Nye Lavalle ‘s report states, It is the owner of the mortgage note that dictates ownership of the mortgage (a premise commonly referred to as “the mortgage follows the note”) as evidenced by Article 3 and Article 9 of the UCC Code, in effect in all states….Also one must analyze each states recording laws and statute of frauds…
The notes were never lawfully or equitably transferred to the securitized trusts they were intended to go and the originators, warehouse lenders, and other intermediaries held on to the original wet ink notes, as the case may be, selling the same note to multiple parties or pledging them for loans, financing or advances.. It appears as though many loans and other mortgage related assets have been double and even triple pledged to various contitutencies.. Trust laws are constrictive in that if the “original wet inke note” was not transferred by the closing and cutoff dates specified in the trust agreements, then the transfer did not take palce and cannot take place at a later time..They do not have the original wet-ink promisorry note to analyze with any endorsements placed upon the note or a firmly attached allonge according to the U.C.C…Without the note, assignments of only the mortgage are a mere nullity. They never have longer than ninety days and there is no legal fix for what they did not do at the Origination of the loans…That is precisely what they are trying to get out of the 50 state AG’s in the foreclosre settlement,, a chance to back date assignments and make their fraud legal…The primary reason the robo-signing and foreclosure fraud continues is that the banks and servicers know that more than 90% of people in foreclosure walk away and don’t fight. However, armed with the knowledge in Nye’s paper and the proper resources, borrowers, both residential and commercial can mount stringent legal battles and claims over these frauds and abuses claiming that the party foreclosing has no authority or that other indispensible parties need ot be brought into litigation.. In addition it can be argued that no none has holder in due course status so that the significant losses in property values, income and profit can be argued as damages….Thank You Nye Lavalle!!!! You are a Super Hero…!!!
Also a must read from living lies is: The Allonge-Billions of Dollars in Commerce Hangs on A Single Scrap of Paper:

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/weidner-its-the-allonge/

Everything you say is so right, if only all the judges would look at it the same way.

I have a question for you-does the Note stay under UCC-3 even after it is securitized? I have been trying to assess whether the Note changes irrevocably when it is sold, transferred or deposited into a REMIC Trust.

Does UCC-8 take over? Is UCC-9 involved anymore if the Note becomes liquid security as it appears to say in FAS 140, regarding SPV’s?

Is there any way to trail how all Notes are now trying to be collected by Debt Collectors?

Any light you can shed on any of these hidden goings-on would be appreciated.