NOTE THE DIFFERENCES IN ALL COPIES OF YOUR NOTE PRESENTED BY THE OPPOSITION -- LOOK CLOSELY.

A Foreclosure Fiasco: 

The Case of Tandala Mims v. Wells Fargo

Comments

ByABIGAIL FIELD 

Text SizeAAA

Print this pageEmailShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on DiggShare on Lifestream

The banks' constant refrain during this mortgage mess is that the paperwork issues are mere technicalities -- nothing to be concerned about. The documents are all true, they assert, we just didn't honor the proper procedures.

But it doesn't take much digging into the issue to find a case like that of Tandala Mims of New York, which calls into question the wholeforeclosure processand the systems that support it.

In Mims's case, which will be argued again on Thursday, her lawyer, consumer bankruptcy attorney Linda Tirelli, argues that Wells Fargo (WFC) should not be able to foreclose during Mims's bankruptcy because the bank's documents claiming ownership of the mortgage appear to be false in several ways.

To foreclose, Wells Fargo will have to prove to the bankruptcy judge that it has the legal right to -- that it has "standing" -- because either it owns the loan or it's representing the entity that does. Wells tried to prove standing once, but thejudge wasn't convinced, ruling against Wells on Oct. 27. At that point, Wells had produced a note and an assignment of mortgage, both of which were deeply flawed documents.

Wells Fargo Documents, Take One
The first note Wells introduced showed that Mims originally owed her mortgage debt to a company called Lend America, which then transferred the note to Washington Mutual. Let's remember: JPMorgan Chase (JPM), not Wells Fargo, bought Washington Mutual. Nothing in Wells's documents showed how it ended up with the note -- nor was there any indication that the note had been transferred to JPMorgan.

Similarly problematic was the paper purporting to assign the mortgage to Wells. That document says Lend America assigned the mortgage to Wells Fargo, which on its face is odd. If the note belonged to Washington Mutual as it indicated, the mortgage should have been WaMu's to assign. After all, the general rule is the "mortgage follows the note." Worse, Lend America appears to be out of business, asTirelli's motiondetails. So even if it somehow retained the mortgage after transferring the note, it's hard to understand how Lend America is assigning anything these days.

Not to worry, Wells Fargo may say: The assignment occurred through themagic of MERS-- Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, the tracking database firm named on some 60% of mortgages today.

Specifically, MERS was named on the original mortgage as Lend America's nominee, andJohn Kennerty, a Wells Fargo employee and known robo-signer, used his additional authority as a MERS "certifying officer" to assign the mortgage to Wells. An obvious conflict of interest exists when Wells Fargo is essentially assigning a mortgage to itself to prove its right to foreclose. But the fact that Kennerty signed as nominee for Lend America also suggests that the MERS database didn't keep up with what happened to Mims's mortgage and note because again, Kennerty -- or better yet, a MERS "officer" who doesn't work for Wells Fargo -- should be signing as a nominee for JPMorgan Chase.

In any case, Wells Fargo failed to convince the judge it had the right to foreclose, so it submitted another round of documents to prove standing.

Wells Fargo Documents, Take Two
The second time around, Wells filed a note that showed Washington Mutual endorsing it "in blank." The blank endorsement, if real, would give whoever is holding the "new" note rights in it. This endorsement, however, is problematic. When did it appear on the note? After all, Wells certified that the note without the in-blank endorsement that it first submitted was a "true and accurate cop[y] of the original document" as of Sept. 16, 2010. If the endorsement was added after that point, Wells should have asked the court's permission before adding it.

But if the endorsement is to be believed, it has to be several years old. As Tirelli points out, the WaMu entity supposedly endorsing the note ceased to exist years ago, and WaMu in any form went out of business a few years later. If the "new" note is a real copy of the original -- meaning the endorsement was done when that old version of WaMu existed -- then that version has been in existence for years, and the "old" note Wells first submitted must be quite old indeed.

So why did Wells think the first version was a true and accurate copy of the original? What research does Wells do before certifying the documents it submits to court?

Unfortunately, the idea that the two notes submitted are just snapshots of the same original at different times, with the older one accidentally being submitted to court the first time, just isn't credible. The discrepancies between the two go way beyond the endorsement. Tirelli points out that:

there are hole punch marks on the Mims I Note which do not appear on the Mims II Note. There is a bar code on the top of the Mims I Note not present at the top of the Mims II Note and a barcode at the bottom of the Mims II Note not present on the Mims I Note. There are what appear to be blackened permanent marker cross-out items which do not match as between the documents. There appear to be [check] marks throughout the body of the Mims I Note which do not appear on the Mims II Note. The size of the font [on each] also appears different...

