Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
Show full post »
Chuck

Quote:
This is found in UCC 1-302 Parties Power to chose applicable law.
  

 

What you seem to fail to perceive is that the making of the original note is one transaction.  Each and every negotiation of the note is another separate transaction.

 

Mr. Roper has discussed this in another thread and as I recall posted some cases about it.

 

The note is usually controlled by the law of the place of execution unless it contains a contrary provision.  Each negotiation is controlled by the law of the place of negotiation.  Mr. Roper discussed this with respect to the validity of allonges in another thread.

 

Negotiation requires indorsement and delivery.  Negotiation is usually completed by delivery so usually the law of the place of delivery controls.

 

Most mortgages contain an express choice of law provision.  The choice of law provision usually specifies that the law of the place where the property is located controls.

 

The PSA, which is not a negotiable instrument, but rather is either a contract or a trust indenture or both usually also has a separate choice of law provision controlling that contract.  Often, the choice of law provision of a PSA specifies New York law.

 

While the PSA contemplates the sale of mortgages as well as their negotiation, the PSA is usually NOT the instrument of sale itself.  To the contrary, very often there is one or more separate document which constitutes the agreement of sale of the mortgages and the process for negotiation is discussed in the PSA, is contemplated by the PSA, but is not usually contemporaneous with the PSA.  To the contrary, the PSA typically contemplates a closing at which the mortgage collateral is to be conveyed as of the specified closing date.

 

You are way out of your depth and seem to have little understanding of that which you seek to discuss.  You have a LOT of homework to do and your time would probably be much better served studying the posts of others, especially Mr. Roper, rather than seeking to teach others as to topics about which you have minimal knowledge and understanding!   

 

If you want to teach us anything about PSAs, why don't you first read 500 or 1,000 PSAs start to finish and then get back to us.  Most at this site have little interest in the wingnut trash you discovered on your first web search and inquiry into a complex topic.

Quote 0 0
david
Quote:
  If you want to teach us anything about PSAs, why don't you first read 500 or 1,000 PSAs start to finish and then get back to us.  Most at this site have little interest in the wingnut trash you discovered on your first web search and inquiry into a complex topic.  


Don't get into hissy fit.  You're the one that asked "How can a contract trump the law"
I told you how and cited the law and you are bent out of shape.  I'm litigating and making progress, not sitting here in an arm chair spinning theories.
I'm not trying to teach anyone anything.  But if someone like you wants to advocate that defense is futile, you will get an argument.  Sorry to wander into your private forum.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quote 0 0
Bill
david wrote:
Quote:
  If you want to teach us anything about PSAs, why don't you first read 500 or 1,000 PSAs start to finish and then get back to us.  Most at this site have little interest in the wingnut trash you discovered on your first web search and inquiry into a complex topic.  


Don't get into hissy fit.  You're the one that asked "How can a contract trump the law"
I told you how and cited the law and you are bent out of shape.  I'm litigating and making progress, not sitting here in an arm chair spinning theories.
I'm not trying to teach anyone anything.  But if someone like you wants to advocate that defense is futile, you will get an argument.  Sorry to wander into your private forum.


If you look at his other posts you will get all the info you need chuck:
Quote:

david

Registered: Today
Posts: 7

    Today at 09:04 PM#23

Quote:

About half the loans "owner" by Freddie are owned outright and half were securitized mostly through the pass-through certificates mentioned.

 



Where do you get the data that half were/are owned outright?  And if owned outright, in what capacity?  Did the swap, substitute, collect default insurance.  Any insurance collected is applicable to your loan balance.


Quote 0 0
david
Quote:

Don't even bother looking. 

 

About half of the loans "sold" to Fannie and Freddie were "sold" for portfolio investment by the GSEs. 

 

The other half was securitized using the two GSE's mortgage pass through certificates.  In this latter instance, the whole loans were actually exchanged for the mortgage pass through certificates guaranteed by Fannie or Freddie.

 


Quote:
About half the loans "owner" by Freddie are owned outright and half were securitized mostly through the pass-through certificates mentioned.



I did read the posts.  The two statements are not backed by facts and what Freddie owns and what they sell are not necessarily the same.  If Freddie sells to Portfolio Investments, are they owner of the note?


xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quote 0 0
Chuck

Quote:
Don't get into hissy fit.   You're the one that asked "How can a contract trump the law".

