Latest Hard Metal Pricng

Showing posts with label Mortgage-Foreclosure Fraud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mortgage-Foreclosure Fraud. Show all posts

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Ayuh! Maine Courts: "The Best Judges Money Can Buy" Foreclosure Fraud

Judge sides with Portland lawyer in ‘robo-signing’ appeal

A reprimand of Paul E. Peck, a Drummond & Drummond lawyer working for GMAC in 2010, will be withdrawn.

A Maine Supreme Judicial Court justice has ordered the withdrawal of a public reprimand of a Portland lawyer in a high-profile mortgage foreclosure scandal involving a practice called “robo-signing.”
The Board of Overseers of the Bar issued the reprimand last April after concluding that lawyer Paul E. Peck continued with several foreclosure cases after a GMAC Mortgage official admitted that he had not reviewed mortgage documents, didn’t have personal knowledge of the facts asserted and had not signed and swore to the truth of the foreclosure documents in front of a notary public.
The case became known nationally as the “robo-signing” scandal after mortgage company officials admitted that hundreds of foreclosure documents had been signed without a thorough review of the cases, as required by law.
Peck, who appealed the bar reprimand in May, was a Drummond & Drummond lawyer working for GMAC in 2010 when the financing company was pursuing dozens of foreclosures in Maine. In most of the cases, GMAC was seeking summary judgments in the cases, based on affidavits by a GMAC “limited signing officer” in Pennsylvania, Jeffrey Stephan.
Read the complete article here:

Submitted by:  All victims of "Foreclosure Fraud"

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Why So Long, Why No Accountablility, They Must All Be Corrupt, The "New" American Way? WeidneerLaw: BOMBSHELL- The Secret Lawsuit Has Finally Been Revealed- Your Mortgage Documents Are Fake (And Your Foreclosure Is a Fraud!)

The enormity of the crimes that have been committed against defendants in foreclosure cases is easy for much of society to ignore.  Those who are defendants in foreclosure cases are, after all, those who deserve to suffer the consequences of failed generations of economic policy.  Those who are defendants in foreclosure cases are, after all, the people that deserve scorn and disgust and contempt because they chose to live in a country that gave away their jobs, their industry, their future.
But far worse than the crimes and the consequences for the millions of Americans that are victims of the largest organized crime spree in the history of mankind is the fact that in order to accomplish this crime spree the criminals and their counterparts destroyed our nation’s civil legal system.
Make no mistake, the “foreclosure crisis” as it has played out, and as it continues to play out all across this country is a complex and interconnected series of state sponsored crimes.  The crimes began when the loans were made, continued when the loans were sold to investors, continued when mortgage payments were loaded onto the international PONZI scheme that is mortgage securitization, then really ramped up when the criminals continued their crime sprees in state and federal courts all across this country.
The crime spree called foreclosure that continues to play out in homes and neighborhoods all across this country could not have occurred if our courts did not agree to become partners in the crime spree.
Our nation’s court system is in fact desecrated, destroyed, a crumbled heap of what it once was.  We were a nation of laws.  America was a nation that was governed, ultimately, by judges and a legal system that served a larger societal and historical purpose.  At one point in time, judges and our nation’s court system recognized that the function of the court system was to protect The People and The Nation from the out of control evil and corporate interests that brought us all robo signing and foreclosure fraud and LIBOR rigging and HSBC money laundering and everything that is our national banking system.
To this day, banks foreclose on borrowers using fraudulent mortgage assignments, a legacy of failing to prosecute this conduct and instead letting banks pay a fine to settle it. This disappoints Szymoniak, who told Salon the owner of these loans is now essentially “whoever lies the most convincingly and whoever gets the benefit of doubt from the judge.

Read More

Submitted by: 'Roger T.'

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Corruption Is Corruption Here It Is Being Exposed In New Hampshire Mike Gill Patch Interview

 If this is happening in New Hampshire, Do You Think It Occurs In Lisbon or Maine? Oh yes it does. Stay tuned and check back with us for more information.  

If you have information or have been a victim of Corruption write to us here at The Lisbon Reporter.  

