ARE YOU A VICTIM OF WELLS FARGO'S PAIN?

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

AWESOME: FLORIDA APPELLATE COURT REVERSED AND REMAND FOR DISMISSAL BURDESHAW V. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE

Bank of New York Fails Test for Business Records – Fla. 1st DCA

Posted on October 28, 2014 by Neil Garfield

For further information, assistance or consultation please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.

———————————–

see http://4closurefraud.org/2014/10/22/burdeshaw-v-the-bank-of-new-york-mellon-hearsay-final-judgment-reversed/

The Burdeshaws appeal the final judgment of foreclosure in favor of The Bank of New York Mellon (“BNYM”), contending that the evidence to support the amount of indebtedness was inadmissible hearsay and thus, no admissible evidence supported the trial court’s determination of the amount due. In addition to reversal of the final judgment, the Burdeshaws seek remand of this case with instructions to dismiss, based on a meritorious motion pursuant to rule 1.420(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, taken under advisement by the trial judge and denied de facto when the court eventually conducted a bench trial and issued a final judgment. We agree on both points, reverse the final judgment of foreclosure, and remand for dismissal of the action.

The Burdeshaws filed their notice of inactivity, pursuant to rule 1.420(e), on July 20, 2010. After sixty more days with no record activity, on September 20, 2010, the Burdeshaws filed their motion to dismiss. Other than this notice and motion, no paper was filed in the court file by either party or the court between September 16, 2009 and October 4, 2010.
Suntrust did not file a response to the motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution but did file other papers in the record on October 4, 2010, and thereafter. A motion hearing was held on November 8, 2010, and one of the motions considered by the court was the Burdeshaws’ motion to dismiss under rule 1.420(e). The record does not contain a transcript of this hearing and Suntrust did not file a written assertion of good cause why the action should have remained pending. In the order entered November 29, 2010, the court stated that it was taking the rule 1.420 motion to dismiss “under advisement.”

BNYM was substituted as party plaintiff on January 25, 2013, and a bench trial took place on May 13, 2013. In support of its documentary evidence, BNYM presented the testimony of Nancy Johnson, twenty-two year Suntrust employee currently in the position of “default proceedings officer.” She testified that Suntrust was servicing the loan and that she had reviewed Suntrust’s records in preparation for the trial. Counsel for BNYM inquired about the documents it sought to admit into evidence, including the letter notifying the Burdeshaws of the default, the note and mortgage, and a “computer printout from Fidelity system” purporting to show the transactions on the account and the balance owed. Counsel for the Burdeshaws objected to Ms. Johnson’s testimony regarding each document in turn, stating that there was no predicate for Johnson’s testimony, that BNYM had not established any of the elements to qualify her as the custodian of the records, and that BNYM had not otherwise qualified Ms. Johnson to authenticate the computer-generated records. The trial court overruled each objection until eventually, counsel requested “a standing objection, so I don’t keep making it,” which was granted.

On cross examination, Ms. Johnson explained that her knowledge of the amounts owed came from her review of the printout and that the printout was “on our system.” When asked by whom or how fees and expenses were posted to the account, Johnson testified that “everyone” was using the Fidelity system and “they would input any transactions, any adjustments.” Ms. Johnson stated that she had reviewed the numbers on the printout theThursday of the week prior to trial and that the initial principle balance of the loan “would have been input by someone handling the origination of the loan.”

It is true that defense counsel did not use the words “hearsay” or “section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes” in his objections. However, he did challenge BNYM’s failure to establish “the steps to make her a records custodian,” the “complete lack of predicate to establish her bona fides at least to authenticate the document,” and he offered “to provide the court with some law on what a records custodian has to establish.” The context of the objections to the witness’ testimony about the records in this case made it clear to the court and to opposing counsel that the objection was directed towards the admission of computer-generated hearsay documents due to the plaintiff’s failure to establish any of the grounds required for the business records exception to the hearsay rule under section 90.803(6).
Furthermore, because Ms. Johnson was the only witness to authenticate the only documentary evidence to support the amount owed at a bench trial, rule 1.530(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, allows Appellants to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal even without the repeated objections made by counsel. Although a failure to object is not a prudent or advisable practice, Appellants’ challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment is cognizable on appeal pursuant to rule 1.530(e) regardless of the specificity of defense counsel’s numerous objections during the bench trial. The rule provides:
When an action has been tried by the court without a jury, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment may be raised on appeal whether or not the party raising the question has made any objection thereto in the trial court or made a motion for rehearing, for new trial, or to alter or amend the judgment.
See also Wolkoff v. Am. Home Mtg. Servicing, Inc., 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1159, 2014 WL 2378662, at *1 (Fla. 2d DCA May 30, 2014) (“The Wolkoffs were not required to make a contemporaneous objection to the sufficiency of the evidence in order to preserve the issue for appeal.”). Accordingly, Appellants’ challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the final judgment of foreclosure, due to the failure of BNYM to establish the business records exception to the hearsay rule for the documents upon which the judgment is based, is properly before this Court.

if not properly authenticated, loan payment history printouts and other evidence of the amount due on a loan are inadmissible hearsay. For example, in Glarum, the court reversed summary judgment for the bank because the bank’s sole witness testified from a bank printout without first establishing the hearsay exception for business records. There, the witness/affiant was a “specialist” for the loan servicer and his affidavit stated that he obtained the amount of indebtedness from “his company’s computer system.” Id. at 782. However, the specialist “did not know who, how, or when the data entries were made into [the servicer's] computer system” and “could not state if the records were made in the regular course of business.” Id. The specialist had even less knowledge about the business practices of the prior loan servicer, the apparent source of the data upon which his own company relied to open the file. Accordingly, both the witness’ testimony and the affidavit containing the data for the amount owing were inadmissible hearsay, unqualified for the business records exception under section 90.803(6)(a). Because there was no other competent evidence to prove the amount due and owing, summary judgment was reversed.
This Court reversed the final judegment of foreclosure in Mazine v. M & I Bank, 67 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), due to the erroneous admission of an affidavit of the amounts due and owning. The bank’s witness at the bench trial was “the regional security officer” for the bank, who “candidly admitted that he had no knowledge as to the preparation or maintenance of the documents offered by the bank,” “did not know if the source of the information contained” in the record was correct, and “did not know if the amounts reported in the affidavit were accurate.” Mazine, 67 So. 3d at 1132. Because the affidavit was the only evidence supporting the amount of defendants’ default, admission of the document was harmful error requiring reversal of the judgment of foreclosure.
The final judgments of lien foreclosure were reversed in Yang v. Sebastian Lakes Condo. Ass’n Inc., 123 So. 3d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), because the current management company’s witness had no knowledge of the starting balance of the loan, never worked with the original accountant, and had no knowledge of how the original figures were entered into the ledgers. Over objection to the hearsay account ledgers as not properly authenticated via the business records exception, the trial court admitted the ledgers. These documents were the only support for the amounts owed. Finding that the foundation for admitting the ledgers into evidence was lacking, the appellate court reversed the final judgment of foreclosure.

While this appeal is not based on a challenge to BNYM’s standing to foreclose, the business records exception to the hearsay rule as set out in section 90.803(6)(a) was applied to proof of standing in Hunter v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 137 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). There, Aurora offered into evidence “certain computer-generated records” pertaining to transfers of the note and mortgage. Hunter, 137 So. 3d at 571. The printouts contained no indication that they were prepared by the original lender, MortgageIT, and Aurora attempted to authenticate the documents through the testimony of Mr. Martin, an employee of the servicer of the loan at the time of trial.

Regarding notations on the computer printouts, Mr. Martin “had no knowledge about who generated the notations, or how and where that individual obtained the information. Neither did he have such knowledge about the Account Balance Report.” Id. at 572. He could not testify from personal knowledge that either document belonged to or was generated by the original lender but he did testify that the computer program from which the notes log originated was “used across the industry, that a records custodian for the loan servicer is the person who usually inputs such notes, and that normal industry practice is for a lender’s accounts payable department to create an account balance report reflecting a zero balance on the loan when it is sold to another entity.” Id.
This Court found that Mr. Martin’s testimony was insufficient to “establish the necessary foundation for admitting the Account Balance Report” and the other documents under the business records exception. Hunter at 573. The witness was never employed by the original lender and lacked “particular knowledge of MortgageIT’s record-keeping procedures.” Id. “Absent such personal knowledge, he was unable to substantiate when the records were made, whether the information they contain derived from a person with knowledge, whether MortgageIT regularly made such records, or, indeed, whether the records belonged to MortgageIT in the first place. His testimony about standard mortgage industry practice only arguably established that such records are generated and kept in the ordinary course of mortgage loan servicing.” Id.
In this case, BNYM failed to establish any foundation qualifying the printout Ms. Johnson read as a business record and failed to establish any foundation qualifying Ms. Johnson as a records custodian or person with knowledge of the four elements required for the business records exception. See Yisrael, 993 So. 2d at 956. Accordingly, the admission of Ms. Johnson’s testimony about the loan balance and the admission of the computer printouts she was called to authenticate, over the objections of opposing counsel, constituted reversible error. Johnson’s only knowledge about the amount due and owing came from her review of the computer printouts and she had no information about how and when those records had been prepared or where the data came from. Her testimony that “everyone” was using the Fidelity system and “they would input any transactions, any adjustments” is comparable to the witness’ testimony in Hunter about general mortgage industry practices. Ms. Johnson’s assumption that the original loan amounts “would have been input by someone handling the origination of the loan” was merely supposition, based on her general knowledge of ordinary mortgage industry practices, not any specific knowledge about this debt or the transaction of the information between the original lender and subsequent servicers, including Suntrust. She was thus unable to show any of the requirements for establishing a proper foundation for the amounts or the documents she relied on.
Under these circumstances and considering the testimony elicited from the witness in this case, the admission of BNYM’s composite exhibit 3 was reversible error and no other evidence was presented to support the amount owed on the note. Because there is no evidence to support the amounts contained in the final judgment, reversal is required.
Finally, although it might be appropriate to remand for further proceedings under other circumstances, this case does not present a reason to afford BNYM additional time and another opportunity to prove its case. As the Second District has held “[a]ppellate courts do not generally provide parties with an opportunity to retry their case upon a failure of proof.” Wolkoff, 2014 WL 2378662, at *3. The complaint initiating this action was filed in 2009. The defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, filed in 2010, was supported by the absence in the record of any activity in the file for the time periods set out in rule 1.420(e), and by the absence of an assertion by the plaintiff of good cause, or any cause, prior to the hearing on the motion, for the action to remain pending. As noted in Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So. 2d 363, 368 (Fla. 2005), and Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Hall, 784 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2001), the mandatory language of the rule — “the action shall be dismissed” — leaves the trial court with no discretion in the matter. “There is either activity on the face of the record or there is not.” Metro. Dade Cnty v. Hall, 784 So. 2d at 1090.
Accordingly, the final judgment of foreclosure is reversed and this cause is remanded for entry of an order of dismissal of the case. (VAN NORTWICK and ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR.)

