John Stumpf, Wells Fargo CEO, Interrupted By Foreclosure Protesters
UPDATE: Badro claims that she was notified today that her foreclosure was postponed indefinitely.
A group of activists protesting Wells Fargo's foreclosure practices in California interrupted the bank's CEO Thursday while he was speaking at a banking conference in the state.
California homeowner Betty Badro says she walked onto the stage from behind and presented the CEO with her hand, a smile and a friendly “Hey John.” But Stumpf probably wasn’t expecting what came next.
“I said ‘my name is Betty Badro, I’ve lived in my home for 19 years and you’re going to sell it tomorrow,’” Badro told The Huffington Post. “He quickly withdrew his hand and walked away.”
After Badro’s grand entrance, a group of about 25 protesters affiliated with the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment joined her, according to American Banker, which sponsored the conference.
The protest is part of a larger campaign by ACCE, a housing advocacy nonprofit, to urge Wells Fargo to provide more principal reductions to its struggling borrowers in danger of foreclosure. Principal reduction is a form of loan forgiveness -- if employed broadly, some economists say the practice could help alleviate the foreclosure crisis by lessening borrowers’ loan principal to a number closer to what their home is worth.
ACCE’s report claims that Wells Fargo is providing “far less” principal reductions to its California borrowers than Bank of America, despite servicing more loans in the state. The report also says that most of the distressed loans serviced by Wells Fargo in California are concentrated in African-American and Latino neighborhoods.
The report also claims that if Wells Fargo allows all of its more than 11,000 California homes in the foreclosure pipeline go through with the process, it would cost the state about $20 million in lost tax revenue.
Wells Fargo denied the report’s findings in a statement, saying the bank has provided borrowers with $6.3 billion in principal reduction, most of which has gone to California borrowers.
“The report is based on flawed assumptions and connects findings from a series of unrelated studies,” the bank wrote in the statement. “Wells Fargo has had an aggressive principal reduction program for loans that we own since 2009. Wells Fargo conducts all lending and servicing activities in a fair and responsible manner without regard to race or ethnicity.”
But Badro says she interrupted Stumpf because she's still waiting for help. The 58-year-old California state worker admits that after asking for a loan modification, she did fall behind on some of her payments -- thanks to a combination of personal factors and what she says was information from bank staffers indicating the bank wouldn’t modify her loan if she was current on her payments.
Now she’s in danger of losing the Glendale, Calif., home where she raised her two kids. Tomorrow.
“It’s a very delicate situation to be in, to not know if you have a house over your head,” Badro said. “I’m powerless looking at this huge bank that doesn’t have any mercy.”
Wells Fargo spokesperson Adams contradicted Badro's report, writing in an e-mailed statement to The Huffington Post that there isn't a foreclosure sale scheduled for Badro's home.
"Wells Fargo continues to work with Ms. Badro to determine if there are any options that may allow her to stay in the home," Adams wrote.
ACCE, an offshoot of ACORN the now-embattled, national liberal advocacy group, has targeted Wells Fargo in the past. ACCE shut down a Wells Fargo branch in California in December what police described as a peaceful demonstration. The group also set up camp outside the Los Angeles-area home of a Wells Fargo shareholder in April chanting and protesting.
UPDATE: Badro claims that she was notified today that her foreclosure was postponed indefinitely.
NEW! 
So the Note and debt are separated and there is no title on court records for the actual holder of debt because no one is actual holding a debt. One the game is found out simply by obtaining the Note which is going to be always a Blank sign document because Ginnie Mae cannot file its name in the blank as it is not a Lender and everybody knows that most government insured loans are in a Ginnie Mae pool and the way to tell is that in the MERS system it has the loan under Ginnie Mae as the “Investor” or simply file a FIOA request with Ginnie Mae and you will have access tit the loans history with Ginnie Mae.
So you do have a situation where there is no collectable debt that is attached to the property. What who happen as was exposed by Countrywide that the Notes were not delivered to the Trust and now there is a big problem there. However in the case of Ginnie Mae because the Notes are Blank and under UCC 3 you need to be in physical possession of the Blank Note because it blank and who ever is in possession of the Blank Note owns the Note.
However as with Massachusetts Supreme Court Eaton v. Fannie Mae the court expect that the party foreclosing must be the owner of the Note owed a debt and that they also must be in title as the “holder in due course”. Ginnie Mae who is in physical possession of Blank Notes is neither owner of debt because they did not purchase it and are not in title because they did not purchase the Notes and a lien cannot be created or transferred. So nothing that the borrowers have done but the moment the Blank Note was transferred to Ginnie Mae you have a non-negotiable document where payments cannot be collected by Ginnie Mae by law (pass through) and a surrogate in Servicer cannot collect for Ginnie Mae because it itself is not authorized this activity.
Lender have been getting away with simply not transferring the Note and if a loan was in default who would know the loan was with Ginnie Mae or if the loan was refinanced there would be a new Note issued, or if the loan was paid off by the borrowers all they would be looking at is the red stamp PAID on the front and not know of pay attention to the still blank endorsement on the back page.
aren’t done by any legitimate endorser. I remember a case where there were not one, but two, endorsements executed by an employee (aka temporarily appointed v.p. of some dept or another) of the party allegedly in possession of a note. As I recall, the endorsee, well, not endorsee, but the party claiming possession of a bearer note claimed some right which was not evidenced and not challenged!
I thought this was interesting and useful (still hunting for a Notice):
DEITRICK v. STANDARD SURETY CO., 303 U.S. 471 (1938)
58 S.Ct. 696
DEITRICK, RECEIVER, ET AL. v. STANDARD SURETY & CASUALTY CO.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT.
No. 455.
Argued March 7, 8, 1938.
Decided March 28, 1938.
“When two or more persons have jointly perpetrated a fraud with intent to injure others, justice and law combine to entitle injured parties to recover from any or all of the conspirators. Corporations can act only through agents. When, as here, two corporations,
acting through authorized (key word – sic) agents, have jointly perpetrated a fraud which was intended to — and did — injure others**, a just rule of law should likewise hold both corporations jointly and severally responsible for the damages inflicted by them upon innocent parties.”
Interestingly, the case has to do with a bk receiver of a bank and a surety. And it further evidences imo why MERS purposely avoided the word agent, which they later, as I’ve said, started using, thinking the cost was clear.
If one alleges fraud, remember it has to be plead with at least some specificity. Courts disagree with what that means exactly, so best to check local jurisdiction. Fraud deprives a party of due process; hard to argue and defend when you’re being fed lies on which your reliance was reasonable. That’s why a f/c may be overturned for fraud.
** A bankster will argue you weren’t injured because you were in default. Even if you were in default, what’s that got to do with a lying, scheming conspiracy to steal your home by strangers to the transaction?
I hope that all are doing well. I must say, there are some very interesting people and comments on this site.
I think that, Mr. JohnGault is deserving of an applause… so… give johngault a “HUR-RUMF!!!”… hey YOU over in the corner, give JOHNGAULT a “HUR-RUMF…!!!”
the gentleman has made some very informative comments. The thing about it is this… some of you folks need to, step to either side of the tree, infront of you so that, you may see ‘the Forest’…
keep it up Johngault:)
@kimmie
http://www.investopedia.com/search/default.aspx?q=bearer%20paper#axzz20dTR9HC5
http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bearer-paper/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bearer_paper
God bless…
lowecommunityresourcepartners@live.com
Here is the name of a good Florida and Seattle attorney I and friends are trusting. i am pro se, now however I may need her. And plan on it if I dont get my appeal. Go back on fraud upon the court. She does bankruptcy only if you need to do bankruptcy and does it without bankruptcy. Ha Thu Dao, Esq.
GRAND CENTRAL LAW, PLLC
PO Box 7382
Lakeland, FL 33807
Licensed to practice in FL & WA
AV rated
Member of NACA & NACBA
Grad of the Max Gardner’s Litigation Boot Camp
(727) 269-9334
fax: (727) 264-2447
The assignments being executed state that the consideration for the dot assgt is ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration, which is pretty much standard as I recall. That can mean any number 10.00 or higher. But it’s bull, because no real money is actually changing hands. MERS, the alleged assignor, receives no money because it has no economic interest in the dot and it does not receive money and pass it on to another party nor is any other party being paid. (MERS might be getting some token amt for the use of its name on the assignment, but that’s it, has nothing to do with the sale or actual transfer of monies for the assgt, which schematic brings to my mind R I C O). That means there is ‘insufficiency of consideration’, which is an affirmative defense against an alleged obligation.
