So true Shelley…! sharing information is the best weapon! We are all trying to process and learn a ton of really valuable info….EDUCATION IS PRICELESS!

That is because they cant feel anything! They have no fe.e.e.l.l.ings! They need pain to feel real! They cause pain and suffering for fun like Phscycos. I am talking about the elite stealing the wealth. They are dead narcist zombies working for the devil. I know there are some very good rich people, whom have good hearts. They are not banksters!

I am glad you like it . I trully believe if it is so simple for the fruad to steal our houses it should be easier for the owners to find a way to keep our houses. I would file this paperwork in your county records. Make sure it is notorized and wet stamp notorized and attach a copy of the Schneiderman case against the banks on it. And all proof you have come up with to prove fraud. with arrows and make a case of it and file it. Add adverse possession and the castle law and squatters rights which in some states is adverse possession. Rember your state statutes of limitations for breached written contract and promissory note and mortgage and the statutes for the unsecured debt. Add every rock you can. I am not an attorney i am Pro se and I think I could have done this without going to court. So I am a private person without law experience and can not be held responsible for trying to save you.

I am from WA and I did make those calls yesterday and today. Also a little tidbit of info, MERS was listed as a corp in the state of WA date filed 6-3-09, inactive date 9-25-09 and expiration date of 6-30-10. The agent name was Robert Jacobsen, 93 S Jackson St. Dept 37265, Seattle, WA 98104. Governing Person/All officers Robert Jacabsen, P. O. Box 1386, LaFayette, CA. I spelled the last names as listed on the sheet I copied. They were listed as a Profit, Inactive and the UBI #602929654. In case anyone is interested.

THIS SHOULD HELP NON JUDICIAL HOMEOWNERS. Add adverse possesssion a little castle law and breach contract and statutes of limitations on written contracts, including promisory notes and mortgages and this and you have your self a receipt for a house the predators would have a problem getting.
Non Judicial as Private Contract: Opening the Door to Homeowners for Self-Help
Posted on January 26, 2009 by Neil Garfield
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

After months of wrangling with the obvious due process issues invovled in allowing a Trustee on the Deed of Trust to send a Notice of Default, Notice of Default and to file an eviction (unlawful detainer), it has occurred to me that the reasoning behind “non-judicial” process can be turned on its head in favor of the homeowner.
The reason why non-judicial foreclosure is NOT a denial of due process is two-fold:

(1) public policy and judicial economy favors it because until the mortgage meltdown era, nearly all judicial foreclosures had the same pattern, to wit: Suit in Foreclosure with Summons, No Answer by the the borrower, clerk’s default entered, Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment, Judgment entered, Sale date is set, Auction on the courthouse steps and that’s it. It was a rare case in which the borrower had any legitimate defenses and virtually impossible for the foreclosing party to be the wrong party bring the suit. The title record was clear, the bank held the note and mortgage, and but for some relatively minor TILA or RESPA issues it was highly unusual for predatory lending to be a factor in the case, and even if it was, the borrower simply didn’t raise it. Today, none of those assumption are true. Virtually all mortgages between 2001-2008 were between an undisclosed investor or group of investors and the borrower who was funded from proceeds of sales of unregulated securities. Everyone in between was merely an undisclosed conduit or middleman collecting an undisclosed fee as the money from the investor was parsed out for fees, profits, insurance premiums, rebates, kickbacks and of course funding of the alleged loan transaction. None of these middlemen have any loss, claim, or right to foreclose property and all of them have been superceded by the authority of the holders of mortgage backed securities. Even the Trustee on the Deed of Trust has been superceded by at least two other Trustees. They don’t have the note, they don’t have the full record of all the parties who collected fees or paid the principal or interest on the note and mortgage, and they don’t really have any stake in the outcome of the foreclosure — because they didn’t fund the loan or lose any money.

(2) Under the legal theories that purport to support non-judicial foreclosure, it is said that non judicial foreclosure is a matter of private contract and not state action. Thus, the theory goes, parties are free to contract amongst themselves for authority to sell the property when the loan is reported by some party (alleging to be the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust). So anything the Trustee does that is wrong is really a matter of breach of contract, not violation of due process. If the Trustee on the deed of trust lacks authority, if the beneficiary is out of business and some other party is alleging it is now the new beneficiary, if anyone with or without knowledge alleges that the loan is in default and they are wrong or acting wrongfully, it is a matter of private contract, not subject to the rules of civil procedure governing the conduct of lawsuits in state or Federal Court. It is a contract authorizing “self-help”. Thus I conclude that the homeowner is equally entitles to utilize self-help to preserve his interest in his real property. Of course filing a notice of intent to preserve interest in real property, a notice of non-compliance with statute, or some other instrument that clouds title could force the conversion to a judicial foreclosure where the Trustee and beneficiary would be required to step forward and reveal the true holder in due course, account for the flow of the funds paid thus far, etc. But adding the force of Federal Law (TILA, RESPA and HOEPA), and applicable state laws on deceptive lending practices, and applicable common law to the permission to use self-help gives the homeowner greater power than the entities that seek to use self-help to foreclose. By filing a Qualified Written Request, Federal Law requires an answer and resolution. Barring that resolution, and using the common law doctrine of tacit procuration as a tool of enforcement at the end of the QWR, the homeowner has a legal right under color of state and federal law to file an instrument or reconveyance as attorney in fact for the “beneficiary” of record — forcing the “pretender lender” to either back off or prove their case.