Sunday, October 26, 2014

NEIL GARFIELD ON THE TRUE ORIGINATION OF FUNDS THAT FINANCED YOUR MORTGAGE

What Difference does it make where the money came from?

Posted on October 24, 2014 by Neil Garfield

For information , assistance or services please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. Litigation support is offered to attorneys in all states.

—————————-

The question keeps coming up, Judges and lawyers and even borrowers ask it. Why do I keep harping on the money? The simple answer is that these cases are all about money and not much else. The rest is window dressing or methods of collection on DEBTS that are not owed to the collectors or enforcers. It matters because it controls the issues of default, ownership and balance of the loan — as well as the terms for enforcement.

In order to get traction with a judge you need to use analogies to educate the judge. Don’t expect him or her to understand the point when you bring it up. You can work it forward or backward.

If you work it forward, your point is that the original naming of the “lender” was false and the use of the defective note and mortgage was not intended or authorized by the borrower. Collection is also an act in furtherance of what has been increasingly revealed as an intentional act of fraud against the investors, the trusts, the trustees, the government, the borrowers and the courts. That is the most in unclean hands that you can get and should prevent them from getting anything other than a money judgment assuming they can prove they are a holder in due course. A holder in due course can acquire paper from a nonexistent loan and the person who signed the paper will still be liable even though he received no money.

The debt a rises from the receipt of the money but it does not arise as an asset to anyone other than the source of funds — or someone in privity with the source of funds. That doesn’t exist in virtually all alleged acquisitions of debt by “trusts.”

Which brings us to going backward. The Trusts are said to be holders and never alleged to be holders in due course. If they are holders, they must prove the right to enforce and that they don’t merely possess the paper like a courier would. There is no logical business or legal reason not to allege holder in due course status when you qualify — it eliminates virtually all borrower defenses.

If they are alleging holder status, then for whom are they holding the paper? The issue of the paper being worthless comes from fact and logic. If they are not alleging HDC status they are admitting that something is missing. The elements are delivery as a result of a purchase for value in good faith without knowledge of borrower’s defenses. Since they are alleging delivery and trying to show that in court (even if it wasn’t in the order prescribed by the PSA). Since they are certainly going to deny that they acted in bad faith and deny they had any knowledge of borrower’s defenses, that leaves one element — purchase for value. If they didn’t purchase for value then why did the “assignor” give up the loan without receiving anything other than a fee?

No reasonable business explanation suffices. The holder of valuable paper (note and mortgage) would never simply give it away and would demand money for it unless they hadn’t paid for it. So now you have neither the trust nor the assignor of the loan PAPERS into the trust having paid for it. When you trace it down step by step you come to the only possible conclusion — the “lender” at the loan closing never funded the loan.

So where did it come from? If the trust did not purchase the loans it must be because they didn’t have the money since the only business of the trust was to acquire loans. If they didn’t have the money then the proceeds of the sale of MBS issued by the trust was never given to the trust. That means the investors who bought the mortgage backed bonds advanced funds to the underwriter expecting the funds to be given to the trust but the underwriter diverted those funds and wrote in the documents that investors have no right or authority to inquire as to status of the money or the loans. The underwriter also wrote that the Trustee could not inquire.

The only logical conclusion would be that the actual loan proceeds to the borrower came from the funds illegally diverted by the underwriter. Thus the source of funds were the investors who thought they were becoming trust beneficiaries of a trust that contained a pool of loans when the trust, in fact, received neither money nor loans. The resulting debt should be payable only to the investors, but they don’t know what happened so they make no claim (partially because they are claiming asset values deriving their value from the worthless mortgage backed bonds). The important thing is that the actual lender and the actual borrower have no written contract between them. Thus the note and mortgage are worthless and fatally defective. foreclosure therefore becomes impossible.

Filed under: foreclosure

« Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac — All Financed through “Securitized” Trusts Bit by Bit We Lose it All as Others Gain »

90 Responses

Charles Reed, on October 26, 2014 at 2:34 pm said:

mycookie I may have exaggerated the debt ratio, but when you had Stated Loan you could end up with ratio very close to that. People went to a mortgage company because they were not qualified at a or did not like the term or rate. They just did not stroll over to ABC because this was the best option.

Mortgage companies were not lending under there own names but brokering these loans out. Who takes a 9% adjustable rate loan when they could have gotten a 5% FHA 30yr fix? People would have taken almost anything to get into a house, and knew the brokers or correspondent bank were not keeping these loans and had no clue who was going to end up purchasing the loan in most case.

Borrowers knew that these loan could be sold plenty of times. So I don’t see getting far in the argument that the monies came from an illegal source, because now your going on some fishing expedition!
mycookiejars, on October 26, 2014 at 2:07 pm said:

Charles no one in their right mind would take out a $200,000 mortgage on $30,000 a year income with a $400 month car payment. If they did … ? And only a pretender lender who knew the loan would fail would do the loan and bet against its failure for profit.
Charles Reed, on October 26, 2014 at 1:03 pm said:

Here is why I don’t think that were the funding actually came from matters because had borrowers know (as if was the only game in town) they would have still borrowed the funds. We wanted to have a piece of the America Dream and the Federal Government was in on the program.

Your story is that you went to ABC Mortgage to get a loan that was open yesterday and is not your bank and you borrowed $200,000 base on $30K wages and a $400 a month car payment, yet if you know the money was not coming from them tht you would not have borrowed the money!

We are victims, just not victims of everything, but the battle is after the fact in how the Notes are traded or not!
mycookiejars, on October 26, 2014 at 12:36 pm said:

As a non borrowing homeowner I was obligated to defend the title … Against the sellers estate. I was made a creditor and debtor and warrantor all without my knowledge and consent. Now if my spouse would file BK, I’d get the gold mine and he’d get the shaft.
mycookiejars, on October 26, 2014 at 12:28 pm said:

Ivent, you need to be a federal prosecutor. You’re Good!
mycookiejars, on October 26, 2014 at 12:10 pm said:

I can not say this is the situation for all, but in our case the deceased sellers attorney had a trustee deed issued to his lawfirm and my spouse without a trustee agreement. You find out they have a CFD with the sellers estate who had been paid in full. You want the Trustee Agreement and a WD, right? Now about where the money came from. You find out the WD with you and your spouse as TIE with ROS was not granted to you BUT by you to the MERs funding member ( aka the straw lender). So to enforce the contract you demand a release from the sellers estate and the WD to be filed or you want your money back.
lvent, on October 26, 2014 at 12:09 pm said:

Credit is not debt owed because the investors who were counterfeiting U.S. Government Securities like mad hatters and investing in their own Mortgage Note, counterfeiting racket, never lent the American people any money. The law says Racketeering with fraudulent U.S. Taxpayer funded Government Securities is Securities Fraud. The Act of Racketeereting U.S. Government Securities/Vatican paper would involve numerous felonies that
are fully prosecutable under RICO.
Therefore, those “Investors” could not lend you your own titles to your
person, property or possessions now
could they? How could they because
you already paid them years ago
when they stole your Social Security
Numbers by hijacking our Birth
Certificates, our U.S. Citizenship
papers and fraudulently induced those into stocks and bonds without our knowledge or consent. That is how these “investors”
allowed themselves to direct deposit our money into their “coffers” by
committing identity theft and numerous other felony frauds. They did that by investing in their own fraud. They used “investing” from behind the scenes of their own crimes to fraudulently conceal their true
identities.
lvent, on October 26, 2014 at 11:37 am said:

If you borrow money from a family member you get money, not credit. Imagine your brother is a politician who counterfeited your own checks because he works for the Government, he had access to your “social security Number”. Slowly over time, he direct deposited small amounts of your money, aka bank fees, check writing fees, bank overdraft fees, identity theft insurance fees, etc as usury for money he never lent you. His political status, the fact that he is an “investor” allows his banking comrades to direct deposit those “fees” to be direct deposited into any number of his own secret hidden bank
accounts. You could be none the wiser, although you might suspect wrongdoing by the bank, you would more than likely not suspect your own brother is an investor in everything that effects your life, liberty and
property as well as your legal right to defend it. Then when you are broke and fighting him in fraud closure he may offer you credit by doing odd jobs for him around his mansion. What a great guy.
lvent, on October 26, 2014 at 11:13 am said:

Whose pension funds gained value because of the inflated appraisals? Who okays the funding to the homebuilders ? Who received those “funds” before we were ever brought to the closing table? Certainly not me. Moreover, there is no law in equity for the issuance of credit. The Mortgage Bankers received our money meaning we paid for our titles upfront before we were ever hoodwinked at the “closing table”. So that begs the question, What are these imposters
fraudclosing upon? The politicians, judges, lawyers and all of their comrades are fraudulently invested in their own fraud, lies and abuse. Therefore they are all compromised. Obama’s pension fund is invested in Vanguard. Vanguard are one of the top 5 institutional investment firms in the world. Their Board of Directors are comprised of mainly Russian Generals. That can only mean quite frankly We The People are under siege by our enemy in the land many of our fathers fought and died for.
mycookiejars, on October 26, 2014 at 11:04 am said:

The debt is owed, its unsecured. You can’t convey title via WD irrevocably into trust free n clear with a recorded lien now can you?
Charles Reed, on October 26, 2014 at 11:02 am said:

mycookiejar maybe DwightNJ does not have a tax problem because it was behind a scheme to steal his property that the taxes where paid by another. Nobody made Wells pay the taxes as no agreement was between Dwight and that bank! Wells paid the taxes to keep the state from selling the property!
Charles Reed, on October 26, 2014 at 10:54 am said:

mycookiejar I agree DwightNJ got a tough road ahead, and that why I suggested that he still pursue the modification that Fannie was offering because what it does is allows him to possible roll some of this into a 2nd mortgage payable at the end of the modification term. But you are right the 7yrs of taxes will be an issue.

