1,756 Responses

1.

Foreclosure Fraud, on December 20th, 2009 at 3:00 pm Said:

Sounds like fun. I’m in! I wonder what the prizes will be?

Fabricated Notes to properties?

Forged Assignments for mortgages?
False Affidavits for fees?

Maybe even someone’s house!

Game On!
Good Luck!

4closureFraud

2.

usedkarguy, on December 20th, 2009 at 2:33 pm Said:

Thanks, Baby Doll!

I love you guys, every single one of you!

Merry Christmas!

3.

Lisa E., on December 20th, 2009 at 2:22 pm Said:

In case anyone wants a little break from the enormity of the tragedies that have hit
us all hard; individually and collectively:

Come on over for the first episode of a new extreme reality game show.

FORECLOSURE OF THE WEEK

Where a foreclosure is picked at random from the public records and we go back
to try to figure out what in the heck happened! This ain’t no CandyLand Game!
 http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blogs/122009-its-foreclosure-of-the?
xg_source=activity

Lisa E.

4.

Dan Edstrom, on December 20th, 2009 at 8:29 am Said:

I have previously reported how identity theft in California is a felony. Here is

some information on Federal laws:

X_http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/idtheft/

X_http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/websites/idtheft.html

Quotes from the 2nd link:

“Identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in
which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person’s personal data in
some way that involves fraud or deception, typically for economic gain.”

“The Department of Justice prosecutes cases of identity theft and fraud under a
variety of federal statutes. In the fall of 1998, for example, Congress passed the
Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act . This legislation created a new
offense of identity theft, which prohibits knowingly transfer[ring] or us[ing],
without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the
intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a
violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or
local law.

18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7). This offense, in most circumstances, carries a maximum

term of 15 years’ imprisonment, a fine, and criminal forfeiture of any personal
property used or intended to be used to commit the offense.

Schemes to commit identity theft or fraud may also involve violations of other
statutes such as identification fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1028), credit card fraud (18
U.S.C. § 1029), computer fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §
1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), or financial institution fraud (18 U.S.C. §
1344). Each of these federal offenses are felonies that carry substantial penalties
in some cases, as high as 30 years’ imprisonment, fines, and criminal forfeiture.

Federal prosecutors work with federal investigative agencies such as the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the United States Secret Service, and the United States
Postal Inspection Service to prosecute identity theft and fraud cases.”
 Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com

5.

Dan Edstrom, on December 19th, 2009 at 9:26 pm Said:

Maybe it is time to revisit this case – especially if you are in bankruptcy. It has to
do with pledging notes and who has the real copies. It is kind of old though
(1980) … This seems to be a variation of the games played in securitization. What
do you think?