 

I told you how and cited the law and you are bent out of shape. I'm litigating and making progress, not sitting here in an arm chair spinning theories.

 

 

Choice of law provisions do not give the parties the authority to alter the law, but rather only to select the jurisdiction for which the law is to be applied to the instrument.

 

Even this provision is not unbounded.  If company A is located in Tennessee and company B is located in Texas and they enter into a contract at a business meeting in Arkansas calling for the delivery of widgets in Illinois, the parties could probably elect to choose to contract under Arkansas, Illinois, Tennessee or Texas law.

 

On the other hand, if neither company was located in Hawaii, neither did business in Hawaii, the agreement wasn't reached in Hawaii and Hawaii did not otherwise touch upon any aspect of the agreement, it is unlikely that a court would apply Hawaii law, even if the parties voluntarily agreed to such a provision.

 

I am glad to hear that your defense is going well.  Please do not subvert the defense of other distressed borrowers by posting erroneous or absurd information on this message board.

 

Your most recent posts seem to suggest that you are either a swindler/scam artist yourself OR that you have bought into one or more of a wide variety of debt elimination scam swindles being peddled on the Internet.

 

Experienced and knowledgeable Forum participants have enough work on their hands policing these boards as to various false and specious posts without you adding to the volume of erroneous information.  If you have truthful or factually correct information to share, post it.  Posting false, deceptive, and erroneous information is not appreciated!

Quote 0 0
Chuck

Quote:
I did read the posts.   The two statements are not backed by facts and what Freddie owns and what they sell are not necessarily the same.   If Freddie sells to Portfolio Investments, are they owner of the note?
  

 

I posted details in the other thread.  This sort of information about Freddie's holdings and activities would be well familiar to anyone who actually follows this company.

 

By contrast, as Bill points out, charlatans like Neil Garfield actually have no real knowledge of mortgage markets or securitization.  He simply plagiarizes other people material (as has been proven in other previous threads) or makes up material to support his various scams.

 

The last sentence of the material quoted above makes no sense whatsoever.  It is unclear whether you misspoke, do not understand accounting, do not understand securitization or simply make up sentences to see what they look like on a message board.  I can only reply, Huh??

 

Your suggestion that somehow insurance or credit default swaps would pay off your mortgage shows a particularly shallow knowledge and understanding both as to these transactions and to the law.

 

If you want help from other Forum participants, there are people here who can help you.  If you came here to promote specious and vacuous defense theories to help swindlers and scam artists peddle their wares, you are probably in for a rude awakening!

Quote 0 0
david
Your arrogant response does not supply the facts you seem to require of others. Pardon me if I missed one of the other thousand threads you may have commented on.  If I sell a note into an investment, how can I still be the owner of the note?  How has that confounded you?  You admit that parties to a trust may adopt a governing law but then say without support that a court is not likely to apply it.  I didn't say any of the insurance or swaps would pay of your loan only that the proceeds can be applied (if discoverd and litigated).  You haven't answered anything and simply declare others with different opinions scam artists and swindlers.  Nice try.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quote 0 0
Chuck

Quote:
If I sell a note into an investment, how can I still be the owner of the note? How has that confounded you?

 

You totally misunderstand the vocabulary of banking, mortgage banking and finance.  A loan is a portfolio loan when it is retained in the lenders' investment portfolio rather than being sold or securitized.  It would appear on Freddie's balance sheet.

 

A portfolio loan as to Freddie would be a loan purchased and carried on the balance sheet.  The loans which Freddie securitized would not be carried on the balance sheet as assets.  Rather, Freddie's contingent liability under its guarantees would merely be shown within the notes to the financial statements.

 

Your ignorance of the vocabulary of mortgage finance is telling.  There are no circumstances under which a loan purchased and then sold by Freddie would be characterized as a portfolio loan.

 

Describing the sale of such loans reflects your level of ignorance.

 

Quote:
I didn't say any of the insurance or swaps would pay of your loan only that the proceeds can be applied (if discovered and litigated).