I am not saying there were no attorneys that handled foreclosure back in 2000, but I am saying that these are not the cream of the crop, because the homeowner is usually a no money having client. You said it best “You get what you pay for”!

What the amount of monies for an attorney to win? What would you expect to be paid on saving a home with 7yrs of back taxes and insurance premiums and what the condition of the house? If the house payment was not paid and if would result in the home being taken, what the attorney going to do in order to collect his $5,000 in fees other than have the up front $2,500 and payments. What representation do you expect for $5,000? I here the attorney how….what do you expect for $5,000!

Realistically what should if cost to defend yourself against Wells Fargo if your trying to win?

But cookie you just given me an ideal that I been writing to the President about, and that is his first though that these thing should go through a bankruptcy court. I believe that DwightNJ case does fit what I said and that is since the debt cannot be proven as the Note is a blank endorsement (as they not presented a receipt) I would present these fact through a BK attorney to the BK court, and let the judge decide whether there is a valid debt owed?
mycookiejars, on October 26, 2014 at 10:42 am said:

Now if Charles no longer owes his brother and if he still tried to collect from you, wouldn’t your friend Charles be unjustly enriched?
mycookiejars, on October 26, 2014 at 10:33 am said:

Charles back in the early 2000s you couldn’t find an attorney to represent against FCs. That’s not true these days. Dwights issue is the taxes someone else has paid. 7yrs in back taxes is a lot of money.
mycookiejars, on October 26, 2014 at 10:12 am said:

Charles files BK against his brother. Now Charles’s brother wants to collect from you. Can he? Think Coyle.
Charles Reed, on October 26, 2014 at 10:05 am said:

mycookiejar look at were we are now in this mess where there are only a handful of attorneys in states were the crisis hit the hardest, that you will find knowledgeable attorneys in this area, because first there were only a few who dealt with real estate. I would agree if we all had capable attorneys to handle or cases would be that best, but what the reality is that we got abortionist with unclean operating rooms full of infection.

DwightNJ has tried and there no attorney that will help and instead of taking the advice of the ones he contacted, who have advised him to quit fight and get a moving truck, he decided to fight.

I don’t knew how much lending has changed but white Americans have a 70% home ownership rate and most everyone needed to borrow money to purchase a home, and regardless of what has happen still most 100% would sign the documents to purchase a home because it always been a part of the dream.

I don’t believe this started out as some grand scheme to defraud most people, but as the more financial product were created it cause a weakness in employment and the only reason most people lost there homes is due to a lack of employment.

Even all this year after the crisis we got a discussion of Bonds but we are talking about Securities being sold with are two different things. Even that titling been screwed up by MERS if the payment were made there was no problem homeowner would have ever notice, and the reason we got a lack of public support is that MERS was placed into the wording of most titling of all homeowners since 2000, and yet the overwhelming homeowners have not had an issue.

The housing crisis as far as victims are few compared to the total market but the situation effect the entire country because it changed the availability to borrow monies, and this economy cannot recover without full ability to borrow monies to purchase homes. There were 7 million foreclosed and another 5 million waiting in the wings, and most all of these folks will not get helped and that because in Oct 2014 most all attorney don’t have the knowledge or the care to defend these case because they don’t see anyway to make money! These matter are being fought in State courts where there is no treble damage, an the opponent is a $1 trillion asset corporation, and the homeowner is a broke part-time worker or one that just returned to full-time employment that got zero for saving and is barely paying the new rent or living in parent’s basement!
Rock, on October 26, 2014 at 9:26 am said:

The problem is none of you can see the forest for the trees.

For example, Charles and I are friends, I ask Charles if I can borrow 50K, Charles wants to help me out, but doesn’t have the dough. So he goes to his brother and tells him, “I want to help my buddy Storm, could you give me 50K,” so his brother does. I sign a contract with Charles for the 50K. Clearly, my contract is with Charles, not his brother, even middle schoolers understands this.

Now, I gave all of you the key that unlocks the door–attacking the mortgage transaction. Question is, are you going to use it, or continue making arguments even a child understands are nonsensical? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/homeowners-receiving-multimillion-dollar-awards-155900638.html
mycookiejars, on October 26, 2014 at 8:15 am said:

Charles, I know you meant Well, we all did. But the fact is they used us to do their dirty work without our knowledge. To the best of my knowledge they’ve known since the early 2000s. Its to my understanding this started after the S n L crises in the 80s. Banking as people our age knew it had changed. I truley understand the need to know the Truth, the Whole Truth. How are we as consumers supposed to make informed decisions if we were flat out lied to at origination? We can’t and as Neil said if we had known, most would not have signed the papers. There is a reason they started having people sign the homestead exemption waivers in 2010. We are a nation of renters not homeowners. Remember the comment by an attorney .. Its Free Rent? —————————————————————– Deb, you’re right on target ———————————– Dwight, your wife and children need an attorney even if you’re to stubborn to get one for yourself. My husband n I needed seperate attornies, Why? Deb n Ivent nailed it. ————Many Blessings to All –
neidermeyer, on October 26, 2014 at 6:07 am said:

@ Ivent ,

YOU SAID ” The inflated appraisals are good solid evidence of corruption by the politicians. ”

In 2005/6/7 my courier business had 2 appraisers that were regular customers that the banks used (and also the “homebuilders”) when they needed the “right numbers” and the other appraisers balked … these were so toxic that they couldn’t wait 1 stinking day for the mail (local within the same city)… funny , they’re both long gone now… it’s not just the politicians ,, it was damn near everyone who was involved in banking or regulation and up to perhaps 2 steps removed from the initial fraud… the rot spreads and spreads fast … when the only way to survive is to cheat you cheat.
DwightNJ, on October 26, 2014 at 12:12 am said:

Cookies, please stop harassing Charles on this message board. We all have problems that we are trying to find solutions to , Charles is here trying to give his opinion and advice as is others. We all appreciate any advice or help that we can find, and we all understand that it might not be the best advice or relate to our own problem. But can we stop with the personal attacks? Can you just leave Charles out of your posts and help keep these comments sections a place where we can all exchange opinions share ideas .. come on now, we’re all fighting against an evil criminal enterprise , lets not fight with each other. Can you agree to let go of the hard feelings and spread some love ? Say a prayer for all of us , say a prayer for Charles , will you do that? Thank you and God Bless You
Charles Reed, on October 26, 2014 at 12:10 am said:

mycookiejar I don’t know what to believe about you because your all over the place, but if you have a child serve and die for this nation my condolences!

I don’t know what your reasoning would be to talk a military person out a VA loan that provides the same or a lower interest rate than the best prime rate. Like any loan it dependent on what being made on the loan. But at the bank I worked at we gave the lowest rate available that day with zero points to buy down or point period. Now we would make something on the loan as we needed to be paid, and the total the bank would make of all loan would be 1.25% on everything under the conforming loan amount.

However most other places made at less 2%!

If you were a veteran with at least 10% disability there was no VA Funding Fee, but it was 3% for at the time for the Funding Fee but it was rolled into the loan and was tax deductible in the payments, but the loan was a 100% loan and the seller could pay up to 4% of the closing cost and VA default rate was almost the same as a Prime loan.

I think you run into the wrong people in life and for myself and the other ex-veteran performing VA loan, The VA allowed you to make as much as 3 point on a loan in 2 point discount and 1 origination or the other way around but as we did loan as my boss was a Army Reservist and we just did not treat our military families as a bank account.

I when looking to preform loan search for a bank with a that provided VA lender as not all bank do. I was station right outside the AirForce base.

I am not saying that all veteran treat other veteran with the respect they deserve, but my goal was to help my fellow brother and sister obtain homes for their families.

Your so mean and I don’t know why as you started this and even when I tried to let it go you came back and started again. If you right in your fight then that cool, but as you and your husband are worth $1.4 million, I am sure as with your house somebody got a problem with you having $1.4 million, but your problem with me seem to stem from the fact that Whistleblowing has an reward for useful information in recovering stolen US funds. I would like to recover any reward I have applied for and I would like to help military people get restitution, and if that bother you so be it!
Deborah wynn, on October 25, 2014 at 10:50 pm said:

Think about the word ” beneficiary” stealing from the beneficiary does not make You the new” beneficiary”or the ” lender” but so far they got away with it – as far as the lil borrower thinking they were getting a home Loan and clear clean title goes, and yet the court is all ears if theres an investor suit.
mycookiejars, on October 25, 2014 at 10:41 pm said:

You’re the one in denial Charles. My safe contains Purple Hearts, something you know nothing about. You didn’t bury a 24yr old 2yrs ago, he gave all, something you also no nothing about. We just got home from a Memorial where half the attendees were Military where I talked one of them out of taking a VA loan. My youngest daughter works at the VA hospital. Shall I continue? Funny thing about the house is we agreed to pay full price even after the appraisal came in lower than asking price, something you also know about. Hell you sold VA loans and you still don’t know how you helped rob them blind.
Charles Reed, on October 25, 2014 at 7:13 pm said:

1st Cookie I never been on the government welfare or any of that crap or unemployment, but unlike you or your husband who I am sure neither have served in the military but are the ones out there with flags while the brave serve and protect. You pay for other to protect you and then with your schemes you rip the same people off.

