“Dog Shit Wrapped in Cat Shit”

Loan closed in June of 05. Wells Fargo, 2/28, reset sent us into arrears (5 months after 37). Wells hit me with repayment plans adding past due $$ to loan balance, I did NOT sign. 2nd repayment plan offered, made a payment, still unsigned. After telling them I found the bogus savings account and bogus application in the mortgage docs, I called them screaming for their legal department, v.p. communications, JOHN STUMPF, couldn’t get anyone on the phone to address the fraudulent docs. The silence has been eerie. They are expecting a payment Aug 17, I’m not going to make it. I want to offer the money to counsel as retainer to start Fed suit. PRO SE Wisconsin resident needs help with starting quiet title/fraud suit.

That was 10 months before the filing of the first foreclosure……



I was REALLY PROUD when Garfield singled me out the first time……

EDITOR’S NOTE: usedkarguy gets it pretty well. He submitted the following comment which I have edited into this post, but I retain all his basic observations. This one deserves a re-read.

Essentially he  is proving a major point: You can’t pick up one end of the stick without picking up the other.

If the pretender lenders are claiming that the loan obligations are in the “trust” (REMIC) then the securities must have been sold. But then how can they say they stuck with unsold MBS for which they needed TARP relief? That is why discovery on the TARP funds is so important. Somewhre there is a document that says we are holding the following TOXIC ASSETS. And in that list are thousands of mortgages in hundreds of pools that never made it or which have vanished into thin air.

So the representation for example that U.S. Bank is the holder of the note as Trustee for Asset backed Security Pool 1234 must be tested by discovery and an evidentiary hearing if possible. That is where the rubber meets the road.

The arrogance of the pretender lenders fades when they are requred to move from spurious attorney representations in court to production of actual evidence — documents that can be authenticated by people with personal knowledge. And remember that would be people who are COMPETENT WITNESSES.

The legal argument is that even if the loan DID make it through the trust, it therefore was sold to the investors who purchased the Mortgage Backed Securities which were hybrids, containing the language of a bond and the conveyance of a percentage equity in the pool AS OWNERS THEREOF. Thus without naming them as LENDERS and proving that the LENDERS are foreclosing with the assistance of the pretender lender, the pretender lender is simply stealing the property from a LENDER who knows nothing about the existence of the foreclosure proceedings.

The factual argument is that in many cases the loan never made it in any form, on any document, to the Trustee, the Trust, the REMIC or the investors.

THAT is why you win in discovery — unless they account for all aspects of this transaction, they have no accounting at all. A creditor’s burden of proof is simple: here are the records and our witnesses that show that you took value from us and here is all the money anyone ever paid on this obligation. So here is your balance. This is done in small claims court every day.

Without an accounting they cannot positively state whether the obligation is in default, and if so, to whom the obligation is actually owed (i.e., who lost money on the allegedly defaulted loan).


Where’s the counterparty? Who wrote the default swap?

In my trust, it was Bear Stearns (Now JPMChase), and the Securities administrator (seller) was Citigroup Global Markets. Trustee HSBC for the Wells Fargo Trust. Wells Fargo wore all the other hats.

Now, the vintage deals WFHome Equity Asset Backed Securities 2005-1/2/3/4 were all “left on dealers shelves” like the same vintage SASCO Deals. Anyway, if CitiGroup Global got stuck holding the bag ($62Billion writedown, anyone remember?) and the securities remained unsold, how did they (the mortgage pools) end up in the 1999 Wells Fargo/Norwest Assets 1999 Trust? It’s the “extinguishment of the liability” (140-3) wherein the problem lies (reverse-repo). It’s a modern-day version of “hot-potato”. It’s hot because they used the loan to borrow more money after dispersing the investor money. They don’t have the money to pay back the loan that constituted the proceeds of YOUR loan (it was borrowed from the investor). The AB1122 is where they defraud the investors by not reporting the actual failure of the trust (receivership). And, the REMIC trust is taking in more money in foreclosure and sheriff’s sale/liquidation (not a true open market transaction as perpetrated with fraudulent representation on the part of the foreclosing entity) than in interest pass through (the key to tax-exempt flow through (conduit) status) (more than 20%?), if the defaulted loans are indicative of 20% of the total number of loans in the pool, the mathematical consequences are supposed to trigger receivership (liquidation). The WFHEABS05-2 are running at 40% delinquent/foreclosed/bankrupt/REO. These default rates are common throughout meltdown-era MBSs.

