Contribute

Thank you for considering a contribution to DeadlyClear. If our research, news and information has assisted you may contribute to DeadlyClear by providing articles, news and research materials we can use on the blog and spreading the information to your friends and family.

Your subscriptions and comments, news and research contributions continue to make the research, news and information possible on DeadlyClear.

DeadlyClear is free, please sign up for our posts. Your comments and additional resource information are extremely helpful. Forwarding a link to the DearlyClear HomePage to your friends, as well as your comments, are an important part of the information we try to provide through the blog. That is a very helpful contribution, and requires no money.

To all: E Komo Mai and Mahalo for Your Kokua!

c/o Project Maui, Inc.
P.O. Box 53
Hana, Hawaii 96713

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Contribute

  1. Would you consider shedding light on a disturbing trend…story by The Seattle Times, ‘WAMU execs back in mortgage business’.
    Additionally, Vericrest has just hired new CEO…A former Countrywide exec.
    Vericrest has just purchased millions of msr’s…their business model ,WAMU…Countrywide could affect millions of homeowners.

  2. Hello, I am a litigant in pro per defending an unlawful foreclosure against Aurora Loan Services LLC (ALS) and numerous others. I would like to share some information that may prove helpful to you, your team and other similarly situated borrowers. My loan was purportedly securitized into the Residential Accredit Loans Inc. Series 2007-QO1 Trust (RALI 2007-QO1 Trust) and the first mortgage servicer I had was Homecomings Financial LLC (HF), who currently has a pending Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. (BTW, this is the largest BK in U.S. history, as you know) Sometime in 2007, HF transferred their entire mortgage servicing platform to GMAC Mortgage LLC (GMACM) (also in bankruptcy.) The RALI 2007-QO1 Trust filed a Form 8-K and Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Committee claiming that HF transferred all servicing rights to GMACM and HF did not service ANY loans after September 24, 2007. However, in November of 2007, Homecomings Financial (or some other entity) advised me to stop making payments for 90 days in order to be considered for a loan modification. [According to the the RALI 2007-QO1 Trust, GMACM was the servicer at this time.] Unfortunately, I followed Homecomings’ advice. 90 days later, ALS claimed that my loan was transferred from Homecomings Financial to ALS. Today, it is my contention that Aurora Loan Services NEVER received the rights to service my loan from Homecomings Financial in any manner. I am aware of a similar case, where a borrower’s loan was also purportedly securitized into the RALI 2007-QH5 Trust. The RALI 2007-QH5 Trust also filed a Form 8-K and Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Committee claiming that HF transferred all servicing rights to GMACM and HF did not service ANY loans after September 24, 2007. It is my understanding that Homecomings Financial DID NOT SERVICE ANY LOANS AFTER SEPTEMBER 24, 2007, in any manner. Hopefully, this is some information you can share with your readers. Respectfully, Tia Smith

  3. Not sure you have seen this yet but it’s very encouraging!

    Ninth Circuit: Consumer’s Description of BAC’s Misleading Behavior Sufficient to Raise Valid Allegation

    Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered a published opinion in
    the case of Compton v. Countrywide Financial Corp. You can find the
    opinion here. 11-17158[1] Montana’s Consumer Protection Act mirrors the
    relevant Hawaii statute. Reversing the District Courts dismissal of the
    complaint, the Court recognized: We also conclude that Compton has
    sufficiently alleged that BAC engaged in an “unfair or deceptive act or
    practice” for the purpose of withstanding a motion to dismiss. As
    previously noted, Compton does not base her UDAP claim on allegations
    that BAC failed to determine whether she would be financially capable
    of repaying the loan. Rather, the gist of Compton’s complaint is that
    BAC misled her into believing that BAC would modify her loan and would
    not commence foreclosure proceedings while her loan modification
    request remained under review. As a result of these misrepresentations,
    Compton engaged in prolonged negotiations, incurred transaction costs
    in providing and notarizing documents, and endured lengthy delays. The
    complaint’s description of BAC’s misleading behavior sufficiently
    alleges a “representation, omission, or practice” that is likely to
    deceive a reasonable consumer.

    Compton v. Countrywide Financial Corporation
    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/08/04/11-17158.pdf

  4. After months upon months of research, I finally concluded something I have always suspected. All mortgage loans are held by either DTC, Eurostream, or Clearstream. But more than likely DTC. How the hell this company has stayed under the radar for this long is beyond me.

    If there is ever anything good coming out of this mess, its going to be the number of people forced to wake up. The last thing I ever wanted to do, was sit at a computer 24 hours a day searching desperately for a way to protect me and my family from the real actual terrorists given the green light to destroy us from within. All the while pointing the finger at some poor innocent people who just happen to be victims of the very same element.

