ARE YOU A VICTIM OF MORTGAGE FRAUD?

What happened to those “lost notes?”

Posted on October 9, 2014 by Neil Garfield

Prior commitments prevent me hosting the radio show tonight. To our Jewish friends, we celebrate the festival of sukhot.

But as an introduction to topics coming up on this blog, we ask some questions about so-called “lost” notes. We have been hearing reports that the banks are admitting what Katherine Ann Porter told us 7 years ago — they regularly shredded the original note. Why would you shred the equivalent of cash unless you were hiding something and doing something wrong?

By institutionalizing the practice of shredding they diminished expectations of seeing the original. This is what enabled the banks to see the same loan papers (without the debt) to multiple third parties. “Losing the note” was the means to an end— getting $10 for every dollar of actual debt.

Where was the note?
Describe the people and process of recovering it!
Who lost it?
Who found it?
Where was it?
How was it found?

Filed under: foreclosure

« Motion to Compel Discovery: General Template I am Using Foreclosure News in Review »

44 Responses

michael keane, on October 13, 2014 at 4:56 pm said:

I encourage everyone to read, “The Web Of Debt”, by Ellen Hodgson Brown. The good news is, you don’t have to be an economics or history major to follow the material.

Our country has been here before. During the Civil War, Lincoln created the “greenback” in a successful bid to thwart the English banking system and their dual weapons of “free trade” as predicated upon a “gold standard”.

After Antietam, I think it was, Lincoln realized he needed so many millions of dollars for the union to prevail; the English bankers were willing to lend it at 40% interest. Lincoln told them to go away.

He next elevated the coupons that were issued to speak for so many ounces of silver or gold (certificates) to the status of having value, in-and-of themselves (greenbacks).

The world has no choice. If a medium of exchange must exist, it must either pin to commodity (precious metals- gold for example), or Fiat (currency created through the French notion of “let it be”, or, maybe that’s the Beatles, possibly, instead, “so be it”), money created out of thin air.

There is nothing wrong with money created out of thin air provided the interest attached to it is returned into public coffers as opposed to private pockets.

The Fed needs to go away.

The current manifestation conspires to enrich the few at the expense of the many. The notes to our houses are a case in point.

Certainly they underpin our self-worth and in many instances they represent a precious commodity. The sad truth is they are being manipulated by the lawless filth from Wall Street and the bankers who are also manipulating the courts and court employees through the retirement plans tied to their counterfeiting and corrupt interests.

It is past time We The People renounced the English banking system and re-established the “greenback” while repudiating the counterfeit debt and re-create the central bank as a public utility that enriches the center as opposed to the minority at top
Harry, on October 13, 2014 at 9:03 am said:

LOL that’s correct
Harry, on October 13, 2014 at 8:59 am said:

Funny you mention that. You want to see how much folks know about this? Give them a choice, currency or a gold or silver coin. They will take the currency and chances are (those who don’t know any better) will tell you that the gold coin/silver coin are worthless. On another note, that somebody buying the metals……..look no further than China, India, Russia. China told its citizens about four years ago to start buying silver……coins, bars, in whatever form they wish.
Deborah wynn, on October 12, 2014 at 6:27 pm said:

Harry said
“since no one will ever audit the FED, the MBS on their books will sit there and rot with no place to go. Funny how the FED has stated they they will keep them to maturity…”

What’s to ” mature” thin air . Will they try to make it stick- like they have so far that these deeds of trust that were converted and sold forward as something else and those worthless certificates were supposed to be mortgage bs Jed – assuming backed by a viable mortgage Qualified to actually be in the securitization pool – it wasn’t a mortgage it did not meet the fannie and Freddie or ginniemae guidelines the appraisals were inflated and the market was hostile. We now know why so … Mature away.
louise, on October 12, 2014 at 6:14 pm said:

Harry, you know the Fed is FOS. All of these MBS and even our currency is all BS. Paper krap not worth a dime. Somebody better start buying gold to back our worthless paper.
Harry, on October 12, 2014 at 2:48 pm said:

The buying of (debt monetization) all these MBS that Bernanke did for months ( please recall 40 billion a month of Treasuries purchased and 45 billion a month of MBS ) was for one reason only: to remove all the worthless MBS from the public. Also, recall that CONgress has tried to audit the FED and it has not and will not ever happen AND since no one will ever audit the FED, the MBS on their books will sit there and rot with no place to go. Funny how the FED has stated they they will keep them to maturity………yeah right!
Poppy, on October 12, 2014 at 12:41 pm said:

Just a thought in here: It is my idea they took the notes in blank and saved them on CD…shredded the originals, filled in blanks; at will for whatever purpose needed. What you are seeing are “counterfeits” …selling over and over, as they need to alter this paperwork for whatever purpose. Their is no other way they could do it, IMO

Mike: As for New Century/Ocwen: these notes and DOT are showing up with attorney in fact, assigned to New Century as owners, years later. A scary proposition. I have a claim and AP against them in Delaware…so, I have the goods. Can they be borrowing on your old note? And could this come back on you later?
louise, on October 12, 2014 at 12:22 pm said:

Mike, I think they do not return the notes because they have been shredded, and they are still selling them on the open market.
louise, on October 12, 2014 at 12:20 pm said:

Harry, you are right. Many people are in the know and will not risk their own pension for their old age. See http://www.treasurer.sc.gov/media-center/treasurer-loftis-statement-at-may-23-retirement-system-investment-commission-meeting/ Settled in a lawsuit state treasurer brought in the pension plan for the judges, court clerks etc. against Bank of NYMellon for investing in bad mortgage backed securities. Can you say conflict of interest?
louise, on October 12, 2014 at 12:07 pm said:

Thank you and thank you for some of your posts about Fannie & Freddie I just put that into my opening statements.
mycookiejars, on October 12, 2014 at 12:06 am said:

Nope, I won’t Wish Louise Luck until she apoligizes. I’m not Stripes! Tic Toc, Tic Toc, they ran up the clock ( S0L).
mycookiejars, on October 11, 2014 at 11:58 pm said:

Attack the Mortgage/Security Intrument.
mycookiejars, on October 11, 2014 at 11:45 pm said:

Trust me on this one, you can not have a note and a security that supposedly has the collateral (note). Harry. The plaintiffs note. . . . As one half of the estate.
Harry, on October 11, 2014 at 11:34 pm said:

FNMA and FHLMC (Freddie Mac) are NOT owners or purchasers of notes. Folks, you need to absorb this! They were at one time publically traded companies that went bankrupt. The government now backstops loans that have defaulted and guarantee payoffs. So the question arises, if the loan is paid off then why is the bank, pretender lender, still collecting payments? The answer: they are pocketing the money. This should BOIL your blood.
Mike Hansen, on October 11, 2014 at 10:08 pm said:

Back in ’74, I took out my first mortgage in NY. I paid it off 7
years later and the original Note was returned to me, blue ink, ridge
marks and all. It had about seven endorsements on it to various banks
and then back to the original bank.
I next took out a mortgage in Florida in ’92 and paid it off in ’03.
BOA returned the original Note.
Then I took out a mortgage with New Century in ’04 and paid it off
in ’08. They never returned the original Note. When I asked for it, Ocwen said it was lost. Apparently losing Notes is all part of the Ponzi
scheme. They don’t want to get caught with a counterfeit!
Harry, on October 11, 2014 at 8:53 pm said:

Louise good luck with your court case on monday
Harry, on October 11, 2014 at 8:27 pm said:

I do know about securitization and studied them……I sold (MBS) them. Trust me on this one, you can not have both a note and a security that supposedly has the collateral (note). No note in MBS = No value. As some of you here have noted and I may add, I went as far as doing what Harry Marcopolis did and never received a response. Utterly amazing and beyond believe how many agencies are in the know and perhaps told not to respond or get involved with the complaintant, as it would trigger acknowledgement and then have the backing from said agencies in writing. With all my letter writing, I did receive a response and apology for the delayed response from none other than the Comptroller of the Currency. They stated in writing to me that I do have a factual and contractual complaint regarding the snake pretender lender I have. However, they do not and will not advise or give legal opinion on such matters. That I should get an attorney. Well, good luck with that, I said to myself. Trying to find an attorney who truly and honestly will do his utmost to pursue the case is worse than finding a needle in a haystack. There might be exceptions to my comment here. However for the most part,it is taking case after case, collecting retainer fees and milking the client is what I have found to be the norm. As far as judges being ignorant, I have to agree. However, there exist a conflict of interest also because a lot of pensions for public civil servants have massive amounts of MBS in their portfolios. I have personally seen it in California CALSTERS and CALPERS ( public record ). Because of this, many civil public servants have been told that they might have to work longer before retirement or contribute to their pension because they see a shortfall.
johngault, on October 11, 2014 at 4:01 pm said:

If the notes were shredded for the reason some of you believe, someone made a choice for the American people (and no doubt globally) as to whom was going to be the loser(s) on losses incurred by one group’s poor business plan if not criminal activity. Apparently, then, it was the back-bone middle class making this country what it was that was chosen to bear the brunt. If a note becomes not a note by any other name or fashion.
it’s little wonder, none in fact, that agencies like FNMA guaranteed payment: without the note, there’s no way to enforce the debt. Nice of FNMA, a quasi-governmental agency, to take on this guarantee which would ultimately be honored by American’s labor and their dollars or by printing money. I don’t see how to look at this any differently – that a choice was made and who would lose. As to judges, hard to glean what they think or know. I refuse to believe they’re all corrupt. More likely ignorant. Having said that fwiw, I can readily acknowledge they yet have a bent: “you signed a note and you’re not getting a free house on my watch”. I truly think many don’t know they’re handing out free houses – just to someone else. I studied this stuff incessantly, as did many readers. Still, I wasn’t able to find in any legal arena at my disposal any real facts or support for the proposition that the notes
and the securities couldn’t co-exist. I maybe got there logically mol along the way, but that isn’t proof. Spent too much time on case law instead of on the facts of securitization. But who among us would
actually want to delve into that, knowing it would be an unpaid career? You might as well be in school and get the degree. Dwight is right imo about many attorneys. They don’t want to do it, either. Dwight is right about something else, too. After x amt of years of this, If he can’t tell if the party suing him is the proper party, than neither can the court.
There are contract principles involved here that aren’t being touched and I don’t know their names, other than to blanket them with
“third party liability” and to posit that any third party liable must be joined to any lawsuit or action. The UCC, at least article III as applicable, says a party in possession of a note endorsed in blank may enforce (but, again for me, the UCC isn’t the only consideration with THESE notes which generally require “security first”. When there’s security first, there’s no such thing as enforcing a note without the coll instrument). But even that imo conflicts with FRCP 17 which mandates that the party bringing suit must be the party who will suffer the loss
of non-payment or non-performance.
But if there’s no longer a note because its existence makes it a securities fraud, then any actor who comes forward with one is just that: an actor, a bad one, and it stands to reason, doesn’t it, that
to present such a note is the continuation of securities fraud and a host of counter-claims.
Back to fnma, briefly. I somewhat recall reading that FNMA pretty much had unlimited resources in the form of cheap, below-market borrowing. FNMA didn’t need to sell its loans. There was no good reason for FNMA to get hooked up with this mess and MERS other than the greed of mucks at the top and Lord knows what kind of persuasion. It’s any number of adjectives (heinous, unimaginable,
horrendous, sinful, shameful, disgusting, disheartening) that so many Americans have lost their homes to debauchary. Unfortunately, unbelieveable is no longer in that list.
DwightNJ, on October 11, 2014 at 12:57 pm said:

Also I’ve followed Neil G’s strategy of denying everything and not admitting to any default. I have denied that any valid, complete or legal transaction ever occurred during the alleged origination of this alleged loan. This is supposed to place the burden of proof back on the plaintiff, it is their burden to prove the allegations in their complaint.

So my two-pronged strategy will be directed at (1) the origination was never a valid contract, and (2) Charles strategy where we argue that Wells Fargo is not the real party of interest, due to it being unable to show by what authority they can enforce the mortgage. Charles says that WF needs to show proof of how Fannie Mae came to own the debt, since Wells Fargo admits they are acting on behalf of FNMA.
The Note being utilized also raises issues of material fact due to the inconsistencies and contradictions shown in past certified exhibits and proofs, one note with no stamp from Wamu , another Note with a stamp but long after WaMu was out of business. Along with the recent discovery of the Wells Fargo Handbook on fabricating notes in order to foreclose , it raises important issues of possible fraud.

So I don’t think I’m in as bad a shape as Bob G. contends I am.

As a Pro Se , I’m doing a better job than most attorneys would have done at this point. Now I have to decide how to argue these issues in court during the trial. What questions to include in discovery/interogs and I need to learn if and when I can subpoena anyone for depositions.
DwightNJ, on October 11, 2014 at 12:25 pm said:

My affirmative defenses that survived and still alive are ….

1) Complaint fails to state a cause of action

2) Damages claimed by plaintiff were caused, if any were in fact even sustained, by acts or omissions of others, including plaintiff.