Please send Letters to the Editor to Please include your name, address, and telephone number for verification purposes. Under some circumstances, we will post letters anonymously but it is at the discretion of the blog members. Thank you.


Mike Gill Interview with Nashua Patch on FRM Cover Up

by Steve MacDonald
Mike Gill is naming names as he continues to seek accountability from those involved in New Hampshire’s  FRM banking scandal and beyond.  Elected officials, judges, members of the banking committee, friends and family of people in State Government, and the AG’s office, are all implicated by Mr. Gill in the scheme and its cover up.
We had Mike on GrokTALK! last week (I’ll post that individual segment up today) but you can listen to him here as well, in part one of two from an interview he did with Nashua Patch.


Mike Gill Patch Interview 01 16 2014 Part 1

Mike Gill Patch Interview 01 16 2014 Part 2

Published on Jun 5, 2013
This interview does not necessarily express the opinion of Hugh Fitzpatrick or anyone associated with New England Title/Fitzpatrick and Associates.

An Exclusive Interview with Mike Gill, Owner of The Mortgage Specialists. Mr. Gill discusses the current controversy in New Hampshire involving his company and the NH Banking Commission.

Exclusive Interview with Mike Gill

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

The Securitization and Foreclosure Coverup by The Big Banks

Step1. Homeowner receives loan from Bank-X. Step2. Bank-X sells the loan to SPV and is paid in full. Step3. SPV transfers note into REMIC trust and is paid in full by Trustees. Step4. The note is now a Security, the process is irreversible and complete. Step5. Investors (OWNERS) of the Certificates (Bonds/Stocks) receive payment from the REMIC Trust.
Newscast Media HOUSTON, Texas–The process of acquiring or selling homes in the past few years has been forever changed by the securitization process that has affected homes of over 60 million Americans. I receive many emails and questions regarding this topic, and since I am not an attorney, I will direct the readers to a brilliantly written article by Rodaben Esquire, that explains the whole process and by the end of the article, you’ll be surprised as to what the banks are hiding from you. I have also created the chart above to show you the flow of transactions.

Understanding Securitization and Foreclosure:
Bank A issues a mortgage to Caprice to purchase a house. Two documents are produced, a promissory note and a trust deed. The trust deed is essentially the title of the property that is held in trust until the promise to repay the loan (promissory note) is satisfied. Once the loan is paid in full Bank A releases its claim on the Trust deed and ownership passes in full to Caprice. That is what most of us believe happens in mortgages because you are not informed as to what happens after the paperwork is signed and how it impacts the title and promissory note you are obligated to. This is intentional, and represents the entire scheme that allows securitization occur. If the process that is now used is too complex it can be used as a justification to allow the shenanigans that occur during a foreclosure process to happen while the judges and juries believe that the process described above is what is actually happening. Lets look next at the basics of securitization.

Once the mortgage has been formed between Caprice and Bank A, Bank A wants to get rid of it as fast as possible and recoup its funds. To take advantage of this and the tax benefits of securitization it has to form what is called an SPV, a (Special Purpose Vehicle) Think of it as a shell company. This protects the mortgage if something happened and Bank A went out of business. The mortgage would still exist. It also theoretically reduces the liability of Bank A to the mortgage default. It is important to realize one important thing here…the two documents that Caprice signed (the promissory note and the title deed) are now SEPARATED. The trust deed remains with its trustee. The promissory note—the asset that pays money—is SOLD to the SPV. The original note is paid off by the SPV and the stream of payments becomes the property of the SPV. Bank A has its money in full and no longer has ANY interest in the mortgage.

Now, the SPV forms a new trust entity. This trust entity is defined by the IRS as a REMIC (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit) and must adhere to the laws regarding such a trust. The benefit of doing this is that when the SPV transfers the mortgages into the Trust NO TAXES MUST BE PAID ON THE TRANSFER. This makes the trust is a much more efficient and profitable vehicle for investors. REMICs, in turn, cannot retain any ownership interest in any of the underlying mortgages. The Trust, then, is as its name states a Conduit where money flows in from the person who pays their mortgage and out to the investor as a payment. The right to receive those payments was purchased when the security (stock or bond) to the trust was purchased. Proceeds from that went back to the SPV who used them to purchase the mortgages from Bank A. It is a giant figure 8 circular flow of money with the Trustee coordinating it all.