    Instigating hatred back and forth keeping us busy while they slowly rape us of everything we have ever known and loved. I’m far from a conspiracy theorist, but i’m even further from blind. And every time, without fail you start to see this garbage made up news about these middle eastern terrorists, who in fact all just happen to be British and American, or planes that go missing or crash without a trace of even the black boxes , you can bet the real terrorists are behind it, and committing their crimes in the background. Millions of Americans are fighting foreclosure at the same time under the same tactics, by the same people, and all being denied protection from the courts, for the same bogus reasons, and you can watch fox news for a month straight without ever hearing a single word about it.

    That to me is a sign of clear and present danger and there’s is no reason why we shouldn’t be in a state of emergency. When courts of law, in every city and every state are flooded with the exact same issues, all at the same time, all alleging the same fraud, and judges pretend there’s nothing to it, and just allow terrorists to use our law to protect them, right in front of the american flag…. in a god damn court of law, … are kidding me?!!

    there aint a god damn thing that’s work without us, .. the people!! there is no court if we decide to stop using them! there is no bank if we stop dealing with them… there IS no more tax if everybody decides to stop paying all at the same time… there is no more corporations or business without us.. and our money.. and our obligation to consent to being victimized and used so they can benefit and enjoy life at our expense! there’s not even a god damn president if thats what all the people decide to choose their whole world completely stops and ceases to exist without US!! PERIOD!! ours doesn’t!! theirs do!!

    If we can’t even depend on our own courts of law to defend us from criminal terrorists .. what in the #uCk do we need even need them for? whats the point? to legally demoralize us and hold us down while they rape us? one by one!! that’s cowardly shit! !!

    when the day comes… and it will it come! it will be too late! you cant jail everybody when everybody has enough! screw their rules tickets loans and contracts…. if they only serve them and not us we are more than capable of making it without it..

    let me ask you something CHASE BANK.. when your all done stealing all of our money and property. from more than over half the people in this country.. how many customers do you think your going to have? what JP Morgan has failed to realize is they are already dead.. that was a done deal the minute you took your lives at the hands of yourselves.. and Jaime Dimon will become the American SADDAM AND GADDAFI all in one! believe that!

  5. Sorry. I didn’t plan to rant, but it’s hard not to feel something for the millions of others , clueless and in for a rude awakening. Before I got off track I had a point in mind.

    Anyone who has followed this madness knows all too well the problems people are facing in court. I would urge everyone following cases to continue posting courts reasoning’s and decisions. The pattern of conflicts, conduct and abuse of discretion becomes much more clear, thus, easier to attack.

    If you feel a judge may be biased, unfair, or you just don’t feel comfortable with them, just disqualify them, immediately! That is YOUR right! Regardless of what a judge thinks, says or believes. It is not up to them, it’s up to you!

    If a judge’s decisions is clearly bad, move to void it. Just cause a judge makes a final decision, with or without leave to amend, does not always mean its absolute. A Judges ruling can be voided, dependent on circumstances. Judges also tend to believe they are fully immune from acts or conduct… WRONG!

    If your going to have to fight, then you might as well FIGHT!

    Make sure if your pro se, to point out it that they must take into consideration that everyone, everywhere, could not possibly all allege the same facts, against the same parties, and to assume so would be a legal absurdity, Remind them you are seeking protection from criminal acts, and they have a duty to assure that protection. Also remind them that these criminals have already been caught repeatedly for crimes, that they continue these crimes, and that no court allows criminals to use the system to protect them or afford them relief of any kind.. as the maxim of fraud still holds true.. if they choose to allow this to continue with that knowledge, they are no longer acting in judicial capacity, are outside the law, and that’s also aiding and abetting.

    IMMUNITY IS THEN STRIPPED! and their opinion of the matter, matters not!

    If you have a good lawyer, hell argue the point … If you have a great lawyer, he’ll destroy their whole belief system and remind them LAW is not what they say or think it is, no matter how bad they want it to be. . It only takes one no nonsense attorney to re- remind the rest, their long forgotten duties that come with the position. Those attorneys are truly a dying breed, but not yet extinct.
    Long gone are the days when an attorney continued fighting on pure principle, and not the lack of ability to pay after draining your life savings.

    One attorney in particular I won’t mention, in my opinion is a disgrace, as i’m sure some of his constituency feel the same.

    As many laws as there are for us, there’s just as many for them

    Opinions are Opinions just as the Law is the Law.. no need for assertions for those ignorant of what constitutes practice.. to do otherwise is laughable on its face..

  6. one more thing.. no one actually has to be involved in a case to complain about a judges disregard of law and justice.. the more people you speak up for, the better it will get when or if its its your time… and always ask that everything be in the interest of just..