My question, Mr. E, is who is the counterparty? They are the one who got stuck with loss on your note, but they have no note, and no claim to the collateral. They got paid a premium to perform on a contract, and lost. They don’t have any assigned interest in the house, only a receipt for paying the claim. The loan is extinguished on one set of books, but is continuously carried as an asset (money still a receivable) on another set of books (ABS) even though no such obligation exists.

Now, back to True Sale. This is the “surrender of control” issue that violates the true sale status. The loan was to be assigned “without recourse” when the Depositor agreed to deposit it with the Trust. I don’t think any of this was done other than with a passing of dollar values over a wire. There was never any “arms-length” transaction, the pretender lender stayed on immediately to “service” the loan and make sure you defaulted, they directed the appraisal of the collateral to cover the loan. Then they end up recovering the collateral at sheriffs sale to sell at a later date directing proceeds into their own pockets (the sponsor usually holds the equity tranches and the Z tranche, which receives non-regular cash flows).

Comment:  It took a couple years, but I found the Counterparty Credit Default Swaps in the Maiden Lane One TARP listing.  The CDSwaps ended up on the Fed’s books after the crash.  I eventually took that to mean that the reason I couldn’t win in Wisconsin or Federal Court was because THE FREAKING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS FORECLOSING ON ME!  Turns out, I was kinda half right…….they pledged and carried my loan on the balance sheets of two different trusts at Wells Fargo, and defaulted to collect on one through TARP. 


ten months ago I stated “Neither the Republicans, the Democrats, the Treasury, the Justice Department, the Federal or state courts want any homeowners to “stay in their homes”. The foreclosure machine rolls on with the above-named participants (as well as all these CREDIT COUNSELING AGENCIES THAT COLLECT FORCED FEES FROM BANKRUPT DEBTORS) grabbing all the government cash along the way.EVERY FREAKING ONE OF THESE GROUPS IN ON THE DOLE while the banks continue to steal houses with forged paperwork. Many ask “How can all this be forged paperwork? Why?” The plan was always to write loans, bomb the monoline insurers and investors, and force the Fed (read TAXPAYERS) to pay off the loans. These loans are dead, folks. Paid off. Extinguished. And the fraud goes on, The whole government workforce is invested in bank stocks and bond markets. This was very well planned. When the money is worthless, the banks will have all the land.


In June of 2010, here I am asking for a HAMP, which was breached in 3 months…..

Ms. HXXXXXX, I am writing seeking disposition of the HAMP modification solicited to me repeatedly after your law firm Litchfield/Cavo successfully obtained a judgment of foreclosure in case#09CV0353, HSBC as Trustee for Wells Fargo Home Equity Asset-Backed Securities 2005-2, in Kenosha County Court. As we both know, the aforementioned trust certificates are subject to Sarbannes-Oxley jurisdiction (misrepresenting ownership of those certificates held by Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp. 1999) and credit default swaps are included in the TARP (Maiden Lane I) bailout. As put before the court, and as yet not adjudicated, the issues of FASB140-3 (Extinguishment of Liabilities), AB1122 (faulty reporting of servicing), and the fact that the Plaintiff foreclosed upon us with a pooling and servicing agreement that is superceded by the S/3 filing dated 04/02/2008 (SEC File 333-150038), and Wells Fargo’s “lack of good faith” in the handling of this loan modification, opens the case for reconsideration.
It is our intention to find an amicable resolution to the predatory loan foisted upon us by your employee Christina Ewing (now in the employ of BofA). Documents obtained via discovery show the false asset on our 1003 (Citibank account $15,630) utilized in the underwriting, and the subsequent reworking and forgery of the asset statement submitted with the final loan package. For your information, copies of this loan origination and documentation supporting the fraud claims have been tendered to the FBI, Comptroller of the Currency, FDIC, Office of Thrift Supervision, Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, Wisconsin Attorney General, and my contact at the Department of Justice. You may or may not be aware of the article in the Financial Time Monday about the FBI preparing to arrest “hundreds of people” involved in the mortgage fraud leading up to collapse of the Mortgage-Backed Securities markets. But I digress.
Depending on your future handling of this account, my options are as follows:
1) Since the Sheriff’s sale date is scheduled for July 28, 2010, I can file a bankruptcy, objecting to your “proof of claim”, and eventually seeking redress through the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to extinguish your claim against the property through further litigation;
2) I can have my counsel (upon retainer) file a motion to reopen the case in the State Court citing your lack of “good faith” in the handling of the at-hand modification under the HAMP/HAFA legislation;
3) Wait until documentation arrives at the courthouse and expose the lack of timely assignments and chain of title (and the UCC/SEC/State Law violations) regarding the note you are seeking to foreclose upon;


4) Accept a loan modification from your company that substantially reduces the amount owed as a set-off for the bad behavior of your company in the origination and subsequent securitization of the note and collection of the mortgage insurance/credit enhancements/swaps associated with this loan account.