625 F.2d 281

6 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1385, 29 UCC Rep.Serv. 639
In re STAFF MORTGAGE & INVESTMENT CORPORATION, dba Sondo
Diagnostic Corporation, and dba Century
Seventy-Two Corporation.
Robert E. GREINER et al., Plaintiffs,
and
Port Arthur, Annette Shoemake, Sigurd M. Jensen, Stinne T.
Jensen, Johnny Jensen, Doroth Veverka, Ray Healey
and Ella A. Healey, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
C. Douglas WILKE, etc., Defendants/Appellees.
No. 78-2755.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 4, 1980.
Decided Aug. 11, 1980.
Isaac M. Pachulski, Stutman, Treister & Glatt, Los Angeles, Cal., for
plaintiffs/appellants.
John J. Wilson, Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Los Angeles, Cal., for
defendants/appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before PECK,* ANDERSON and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.
J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:
1
Appellants appeal the district court’s affirmance of the judgment entered by the
bankruptcy court. We affirm.
FACTS
2
The factual circumstances of this appeal are nearly the same as an earlier case, In
re Staff Mortgage & Investment Corp., 550 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir. 1977) (Huffman
v. Wikle ), involving the same bankrupt. Therefore, the facts will not be set forth
in detail.
3
As a part of its business activity, the bankrupt, Staff Mortgage & Investment
Corporation (Staff), would borrow money and execute its note to evidence the
loan. To secure its loan, Staff would pledge one or more promissory notes secured
by trust deeds which it had in its inventory. The promissory notes and trust deeds
were assigned to the lenders. To effectuate the assignments, documents entitled
“Collateral Assignment of Note” and “Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust”
were attached to the respective instruments. The “Corporation Assignment of
Deed of Trust” was then recorded in the county wherein the real property covered
by trust deed was located. The documents, except Staff’s note to evidence the
loan, remained in the possession and control of Staff.
4
Appellants are persons who had loaned money to Staff under the above-described
procedures. When Staff went into bankruptcy, appellants sought to have the
promissory notes and trust deeds turned over to them. The trustee in bankruptcy
refused, and the appellants filed a “Complaint for Declaratory Relief” in
bankruptcy court. They sought a declaration that (1) they held security interests in
the promissory notes and trust deeds; (2) their security interests were superior to
the trustee’s interests in the notes and trust deeds; and (3) the trustee was required
to assign the interest in the notes and trust deeds to the appellants.
5
The bankruptcy court determined that notes secured by the deeds of trust were
unperfected security interests under the California Uniform Commercial Code §
9304(1). Thus the appellants’ security interests in the notes secured by the deeds
of trust were subordinate to the rights of the appellee trustee in bankruptcy. The
bankruptcy court essentially relied upon the previously-decided case of Huffman
v. Wikle.
6
On appeal, the district court affirmed, stating that Huffman v. Wikle constituted
the law of the case. The district court also stated that were it free to make a de
novo ruling, it would not change the result.
DISCUSSION
Law of the Case
7
The district court stated that this court’s prior decision in Huffman v. Wikle
constituted the “law of the case” and that it was bound by that decision. The
district court was correct that Huffman was a relevant prior precedent; however,
Huffman should have been followed under the doctrine of stare decisis and not
the law of the case.
8
The law of the case concerns the continued application of a rule of law previously
determined in that same case. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Port of Seattle, 106 F.2d
777, 781 (9th Cir. 1939). If a court determines, in litigation between P and D, that
the applicable rule of law is that certain security interests are instruments, and
they were not perfected, then this ruling is the “law of the case” for the P and D
litigation. See, 1B Moore’s Federal Practice P .401 (2d Ed. 1974).
9
In litigation involving a bankrupt, a decision in one proceeding does not
necessarily prevent the institution of a new proceeding involving the same issues.
As stated by the court in In re Peer Manor Bldg. Corporation, 143 F.2d 769 (7th
Cir. 1944):
10
“An involved debtor may successfully resist an attempt by its creditors to
reorganize it under (Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act). The next day it may be
subject to another petition seeking the same purpose. The petitioners, as here, may
not be the same creditors. The debtor’s situation may have changed. The evidence
may not be the same. The relief sought in the new petition may be appropriate in
the second application and yet the denial of relief in the first proceeding may also
have been proper upon the showing made.”
11
The present situation is similar. Both proceedings involved the same bankrupt and
trustee in bankruptcy. The issues raised regarding security interests in notes
secured by trust deeds were nearly identical. However, the proceedings were
commenced by different plaintiffs, and the notes and trust deeds, while similar,
were not the same. The separate proceedings did not constitute the same case;
thus, the doctrine of the law of the case was not applicable. We, nevertheless,
affirm as the district court stated it would have reached the same decision upon a
de novo review, and the decision in Huffman controls the disposition of this case.
Nature of the Security Interest
12
In Huffman, this court determined that (1) the collaterals, notes secured by deeds
of trust, used to secure Staff’s promissory notes to the plaintiff were
“instruments” under the California Commercial Code; (2) the failure of the
plaintiffs to take possession of the collaterals caused the security interests to be
unperfected under California Commercial Code § 9304(1); and (3) thus the trustee
in bankruptcy took the collaterals free and clear of the plaintiffs’ claims.
13
Appellants do not contend that the facts in this case are different in any relevant
sense. Rather, they argue that Huffman was erroneously decided and should not
be applied here. Appellants argue that the collateral packages of notes secured by