Lets see who OWNS the mortgage then:
The first owner was Bank A who took interest in the property as collateral on its loan to Caprice. Simple enough. When Bank A sold the mortgage to the SPV its interest was extinguished. Ownership of the promissory note WAS transferred to the SPV who is now the note holder. The SPV forms the REMIC trust and transfers the note into the trust, thereafter it irrevocably changes the nature of Caprice’s mortgage. It becomes a Security. Once again, the SPV must transfer the note and pay taxes on the transfer. The mortgage now in the trust becomes for all purposes a blended group of monthly payments. These payment streams become the source of funds that the trustee pays out to investors. In essence the trustee—when certificates, stocks or bonds to the trust are sold—sells a beneficial interest in the mortgage. That is not ownership of any portion or any segment of the revenue stream but rather is simply a security—just like a share of IBM or Google doesn’t entitle you to any of the assets of the company. But who owns the note?

Because of the tax exemption of the REMIC it is PROHIBITED from retaining any ownership of the underlying assets it no longer holds any ownership to the note on the day it is formed. The investors in the trust do not hold any interest in the note either, they only hold the security which was sold to them. So what happened to ownership of the note? It was EXTINGUISHED when it entered into the trust in order to obtain the flow of cash back to the original lender and the tax-preferred investment proceeds to the investors. So, who does Caprice owe the money to? Who has authority to release the deed to Caprice when her mortgage has been satisfied? The answer? No one.

The trust is set up and cannot take an active role in the collection of the funds. It is a shell entity ONLY. Therefore it appoints a servicer to collect the payments every month. So what happens when Caprice defaults? How is his property foreclosed upon?

In this proceeding the servicer presents documents to the court (or the trustee of the deed in a non-judicial foreclosure state) that state that THEY are the owner of the note and have a legal standing to foreclose. This is not true, is not legally possible, and is fraudulent. The servicer is the agent of the Trust and will use that to claim that they are foreclosing on behalf of the trust. The problem? The Trust itself cannot hold ownership of the note because of its tax-preferred REMIC status! What about if they state that they are representatives of the investors? The investors have no ownership interest in the underlying mortgages, they only have ownership interest in the securities that were issued to fund the trust! So who does Caprice owe? The answer is nobody. The process of a note becoming a Security is final and irreversible. You cannot unscramble the eggs. A Security cannot be used to foreclose. The Kansas Federal Court Ruling decided once a note was securitized it was no longer a note and would NEVER be a note again. It becomes a Security. (Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834.)

Bottom Line -All Terms of Your Mortgage Were Fulfilled:

The Lender was paid from the SPV upon selling the note.
The SPV was paid from the Trustee who received money from the sale of securities.
The Servicer was paid on schedule by the Trustee from fees generated.
Owners of the certificates (bonds or stock) received a payment from the Trust.

The REMIC Trust itself was insured by the SPV to protect investors.

If the terms of the mortgage were fulfilled (i.e. everyone was paid) To Whom Does Caprice Owe Any Money?

There still exists a lien on the house that is unenforceable. You would have to go through a process to extinguish that lien by having an attorney file for you a Quiet Title, that silences or quiets any more claims to the property.

Written by Rondaben Esquire
Edited by Joseph Ernest

Monday, February 4, 2013

Double Standards In Maine Attorney General's Office On Robo-Signing!

From: Debby Reagan

To: Rep. Diane Russell ; Roberta Beavers
Cc: "" ; "" ; "" ; "" ; "" ; "" ; Leon ; "" ; Timothy M Cason

On January 31, 2013 the Maine Attorney General's Office reached a settlement against Lender Processing Services Inc. and its subsidiaries, LPS Default Solutions and DocX and Maine will receive $500,000 as part of the $121 million multi-state settlement in a mortgage robo-signing case. 