If you net worth is $1.4 million it is $1.4 million as you can take your money out the market and realize your worth, but don’t give me all this wrap up in this and that. What are you worth today?

Your involved in a situation where someone feels that you unjustly enriched yourself and what better way to take advantage of things in the job you were performing. Pay the $800,000 or $500,000 the property was worth and be done with it or continue to hope you can steal the property for $140,000!

No one wants to here about you ripping off someone’s estate, and we cannot give you help with that crime! Neil’s new post is about you, and your denial that your a thief!
mycookiejars, on October 25, 2014 at 6:08 pm said:

1st Charles, I have been with the same man my entire life. He is not a millionaire. He and I have worked our entire life. Nothing was handed to us. And we have never taken a dime of support from the taxpayors unlike you. We work to support you. If you understood naked short sales you would understand where the 1.49 million $ figure comes into play on the 2ndary market.
lvent, on October 25, 2014 at 5:31 pm said:

The inflated appraisals are good solid evidence of corruption by the politicians.
lvent, on October 25, 2014 at 5:28 pm said:

Mortgage loans cannot be purchased. They can be transferred. That can only occur legally if Good and Valuable Consideration was paid to the U.S. Treasury Department by the Issuer of the Original Bill of Credit. There must be some physical task Performed by the Issuer of the Bill of Sale which is by and large the Sales Contract. The Creation of a legal binding Contract
aka as an obligation, relied upon
Performance by the Issuer of the
Original Sales Contract who would by and large be the U.S. Taxpayers vis a vis the U.S. Treasury Department. All of those
Provisions are clearly laid out and
stipulated in Article 2, section 9 of
the UCC. These were not Sales Contracts, they were 10 year Government bonds that were backed by our Birth Certificates as Security for the debt the Mortgage Bankers Ass. Created off of the backs of the U.S. Taxpayers. In other words, all of the so called mortgage bonds are frauds because that information was never disclosed to We The People at the
issuance of the Bond/Stock as the law
requires. That means the stocks are worthless because the bonds that were supposed to secure them were fraudulently derived. Therefore all subsequent transfers of title were fraudulent conveyances. Foreclosure is not only a cover up for Income Tax Fraud and another way for these crooked Mortgage Bankers to Income Tax Evade, fraudclosure is in fact, a fraudulent reconveyance of title because the Mortgage Contract was fraudulently induced at its inception. Fraudclosure is yet another hoodwink of the U.S. Taxpayers who pay for
everything upfront in this country by
the traitors from within being directed by our enemies both close at hand and far away.
Deborah wynn, on October 25, 2014 at 5:02 pm said:

Re the inflated appraisals, when ever else in time have we seen median home price outstrip median income to the extent that it was. How else do you explain in excess of 400k drop in my new build home in just over 12 months and have the market described by the appraiser I had as ” stable.” I woke up on morning and was upside down to that tune, I bought at the height of the bubble market and we are ALL paying the price for not knowing all about it!
Deborah wynn, on October 25, 2014 at 4:52 pm said:

And as the saying goes ” if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”
Deborah wynn, on October 25, 2014 at 4:49 pm said:

Rock I agree there.., attack the appraisals. It can’t be missed really how else was the bubble created, sure they may plead ignorance and criss claim. The bottom line is public duty and public and secondary market participants right- to rely on the appraisals, the responsibility is huge. Same in my job – public confidence and my duty to them is second to none.
Deborah wynn, on October 25, 2014 at 4:31 pm said:

So Charles I think we have slander of title and wrongful lien, well at the very least. Jmho. Not a lawyer.
Charles Reed, on October 25, 2014 at 4:24 pm said:

looneycookie it cool you called me the N-word as I suggested you were a H to the O. You should not start crap and you would not get crap. Now they way you feel about me is the way I feel about you and we can keep on going if you like. I don’t have to comment on your stuff and you don’t have to comment on my stuff!
mycookiejars, on October 25, 2014 at 3:44 pm said:

I know all about the settlements Charles, much more than you do, and long before you became the Biggest Loser. There is a name for people like you and its the equivlent of white trash. Dwight I suggest you follow the link Rock posted.
Charles Reed, on October 25, 2014 at 3:12 pm said:

Sloppy I meet women like you who were worthless and lucked up and married money, but you did what was best with what you had. But it not you that are out their fighting but your husband money since 2007 or 2008, so what is his money getting you right now? The reason you write here is there is no site for thieving estate sale people.

You don’t add anything to anybody but negative issue about crap you have no idea of what your saying.

Here the real deal that eating you up is that the issue that Neil writes this blog about is uncovering the crime of the financial crime, and as you see his thoughts revolving and the settlement of over $38 billion this year alone.

You, Gene & Rock are on the outside looking in, because those other two clown like you are not searching for the money so you cannot find it. I am giving the government a reason to collect on a debt they are owned and I believe it to be over $250 billion to collect as Sen Warren has written to the US Justice about our failure to collect this amount from the banks for illegal foreclosure.

You must not read the newspaper as to the settlements and were the information is coming from in Whistleblowers and not from some chick that paid attorneys over 8 years or so with nothing to show for it!
mycookiejars, on October 25, 2014 at 2:49 pm said:

Charles, were you dropped on your head as a child? You are so desperate to prove others wrong, Why? Oh right! If we are right your pipe dream would blow up into smoke. News Flash! You can make things up as you go, you can even convince yourself its true, but it doesn’t change the FACTS! FYI, I won long before you lost your house in 2011. You missed the bus, your chasing a pipe dream. Stop smoking cat nip and get a real life. Dwight, you know the old adage.. You Get What You Pay For.
Charles Reed, on October 25, 2014 at 2:48 pm said:

Here what occurred and that is your loan was originated by another lender and sold to WaMu as the Note indicates and WaMu endorsed the Note in blank and give it to Fannie Mae in a allege sell. Now come a filing by Wells Fargo in title, but only the owner of the debt can be in title as it is only reserved for the “holder in due course” and not some servicers.

Remember where the confusion come into play is that the large banks in Wells, JPMorgan, BOA & Citi are also mortgage servicers of there loans. There are banks and any bank that originate loans can service what they originated as you do have to farm this out.

Wells Fargo tricked the local land recorded by saying they were the holder of the Note and have MERS file the assignment, but the simple holder without owning the debt has no reason to be in title as they not lent any monies and are only holding the Note as the custodian.

Wells Fargo can do the paperwork to process thing but they cannot do it as the owner of the debt because they don’t own the debt. Don’t fall for the working for, because just as the attorney is working for, they are not working AS Wells of Fannie. Wells is saying that Fannie owns the loan so what stopping Fannie name from being the Plaintiff? Their representation is there in the Attorney and Wells who handled the servicing and have possession of the blank Note.

If it were legal that anybody that possess the blank Note to collect then Wells Fargo would not have to mention Fannie because Wells is in possession of the blank Note. Who is in possession of your Note? Wells Fargo is and that should show you that not anybody can foreclose or Wells would simply say that they are and that that!

Because Fannie involved I don’t know what the Federal Government empowered them with, but because it 7yrs since you started this, there got to be some issue going on. The main part is that WaMu endorsed that Note and they are dead so maybe there is a problem with even showing the fact that WaMu actually had proof of purchase. Maybe that were you attack this problem is that since WaMu dead and it alleged to have purchase the loan it need to be proven. What record is there showing monies exchanged hands from that first lender in the originator? Now your attacking the Note and its right to exist because the originator not in court and a party too, so this is why UCC 9 comes into play!
Deborah wynn, on October 25, 2014 at 2:37 pm said:

Reminder see http://www.sec.gov/answers/mortgage securities.htm
Says
” mortgage backed securities (MBS) are debt obligations that represent a claim to the cash flows from pools of mortgages, most commonly on residential property. Mortgage loans are purchased from banks, mortgage companies and other originators and then assembled into pools BY ( caps mine) a governmental, quasi- governmental, or private entity. The entity then issues securities that represent claims on the principle and interest payments made by borrowers on the loan in the pool, a process known as securitization”
In my motion I pointed out that therefore, with MBS there is actually no sale of real estate or purchase of real estate. It is backed only by mortgage securities.
A question ( well most certainly in my case being from that point of view I write being not an attorney) arises here because I have a trustee of a mortgage backed securities that is also representing itself as a buyer of real property. Trustees generally are not real owners of real property but simply control mortgage payments in its distribution to BENEFICIARIES.
lvent, on October 25, 2014 at 2:28 pm said:

There can be no second lender because the Original Contract was a fraudulently induced Contract. What that means in legal terms is the Original Contract never existed. What these traitors in the Senate, directed by the treasonists in Congress are really doing is, reconstituting non existent contracts that were never legally constructed. That is aka the Origination Fraud. As a result, there is Fraud in the Factum and therefore, there is fraud in essence of all of these so called Investment Securities. What that means for Wall Street is no less than catastrophic. The Board of Directors of CHASE/MORGAN STANLEY as well as all of their subsidiaries, intermediaries and the like such as those unregistered and unlicensed LLC’s (who are racketeering by operating unauthorized businesses solely to money launder fraudulent securities behind the guise of fraud closure)
never formed any legitimate Investment Accounts. They were drawing the funds they needed to keep their Ponzi Scheme going directly from our own private tax payer funded Central Bank,
the U.S. Treasury Department. That is not only criminal and involved multiple felonies being committed by our own elected officials but it was and is up to this very day an Act of high treason and an Act of War against We The People of these United States because we are a Constitutional Republic.
DwightNJ, on October 25, 2014 at 2:20 pm said:

Charles … yes, it is Wells Fargo who filed the complaint as plaintiff , the Assignment of Mortgage by MERS shows the mortgage being assigned to Wells Fargo ….. and yet Wells Fargo claims they are only holders of the note which is endorsed in blank by WaMu … Wells Fargo claims that Fannie Mae is the “investor” … Fannie Mae has our loan number listed on their website as “being one of theirs”.

