investors,” said Talcott Franklin, a Dallas-based lawyer whose firm is helping owners of more than $600 billion of mortgage bonds as they consider ways to limit their losses.

DeMartini held management and training positions since joining Countrywide Home Loans about a decade ago, according to her testimony. She said she has been involved in every aspect of servicing and “had to know about everything in order to do that.”

Beyond DeMartini’s Knowledge

Platt, the lawyer for Bank of America, said DeMartini was wrong, as was the bank’s local attorney in the case, who argued in court that notes weren’t moved in part because of the risk of losing them. The transfer of mortgage notes was outside the scope of DeMartini’s knowledge because she doesn’t deal with the sale of loans, Platt said.

DeMartini, who at one point said she wasn’t “comfortable” testifying about the extent to which notes were transferred before continuing to do so, couldn’t be reached for comment. Jerry Dubrowski, a spokesman for the bank, said that she remains an employee.

Banks including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Washington Mutual Inc. said in prospectuses for some mortgage-bond deals that they would hold onto notes for the trusts. They were empowered to act in custodial roles on behalf of trustees, according to the pooling and servicing agreements that govern the transactions.

Countrywide Deals

The securitization contracts related to the Kemp loan, and at least two other Countrywide mortgage-bond transactions, didn’t assign the company the additional role of document custodian for the trust. Countrywide, as the servicer, can take back the notes from the trustee when needed to manage foreclosure actions and mortgage payoffs, according to the contracts.

One risk to investors when notes remain with sellers acting as custodian is that an acquirer or creditor of those companies could walk in and take the notes, the banks that disclosed the practice in mortgage-bond prospectuses warned. Typically, trustees or custodians also are charged with checking that either all the necessary documents get delivered or letting sellers know about missing paperwork.

“If Countrywide had a special agreement to act as a stand- in for the trustee, given the inherent conflicts involved, one would have thought that would have been material and disclosed to investors,” said Joshua Rosner, an analyst at New York-based Graham Fisher & Co.

He said that the possibility that Countrywide retained documents raises questions about whether Bank of New York Mellon Corp., which serves as the trustee for the securitization of the Kemp loan, fulfilled its obligation to review loan files.

Stress-Tested System

“We have an established, clearly defined document review process,” said Kevin Heine, a spokesman for New York-based BNY Mellon. “It is a controlled and well-documented system that has been stress-tested and audited. We are comfortable that it works well.”

Heine declined to comment on the Kemp case or Countrywide’s policies.

Mortgage-bond contracts require that loan sellers deliver certain files to trustees, or other companies acting on their behalf, typically within a few months. “Material” missing paperwork can require sellers to take back loans for their full face value, according to the agreements.

“If the notes weren’t properly transferred to the trusts, then investors have the mother of all put-back claims,” Adam J. Levitin, an associate professor at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, wrote on a blog four days after citing the Wizmur ruling during a hearing by a House Financial Services subcommittee.

Trust Law

Giving notes to the trustees after the fact isn’t a solution because the rules governing trusts, enforced by New York trust law, require that assets are in place by a specified closing date, said O. Max Gardner III, a Shelby, North Carolina, bankruptcy litigator. The notes also can’t be transferred to the trust without first being conveyed through a chain of interim entities, he said.

“If they do an end run and directly deliver it to the trust, that would violate all the documents they filed with the SEC under oath as to what they did,” Gardner said.

Industry lawyers said trust law isn’t relevant in this instance. Based on other legal codes, loans have already been transferred into the mortgage-bond trusts, making a clean-up of paperwork permissible, they said.

Refuted Attack Strategies

“Those who seek to attack the integrity of securitizations have taken a number of approaches that have been refuted, so now they’re focusing on New York trust law,” said Karen B. Gelernt, a lawyer in New York at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP who works for banks.

The part of the law they cite relates to “actions taken by the trustee after the trust is formed; it’s nonsensical to apply this provision to the creation of the trust,” she said. “There doesn’t appear to be any case law that supports their interpretation.”

Platt, the Bank of America lawyer, said that any bank that failed to initially deliver all the documents required in contracts may be required to refund investors only in cases in which foreclosures actually get blocked.

“The judges may decide it’s better for the system to allow everyone to” send missing paperwork to trustees, said Rosner, the Graham Fisher analyst. “It’s too early to really answer question about the implications” if the Bank of America testimony is true.