I called the AG office and talked with Linda Conti, AAG who was the one who supposedly negotiated the settlement. My conversation with her was less than enlightening and down right discouraging. I asked her how it was possible for one fraction of the state government (AG's Office) understands the illegal practices of robo-signing which make the documents illegal, yet another fraction of the state government (The Courts) does not? How can the state, who hasn't lost anything, receive compensation based on illegal documents, but homeowners get foreclosed upon, with these same documents? Her answer? Because you didn't lose your case because of robo-signing, you lost because you didn't pay your mortgage and the judge found that the bank owned your mortgage. Excuse me????? How can the bank show that they own my mortgage when their proof of ownership are the very same robo-signed documents that the AG office has just said were illegal? And this isn't about whether I paid or not, this is about whether the bank OWNS MY NOTE & MORTGAGE OR NOT!!!!

Now, my documents aren't LPS or DocX, that I know of anyways. Countrywide (and we know how corrupt THEY were!) kept it in house. But, the very same ROBO-SIGNOR names that were used by LPS were used. Whether Jill Wosnak's name was used by LPS, or Countrywide, she's still the same robo-signor. If robo-signing is illegal and the signatures are forged, it makes those documents fraudulent ones. So how can a bank use fraudulent documents to show ownership?

Ms. Conti's answer? You just aren't listening and don't understand and I don't know how else to explain it to you. It seems you just don't agree with me or the judge and need to appeal your case. I cannot help you.

Hmmmmm.... either Ms. Conti is very uneducated about the fraud here, or is helping in covering it up! Either way, is this the kind of caliber of attorney we have sitting in the state AG's office? Because if she is any kind of representation of what we have up there, no wonder the citizens of Maine are having their homes and businesses stolen by the fraudulent practices of these banks!!!

Seems to me, that illegal robo-signed documents that are illegal enough for the state of Maine to collect a settlement on should also be illegal enough for homeowners to prove that the banks don't own our mortgages!!!

 And what happened to the $500k to help homeowners in foreclosure? Aren't I one?? But yet, Ms. Conti can't help me!!

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Debby Reagan’s Letter To James Frechette, Investigator In Maine’s Office of Securities, Reported By The Lisbon Reporter

Debby Reagan responded to the “Recent settlement by Maine on Robo-signing.” Read more, click here.
Debby wrote to James R. Frechette, Investigator, in Maine’s Office of Securities within the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation and other state legislators.

The Office of Securities protects Maine investors by investigating and prosecuting violations of the securities laws; licensing broker-dealers, agents, investment advisers, and investment adviser representatives; and reviewing registration statements and exemption filings for securities issuers that are seeking to sell in Maine.

Leon Bard also has a handle on this. “In Regards to the recent AG Settlement. There is something wrong when our state government collects money from a bank and or their servicer for wrong doing, but at the same time allows their courts to proceed with a foreclosure that is laced with the very same wrong doing.”

States Leon “The recently announced Maine Attorney General Settlement with Lender Processing Services, Inc., brings to light the irony in which mortgage/foreclosure fraud is dealt with here in Maine.

Apparently the executive branch of our state government recognizes the fraud committed by LPS, Inc., in fact they are going to receive $500,000 as per the settlement. Are the victims of this fraud going to receive any compensation? Has a chicken got lips?

Now on the other hand, we have the judicial branch NOT RECOGNIZING the exact same fraud! This is happening in both Debby’s case and Tim Cason’s case. I’d be willing to bet that these are not isolated cases. A close look at Maine’s organizational chart reveals that Maine’s Judicial Branch is under Maine’s Executive Branch. Is there any way to get the AG’s office to train the administrative hearing officers (so called judges) in our judicial branch, how to recognize mortgage/foreclosure fraud? If not, then maybe the only relief in sight for the victims, is to file claims on the judge’s liability insurance or bonds. “

Let’s keep an eye on Mr. Frechette and the elected officials who received Debby’s correspondence!

Homes are not only “taken” through fraudulent foreclosures, they are also stolen “behind closed doors.” The City of  Biddeford has this down pat!

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Where Does the Fraud Begin posted at MIG by Wisewarrior Friday‏

Hi Roger Tanner,

A blog post you've subscribed to just received a comment. If you'd like to unsubscribe from this post, click here.