Down in AZ, think it was, where someone really needs to talk with those jurists, they ruled in favor of the dot only (with no note!). Those assignments are fully gratuitous as there is no money changing hands. The dot assignee of those dots has no connection to the note (neither does the assignor in this mess, either imo), the debt, has paid nothing in reality, has no skin in the game: lack of consideration, which is an affirmative defense not being used that I know of, nor do I know why affirmative defenses are not being used. And for that matter, the note and dot have now truly been bifurcated with one party owning the note and another having the dot (although I still agree with the judges who have said the dot without the note is a worthless piece of paper, so what if anything has happened is that the noteowner now has an unsecured note and may have a valid claim on that basis: taking collateral under the dot will not retire the note of a hidc and maybe not even that of a holder = double jeopardy).
Affirmative defenses may require some admission, like “I owe the note or I signed that, BUT……(insert affirmative defense(s)”, or, for all I know, may be used as an alternative in response to a claim. There is a time when aff defenses must be raised, or the right to do so is lost (I think) and so failure to timely raise can be fatal.
I can’t agree with the explanation of the ‘without recourse’ given here as a comment. I’ve always thought that meant mol “here, it’s yours, don’t bother me if it goes south”, as in I have no liability to the transferee nor, again I think, do I have any rights against the transferee for any reason: I’m out of it.
One of the very salient and imo unavoidable questions for litigation is whether the claimant is claiming as a holder or a hidc. A mere holder is subject to many affirmative defenses not available against a mere holder. Discovery is necessary to determine this or at least a demand for a “more definitive statement”. You can’t know, so than neither can a court, what might be your defenses if you dont know if the claim is that of a holder or hidc. When did you get this note? Before or after the alleged default? How much did you pay for it? When?
And, btw, why does a bankster have possession (if it does) of a note? It’s supposed to be with the doc custodian, right? Doesn’t this mean in the best scenario that they pulled it for the purpose of enforcement AFTER default (so not hidc)?
I don’t think but can’t figure today that one in possession (only) of a bearer note can ever be a holder in due course (if he doesn’t own it, doesn’t actually have the ben interest in the note). He might have paid nothing for it and that is one of the tenets of being a hidc: taken for value. Any court willing to start at hidc for the benefit of the bankster is errant (that’s being nice). That is not, absolutely not, a reasonable presumption. In fact, it’s a ridiculous, appealable conclusion of law with no facts to support it.
Right now, in my lay opinion, one of our best friends is failure of consideration (and other affirmative defenses), given that no funds are changing hands for either these notes or the dots. Our need to know clearance on holder v hidc should provide for discovery.
The banksters have been more than willing to file mol generic false affidavits and declarations, but will they be so crazy as to try to rely on false affidavits and declarations (in lieu of meaningful discovery) regarding the dollar amt paid for the loans and when to try to establish their rights?
I have no idea how affirmative defenses stack up against Article
8 or 9 of the UCC, which does not contemplate hidc’s. But, maybe because it doesnt afford anyone rights of a hidc, affirmative defenses are always available when a note is governed by Article 9 and that would be good news.
I’m not an attorney and this is not legal advice. It’s just stuff to ponder, to research, to get competent help (good luck on that one).
And on that note, I have to disagree a tad with think it’s tnharry about finding attorneys. The very last thing I want to do is alienate or insult the legal community, but how long has it been now? 4 -5 years and some are just getting up to speed on agency and other unavoidable issues related hereto. I’m just a plebe lay person for Pete’s sake and I have been able to at least spell the words for some time now. People tend to think that if you can’t find an attorney, it’s because you don’t have a case. That’s one explanation, but it sure as sam h aint the only one. Plus the ones who are worth their salt are pretty darn busy.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46442715/Deutsche-Bank-v-FDIC-Chase-JP-Morgan-WAMU
Here are two more of the many coming.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46442715/Deutsche-Bank-v-FDIC-Chase-JP-Morgan-WAMU
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/185098/Financial+Restructuring/Court+Holds+That+Noteholders+Cannot+Meddle+In+Deutsche+Banks+Suit
The Purchase &Assumption Agreement between the FDIC & JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA for Washington Mutual Bank does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note.
U. S. DISTRICT COURT CASE # CV10-0815 0D2 (FFMx)
JAVAHIERI V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA et al:
Order GRANTING in Part & DENYING in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint file April 28, 2011
Decision can be found at http://www.chasechase.org/doxcc/Javaheri35Order.pdf
US Code: TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part B > § 1641
§ 1641. Liability of assignees can be found at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1641&url=/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001641—-000-.html
From the decision”:
C. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE & QUIET TITLE
JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA’s assertion that the P&A Agreement suffices to establish their ownership of the Note is no longer viable. Indeed, the P&A Agreement does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note. (See Dkt. No. 10, Exh. 2.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has now sufficiently alleged that JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA did not own his Note and therefore did not have the right to foreclose.
From Plaintiff’s memorandum of law attached:
WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE – SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (hereafter Chase) offers no proof that it acquired an interest in Plaintiff’s residence. In this Motion to Dismiss, once again the only document offered to support its claim is the P&A Agreement. Chase asks the court to leap to the conclusion that Washington Mutual Bank (hereafter WMB) was the Lender on September 25, 2008, the date that the Purchase & Assumption Agreement was signed, even though the likelihood of that, given WMB’s history of securitization, is less than 50%. The challenge facing homeowners is to prove facts to trial courts at the pleading stage.
Wall Street and the Financial Crisis – Anatomy of a Financial Collapse, the U.S.
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (April 13, 2011) 650-page report,
was released following an 18-month investigation into the causes of the financial
crisis. WMB was the leading case study in the report—183 pages (28%) of the report were devoted to WMB—the worst of the worst. The report is readily
available for download at the Senate Subcommittee’s website. 2
Defendant alleges in its Purchase & Assumption Agreement that “JPMorgan obtained its rights under the loan from the FDIC” (P&A 4:5). Whether or not the Loan was an asset of WMB on September 25, 2008, a key issue in this case, is not mentioned. Chase asks the court to find, without evidence, a fact that it must prove in order to take the property. Nothing in the P&A Agreement shows whether WMB had any beneficial interest in Plaintiff’s loan on September 25, 2008. The court is asked to guess the answer and dismiss the case. Then Plaintiff will lose his house.
Where factual findings or the contents of the documents are in dispute, those
matters of dispute are not appropriate for judicial notice. Caravantes v. California
Reconveyance Co., 2010 WL 4055560, 9 (S.D.Cal. 2010) citing Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transp. Comm’n, 2006 WL 167657, at *2 (N.D.Cal. 2006).
See Stephen R. Buchenroth and Gretchen D. Jeffries, Recent Foreclosure Cases: Lenders Beware (June 2007); Wells Fargo v.Jordan, 914 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 2009) (“If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”);
Chase argues that it obtained the right to sell Plaintiff’s property when it acquired
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
- 17 -
WMB’s assets through the P&A Agreement for $1.9 billion. Chase could only acquire what WMB owned. WMB no longer owned Plaintiff’ mortgage. Perhaps the identity of the Lender can be tracked down, but it remains unknown.
Defendant argues that Chase assumed no liability for actions taken by WMB prior to September 25, 2008 in regard to the subject loan. This obscures the issue. Plaintiff alleges that WMB did not have any interest in Plaintiff’s residence on September 25, 2008. His property was not an asset of WMB, and therefore Chase could not acquire any interest in Plaintiff’s residence. This is not a liability issue.
Chase seems to assert that it can foreclose on any property under the P&A Agreement on the grounds that WMB might have had a beneficial interest in the property at some time, even though WMB sold most of its mortgages to investors.
Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 62 of the SAC that WMB securitized Plaintiff’s single family
residential mortgage loan through Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. If WMB retained no beneficial interest in the promissory note when it brokered the deal, Chase cannot acquire what WMB never had. If WMB transferred all of its beneficial interest in the note at the inception of the loan and never entered it in its books as an asset, and entered no corresponding reserve on its ledger as a liability in the event of Plaintiff’s default, then Chase did not acquire ownership of the note by purchasing WMB’s assets because WMB had nothing to sell. This is a question of fact. Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 30 of the SAC that Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, not a holder of the Note, and not a beneficiary under the Note.
If Chase has no beneficial interest in the note, Chase can only proceed if it
proves that it is the servicer and joins the owner of the note in this action. To dismiss
this lawsuit before ascertaining the truth of these allegations is unwarranted. Chase
could produce evidence in its files, but it prefers to rob Plaintiff of his day in court
__._,_.___
Neither WMB, Chicago Title Company, California Reconveyance Company (hereafter CRC), Chase, nor anyone else has recorded a transfer of a beneficial interest in the Note (or any other interest in the) Property to Chase. (SAC ¶ 29). Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, Chase is not a holder of the Note, and Chase is not a beneficiary under the Note. Chase does not have
capacity to exercise a power of sale. Chase does not claim to be a holder of the note.
The core issue in this case is to ascertain who is the Lender. Plaintiff did not borrow money from Chase. Plaintiff’s pre-discovery inquiries indicate that WMB did not own the loan on September 25, 2008, and therefore Chase is not the Lender. This issue cannot be brushed aside because California is a non-judicial state.
Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) remained the Lender for no more than a few days until WMB sold the loan. Thereafter, it was, at best, a servicer of the loan. The Lender was the investment trust that put up the money.
Foreclosure of the Wellworth Property was commenced by CRC, having been
appointed trustee on April 30, 2010, by Chase. Chase was not the Lender.
The Deed of Trust (SAC Exhibit 4) states on page 13, paragraph 24: “Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor Trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by Lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county in which the Property is located.” (SAC Exhibit 8, ¶24).
Defendant asks the Court’s approval to proceed with foreclosure of Plaintiff’s
property on the basis of a NOD and NOTS filed by CRC, a wholly owned subsidiary
of Chase (SAC ¶16) that was appointed as successor Trustee by Chase even though
Chase is not the Lender and has not revealed who the Lender might possibly be.
(A) all of the beneficiaries under the trust deed, or their successors in interest…
Nowhere does the Civil Code allow for assignment of a Deed of Trust by the assignee acting on its own behalf.
Since Chase is not the Lender, it would violate the terms of the Note and the Deed of Trust to dismiss the SAC and allow Chase to foreclose as a result of a forged Assignment of Deed of Trust signed by someone working for the Assignee.
Eggert, Held Up in Due Course: Predatory Lending, Securitization, and the Holder in Due Course Doctrine,, 35 Creighton L. Rev. 503, 538 (2002); The beneficiary mind you not the fraud servicer Chase Bank, nor fraud beneficiaries claimed by Deutsche Bank only by deception and fraud.
.
One attorney flat out told me he could not fight the banks. Another attorney told me if he helped me he would be disbarred. A freind in Virginia paid an attorney that allowed her house to go into foreclosure and he abandoned her, she later found out he was not even licensed in the state and had multiple complaints filed against him. A friend in Florida has been seeking help for six months and turned down by all attorneys so far. He paid nine thousand for an attorney that has removed the docs from the court and allowed his house to go into foreclosure and immediate sale at auction wtih absolte proof of fraud photo copy of his note and a stack of robo signed fruad assignments of the same party just like Linda Green. I have multiple friends and customer seeking attorneys and have not seen one possitive result for any Washington homeowner of my knowledge I personally know. I am in hopes now that several of them have finally found good attorneys. Yet to be seen. No end results yet, but looks good. I have had them sitting in my lobby huffing and puffing over the search for help and frustration. I have another close friend that lost her entire inheritance over her BK attorney and trying to save her home. I have mentioned a friend that is in a three and a half million dollar home several times on this sight, that sought an attorney due to me pushing him to find one, that filed unlawful foreclosure and unlawful sale at auction and eguity loss and demanded recission. Then within six weeks the banksters replied with a recinded foreclosure and recinded sale and a letter sign here that you acknowledge we own your mortgage and we will put the house back in your name. The attorney asked him to sign it. He told him to go to H….., And has sought over six attorneys last I knew and I know he is still searching and has the money to pay one. So do some many of my customers who are searching for help. A lady in Nevada same story who contacted me for robo docs i have. I dont have a pretty picture of getting much help yet out there, with hope we will find some help somehow.
if any of you are near universities with law schools, i would urge you to contact them. often they have a class during the 3rd year where students take on cases through legal clinics and represent you using teams of students operating under the guidance of professors or practicing lawyers. i would think that some universities might find these mortgage issues to be of sufficient interest academically to jump into the fray.
And we wonder why we can not get an attorney to help us.
I had that case at one point, but now I can’t locate it. thnks.
Fannie ‘s letter from Sims v New Falls-http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/07/bombshellsmoking-gun-fannie-mae-admits-mortgage-notes-are-integrated-with-mortgage-and-are-not-negotiable
This article was on Matt Weidner’s blog.
I think everyone has missed the boat on assignments and the verbiage the bank uses in the endorsements. The banks always use “without recourse” in their endorsement;.” this type of endorsement negates the banks responsibility to pay for the Note and leaves ONLY the original signer (you) financially responsible. But this is a 2 edged sword. The very act of allowing the bank to add “without recourse” means the 2nd bank has now AGREED they ONLY have the right to collect PAYMENT for the debt but forsakes the right to foreclose because they have become a HOLDER and NOT a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.
The liability protection garnered by using “without recourse” is purchased with the powers afforded by the IN DUE COURSE right. The fraud then lies with the trustee who violated their fiduciary responsibility by allowing the Note to be endorsed “without recourse” which stripped parties of their rights. Once the trustee did this they voluntary forsook their position and authority and lost the power to control or oversee any future acts.
In essence, the trustee is nothing more than the thug that does the wet work for the mafia we call the bank.
Since the DoT states the “debt evidenced by the Note” and the Note has been invalidated by the bad endorsement there is no evidence of any debt.
The only thing I know is that if a lender voluntarily misses three scheduled sale dates, the sale date must be re-noticed. (think that’s what it is) But what if none or just one came and went? Is there a point whereby a homeowner is entitled to a new NOD or to be noticed of a second sale date? I’ve already said I think so when there’s been a sub of trustee for the dot, but what about when there isn’t? The banksters will say no, you’re not entitled to anything because you had a time certain in which to cure your (allegedly) defaulted loan and that time has come and gone.
And how about if your alleged beneficiary changes after your NOD?
(Like it used to be MERS (gag) and after the NOD, there was an assgt to a new (alleged) beneficiary?)
I don’t think we’re going to find any answers in law on the books per se (but maybe), because this crap never used to happen. You got a NOD, a sale date was set and met, and that was it unless you fought. But, really, it’s just a big load to think a homeowner should have to be hanging out in the wind for an extended time and then maybe come home and find an eviction notice on the door. The banksters will say well you got to live in the home for a long time for free. Anyone who thinks that is beneficial has never lived thru it.
It seems we need some new legislation of our own.
In the absence of an evidenced agreement passing muster, a servicer has no right to substitute a trustee.
Aurora didn’t ‘transfer’ the loan to the ST. Aurora just appointed a sub trustee, sounds like – the real ben hasn’t changed since aurora was only the servicer (is that right – just servicer?) Need to know if there were an assgt from anyone of the dot to aurora. (And I still have questions myself about aurora loan services, llc now being called aurora bank or aurora bank somehow taking over als’ ‘stuff’. Heard it had to do with als’ bk but haven’t found it ….yet.)
Aurora I heard is selling most if not all its servicing portfoliio to
NationStar. I don’t know who is your alleged beneficiary. Can’t be any help, if I could at all, without that info. Well, if I take it that there were an assgt of the dot to Aurora who then sub’d the trustee, if aurora only sold the servicing to Nationstar and not the loan itself, Nationstar wouldn’t need an assgt of the dot. Course, in order for aurora to sell the loan to NationStar, and not just the servicing, aurora would have had to own it. Imo, if als doesn’t own the note, als shouldn’t have gotten an assgt of the dot in the first place. But that’s a big battle at this point.
Never minding the rest of it for a minute, one question seems to be:
can one lender or even trustee proceed on the notice of default of another? I would think not. The NOD told you whom to contact (for instance) ….that has changed.
Agents and principals;
Agents and the third parties with whom they deal on their principals’ behalf; and
Principals and the third parties when the agents purport to deal on their behalf.
The common law principle in operation is usually represented in the Latin phrase, qui facit per alium, facit per se, i.e. the one who acts through another, acts in his or her own interests and it is a parallel concept to
Vicarious Liability and
Strict Liability
in which one person is held LIABLE in criminal law or tort for the acts or omissions of another.
The only thing the deed of trust says MERS may do (and MERS didn’t do it – it’s members did in its name, which is a scam and that’s being kind) is to foreclose SUBJECT TO CUSTOM OR LAW. What custom? What law? No where in the deed of trust is “MERS” authorized to execute assignments. Therefore, if such authority exists, it must be found in another document. It isn’t found anywhere. The only ref to assignments which I’m aware of in ANY document is in the membership agreement wherein MERS grants members (this is sooo tweaked) the authority to assign deeds of trust to non-members (only). No document on this planet which has come to light authorizes “MERS”, the alleged nominal beneficiary, to execute assignments or to authorize others to do so. You can’t grant a right you don’t have, not even by pretend or legitimate resolution.
Remember, if you will, MERS could have called itself the agent* of the beneficiary (with an appropriate, expressed agreement between MERS and the true ben and that could have been spelled out in another agreement) instead of calling itself the beneficiary (as nominee), but they did NOT want anything to do with ‘agency’. Now they want to and are pretending that’s not so. An agent is liable to its principal (and maybe others) for its acts and the principal is liable to anyone harmed by its agent.
*XYZ Lender is the beneficiary of this deed of trust and MERS is its agent”
Two things I’m trying to convey: 1) MERS is not an agent (no such thing as implied agency in regard to real estate and ratification doesn’t cut it, either) 2) MERS is not authorized to execute – or appoint others – to execute assignments in its name.