The case is In the Matter of John T. Kemp, Kemp v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., 08-02448, U.S. bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden).

To contact the reporters on this story: Prashant Gopal in New York at pgopal2@bloomberg.net; Jody Shenn in New York at jshenn@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Kara Wetzel at kwetzel@bloomberg.net; Alan Goldstein at agoldstein5@bloomberg.net

That is essentially what meetings with the ACLU have directly focused on. Yes, First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights Violations. Not just by one judge but by a SYSTEM OF JUDGES, well, Florida Judges.

It is refreshing to see that there are some judges that actually hold values dear like integrity, honor, equity. You know, old, outdated, traditional values. Maybe better said: Founding Values.

I want to honor Pasco County Judge Susan Gardner and Sarasota County Judge Anthony Rondolino. Two people who care about the integrity of their profession and the system. They are doing good, honest work striving to maintain order and an ethical practice of law in this state. At the very bottom of this post I am inserting a recent story on Judge Gardner’s growing anger at bank and plaintiff’s bar attorney lawlessness… CLICK HERE to read full story on Tampa Tribune.

Imagine what our lives would be like today, as Americans, if our financial system and judicial system actually still had integrity. No, greed has consumed and greed is overcoming. Power Greed. Money Greed. It’s a deep perversion undermining America’s Greatness. But greed is rooted in the person, not the system. The system has simply become polluted with AwfulPeople. Not completely so as to lose hope. Not yet but the crossroads are here America. What path shall we take? What path will you take? Who will you elect? What will you tolerate around you?

Some in this foreclosure fight are fighting for a free home. That I believe to be wrong. We are all stakeholders in this thing we call America. The financial system is corrupt but the foundations of it are what makes us a great country that can be great again. I wouldn’t expect a home for free, that just doesn’t feel right in my gut. If I signed a Note, a promise to pay, then I need to live up to that. If my ability to pay has changed due to a loss of income, a rising payment or whatever, well, so be it. I might try to work things out, many have. The banks are not playing fair. They created such a convoluted mess I call “Subsidiary City.” I know that fraud is wrong. I know that overcharging people is wrong. I know that getting paid back 2-10 times as much as what was originally funded – and then trying to take a US Citizen’s home on top of it – feels wrong.

So I say that if we as a country are to pull through this and pull out of this with our country, our freedoms and Constitutional Rights intact – we ALL better figure out how to compromise. Greed will not let that happen. But we can overcome it and work together, Banks and Homeowners. Judges and Attorneys. Right and Left, Conservative and Liberal. We can agree to disagree about the little things. It’s the BIG things we need to be steely resolved to agreeing on. We have to go back to solid principles and values or we will destroy ourselves.

Well, anyway, heres’ the DCA Summary.

35 Fla. L. Weekly D2519a

Mortgage foreclosure — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment of foreclosure on basis of equitable subrogation in favor of plaintiff which had allegedly paid off two prior mortgages on homestead property — Summary judgment was improper because there were factual issues as to whether the prior notes and mortgages were satisfied after closing, and factual issue as to whether husband’s signature on earlier loan documents had been forged

PAMELA ANN BROTHERIDGE and JASON BROTHERIDGE, Appellants, v. OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION and GRP LOAN, LLC, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D09-4893. Opinion filed November 17, 2010. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Michael T. McHugh, Judge. Counsel: Daniel S. Cruz, Barbara Goolsby, and Michael Stirrup of Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc., Fort Myers, for Appellants. J. Matthew Belcastro and Suzanne M. Boy of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, Fort Myers, for Appellees.

(ALTENBERND, Judge.) Pamela Ann and Jason Brotheridge appeal a judgment of foreclosure entered as a result of a motion for summary judgment. We conclude the record did not demonstrate that GRP Loan, LLC, was entitled to foreclose on the property under a theory of equitable subrogation when the trial court granted its motion for summary judgment. There were significant irregularities in the closing of the loan at issue, as well as in the execution of the loan documents, and the evidence before the trial court failed to demonstrate the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, the entry of summary judgment was improper and we reverse.