In reply to Where Does the Fraud Begin posted at MIG by Wisewarrior Friday, John said:
I am aware of those cases. Those were not cases based on the fact the alleged borrower was the real creditor. Those were cases based on procedure violations and the fact the notes were separated from the mortgage. Most of those involve MERS who was acting as trustee holding the mortgage or trust deed while never having the note. Some others revealed this after having a securitization audit done showing the note was sold on the stock market where the notes are destroyed and converted into a stock which you can't put it back as a note once it was converted to stocks. Banks were using COPIES of the note trying to conceal that.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Same Thing In Lisbon, Androscoggin County, Augusta and More; The Unmasking of Maine.....and Beyond: New Hampshire Superior Court Judge Marguerite Wageling Aids And Abets Fraudulent Foreclosure

New Hampshire Superior Court Judge Marguerite Wageling Aids And Abets Fraudulent Foreclosure

Why hasn’t New Hampshire Superior Court Judge Marguerite Wageling been impeached?
NationStar Fraudlent Foreclosure: NH Judiciary Panel considers Impeachment.
“New Hampshire Superior Court Judge Marguerite Wageling may face Impeachment as a result of her actions in the fraudulent foreclosure case of NationStar v. Marie Miller. She ignored a prior Court Order compelling production of the original wet ink note and mortgage.
Several NH Judges ignore all principles of common sense, law and specific court orders when it comes to holder in due course and standing to sue for foreclosure, writ of possession, etc.
Then AG and current U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte was aware of the facts in this case and sat on her hands, the same way she ignored the forgery of a title insurance producer’s name to a mortgage, and was soundly blasted at a Town Hall meeting last month where she stammered in responding to a simple OWS question.
And the same way she ignored the indicators for the FRM Ponzi scam that was the deadliest consumer fraud case in NH History. Just the facts.
It is a game changer. Not many states have a Judicial redress panel like NH and I’m certain that many bad judges would love to get rid of it. Wageling was a no-show, having nothing to say for herself.
Now we shall see what the Legislature has to say.”

This petition was heard, but what action did the NH legislature take on the frauds perpetrated to steal peoples’ homes? This case is still ongoing.
Why wasn’t this petition ever heard?
Related: N.H. Democrats Want To Remove The Redress of Grievances Committee
On Thursday, December 20, 2012, a public hearing on the removal of the Redress of Grievances Committee was held.
Would someone in NH give us an update on this public hearing?

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Please Can You Help A Fellow Mainer Out, This Could Be You Someday

Do Not Evict Timothy Mark Cason: FORECLOSURE FRAUD!


Do Not Evict Timothy Mark Cason: FORECLOSURE FRAUD!
of 200 signatures

Campaign created by william hessian Icon-email
We NEED to call RIGHT NOW we are making a difference! Sheriff Joel Merry called Tim Cason to tell him that a lot of calls came in on his behalf and that Sheriff Merry was empathetic towards Tim's situation. Sheriff Merry then said that he would need to follow orders if the time came. That is not good enough, we need to keep calling and let Sheriff Merry know that he can do what Sheriff's in Ohio, Illinois, and Atlanta have already done and REFUSE TO EVICT PEOPLE.
Please call now and tell him: Sagadahoc County Sheriff Office at: (207) 443 8201 and/or (207) 443 8529 or e-mail Sheriff Merry directly at: and continue calling the bank and them to provide proof of ownership of the home: SAVINGS BANK OF MAINE at: (207) 621-9700

Why is this important?