    “your honor… I ask you grant jury trial in the interest of justice and in the interest of public policy.”
    Yes I understand that will be the CRIMINAL BANKERS worst nightmare.. but its theirs or mine!

  7. Hi my family in maui recently got served papers to evict our property, date on paper said Oct.2015 the sheriffs have been up there twice now and have said our last day is July 11th. There is no papers as to why and nothing to back up their claim. Our land has been in our family since the 1800’s, we have a royal patent number. My friends said to contact you and let you know what is going on. I’m all the way in AZ and afraid we are about to lose our family land, for what? I don’t even know. PLEASE HELP!!

  8. Saterbak v JPMorgan [Saterbak v JPMorgan N.A. D066636 (Cal. Ct. App. March 16, 2016)]
    Appellate court attempt to over rule the Supreme Court requires response from all.

    Below is an analytical response to the horrific ruling and opinion from the San Diego Appellate court that directly challenges the recent Yvanova ruling from the Cal Supreme Court. We suggest that folks read this analysis and forward it with their comments to Kamala Harris (California State Attorney General) requesting her office to strongly object to this ruling, and request that the Attorney General request that the Supreme Court de-publish the Appellate ruling.

    “Saterbak cites Cockerell and Neptune, but those cases merely held that an assignee who files suit to enforce an assigned right bears the burden of proving a valid assignment.” (Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 284, 292; Neptune Society Corp. v. Longanecker (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1233, 1242.) B. Saterbak Lacks Standing to Challenge the Assignment.
    This statement was clearly rejected in Yvanova where the Supreme Court stated : “Nor is it correct that the borrower has no cognizable interest in the identity of the party enforcing his or her debt. Though the borrower is not entitled to object to an assignment of the promissory note, he or she is obligated to pay the debt, or suffer loss of the security, only to a person or entity that has actually been assigned the debt. (See Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., supra, 42 Cal.2d at p. 292 [party claiming under an assignment must prove fact of assignment].)”
    Here the California Supreme Court affirmed the findings in Cockerell which confirms the party claiming under assignment must prove fact of assignment, regardless of who filed the lawsuit.
    The Appellate Court in Saterbak further stated;
    “As a general principle, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury of sufficient magnitude reasonably to assure that all of the relevant facts and issues will be adequately presented to the adjudicator. ( Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 169-172; Municipal Court v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 957, 960-964; California Water Telephone Co. v. Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16, 22; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1996) Actions, §§ 73-74, pp. 132-135.) “
    Clearly a home owner will “suffer or is about to suffer an injury of sufficient magnitude” by a party that has not established that they are the beneficiary and has the right and authority to foreclose on their property forecloses and evicts the homeowner.

    “Saterbak lacks standing to pursue these theories. The crux of Saterbak’s argument is that she may bring a preemptive action to determine whether the 2007-AR7 trust may initiate a nonjudicial foreclosure. She argues, “If the alleged ‘Lender’ is not the true ‘Lender,’ ” it “has no right to order a foreclosure sale.” However, California courts do not allow such preemptive suits because they “would result in the impermissible interjection of the courts into a nonjudicial scheme enacted by the California Legislature.” (Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 513 (Jenkins), disapproved on other grounds in Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 939, fn. 13; see Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1156 (Gomes) [“California’s nonjudicial foreclosure law does not provide for the filing of a lawsuit to determine whether MERS has been authorized by the holder of the Note to initiate a foreclosure”].