I'd like to hear how Wells explains those differences.

As to the assignment, Wells made no substantive changes but submitted documents claiming to support what Kennerty did on behalf of MERS. Tirelli points out that if the loan is researched on the MERS site, Wells is identified as the loan's servicer, and some unnamed "investor" that chose not to reveal itself in the database as the owner. While that suggests some mystery investor has the right to foreclose, it equally suggests that Wells doesn't -- at least not in its own name. I wonder if the investor knows that Wells is trying to do just that?

I can't wait to see what the judge makes of this situation.

See full article from DailyFinance:http://srph.it/fSG9xQ

Related articles

• Warren Buffett boosts stake in Wells Fargo (bizjournals.com)


• Wells Fargo's $3 Debit Card Charge: A Sign of More Bank Fees to Come? (dailyfinance.com)


• Wells Fargo to test $3 a month debit card fee (money.cnn.com)


• imabonehead: Wells Fargo to test $3 fee for debit cards - Aug. 16, 2011 (money.cnn.com)


• Wells Fargo tests $3 monthly debit card fee in four states (bizjournals.com)


• Financial Stocks: Bank of America, Wells Fargo lead financials (marketwatch.com)


• Wells Fargo's $3 Debit Card Charge: A Sign of More Bank Fees to Come? (dailyfinance.com)


• Prime Performance Investment Call Center Satisfaction Survey: T. Rowe Price Leads in Client Satisfaction, Vanguard Tops in Loyalty; Gen Y Least Satisfied with Service (prweb.com)


• Phone scam targets Wells Fargo customers ()


• Fed Hits Wells Fargo With Record $85M Fine (newser.com)

FACING FORECLOSURE IN CALIFORNIA? IS AZTEC FORECLOSURE INVOLVED? READ THIS.

Aztec Foreclosure Corp Antics Analyzed

Posted on August 17, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

 GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

BY ‘NANCY DREW”

In California, OR, WA, CO (non judicial states) place an Automatic Stay one must file Bankruptcy “BK” which stops notice of defaults?
sadly allowing substitute trustee to act as robo-mill and includes bank attorneys who don’t have to reveal ‘security’ the mortgage note as collateral attached.

‘substitute’ trustees file falsified documents as does the documented LPS/DOCX employees, just the employee may be a contractor such as Aztec Foreclosure Corp.

The falsified documents as required by the BK courts excludes the same transactions in judicial states just the ‘Trustee’ and Substitute Trustee don’t have to disclose the ‘name of the loan trust, trust fund, certificates, the ‘mortgage note’ as collateral attached inside and sliced and diced when sold to FREDDIE MAC and others Institutional Investors.

You are forced to fight harder under COTA and Accounting GAAP to reveal what is not recorded with county recorder. You are forced to fight pro pe and when 90 days in default of any amount, the SERVICER of the asset as a receivable – advances funds and tracks the debt they will claim when they liquidate your mortgage.
You are fighting with the ‘Servicer’ who has to advance funding to the ‘Master Servicer’ get it! The party before BK does not have legal standing and the CA Courts ignore? WHY?

Aztec Foreclosure Corp

Aztec Foreclosure Corporation is a full service foreclosure trustee concentrating its practice in the representation of mortgage lenders and other financial institutions in foreclosure of residential real estate collateral in the States of California and Nevada.

Aztec Foreclosure Corporation of Washington is a full service foreclosure trustee serving the State of Washington.

Who is Robbie Weaver Office Manager in CA and Elaine Malone Foreclosure Supervisor? Who is the ‘attorney’ providign due dilligence? Kelly D. Sutherland ‘Managing Attorney’ in state of Washington? Is she licensed to practice in CA?