The Brotheridges are married and own a home in Cape Coral, Florida. In 1995, the home was encumbered by at least two notes and mortgages. The larger note with Centex Mortgage allegedly had an outstanding indebtedness of approximately $208,000. The smaller note, obtained to repair hurricane damage to the home, was a U.S. Small Business Administration loan for $70,000, allegedly with an interest rate of only 3.3 percent. Mrs. Brotheridge operated a pet store that was struggling and needed capital to keep the business open. She hoped to obtain that capital by refinancing the couple’s home.

Pablo Samsing, a mortgage broker with Prime Time Mortgage, contacted Mrs. Brotheridge over the telephone. He led her to believe that she could refinance the home at an interest rate of 8.9 percent and obtain approximately $50,000 to use in her business. Prime Time Mortgage apparently applied for the financing with Option One Mortgage Corporation. Various documents that were part of that application contain what, at this point in the litigation, must be assumed to be the forged signatures of Mr. Brotheridge.

On the day of the closing, a notary public, Maureen Calderone, came to the Brotheridges’ home. At that time, Mrs. Brotheridge first learned that the note would bear an interest rate of 12.45 percent. It is undisputed that Mrs. Brotheridge signed the note and mortgage at that time, borrowing approximately $325,000.

The note and mortgage also contain the purported signature of Mr. Brotheridge, allegedly witnessed by Mrs. Calderone’s husband, Kevin J. Calderone. Mrs. Calderone, as a notary, signed the documents, claiming that she identified Mr. Brotheridge from his Florida driver’s license. It is undisputed that he has a Canadian driver’s license. Mrs. Brotheridge denies that Mr. Brotheridge or Mr. Calderone were present at the closing. Expert testimony currently establishes that the signature of Mr. Brotheridge on these documents is a forgery. Thus, at summary judgment, the trial court was required to assume that Mr. Brotheridge had not signed the documents or otherwise been involved in this loan transaction.

Mrs. Brotheridge has never paid anything on this obligation and, with the assistance of counsel, has tried to rescind the loan. In all probability, the obligation is now far larger than the value of the home. The fact that she has lived in the home for several years without making any arrangements to pay this obligation clearly troubled the trial court.

At some point Option One assigned its rights to GRP Loan, LLC. It then moved for summary judgment in this case, maintaining that it was at least entitled to recover the amount of $278,728.47 that allegedly was applied to pay off the two prior mortgages. Significantly, it relied exclusively on dollar amounts described in the settlement statement at the closing to establish its right to foreclose. The trial court granted that summary judgment, reserving the Brotheridges’ right to proceed on their counterclaims. Thereafter, without resolving the counterclaims, it entered the final judgment of foreclosure that is now pending on appeal.

There admittedly is some authority for the theory that a lender can obtain an equitable lien by virtue of equitable subrogation, not on its own loan documents but based on earlier loans that were paid off in refinancing. See Palm Beach Sav. & Loan Ass’n, F.S.A. v. Fishbein, 619 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1993); Suntrust Bank v. Riverside Nat’l Bank of Fla., 792 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We note, however, that in Fishbein, the earlier notes and mortgages had been executed by both the husband and wife and that it was the husband who had forged his wife’s signature on the documents for the new loan. 619 So. 2d at 268. Suntrust Bank involved a situation in which a bank lost its priority inadvertently. 792 So. 2d at 1223. Thus, these cases are not factually similar to this case. This case may involve misconduct by a mortgage broker and a notary. From the record, it is not clear whether their possible misconduct can or should be attributed to Option One and GRP Loan, LLC.

Given the major irregularities at the closing, however, we are unwilling to assume that the settlement statement at that closing is dispositive of this foreclosure. GRP Loan, LLC, did not place any notes or mortgages from Centex Mortgage or the U.S. Small Business Administration in the record. There is no proof that those notes and mortgages were satisfied after the closing. In fact, the only indication that they may have been satisfied by this transaction is a reference to them in the settlement statement. We conclude that the trial court erred in accepting the reference in the settlement statement as proof of what the lender actually did with the proceeds of this loan after closing with Mrs. Brotheridge. There is also nothing to indicate that Mr. Brotheridge ever executed those earlier loan documents; thus, he is suffering a foreclosure of his homestead with no proof that he signed or agreed to the loan. We agree with the Brotheridges that factual issues as to the foreclosure and their counterclaims exist that should be resolved before their home goes to a forced sale.