trust deeds were general intangibles and not instruments as concluded in
Huffman. They also contend that they should have been deemed to have
constructively possessed the collaterals because (1) the recordation of the
assignments of the trust deeds provided constructive notice of the assignment to
all persons; and (2) the assignments executed by Staff were firmly stapled to the
collateral notes and trust deeds.
14
In Huffman, we reversed the district court’s determination that the plaintiff had
constructive possession of the collaterals. The district court “placed reliance on
the fact that the . . . collateral notes and trust deeds had been recorded in the
county where the land was located. The court felt that this ’served as notice to all
interested parties.’ ” Id. at 1230. However, we rejected that reasoning, stating that
such notice was not the type of notice intended or provided by the California
Commercial Code. Even the additional fact raised by appellants that the
assignments were stapled to the collaterals does not change the result. Perfection
of a security interest in an instrument can only occur with the actual possession of
the instrument by the secured party or by an agent or bailee on his behalf. Id. at
1230; In re Bruce Farley Corporation, 612 F.2d 1197, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 1980).
Had the legislature intended to allow perfection by methods proposed by
appellants, they could have done so.
15
By holding in Huffman that the collateral packages of notes secured by trust
deeds were instruments, we implicitly decided that the collaterals were not
general intangibles.1 The district court’s discussion2 (unpublished) of the issue
provides ample bases for rejecting the appellant’s characterization of the
collaterals as general intangibles and we adopt its reasoning and conclusion.3
CONCLUSION
The decision of the district court is
16
AFFIRMED.
*
The Honorable John W. Peck, Senior Circuit Judge, Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals, sitting by designation
1
The issue of whether the collaterals were general intangibles and not instruments
was presented and considered in the petition for rehearing. The petition was
summarily denied
2
The district court stated that:
“Uniform Commercial Code Comment 3 to § 9105 of the Code reads in part as
follows:
” ‘The term (“instrument”) as defined in paragraph (1)(i) includes not only
negotiable instruments and investment securities but also any other intangibles
evidenced by writings which are in ordinary course of business transferred by
delivery. . . .
” ‘The fact that an instrument is secured by collateral, whether the collateral be
other instruments, documents, goods, accounts or general intangibles, does not
change the character of the principal obligation as an instrument or convert the
combination of instrument and collateral into a separate Code classification of
personal property. The single qualification to this principle is that an instrument
which is secured by chattel paper is itself part of the chattel paper, while also
retaining its identity as an instrument.’ (Emphasis added)
“The California District Court of Appeal described the attributes of a deed of trust
in Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc., supra :
” ‘(A) deed of trust is a mere incident of the debt it secures and . . . an assignment
of the debt “carries with it the security.” (Citations omitted); . . . a deed of trust is
inseparable from the debt and always abides with the debt, and it has no market or
ascertainable value, apart from the obligation it secures (citations omitted);
and . . . a deed of trust has no assignable quality independent of the debt, it may
not be assigned or transferred apart from the debt, and an attempt to assign the
deed of trust without a transfer of the debt is without effect. (Citations omitted).’ ”
“270 Cal.App.2d (543) at 553-54 (76 Cal.Rptr. 529) (footnote omitted). It is clear,
therefore, that the collateral notes which were secured by the deeds of trust were
the primary security for the promissory notes issued by the bankrupt to appellants,
because the deeds of trust had no value and were not assignable apart from those
collateral notes. Those collateral notes clearly fall within the definition of
instruments in § 9105 of the Code, and the fact that they were themselves secured
by the trust deeds brings them squarely within the emphasized portion of
Comment 3, quoted supra.
“Any remaining doubts as to the propriety of characterizing the collateral package
as an instrument are set to rest by Uniform Commercial Code Comment 4 to §
9102 of the Code. That Comment contains a hypothetical which is instructive in
its terminology.
” ‘The owner of Blackacre borrows $10,000 from his neighbor, and secures his
note by a mortgage on Blackacre. This Article is not applicable to the creation of
the real estate mortgage. Nor is it applicable to the sale of the note by the
mortgagee, even though the mortgage continues to secure the note. However,
when the mortgagee pledges the note to secure his own obligation to X, this
Article applies to the security interest thus created, which is a security interest in
an instrument even though the instrument is secured by a real estate mortgage. . . .
‘ (Emphasis added).
“The Comments to the Code thus expressly negate the idea that the collateral
package herein may be characterized as general intangibles. See also Uniform
Commercial Code Comment to Code § 9106 and Uniform Commercial Code
Comment 1 to Code § 9305 for discussion of what constitutes general
intangibles.”
(Record at 513-515).
3
In Rucker v. State Exchange Bank, 355 So.2d 171 (Fla.App. 1978), a collateral
package of a note secured by a real estate mortgage was also considered. The
court there ruled that the assignment of the real estate mortgage along with the
note did not bring the real estate mortgage under the coverage of Article 9 of the
Uniform Commercial Code. The court also determined that the recordation of the
assignment of the mortgage gave constructive notice of the assignee’s interest in
the mortgage
While Rucker may be contrary authority, we are not convinced that it is the law in
California. In any event, a three-member panel may not overrule a prior
precedent. Absent a decision by an en banc panel of this court, or a decision by
the Supreme Court of California that is contrary to Huffman, we are bound to
follow that decision.
 Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com