    This is a troubling and erroneous finding by this Court as it is a slippery slope as to the courts interfereing with the right of the homeowner to exercise their contracual rights under the deed of trust and their rights under the HBOR (Homeowners Bill Of Rights).
    It also brings the question of the borrower’s 14th amendment rights.
    The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; .”
    The question presented here, as in all actions challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment, is whether “there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action . . . so that the action . . . may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.” ( Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. (1974) 419 U.S. 345, 351 [42 L.Ed.2d 477, 484, 95 S.Ct. 449].) Thus, the threshold question which we must determine is whether the state is 277 significantly involved in the nonjudicial foreclosure procedure so as to bring that procedure within the reach of the due process clause.
    Ignoring the proposition that the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection of laws apply only to state, as opposed to private, conduct and the troublesome problems that proposition would present in respect to Civil Code, section 2924 [citations], particularly in view of the fact that Civil Code, section 2924 is not an enabling or authorizing statute at all but, rather, a statute restricting and limiting the exercise of private powers of sale for the benefit of debtors (see Smith v. Allen, 68 Cal.2d 93, 96 . .
    The Court in Saterbak stated that[“California’s nonjudicial foreclosure law does not provide for the filing of a lawsuit to determine whether MERS has been authorized by the holder of the Note to initiate a foreclosure” and the statement “would result in the impermissible interjection of the courts into a nonjudicial scheme enacted by the California Legislature, (Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 513. [S]uch a requirement would be inconsistent with the policy behind nonjudicial foreclosure of providing a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy.” (Gomes, supra, at p. 1154, fn. 5.)
    Clearly, it was not the intent of the legislature when implementing the
    foreclosure statutes almost 100 years ago to allow parties with no beneficial interest or legal parties to the deed of trust to foreclose on a homeowner. This was made clear in Garfinkle when the Supreme Court stated; “In 1917, the Legislature impliedly recognized the validity of this contractual remedy standards for conducting nonjudicial foreclosures, by placing various restrictions on the creditors’ exercise of the power of sale “in order to protect the trustor/debtor against forfeiture.” (Garfinkle v. Superior Court (1978) 21 C3d 268)
    “A court may not, “under the guise of construction, rewrite the law or
    give the words an effect different from the plain and direct import of the
    terms used.” (California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles
    (1995) 11 Cal.4th 342, 349, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 279, 902 P.2d 297.) Further, “
    ‘[w]e must assume that the Legislature knew how to create an exception if it
    wished to do so․ [Citation]”.
    Clearly the Court in Saterbak and numerous other Courts both Federal and State are attempting to “give the words an effect different from the plain and direct import of the terms used.”
    The California foreclosure statutes do not prohibit a borrower from bringing a lawsuit to defend his or her property nor is it correct “[S]uch a requirement would be inconsistent with the policy behind nonjudicial foreclosure of providing a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy.” The statutes were created to protect the homeowner from these very actions and not as these courts are finding to allow parties that cannot prove they are entitled to invoke the power of sale to do so. “in order to protect the trustor/debtor against forfeiture.” (Garfinkle v. Superior Court (1978) 21 C3d 268) Here the Courts are enabling the Banks to foreclose without proving they own the debt by these rulings in finding that a home owner is not entitled to bring a preemptive action to challenge the party attempting to enforce the debt.
    These findings are in contradiction to numerous Supreme Court rulings, especially the most recent ruling in Yvanova. The Courts in Saterbak, Gomes and Jenkins and numerous other state and federal decisions have created the very “nexus” the Supreme Court spoke of in Garfinkle. These findings by these courts also contradict the covenants of the deed of trust. BORROWER COVENANTS that Borrower is lawfully seised of the estate hereby conveyed and has the right to grant and convey the Property and that the Property is unencumbered, except for encumbrances of record. Borrower warrants and will defend generally the title to the Property against all claims and demands subject to any encumbrance of record.
    The provisions of the contract includes in clear language which
    states that “The notice shall further inform Borrower of the . . . right to
    bring a court action to assert the non- existence of a default or any other
    defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale.”
    Under the covenants’ of the deed of trust the borrower warrants he/she will defend title to “all claims and demands subject to any encumbrance of record. This would undoubtedly include persons or entities with no legal authority assigning interest in the property thereby clouding the borrowers’ title.
    The “right to bring a court action to assert the non- existence of a default , as only the lender may invoke the power of sale it is also true that only the lender can claim default. Therefore it would be only logical that a party or entity that cannot establish they are the lender beneficiary etc., cannot claim default on the borrower as they are not a party to the contract therefore cannot enforce the contract.(see Cockerell).
    The right to “any other defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale,” would clearly include asserting an action against an entity that cannot prove legal or beneficial interest or “void” assignment.
    Civil Code section 1638 provides that“[t]he language of a contract is
    to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does
    not involve an absurdity.” Applying that principle, the Supreme Court has held the “mutual intention of the parties is to be inferred, if possible, solely from the written provisions of the contract. Where contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs.” Powerine Oil Co. v. Superior Court, 37Cal.4th 377, 396 (2005).
    The provisions of the contract also states in clear language that “The notice shall further inform Borrower of the . . . right to bring a court action to assert the non- existence of a default or any other defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale.”
    “A contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect, if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties.” (Civ. Code, § 1643.) “The whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the [221 Cal.App.4th 71] other.” (Id., § 1641.) “To the extent practicable, the meaning of a contract must be derived from reading the whole of the contract, with individual provisions interpreted together, in order to give effect to all provisions and to avoid rendering some meaningless.” (Zalkind v. Ceradyne, Inc. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1027 [124 Cal.Rptr.3d 105].)