 

Your assertion that the proceeds would be applied to the loan rather than paying off the loan is a distinction without a difference.  There is also NO LAW anywhere in the United States that would cause proceeds of credit risk insurance to be applied to a borrower's balance.  This is simply a figment of your imagination.

 

THE TONE OF YOUR POSTS SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT YOU ARE NOT A PERSON ACTUALLY SEEKING TO LEARN FROM THIS SITE, BUT RATHER JUST ANOTHER TROLL WORKING WITH THE SWINDLERS.

 

FOR THIS REASON, I HAVE NO FURTHER INTEREST IN RESPONDING YOU YOUR POSTS NOR SHOULD ANYONE ELSE. 

 

I AM NOW RESPONDING SOLELY TO ASSURE THAT NO ONE IS MISLED OR TAKEN IN BY YOUR SCAMS!

Quote 0 0
Chuck

For the benefit of others, I cleared up david's misapprehensions about the balance of loans in portfolio and in guaranteed pass-through securities in this post within the thread "Fannie/Freddie Loans - Are they securitized?":

 

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1272212692&postcount=25

 

Quote 0 0
Bill
david wrote:
Your arrogant response does not supply the facts you seem to require of others. Pardon me if I missed one of the other thousand threads you may have commented on.  If I sell a note into an investment, how can I still be the owner of the note?  How has that confounded you?  You admit that parties to a trust may adopt a governing law but then say without support that a court is not likely to apply it.  I didn't say any of the insurance or swaps would pay of your loan only that the proceeds can be applied (if discoverd and litigated).  You haven't answered anything and simply declare others with different opinions scam artists and swindlers.  Nice try.

Actually this isn't true.  Could you please post ANYTHING that supports this?  Or is this just a "I read it on the internet" kind of thing so " it must be right ".  I know Neil Garfield push this quite a bit showing the need for people to spend THOUSANDS on his audits.  Kind of funny that the FTC thinks all the audits are a scam.


Quote 0 0
david
Quote:
 

FOR THIS REASON, I HAVE NO FURTHER INTEREST IN RESPONDING YOU YOUR POSTS NOR SHOULD ANYONE ELSE. 

 



Speak for yourself. 

There's a lot going on at Freddie.  We have the suit against the former CEO for misrepresentation, the FHFA suit for securities fraud, The Freddie suit against Banks for fraud.  The billions in past bailouts, unknown insurance payouts, and request for more billions, and recent allegations that they bet against the the mortgage payers.

Even if these numbers are true, we don't know what kind of shell game is being played behind the curtains with defaults and how many trusts were not legally formed in compliance with REMIC law.

Counter suits are expanding rapidly for put backs.  The obligations are far in excess of the collateral.  Wait and see as the melt down continues.  How many pennies on the dollar will the settlements turn out to be?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quote 0 0
Ben

Quote:
There's a lot going on at Freddie. We have the suit against the former CEO for misrepresentation, the FHFA suit for securities fraud, The Freddie suit against Banks for fraud. The billions in past bailouts, unknown insurance payouts, and request for more billions, and recent allegations that they bet against the the mortgage payers.

Even if these numbers are true, we don't know what kind of shell game is being played behind the curtains with defaults and how many trusts were not legally formed in compliance with REMIC law.

Counter suits are expanding rapidly for put backs. The obligations are far in excess of the collateral. Wait and see as the melt down continues. How many pennies on the dollar will the settlements turn out to be?

 

With each new post your credibility further diminishes, because you simply do not know what you are talking about.  Freddie can require the repurchase of loans under its servicing agreements, but rarely does.

 

Most of the Freddie mortgage pools are only several million dollars, not hundreds of millions or billions as with private securitizations.  The PC pools rarely get very large in size.  It is totally uneconomic for the holders of the Freddie pass-through certificates to being a suit to require repurchase if they even had information that would support such a suit.

 

While the holders of private label trust certificates are taking a bath on those loans which default and for which the recovery is less than par, Freddie guarantees 100 cents on the dollar of the Freddie certificates. Why in the world would any investor want to sue to require a repurchase of trust collateral when Freddie, the U.S. Givernment and the U.S. taxpayer is already standing behind every failing loan?