6.

Lisa E., on December 19th, 2009 at 9:24 pm Said:

UKG: Two words for you.

Duct Tape.

_____________

7.

usedkarguy, on December 19th, 2009 at 9:03 pm Said:

Well said, Dan. And you can’t get around “holder in due course” with these
trustee relationships. At least, I couldn’t. I think I screwed up. Anyway, I should
have a better chance in the BK system. I will have an attorney this time. I know
who, I just can’t afford him. Hell, I can’t afford shoestrings!

8.

Dan Edstrom, on December 19th, 2009 at 8:51 pm Said:

Ken,
Sure I can give you input on it. There are two aspects to the “conveyance” of the
loans from the depositor to the Trust. My pooling and servicing agreement is
similar to yours but says it differently. Mine says something like “Even though we
said we sold the loans for tax purposes, for accounting purposes we used seller
financing”. Actually I found about 3 different instances in various place
describing what they did (check your Pooling and Servicing agreement,
Assignment and Assumption agreement and the Prospectus). Here is what my
interpretation of this is:

A full and normal sale would mean they did a normal assignment of the loan
WITHOUT RECOURSE. This means they received full value in return for giving
the trust full rights. But this is typically NOT what actually happens. They
actually do BOTH, without recourse and with recourse. For tax purposes (for
reporting to the IRS), the transfer is a SALE. For accounting purposes, they
PLEDGE the note – meaning they promise to transfer it at some point in the
future at such a time as they receive full payment. When they pledge they agree to
buy it back again at some future point under certain conditions (kind of like a
money back guarantee). With a true sale it is usually as is and you are on your
own. It is of course more complicated then this – after all they don’t call it
financial engineering for nothing. Why do they do all of this? Here is what
happens (this is my opinion from my limited knowledge):
Once the Seller has acquired the loan from the originator, they “pledge” the loan
into securitization. That is they “promise” to transfer the loan at some point to the
depositor, and the depositor “promises” to transfer the loan at some point in the
future to the Trust. The trust collects the principal and interest payments and
transfer them to the “holders of certificates”. All the trust truly needs is the
payments. They “need” the loans as collateral to make the certificate holders think
there is something of value behind the certificates, but the collateral (the pool of
mortgages) would just be sitting idle in the trust if they transferred them in. These
are financial engineers so they use every piece they can. Why does the seller
(and/or depositor) need the loan if the payments go to the trust? That one is
extremely easy to understand – they use it as collateral to borrow money from
other banks. Think about it. The pool my loan is in was worth about
$500,000,000.00 at inception. If they transferred all of these loans into the trust,
that $500,000,000.00 would be doing absolutely nothing but sitting there. They
put this on their balance sheet as an asset and borrower money from another bank.
Now $500,000,000.00 is a lot of money, but my “deal” was one of 5 done in 2005
by my originator and GMAC-RFC. If the value was approx. the same in all 5 that
turns out to be $2.5 Billion dollars. If they borrowed 80%, that would give them
$2.0 Billion dollars in extra money they did NOT have. So think about it. The
investors who purchased certificates from the Trust paid for the money that went
to the mortgage loans at closing. As “passive” middlemen with NO money
invested (they are using other peoples money), they get $2.0 Billion dollars to
spend and invest however they want.