3) No valid contract ever existed in accordance with the terms set forth in the complaint.

4) Defendant alleges that any wrong that may have been done to plaintiffs was a direct and/or proximate result of plaintiffs carelessness, recklessness and/or negligent conduct and as such should be precluded from any kind of recovery.

5) Plaintiff should be estopped from asserting any claim of any kind against defendant.

6) The complaint is procedurally flawed because plaintiff ignored the requirement to attach all necessary documents to the Complaint according to the Rules Governing the Courts of the Sate of NJ and case law. (no Note, Mortgage, Assignments, Chain of Title were included and attached to the Complaint) and without these documents it is impossible for defendants to know if the party currently doing the suing is the proper party to be bringing the suit. thus, these are necessary documents that must be included for the Complaint to be considered complete and ripe for proceeding.

7) Plaintiff did not abide by N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(b) when it did not give an adequate description of the default in the notice of intent. Plaintiff also failed to provide the mandated contact information to communicate with about the alleged default. The notice also failed to allow for the thirty days for a response before the filing of a Foreclosure Complaint.

8) The absence of a proper and complete chain of title, with appropriate assignments, requires dismissal of the action, pursuant to New Jersey Rule 4:64-(1)(a)(1). By reason of failure of assignments, proof of ownership and title to the mortgage and note, the action must be dismissed.

………………………………………………………………………………………………

So that represents the few morsels and crumbs the Judge allowed for me to proceed to trial over the issue of standing.

#3 – No valid contract ever existed ? gives me a little daylight on the table funded origination and the assumption & assignment to WaMu who probably sold it into MBS .. as Charles says, they are going to have trouble fixing the broken chain of title with WaMu being the last known owner of the note . WF has stated that they do not own the note and that Fannie Mae is the investor.
DwightNJ, on October 11, 2014 at 11:50 am said:

Bob G. ,

Let me begin by pointing out to you that your own misguided views on the problems with foreclosure defense are apparent when you state that the problem lays with the homeowners not hiring “competent legal counsel” , that statement alone shows your lack of understanding to the challenges homeowners are facing, because there is no legal counsel in the foreclosure defense arena that could be described as “competent”, besides the few handful scattered around the nation.
I have attempted to hire legal counsel only to find out that they knew less than myself about true foreclosure defense. They are basically glorified clerical workers who only want to help you file bankruptcy or help you negotiate for a mortgage modification, and that’s it. None that I have met know anything about true defense strategies, nor have any of them shown any desire to even tread into that realm. For the most part they are spineless, incompetent cowards who are only trying to profit off of the foreclosure crisis, they are not in it to win it.

Your 2nd mistake is in your lack of understanding that the problem lays with the corrupt/incompetent Judges who are disregarding the laws. You want to lay the blame on me the homeowner, when it’s the Judges who are to blame for turning a blind eye to the criminal conduct of the banks and institutions who created this Ponzi Scheme. How can the Attorney Generals of the States all understand the criminal conduct and have already collected from the settlements in order to prevent them from prosecuting, and yet the Judges proceed to act as if they are unaware of the criminal acts which led to these settlements?
So for you to try to ridicule me and humiliate me for “being in over my head” only shows how misguided your own views are on the issue. True justice and integrity in this system does not even exist. The fact that I as a Pro Se homeowner has had 7 years of success in fighting off Wells Fargo’s best attorneys (not their FC mills) the lawyers that they substituted in for the FC mill lawyers, and have defeated them with my arguments forcing them to vacate a final judgment and vacate the sheriffs sale and dismiss the complaint , I think I deserve a little more respect from you for having accomplished that much. What are your victories? How many cases have you won? Your the one trying to tell me to claim that I now hold the note because I have a copy true? So where is all of your brilliance in this fight that makes you feel as if you can ridicule me ?

And yes, the Judge did dismiss most of my affirmative defenses and my counterclaims with prejudice ,due mostly to statute of limitations barring them. The plaintiff argued that any and all of my defenses regarding the origination of the loan and its validity should be dismissed with prejudice because the statute of limitations has run out on challenging the 2004 refinance loan originated by Commerce Bank.
Bob G., on October 11, 2014 at 6:44 am said:

First rookie mistake…35 affirmative defenses. No such thing. A federal judge might sanction you for such nonsense, pro se or not. An affirm defense says to the plaintiff “yes, what you allege may be true, but you still lose because statute of lims expired” or some other valid reason.