We are occupying Tim's house from now until he gets it back (he could be kicked out any time), join us: 371 Main Street, Bowdoinham, ME
Timothy Mark Cason wrote the following: 23 August 2012
This evening at approximately 8pm a SAGADAHOC COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY delivered to me a WRIT OF POSSESSION in the name of SAVINGS BANK OF MAINE (now known as BANK OF MAINE) v. TIMOTHY M. CASON for the property located at 371 MAIN STREET BOWDOINHAM, MAINE. SAVINGS BANK OF MAINE gave up their right to foreclose when they sold my note into a security investment on 29 October 2003, a mere 3 months after the closing date of 21 July 2003. 
I have a securitization audit that shows this fact. 
I also have a forensic audit that shows violations of TILA (Truth In Lending Act) and RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act), a sworn affidavit from the bank VP in 2011where he states that the bank owns the note. Not so says the securitization audit. 
Also a QWR (Qualified Written Request) to the bank requesting that they give me an opportunity to view my note to where they send an uncertified full size photo copy of the note. A clear violation of title 18 section 474 securities fraud. 
An uncertified copy of the note (as it appeared on the day of closing) was filed into the court in their complaint. A clear violation of state law. This is exactly why we need LD145, a bill that was put before the Maine House and Senate to MANDATE that the bank shall produce the original wet ink note in order to file a foreclosure action. The Bill passed in the House and Senate only to be vetoed by our Governor Lapage. The banks are ignoring the state law and the courts are allowing it. Well, a picture of the note deserves a picture of the house to satisfy the judgment. 
This writ has given me 48 hours to vacate19 years of accumulation and myself from the property. A home that I gave value to through my sweat equity and countless hours of labor. This is total injustice 101.

Timothy Mark Cason Home: 207-666-8086 Cell: 207-522-6104

Please go here to sign the petition

Friday, August 17, 2012

The Hammer Is About To Come Down On The Illegal Mortgage-Foreclosure Scams:

The attached subpoenas with attachments, were drawn up based on information gleaned from the following messages. These subpoenas were served on the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston on August 14, around 11:00 AM, by a Suffolk County Sheriff Deputy.

This was the first message received, and written by a former Treasury Agent to his son:

Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:02 PM
Subject: [You have good help]
It certainly looks like you have a lot of very intelligent friends helping you.  They are closer than they could ever imagine on the subject of the note. What they need to do is to get a subpoena duce's tecum  served upon the Federal Reserve Bank of the district you live in, by the US Marshal, it would be FRB - Cleveland.  You then require them to supply you with a certified copy of the original live note, both sides, with endorsements,along with the ledgering of the notes account.  This will show the hypothesizing of the note 1+9. They are required to do this and will be more than glad to do so. No more show me the note, you show it to them, no more lying now. Countrywide cashed in the note and took the money. The original note is not in the mortgaging pooling trust just a Xerox copy stamped ORIGINAL.The FRB didn't wake up this morning and will always have the original. Do you suppose they don't trust the Banks? Fraud on you, fraud on the investor, fraud on the court, fraud on the title company, and fraud on the County Recorder.All class B Federal Felonies, 20 years in the can with no chance of parole.In all of my years at the US Treasury I never ever saw anything like this, its nauseating. And these crime bosses walk the streets without a care in the world.

It certainly sounds like the IRS CID girl that I connected you with is a big help.  She was just coming on board, as I was leaving, but I certainly liked what I saw.  She is fair, honest, incorruptible, and a hard little charger that will get to the bottom of anything.  She picked up quickly about your former sheriff, who made $80,000 per year, and yet lived in a $700,000 home in medallion estates.  Must have worked a lot of extra duty at the bowling alley on Saturday nights. She also asked, why does the bank have to purchase the property at a sheriff's sale,when they were already  awarded the property through the court. And the bigger question who took the banks money, and where was it reported to the IRS.  She understands that the money at the Sheriff's sale was laundered through the County E. I N. number, then laundered again onto a private set of books in the judges chambers to avoid the payment of federal income tax. This is why nobody ever wins in County Court.  These funds are then handed out like candy at a birthday party, to all the good little boys and girls that helped out, tax-free, for now.  You can bet that she has FINCEN , watching all of their accounts, and sooner or later, one of them will make a mistake.  Then the second and third floor of your courthouse is going to get cleaned out courtesy of U.S. Treasury agents and US Marshals.  They absolutely and positively won't know what hit them.  One of the judges in the past has had IRS liens on his property, and you can bet they've got a microscope on him.  I guess His Highness doesn't feel the need to pay FIT like the rest of us Crumb Eaters, but like every crook that I put the bracelets on, they were certain that they would never get caught.Remember in your case in Delaware Court I had you put in money laundering? The FBI caught Bank of America laundering money for the drug cartels in the Caribbean , it was announced last week in the news. Bet they wonder how you knew that. Laundering Mortgages and Drug money, now that's what I call a full service bank ( and yes they have checking and savings too if you are interested).