Next question .. many servicers who do not own the note come forward as mere holders of the note and file the foreclosure complaint.

The judges are obsessed with the fact they have possession of the note in blank .. and these judges are convinced this is all that matters.

Other servicers don’t have to prove they “own the note” .. but I do see your point about the AOM and how do they get MERS to assign them into title? If Fannie truly owns the note and transfers it to a servicer to foreclose .. they also assign the mortgage right?

Does anyone really have to prove they paid for the loan? what if the originator simply sold it for a fee or a lesser amount to get away from the risk .. does the new owner have to pay full value for it ?

And does a court care ? I need to make the court want to care that some entity must be the valid owner of the debt ?

The court seems to be tunnel-visioned on the servicer holds the note.
Charles Reed, on October 25, 2014 at 1:52 pm said:

Hey Sloppycookiejar how are those 50 attorney’s your rich husband hired 100yrs ago to beat some little old estate attorney doing. Here we got some alleged rich chick writing here everyday fighting a attorney who job it is to handle some individual estate of let say a person of a net value of $1 million, and has yet to win, but she telling us about battling a Trillion Dollar corporation?

First if I or my spouse were worth $1.4 million I would not be here writing about some $140,000 loan, and the fact that my team of attorneys cannot win the 200yr battle!

Sloppy move out those people property and set yourself free, as it against the law to be a squatter.
Charles Reed, on October 25, 2014 at 1:42 pm said:

DwightNJ the mortgage follow the Note I would say is correct, however in your case it is Wells Fargo that has placed itself into that position and not Fannie if I am not mistaken in your case. If Wells Fargo is in title with an assignment from MERS the mortgage is invalid because only the “holder in due course” can be recorded in title! The mortgage which is the “security instrument” that the lender “holder in due course” uses to attach the debt to the property.

Now invalidating the mortgage does not eliminating the debt. If Fannie believes that they are owned this money, and they always been a quasi-government entity and now are fully in the possession of the Fed Gov, means you fight is with the Fed Gov.

You need to establish the error of the Note, which one is that it blank, however I not studied what powers are granted of Fannie to purchase these loan in the first place which until you understand that relationship, I don’t know what the agreement is.

What I said before to you that what the end game that you want to achieve? Because what you want to achieve make your argument. What I actually saying is I know what you want but in your present condition of being in the home, represent you not at current been damage.

Now who is it on the case that is bringing the foreclosure action? If if Wells Fargo then we know for a fact they cannot and it must be Fannie at this point as Wells did not purchase the debt from WaMu!
Deborah wynn, on October 25, 2014 at 1:10 pm said:

I used their paperwork and exhibits to show what Neil said:

If “they are alleging holder status, then for whom are they holding the paper? The issue of the paper being worthless comes from fact and logic. If they are not alleging HDC status they are admitting that something is missing”
Deborah wynn, on October 25, 2014 at 1:03 pm said:

I read ivent and it made me think of an advert from my childhood to sell chocolate and the caption was ” all because, the lady loves milk tray” any Brits on here will get it, but all I wanted was a home to build equity as my nest egg and some hope of retiring – not all this! Where’s the chocolate
Deborah wynn, on October 25, 2014 at 12:53 pm said:

So as Neil said:
The debt a rises from the receipt of the money but it does not arise as an asset to anyone other than the source of funds — or someone in privity with the source of funds. That doesn’t exist in virtually all alleged acquisitions of debt by “trusts.” ”

I asked the FDIC under FOIA the disposition of the assets sold, at time bankrupt party received it at time FDIC seized it and at time sold, also whether and when it was in a REMIC trust, at the time the bankrupt party received / assigned ( purportedly ” for value”) at the time of bankruptcy and at the time of selling to new debt collector. I did get admission from the FDIC that the buyer bought ” certain” assets one being ” servicing rights” now again ” this company is a debt collector”AnD per 1099a declare they are the lender. Problem here because there’s a bank NA in court in the mix posing as trustee for ALT a trust series 2007 ” for certificate holders” on the one hand and on the other a buyer of real property and a seller of real property thus going into court to remove my lis pendens – and were granted it.
mycookiejars, on October 25, 2014 at 12:46 pm said:

Ivent, your post at 1:06 a.m. Says a lot. Good for You!
DwightNJ, on October 25, 2014 at 12:21 pm said:

Charles … and on what grounds would I be arguing that the mortgage should be invalidated? How would I articulate that argument?

So even if the court agrees that Fannie Mae owns the debt, you say there could be a problem with them owning the mortgage and the right to collect the collateral ? Please explain a little bit more ..

Keep in mind, that most courts agree the mortgage follows the note.
mycookiejars, on October 25, 2014 at 12:17 pm said:

E-Tolle, She’s still in her home, can you say the same? Dwight, if you keep listening to Charles you will find yourself similairly situated. I’d like to talk to your wife! ROCK ON!
lvent, on October 25, 2014 at 12:16 pm said:

In regards to an Article 8 Investment Securities Contract, standing is remarkable for the directorate who are the Board of Directors of the U.S. Treasury Department. There is a statute of limitations regarding the power of the directorate. Standing is only remarkable from the time of the creation of the U.S. Government Securities Contract until the time the
Securities Contract expires and not
thereafter. These so called stock
certificates were never Secured
Contracts because they were in actuality, backed
by our Birth Certificates, our U.S.
Citizenship paper. That was agreed to by
traitors from within Congress and the Senate, directed by the head of the
U.N. who was Gorbachev at the
time. In other words, all of these
foreclosures were and are illegal because we are at war with our enemy on U.S. soil. This war is being waged upon the American people from inside of our own tax payer funded
courthouses and courtrooms.

Furthermore, the party claiming a legal right to foreclose upon you and take your property is more than likely
a Russian National pretending to be an American who works for the U.S. Treasury Department, the IRS or some other State run Agency. However, that is absolutely and unequivocably not the
case. These Attorneys who are representing unknown and unregistered businesses are in fact, war criminals who are not only in direct violation of the 5th Amendment Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitutuon but are in direct violation of the U.S. Articles of Confederation.
Because of their direct involvement in 9/11, the traitors from within violated the 42nd bylaw of the U.S. Constitution and destroyed it. As a result We The People of these United
States are governing ourselves under
the Original Articles of Confederation,
directed solely by the first Ten
Amendments of the U.S. Bill of Rights, the law of this land. That also means
that foreclosure can
only be considered an Act of War upon
the American people by the Russian
Republic. We The People are in fact at war with the Russians. Furthermore, We The People are all having our legal rights violated by being forced against our will to pay a mortgage to these human rights abusers and human rights violators. Any U.S. Citizen born here who are defending a foreclosure as a pro se defendant harbor
POW status under the 45th Protocol of the Geneva Accords.
Charles Reed, on October 25, 2014 at 11:25 am said:

DwightNJ here is my problem with Fannie & Freddie pooled deals is I more inclined to take Neil’s theory on this were the monies where first given to the lender to originate the loans. However what I find to be hard is getting the two agencies financial records and the bank foreclosing financial records.

What makes Fannie and Freddie so hard to me is that the deal is that it is the Fed Government’s money if you believe they fronted the monies to originate the loans, so at what point does the Fed Gov just take it in the shorts? You got Fannie Mae in your case actual claiming the own the loan.

Now I do see there problem with title because WaMu no longer with us, and I see no way the way the case is currently present that they can foreclose. However as Fannie is taken over completely by the Fed Gov means your fighting the Fed Gov for this asset and would involve blowing up as many as 56% of the mortgages currently in place.

I do see you winning on stopping the foreclose, however without being foreclosed, you need to get the mortgage invalidated to get permanent relief, but you can be assured if that happens there would appeal whatever.

Here what I see with the Fannie or Freddie cases already foreclosed is the fact that they were illegally foreclosed because it was brought by the wrong party claiming to be the “holder in due course” but his is brought by a separate entity other than Fannie or Freddie, and they cannot authorize the banks to commit crimes to collect a debt!
lvent, on October 25, 2014 at 11:23 am said:

Regarding that link that was 404ed. That description is the letter of law in regard to international sales of U.S. Government backed securities. There cannot be any future sales, swap or trade of any U.S. Taxpayer backed bonds or investments in the stocks that are issued unless all conditions of the original contractual Agreement are met. All of the conditions of the Securities Contract must be met upon the creation of the stock/bond certificate, not at the offerring which would be described in the prospectus but under all of the terms and conditions of the PSA Agreement. The PSA Agreement is the Letter of the Law regarding the way a stock/bond certificate becomes a stock /bond offering. The PSA is strict in regard to the creation of a stock/bond offering. The creation of the stock/bond offering, depends solely upon the instructions of the directorate, (the board of directors of the U.S. Treasury Department). Those instructions are firmly set out in the PSA Agreement.
The PSA Agreement, which follows
New York Trust Law, directs
the Trustee of the Trust precisely how
the Trust is to be set up in regards to a U.S. Government Backed Security Contract.
Charles Reed, on October 25, 2014 at 10:53 am said:

President Obama came out in Feb 2009 and said he was under the impression that the bankruptcy court could write down the principal of these loans. Obama was advised he was wrong and that the BK court did not handle 1st mortgage and that situation was outside of the courts scope and was handle through the bank.

Obama was right that in these cases the BK court could handle these cases, when it came to the Federal Government collecting the debt as full due process must be conducted as to not violate the US Constitution were there was an illegal seizure of citizen property by the government!

Ginnie Mae take possession of the blank Notes in accordance with the rules of the Ginnie MBS program that requires the relinquishing of the blank Notes in order to participate in the sell of the MBS. So what regulates blank Notes? Its UCC and charter 3 tell how the processing of these Notes are handled. Ginnie does not endorse the loans, and Ginnie does not purchase the loan or sell the loan as they are prevented from this activity as they are not a lender and are not authorized to purchase the debt and obligate the Fed Gov to this debt.