Look at the 21 Pages of Completed RESALES of Properties!
Please take NOTICE that
THe ‘LIST’ 21 pages of sales REPORT generated by data extracted from databases in which somebody programmed the appearance of the data in a report form all CREATED BY A COMPUTER

A LIST OF ‘COMPUTER GENERATED SALES’ ALL PURCHASED AT THE ‘OPENING BID’ WERE THE HIGHEST BID’
WHO WAS AT THE SALE? WHAT ‘TRUSTEE’ SIGNED C/O …. generated 8/12/2011 @ 3:00:50 PM

Report Date 8/12/2011 (Note the report is generated bya computer from database) organized by Case#, Sale Date, Property Address, Bids in which then the ‘security’ identified. Get that information while you are in BK!

http :// www . aztectrustee . com / Reports / CAZ_WebCompSalesRpt . pdf

Aztec Foreclosure Corporation | Professional Foreclosure Trustee Serving California and Nevada

Aztec Foreclosure Corporation of Washington (Washington State only)

Aztec Foreclosure Corporation has the necessary experience working with lenders to protect their delinquent mortgage assets. Our tenured staff has assisted lenders in their default management department, providing unique insight and an ability to better communicate with our clients. Our knowledge and experience extends beyond the routine foreclosure process into the daily operations of the default management industry. Aztec Foreclosure Corporation of Washington provides the same services in the State of Washington.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
Notice of Default – State of California
Upon receipt of the foreclosure referral package, the Notice of Default (“NOD”) is prepared and forwarded to the title company for recording along with the executed Declaration from the lender. Recoding of the NOD constitutes ‘first legal’ when recorded. Once recorded, a copy of the NOD and Declaration will be mailed to all parties to the Deed of Trust and parties having recorded a request for notice.

A Trustee Sale Guarantee (“TSG”) will be ordered from the title company and reviewed upon receipt that will disclose all parties entitled to notice, as well as any other encumbrances recorded against the Deed of Trust and reviewed for any possible defects which may exist that would prevent continuation of foreclosure. The one-month mailing notices are sent to any parties requiring notice.

Notice of Sale
A Notice of Sale (NOTS) will be recorded in the appropriate county and all parties requiring notice will be sent certified and regular mailings of the upcoming foreclosure sale date. The NOTS will be published for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation for the city and county the property is located. A copy of the NOTS will be posted on the property itself and recorded in the county recorder’s office. The sale will be conducted at the time and place set forth on the NOTS.

Bidding instructions will be requested from the client and should be submitted to our office no later than 5 days before the scheduled sale date. Aztec will bid according to the client’s instructions. If there are no competitive bidders, the interest of the property will revert to the beneficiary. Third party bidders must outbid the beneficiary to obtain the property, and the sale proceeds are distributed in the order of priority, with the beneficiary being satisfied first.

The sale may be postponed pursuant to the client’s instructions without an additional publication. The sale may be postponed up to a maximum of 365 days after the original sale date. After that a new publication will have to be set with a new sale date, mailings, etc.

Redemption
There is a 3 month redemption period that must run from when the NOD is recorded before a foreclosure sale can be set. Effective June, 2009, CA implemented the CA Foreclosure Prevention Act which required an additional 90 days of redemption:

On February 20, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed ABX2 7 and SBX2 7, which establish the California Foreclosure Prevention Act. The California Foreclosure Prevention Act modifies the foreclosure process to provide additional time for borrowers to work out loan modifications while providing an exemption for mortgage loan servicers that have implemented a comprehensive loan modification program. Civil Code Section 2923.52 requires an additional 90 day period beyond the period already provided before a Notice of Sale can be given in order to allow all parties to pursue a loan modification to prevent foreclosure of loans meeting certain criteria identified in that section.

A mortgage loan servicer who has implemented a comprehensive loan modification program may file an application for exemption from the provisions of Civil Code Section 2923.52. Approval of this application provides the mortgage loan servicer an exemption from the additional 90-day period before filing the Notice of Sale when foreclosing on real property as designated by this Section.

Upon expiration of redemption, sale, publication and posting dates will be set. The sale cannot be held until the expiration of 21 days from redemption.

Sale
The sale will be conducted at the time and place set forth on the NOTS. Aztec will bid according to the client’s instructions. If there are no competitive bidders, the interest of the property will revert to the beneficiary. Third party bidders must outbid the beneficiary to obtain the property, and the sale proceeds are distributed in the order of priority, with the beneficiary being satisfied first.

The sale may be postponed pursuant to the client’s instructions without an additional publication. The sale may be postponed up to three times at the request of the beneficiary, after which it will be necessary to republish a new sale date.

Conveyance & Final Title
After the foreclosure sale is conducted, a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale is issued by Aztec conveying title to the successful bidder. If the property reverts to the beneficiary, it is sent for recording within a few days of the sale. If a third-party purchases the property, the unrecorded Trustee’s Deed will be sent to the address specified by that party.