Anyway, I am far away from your original question. So NONE of the trusts
actually have any loans in them – that is until about 50 to 55 days BEFORE the
foreclosure sale. That is when they “assign” the loan (allegedly for real) into the
Trust so that they can foreclose on it. That is why the assignments are all
happening AFTER foreclosure is initiated. The problem with this is that it violates
FAS 140-3 and probably other accounting standards. The only way the can truly
transfer title is through an open market transaction. They are using the foreclosure
sale as an open market transaction.

So, who actually owns your loan? Well, here it goes, here is what I think
happened in my case. The originator “closed” my loan and sold it to an affiliate (a
banking entity). The affiliate sold it to GMAC-RFC (the sponser and seller).
GMAC-RFC actually provided the warehouse line of credit to the originator.
GMAC-RFC receives their warehouse credit line from GMAC-ResCap
(Residential Capital). GMAC-ResCap receives their warehouse line of credit from
GMAC Bank F.S.B. (now Ally Bank F.S.B.). GMAC-RFC pledged the loan to
the depositor (RASC – Residential Asset Securities Corporation). RASC pledged
the loan to the trust and put the title in the name of the Trustee. The trustee
putatively has legal title but the true owner is the Trust. Who owns the trust? The
pooling and servicing agreements says that each certificate issued by the trust
represents and ownership interest in the Trust such that all certificates together
make up 100% ownership. Is that clear enough? Here is a rundown of all parties
that have an interest in my property:

– The master servicer, sponser and seller (GMAC-RFC)

– GMAC-ResCap
– A Federal Savings Bank (Ally Bank FKA GMAC Bank)
– the Depositor (RASC)
– the Trust (RASC Series 2005-EMX4)
– the Trustee (US Bank N.A.)
– the successor master servicer (US Bank N.A.)
– the custodian? (Wells Fargo Bank N.A.)
– each investor who purchased certificates issued by the trust (parties unknown)
– The master servicer (GMAC-RFC)
– the sub-servicer (Wells Fargo Bank N.A.)

The sub-servicer is in the above list because according to the Pooling and
Servicing agreement if I don’t make my payment they have to advance the funds
for me. If the sub-servicer doesn’t advance the funds for me the master servicer
has to advance the funds. If the master servicer doesn’t make my payment the
successor master servicer has to make them. Read your pooling and servicing
agreement – check the section under Advances.

The main purpose of securitization is so that the investors receive their payments
every month no matter what.

Again let me reiterate that they do not call them financial engineers for nothing.
These guys are very good at what they do. So good that it looks to me like they
are going to destroy our country. We are actually paying them (government
bailouts, TARP, etc) for their losses incurred when they borrowed money against
the loans that they really didn’t own. And they are going to get most every
borrowers house AND they are going to suck every last bit of money from many,
many people.

Shoot me an email and I can send you a couple of the monthy certificateholder
statements created by my master servicer and sent to the bondholders and the
ratings agencies. I can also send you my reverse engineering of my loan and
securitization.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. These are my
opinions and this is for informational and educational purposes only.
 Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com

9.

Lisa E., on December 19th, 2009 at 8:35 pm Said:

Ken Dost,

One more thing:

As far as case law for Oregon…check your local paper and/or google for some
foreclosure defense attorneys.

Then, on Monday, call the local file room clerk of your local courthouse. Ask
him/her how to search for those (pick 4 or 5) attorneys’ case files and how you
could view his/her files for their work regarding foreclosure defense.