“You think” he might have dismissed your counterclaims? Dwight, with all due respect, I think that you’re in over your head with this one. I’d either get competent legal counsel to assist you or find alternative living quarters.
johngault, on October 10, 2014 at 9:32 pm said:

Why wouldn’t they shred notes since payments were guaranteed or
were the subject of a suretyship by a third party (who, theoretically at least, would’ve gotten a certified copy of the note)? They probably only need an original note to go after the maker as they pretend the suretyship / guarantee doesn’t exist. I don’t mean to say this is the only reason they shredded notes (nor do I personally have any proof they did), but if they did shred notes, it certainly wasn’t for consumer-friendly reasons. And, my bet is it’s unlawful not to disclose a suretyship /
guarantee in the first place. To me, that disclosure goes beyond
doing so, giving the borrower / other party to a contract a real defense (if, as i believe, it IS a real defense). In other words, It’s such an important bit of info, that withholding it should rise to unlawful if not
illegal and an abuse of process. A more knowledgeable and sophisticated party can’t withhold / use knowledge it has relevant to the heart of a dispute to undermine the lesser sophisticated party’s
rights and due process. That may not always be true, but my money’s on it’s true here (and whether or not it’s wrong not to disclose the suretyship / guarantee doesn’t speak to the fact that one exists). But, they may try to rely on multiple transfers of a note to disavow any knowledge of the suretyship / guarantee (AS IF, – and which S or G surely follows the note) As I recall, FNMA (for instance) had to make 4 payments before it could repurchase the note (or bonds?) to end its guarantee. So if FNMA is honoring its guarantee, FNMA should be the foreclosing party – or – the coll instument if not the note also should at least show a trail thru FNMA. FNMA’s free to cut a deal with another, party but they can’t sell what they don’t own. I suppose fnma could sell its right to repurchase and foreclose, but no one would buy out a 500k contract worth 300k unless there is subinsurance they’d benefit from. The sub-prime gang probably did something similar to FNMA’s guarantee. FNMA, far as I can tell, made the guarantee to sell more
certificates.
If there’s a third party to a contract, imo the borrower has an absolute
need to know clearance and no court can make a legitimate ruling
without that knowledge.
Harry at 2:23 – right on and left off.
DwightNJ, on October 10, 2014 at 8:23 pm said:

I will subpoena everybody on this message board including NG and my cousin Vinny from North Jersey
louise, on October 10, 2014 at 5:29 pm said:

Harry, unfortunately CA is a nonjudicial state. You can learn a lot by going to the Clerk of Court’s office in your county. I have a trial on Mon. where I represent myself. Should be interesting. If I lose, I will appeal. I also have lots of allegations. This is not a FC action, breach of contract, bad faith, negligence, gross negligence, QT, declaratory judgment. Maybe I will win on one.
DwightNJ, on October 10, 2014 at 5:11 pm said:

Bob G.,

I am Pro Se … the Wells Fargo lawyers already Motioned to Dismiss my affirmative defenses and counterclaims .. the Judge allowed for the dismissal of most affirmative defenses, 25 of my 33 dismissed, and I think he also dismissed my counterclaims, my head was spinning as he destroyed my defenses … but he said that basically he would allow the case to proceed on the issue of standing.

In the old case from 2010-11 .. after I pointed out that the note that was shown in their certification as exhibit 1 , was missing stamped endorsement from WaMu .. the Judge allowed them 3 months to go get the note and bring it back to court, when they did, the note then had the stamp in blank added to it .. the Judge had the clerk make a copy of that “original note” and had her give me a copy and the original back to the WF attorney .. So under your theory, I should now argue that the note the clerk gave to me was in fact the original, and the note given back to the WF attorney was the copy?

It’s all part of the official record on tape , how would they prove who ended up with the copy? Or is that not a proper transfer?
neidermeyer, on October 10, 2014 at 5:05 pm said:

@ Bob G.

******************************
If the Fed purchased $1.5 trillion in MBS, wouldn’t they also have insisted on getting the original promissory notes? What good are the MBS if they’re not securitized by the homeowners’ collateral?
******************************

“The Fed” is a private bank that has as it’s main purpose to steal from the people in the form of inflation and make their member banks wealthy… “The Fed” bailed out AIG to backstop their own member banks … “The Fed” prints money by the $Trillions in the form of debt it places on our backs… “The Fed” is fully supported by the SOB’s in our government that ejaculate at the thought of spending UNLIMITED amounts of money courtesy of their masters at “The Fed” … it is their source of power and power is their heroin.