If the property is to be conveyed to the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development (“HUD”) or Secretary of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), a Grant Deed from the beneficiary to the agency is sent to the client for execution prior to the sale.

After receipt of the Grant Deed, if it is a VA loan, the deed is sent for recording immediately. Aztec will order a title policy and forward it to VA within their required time line. If it is a HUD loan, Aztec will await instructions to record the deed to HUD. Prior to the deed recording, Aztec will obtain tax and lien information to verify if title is clear before recording the HUD deed. When all taxes and liens are cleared, with the client’s instructions, the deed is recorded. Once recorded, the title policy is obtained and forwarded to HUD within their required time line. The clients are given copies of the title polices and recorded deeds.

The only post-sale right of redemption occurs when an IRS tax lien is recorded against the property. Once the sale is held, the lien is extinguished, but the IRS retains a 120-day right of redemption. During this time frame, the IRS has the right to purchase the property.

Reinstatement and Payoff
The trustors, owners and junior lienholders have a statutory right to reinstate the loan up to five business days prior to the sale. The beneficiary may waive the five-day limit and accept reinstatement at any time prior to the sale. Reinstatement must be tendered in the amount of all sums due the lender plus all foreclosure fees, costs and any attorney’s fees and costs incurred.

Deficiency Judgment – State of California
The right to a deficiency judgment following the foreclosure sale is limited by anti-deficiency legislation. Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 508b, there can be no deficiency judgment on foreclosure of a purchase-money mortgage or trust deed. Also, under Section 580d, one cannot seek a deficiency after a non-judicial foreclosure sale.

The anti-deficiency rule does make a distinction between vendors and third-party lenders. The vendor is precluded from seeking a deficiency judgment where his loan secures payment of the balance of the purchase price of real property. In respect to a third-party lender, the anti-deficiency rule applies only to a dwelling of not more than four families given to secure repayment of a loan that was used to pay all or part of the purchase price of such dwelling occupied entirely or in part by the purchaser.

Deficiency judgments may be obtained if the obligation is not subject to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 580. These cases are outside the scope of this synopsis.

Eviction – State of California
The eviction process is initiated by serving the owners/trustors with a three-day Notice to Quit. All other occupants must be given a sixty-day Notice to Quit.
After the 3/60 day period has expired and if the property is still occupied, a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer is filed. The summons and complaint are sent for service upon all defendants. The requisite personal or substitute service of process may take up to two weeks. In cases where service cannot be effectuated, application is made to the court for permission to serve by posting and mailing the summons and complaint to the property.

Defendants have five days to answer the complaint after service, plus ten extra days if service was made by substitute service or posting and mailing. If the defendants do not respond timely, a default judgment is entered. If defendants file an answer and contest the action, a motion for summary judgment is filed and usually granted within two weeks. In those infrequent cases in which summary judgment is not granted, a trial date is requested. A judgment and writ for possession are submitted to the court within 48 hours of a trial, granting a motion for summary judgment or a default judgment is entered. The court is requested to forward the writ to the marshals for posting on the property. Processing of the writ and posting take approximately two weeks.

The defendants have five days to vacate after posting of the writ. The marshal then returns to the property to physically remove the occupants. The servicer must arrange to have a representative present to take possession and secure the property. The majority of eviction cases that are former owner occupied are completed within 60 to 75 days.

SEE AZTEC FORECLOSURE ‘TRUSTEE’

SAME DETAILS ABOVE FOR NEVADA,
AND SAME DETAILs ABOVE FOR ‘WASHINGTON STATE ONLY’

Washington Staff:

Kelly D. Sutherland
Managing Attorney
360.260.2253 ext 281
ksutherland@logs.com

Related articles

• Washington State Sues BofA Over Foreclosures (blogs.wsj.com)


• Major NJ Case on Lost Mortgage Note in Foreclosure (axsmithlaw.wordpress.com)


• California man wants foreclosures deemed unconstitutional in the state (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)


• Bank of America Foreclosure Agents Owe Duty to Borrowers as well as Bank (axsmithlaw.wordpress.com)


• Washington state's foreclosure rate falls (bizjournals.com)


• Thanks to an Effort by Persels & Associates, an Injured Police Officer and his Family were Able to Ward off Foreclosure (prweb.com)


• Bank of America Death Watch Update: Lawsuit in Washington, Elevated GSE Claims (news.firedoglake.com)


• HAMP, Foreclosure and Lost Paperwork (axsmithlaw.wordpress.com)


• Foreclosures: Still Falling, Unclear Why (seattlebubble.com)


• Real Estate Foreclosures 7/17/11 (knoxnews.com)

TITLE vs. LIEN STATE

THE TRUTH HURTS. I CAN'T HELP BUT FEEL BAD FOR INVESTORS WHO WERE MISLED BY THE BANKS, AS WELL.