That’s how you’ll find your Oregon Case Law; by reading files of cases involved
in current litigation and reading how both sides are comporting themselves on the
battlefield.

You’ll also quickly grasp which attorneys understand the underlying issues and
which ones need to brush up on their knowledge base.

Hope this helps a little during this very stressful and difficult time.

Lisa E.

10.

Lisa E., on December 19th, 2009 at 8:28 pm Said:

Ken Dost:

First of all, it’s really slow here on the weekends, somewhat due to the heavier
mod/approval required before posts are viewable.

Second, here’s a link: http://foreclosurehelp.oregon.gov/

Third: it appears that Oregon is both a judicial and a non-judicial state. What that
means is that you will most likely have to file a suit against the entity that is
trying to foreclose upon your home (most likely the loan servicer, but not
 assuredly). Talk to others here from CA or other non-judicial states for tactical
suggestions based on how they are handling their own non-judicial anti-
foreclosure fight.

Fourth: the info you posted from a Pooling and Servicing Agreement has to be
gently entered into a court case. As much as we’d like to hang our hats (and
homes) on the “protective” verbiage in a P&S Agreement, it’s far from simple to
do so. You need to have a court case and a judge. Then you need to slowly,
gently, politely educate the judge as to the issues behind securitized mortgages
and the illegality of foreclosures for all mortgages registered in a Mortgage
Backed Security. Then you need to have that P&S entered into “evidence”. Then,
and really from what I’ve seen and understand, ONLY THEN can you rely on the
“contract law” within the security agreement of a P&S.

Fourth: there are many non-judicial participants here who might have suggestions
that are a little faster and/or easier than the approach above.

Fifth: I am not an attorney and may be totally off base in all of the above. This is
not legal advice.

Good luck to you as you carry on the fight for your home.

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org

11.

Ken Dost, on December 19th, 2009 at 7:49 pm Said:

ANYONE…..SOMEONE ….PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT MY POST

EARLIER TODAY AND YESTERDAY AND PLEASE GIVE SOME INPUT

ALSO

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY GOOD CASE LAW FOR OREGON

12.

Lisa E., on December 19th, 2009 at 6:57 pm Said:

Radio Show NPR This American Life start listening at minute 19 for a better
understanding of a Credit Default Swap.
 Helps explain why a mortgage is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars more in
default (foreclosure) as opposed to the modified loan.

http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/CPRadio_player.php?
podcast=http://www.thisamericanlife.org/xmlfeeds/365.xml&proxyloc=http://audi
o.thisamericanlife.org/player/customproxy.php

Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org

13.

Ken Dost, on December 19th, 2009 at 6:09 pm Said:

I found this in my pooling and service agreement. Can I get some input and
thoughts on the following:

With respect to any Mortgage Loan that is not a Co-op Loan, none of the
Depositor, the Master Servicer, the Servicer, the Securities Administrator or
the Trustee shall be obligated to cause to be recorded the Assignment of
Mortgage referred to in this Section 2.01. With respect to any Co-op Loan, none
of the Depositor, the Servicer or the Trustee shall be obligated to cause to be
filed the Form UCC-3 referred to in this Section 2.01. In the event that any
Assignment of Mortgage referred to in this Section 2.01 is not recorded or is
improperly recorded, the Servicer and the Trustee shall have no liability for
any failure to receive or act on notices related to such Assignment of Mortgage.