  I'm very sorry for all the things you have had to go through, including the loss of Sally , she was a great girl, as well as the loss of your personal possessions and money.  But rest assured, this crime syndicate will be brought to justice, when the rule of law is restored in Delaware County . And then the GOOD citizens of Delaware County will be grateful to you for all you have done and sacrificed.Blessings


Then the following message was sent to Walker Todd:

Walker Todd, Research Fellow 
Walker F. Todd, research fellow and conference organizer for AIER, lives in Chagrin Falls, Ohio, near Cleveland, and has been affiliated with AIER in one capacity or another since 1995. An instructor in the AIER Summer Fellowship Program, he teaches a course on the history and origins of competing theories of property rights. He is an attorney admitted to practice in Ohio and New York and is an economic consultant with 20 years’ experience at the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Cleveland. He has been an instructor in the Special Studies program at Chautauqua Institution, Chautauqua, NY, since 1997. He holds a Ph.D. in French from Columbia University and a J.D. from Boston University School of Law. A director and program organizer for the Committee for Monetary Research and Education, he was an adjunct faculty member of the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University, for 13 years. He has numerous publications, both for AIER and for others, on banking, central banking, monetary and property rights topics, including those related to international debt, the International Monetary Fund, and the regulation of the banking system and financial markets.

Jane Doe
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:57 AM
To: Walker Todd
Subject: Concerning My Phone Call This Morning

Dear Mr. Todd,

   I called you just awhile ago and left you my name, phone number and a brief message that I want to ask you a question about the Federal Reserve Bank.

  I'm writing to let you know what my question is so you will know prior to returning my phone call. If you'd like, you can instead respond to this email. But either way, I would appreciate a response if you'd be so kind to do so.

  I'm representing myself in a foreclosure case and have come across an interesting piece of information that states that it is possible that Countrywide cashed in my promissory note to the Federal Reserve Bank and the FRB has in its possession my original live note, and that I should subpoena the FRB requiring them to provide the original live note, both sides with all endorsements/allonges and ledgering of my note's account. Because supposedly, my original note did not go into the trust fund as per the Pooling & Service Agreement, only a Xeroxed copy of the original did as the FRB retained the original. It seems that this is what most banks did and is a common bank transaction regarding mortgages.

  My question of you is this: Is it true that this is what happens to our mortgage notes and that the FRB keeps the original live notes and that the banks (Countrywide in my particular case) cash these promissory notes into the FRB instead of the notes being placed into the Trusts Funds? I would like to know the answer before I go and subpoena the FRB for any records as it will save time and money for me. If you know anything in regards to this, please answer me at your earliest convenience as my case is scheduled to heard anytime between Aug 27-Sept 28, 2012.

  Thank you in advance for any kind aid that you can provide in this matter.

Jane Doe

The next day Walker Todd replied with this message:

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Walker Todd
To: Jane Doe
Cc: Walker Todd
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: Concerning My Phone Call This Morning
My time is severely constrained, and that is why I did not get to reply to you yet.  It is possible that the FRBNY or another Federal Reserve Bank has your note IF Countrywide/Bank of America pledged it to secure a borrowing there.  However, I think it is more likely that the note went to MERS (the national electronic registration system) or the trust fund, as you noted below.  You could send an information subpoena to FRBNY or FRBRichmond (home district for Bank of America) or, given your location, FRBBoston to see if they have your original note.  What you ask for is not unreasonable.  They would, however, regard it as unreasonable to send a lawyer to bring the original into court and then to bring it back at the end of the day.  I suggest that you ask them (a) do you have my note? and (b), if so, would you please copy the front and back and all allonges and a copy of the cover sheet(s) and the page listing your note in the bank’s ledger?  In connection with (b), it should suffice with the court if the Reserve Bank sends you a separate letter certifying that it has the note and that the enclosure/attachment is a true copy, with the certification signed by the Reserve Bank officer in charge of the custody of your note and bearing the Bank’s corporate seal applied by the Bank secretary’s office.  If the judge still wants to see the original note, let him or her be the bad guy asking the Bank for the note, not you.  You also might ask the Reserve Bank to tell you (a) what collateral value it placed on your note and (b) how much remains outstanding secured by your note.  If the Bank once upon a time had your note and then returned it, to whom did the Bank return it?  If you have more questions, I might be able to answer them next week, but this week is impossible for scheduling.—Walker Todd

The following message was the second message from the former Treasury Agent to his son:

       Very glad to hear that Sarah and Ashley are doing better, it seems sad that we should have to go through these things in our lives, but it's all in God's hands and timing. I wish them a speedy and full recovery.