DEATH WATCH: BOA PLUNGES 20% IN ONE DAY

Posted on August 9, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

 GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

MARKET INDEXES DOWN 15% OVER THE LAST 2 WEEKS

BANK OF AMERICA DRAGGING ECONOMY AND MARKETS DOWN: The experts and pundits are rushing to tell everyone that the plunging stock market is irrational irritation with Washington politics. In fact, the average person on the street seems more in tune with what is happening than the policy makers and pundits.

Investors lost one trillion dollars in the last day of trading, and around $3 trillion in the last 2 weeks. The reason is that investors are realizing more each day, just like Judges presiding over foreclosure litigation, that we are running on smoke and mirrors. Those assets on the books of Bank of America, JP Morgan, Citi, Wells et al, are largely fictitious and the rest are largely overvalued. Earnings projections for companies depending upon American consumer demand keep getting cut with each passing quarter.

It wasn’t just the credit rating of the United states government that got cut last Friday. The whole economy has been revealed as sagging with huge gaps in the capacity to produce and consume. Before this mortgage mess economists were always quick to point to the housing market as a harbinger of what we can expect. Now, mysteriously, they are unwilling to talk about the reality of the housing market and see themselves as appointed messengers of confidence and good news.

Here is the real news: Housing prices are now down to levels not seen in ten years or more. Mortgage obligations stay the same. So most people with homes or real estate investments of any kind are experiencing a shock that is real and very rational. The pundits ignore people who are being foreclosed out of their homes, bury their heads in sand to avoid talking about people whose mortgage debt is so far above the asset values that they will not, in a single lifetime, ever get out from under, and pretend that the next generation is going to get more than the generation before. It isn’t reality they are looking at, but the average person IS living reality.

The average person and the average investor knows that the government and Wall Street is lying to them and won’t stop. The average person knows several people who are unemployed or so far underemployed that their lives have been destroyed. The average person is hurting and their government is not concerned about their pain. Their government is concerned about supporting a myth and spin from the Wall Street oligopoly — with complete disdain for homeowners, consumers, workers, or anyone else who makes less than $10 million per year.

Investors are average people. Their reaction to this reality is entirely rational, predictable and appropriate. Neither our prospects nor the markets will ever actually improve unless we deal in reality. Bank of America prospects are bleak — a penny stock at best when this is all done. Yet the reality of 7,000 other banks, S&L, credit unions etc. who could service the needs of corporate and personal America is ignored. Profits would be made and taxes would be paid if the Megabanks were resolved. Still we continue to march to the beat of THEIR drum instead of our own.

The stock market is overpriced even after the current shock. Sure it will correct upward for a while, but earnings reports and assets on balance sheets can only be fudged so long before analysts cry foul. The market is headed down. It has been that way for several years. People forget that once upon a time the market even went to 14,000 in the DJIA.  Inflated dollars can hide the problem for a while, but anyone coming in from another country and steps onto the platform of one our rail stations or airports knows in an instant that something went very wrong with America.

There is a solution, but it would take a reversal of accepted ways of thinking. If we recognize the losses to the banks and recognize the gains to homeowners who are legally deleveraged already but don’t know it, then we would have some sort of equilibrium to work from as a base for what is now an unworkable, disgraceful economy.

Consumers ability to pay for things would increase and they would respond by buying, if there was something to buy. But that is only a start. Jobs need to be created — at least 30 million more than the number necessary to maintain the current “equilibrium.” That can happen — if we decide to get back in the game with our rotting highways, decaying rail system, and unreachable education. We’ve been here before and we did the right thing. It turned out pretty well although, like now, first people had to go through a lot of pain before they discarded ideology and went for the solution.