Simply put … they don’t care because it’s you that will pay in the end… They only care about prolonging “the game” … and it’s coming to an end … Europe has just gone “Japan” with negative bond rates…
Harry, on October 10, 2014 at 2:27 pm said:

louise, I am in CA.
Harry, on October 10, 2014 at 2:23 pm said:

The reason the Fed has been buying MBS is because they are all worthless and must be taken off the books. Remember the words: TOXIC DEBT that was floating a while back? The banks were marking them to market. Well, there was no market and they were marked to fantasy.
louise, on October 10, 2014 at 2:22 pm said:

Harry, in my state you can get a subpoena by serving the letter, request , subpoena on a party after a judge in our county has signed the request which should be in pleading format. You will have to file a suit. I know it is a pain in the Ass, but that is how I got a depo by written question served on custodian of records. Go to clerk of court in your county and ask them. I am very interested in your results.
Harry, on October 10, 2014 at 2:16 pm said:

Folks often ask me how I constantly harass WF. ” Aren’t you afraid they might retaliate?” they often tell me. All I can say the people running WF and the other big financial institutions are full of idiots and beyond incompetent dumba$$es trying to convince you otherwise. Only if one is ignorant of what has been going on, can these criminals take advantage of you. I have letters from these losers contradicting themselves many times over. I too have addressed them with QWR ( three times ) and have always reieved the same response,” Your questions are too broad and general, if you want information you need to subpoena us”. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. I have however, invested 100’s if not 1000’s of hours studying and researching this subject matter. It has become my passion since 2009.
Bob G., on October 10, 2014 at 2:07 pm said:

i would amend your Answer to include what i suggested below. Also, you need to throw in counterclaims so that they can’t voluntarily dismiss again. i take it that you’re doing this pro se, and that you intend to try the case yourself?

Is there any equity in the house that you’re trying to preserve?
DwightNJ, on October 10, 2014 at 2:00 pm said:

Bob G. ,

Very good .. during my first foreclosure case WF eventually produced a note in court which suddenly had the stamp in blank added to it .. when I objected to it the Judge asked why, I said it was probably just a copy of the real note from the original computer files and that they simply printed it out and added a bogus stamp in blank from WaMu, which by that time in 2010 was long out of business.

The note they had been showing in their certifications prior to this was the copy of the note that was missing the endorsement from WaMu.

Only after I raised the issue of the missing stamp did they then go fabricate one with a stamp … its an inconsistency that I demanded needed to be explored. That’s when the Judge agreed with me and ordered a plenary hearing to explore what had taken place. At that point it had taken a year of adjournments and substitutions of lawyers by Wells Fargo .. in Nov of 2011 , a year after the fact, Wells Fargo asked for the case to be Dismissed and the Judgment Vacated, only two days before the scheduled plenary hearing.

Now here we are in 2014 with the same law firm for WF attempting to foreclose again…with the same issues of material fact.

The Wells Fargo replies to my QWR recently showed the note that was missing the bogus stamp from WaMu . They showed it in their reply to my QWR as proof that they are in possession of the note.. but they again screwed up and showed the copy that was missing the stamp.

So I am in discovery phase now, until the 22nd … do I still have the right to amend my answer and add what you said? That they do not have possession of the note ? or is it too late? The Judge is allowing this to go to trial to address the issue of “Standing” he said .. but he dismissed most of my defenses. My main answer stated that I deny everything , I deny that the original loan that they speak of was ever a legal, valid or completed transaction.

They are relying on winning the case as “holders” with the right to enforce. FNMA is the investor. The last known owner was WaMu, who had it stamped and endorsed to them by my originator Commerce Bank at the closing. “Pay to the order of WaMu” .. WF became the servicer years later in 2007 ..

So this battle over the note in my case is everything. The entire outcome will hinge on this note .. especially if the Judge refuses to consider my argument that no valid loan ever took place at the origination. And Charles argument that says Wells Fargo and FNMA are not the real parties in interest because neither of them can show proof of a receipt that they purchased this loan. But if the Judge rejects those arguments by me .. it will boil down to the note and I need to argue that it is only a copy of a note, they altered the copy by adding a bogus stamp … their own records conflict .. they show one note without a stamp … and a note that the mills have been given have a note.

The inconsistency should allow for deeper discovery. I have not even sent my discovery interogs yet .. any suggestions on questions I should ask them ?