Should this loan become the subject of a forensic investigation relating to Gain on Sale/Secured Borrowings/True Sale/or GAAP/FASB scrutinization, WE WILL PREVAIL!

NOTES:  My loan mod application traveled 2500 miles in one day–from Fort Mill, SC, to San Diego, to San Francisco(?) and finally to Phoenix, AZ. (“Uh, Miss, are you down the hall from the legal department? They have a similar phone number — no?  just asking”).  I was never NOT adversarial.



Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 134, 134.15 “Issuing and using what is not money; contracts void. (1)Any person who shall knowingly issue, pay out or pass, and any body corporate, or any officer, stock holder, director or agent thereof who shall issue, pay out or pass, or receive in this state as money or as an equivalent of money, any promissory note, draft, order, bill of exchange, certificate of deposit or other paper of any form whatever in the similitude of bank paper, circulating as money or banking currency, that is not at the time of such issuing, paying out, passing or receiving expressly authorized by some positive law of the United States or of some state of the United States or of any other country, and redeemable in lawful money of the United States, or current gold or silver coin at the place where it purports to have been issued, such
person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not more than six months or by fine not exceeding $100, and such body corporate shall forfeit all its rights, privileges and franchises and shall also forfeit to the state and pay for each offense the sum of $500.
All contracts of any kind whatever the consideration of which, in whole or in part, shall consist of any such paper as is prohibited in sub.(1) and all payments made in such unauthorized paper shall be null and void.”

The law was written to stop BANKS from lending CREDIT, as opposed to currency. Big difference: Lending credit is the opposite of lending money. Think about it. Fraud is not new. The concept of fraudulent transactions and fraudulent conveyances have been covered by the law since the 1600’s.

In American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 181 Wis. 172, 177-178, 194 N. W. 427 (Wis., 1923) the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held:
Neither as included in its powers nor incidental to them is it a part of a bank’s business to lend its credit. If a bank could lend its credit as well as its money, it might, if it received compensation and was careful to put its name only to solid paper, make a great deal more than any lawful interest on its money would amount to. If not careful, the power would be the mother of panics, and if no compensation was received, there is the additional reason, if any is needed, that such a power is in derogation of the rights and interests of stockholders, and at all events could only be exercised with the consent of all. “Indeed, lending credit is the exact opposite of lending money, which is the real business of a bank; for while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank, the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another.” 1 Morse, Banks & Banking (5th ed.) § 65; Magee, Banks & Banking (3d ed.) § 248; 1 Michie, Banks & Banking, § 99. This rule is so well established that it is unnecessary to cite the great number of cases which declare it.

In American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, supra, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin was prophetic. Only six (6) years later, in 1929, the mother of all panics occurred in the twentieth century as a result of banks lending their own credit on margin for the purchase of
stocks which resulted in the stock market crash of 1929. In 1923, the Wisconsin Supreme Court also prophesied the collapse of the real estate securities market in 2008 and the ensuing panic which resulted in the bank bailout of September, 2008, which can fairly be called this century’s “mother of all panics.” This current panic led to the “Foreclosure Crisis” unfairly blamed on “Borrowers” by the banks but was caused because the banks violated the basic principle of banking by lending their credit and not lending money.