Putting 30 million people to work can be done with tax incentives (for hiring, also known as priming the pump) to small business and with massive government programs to rebuild our infrastructure which is about to fail us at any minute. 30 million people working decent jobs that challenge their minds and bodies will generate at least $200 billion per year in direct revenues to the government. Cutting back the tax gift to wealthy people who were just fine under Clinton’s administration, combined with closing loopholes and gifts to oil companies and farms and such would produce another $200 billion per year in direct revenue (or saved expenditures) to the government. Do the Math.

The economic multiplier effect of re-engineering our transportation, communication and education infrastructure would be nearly infinite and could re-ignite the American dream and the American spirit. The surplus of revenues would make debt ceilings and spending issues fade as we revel in our own success.

But first we have to start telling the truth. At least $15 trillion was stolen from U.S. taxpayers, consumers and World investors by certain banks whose arrogance was only exceeded by their greed. Much of that money was taxable when taken and should be recovered to the extent possible. Consumers who were tricked into transactions by fraudulent appraisals and representations should get restitution. World investors must be told that the assets they bought were overvalued from the start, first by mark-up by the investment banks (yield spread premiums on steroids) and second by the same fraudulent appraisals of value of real property that deceived the borrowers. we can’t keep pretending that those assets are real when we know they are not.

There will be no confidence in US financial markets until world investors believe that we are trustworthy. They know we are lying to them and so they are playing along only as far as necessary, waiting for their opportunity to abandon US financial markets in favor of anything that looks better. The reaction of investors to the down grading of the US government credit instruments is a very rational understanding that the United states has not stepped up to the plate and admitted guilt by association with the banks. They will stop reacting when they have reason to react to something more favorable — like the truth.

• Spread the word

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor,Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: | bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure,foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee,WEISBAND

« TRUSTEES, ACTING FOR BANKS, ISSUE DEEDS TO NONEXISTENT BIDDER

Related articles

• AIG Sues Bank of America Over $10 Billion in Mortgage Losses (businessweek.com)


• Business Highlights (seattletimes.nwsource.com)


• Bad Turns to Worse on Wall Street (foxbusiness.com)


• Bank of America gets crushed (finance.fortune.cnn.com)


• Downgrade Ignites a Global Selloff - Wall Street Journal (news.google.com)


• S&P Spares the Banks From Downgrade (blogs.wsj.com)


• Bank Of America Stock Falls 20 Percent After $10 Billion Lawsuit (huffingtonpost.com)


• Dow plunges 634 points as Wall Street dragged down by U.S. debt rating (oregonlive.com)


• AIG to Sue Bank of America Over Mortgages - Wall Street Journal (news.google.com)


• Bank of America Shares Plunged: What You Need to Know (dailyfinance.com)

OLD POST, BUT GOLD ALWAYS EXISTS IN NEIL GARFIELD'S WRITINGS

BASIC PROPERTY LAW TRUMPS ESOTERIC PRETENDER LENDER ARGUMENTS

Posted on by Neil Garfield

FROM THE COMMENT SECTION THANK YOU ANDREW): I THINK HE’S GOT IT! There is no getting away from the fact that the lender is the investor and that anyone else whose name was inserted in the documentation did so not only without authority but as an intentional misrepresentation as part of a fraudulent scheme to sell financial products at huge profits to homeowners and investors based upon false representations as to both quality and value.

As it looks from the outside, as the lenders never registered the properties in the “trusts” that were created for the purpose of holding the real estate, the real estate will be in most instances still registered in the Grantor/homeowner name at the land records.

Therefore the supposed note, deed of trust and or alleged mortgage that was to be registered against the real estate in the trust [ that is vacant] has no security. “Does this make any sense to anyone?”

Now here is the other opinion continuing from above, if this was not a loan, since banks don’t lend money unless they have “Investments / CD’s in the bank as Matching Finance to loan against, this must have been an INVESTMENT in the homeowner, since the lenders issued securities against an “Note” that was to be an investment, and this is a form of a Bankers Acceptance [ BA] endorseable note, except that the creator of the note was not privy to the makings of other transactions. Not so!

All companies proposing to sell the investment, market a prospectus or in any way be involved in securities have to be registered at thehttp://www.SEC.gov/index.htm website.

Anyone seeking to find a company registered to transact securities HAS to be registered here.

Oh! yes this is the link to MERS, INC/VA for the official registration of the company and all the addresses and officers.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/03/9999999997-03-033079
[paper entry :-http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1079796/999999999703033079/9999999997-03-033079.txt ].