Even assuming that the earlier notes and mortgages were properly executed by the husband and wife and were satisfied by virtue of this new loan, we question whether an equitable lien under a theory of equitable subrogation should give GRP Loan, LLC, the right to immediate foreclosure under these circumstances. GRP Loan, LLC, had no rights under those earlier documents until the trial court gave it equitable rights. At that point, GRP Loan, LLC, may have received the equitable right to obtain future payments from the Brotheridges under the terms of those earlier loans, which were more favorable to the Brotheridges. However, nothing in this record suggests the Brotheridges were ever extended the opportunity to make payments on those notes to GRP Loan, LLC. Without proof of any default on those earlier notes and being, at worst, in default on forged notes, we are not entirely convinced that this record at summary judgment entitled GRP Loan, LLC, to receive an immediate equitable right to foreclose on this property and, in particular, on Mr. Brotheridge’s homestead.

Reversed and remanded. (DAVIS, J., and WILLIAMS, CHARLES E., ASSOCIATE JUDGE, Concur.)

* * *

It took an Act of Congress to finally get a copy of my own deposition. Go figure… I was retained by an attorney and client in a New Jersey case to conduct a securitization analysis and investigation on this case and then quantify my opinion in an Affidavit. The Affidavit was filed in the instant case and the judge relied on my Affidavit in his ruling on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment – which he denied after carefully considering my opinion in the Affidavit.

The case was set for trial and the Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (DBNTC) as Trustee For Argent Securities Inc. Series 2004-PW1, wanted to depose me, presumably, to get an idea of what they were going to have to deal with at trial in my testimony.

Here is the 62-Page Deposition taken by DBNTC and their attorney on September 17, 2010 in New York.

Here is the Affidavit filed in the instant case.

Mind you, this work was done by me back in early 2010. I have advanced considerably in my analyses and how I structure my Affidavits now versus how I used to structure them – with the gracious help of some of the attorneys I work with on a regular basis.

Here is a much more recent live sample of an Affidavit of Expert Opinion with all Exhibits recently filed in a Duval County, Jacksonville, FL case. One thing for sure… this work and the affidavit filed in a foreclosure case is successful almost 100% of the time in defeating summary judgment and getting to trial and advanced discovery phases. It also sets up a deposition(s) of corporate reps very nicely. There are so many issues of fact presented in my affidavits that a judge is going to have go rogue in a major way to still grant summary judgment.

If you would like more information on this, please feel free to contact me at 800-985-4685.

You heard it hear first folks… from a very reliable source, I have been told that the David J. Stern sent out an email today to ALL employees with a list of employees who were being laid off immediately. Oh, by the way, all employees got the email and were basically told to “look and see if their name was on the list.” Gee Dave, thanks for such a personal touch and showing that you really care!

How nice, what sensitivity from this man… really, if you work for this jerk, why would you expect anything less? But it certainly is a tragedy. Word from my source is that basically everyone at the Law Offices of David J. Stern are already looking for another job elsewhere – and I would too if I were in their shoes. Well, I don’t think I’d ever be in their shoes exactly because this is one animal I’d never work for… you know the saying… it’d be a cold day in hell before… but it appears that Stern has said that business is down a whopping 90% from norms just a few months ago. If that holds true, you can expect to see his employee level go from over 1000 down to maybe 100 and possibly less in short order.

If you have a foreclosure still active where Law Offices of David J. Stern is the Plaintiff’s attorney, rejoice. I’m betting that there will be a good many months delay while his crooked bank/servicer/trustee clients figure out what to do with all the fraud, forgery and misrepresentations made by his firm. Word is that some of his attorneys didn’t even go to hearings today once they got the notice of “you’re not needed here anymore.” Nevermind the ethical duty these attorneys are supposed to have to their client but yes, I know what you’re thinking… what ethics could they possibly have if they worked for Stern? Great question…

Anyway, just thought I’d get this news out there as I know many of my readers will relish in this news. Can’t way to see the ship truly sink. Hopefully that sinking includes jail time for the most deserving of people at his firm. A few names come to mind but I’ll let you read the depositions and come to your own “wish” list.

One last thought… how ironic would it be for some of Stern’s employees to go through foreclosure now that they’re laid off and likely will have a very hard time finding another law firm to hire them? My goodness, wouldn’t that just be heavenly justice being meted out?

You know, I might just start a new category on the blog: Foreclosure Mill Failures – what do you think?

Peace out.