So as a non originator of the debt, Ginnie possesses that blank Note and is owner of the Note because they were freely given the Notes. Ginnie Mae cannot act on the blank Notes as they are not owned anything from the borrowers as they did not purchase the debt. There is no option for Ginnie to transfer the Notes legally as they cannot endorse a Note that not been endorsed to them. Ginnie uses this method because without light on the issue they simply return the blank Note to the originator and there no questioning the originator who is in possession of the Note in court.

However the fatal flaw in the program is that if the originator is not in possession of the blank Note the claimer of the debt must simply provide proof of sale according to UCC 9. Now what occurred in WaMu’s Ginnie issued MBS is we know for a fact that they are not in possession of the blank Notes because the bank was seized on Sept 25, 2008 and the FDIC declared it a “failed bank” and sold the bank’s assets on that day. The Ginnie MBS pooled loan were not assets of WaMu and were never claimed as assets during the BK of the bank.

So we know that form the Jul 31, 2006 mortgage servicing agreement that Wells Fargo started servicing 1.3 million most government insured loan of WaMu and took physical possession of the document as they purchase the building housing all the loan files. We now at least on this day there was a know transferring of the blank Notes by the custodian of records in Wells Fargo, who did not purchase the debt.

Now this call in question all Ginnie pooled loans currently in the securities, because the rule is that the blank Note without debt is relinquished to Ginnie. This exposes the transferring without purchasing the debt from bank to and back to without transferring of debt. So right now if we check all $1.4 trillion of loans their going to be all blank endorsed.

The loophole for most of these loans was to allow the bank to physically possess the blank notes as the custodian, so that physical possession never occurred, however the loan not held by the originator in correspondent lenders or other purchase loans then the loan was not originated by the bank must provide full due process and part of that is proof of purchase.

In the end Obama was talked down when he was right and this will be a point that going to be brought up after this election, because I believe the only reason at this point it cannot be brought up, is that it another embarrassment plus hurting citizens have a motive to go to the polls!
lvent, on October 25, 2014 at 10:51 am said:

Thank You for the support. My soon to be ex has sure put me through hell.
Rock, on October 25, 2014 at 10:48 am said:

Ian, doesn’t matter if the notes were deposited timely, the courts have rules so. Moreover, you say you have 3 attorneys who have ” handled over 1000 foreclosures;” well, I bet EVERY one of those homeowners lost their homes if those attorneys were making the types of stupid arguments regurgitated on this blog.

The ONLY methodology that works is attacking the mortgage transactions to include the appraisals:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/homeowners-receiving-multimillion-dollar-awards-155900638.html
DwightNJ, on October 25, 2014 at 10:15 am said:

Charles … read this link when you get a chance, and the readers posts in the comments section at the end too ..

http://libertyroadmedia.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/fannie-mae-by-its-own-admission-owns-nothing/
mycookiejars, on October 25, 2014 at 9:13 am said:

Hang In there Ivent, it will be over soon. You’ve always had a brilllant mind, just keep your emotions in tact. Im not who you think I am but that’s ok. Louise thinks I’m you, lol! Kathy
neidermeyer, on October 25, 2014 at 8:59 am said:

Ivent ,,

perhaps you meant http://www.uasc.net/en/global-bill-of-lading it’s an Arab shipping company site ,, seems to operate off US UCC rules in it’s contracts…
E. ToLLe, on October 25, 2014 at 8:49 am said:

DON’T ASK IT QUESTIONS!!!!

It has no governor. It spews its mind. It’s filled with deceit and venom. It’s a huge waste of time.
lvent, on October 25, 2014 at 1:54 am said:

The basic principle of omerta is that it is not “manly” to seek the aid of legally constituted authorities in order to settle personal grievances.

The suspicion of being a cascittuni (an informant) constituted the blackest mark against manhood. Each wronged individual had the obligation of looking out for his own interests by either avenging himself, or finding a patron – but not the state who will see to it that the job is done. Joe Valachi broke the omerta code in 1963. A more simplified definition of the code of omerta is: “Whoever appeals to the law against his fellowman is either a fool or a coward. Whoever can take care of himself without police protection is both. It is cowardly to betray an offender of justice, even though his offense be against yourself. It is dastardly and contempt able in a rounded man to betray the name of his assailant, because if he recovers, he must naturally expect to take vengeance himself. As a vendetta, (that goes all the way back to Adam and Eve), Sicilians use their wives as security for their debt.
lvent, on October 25, 2014 at 1:15 am said:

Hey, hey, my, my they 404ed that link. Try Google searching that link because it is a great read.
lvent, on October 25, 2014 at 1:09 am said:

When President Obama first took office he had a meeting with the heads of the Mortgage Bankers Ass. He reportedly told them that he was the only one standing between them and the pitchforks.
lvent, on October 25, 2014 at 1:06 am said:

The UCC was never followed from the issuance of the Original Bills of Credit. Therefore, we would need to request discovery of the Original Bill of Sale/ Bill of Lading as explained here …… http://www.usac.net/global-bill-of-lading. If they do not have the original receipt, and they don’t because they knew they were going to leave their cargo laying on the railroad then thereis a place called a prison. What they are really fraudulently concealing is these so called mortgages were fraudulently induced lease contracts as described in (810 ILCS 5/Article 2
A-201) Formation and Construction of
Lease Contract. In other words the Mortgage Bankers Association used the U.S. Citizenry and they should be held liable for the damage which was caused by the loss, reduction or damage to the goods since the acceptance for carriage was upon delivery to the purported trust aka the Destination station. The Mortgage Bankers Ass. are the duckers who caused the damage to the cargo by instructing their perps to let the goods rot on their railroad up in cyberspace.
lvent, on October 25, 2014 at 12:13 am said:

After all, Goldman Sachs does run the world now don’t they? Damned straight.
Charles Reed, on October 25, 2014 at 12:12 am said:

DwightNJ as you mention these rules go way back and so a rancher purchased 1,000 acres but did not want people to know, so he took the Note in blank and everything was cool because he had a bill of sale. This is what UCC 3 about and if the 1,000 acres is never sold or resection or whatever, nothing has to be recorded but there would be sale taxes and property taxes to be paid.

Now here is what UCC 9 covers, and that is the rancher could take the Note in blank and if in physical possession of was the owner of the Note. However if the rancher wanted to sale the 1,000 acres it needed to be recorded that there was a sale to him and now to who he is selling the 1,000 acres too!

I can see now how people are getting the two part confused because in the mortgage world, the Note is in blank and if the originator never physically relinquish the Note then they don’t have to verify that they are the owner of the debt because they originated the loan.

Now UCC3 says yes you can hold the Note in blank form if your not the originator because it was signed in blank by the originator, who has the right to grant possession of the Note. However if you want to act on the Note as the owner of the debt, then when asked you must be able to produce the a receipt of purchase. The point is simply do you have a financial interest it the debt!

DwightNJ because Fannie & Freddie are this different animal than Ginnie Mae who we know for a fact that they cannot and don’t purchase the loans. I am not any help in the fact I have not invested anytime trying to figure out these two agencies and what is there authority to actually purchase loans not being a lender. From working at the bank knowing we would sell loan to Fannie and they would transfer fund, so I not sure in every case how that was all done.
lvent, on October 25, 2014 at 12:06 am said:

Yeah they really love my peaches and want to shake my tree in corporate board rooms up on wall street.
lvent, on October 25, 2014 at 12:01 am said:

Did you know that I am an undercover agent who works for the Vatican proper and as a result I am involved in a Federal Government sting involving my ex was counterfeiting mortgage notes and over issuing investments in my securities without my knowledge or consent. He was committing fraud in the issuance of credit.
lvent, on October 24, 2014 at 11:56 pm said:

My ex is holding me for ransom in my own house that’s how I’m doing, shadowcat, as if you did not know that.
lvent, on October 24, 2014 at 11:54 pm said:

The real estate contract is the original receipt. And the wind whispers Mary. Right my cookie jars?
mycookiejars, on October 24, 2014 at 11:01 pm said:

Ivent (Stripes), how are things going for you? We haven’t heard from you in awhile.
DwightNJ, on October 24, 2014 at 10:09 pm said:

IVENT .. Explain what you mean by “the original receipts” never left our possession.

I’m new at trying to understand a lot of this, help break it down for me , thank you.

Tell me about the receipts and how you would present the argument for a dummy to understand.
lvent, on October 24, 2014 at 9:59 pm said:

Article 8 governs how an Investment Security is created. What came first the chicken or the egg is the real question. An investment security cannot by law, be created without good and valuable Consideration being paid by the Issuer of the original bill of credit to the U.S. Treasury Department. That obviously never occurred because the Original receipts never left our possession because We The People pay for everything upfront at the Origination. So that begs the question, what were they creating in those Corporate Board meetings they were having out on the golf course? They certainly were not creating U.S. taxpayer backed Securities because we have the original receipts and they never left our possession as well as the deeds to our properties. So, what exactly are these parties foreclosing on with no receipts? Our U.S. Citizenship, our Birth Certificates that’s what. That is not just criminal it is high treason by these politicians in Congress and the Senate who claim to be working in our best interest when nothing could be further from the truth.
lvent, on October 24, 2014 at 9:40 pm said:

Acceptance, Delivery and Consideration. Neither Acceptance. Delivery nor Consideration from another party can occur before good and valuable Consideration is exchanged with the Issuer who received the U.S. taxpayers money that was direct deposited into their Original Credit Account. The basics of Contract Law is the Original Contract must be paid in full for the Contract to be legally binding. The contract can only be made legal by some physical task being performed by the Issuer of the original bill of credit which is the bill of Sale that is the contract. In property law that would be the Real Estate Contract that “Joe the builder” gave you when you repurchased your own house. That real estate contract is also known as the bill of lading to which not the issuer nor the servicer nor their attorneys or some unregistered trust such as West End Trust could possibly have possession of because those paid receipts never left our possession. Which means even if the issuer or its subsidiary had a trust agreement it would be a fraud and those warranty deeds and the like are worthless pieces of paper. The deed is the plat of survey and that is what these crooks are hiding.
lvent, on October 24, 2014 at 9:38 pm said:

Acceptance, Delivery and Consideration. Neither Acceptance. Delivery nor Consideration from another party can occur before good and valuable Consideration is exchanged with the Issuer who received the U.S. taxpayers money that was direct deposited into their Original Credit Account. The basics of Contract Law is the Original Contract must be paid in full for the Contract to be legally binding. The contract can only be made legal by some physical task being performed by the Issuer of the original bill of credit which is the bill of Sale that is the contract. In property law that would be the Real Estate Contract that “Joe the builder” gave you when you repurchased your own house. That real estate contract is also known as the bill of lading to which not the issuer nor the servicer nor their attorneys or some unregistered trust such as West End Trust could possibly have possession of because those paid receipts never left our possession. Which means even if the issuer or its subsidiary had a trust agreement it would be a fraud.
DwightNJ, on October 24, 2014 at 8:53 pm said:

How Is a Mortgage Note Transferred Under Article 9 of the UCC?