If you are seeking the pictures of the officers behind the names in the legal application this site http://www.mersinc.org/about/exec.aspx

The SEC has their hands full litigating complaints, take a look at this link.http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases.shtml

“JUST ONE LAST THING, IF YOU READ THE FORMATION DOCUMENT YOU WILL SEE THAT FREDDIE MAC, FANNIE MAE, AND MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA ARE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE COMPANY MERS, INC/VA”
Didn’t the public of America just invest heavily in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
http://freddiemac.com/avoidforeclosure/
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/03/9999999997-03-033079

• Spread the word

Filed under: bubble, CDO, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, MortgageTagged: | bankruptcy, borrower, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, fraud, Lender Liability, Mortgage, predatory lending, rescission, securitization, trustee

« Beating Lawyer Finesse: Is He/She a WITNESS or a Lawyer? DOUBLE FUNDING, FABRICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND FORGERY OF SIGNATURES REVEALED »

Like

Be the first to like this post.

1. 

   KimThomas, on August 4, 2010 at 8:14 am said:

   WE CAN HELP! NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. POSSIBLY GET PRINCIPAL REDUCTION AND IN SOME CASES INTEREST RATE DEDUCTIONS. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
   IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C OR YOU HAVE A MORTGAGE WITH INDYMAC OR ONE WEST BANK CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-274-1905 AND GET RELIEVE FROM YOUR PROBLEM!
2. 

   Tyson F. Gautreaux, on February 23, 2010 at 8:51 am said:

   Great comment about raising private money
3. Bankers Field Services » Blog Archive » Posts about Mortgage Bankers as of October 29, 2009, on October 29, 2009 at 5:06 pm said:

   [...] [...]
4. 

   DyingTruth, on October 8, 2009 at 1:10 am said:

   Martin you know what’s odd is that the case you are refering to happend 1 year after the truth in lending act was born and then 2 years later the FED got thier claws into it and was able to reshape it to thier will
5. 

   Andrew, on October 6, 2009 at 12:36 pm said:

   Have uncovered another fact about some documents that are puzzling to say the least.
   Homeowner has a Deed of Trust that specifies on it that a certain company MERS is the assignee for the Lender and in the next sentance is the Beneficiary under the Security Instrument.
   More puzzling is that a Michael A Bosco Jr is the Trustee on this DOT, now if you refer to the link find that Mr Bosco is also a Director of the America’s Mortgage Banking Attorney’s and a membership of Mortgage Bankers Association of America.
   http://www.martindale.com/Michael-A-Bosco-Jr/47153-lawyer.htm

   One who lies in the same bed as the company it represents, almost looks like it was planned to maximize the impact of failure of these mortgages.

   Heard from homeowners that these notes were put into some sort of Credit Default Swap a way to capitalize on the loss multiple times for bottom-line balance sheet profits.

   Does the above set of circumstances not smack of a “Conflict of Interest?”

   From Andrew above
   BASIC PROPERTY LAW TRUMPS ESOTERIC PRETENDER LENDER ARGUMENTS
   Posted on October 5, 2009 by livinglies

   If you are seeking the pictures of the officers behind the names in the legal application this site http://www.mersinc.org/about/exec.aspx

   “JUST ONE LAST THING, IF YOU READ THE FORMATION DOCUMENT YOU WILL SEE THAT FREDDIE MAC, FANNIE MAE, AND MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA ARE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE COMPANY MERS, INC/VA”
   Didn’t the public of America just invest heavily in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
   http://freddiemac.com/avoidforeclosure/
   http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/03/9999999997-03-033079
6. 

   Martin, on October 5, 2009 at 1:33 pm said:

   Am i off base by citing from Daly vs. First National Bank of Montgomery, MN cir. 1969.

   Judge dismissed case on grounds of Unlawful Consideration.

   The Fed Bank admittedly created the money through checkbook entry, therefore No Lawful Consideration in exchange for Daly’s Note ever took place.
   Fast forward today, any Table Funded Loan using an undisclosed financial conduit in an illegal securities scheme, is NOT LAWFUL Consideration in exchange for a Promissory Note. AS the money came into existence by similar checkbook entry.

   Thoughts?

   Read below:

   A LANDMARK DECISION

   Reprinted in part from The Daily Eagle, Issue of Feb. 7, 1969

   The fate of companies and individuals — and governments is entirely at the mercy of banks. Their power is stupendous, both in creating and granting of loans, but in their arbitrary recall, with or without notice. This Court decision in the United States may well be the beginning of the end of some of their powers.