The ownership of each Mortgage Note, the Mortgage and the contents of the
related Mortgage File is vested in the Trustee on behalf of the
Certificateholders. None of the Depositor, the Master Servicer, the Servicer or
the Securities Administrator shall take any action inconsistent with such
ownership and shall not claim any ownership interest therein. The Depositor, the
Master Servicer, the Servicer and Securities Administrator shall respond to any
third party inquiries with respect to ownership of the Mortgage Loans by stating
that such ownership is held by the Trustee on behalf of the Certificateholders.
Mortgage documents relating to the Mortgage Loans not delivered to the Trustee
are and shall be held in trust by the Servicer, for the benefit of the Trustee
as the owner thereof, and the Servicer’s possession of the contents of each
Mortgage File so retained is for the sole purpose of servicing the related
Mortgage Loan, and such retention and possession by the Servicer is in a
custodial capacity only. The Depositor agrees to take no action inconsistent
with the Trustee’s ownership of the Mortgage Loans, to promptly indicate to all
inquiring parties that the Mortgage Loans have been sold and to claim no
ownership interest in the Mortgage Loans.
 It is the intention of this Agreement that the conveyance of the
Depositor’s right, title and interest in and to the Trust Fund pursuant to this
Agreement shall constitute a purchase and sale and not a loan. If a conveyance
of Mortgage Loans from the Seller to the Depositor is characterized as a pledge
and not a sale, then the Depositor shall be deemed to have transferred to the
Trustee all of the Depositor’s right, title and interest in, to and under the
obligations of the Seller deemed to be secured by said pledge; and it is the
intention of this Agreement that the Depositor shall also be deemed to have
granted to the Trustee a first priority security interest in all of the
Depositor’s right, title, and interest in, to and under the obligations of the
Seller to the Depositor deemed to be secured by said pledge and that the Trustee
shall be deemed to be an independent custodian for purposes of perfection of the
security interest granted to the Depositor. If the conveyance of the Mortgage
Loans from the Depositor to the Trustee is characterized as a pledge, it is the
intention of this Agreement that this Agreement shall constitute a security
agreement under applicable law, and that the Depositor shall be deemed to have
granted to the Trustee a first priority security interest

-55-

in all of the Depositor’s right, title and interest in, to and under the
Mortgage Loans, all payments of principal of or interest on such Mortgage Loans,
all other rights relating to and payments made in respect of the Trust Fund, and
all proceeds of any thereof. If the trust created by this Agreement terminates
prior to the satisfaction of the claims of any Person in any Certificates, the
security interest created hereby shall continue in full force and effect and the
Trustee shall be deemed to be the collateral agent for the benefit of such
Person.

14.

Lisa E., on December 19th, 2009 at 9:47 am Said:

Sunday 12/20/09: I expect to see an article in the Tampa Tribune by journalist

Michael Sasso on FDLG and their “questionable” tactics.

Please everyone go to that article tomorrow and make a comment.

Educate. Link to LivingLies. Negate the “deadbeat borrower” stigma. Thank the
journalist for pursuing this timely topic.

Let’s make a presence!

 Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)

15.

Lisa E., on December 19th, 2009 at 6:02 am Said:

Judges who are completely resistant to hearing matters of law and rule with a
bias: research MOTION FOR RECUSAL (your state) or RECUSAL OF JUDGE
(your state)

Warnings:

1) It may not work (many attorneys are often unsuccessful with this tactic) and
now you have a biased AND angry judge and

2) The grass is not always greener in another courtroom.

3) In many states, the actual judge whom you are asking to be recused makes the
decision whether to have him/herself removed.

4) ALWAYS have a court reporter for ALL hearings in front of that judge so a
record is created for appeal (and/or to back up one’s complaint to the state’s
Attorney General against the fraudulent Plaintiff)

5) Study. Study. Study. Go in front of that judge as fully armed with knowledge
as possible. Know your state’s Statutes, case law, rules of civil procedure. GO TO
THE COURTHOUSE every chance you can (if your foreclosure court is open to
the public…if not, go to the closest county that is). Observe. Take notes. Find out
the best foreclosure defense attorney in that court & get yourself to the file room
and ask a million polite questions on how to look up that attorney’s cases. Pay for
copies of that attorney’s filings. Go watch that attorney in action. Go watch the
attorneys for the fraudulent illegal forecloser in action.

6) If it’s within your belief system: Pray.

7) Before speaking to the judge: ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS take a deep

breath to get yourself under control, address the judge as “Your Honor” and
remember that you are working not only for your own home but for the thousands
of homeowners also in your community who will end up with this same judge.

Good Luck to us all!