If I’m right, are these assignments void or merely voidable? I think they’re void.
MERS HAS TO GO
“the uncontroverted evidence before the court demonstrated that it (MERS -sic) was the holder of the promissory note….”
“MERS argued to the Bk Court that it had standing …….in those case(s) in which MERS was not the note holder….” (oh, really, when was MERS a note holder?)
” Even if the Trustee (bk trustee – sic) were correct in his assertions
about agency, which MERS does not concede, MERS – in its own
capacity as NOTE HOLDER (my emphasis)……….”
MERS claimed to be the note holder. The brief was signed by attorney Jeffrey A. Silvestri in Las Vegas.
A personal favorite – Aurora claims to be the agent of its own alleged agent, MERS:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49520736/MERS-member-Aurora-Loan-Services-claims-it-is-Agent-for-MERS
The above is a proof of claim filed on June 22, 2005 and signed by
attorney Edward A. Treder # 9661
Discussion of the UCC and who may enforce a note. Must prove the transaction by which the note was acquired. The transferee’s rights must be proven. MERS may not assign the note, as it purports to do in assignments of the deed of trust. Compare, too, with more recent decision regarding MERS in MERS v Johnston (MERS is No One) .
1) Re-read Hwang for a refresher on real parties in interest:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28524908/In-re-KANG-JIN-HWANG-and-IndyMac-Bank
2) This case discusses who is a holder and what constitutes admissable evidence:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53179598/Aurora-Loan-Services-is-NOT-Holder-of-Note-Wisconsin-Appeal
3) MERS 2007 on the UCC:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50171939/MERS-discussion-of-the-UCC-in-Motion-to-Dismiss
4) Lengthy but good discussion of assignment for the purpose of
litigation / collection – a granddaddy case
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48254612/MERS-COLLUSION-IN-THE-ASSIGNMENT-OF-DEEDS-OF-TRUST-AND-DIVERSITY
“Do you have to post over and over the same illegible, poorly formulated and even more poorly written rants, from completely unreliable sources who have proved to be confirmed mental cases with a pack mentality and no reasoning ability, to boot? ”
(enraged—it was written by ANONYMOUS.)
And then enraged said:
“Pathetic! Now I see why Anonymous decided to drop out of this site: too many ignorant, vengeful, mean losers. He knew damn well that whatever he had to say couldn’t be understood by most here.”
ALL OF THE STUFF I POSTED WAS WRITTEN BY ANONYMOUS.
So—@enraged, you are sticking up for Anonymous—and saying you don’t understand what he is saying—and also criticizing his “rants”.
I didn’t write that stuff—ANONYMOUS DID.
A holder of a note endorsed in blank who is not a transferee of that note, but has ‘mere’ possession (even a thief apparently), who has not negotiated to itself the sale and transfer of the rights inherent to a note, but does have possession, if a negotiable instrument subject to Article III of the UCC, is entitled to enforce an unsecured note but has no right to an assignment of the collateral instrument. That right would only accrue to a transferee of the note, not one in mere possession. And while the right to an assignment of the collateral instrument does accrue to a transferee, the transferee doesn’t even have the assignment until it is properly executed and delivered to the transferee.
Another document would be necessary to evidence any right of the
holder of a bearer instrument to receive an assignment of the collateral for the actual transferee’s benefit for any reason. That document could be a servicing agreement, a power of attorney, or any other agreement which expressly (key word) authorizes a holder of the note to receive an assignment of the collateral instrument. And that agreement must conform to the statute of frauds.
In one pending case, the homeowner has alleged that the assignment of the collateral instrument to the servicer has bifurcated the note and deed of trust because the note is admittedly owned by a party other than the servicer (who I think but can’t recall for certain alleges possession of a bearer note). Imo the only way that isn’t true is if the servicer can produce a written agreement pre-dating the assignment which expressly, not impliedly, authorizes the assignment to the servicer on behalf of the noteowner. I can’t say anymore here.
In NY the UCC is very well written to take care of the issues being raised by Matt Weidner.
Section 3–104. Form of Negotiable Instruments; “Draft”; “Check”;
“Certificate of Deposit”; “Note”.
(1) Any writing to be a negotiable instrument within this Article must
(a) be signed by the maker or drawer; and
(b) contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum
certain in money and no other promise, order, obligation or
power given by the maker or drawer except as authorized by
this Article; and
(c) be payable on demand or at a definite time; and
(d) be payable to order or to bearer.
(2) A writing which complies with the requirements of this section is
(a) a “draft” (“bill of exchange”) if it is an order;
(b) a “check” if it is a draft drawn on a bank and payable on
demand;
(c) a “certificate of deposit” if it is an acknowledgment by a
bank of receipt of money with an engagement to repay it;
(d) a “note” if it is a promise other than a certificate of
deposit.
(3) As used in other Articles of this Act, and as the context may
require, the terms “draft”, “check”, “certificate of deposit” and “note”
may refer to instruments which are not negotiable within this Article as
well as to instruments which are so negotiable.
Section 3–105. When Promise or Order Unconditional.
(1) A promise or order otherwise unconditional is not made conditional
by the fact that the instrument
(a) is subject to implied or constructive conditions; or
(b) states its consideration, whether performed or promised, or
the transaction which gave rise to the instrument, or that
the promise or order is made or the instrument matures in
accordance with or “as per” such transaction; or
(c) refers to or states that it arises out of a separate
agreement or refers to a separate agreement for rights as to
prepayment or acceleration; or
(d) states that it is drawn under a letter of credit; or
(e) states that it is secured, whether by mortgage, reservation
of title or otherwise; or
(f) indicates a particular account to be debited or any other
fund or source from which reimbursement is expected; or
(g) is limited to payment out of a particular fund or the
proceeds of a particular source, if the instrument is issued
by a government or governmental agency or unit; or
(h) is limited to payment out of the entire assets of a
partnership, unincorporated association, trust or estate by
or on behalf of which the instrument is issued.
(2) A promise or order is not unconditional if the instrument
(a) states that it is subject to or governed by any other
agreement; or
(b) states that it is to be paid only out of a particular fund or
source except as provided in this section.
Section 3–106. Sum Certain.
(1) The sum payable is a sum certain even though it is to be paid
(a) with a stated rate of interest or by stated installments; or
(b) with stated different rates of interest before and after
default or a specified date; or
(c) with a stated discount or addition if paid before or after
the date fixed for payment; or
(d) with exchange or less exchange, whether at a fixed rate or at
the current rate; or
(e) with costs of collection or an attorney’s fee or both upon
default.
(2) For the purposes of subsection one of this section “a stated rate
of interest” shall also include a rate of interest that cannot be
calculated by looking only to the instrument but which is readily
ascertainable by a reference in the instrument to a published statute,
regulation, rule of court, generally accepted commercial or financial
index, compendium of interest rates, or announced rate of a named
financial institution.
(3) Nothing in this section shall validate any term which is otherwise
illegal.
Why don’t you see the States’ and US Court Judges and Justices “as being a danger to the public for” spewing “so much inaccurate, misleading, and harmful information” as to what the Law is?
Because the Law is what the Law says, NOT what they say it says (like the Game Telephone).
Except when they get away with it.
Cripes. They can’t do that. That leaves another agreement. The only other agreement we know of is the PSA. Is a recitation in a PSA of the loans at issue for that PSA the legally correct, governing document, then, of what notes are being assigned to the trust? Are there words in the PSA, an agreement separate from the physicality of the note, sufficient to factually convey the notes under Article 9? If Article 9 is the bomb, then why call for endorsements of notes in PSA’s, if they do call for endorsement? Was this all (the PSA) double-speak for the duped investors who only bought payment rights? Are the notes factually being assigned to the trust, or would whatever recitation is there merely evidence which notes the derivative holders were entitled to the payment stream(s) on, that is to say, the notes themselves were NOT actually transferred? Maybe someone who has reviewed more PSA’s than most of us will weigh in on the precise language.
Deeds of trust, which I swear are regulated by the Statute of Frauds, may nonetheless be assigned en masse. I’ve seen it. As I recall, it was when one lender sold loans to another. They would execute a blanket assignment, although each property was separately identified therein. Where I’ve seen it is itself informative imo. It was at the recorder’s office. No such thing as a “secret” when it came to those assignments. They were properly recorded and therefore noticed.
Last but no way least imo, can parties agree that an instrument which might otherwise be negotiable is going to be transferred by way of separate agreement / assignment (v endorsement?) And if so, once such an agreement has been reached, can that note later be treated as a negotiable instrument by those parties or other parties? (This one is to cover all possible bases in this querry. If the answer is no, then they can for sure take their ‘bearer’ notes and put them where the sun don’t shine.) Attorney Weidner has it right. The original game plan seems to be formulated around Article 9 (altho still messed up), but especially after MERS’ Consent Order, it became more convenient – grrrr – to rely on and sell Article 3′s bearer provisions to the judiciary.
