14 thoughts on “”

1. This makes no sense. If the government wants to seize the mortgages, they need to seize the notes! There are no notes which means their are no mortgages. The house and property belongs to the homeowners harmed by all this fraud. What so you think a mortgage is? A piece of paper a note and deed of trust you are suppose to burn when paid off. Not the property and house. Let the government try to find those notes no one else has.

   Reply ↓

   • Although I’ve never seen an original note – banks took the 1990s to make changes in the state UCC codes for various changes to the laws. For example, electronic copies are deemed sufficient. So some courts allow copies to stand as evidence of the debt. Stronger issues may be that the LIBOR rates were fraudulent and/or the assignment of mortgage is invalid (who actually is the party in interest). The biggest problem is getting past a Motion to Dismiss and then getting the courts to enforce discovery.

     My theory – and it’s my paralegal theory (I’m not an attorney) is that there is a paragraph in the note that no one has really dissected yet:

     “8. OBLIGATIONS OF PERSONS UNDER THIS NOTE
     If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fully and personally obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note, including the promise to pay the full amount owed. Any person who is a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note is also obligated to do these things. Any person who takes over these obligations, including the obligations of a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note, is also obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note. The Note Holder may enforce its rights under this Note against each person individually or against all of us together. This means that any one of us may be required to pay all of the amounts owed under this Note.”

     When you look on Bloomberg Terminal – you can find an excel sheet that show that the trusts were paid and current – most were current until late 2010 / 2011 and then there are some tranches that show losses… many of the tranches were paid off. So, if your grandmother paid the mortgage and didn’t tell you – does it still count? The law says that neither you nor your grandmother can take the tax deduction… but does not say that it is not acceptable. We know that the way the banks set up these trusts that there were other obligors (servicers) obliged to make payments (only the borrowers have no agreements to pay it back to them) – so does that make their payments a gift when the loan is current in the trust?

     Reply ↓

     • In Washington the Bains case made it clear that the foreclosing party has to hold the note and not a photo copy. A note they can prove they own. The attorney for MERS and the banksters could not produce either of the two notes for either of the two homeowners in an historical case in the WA Supreme Court. You would think if the banksters had the note they would have brought but could not produce it or the proof of owner ship of the note. There are no notes. They have all been destroyed. The mortgage is not the house and property. The mortgage is the note and deed of trust the banksters and their elves shredded sliced and diced and there is no mortgage. If there was do ya think it was a great idea of the MERS attorney Pratt not to produce them in a landmark huge case that has turned the foreclosures upside down for the entire state of Washington? REAL BAD MOVE IF THE NOTES EXHIST! DON’T YOU THINK? DO YA THINK THEY EXHIST. NEITHER DO THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. THEY ARE CLIAMING THEY CAN GET THE HOUSES FOR FREE DO TO NO NOTES. There are no mortgages on the property.

     • Under oath the judge will ask you if you signed a note and mortgage, and if you received the funds you bargained for – at that point you have to answer honestly. The note is thus established and the courts view this from the creditor’s perspective when they ask you if you are in default and/or can you prove you made payments.

       There is no question we were duped. There is no question that the originator has been paid. The problems start with the manipulation of the note in securitization. Is it securitized BEFORE you signed? Were you actually sold a security? Was the originator licensed to sell you a security? Was there full disclosure? And at that point did the note become non-negotiable? That changes the ability to sell the note and the manner in which it was sold.

       This is the reason no original notes are surfacing… They were shredded into numerous revenue streams and like Humpty Dumpty cannot be put back together under one umbrella and are non-negotiable instruments cut up into pieces. Who really has the right to collect and was it at all legal to begin with? Especially given the latest LIBOR fraud.

       I personally would rather the states strip the loans from the banks than have a foreign country seize the property assets of the banks for the debts they owe. The same could be said for the Treasury – properties are not safe there either. The banks are existing off of the properties as assets which has become the new gold standard. At some point the US debt could be called by the foreign countries we borrowed from – settling up the debts by trading with our properties is not going to be an acceptable alternative.