This is what the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held in similar circumstances as to the First National Bank of Shullsberg:
“1. A corporation may be held liable as a party to a conspiracy to defraud in a transaction outside the scope of its charter, and a complaint against it and its co-conspirators to enforce such liability, charging that the corporation and its co-defendants made and consummated the fraudulent agreement, is not defective on demurrer for want of allegations as to who acted for the corporation in making such agreement and as to special authority having been given by its governing body in regard to the subject. [From the Syllabus by Judge Marshall]
Judge Marshall wrote:
The complaint in this case appears to be free from novelty except for the magnitude of the fraudulent scheme set forth, its completeness, the boldness with which it was consummated and the fact that a national bank was one of the guilty parties. . . Zinc Carbonate Company, at page 230.
. . .The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporations within their legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of their corporate charters, and it probably is not invoked too often; but to place that power in the hands of the corporation itself, or a private individual, to be used by it or him as a means of obtaining or retaining something of value which belongs to another, would turn an instrument intended to effect justice between the state and corporations into one of fraud as between the latter and innocent parties. Such is the modern doctrine, evolved and settled in the progress of events, reaching from the time when private corporations were few and the doctrine of ultra vires invoked quite as freely as to them as to public corporations, to a time when substantially all restrictions to the formation of such private bodies were removed, and they were authorized and commenced to exist, great and small, everywhere, for the purpose of conducting almost every kind of legitimate business. If such a body transcend its powers it commits a wrong against the state, and ordinarily it is for the state, only, to call it to account for such violation. [Citing numerous cases.] Zinc Carbonate Company, at page 231.
. . . Counsel for respondents freely admit that a corporation may be liable for a tortious act and as a co-conspirator in a scheme to commit fraud, but insist that unless the fraud be a
wrongful means resorted to, to accomplish something which the corporation has a lawful right to do by lawful means, fraud cannot be attributed to it unless its officers or agents who assumed to act in its behalf were specially authorized to so act, and that a statement of the cause of action to remedy such a wrong requires the special authorization to be pleaded. Zinc Carbonate Company, at page 231.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin went on to hold,
We need not, for this appeal, determine whether the special authorization is necessary. If it be admitted, for the purposes of the discussion, that such is the case, yet the complaint charges that the corporation did the wrongful acts. That is repeated over and over again. How it became involved in the transactions complained of is a matter of proof in respect to which an issue need not necessarily be tendered by the complaint. If the allegations charging the corporation are open to any criticism, it is upon the ground of indefiniteness to be reached by motion and not by demurrer. . . Necessary facts, reasonably inferable from those pleaded, under our liberal rules of pleading, must be considered as pleaded by way of such inference. Miller v. Bayer, 94 Wis. 123, 68 N. W. 869. It may properly be said, in addition, on this point, that the complaint fairly shows ratification by the corporation of the scheme entered upon and carried out in part by its officers and agents assuming to act in its behalf with knowledge of the facts. That is sufficient to render it liable by ratification, the same as if such officers and agents were originally authorized to represent and act for it. Zinc Carbonate Company, at page 231.

And if the mortgage assignment upon which a bank proceeds is a forgery in violation of Wis.Stats. sec. 943.38(1), which provides:
943.38 Forgery.
(1) Whoever with intent to defraud falsely makes or alters a writing or object of any of the following kinds so that it purports to have been made by another, or at another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority, is guilty of a Class H felony: (a) A writing or object whereby legal rights or obligations are created, terminated or transferred, or any writing commonly relied upon in business or commercial transactions as evidence of debt or property rights; or (b) A public record or a certified or authenticated copy thereof; or (c) An official authentication or certification of a copy of a public record; or (d) An official return or certificate entitled to be received as evidence of its contents.


usedkarguyApril 2, 2013 at 9:16 pm
Counselor. thanks for your help with the cause. judges are ruling in favor of their retirement accounts, that’s all there is to it. the rocket docket is not the answer, unless your goal is to strip everybody of their right to due process. how about findings of fact without an evidentiary hearing? yep, nothing is beneath these judges. they’ve been given the word by Treasury and Justice: “Take all the homes touched by TARP”. BUT SOME JUDGES AREN’T BUYING IT ANYMORE.


usedkarguy says:

The banks’ crisis is over now they have amassed huge piles of cash at the expense of the American taxpayer. With the Fed pumping trillions to the banks at 0-0.25% interest and the banks getting above market rates from distressed borrowers (retail and wholesale alike), they are in a great position. That position is supported by the Obama Administration holding the Justice Department at bay to protect the big 5. We know there is no restoration of equity without extinguishment of debt. The banks have successfully robbed the homeowners, pension funds, the bond insurers, and sovereign governments. Should the taxpayers continue to let the government-supported banksters continue the crime? I think NOT!
Homeowners, fight your foreclosure. All you prime people with underwater mortgages: stop paying. If you lost your house to a fraudulent foreclosure, do your research and get your house back. Until the citizens rise up against the bank oligopoly, there will be no restoration of the economy.


If anything can be learned from the Foreclosure Crisis it is that the judiciary has been hijacked by the banks. Attorneys like Bill Butler KNOW that the fraud in these transactions is exactly related to the handling of the note. Your propagandist attitude exhibited by categorizing this as “show me the note” frivolity tells all too well that you KNOW the foreclosures are fraudulent, the trusts are unfunded and servicers are stealing the homes to stuff their own coffers unbeknownst to the investors.
We have learned first-person that anything called “frivolous” by a jurist is actually on-point to the tee in describing fraud, racketeering, with the judges actions (as well as the BK trustees and DOJ) all constituting misprision of a felony. Any lawyer defending homeowners against the fraudulent loan and securities scheme is a target for defamation and persecution by the likes of the legal establishment represented here.
I wish I saw this when published.