It’s hard to make good arguments without more answers (and for those, we apparently need to get familiar with Gardner’s once
oft-criticized isms).
We might not have our own PSA’s, but there are probably lots of other PSA’s online to look for common language which might support the PSA’s reliance on Article 9 (except for the probable
double-speak which made investors believe they were buying notes, not derivatives).
court found Florida to be the governing law and not Georgia, which
would ring true had the note been executed in FL. It appears to
have been executed in New Jersey, which should be the governing
law state. The governing law is not determined by the state of
residency (the sims lived in FL); it’s determined by the location of the execution of the contract…….New Jersey in this case.
Yes, I meant at the origination. Yes to all your questions harry. I asked that question because I heard Catherine Austin Fitts say that the borrowers best direction in subprime is fraudulent inducement. I am not an attorney and am trying to understand. Thank you for such a comprehensive answer. I have gone the gamut over the last 7 years of this loan and all I have ever wanted is to know how I have been harmed. I intend to continue to proceed with caution. I go on this site and others so I can understand from knowledgeable people how to win in court with an awesome litigator. I’m not looking for a settler, I am looking for an intelligent person who loves to win.
I know the law moves slowly even if foreclosure moves lightening fast and in your opinion has enough good case law been decided in which a borrower who has been truly harmed can survive to a trial? Thank you once again.
This suit is between the investors and the bank. No help for homey types there
Wonder what made us crazy????
0 due process. 0 redress
Nora wrote that people should say:
“Your honor, is THIS party who claims to be the creditor, entitled to a judgment of foreclosure based on these naked claims, in this court of law? In all cases the answer is “nope.”
MY CASE IS NOT A FORECLOSURE CASE. Its fraud forgery and identity theft, yet al lot of the same things need to be investigated, as that is how I found out I was a victim of INDYMACS STRAW MAN SCHEME.
If you think you signed, then your in for a world of hurt in court. An accounting is only going to show the judge what a sweet free ride you have enjoyed, DON’T DO IT! Find FORGERY! Find FRAUD!
Martha,
1. If you just deny the debt, you WILL get your case tossed.
3.There’s a great deal of info here, but it requires sifting out what’s relevant to your case, and the research about your local statutes is your responsibility.
The case for the majority of us should be, “Your honor, is THIS party who claims to be the creditor, entitled to a judgment of foreclosure based on these naked claims, in this court of law? In all cases the answer is “nope.”
4.Getting the judge to give you that answer demands careful presentation of evidence and a lucid statement of claims rather than a rant of “I got screwed.”
Gee Nora, have you even READ what happened in my CASE!
1. Just denying the debt is not what will toss a case, its failure to state a claim, and the courts being crooked, as in CLERKS intentionally setting forward date stamps to make my papers late. Caught em red handed!
My case is NOT ABOUT DEBT, its about two crooks in prison who had me come into FATCO and sign deeds of trust on LOT 256, and then they created FORGERIES of DOTS on lot 107, and its called the STRAW MAN SCHEME.
Once upon a time, in a land called Los Angeles, there was a great BANKSTER, named MICHAEL PERRY, at the kingdom of INDYMAC, and he and his best-buds at HOVNANIAN/CALPERS had a sweet lilt deal goin in a lil burb they called STETSON RANCH i Santa Clarita.
They would have all these VICTIMS sign deeds on trust on a lot, and then have them sign another set, in their FULL NAME, and secretly sell them a different lot. Then they toold the INDYMAC and COUNTRYWIDE LOAN MINS off them and placed a different set on the forgeries.
MICHAEL PERRY had lots of helpers, and a realitive, SUSAN PERRY ran the HOA there, so all the secret lots could be hidden.
They would sell one lot to Mark La Ferr, and another in secret to Stanley M. Ferr La
I DO DENY THE DEBT, as I DID NOT SIGN THE BLASTED DOCUMENTS and the LOAN numbers are NOT THE RIGHT ONES, and the ESCROW AGENT Donna Demello is doing HARD TIME, or soft, as I think they have goose-down beads at Club Fed.
and 2. ’2.The truth is what you must demand from the “pretender lender” who’s trying to steal your house.”
WHAT WORLD DO YOU LIVE IN?
I know the TRUTH, I was there! I don’t need to demand the truth as I HAVE IT. DONNA is in jail for cryin out loud!
this is the most useless info and its worthless to ANYONE, well excect of course all parties should request accounting, (in my case) but in the average home owner. Why do you need a damm accounting, so you can show the Judge how much of a dead beat you really are in black and white?
and ” you said,
4.Getting the judge to give you that answer demands careful presentation of evidence and a lucid statement of claims rather than a rant of “I got screwed.”
The judge is not going to give you any answer! My claims are crystal clear, in case you even bother to read my statements about my case.
I am a victim in a straw man loan scheme, and was kept off ALL the contracts and everything until the day of singing, and I signed on LOT 256, a house down the street, and they recorded different loan numbers to forgeries on LOT 107.
IS THIS CLEAR?
They even conveyed me LOT 107 in secret the on the 13th, the day AFTER I signed lot 256 deeds and saw the LOT 256 Grant deed!
The court does NOT want this STORY out. The press is owned by the banks.
Its obvious whom your master is Nora, and deny it al you want, but people who seem to be overeducated on here and write about all these complicated issues people should present, and stuff is just sending them down a rabbit hole.
See, I was there that day, and I saw DONNA DEMELLO, and I had the lot 256 grant deed in my hand. I have the truth, and win or lose, they GAVE me lot 107 in secret only to try to harm me, and the deeds on it are VOID.
Thanks for all the compliments on my advice, but that advice came directly from Matt Weidner, and from Neil Garfield, repeatedly. I don’t think they worry too much about your dissing their advice, because you have something negative to say about everyone and everything, which destroys your credibility. I hope your keyboard breaks from the strain of all the mean and stupid things you write while passing judgement on everyone who tries to empower or help one another here. Don’t you have anything productive to do? You have plenty of time, obviously, why don’t you pull that stick out of your ass dude?
I don’t recall asking for your opinion. I can’t wait to see you swing from the cyber gallows. (snicker) yawn.
The laws are eing changed de facto by the banks. Think “lawless”. UCC be d_____d. The banks are doing their think and there is NO ONE to stop them!
We just go “nattering” on. Right mr editor. We’re all prophets with nothing to do, no money to spend, and for too many of us, no roof over our heads.
Let them eat cake!
but perhaps most important, a successful claim of fraudulent inducement probably wouldn’t result in anything you want. the contract is void, but that means you go back to where you were pre-contract. if you want out of your mortgage and the house, it may work fine for you. if not, then it could be a case of be careful what you ask for…
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/07/10/elderly-minority-homeowners-lose-homes-over-as-little-as-400/.
And Deb, I left the name off the posting for a reason. If you e-mail me, I can send you the case history/info. And there is no ROCK in my eye; some of these people ARE idiots! Like I said, no one is monitoring what’s posted and lots of BAD INFORMATION is being dispensed by these people who really don’t understand the law. Neil, as the attorney and founder of the site, should be monitoring/commenting on what is incorrect advice.
Just FYI—all the recent info I posted was from ANONYMOUS.
Sorry to go off track. Got a situation I’d like some ideas on.
Here are the facts.
Original “Lender” Gone and out of business. Servicing transfered to Aurora via the magical MERS. Aurora appoints substitute trustee (Local law firm). Substitute trustee intiates foreclosure. OK so here’s where my questions start.
When Aurora transfered the loan to the S.T. it was taken out of MERs name because S.T. is not a MERS member. Couple of months into the foreclosure Aurora loans are sold to Nationstar. Foreclosure does not stop and Trustee proceeds as usual.
Couple of problems I see with this. First under FDCPA isn’t it a huge violation to transfer a non-performing loan? 2nd. The title record is not correct. There is no assignment from Aurora to Nationstar yet the trustee intends to proceed with sale. Additionally, any transfer of title will have to be done via county recorder/clerk because it has been taken out of MERS name. Is this assumption correct? When a substitute trustee is recorded doesn’t that transfer the loan out of MERS name (assuming S.T. is not a MERS member?)
Doesn’t the trustee (in AZ) also have a fiduciary responsibility to the homeowner as well? Wouldn’t the trustee have some liability to make sure their clients are correct? I’ve seen cases that say the trustee represents both and I’ve seen some where it says they represent the lender.
Any ideas where to go from here?
All this info that is posted is great, but all I want to figure out is what happened to us and how to proceed. I understand the financial community has done some horrific things, but is it relevant to me? What matters in court is all I want at this point.
My question of the week: How do I prove (evidence) fraudulent inducement? Thank you in advance.
People attract what happens to them with their ignorance, their navel-of-the-world mentality, their sucky attitude and their hate. I’m out of here. Not worth wasting my time.