The sale of mortgage notes is also governed, in significant part, by Article 9.

Article 9 establishes
(1) whether the interests of a transferee of a mortgage note have both “attached” and become “perfected” so
that those interests will prevail over conflicting claims of third parties

and

(2) the rights of the transferee in and
to the underlying mortgage that secures the mortgage note.

Article 9 addresses the sale of mortgage notes, regardless of whether they are negotiable or nonnegotiable.

More specifically, Article 9 applies to “a sale of . . . promissory notes.”

UCC § 9-109(a)(3). A “promissory note” is defined as “an instrument that evidences a promise to pay a monetary obligation, does
not evidence an order to pay, and does not contain an acknowledgment by a bank that the bank has received
for deposit a sum of money or funds.” UCC § 9-102(a)(65).

Given this broad definition, residential mortgage
notes in common use today are typically “promissory notes” for purposes of Article 9.

Under Article 9, the sale of a mortgage note (whether or not the mortgage note is negotiable) is deemed a secured transaction and the transferee’s “security interest” is automatically perfected when it attaches (more on “attachment” and “perfection” below).

See UCC § 9-309(4). While security interests are most commonly thought of as the liens obtained by lenders, the UCC defines the term “security interest” to also include “any interest of
a . . . buyer of . . . a promissory note in a transaction that is subject to Article 9.” UCC § 1-201(b)(35) (emphasis 13 Article 9 also applies to the creation of a lien on, or a “less-than-ownership security interest” in, a mortgage note.

Because most assignments and transfers of mortgage notes in loan securitizations are of the ownership of the mortgage notes, not a mere lien on or security interest in the notes, this paper addresses only outright sales of mortgage notes under Article 9.

The principles discussed below regarding attachment of a buyer’s interest in a sale of mortgage notes are identical to those that apply in the context of the creation of a lien on mortgage notes, and the principles regarding perfection of the interest in the mortgage notes are likewise very similar. “Although . . . Article [9] occasionally distinguishes between outright sales of receivables and sales that secure an obligation, neither . . . Article [9] nor the definition of “security interest” (Section 1-201(37)) delineates how a particular transaction is to be
classified. That issue is left to the courts.”

UCC § 9-109 cmt 4. Under Article 9, the term “instrument” is defined broadly as “a negotiable instrument or any other writing that evidences a right to the payment of a monetary obligation, is not itself a security agreement or lease, and is of a type that in ordinary course of business
is transferred by delivery with any necessary indorsement or assignment.”

UCC § 9-102(a)(47). In addition, the definition of “secured party” includes “a person to which . . . promissory notes have been
sold.”

UCC § 9-102(a)(72)(D). Before a buyer’s “security interest” in a mortgage note can be perfected under Article 9, the security
interest must “attach.” A security interest attaches when (1) value has been given for the sale, (2) the seller has rights in the mortgage note or the power to transfer rights in the mortgage note to the buyer and (3) either (a) the mortgage note is in the possession of the buyer pursuant to a security agreement of the seller or (b) the seller has signed a written or electronic security agreement that describes the mortgage note. See UCC § 9-203(b). Article 9 defines “security agreement” as “an agreement that creates or provides for a security interest,”

UCC § 9-102(a)(73), which, in the context of a mortgage loan securitization, would include an agreement pursuant to which mortgages and mortgage notes are sold and transferred from one entity to another. Such an agreement, normally a pooling and servicing agreement or trust agreement, typically will provide that the transfer of
the mortgage note pursuant thereto effects a sale of the mortgage note, which would thus, under Article 9, constitute a “security agreement.” Significantly, the attachment of a security interest in a mortgage note that is itself “secured by a security interest or other lien on personal or real property is also attachment of a security interest in the security interest, mortgage or other lien.” UCC § 9-203(g)

Similarly, under UCC § 9-308(e), perfection of a security interest in a promissory note “also perfects a security interest in a security interest, mortgage, or other lien on personal or real property securing the right.” UCC § 9-308(e) (emphasis added). In other words, perfection of a security interest (which includes a sale to a buyer) in a mortgage note pursuant to Article 9 also perfects a security interest in the mortgage that secures the note.

Perfection of the interest in the mortgage note is important because it provides the transferee of the mortgage note with a right in the mortgage note and mortgage superior to that of a subsequent lien creditor of the seller. And, perfection provides the transferee of the mortgage note with a right in the mortgage superior to that
of a subsequent lien creditor of the mortgagee, which includes a bankruptcy trustee (see UCC § 9-102(a)(52)). See
UCC § 9-308 cmt. 6.

Transfer of Mortgage Notes: Conclusion
In summary, under the UCC, the transfer of a mortgage note that is a negotiable instrument is most commonly effected by indorsing the note, which may be a blank or special indorsement, and delivering the
mortgage note to the transferee (or the agent acting on behalf of the transferee). As the residential mortgage notes in common usage typically are “negotiable instruments,” this is the most common method of transfer.
In addition, even without indorsement, the assignment can be effected by transferring possession under UCC § 3-203(a). Moreover, the sale of any mortgage note also effects the assignment and transfer of the mortgage under Article 9. The attachment and perfection of the buyer’s interest in the mortgage note attaches and perfects the buyer’s interest in the underlying mortgage that secures the mortgage note.

Securitization agreements often provide both for (a) the indorsement and transfer of possession to the trustee or the custodian for the trustee, which would constitute a negotiation of the mortgage note under Article 3 of the UCC and (b) an outright sale and assignment of the mortgage note. Thus, regardless of whether the mortgage notes in a securitization trust are deemed “negotiable” or “non-negotiable,” the securitization process generally includes a valid transfer of
the mortgage notes to the trustee in accordance with the explicit requirements of the UCC.3.

Assignment and Transfer of Ownership of Mortgages

As described above, when a mortgage loan is assigned and transferred as part of the securitization of the loan in the secondary market, both the mortgage note and the mortgage itself are typically sold, assigned, and physically transferred to the trustee that is acting on behalf of the MBS investors or to a trustee-designated document custodian pursuant to a custody agreement. The assignment and transfer are usually documented and performed in accordance with a pooling and servicing agreement.

What is the Relationship Between the Transfer of a Mortgage Note and the Transfer of Ownership of the Mortgage?

When a mortgage note is transferred in accordance with common mortgage loan securitization processes, the mortgage is also automatically transferred to the mortgage note transferee under the UCC and the general common law rule that “the mortgage follows the note.” See, e.g., Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 275 (1873) (“The transfer of the note carries with it the security, without any formal assignment or delivery, or even mention of the latter.”); Mortgage Elect. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Coakley, 41 A.D.3d 674, 674 (N.Y. App.
Div. 2d Dept. 2007) (“the mortgage . . . passed as an incident to the promissory note”); Restatement (Third) of Property, Mortgages § 5.4(a) (1997) (“A transfer of an obligation secured by a mortgage also transfers themortgage . . . . ”).

The rule that “the mortgage follows the note” has been codified in the UCC, but the rule’s common law origins date back hundreds of years, long before the creation of the UCC. As stated in the official comments
to UCC § 9-203(g), that section “codifies the common-law rule that a transfer of an obligation secured by a security interest or other lien on personal or real property also transfers the security interest or lien.” UCC §9-203 cmt. 9. All states follow this rule.
Charles Reed, on October 24, 2014 at 8:07 pm said:

OK we got Gene, Rock & this freaking sloppycookie nut who are here for our betterment to tells us to find these attorneys that don’t exist or are wanting us to plead guilty murders to crimes committed before we were born.

A person go to a store and wants to return a item but does not have a receipt and the store demand that you must prove that you purchased it. All these clown are saying that proof of ownership is not needed in foreclosing on a property that the allege lender is not on the face of the Note!

We got these in-betweens in servicers who are coming to court with a Note that got no name in the endorsement spot, that been endorsed by a bank that was shut down by the Federal Government and declared it a “failed bank”. So the bank no longer exist and cannot ever testify, yet another bank is in court claiming its the owner, when it know for a fact that the loans were relinquished to Ginnie Mae (FHA, VA, USDA) MBS as 95% of all government loans are. But we got these three clown talking about UCC 9 does not apply. I agree that UCC 9 does not apply if UCC 3 does not apply.

You got a Washington Mutual Bank that after the fact is grilled by congress because they ran such a bad ship and lost $308 billion dollars.

sloppycookie is here everyday with her sloppy self talking about her freaken lawyers for the last 7yrs over some property she probably stole from some blind kid that was worth $800,000 for $140,000 in there parent’s estate sale but the trustee (attorney) caught the theft and wants the $800,000 for the property and not the $140K of $180K the crooks are offering!