Read more: http://minnlawyer.com/2015/08/13/supreme-court-butler-did-it-way-too-many-times/#ixzz3yEIa8z1m



Most home mortgage foreclosures are engineered by big banks, border on the illegal

Recent headlines stated that the big New York banks will set aside billions of dollars to settle the federal complaints that banks wrongfully foreclosed on homeowners. The heading should read “illegally foreclosed.” The Wall Street Journal stated banks wrongfully foreclosed on homeowners who should have been allowed to stay in their homes.

Media headlines often omit details such as including opinions rendered by courts. Massachusetts Judge Keith Long (October 2009) stated “The issues in this case are not merely problems with paperwork or a matter of dotting I’s and crossing T’s. Instead, they lie at the heart of the protections given to homeowners and borrowers by the Massachusetts legislature.”

He found that the courts have revealed the possibility that unlawful foreclosures, dating back to 1989, might be invalidated and buyers of foreclosed properties and short sales may have clouded titles.

Ohio U.S. District Judge Christopher Boyko (October 2007) dismissed 14 foreclosure actions and delivered a strong admonishment  “… where financial institutions have traditionally controlled, and still control, the foreclosure process… There is no doubt that every decision made by a financial institution in the foreclosure is driven by money.”

To make their trillions, yes, trillions of dollars, the banks created a “money-making scheme” of packaging and selling bundles of American home mortgages to investors and banks around the world. They secured the mortgages by rigging an elaborate system of streamlining the procedure making it easier and faster to bundle the mortgages with an electronic data base called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, referred to as MERS.

The operation separates the deed from the promissory note and keeps track of the mortgages. To foreclose, however, both the deed and the note must be together. The banks wanted the mortgages. They didn’t care if some mortgages went bad because the buyers of the bundled mortgages were guaranteed that good mortgages would be substituted in the bundle for any that defaulted.

So, the banks, by enticing buyers to purchase homes with little or no money down, along with no proof of adequate income, (which is considered to be entrapment by many), was their way of receiving a steady flow of mortgages.

Shah Gilani, a Capital Wave Strategist, said that it certainly is not news when bankers’ scheme, lie and cheat for bigger bonuses at the expense of anyone who’s in their way. He says the real news is that they caused the “birth of the housing bubble” and that the Fed is a shill for the big banks. Those banks, with the Fed’s help, manipulate politicians, overrun fiscal discipline, and use their limitless powers to increase their obscene profits, and put trillions of dollars into their own pockets.

To add insult to injury, six of those largest banks, the real culprits, had the gall to spit in the faces of the homeowners that they fleeced, by paying themselves bonuses in 2012, totaling nearly $38 billion according to Aaron Task, the Editor-in-Chief of Yahoo Finance. Yes, $38 billion.

For a comparison that may interest (anger) you, Bloomberg stated the annual profits for the S&P 500 Financials Index are expected to approach only $155 billion.

Additional court decisions also show the illegality. California Judge Samuel L. Bufford (October 2008) noted “Given that ‘the debt is the principal thing and the mortgage an accessory,’ the Supreme Court reasoned that as a corollary, the mortgage can have no separate existence. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.”

Judge Eric S. Rosen of the Kansas Supreme Court (August 2009) likened MERS to a “straw man” and not a party of interest with the right to foreclose.

And, Judge Linda B. Riegle concluded, “There is no evidence that the named nominee is entitled to enforce the note or that MERS is the agent of the note’s holder.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas (March 2009) found that MERS was not the beneficiary under the deed of trust.

So, today, many are suing to stop foreclosures or to get their foreclosed homes back. Go to your clerk and recorder and get the papers filed on your house. Then look for the acronym MERS.


December 06, 2010 at 8:26 pm

Thank you for your support. The 1% to 2% that stood up to fight the fraudulent foreclosures are responsible for bringing this to the front page, and the media, the lobbyists, and the politicians are indeed BRINGING OUT THE BIG BROOM! We have not seen the end of this debacle, it is only the beginning. As MERS unravels, so does the rest of the secondary mortgage-backed securities market. the money is gone, and in the hands of the fat-cats who started the malady. It’s up to Attorneys General to stop the fraud, but what of the 6 million already evicted? Stand up and fight, America!

Read more:http://www.bankrate.com/financing/mortgages/sweeping-robogate-under-the-rug/#ixzz3yEKIFlUr




Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s