What a pathetic testimony to the American mind (or lack thereof), ignorance and plain stupidity. They gave power to their banks and now, they cry foul! They can’t read, hardly can write, can’t align two words together: the true result of an atrocity called “Multiple-choice education”. Nothing ever studied in depth, no general culture, they think they are the center of the universe. Pathetic!
You get what you pay for…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-11/san-bernardino-bankruptcy/56142392/1
NEVER AGAIN.
If you just deny the debt, you WILL get your case tossed. The truth is what you must demand from the “pretender lender” who’s trying to steal your house. There’s a great deal of info here, but it requires sifting out what’s relevant to your case, and the research about your local statutes is your responsibility.
The case for the majority of us should be, “Your honor, is THIS party who claims to be the creditor, entitled to a judgment of foreclosure based on these naked claims, in this court of law? In all cases the answer is “nope.” Getting the judge to give you that answer demands careful presentation of evidence and a lucid statement of claims rather than a rant of “I got screwed.”
yeah, the judge ruled on it. The Note was non-negotiable under FLA law and definitions. Fannie has also admitted Notes are not neg.
God! The blather and endless repsosts is almost as bad as bad Shakespear! Who the heck can figure out the instriuctions in time to save the house! Its POLITICAL POLLUTION!
All the average homeowner know is there job is NOT SECURE, (if they still have one)
They are getting paid LESS- dollars for value.
They were SCREWED.
WHAT IMPROVEMENT IN YOUR LIFE IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS HAVE YOU SEEN (aside from someone smearing vasoline on your hiney, and its all soft-n-supple now.)
NEVER GIVE UP! let them DRAG YOU OUT, and get it on VIDEO TAPE!
even 50 years later, you might be compensated!
I refuse to even give a rats arse about all the complicated BS they post on here, in the attempt to make you PLEAD this, ( and get tossed out of court)
DENY THE DEBT. Plain and SIMPLE! and find the reason they FORGED your names, and did not “PAY OFF” the last loan you got!
Enraged.. your no lady.
But I have learned sometimes its better to let them dig their own graves.
Who ON HERE would try to discredit another PATRIOT from doing what they can to help the other FRAUD VICTIMS?
This is why all writings on here must be SUSPECT. the little moles and rats run amoke, and try to use smoke and mirrors to stop the average homeowner from gleaning ANY useful info on here.
Why has enraged suddenly decided to call me vicious names and imply I am crazy, and on need all these drugs? Why does he take my book, and try to make it seem as though this “points” to my “unstable mind? What purpose would this serve???
I try to be clear, and not muddy up the waters, and the postings are getting very murky..
I think I am right on point about the REAL ISSUE of what has gone wrong by saying..
“…yet the majority of the issue is all the past re-fi’s that were not actually satisfied…”
IS THIS CRAZY??
HOMEOWNER, do not get dragged into trying to present complex issues in court of that you will LOSE. FIND the FRAUD! and check to see if your signatures were FORGED, and then try to figure out WHY?
WHy would they forge your signature? and SUBSTITUTE the documents.
ASK in writing, or better yet NAME THEM IN COURT, and let them say the previous loan was SATISFIED, as it WAS NOT!
It was all a big jacked up c-suckin Banksters circle jerK~!
And I still don’t know why I waste my time here. Neil, you should start running this site instead of letting it get hijacked by these idiots. Yeah, you know the idiots I’m talking about.
this is from the BK adversary pleading…..we named all the attorneys AND the two law firms for racketeering……these guys keep throwing garbage motions to lift stay with bogus docs…..their dishonesty is very unbecoming for officers of the court.
91. The crimongenic enterprise thrives on terrorizing citizen homeowners, misleading the courts and attempting to discourage the few attorneys who have been able to understand the
complex fraud scheme and, through the Defendants and their identified law firms and attorneys joined herein, continues before this court, including, but not limited to:
a. Fabricating and filing forged documents as described above and below;
b. Misrepresenting the facts and the law, including but not limited to, the representations in paragraph 92 below, and
(1) The statement of Defendant (Attorney X) in the Complaint in HSBC Bank USA vs. XXX, et al. in Kenosha County Case Number 09-CV-000 asserting HSBC Bank’s standing to sue the Plaintiffs when he knew that the mortgage note was
facially made payable to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and was not endorsed in favor of any other person or entity (Exhibit A)
(2) The statement of the Defendant Attorney X that HSBC Bank USA
had standing to sue for foreclosure when there was no assignment of the mortgage recorded;
(3) The statements of Defendant Attorney Y to the Kenosha County Circuit Court that the Plaintiffs admitted the standing of HSBC Bank in HSBC Bank USAvs. XXX, et al. in Kenosha County Case Number 09-CV-353 when he knew that the lay Plaintiffs were clearly, consistently and continuously contesting that allegation;
(4) The continuing statements of Defendant Attorney Y to this court that Plaintiffs claim had been valued at $1.00 after the court was informed on the record of proceedings on January 23, 2012 that prior counsel for the Plaintiffs-Debtors had not known how to
enter the term “unknown” for an asset value on E-Z Filing software and that the Plaintiffs had believed that the asset value of $1.00 meant “unknown” and suggesting that the data entry error proved the Plaintiffs to be swearing falsely under oath, even after new counsel explained the data entry error and assessed the value of the claim as much higher;
(5) The statements of Defendant Attorney Z representing that final judgment had been entered in HSBC Bank USA vs. XXX, et al. in Kenosha County Case Number 09-CV-000 and that res judicata had attached to the proceedings when he knew that the foreclosure case had subsequently been dismissed without prejudice; and
(6) The forged endorsement to the mortgage note robo-stamped bearing the signature of Joan M. Mills to mislead this court into believing that the note had been timely, properly and authentically endorsed in blank after the commencement of HSBC Bank
USA vs. XXX, et al.
92. On June 15, 2012, at the hearing on the Motion to Extend the deadline for filing this adversary proceeding on the basis of a newly filed false claim (#6) which required a total rewriting of the nearly-prepared draft of the adversary Complaint and the newly discovered
evidence of the implications of the RESCAP, LLC bankruptcy on the draft of these adversary proceedings which intended to join Maiden Lane, LLC and the Federal Reserve Bank of New
York as real parties in interest, Defendant Attorney Y urged dismissal with prejudice of these proceedings as an alternative to granting a properly sought extension to rewrite an entire pleading
on 3 days notice and Defendant Attorney X, without having reviewed the asset list of the Maiden Lane, LLC and Exhibit B attached to the Motion for Extension, recklessly stated that he had no reason to believe that the Plaintiffs loan was collateral in the Maiden Lane, LLC TARP asset pool in order to allow the Plaintiffs’ attorney to move forward to plead the servicer of the Maiden Lane, LLC TARP asset pool, the bankrupt RESCAP, LLC, as a party responsible for the Plaintiffs’ damages.
94. The Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of fabricating documents and filing forged documents throughout the State of Wisconsin (and the United States) in order to
defraud homeowners, subordinate lienholders, courts (both state courts and bankruptcy courts) for the purpose of seizing homes through court processes and taking title thereto without having
standing to do so.
95. In order to accomplish the goal of seizing homes for profitable re-sale to which the Defendant banks and the Defendant law firms and lawyers know or should know upon even mere
superficial inquiry that there is no competent evidence that the Defendant banks are entitled to payments or the remedy of foreclosure for nonpayment, forgeries and fabricated documents are transmitted to official administrative offices (the Registers of Deeds in Wisconsin) and to the courts (circuit, appellate, bankruptcy and federal district) by wire and mail.
July 10, 2012 03:00 PM
Robert Reich on Libor: Time To Demand Breakup of the Big Banks
By Susie Madrak
More on the Libor scandal, this time from Robert Reich, who explains what it really means for American investors. He says the time to scream for more bank reform is now:
‘There are really two different Libor scandals. One has to do with a period just before the financial crisis, around 2007, when Barclays and other banks submitted fake Libor rates lower than the banks’ actual borrowing costs in order to disguise how much trouble they were in. This was bad enough. Had the world known then, action might have been taken earlier to diminish the impact of the near financial meltdown of 2008.
But the other scandal is even worse. It involves a more general practice, starting around 2005 and continuing until – who knows? it might still be going on — to rig the Libor in whatever way necessary to assure the banks’ bets on derivatives would be profitable.
This is insider trading on a gigantic scale. It makes the bankers winners and the rest of us – whose money they’ve used for to make their bets – losers and chumps.
What to do about it, other than hope the Justice Department and other regulators impose stiff fines and even criminal penalties, and hold executives responsible?
When it comes to Wall Street and the financial sector in general, most of us suffer outrage fatigue combined with an overwhelming cynicism that nothing will ever be done to stop these abuses because the Street is too powerful. But that fatigue and cynicism are self-fulfilling; nothing will be done if we succumb to them.
The alternative is to be unflagging and unflinching in our demand that Glass-Steagall be reinstituted and the biggest banks be broken up. The question is whether the unfolding Libor scandal will provide enough ammunition and energy to finally get the job done.’