    Legislature has not and cannot prohibit the rights granted to homeowners by contract nor can they prohibit their ability to enforce their rights under such contract.
    Due process is a right that is guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Due Process Clause of the Amendment states that “no State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” With the Supreme Court case of Allgeyer v. Louisiana in 1897, the Court came to the conclusion that the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment extended to private contracts as well, allowing such liberties as “freedom of contract” to be enforced without the implementation of various social and economic regulations passed by Federal and State governments. In addition, due process requires that a judge remove him or herself from a case if a conflict of interest exists within it.”1

    1 On a side note, this brings to question the conflict of interest in the Judges Pension system which is managed by CalPERS and CalSTRS and which invested in many of the Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) and the judge’s interest to protect their pensions by making these bias findings. This is further evidenced by the April 1, 2016 lawsuit filed by the Attorney General’s office on behalf of CalPERS and CalSTRS which manages the California Public Employees Retirement System of which the judges are a part of for losing billions of dollars in buying subprime debt from a variety of financial institutions and 406 million in MBS and SIV senior securities from Morgan Stanley in 2006.

    As the Supreme Court opined in Garfinkle ;“Power of sale exercised by the trustee in nonjudicial foreclosure is created by contract, not by statute.”(Garfinkle v. Superior Court (1978) 21 C3d 268)
    “The decision whether to exercise the power of sale is a determination to be made by the creditor. The statutes merely restrict and regulate the exercise of the power of sale once a choice has been made by the creditor to foreclose the deed of trust in that manner.” ( Strutt v. Ontario Sav. Loan Assn., supra, 28 Cal.App.3d 866, 877; see also, Davidow v. Corporation of America, supra, 16 Cal.App.3d 6, 13; Barrera v. Security Building Investment Corporation, supra, 519 F.2d 1166, 1170; Federal National Mortgage Ass’n. v. Howlett, supra, 521 S.W.2d 428, 432.)
    A creditor is defined as; “An individual to whom an obligation is owed because he or she has given something of value in exchange. One who may legally demand and receive money, either through the fulfillment of a contract or due to injury sustained as a result of another’s Negligence or intentionally wrongful act.”
    The deed of trust governs the right to invoke the power of sale not statutes.
    Under the deed of trust only the lender may invoke the power of sale, the Supreme Court in Garfinkle and many other Courts contend that “The statutes merely restrict and regulate the exercise of the power of sale once a choice has been made by the creditor” which is consistent with the deed of trust.
    The Court in Saterbak and many other Courts are in contradiction to Supreme Court rulings and with the contract entered into by the borrower and lender.
    “Finally, Saterbak contends the deed of trust is an adhesion contract, and, therefore, restrictive language that “deprives a borrower of the right to argue her loan has been invalidly assigned” must be “conspicuous and clear.” She claims, “If the assignment clause was intended by the drafter to cutoff the borrower’s right to challenge the assignment, it should have used clear language to that effect. It did not.” As a rule, “contracts of adhesion are generally enforceable according to their terms, [but] a provision contained in such a contract cannot be enforced if it does not fall within the reasonable expectations of the weaker or ‘adhering’ party.” (Fischer v. First Internat. Bank (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1446 (Fischer).) However, “[b]ecause a promissory note is a negotiable instrument, a borrower must anticipate it can and might be transferred to another creditor” (Fontenot, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 272),
    Because the promissory note can be transferred does not resolve the issue as to the transfer being made by a party or entity with no authority or legal interest in attempting to transfer the debt.
    In the case of Saterbek, American Brokers Conduit, which was the original lender, ceases to exist on 08/02/2007, 5 years before the purported transfer to the trust by MERS. The issue is not whether the borrower can object to the assignees’ standing, but whether the original lender, who is not before the Court, actually transferred its rights to CitiBank.
    Furthermore, MERS cannot transfer or assign anything for their own interest as they apparently did in the Saterbak case due to the demise of New Century prior to any transfer.(“MERS may exercise the rights and obligations of a beneficiary …but it will exercise those rights and obligations only as an agent for the lender, not for its own interests.” Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank NA (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th
    256, 272.
    For MERS to be an agent there must be a controlling principal.
    Saterbak “irrevocably grant[ed] and convey[ed]” the Mount Helix property to the Lender; recognized that MERS (as nominee) had the right “to exercise
    any or all” of the interests of the Lender; and agreed that the Note, together with the DOT, could be sold one or more times without notice to her. There is no reasonable 12 *12 expectation from this language that the parties intended to allow Saterbak to challenge future assignments made to unrelated third parties. (Cf. Fischer, supra, at pp. 1448-1449 [holding there was a triable issue of fact “as to whether the parties mutually intended to permit cross-collateralization” on two separate loans, given ambiguity between the broadly worded dragnet clause and a ” ‘Related Document[]’ ” incorporated by reference into the loan agreement as to whether the parties mutually intended it].)7 D. The Homeowner Bill of Rights Does Not Confer Standing.”
    Clearly, the deed of trust does not “irrevocably grant[ed] and convey[ed]” the Mount Helix property to the Lender” as the Appellate Court in Saterbek contends, such a grant/ conveyance to the lender would be a mortgage with the power of sale and not a deed of trust. A deed of trust irrevocably grants property to the trustee and not the lender.
    As aforementioned, the deed of trusts plain contract language, allows the borrower to challenge an assignment made that would impede title to property and any other defense to default and sale of the property.
    “Saterbak cites Glaski v. Bank of America (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, but the New York case upon which Glaski relied has been overturned. (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Erobobo (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) 127 A.D.3d1176, 1178; see Rajamin, supra, 757 F.3d at p. 90 [rejecting Glaski’s interpretation of New York law].) We decline to follow Glaski and conclude the alleged defects here merely render the assignment voidable.”
    Erobobo, was not overturned because the assignment was not void under EPTL 7-2.4 it was overturned because the court found that erobobo lack standing to enforce the PSA.
    “In any event, Erobobo, as a mortgagor whose loan is owned by a trust, does not have standing to challenge the plaintiff’s possession or status as assignee of the note and mortgage based on purported noncompliance with certain provisions of the PSA” (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Gales, 116 AD3d 723, 725; Rajamin v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 757 F3d 79, 86-87 [2d Cir]).