2. Pingback: Bain v. MERS : Under the plans that the San Bernardino County board of supervisors voted to explore, the county would take underwater mortgages by eminent domain and then help the borrowers into mortgages with significantly lower monthly payment « F

3. RE: No note/no evidence of debt. It is true that the note is not the only evidence of the debt. A lost note, with other persuasive evidence of indebtedness can lead to a court determination that the debt is still owed. The question is to what entity is the debt owed, absent the proof that the note is in the possession of the party seeking to enforce the note by foreclosure? Possession of the note WITH rights to enforce it is one of the means of proving the debt, but not the only means of proving that the debt is owed to some entity. All of these issues arise under the court’s equitable jurisdiction. A missing note leads the foreclosure claimant to seek the equitable determination that it is owed the debt which was represented by the missing note–other evidence of indebtedness is acceptable. Possession of the note has many issues associated with the claim for enforcement of the debt by foreclosure as well. Equitable remedies require clean hands and misrepresentation by the foreclosure claimant at any stage of the process could result in the court refusing to grant equitable reconstruction of the loan obligation, equitable assignment of the mortgage and, emphasis very heavy: the equitable remedy of foreclosure. Equitable estoppel, judicial estoppel, equitable reformation, etc.–all require “clean hands.” The principles of equity govern all the issues being raised by the self-help note recreation a/k//a forgery.
   Clearly, a party which produces a forgery to the court cannot claim it has clean hands. Also, false claims that the note was in the possession of an entity which could not have had possession of the note, most particularly in MERS mortgages or that the note was “lost” when it was really destroyed after it was imaged or that it was endorsed in blank when it was stamped with an endorsement while it was in the possession of the document custodian but never transferred to the trust are all evidence of unclean hands. I always plead, in cases of forged endorsements–which is virtually all of them, that the foreclosing entity is not entitled to equitable assignment of the mortgage. The foreclosing entities like to try to get the judges to think that they are mere functionaries of the foreclosure claimant in declaring an equitable assignment. I contend that is not the law. Equitable assignment of the mortgage is a judicial remedy, not a self-help action to be take by whatever entity comes into court seeking to foreclosure. In other words, the foreclosure claimant must ask the court to equitably assign the mortgage and this leads to the application of the clean hands doctrine. Also, as to endorsements in blank which are most commonly forged long after the note was to have been transferred to the REMIC trust, the foreclosure claimants like to use UCC 3-308: which presumes the validity of the endorsement but provides that the validity of the endorsement is an evidentiary matter.
   The reason that Attorney Pratt could not produce the notes in the Bain v. MERS case is that MERS never held the note. He tried to argue that MERS could hold the notes, but that was borderline fraud on the Washington Supreme Court. MERS does not and never has held the notes and if it did, its purpose to conceal the real party in interest would not be accomplished.
   The idea of eminent domain is good insofar as it goes. It is one way to clear title, provided, however, that the notes are surrendered to the government body when the condemnation takes place and the mortgages are satisfied. The question arises: who can satisfy the mortgage when the original lender is no longer in existence or when the foreclosing party is merely a servicer for an empty trust.
   If anyone is asked under oath whether it is his/her signature on a copy of the note, the proper answer is that it looks like his/her signature, but the original note must be produced because there are countless examples of the notes being forged. As to receiving value, that gets into the most fascinating aspect of the whole “crisis”—which entity gave the value, if any value was given. The drafts (checks, sight drafts, bills of exchange) are paid at some point in the banking system: probably by overnight settlement at the branch of the Federal Reserve Bank which handles settlement of accounts (e.g., Chicago, Minneapolis, Boston, etc,) but there was no value given until the note was signed by the “borrower.” This give rise to the TARP issue: mortgages made prior to March 14, 2008 are eligible for payment in full, including accumulated interest, if they are declared to be in default. 12 USC sec. 5212, et seq. If the note has already been paid, why is there an effort to collect it by foreclosure. It seems that there is some kind of concealed subrogation going on and it is likely that the servicers are foreclosing on behalf of the undisclosed real party in interest: the US Treasury through its fiscal agent, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