He’s right. There’s very little news coverage of this issue, thanks to a far-too-compliant corporate media. The bad guys managed to lobby Congress enough to yank the teeth out of Dodd-Frank, insisting the vast majority of bankers were doing the right thing and that they shouldn’t all be punished as a result.
Boy, that little dog-and-pony show sounds hollow now.
** They did not cash it. The capitalized it into paid in capital – Legal !!!
Reader – I have proof the note was suppose to be securitized.
** They never securtized the note (at least not like your thinking) they capitlized it out as servicing rights.
Reader – PSA was left in blank also. The deed of trust in still on county records in Long Beach name with no transfers or assignments to anyone.
** The deed is was used to create a discounted bond. The financing is five years carved into fractional intersts held in 30 60 and 90 days paper.
Question – It was recorded by who ? Was it ever delivered to the title company ? (Discovery)
absfraud@inbox.com
s shafer- devils advocate is a good thing but jeeze too complex at my stage of the game, but the foundations that we try to lay in court may just work out and get to the real meat and potatoes of the money that was stolen from this country and tax payer.
As has been previoulsy stated by me, “I don’t have a soap-box… I really, in ALL honesty, do not care and probably could not care, anyless” (my motivation: To EARN the money I charge…)
That being said; the subject of ‘Negotiable Instruments’ is a little more, up my current line of work (getting a refinery financed) and I can say that, the general public would be amazed at what becomes “Negotiable” and how.
There are more knowledgeble people here but here is my take (and it’s usually spot-on).
I went with one of my Clients (Plaintiff) to, one of their Court proceedings (fight against the ‘Servicer’) and the Defense Attorney (for the Servicer) made one of the most bizarre and shocking admissions… The Defense Attorney said, in open Court that, “THE NOTE IS BEARER-PAPER…” unquote
Oddly enough, I think that, there were only 2 people, in that Court who, realised what had just been said (me and the guy whose eyes caught mine… none where Attorneys… the Attorney who made the statement, didn’t even realize, what he had just admitted to… keyword… ADMITTED).
ALL modern-day (<10 years) Mortgage Notes are, in fact, BEARER-PAPER/form… … …
The Notes are NOT negotiable because that would fundamentally, undermind the whole premise and institution of the 'Home Mortgage Loan', its security and validity. THIS HAS ZERO TO DO with the PSA/Prospectus or even the subject of Securitization… but, it does make the THEFT of the "subject property"… a whole LOT EASIER via PSA/Prospectus and Securitization …
Since I am told that, everyone isn't always on the "same page" as me (my abnormal psych prof. told me I was crazy as well); maybe I'll break it down for the uninitiated…
THE BUYING, SELLING AND/OR TRANSFERENCE OF 'BEARER PAPER' IS ILLEGAL; WITHIN THE 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' (and it's territories)…
… hopefully some of those brain cells of yours are, starting to emit heat…
… and now, enters… the… "N. A."… not North America but… the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION… the 'Foreign Companies'…
Aaaaaauhhhh… if you don't get it…
I think that, I'll go back to being crazy (it's a very short trip;).
Have a good day and may the Lord bless you and yours…
Danny,
lowecommunityresourcepartners@live.com
Article 9 prevails over the transfer (possession is perfection) but Article 8 is far more substantive for purposes of the transfer. I’m lost here.
So , the Mortgagor owns land and takes on an obligation by having mortgaged his land. The land is Collateral for the Security as the note is to the lenders Receivables.
** The receivables are for anticipated revenue from the economics of the obligation.
On the land a farmer grows crops.
** The Crops create revenue from the economics held to the land.
So, under a security deed, who is entitled to the revenue ?
SEE on the web: FDIC & JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA’S P&A AGREEMENT DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE NOTES.
The Purchase &Assumption Agreement between the FDIC & JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA for Washington Mutual Bank does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note.
U. S. DISTRICT COURT CASE # CV10-0815 0D2 (FFMx)
JAVAHIERI V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA et al:
Order GRANTING in Part & DENYING in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint file April 28, 2011
Decision can be found at http://www.chasechase.org/doxcc/Javaheri35Order.pdf
US Code: TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part B > § 1641
§ 1641. Liability of assignees can be found at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1641&url=/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001641—-000-.html
From the decision”:
C. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE & QUIET TITLE
JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA’s assertion that the P&A Agreement suffices to establish their ownership of the Note is no longer viable. Indeed, the P&A Agreement does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note. (See Dkt. No. 10, Exh. 2.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has now sufficiently alleged that JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA did not own his Note and therefore did not have the right to foreclose.
From Plaintiff’s memorandum of law attached:
WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE – SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (hereafter Chase) offers no proof that it acquired an interest in Plaintiff’s residence. In this Motion to Dismiss, once again the only document offered to support its claim is the P&A Agreement. Chase asks the court to leap to the conclusion that Washington Mutual Bank (hereafter WMB) was the Lender on September 25, 2008, the date that the Purchase & Assumption Agreement was signed, even though the likelihood of that, given WMB’s history of securitization, is less than 50%. The challenge facing homeowners is to prove facts to trial courts at the pleading stage.
Wall Street and the Financial Crisis – Anatomy of a Financial Collapse, the U.S.
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (April 13, 2011) 650-page report,
was released following an 18-month investigation into the causes of the financial
crisis. WMB was the leading case study in the report—183 pages (28%) of the report were devoted to WMB—the worst of the worst. The report is readily
available for download at the Senate Subcommittee’s website. 2
Defendant alleges in its Purchase & Assumption Agreement that “JPMorgan obtained its rights under the loan from the FDIC” (P&A 4:5). Whether or not the Loan was an asset of WMB on September 25, 2008, a key issue in this case, is not mentioned. Chase asks the court to find, without evidence, a fact that it must prove in order to take the property. Nothing in the P&A Agreement shows whether WMB had any beneficial interest in Plaintiff’s loan on September 25, 2008. The court is asked to guess the answer and dismiss the case. Then Plaintiff will lose his house.
Where factual findings or the contents of the documents are in dispute, those
matters of dispute are not appropriate for judicial notice. Caravantes v. California
Reconveyance Co., 2010 WL 4055560, 9 (S.D.Cal. 2010) citing Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transp. Comm’n, 2006 WL 167657, at *2 (N.D.Cal. 2006).
See Stephen R. Buchenroth and Gretchen D. Jeffries, Recent Foreclosure Cases: Lenders Beware (June 2007); Wells Fargo v.Jordan, 914 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 2009) (“If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”);
Chase argues that it obtained the right to sell Plaintiff’s property when it acquired
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
- 17 -
WMB’s assets through the P&A Agreement for $1.9 billion. Chase could only acquire what WMB owned. WMB no longer owned Plaintiff’ mortgage. Perhaps the identity of the Lender can be tracked down, but it remains unknown.
Defendant argues that Chase assumed no liability for actions taken by WMB prior to September 25, 2008 in regard to the subject loan. This obscures the issue. Plaintiff alleges that WMB did not have any interest in Plaintiff’s residence on September 25, 2008. His property was not an asset of WMB, and therefore Chase could not acquire any interest in Plaintiff’s residence. This is not a liability issue.
Chase seems to assert that it can foreclose on any property under the P&A Agreement on the grounds that WMB might have had a beneficial interest in the property at some time, even though WMB sold most of its mortgages to investors.
Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 62 of the SAC that WMB securitized Plaintiff’s single family
residential mortgage loan through Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. If WMB retained no beneficial interest in the promissory note when it brokered the deal, Chase cannot acquire what WMB never had. If WMB transferred all of its beneficial interest in the note at the inception of the loan and never entered it in its books as an asset, and entered no corresponding reserve on its ledger as a liability in the event of Plaintiff’s default, then Chase did not acquire ownership of the note by purchasing WMB’s assets because WMB had nothing to sell. This is a question of fact. Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 30 of the SAC that Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, not a holder of the Note, and not a beneficiary under the Note.
If Chase has no beneficial interest in the note, Chase can only proceed if it
proves that it is the servicer and joins the owner of the note in this action. To dismiss
this lawsuit before ascertaining the truth of these allegations is unwarranted. Chase
could produce evidence in its files, but it prefers to rob Plaintiff of his day in court
__._,_.___
Neither WMB, Chicago Title Company, California Reconveyance Company (hereafter CRC), Chase, nor anyone else has recorded a transfer of a beneficial interest in the Note (or any other interest in the) Property to Chase. (SAC ¶ 29). Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, Chase is not a holder of the Note, and Chase is not a beneficiary under the Note. Chase does not have
capacity to exercise a power of sale. Chase does not claim to be a holder of the note.
The core issue in this case is to ascertain who is the Lender. Plaintiff did not borrow money from Chase. Plaintiff’s pre-discovery inquiries indicate that WMB did not own the loan on September 25, 2008, and therefore Chase is not the Lender. This issue cannot be brushed aside because California is a non-judicial state.
Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) remained the Lender for no more than a few days until WMB sold the loan. Thereafter, it was, at best, a servicer of the loan. The Lender was the investment trust that put up the money.
Foreclosure of the Wellworth Property was commenced by CRC, having been
appointed trustee on April 30, 2010, by Chase. Chase was not the Lender.
The Deed of Trust (SAC Exhibit 4) states on page 13, paragraph 24: “Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor Trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by Lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county in which the Property is located.” (SAC Exhibit 8, ¶24).
Defendant asks the Court’s approval to proceed with foreclosure of Plaintiff’s
property on the basis of a NOD and NOTS filed by CRC, a wholly owned subsidiary
of Chase (SAC ¶16) that was appointed as successor Trustee by Chase even though
Chase is not the Lender and has not revealed who the Lender might possibly be.
(A) all of the beneficiaries under the trust deed, or their successors in interest…
Nowhere does the Civil Code allow for assignment of a Deed of Trust by the assignee acting on its own behalf.
Since Chase is not the Lender, it would violate the terms of the Note and the Deed of Trust to dismiss the SAC and allow Chase to foreclose as a result of a forged Assignment of Deed of Trust signed by someone working for the Assignee.
The mortgage is not secured by the note and the contract is breached at inception due to failure to disclose the true lender and fraud assignment to Duetsche Bank National Trust whom is unlawfully doing business in the State of Washington, not incompliance with WA Deed of Trust Act and not in compliance with the Washington CPA laws and Washington Corporation laws. See on the web OCC letter dated January 14, 2005 stating National Bank law does not preempt state law. Duetsche bank has never been authorized to be doing business of any kind including banking , foreclosing, and being a beneficiary in the State of Washington and has been foreclosing unlawfully in the State of Washington. John E. and Shelley A. Erickson’s mortgage contract Breached at inception causes unsecured statutes of limitations three year law to be in place and is uncollectable after the payment has not been made to the lender for three years. The Erickson’s have never had the lender disclosed to us, as far as we knew the lender was a John Doe unknown. It is the duty of the borrower to make sure the borrower is paying the proper person for the debt or be liable to pay the debt again to the proper party. It is not our liability or duty to pay a fraud beneficiary. It is our duty not to pay a fraud beneficiary. See attached Amicus Curiae by AG Rob McKenna, Page 7, paragraph two, Third sentence, The court has said that borrowers who pay off their loans without knowing the owner of the loan should take the risk of loss if another asserts the same debt. See Rodgers, 40 Wn. App. At 1321, (It is “long –settled law that one paying a note either negotiable or non negotiable, should demand production of it upon payment or risk having to pay again to the assignee”.)(citing In re Columbia Pac. Mortgage , Inc, 22
Bankr. 753 (W.D.Eash. 1982); RCW 62A.3-602(a)(ii) (a loan is only considered paid to the extent that the payment is “ to a person entitled to enforce the instrument.”) Price, 161 Wash. 690 There is evidence that some lenders never transferred promissory notes at all. E.g. In re Kemp, 440 B.R. 624, 628 (Banker. D. NJ. 2010) (bank officer testifies that it was customary for originating bank to maintain possession of the original note when the loan was sold.); Dale Whitman, How Negotiability Has Fouled Up the Secondary Mortgage Market, and What To Do About It, 37 Pepp .L. Rev. 738, 757-758 (2010). See Kurt Eggert, Held Up in Due Course: Predatory Lending, Securitization, and the Holder in Due Course Doctrine,, 35 Creighton L. Rev. 503, 538 (2002); now there is another reason the note is not a negotiable instrument. The instrument stops being negotiable at [VOIDED & NULLIFIED].
And you keep making my case. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean you should condemn it—rudely.
Whatever. You keep making my case for me.
Yeah, okay—I’l comment on what YOU say—we are all SICK of YOUR constant posting of stuff OVER AND OVER with these long articles—for God’s sake just post the link! AND you are insufferably RUDE.
If you would read stuff carefully and use your brain you would understand what I have posted. Obviously, the real truth is hard for you to understand—all I can say is the perpetrators wanted it that way.
I can’t help it if you and others just don’t get it—even when there is physical proof—or maybe PRETEND not to get it—sometimes I think you DO work for the banks…well GUESS WHAT–I am going to continue to post the truth about the collection rights—the source is someone who has intimate knowledge of these things—and since you and tnharry are trying to make it seem like it’s all a big “fairy tale”—well, that’s proof to me that it is the truth—the fact that Dr.Lan Pham was fired when she started digging into all of this is proof also…
I really don’t care what you think. I will post the information a million times if I have to…because the same lies and half-truths keep coming up on this site.
You mentioned yesterday that i didn’t comment on what you post. Here it is…
Do you have to post over and over the same illegible, poorly formulated and even more poorly written rants, from completely unreliable sources who have proved to be confirmed mental cases with a pack mentality and no reasoning ability, to boot? Those people you quote haven’t been helped by their own theories anymore than you have. Shouldn’t you spare the rest of humanity?
My motivation is to keep posting and sharing the truth of this with as many people and entities as I can until everyone understands—and, as you say—we are in for a world of hurt…before it gets better.
“…yet the majority of the issue is all the past re-fi’s that were not actually satisfied…”
Indeed. I am posting this information (excerpts) again for everyone who still doesn’t get it–(including Neil)—read and learn—the REAL truth:
“…He got Wells Fargo (Master Servicer to his prior “mortgage” supposedly securitized into a trust) to admit that they never received payoff by our subsequent refinance… He wrote to SEC — that investors were never paid — never expected a response — but, they forwarded a complaint to the OCC (Comptroller of Currency) — on his behalf. OCC sent him on wild goose chase. Then he contacted FDIC (there is connection to WaMu — which he did not know about). FDIC sends another complaint to OCC — on his behalf.
OCC comes back in a letter and tells him that his Freddie Mac loan (which he paid-off by a refinance) — was never paid off — BY HIM — but, rather by a “pay-out” by INSURANCE. OCC tells us him he is currently in default on Freddie Mac loan!! Normally, you cannot access any checks older than 7 years — so the banks would not have record. HOWEVER, he had the CANCELED CHECK in his files!!!… Not only the canceled check — but all closing documents — AND prior mortgage payments. All was in order –Wells Fargo was paid off — by him — and Wells Fargo was supposed to pay Freddie Mac!!! But, they did NOT. Wells Fargo claims no record of pay-off by him– -no record at all — he is missing from the system.
He has informed OCC that this fraud likely involves millions — or more. All that stands for him — despite the two refinances — is collection rights to a FALSE default Freddie Mac loan. Coordinating this information with SEC documents that he has been researching for years, it is apparent that most — if not all — subprime/alt-a/jumbo loans — were manufactured default GSE loans – for which collection rights were purchased by banks (acting as debt buyer) — and could not be securitized into any pass-through security trust. This is why trusts are empty — there is no funding necessary for collection rights. They are not a mortgage, not a loan. They are unsecured (false) default debt — which was fraudulently presented to homeowners as a secured mortgage.
When the system was operating — the bank — as debt buyers of non-compliant (manufactured) GSE loans — would sell collection rights to third parties — via swaps or direct sale once the time for collection passed a certain amount of months (usually 180 days). However, at the financial crisis height — even sale of collection rights came to a halt — leaving many bank debt buyers with collection rights on balance sheet (falsely removed by off-balance sheet transfers that were fraudulent). After TARP bail-out — banks continued their process of sale of collection rights — and, no one will now state who actually owns them — attorneys in court will only name original creditor — or trustee to falsely securitized trust. Trustees have NO RECORDS.
Federal Reserve Bank in NY (he talked with top officials (Director) for Maiden Lane — for months) cannot tell him if they are receiving his CURRENT payments — even though the trust his adversaries claim he is in (he is not) — is part of Maiden Lane portfolio. They are not receiving pass-through from supposed trustees. Fed Res — tried to help him for months — but, finally sent him to legal department — who stated they could not help.
Many participants on LL are working for distressed debt buyers — by purchasing distressed loans — and refinancing with undisclosed parties. He has consistently emphasized to Neil — that the Investors in the subprime — where junk debt buyers (including banks) — that did not fund anything (except excess cash in refinance) — these “investors” were the credit enhancers to the false securitizations of collection rights. Security pass-through investors were victims — but, they have been paid out by swaps.
We are dealing with nothing more than collection rights — and this information is in hands of government…
It is tremendous fraud — with huge power that we are up against…”
AND @TNHARRY STILL KEEPS CALLING THIS “NONSENSE”…
Excerpt from a previous post:
“But if the borrower starts from the beginning denying the debt, denying the obligation, thus denying any possibility of default for a financial transaction that never existed, then the Judge is faced with a material fact in issue.”
So in one post, the borrower is suppose to deny, and then in this post you are saying that is the wrong way?