 

Moreover, in many instances, the originating lender swapped the whole loans for Freddie pass-thighs with a Freddie guarantee and then kept the pass-through certificates as investments.  This added a Freddie guarantee to each mortgage and by converting the loans to pass-throughs, Freddie gets a more liquid asset which can be sold without any registration statement.

 

Why would the certificate holders sue Freddie to force the repurchase by the originating Lender when the certificate holder is the originator?  This would have the effect of giving up the taxpayer backed guaranty!

 

Chuck furnished you with actual data from Freddie's financial statements.  your response is to question whether the information is valid or reliable?  Give me a break.  The FHFA has already seized Freddie.  Don't you think there is a bit of an incentive to identify any problems with the bookkeeping up front?

 

You are a complete idiot and have no idea whatsoever how mortgage markets work.  You seem to have spent a couple of hours poring over erroneous information at some swindler's web site and are now a self-proclaimed expert! 

Quote 0 0
david
Quote:
  With each new post your credibility further diminishes, because you simply do not know what you are talking about.  Freddie can require the repurchase of loans under its servicing agreements, but rarely does.


Why should they when they can run to the government printing press for a bailout after they run the corporation into the ground?

Quote:
Chuck furnished you with actual data from Freddie's financial statements.  your response is to question whether the information is valid or reliable?  Give me a break.  The FHFA has already seized Freddie.  Don't you think there is a bit of an incentive to identify any problems with the bookkeeping up front? 


I hope so.  They can start with explaining why they deceived regulators and investors by not disclosing that they entered the subprime arena on a massive scale, in order to earn higher returns on their stock.  They disclosed 6 billion when it was really 250 billion sub prime assets in order to convince investors they were stable and had low risk on their balance sheet.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quote 0 0
Chuck

Note the inclusion of the e-mail link by "david".  Mike H. rarely overlooks an opportunity to initiate contact with other Forum participants, since his presence here is solely to cultivate new suckers for his swindles.

Quote 0 0
david
If Chuck was smart and got off his anti paranoia medicine for a few hours, he would not have made the wacky allegation that I am a known scammer using a different name simply because I have the normal email response.  Rather, he would have sent me a message from a cyptic address offering me a thousand dollars.  Then, he would reason, he could display it on this site confirming his suspicions that I am a  "wingnut scammer" using a different name.

Perhaps his real motivation is to dampen discussion and ideas that give the citizenry any tools in their fight against the Wall Street criminals

I really don't care about the email response and trying to remove it now so I can read Chuck's next response.

The hostility and labeling tendencies of of a few people on this site have made me consider they are banker shills.  You have never seen a post wherein I offer services.  So keep trying to make it up.




xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quote 0 0
Chuck

Right, david.  You registered at the site yesterday (Feb. 12, 2011) and are already at post 16.  Rather than posting some questions or joining into a reasonable discussion of viable defensive topics, you immediate embarked upon a combination of wingnut posts and attacks on Forum regulars.

 

Like Mike H., you have posted false and erroneous information and when called on it and shown your error, have simply changed the subject, evaded responsibility for your posts or suggested darkly that readily verifiable public information is unreliable.  The only reliable information in your view is that information which you simply invent.

 

The proximity in time of your posts to Mike H.'s reappearance at the Forum is also amusing and suspect. 

 

Perhaps you are not Mike H.  But you are a fraud and have nothing useful to offer Forum participants other than a re-presentation of failed and vacuous arguments which have been discussed and discarded over and over.

Quote 0 0
david
Quote:
   Rather than posting some questions or joining into a reasonable discussion of viable defensive topics, you immediate embarked upon a combination of wingnut posts and attacks on Forum regulars. 


It was my ideas that were attacked by self appointed regulars and gurus.  If there is some kind of pecking order here, you should make that clear.  It appears the only thing you have to teach is how to label anyone "Wingnut, scammer". 
Judges and courts are all different.  Just because one argument was dismissed by a court does not mean it will not prevail in another.  We are up against a powerful group of people and compromised politicians. If you have rules for this forum, I didn't notice them when I signed up.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quote 0 0
Anonymouslyinyourface
I read daily, usually don't post. There's about 4 or 5 nics that rule this forum.
I don't believe any one of these nics are the site admin either.