        I am also very glad to hear that your friends are pressing ahead with the SDT's to the Federal Reserve Banks in their areas for a certified copy of the original note, front and back, with the full ledgering of the account,endorsements, and attachments to prove negotiation of the note and the recipients there of.They are brave people to stick their heads into the mouth of the Dragon and my prayers and admiration go with them.

  After reading the forward you sent me from Walker Todd, I would caution you to the fact that he is a bar trained attorney who has privileged information about the inner workings of this process which he will not/or could not divulge to you.  The biggest problem I saw in his correspondence was when he referred to the loan vs collateral value of the note. Mega banks want their money now, not 30 years from now, they would go broke waiting on 30 years of payments. This shows that he only knows what he has been told and does not have the complete picture. A note is money and the days of returning the live wet signature note are long gone.This why the small fry were run out of business. I was smiling a big smile when he said that the FRB would be happy to supply you with the items you requested.You know how I have always really hated to say I told you so.

To expand on my last correspondence, the reason we want the copy from the Federal Reserve Bank has yet another purpose.  All of the banks that constructed these security bundles stamped a copied copy of the note"original". You will most likely find upon the retrieval of the note from the FRB, that there is no stamp on the note stating original.  Question, do you stamp original on every check that you cashed at your local bank? If the signature was blue wet ink couldn't they figure out it was the original? What would the teller say if they saw original stamped on the check?  Would that teller suspect that there was a possibility that this check could have been copied and negotiated elsewhere? Would you or the FRB negotiate a Xerox check? How can the original not be stamped original at the FRB, and the copy in the trust be stamped original? You know, I am not a betting man, but if I had one bet in my life it would be that your original note at the FRB has is not been stamped original.

So as I stated in my previous correspondence, countrywide home loans made a copy of your note, then stamped the copy original, and sent the actual live wet note to the FRB to be negotiated and hypothecated.  So, just to have some more fun, let's use another subpoena duces tecum to retrieve a copy of the other note, in the trust.

Countrywide home loans, constructed the security in house, along with the mortgage servicing pool and all the instruments inserted there in.  These were done on a securities form F3/treasury form 1473, and possibly a securities form F4, which would be a treasury form 1474.  When you look at these forms you will see that this is deadly, serious business.  On page 15 of the F4 form, as well as on the  Form F3, the actual live person/licensed broker/signs the bottom of the form in the presence of a notary stating that all of the inserted items are worth the stated value, and that there is no known fraud in any of the submitted items. No rubber stamp and not in the name of the institution. Didn't they overvalue the appraisal of your house, and overstate your income in order for you to qualify for a loan?  Or was it just to pad the amount of the security to make the face value, far higher than its actual worth, committing fraud on the investor.  Another question would be, since this document was required to be signed by a licensed broker, do you suppose that these were Robo signed, just like your mortgage and foreclosure documents? So let's SDT a certified copy front and back of the Trusts Original note with the ledgering of the account and then the SEC Form 3 and Form 4 so we can see the name of the broker for interrogatory's and to turn them over to the SEC.

And last but certainly not the least how can you have two or more original notes, this wont fly even with a crooked Judge.If by chance I am correct and the FRB note was not stamped original, you will have even more proof of knowingly and willfully committing securities fraud. Will the real original note please stand up. Submitting counterfeited and forged documents to the SEC is a big no no.They may get away with foreclosure fraud and fraud upon the court but securities fraud goes to the very core of the system and they cannot let the crooks get away with it or the whole system will collapse. Hence the reason for the foreclosures are to drain the security pools before the fraud is discovered. God Bless