   Reply ↓

4. Attorney Wendy Alison Nora said:
   “Equitable assignment of the mortgage is a judicial remedy, not a self-help action to be take by whatever entity comes into court seeking to foreclosure.”
   Now something has been said. Praise God and pass the ammo. Short of a
   duly authorized and executed (if not delivered) written assignment or a court imposing equitable assignment, there is no such thing as an equitable assignment. Even the UCC, which does not regulate collateral instruments per se, finds that one who has sold a note secured by a collateral instrument but has not assigned the collateral instrument holds the collateral instrument in trust for the note buyer (and that trust/ fiduciary precludes alienation of the coll instrument to any other than the note buyer). The UCC does not state the following to my knowledge, but imo these would be the facts: Party A, for lack of interest in the coll instrument, having alienated the note, may not enforce the collateral instrument. Party B, the note buyer, may not enforce the collateral instrument for lack of its
   assignment. Party B, as the note buyer, has an equitable right to an assignment, as distinct from an equitable assgt, and may sue to get one, but until it gets one, it doesn’t have one. I actually believe, but can’t fully support just now, that not even a court may declare an equitable assgt because of the statute of frauds, which demands a writing relevant to interests in real property. I believe the court may if not must recognize the equitable right to an assignment by a note buyer, but is limited to ordering the execution of the missing assignment, which moving right along, while binding on the parties thereto, is not enforceable, as relevant hereto, against the homeowner or other non-parties to the assignment until Noticed.
   Either way, whether or not my latter contention regarding an order v writing is factual, I was glad to say the least to see the salient distinction regarding equitable assignment made by attorney WAN.

   Reply ↓

   • NO MATTER WHAT THE DEFAULTS ARE DUE TO ECONOMIC CRIME BY THE BANKS! EVEN WIKIPEDIA HAS IT LISTED. WHEN ARE THE ARGUMENTS GOING TO BE THIS PERSON HAS LOST INCOME TO FIGHT THIS FRAUD AND ECONOMIC HARM CAUSED BY THE BANKS.lOOK UP THE REPORT “WALLS STREET AND THE FINANCIAL CRISIS; ANATOMY OF A FINANCIAL COLLASEP’ BY EXPERTS STATEING THE BANKS ARE THE CASUE OF ORGANIZED PRE MANUFACTURED DEFAULTS AND ECONOMIC CRIME: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_FBI
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Finance_Tracking_Program

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Finance_Tracking_Program

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Finance_Tracking_Program

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_FBI

     Reply ↓

5. Deadlyclear said:
   “For example, electronic copies are deemed sufficient”
   What IS an electronic copy in the context courts have approved its use
   to establish this or that?

   Reply ↓

   • I wonder if we took a copy of a check to the bank or the judge and asked them to cash it if they would? Nope I doubt it. ONLY THE ORIGINAL.

     Reply ↓

6. Pingback: Attorney Wendy Alison Nora commented on |

7. What kind of reverse mortgage will give a person the largest amount
   of money?

   Reply ↓

   • I dont beleive a reverse mortgage is a good idea at all. In my opinion it does not make good sense to mortgage your house for a few bucks for any reason . You have to ask yourself how can so many reverse mortgages wind up in foreclosure if the banks have told the truth and you live in the house until you die. Reverse mortgages appear to be a scam to steal your house and ll you have earned your entire life. Your house is your castle dont blow it for a few good times. It is your wealth. You may be homeless in a short time with reverse mortgages. The banks are not to be trusted. They are ruthless and cunning and cons. It is a devastating event in your life to lose your home your roots, and if you have children they lose out too. The banks win!

     Reply ↓

8. I made some bad choices before I realized what crooks the banks are. Wish I had a crystal ball to see the future. With what I know I would never have mortgaged my home If I could only go back in time. I owned it outright and was clueless of just how corrupt banks are. I was literally deceived and drug into a mod from hell. There are no lenders for mortgage I trust and millions who are either foreclosed unlawfully or battling from it happening, would tell you the same. Chris Hayes displayed a list the banks picked a low number on and paid over thirty percent of the homeowners checks for unlawfully foreclosing on them while they were not in default and the number is more likely over fifty percent to much higher. Got to ask yourself how this can happen if the banks and the government are not crooked. And why weren’t the houses given back instead of a small penitence check that is a slap in the face. .

   Reply ↓