   A Minnesota Trial Court’s decision holding the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional and void; Holding the National Banking Act unconstitutional and void; Declaring a mortgage acquired by the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its business, along with the foreclosure and the Sheriff’s Sale to be void. This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State Banks to be null and void. This amounts to an emancipation of this Nation from personal, national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every American owes it to himself, his country, and to the people of the world, for that matter, to study this decision very carefully and to understand it. For upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.

   On May 8, 1964 the writer Mr. Jerome Daly executed a Note and Mortgage to the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota, which is a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Both Banks are private owned and are a part of the Federal Reserve Banking System.

   In the Spring of 1967 Mr. Daly was in arrears $476.00 in the payments on this Note and Mortgage. The Note was secured by a Mortgage on real property in Spring Lake Township in Scott County, Minnesota. The Bank foreclosed by advertisement and bought the property at a Sheriff’s Sale held on June 26, 1967. Mr. Daly made no further payments after June 26, 1967 and did not redeem within the 12 month period of time allotted by law after the Sheriff’s Sale.

   The Bank brought an action to recover the possession to the property in the Justice of the Peace Court at Savage, Minnesota. The first 2 Justices were disqualified by Affidavit of Prejudice. The first by Mr. Daly and the second by the bank. A third one refused to handle the case. It was then sent, pursuant to law, to Martin V. Mahoney, Justice of Peace, Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota, who presided at a Jury trial on December 7, 1968. The Jury found the Note and Mortgage to be void for failure of a lawful consideration and refused to give any validity to the Sheriff’s Sale. Verdict was for Mr. Daly with costs in the amount of $75.00.

   EVIL PRACTICE

   The president of the Bank admitted that the Bank created the money and credit upon its books by which it acquired or gave as consideration for the Note; that this was standard banking practice, that the credit first came into existence when they created it; that he knew of no United States Statutes which gave them the right to do this. This is the universal practice of these banks.

   Mr. Morgan appeared at the trial on December 7, 1968 and appeared as a witness to be candid, open, direct, experienced and truthful. He testified to 20 years of experience with the Bank of America in Los Angeles, the Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis and the Plaintiff in this case. He seemed to be familiar with the operations of the Federal Reserve System.

   He freely admitted that his Bank created all of the Money or credit upon its books with which it acquired the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964. The credit first came into existence when the Bank created it upon its books. Further he freely admitted that no United States law gave the bank the authority to do this. There was obviously no lawful consideration for the Note. The Bank parted with absolutely nothing except a little ink.

   NOTE: It has never been doubted that a Note given in a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private corporations, for the purposes of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful.

   No complaint was made by the bank that the bank did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan, the path of duty was made direct and clear for the jury. Their verdict could not reasonably have been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, freely and without purchase, comfortable to the laws in this Court on December 7, 1968.

   The Justice who heard the case handed down the opinion attached and included herein. Its reasoning is sound. It will withstand the test of time. This is the first time the question has been passed upon in the United States. I predict that this decision will go into the history books as one of the great documents of American history. It is a huge cornerstone wrenched from the temple of Imperialism and planted as one of the solid foundation stones of Liberty.

   COURT MEMORANDUM

   The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute on the facts for the jury to resolve.

   Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions, incorporated under the laws of the United States, are in the law to be treated as one and the same bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.

Related articles

• MERS in California (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• A Cooling Atlanta Real Estate Marketplace & Investing In Pre-foreclosures (mydecorarticles.com)
• Peace of Mind: An Insurance Cliche That's Oh-So-True (prweb.com)
• Guelph Real Estate Lawyer Launches New Website (prweb.com)
• Fundamentals Trust Deed Investment (animesh0778.wordpress.com)
• Fundamentals Trust Deed Investment (seoanimesh07.wordpress.com)
• Real Estate Investment Award - Nation's Top 2011 Real Estate Investment Focused Franchise (prweb.com)
• Connecticut Real Estate Investors Assn. (CT REIA) Announces August 2011 Investing Meeting With Alan Cowgill (your-story.org)
• ForSalebyOwner.com Founder Uses Real Estate Broker to Sell His Apartment (nyconvergence.com)
• Starwood Property Trust, Inc. Reports Results for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2011 (prnewswire.com)