Sloppy 7 YEARS you been allowing your paid for attorneys to do what? If they were doing anything you would not be here running your sloppy mouth!
mycookiejars, on October 24, 2014 at 7:15 pm said:

Rock, that’s just the problem, they aren’t paying anyone. They want it all for Free!
Ian, on October 24, 2014 at 7:14 pm said:

Gene- as to whether or not the Notes were deposited into the trusts or not,
the assignments are all made years after the closing date/cutoff date. This isn’t allowed under NY trust law, and imposes a 100% tax on the investors in each REMIC.
The Va. AG was told by the IRS that “we (IRS) do not use the tax code to further social agendas”, which is of course untrue. So the IRS knows that there were no “2 true sales” of the notes before they were deposited into the trusts- because none of them were. I got 3 attorneys who have collectively handled over 1000 foreclosures and they have yet to see one ( 1) note which was legally deposited into any trust. Not assigned, which is an irrelevant procedure for a trust. That ain’t how trusts operate.
mycookiejars, on October 24, 2014 at 6:58 pm said:

Charie, Better a Clown than be a Dirty Minded Tuna Fish. Gene is right on Target! Thank You Gene!
Rock, on October 24, 2014 at 6:44 pm said:

Gene, Garfield makes tons of ludicrous claims, but this one takes the cake. At least you know what posted on this blog is utter nonsense, and not afraid to point it out.

BTW, trying to explain how things work, in the REAL world, to a bunch of legal illiterates and people scamming homeowners out of what money that have left is a waste of time.

I’ve posted case after case, proving these arguments are totally absurd, and what is the response back, the “judges are getting paid off.”

is there any doubt, the nut jobs are running the asylum.
Charles Reed, on October 24, 2014 at 6:12 pm said:

Gene here the argument and that is attorney are like you and think that its unreasonable if question how the requester of the debt became a party to the claim. UCC 9 says if challenged that the originator in possession of the Note does not have to provide proof of ownership and that because the originate it. Now this is how most lender are getting around blank Note issues, whoever if its not the originator all other must provide proof of purchase.

As these are state court matters without treble damage and a couple of last in their class attorney that no firm are trying to handle, what you get as far as legal advice from these clown is on the same level as the sex advice you received from your 13yr old buddies.

Now Gene must be on another planet as of late, as everyday another case is getting throw out of court because the lender pretender has not been able to prove that they have a claim to the debt.

Why would Gene waste his time monitoring this site when it mostly only a handful discussing ideas, and now of us are claiming to be an attorney? People are hired by the bank to act as if they are some knowledgeable people of the matter, but they only want discourage what they know coming down the pike!

I bet my life on the UCC 9, and no Gene or other clown going to change that!
Gene, on October 24, 2014 at 5:48 pm said:

Ricco, if you are underwater, the reason that the 2nd is making no attempt to foreclose is because if they do foreclose, they become responsible for the first mortgage. And the rest of what you write about NG’s beliefs and statements is generally wrong as well.

I see this stuff daily working with homeowners and have testified in State and Federal Court on this and I am 602 Certified.

FYI, Charles Reed is incorrect when he says that the Note must be endorsed in “specific”. UCC Article 3 is specific on this point and Article 9 does not override in most cases.

Here is a question to ask yourself. If the arguments presented here are correct, why are the Investor lawsuits not using those arguments? They have much more to lose (billions) and if the arguments were accurate, they could recover all their losses just by winning on the basis that the Trusts were unlawful.

Are their attorneys just that dumb? Do only the people here know what really went on? If the people here are so smart, why haven’t they won yet?

Just asking……
Gene, on October 24, 2014 at 5:33 pm said:

James Smith,

Good question. Many people here believe the 15-D to mean that the Trust is no longer in existence. But this is not necessarily true.

Under SEC filing rules, a 15d is used if the trust is terminated, or if certain requirements are met for not having to file 8ks, etc, When those requirements are met, then the 15d is filed.

To know whether the Trust is no longer in existence, you look at Bloomberg or other information providers to see if the payments are still going into the Trusts.

What causes Trusts to cease operating is when clean up calls occur. When a Trust has generally 10% of less of the loans or assets left, then a clean up call is made, and that means the servicer or other entity buys back the remaining loans, and the Trust is terminated.

Don’t believe any claim that the Trusts are all terminated, nor much of what you read here. Too much misinformation and theory is thrown out with no basis in fact.
James Smith, on October 24, 2014 at 2:44 pm said:

Can someone tell me what this type of filing means in laymans terms SEC 15d-6

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 15

CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12(G) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 OR SUSPENSION OF DUTY TO FILE REPORTS UNDER
SECTIONS 13 AND 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.

Commission File Number 333-122688-17
————————–

Residential Asset Securities Corporation, as depositor for RASC Series 2006-EMX1
Trust
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

8400 Normandale Lake Blvd., Suite 250,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437,
(952) 857-7000

(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of
registrant’s principal executive offices)

Home Equity Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-EMX1

(Title of each class of securities covered by this Form)

None

(Titles of all other classes of securities for which a duty to file reports
under section 13 (a) or 15(d) remains)

Please place an X in the box(es) to designate the appropriate rule
provision(s) relied upon to terminate or suspend the duty to file reports:

Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(i) |_| Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(i) |_|
Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(ii) |_| Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(ii) |_|
Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(i) |_| Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(i) |_|
Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(ii) |_| Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(ii) |_|
Rule 15d-6 |X|

Approximate number of holders of record as of the certification or notice
date: 3

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Residential Asset Securities Corporation, acting solely in its capacity as
depositor for the above-referenced Trust, has caused this certification/notice
to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned duly authorized person.

Date: January 11, 2007 By: /s/ Mark White
—————————— ——————————
Name: Mark White
Title: Vice President
The A Man, on October 24, 2014 at 2:33 pm said:

In California most of the homeowners are now above water. So who da deadbeats now? Taking away my due process WTF.

NEVER AGAIN
G-D BLESS AMERICA
Charles Reed, on October 24, 2014 at 12:45 pm said:

dandienert1, proof of who owns the loan and who does not is easy by just having the Note and if your not listed on the Note as the originator and are claiming a debt due, you need to be endorsed on the Note and and have proof of monies being exchanged in that purchase.

Ricco Pitts you wanted a modification of the original term in extending the years of the loan. Now 2nd mortgage are not going to try to foreclose on your property because they would have to payoff the 1st mortgage.

So the 2nd lender files a default of the loan and play the wait game to collect as maybe you hit the lotto, or maybe the sell the loan to another lender or the holder of the 1st mortgage holder because there is a HAMP type program for second mortgage started in May 2009 because they found that most 1st mortgages had a 2nd behind them, preventing the refi of the 1st.

What it sound like with you that is happening is if the 1st is current and the 2nd is not paying and there nothing they can do unless you paid off the first or the balance of the first was low enough that it would make since for the 2nd to foreclose and pay off the 1st and be able to get their monies back. So they might as well sell that loan or modify it to get revenue coming in because they got no other options until the 1st is small enough so that the 2nd can recoup its balance!
Poppy, on October 24, 2014 at 11:32 am said:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/10/23/3583350/ocwen-faked-documents-lawsky/

Check out Ocwen…anyone dealing with them
Ricco Pitts, on October 24, 2014 at 10:59 am said:

During my attempts to modify my second loan, the servicer kept saying the owner of the loan would not give them the legal right to make any changes in the terms of the loan. I was not asking for a write down only a longer term to repay. After trying for two years I gave up, stop making any payments, went into default. Well guess what? The servicer who had already told me they were not owner gets mers to assign ownership to them. They are now more than willing to work with me on terms. After researching and reading Neil’s words it is all becoming clear. Why would a owner of a loan refuse to modify so that the loan could go into default and they then get to sell it for nothing? Something is just not right about this picture. It has been almost two years since the assignment but servicer has not taken any legal action to collect. I don’t believe they will because they don’t want the truth to come out. They paid nothing for my loan because the so called owner never paid or loaned any money. Yes I did get money at closing, but who from? It was damn sure not any of the players in this ongoing con game. You can bet the judge is going to hear this if they take me to court. I wanted to pay my debt, but I will never be a party to this on going fraud.
dandiener1, on October 24, 2014 at 10:30 am said:

Mycookiejars,

Your two points are probably true and are a simple explanation of what actions (or inactions) created the mess we call Fraudclosure…

Now, move forward and let us know how to prove your points in a court of law.

Please do so and “tag” (as you logically chase down the truth,) each of the players.

Tell us which players have “delegated” their roles to legitimate “pinch hitters,” and if there are “people on the field” of play who are “illegitimate non-players” (“intelopers”) who pretend to the “referees” that they have a right to be in the game, rather than their more accurate role as an onlooker.

Have they simply “insinuated” themselves into the ballpark by bluffing or presenting counterfeit tickets at the admission gate?

Are all the right (“authorized”) “referees” on the field? …Are these “referees” the multiple “controlled regulators”? Are there multiple “umpires” (judges)? Who wrote the “rules of play,” Wall Street investment banks, or professors of contract law?

All this drama just to sort out what was supposed to be a “simple” financial transaction between two parties, a homeowner and a lender?

(Which of the two principals involved “invited” all these other “players” to participate?)

It seems to me that no “legitimate authority” is assuming the responsibility of “identifying” who has a right to be on the “field of play”…and ejecting usurpers who did not *pay* (HIDC) for a “non-counterfeit ticket” to enter the ballpark.

Please prove your points, sir (or madame)! Someone needs to.

..Or maybe the “players” need to just acknowledge they were not prepared to “play the game” when they showed up at the closing table, walk off the field, and go back to their respective “homes.”
mycookiejars, on October 24, 2014 at 9:26 am said:

The affidavit is from a party without personal knowledge, hear say is not admissable evidence. Object and request discovery.
mycookiejars, on October 24, 2014 at 9:21 am said:

The investors got the mortgages but not the notes. And the assignor of the mortgage had no authorization from the investors to assgn the mortgage.
DwightNJ, on October 24, 2014 at 9:18 am said:

How do we defend against the “affidavit” they throw in front of the Judges facehttp://libertyroadmedia.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/fannie-mae-by-its-own-admission-owns-nothing/