Should I try to amend my answer? Or just raise these issues during the trial on standing?
Bob G., on October 10, 2014 at 12:37 pm said:

@DwightNJ

First of all, you have to challenge the authenticity of the signature on the note. You deny it’s your signature. That’s a rebuttable presumption, but the burden of rebutting now falls on the plaintiff.

Now here’s something that i just came up with and plan on taking for a test drive. (This assumes that the plaintiff has proffered a photo copy of the note indorsed in blank along with a photocopy of the mortgage.)

In the defendant’s Answer, the defendant denies that the plaintiff is the holder of the note and mortgage. Then, in the def’s affirmative defenses, the def claims that the def is the holder and owner of the note and mortgage. (maybe even a HDC…i’ll have to think about that.)

So now the bankster howls and says “ok, prove it.” the judge will agree. So the defendant now whips out the photocopy of the note that he was served with in the bankster’s Complaint. It’s indorsed in blank. he has a photocopy and the plaintiff has a photocopy. and it was the plaintiff that transfered the note to the defendant, and intended to do so.

So now you have a Mexican Standoff. And now the guy that is gonna win is the guy who can prove up the actual consideration money trail. And since the mortgage follows the note, the def just got the note along with the mortgage, and the bogus mortgage assignment to the bankster isn’t worth a damn, because the note was delivered to the defendant after it was received by the bankster plaintiff.

Now the court is forced to have SOMEBODY prove up the money trail.

And here’s another question that no one seems to be asking: If the Fed purchased $1.5 trillion in MBS, wouldn’t they also have insisted on getting the original promissory notes? What good are the MBS if they’re not securitized by the homeowners’ collateral? So the servicer or trustee forecloses with a trust whose entire set of MBS tranches has been sold to the Fed? So who gets the money or should get the money when a foreclosure succeeds? I’m thinking the certificateholders, and that would now be the Fed.

just sayin’
The A Man, on October 10, 2014 at 11:31 am said:

The same note allegedly was sold allegedly multiple times. The Brooklyn Bridge scam The oldest trick in the book.

NEVER AGAIN
DwightNJ, on October 10, 2014 at 11:28 am said:

And this is why the Wells Fargo Foreclosure Handbook that was introduced into evidence by a defense lawyer earlier in the year is so important. The Judge ruled that the handbook should be allowed into the case. In it, it describes and explains the steps for the foreclosure mills attorneys on how to perform the “Ta Da” magic act, making a Note magically appear out of thin air if a homeowner attempts to challenge the foreclosure and demand proof of the Note. It further explains that if a Note is missing a vital stamped in blank endorsement, then the foreclosure mill attorney should notify WF and they would make sure a proper Note would be produced for litigation. The lawyers for Wells Fargo objected to this handbook being allowed in, and argued that the instructions do not mean there is any wrong-doing or any other fake, phony fabrications being performed, that it is all being misconstrued by the homeowners and their defense lawyers.

There is no doubt that when the “show me the Note” strategy was being utilized by homeowners , the banks instituted a fabrication scheme to download computer generated copies of the Note and add the proper endorsements needed to make the Note appear valid.

Our Justice system and Judges play along with this part of the fraud and Ponzi scheme too. Most cases are decided on the grounds that the plaintiff in court has legal standing to foreclose because they are holders of the Note .. period, end of discussion, according to Judges.

The problem I see with the UCC regarding “holders” of notes, is that it is being intentionally misused by Judges to take the easy way out. In the Judges minds, they can justify the foreclosure by pointing to the UCC rule regarding a “holder” of a note can enforce the note. They do not want to talk about any other issue. All of the decisions I read use this same justification to rule against the homeowners defenses , the courts keep stating that a “holder” is automatically authorized to enforce the note and use the mortgage to collect the collateral.

My question is … show me the UCC rules that we can introduce into the record which clearly state .. that a “holder” can be challenged. Every case I read shows the courts agreeing that a “holder” does absolutely have the right to enforce the note and take the home.
I have not yet seen a court rule or even consider the question of the money trail, the chain of title, consideration or payment for Note, etc.

I need to narrow my argument down to simple terms for the Judge to see in the UCC that clearly allows a homeowner to challenge the mere “holder” of the note .. I can’t seem to find the UCC rule .. and the Judges are all on-board with UCC-3 that says any “holder” has the right to enforce and foreclose. None of their decisions seem to care about “who the real owner of the debt is” , they seem to all agree that it is irrelevant and doesn’t need to be addressed , that the only thing that really matters is “who is the holder of the note”.