    This finding by the NY Court was clearly rejected by the Supreme Court of California in Yvanova.
    Clearly the Appellate Court in Saterbak is attempting to circumvent the Supreme Courts’ findings in Yvanova.
    The Saterbak court rejects Glaski, but does not give an explanation besides the erroneous analyzation of Erobobo.
    Furthermore, the findings of “Rajamin” were by a Federal Court which does not bind the state court.
    The Glaski Court fully describes their reasoning for finding the transfer to the trust after the closing date void, unlike the Court in Saterbak.
    The findings of the Saterbak Court are irrational and irresponsible and clearly bias.

    • Why are we still arguing these cases in state court? We have a securitized trust as the Plaintiff; we have an assignment (albeit bogus) assigning a mortgage to the securitized trust; we have a complex securities financial product from a securities software program sold to and unwittingly bought by the homeowner; we have an admission by former FDIC Chair, Sheila Bair explaining in a best seller book that the are Non-traditional mortgages – actually secondary market securities; we have pre-existing contracts among investment banks, servicers, investors identifying how borrower collateral will be procured and exchanged for certificates that are securities certificates of stock in a bond; and agreements that identify procurement agreements existed before the homeowners entered the picture or signed the faux loan documents; we know that the securities certificate sales took place before the collateral was actually obtained (Nemo Dat) because of the [late] assignments that only occurred after default (likely Rehypothecation issues) –

      So, why – when there are no laws on the books covering these quasi securities, governed by federal laws…. WHY Are we still sitting in state court letting the dregs of the judicial system try to decipher what Judge Peck (Bk judge of southern district NY) calls too complex for the ordinary human to comprehend? Let these poor low level, obviously constrained judges off the hook and remand to federal court where securities belong.

      Once the trustee raises its ugly head it has at least the “pledge” of ownership. Securities certificates have been issued albeit Nemo dat – these are securities stockholders fighting for collateral that has already been sold into securities slavery with no disclosure to the homeowner. How can fighting or defending a traditional mortgage be correct – when no “traditional” mortgage ever existed and the securities certificates are all the stockholders are ever bought?

      We shouldn’t be trying a federal securities case in state courts. Too complicated for the lower courts.

      Even TILA is a federal issue, and fair debt collection, and Rule 10(b)5… Is it time for a remand movement – that will ultimately end up before the US Supreme Court? If not now, when?

      • Thank you for your reply. I do have a couple questions that I would like for you to address;

        1) Who wrote this response and what is their experience and legal knowledge that is the basis for this reply?

        2) Did you read the Saterbak ruling and opinion, or our analysis to this Saterbak Appellate Court ruling? Do you see the damage that can be done by letting this opinion get published?

        3) Do you agree that foreclosure and quiet title are both State Court actions, and even if you get them into Federal Court the Federal Court still has to rule using State rules?

        4) First of all in order to maintain a lawsuit you must show the Plaintiff (borrower) was injured. The presumption in the eyes of the law is the borrower received the funds to purchase the home, therefore was not injured by the loan being sold to the trust or any other investor. Going the securitized trust route has been shown to be a dead end and for good reasons.

        The DOT contains the provision that the loan could be sold one or more times, therefore raisings defenses of the securitized trust being certificates or whatever is not going to hold water in the eyes of the court. Furthermore, it has been made clear in every jurisdiction except for now California (YVANOVA), that a borrower can not attempt to enforce the PSA. 5) The bottom line is you must show that the transfer to the trust etc. was void as a matter of law, whether due to the late assignment to the trust , by a party which had not legal authority to make nor accept such a transfer or the assignment does not transfer the debt making such an assignment legally invalid. Check out Yvanova. So how do you show the assignment is void with a securitization approach?