Quote 0 0
Texas
to Anonymouslyinyourface

There are a few of us seniors that do know that do watch what goes through the Forum.

Just love seeing the cat fights.

As for the site admins and owner, who knows?
Quote 0 0
t

Quote:
to Anonymouslyinyourface

There are a few of us seniors that do know that do watch what goes through the Forum.

Just love seeing the cat fights.

As for the site admins and owner, who knows?
 

 

Welcome back, friend!  Many Forum users have missed you and expressed concern about your status and well being.  I hope that your return to the Forum reflects that things are going well for you. 

 

(Some new trolls have appeared in your absence, though some of these seem likely to be Mike H. employing new handles to confuse and deceive.)

Quote 0 0
t

Quote:
It was my ideas that were attacked by self appointed regulars and gurus.
 

 

Your "ideas" reflect the same vacuous nonsense that has been being presented by scammers and swindlers for years.  Forum regulars are right to refute and dismiss this drivel which is most likely going to result in either the loss of their case, victimization by swindlers or both.

 

If you are simply misinformed and misguided, then educate yourself using the useful information in prior threads.  If you are here to resurrect and defend indefensible strategies of corrupt and deceitful people like Mike H., then you ought not be surprised that you get a cold reception.

 

Mike H. belongs in jail. 

Quote 0 0
david
Quote:
  Forum regulars are right to refute and dismiss this drivel which is most likely going to result in either the loss of their case, victimization by swindlers or both.


Certain forum regulars don't refute squat.  Your technique is to intimidate and constant name calling.  "Wingnut", "Scammer", "It's Mike H. with a new name".

Thanks for the invitation to sit at your feet and learn.  Do I bend over and kiss your butt before each lesson?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quote 0 0
Foley
david wrote:
   Rather than posting some questions or joining into a reasonable discussion of viable defensive topics, you immediate embarked upon a combination of wingnut posts and attacks on Forum regulars. 
 
Judges and courts are all different.  Just because one argument was dismissed by a court does not mean it will not prevail in another.  We are up against a powerful group of people and compromised politicians. If you have rules for this forum, I didn't notice them when I signed up.


How about we use Maher Soliman's expert testimony along with one of them Garfield Securitization audits to show the note was paid off?

Even though these theories and arguments were recently rejected, just as in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Scarborough v. LaSalle Bank, MERS, et al   the courts and judges are all different.


Quote 0 0
Brian

Quote:
How about we use Maher Soliman's expert testimony along with one of them Garfield Securitization audits to show the note was paid off?

 

Why not give all of your money to Maher Soliman and Neil Garfield, sign the deed over to the bank and slit your wrists?  This is equally effective, achieves roughly the same end and has the additional advantage of avoiding homelessness!

Quote 0 0
david
Quote:
Even though these theories and arguments were recently rejected, just as in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Scarborough v. LaSalle Bank, MERS, et al   the courts and judges are all different.


Not a good case.  The tenth circuit upheld the granting of summary judgement after extensive procedural errors by Plaintiff.  No mention in the appellate decision that a claim was made for pay down on the obligation due to default insurance.  Plaintiff's attorney had a record of incompetence with Utah courts and prior warnings of sanctions.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quote 0 0
Chuck

Quote:
No mention in the appellate decision that a claim was made for pay down on the obligation due to default insurance.
 

 

To be clear, there is NO CASE within the United States, in either state or Federal Court, which supports the absurd proposition that a payment of default insurance to a lender or mortgage insurer would result in the pay down of the borrower's mortgage balance.

 

Moreover, as Mr. Roper has explained and is well familiar to any person with knowledge of mortgage insurance and credit default matters, the terms of these policies provide for the payment of such claims only upon realization of the loss.  To put this in another way, only AFTER foreclosure is the amount of loss and the amount of the MI claim known.  Therefore there is NEVER a case that a claim for mortgage insurance is paid in advance of the foreclosure.  It is an impossibility under the terms of the MI policy.

 

david continues to try to resurrect this failed myth, presumably to facilitate further victimization of distressed borrowers by swindlers.

 

Whenever a charlatan like Neil Garfield presents the assertion that credit support pays down a borrower's balance, you may be assured that this is solely asserted as a pretext for separating a fool from his money.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...