And this reasoning explains why the Notes are being fabricated or lost and the courts simply allow the foreclosures. It also explains why the WF Handbook instructs the mills on how to notify them if the note is needed for court “Ta Da” .. the Judge plays the clown in the ring and jumps for joy when the note magically appears with all the stamps.

How do I demand that my Judge should look at the missing money trail, the broken chain of title, the lack of consideration, the WaMu out of business missing link, the FNMA is now the investor but has never shown proof of how they came to own the debt, all of these things?

How do I argue the money trail when the Judge is relying on the UCC that he says gives a “holder” of a note the right to enforce the note?

What UCC rule says that the real owner of the debt needs to be provided and identified for a holder to proceed and enforce?
neidermeyer, on October 10, 2014 at 11:22 am said:

@ Harry ,

You are correct ,,, but in my case (I know the manager at what was my local Option One office) they were instructed to scan the docs into a shared database and shred them… they didn’t want the expense of having to FedEx them from Florida to California to do it right … Which would have been Option One Office in FL … mail to Option One Mortgage in Cali who then “sells” the note to Option One Mortgage Acceptance who then sells the note to Wells Fargo as Depositor to the trust… In my case as Option One couldn’t pay Bank of America for the table funding (Option One was bankrupt in all but name and was borrowing money from it’s parent , H&R Block to cover the losses and hide the bankrupt condition of O-One from Bank of America) and in fact BofA still owned the notes (they never were sold) when the “trust” (Neils “holographic image of an empty paper bag” is 100% correct here) crashed and burned spectacularly and promptly on the 4th month after the closing date.

If you’re going to commit 1 felony why not another and another??
louise, on October 10, 2014 at 10:36 am said:

Right on, Harry. The notes were supposed to be sold into the trust and retired, because they are REMIC rules via the IRS. If you do not retire the note into the trust, then you get taxed (something like 100%). Of course, the IRS is in on the scam.
Harry, on October 10, 2014 at 9:33 am said:

As I understand it, the reason the notes had to be shredded was because when you securitize a note then it effectively becomes a security (traded in the exchanges i.e. NYSE). According to what I have researched, you can not have both a note and a security. If you do, then you have committed securities fraud.
louise, on October 10, 2014 at 9:23 am said:

I was told that all the notes were shredded. I know there are two notes in existence on my property. Both are forged. The latest assignment is titled Assignment of Mortgage and does not assign the note. The note is not mentioned in the assignment at all. Assignment from a company that went bankrupt in 2007 to a trust that closed in 2006 through MERS as nominee but MERS own website shows that my loan account is inactive, signed by a person who allegedly works for MERS but cannot be found and created at a (DocX type) company in PA for a property in another state and finally witnessed and notarized in Florida.
Poppy, on October 10, 2014 at 8:50 am said:

Comment: Originators, New Century, whom is still in bankruptcy, filed April 02, 2007…stated in testimony: this note was seized as collateral for a line of credit to CSFB 03/16/2007, not to be moved. Then servicing “rights” were sold to Carrington late 2007…in 2012 Ocwen “attorney in fact” and servicer transferred New Century back the note (now owners and still in bk)….while Ocwen claims the note was received from Weichart Financial Services on October 01, 2007 from a default in January 2007 (funding allegedly took place 02/27/2007, payment due 04/01/2007) and are designating themselves “debt collectors”. In 2007 there are 3 servicers alone….per tax statement and the wiring instructions define Deutsche Bank Trust as the wiring entity from RBC, signed in blue ink right hand bottom corner, 12/26/2006.

Seems the bankrupt debtors are moving some of them around? Thoughts anyone?
sunman, on October 10, 2014 at 2:29 am said:

I heard, just a rumor of course that they are often traded up to 40 times or more on YOUR credit? Is this true?
usedkarguy, on October 9, 2014 at 11:28 pm said:

Hello, Mario! Best to you!
I would propose that these notes continue to trade in commerce. There has been no proof of extinguishment brought forth; none of the notes are being returned to bankrupt debtors whose obligations have been discharged’ Wells continues to make servicer advances on my note, essentially paying themselves and writing it off at the same time. The note is traded and held as collateral by somebody.
MARIO KENNY, on October 9, 2014 at 7:27 pm said:

“How was it found?” I think this is the most important question it must lead one to think; why was it found?