        Historically, securitization audits with Richard Kahn, which the prospectus clearly show the loans as part of the trust, therefore bringing the allegation that the trust did not include the loan or that the trust was created before the issue of the collateral would be defeated in any court. 6) The issue here is the trust did not physically acquire the loan as required by law to keep its REMIC status and in contravention to the trust, thereby void under N.Y Trust law or Delaware trust law which most trusts originated. Is this not the best approach given the Yvanova case?

        The comments made by the author of the reply, would apply to the investors which lost their money in the securitization scheme not the borrower. Additionally, attempting to rescind the loan or other TILA violations are beyond the statute of limitations and the courts usually deny using the equitable tolling doctrine in the majority of these cases. Last but not least, a borrower would have a hard to impossible time maintaining an action under 10(b) 5. (securities fraud) as they are not a party to the PSA. Remember you must show how you(borrower was injured) and in my opinion not a good strategy in a foreclosure case. Looking forward to your reply. Thanks, Bill

        Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 18:30:27 +0000 To: billgaffney@hotmail.com

      • Bill – We were referring to forcing the foreclosure complaint to be remanded to USDC because we know more now than we did 5-8 years ago when all the “bad” law was evolving. We are not talking about initiating a homeowner complaint – we want the Trust Plaintiff complaint to be remanded to federal court under securities issues. Yes, Rule 10b-5 would be one of them and because of the newer research as will be discussed below – we believe there is reason to consider the argument.

        We have pre-existing contracts (Lehman for example) that establish the job of the pretender lenders was to procure collateral specifically for the purpose of securitization which were ongoing prior to any initiation and/or execution of documents by the homeowner. We also have documents that establish the mandatory data fields necessary for the collateral to be accepted for securitization and entered into the software program, which also includes, among other personal information, the homeowners’ social security numbers.

        Securitization is not manila folders in cardboard boxes. It is a complex securities software program that is fueled by data (not paper). We have copies of the patents used to create the software from the 1003 application all the way to the REO and beyond – a “seamless automation” system creating the computer software program of a virtual reality securities transaction. This is not the same securitization system that Lewis Ranieri birthed in the 1970s – this new system was and is still on steroids. It can’t be stopped until the patents have been confiscated and disallowed, probably by a Supreme Court ruling.

        We know the Wall Street credit lines funded the transactions (for the purpose of and already pledged securities transaction) and that the underwriters were actually Wall Street investment banks. We know that only upon default do the Assignments get activated. “A borrower would probably be alarmed to learn that its lender had an unrestricted right to use and sell the collateral that the borrower had pledged to secure its borrowings. Borrowers typically believe that a lender should safeguard and protect collateral pledged to it, not use the collateral for its own gain. Yet in the derivatives market, it has become increasingly common for secured parties to insist upon such unrestricted use of pledged collateral,” writes Professor Johnson. See IT’S 3:00 p.m., DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR COLLATERAL IS? An enlightening paper every homeowner should read. Written by Christian A. Johnson, Assistant Professor of Law, Loyola University Chicago School of Law. B.A.; MPrA, Utah; J.D., Columbia, 1990.

        We don’t believe an adequate argument to remand has been made yet – it’s probably going to be a compilation of information by a group of astute attorneys and not just one individual. But it is pretty clear to those of us on this end of the research that these transactions were never traditional mortgages. The homeowner unwittingly participated in a securities transaction and issued collateral used to fund the securitized trust. The patents describe how the collateral morphs into negotiable securities certificates. As long as the certificates are actively trading and in circulation, the homeowner collateral remains stagnant and sealed inside of a securities transaction.

        When foreclosure complaints are filed by the Trusts (Plaintiff) they are pretending to foreclose on a traditional mortgage that does not exist. These were non-traditional mortgages dressed up (faux) to appear traditional and on a copyrighted and licensed Fannie/Freddie form to further induce the homeowner. Albeit in algorithms, the homeowner’s payment and terms (among the other personal securitization data fields) were exchanged in a pool for securities certificates. IMHO this makes it even more convoluted because no precise certificate matches a specific loan or collateral package (because the homeowner’s social security numbers are part of the collateral package) and the collateral packages were commingled and used in sometimes several tranches, not just one – the collateral package value becomes unidentifiable, unless the computer program algorithms are dissected.

        Many of the tranches, according to Bloomberg Terminal, have been paid off as the Trusts are winding down. The percentages of each collateral package value is an unknown. In any case, as long as the Trust is still actively trading and certificates are still in circulation the overall collateral is seized and securitized. It doesn’t get pulled out of the trust and re-entered into the real world – although by most trust documents it should. The collateral remains inextricably-intertwined within the securities process and the algorithms that operate the Trust.