 Lisa E
ForeclosureHamlet.org
Foreclosure Hamlet @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)

***I am not an attorney. This is survival (not legal) advice.***

16.

erlinda, on December 18th, 2009 at 10:00 pm Said:

neil,

how would you a deal with a JUDGE THAT WON’T LISTEN TO YOUR
ARGUMENT? IT SEEMS THIS JUDGE ACT LIKE AN ATTORNEY FOR
THE CREDITOR. the judge is so prejudice towards a pro se like me. any help or
suggestion how i could tackle this crook judge? i don’t trust lawyers , i was
already misrepresented by two incompetent attorneys. i think my next move is to
complaint this judge, i can’t prosper doing my reorganization in chapter 11 plan
effectively. where could i file a complaint about this judge? need help from the
readers of this blog. dan , can you just explain this thing to them , i just email you
the reasons. thank you.

17.

Deontos, on December 18th, 2009 at 6:17 pm Said:

Note to self: When you see that “poster” who goes by the moniker Foreclosure
Fraud…….. Uhhhh say thank you.

Good work FF!!

18.

Lisa E., on December 18th, 2009 at 5:55 pm Said:

Florida Statute & Case Law Study Group is officially open for business.

Come join in!

http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/forum/topics/florida-statutes-case-law

Lisa E.
ForeclosureHamlet.org
19.

Lisa E., on December 18th, 2009 at 5:37 pm Said:

Note to self: DO NOT PISS OFF MR. FORECLOSURE FRAUD.

20.

Foreclosure Fraud, on December 18th, 2009 at 3:46 pm Said:

So I pulled Bernanke’s mortgage…

From Effective Demand Blog

“First and foremost, before yesterday I didn’t care one iota about Bernanke’s
mortgage. But when he said this publicly my interest was piqued:

Do you have a mortgage?

Oh, yes, we refinanced.

Oh, perfect. When?

About 5%. A couple of months ago.

Good time.
Yes. We had to do it because we had an adjustable rate mortgage and it exploded,
so we had to.

So, did you get a fixed rate at 5%? I think this might be the most valuable piece
of information.
(Laughter.) Thirty years fixed rate at a little over 5%.
Needless to say when the guy in charge of monetary policy says he has a
exploding ARM it is news so I checked out the public records. While the details
are certainly not juicy it leads me down another path of thought which I will get
to.

Bernanke bought in May 2004 for $839,000. He had a 5/1 ARM for $671,200 at
4.125% that adjusted to 12 month Libor in June of each year after his fixed period
ended. To calculate his rate you take 12 month Libor on that date and add
2.250%, it can’t adjust more than 2% in any one year due to restrictions on the
note. He also had a purchase money second $83,900 but for some reason I can’t
find the interest rate on that one, nor do I see an ARM rider for it so it could very
well be fixed. Both notes indicate they are amortizing loans.
So what does this all mean? Well according to the terms I see for Bernanke’s first
and the little information on historic LIBOR I can find… his rate actually went
down. So if his rate went down on his first and his second is fixed (an assumption
on my part since I see no ARM rider on the second) then ask yourself why
refinance now? You would only do so if you expect rates to rise in the future or
you don’t think fixed rates will ever be this good again. Winter time is a low
demand time for mortgages so rates drop to encourage activity, also the Fed is
ending it’s MBS purchases so rates are expected to rise.

Based on his actions I think Bernanke does not expect rates to get better than this
at the very least. One can’t read how much worse he might think rates might get
based on his refinance but he clearly fixed his rates now so the risk for lower rates
in the future based on his personal financial decision is low. I was a little doubtful
that the Fed would actually end their MBS purchases since the housing market is
only this “good” due to the artificially low rates caused by those purchases. But
now I am much more convinced that the Fed will at least let the MBS portion of
the market to stand on its own two feet in the near future. They could always
jump back in if rates jump higher than they want.”

“Effective Demand’s information raises several questions: Why did Bernanke

refi? What did he mean by “explode”, and was his home underwater when he
refinanced since he bought in 2004 and apparently borrowed 90% LTV with only
10% down?”
Calculated Risk

4closureFraud