        In foreclosure, the securitized trust Trustee initiates a complaint of foreclosure in a state court attempting (rather successfully) to assert a traditional argument for foreclosure. In many cases, the trust investors have been paid off – or reached a settlement; however, that is never disclosed. In reality, the Trustee holds the essence of Humpty Dumpty – but could never have the actual collateral unless he bought it out from the trust. They don’t bother to do that they just assert UCC 3-301 when in fact, that note is commingled within algorithms wherein certificates took its place.

        The Bailout paid off many investors and what is left of the trusts are still actively trading (and rehypothecating if the collateral is not in default). Where is the damage? The investors were fore-warned with numerous pages of buyer beware, this is risky…BUT the homeowner had ZERO disclosure and his collateral is tied up in deception and corruption. The only way to unwind these transaction is through the securities related process and that falls under the USDC and securities laws. Once the securitized trust entered the courtroom, the door was opened to the securities issues. While the ability to challenge the Assignment (Yvanova / Glaski) as a defendant it would also have to give rise to the process – it goes hand-in-hand with the PSA, subservicing agreements, trust agreements, etc. And it should be argued that the process is a virtual reality program that consists of mandatory data fields. The securities computer data fields specifically include the homeowners through their social security numbers, credit scores, promise to pay, just to name a few. We believe there is a case to be made that it wasn’t just the property taken into securitization… it also included the homeowners. Call them issuers – because the homeowners actually supplied the assets of the trust.

        If these are transactions argued as securities it should be in a federal court, not in the dregs of a state court.

        You asked if we had read Saterbak v JPMorgan [Saterbak v JPMorgan N.A. D066636 (Cal. Ct. App. March 16, 2016)] opinion. The answer is yes. It is a lousy opinion – it never ceases to amaze us that the MERS argument makes it beyond phase one. We call it the MERS Blur. The “MERS” in the mortgage is not entity with the registry and the members; and, there are no agreements ever produced between MERSCORP and Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. allowing collateral to be commingled or transferred among the separate and distinct corporations. There are several posts on DeadlyClear regarding MERSCORP vs Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. See THE HISTORY AND DEATH OF MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. ACCORDING TO THE USPTO. Again, the arguments have not advanced along with the more recent research and discovery.

        All MERCORP did was enter “data” into a computer software program by utilizing its members to do the job – and they didn’t do that very well. This is another virtual reality – not a physical document surrendered and/or transferred. The MERS in the faux mortgages does not have any employees or members. Please study the documents in the post above that were retrieved from the USPTO. Again, this argument is better made in federal court because it deals with patents and trademarks. Yes, MERS has not been argued or exposed properly – yet. And no one is going to get a state court actor to grasp the depth of the argument. Those that have gotten close get offered a settlement before they get to uncovering the bones.

        Now that the political terrain is hopefully changing, maybe together we all can develop an argument that sheds light on the true intended transaction. In the Rehypothecation post is also another interesting paper – we began to research nemo dat and found another informative paper called “Distorting Legal Principles” by Steven L. Schwarcz, Stanley A. Star Professor of Law & Business, Duke University School of Law. Another essential document for every homeowner and every foreclosure attorney and judge to read and absorb. Professor Schwarcz’s paper explores the problem of distorting legal principles, initially focusing on rehypothecation, a distortion whose uncertainty and confusion contributed to the downfall of Lehman Brothers and the resulting global financial crisis.

        There’s more but it’s Saturday night – digest this and give us your thoughts. NO one has said this is a silver bullet – or that there aren’t any road blocks – but maybe with enough shared information and research we can overcome some of the obstacles. Personally, we’re not of the opinion that the homeowner can become the Plaintiff unless it is in a counter-complaint. But we know enough about how they [the banks] operate to make discovery very interesting.

      • Just in case the nemo dat issue isn’t clear how it relates – we touch on it in the post, but think about it this way. EXAMPLE: The trust is formed in 2006. Certificates are issued; however, the Assignment to the trust doesn’t occur until 2010 – 4 years after the trust closes. How did the trust issue certificates if they did not yet possess the mortgage and note? NEMO DAT. It was pledged and at sometime is was agreed it would appear. Distorting Legal Principles puts it mildly, yeah? Virtual reality on steroids.

  9. First post. Is this in the right place?
    As a pro se litigant in Pennsylvania I’m not sure how to research this but I’m defintly not asking for legal advice. BNC Mortgage appears to have obtained the loan at or before settlement in 2005. They of course went bankrupt in 2007 but my loan was assigned two times in that period and two more times through MERS in 2012 and 2014. I’d like to learn more about BNC Mortgage busnisses practices and this authority post bankrupcy to continue to assign through MERS. Each assignment shows BNC MORTGAGE as “nominee” for MERS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s