REMEMBER, YOUR GOAL IS NOT TO ALLEGE THAT YOU DON’T OWE THE MONEY AT ALL. YOUR GOAL IS TO ALLEGE THAT IF YOU DO OWE MONEY IT IS NOT TO THE TRUSTEE OR THE PARTY PRETENDING TO BE THE BENEFICIARY. BASED UPON THE SEC FILINGS THERE IS PROBABLE CA– USE TO BELIEVE THAT YOUR LOAN WAS HANDLED AND TRANSFERRED, SOLD, SLICED AND DICED MANY TIMES. DESPITE THE CURRENT TREND OF COUNTRYWIDE AND OTHERS TO SAY THIS INFORMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL, THERE ARE VERY FEW JUDGES THAT WOULD AFFIRM THAT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW THE IDENTITY OF YOUR REAL LENDER. YOUR POINT IN GOING TO COURT IS NOT TO SAY THAT YOU AUTOMATICALLY WIN AND THEY LOSE. YOUR POINT IS TO SAY THAT YOU WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE MERITS OF THE DEFENSES, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS YOU HAVE AND THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE THE RIGHT OF DISCOVERY ALL UNDER THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

Awesome info Shelley! Please America, stand up for your rights!…Please dont allow them to steal your homes and businesses that they do not own and have no legal right to take!!

Thanks Shelley for the info.

HERE IS A MATCH TO LITE FOR NON JUDICIAL FORECLOSURES:

SEE: Cases that could save your home; chasechase.org/cases.html
Khast v. Washington Mutual, JPMorgan Chase, and CRC, Case No. ….. In Herrera, the Substitution of Trustee recited that Deutsche Bank “is the present beneficiary under” the …. Department of Treasury and FDIC Report on WaMu, 4/16/2010 …
See: Using UDCPA Fair Debt Collection Acts to get Money, Information and Fees
Posted on January 31, 2012 by Neil Garfield
Editor’s Comment: One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind. You have both a private right of action against the debt collector and the right to apply to the FTC to set up administrative hearings, where these cases should probably be heard by experienced hearing officers who know what they are looking at.
The practice of playing the numbers on debt collection has been around for a long time. Whether the debt is real or not, there is a statute of limitations, bankruptcies and other obstacles to collection. A lot of times the debt is now owed at all, but byb pestering customers, the collection agency gets some money out of them, which they keep because they have already bought the portfolio at pennies or less on the dollar.
This is where servicers and other intermediaries in the fake securitization chain are going to get into hot water. The debt was created when the investor loaned the borrower the money. The intermediaries are by definition debt collectors under the UDCPA and they are, and have been banged for fines many times on individual cases.
This is an instance where the Obama administration is attacking the practice head-on and taking away their toys. So when the pretender lender comes knocking, it isn’t just a RESPA 6 (Qualified Written Request) that you send out, it is a UDCPA letter you send demanding to know both the identity and contact information for the creditor. As you can see from this article, failure to provide you with that information plus the balance due and how it was computed, is a violation of that Federal Statute.
It might also be a shortcut way of identifying the pretender not as holder of the note but as agent for an undisclosed principal seeking to collect on a note that was defective in the first place because they did not identify the correct creditor (in violation of TILA) and it did not provide you with a proper accounting showing exactly what this “creditor” received that would reduce your loan balance.
The MAIN point here is that the servicer might well be the one sending you the notice of delinquency swhen they have performed zero due diligence as to the creditor’s accounting. Where the servicer itself or some other party is keeping the account current, as is often the case, the loan is neither delinquent nor susceptible to being declared in default — but they do it anyway.
Now that the FTC has declared war on debt collectors who perform illegally, and banged them with this fine, we can invoke the same administrative procedures and grievances with the FTC as to the collection efforts on mortgages where the “collector” is not the creditor and where the money demanded is not actually shown as due.
There is a presumption that if you didn’t make the payment as set forth in the note, then you must be delinquent and you must be declared (at some point) in default. But that is not true in most cases. There can only be a delinquency or default under the mortgage loan if the borrower has failed to make a payment or cure a payment that is actually due. If the payment has been made already, then no such payment is due, regardless of whether it came from the borrower or not.
This is why you need to know the four legs of the stool in order to object, sue, defend, and present genuine issues of fact before a trial court that will have no choice but to allow you to proceed to discovery. Discovery is where these cases settle because the pretenders know they didn’t fund the loan, they didn’t pay for the loan and the creditor has been paid in whole or in part, with a lower or zero balance remaining.
Good info to use for your home also. reas as a whole below! the homeowner has a legal right under color of state and federal law to file an instrument or reconveyance as attorney in fact for the “beneficiary” of record — forcing the “pretender lender” to either back off or prove their case.
Non Judicial as Private Contract: Opening the Door to Homeowners for Self-Help
Posted on January 26, 2009 by Neil Garfield
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
After months of wrangling with the obvious due process issues invovled in allowing a Trustee on the Deed of Trust to send a Notice of Default, Notice of Default and to file an eviction (unlawful detainer), it has occurred to me that the reasoning behind “non-judicial” process can be turned on its head in favor of the homeowner.
The reason why non-judicial foreclosure is NOT a denial of due process is two-fold:
(1) public policy and judicial economy favors it because until the mortgage meltdown era, nearly all judicial foreclosures had the same pattern, to wit: Suit in Foreclosure with Summons, No Answer by the the borrower, clerk’s default entered, Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment, Judgment entered, Sale date is set, Auction on the courthouse steps and that’s it. It was a rare case in which the borrower had any legitimate defenses and virtually impossible for the foreclosing party to be the wrong party bring the suit. The title record was clear, the bank held the note and mortgage, and but for some relatively minor TILA or RESPA issues it was highly unusual for predatory lending to be a factor in the case, and even if it was, the borrower simply didn’t raise it. Today, none of those assumption are true. Virtually all mortgages between 2001-2008 were between an undisclosed investor or group of investors and the borrower who was funded from proceeds of sales of unregulated securities. Everyone in between was merely an undisclosed conduit or middleman collecting an undisclosed fee as the money from the investor was parsed out for fees, profits, insurance premiums, rebates, kickbacks and of course funding of the alleged loan transaction. None of these middlemen have any loss, claim, or right to foreclose property and all of them have been superceded by the authority of the holders of mortgage backed securities. Even the Trustee on the Deed of Trust has been superceded by at least two other Trustees. They don’t have the note, they don’t have the full record of all the parties who collected fees or paid the principal or interest on the note and mortgage, and they don’t really have any stake in the outcome of the foreclosure — because they didn’t fund the loan or lose any money.
(2) Under the legal theories that purport to support non-judicial foreclosure, it is said that non judicial foreclosure is a matter of private contract and not state action. Thus, the theory goes, parties are free to contract amongst themselves for authority to sell the property when the loan is reported by some party (alleging to be the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust). So anything the Trustee does that is wrong is really a matter of breach of contract, not violation of due process. If the Trustee on the deed of trust lacks authority, if the beneficiary is out of business and some other party is alleging it is now the new beneficiary, if anyone with or without knowledge alleges that the loan is in default and they are wrong or acting wrongfully, it is a matter of private contract, not subject to the rules of civil procedure governing the conduct of lawsuits in state or Federal Court. It is a contract authorizing “self-help”. Thus I conclude that the homeowner is equally entitles to utilize self-help to preserve his interest in his real property. Of course filing a notice of intent to preserve interest in real property, a notice of non-compliance with statute, or some other instrument that clouds title could force the conversion to a judicial foreclosure where the Trustee and beneficiary would be required to step forward and reveal the true holder in due course, account for the flow of the funds paid thus far, etc. But adding the force of Federal Law (TILA, RESPA and HOEPA), and applicable state laws on deceptive lending practices, and applicable common law to the permission to use self-help gives the homeowner greater power than the entities that seek to use self-help to foreclose. By filing a Qualified Written Request, Federal Law requires an answer and resolution. Barring that resolution, and using the common law doctrine of tacit procuration as a tool of enforcement at the end of the QWR, the homeowner has a legal right under color of state and federal law to file an instrument or reconveyance as attorney in fact for the “beneficiary” of record — forcing the “pretender lender” to either back off or prove their case.
REMEMBER, YOUR GOAL IS NOT TO ALLEGE THAT YOU DON’T OWE THE MONEY AT ALL. YOUR GOAL IS TO ALLEGE THAT IF YOU DO OWE MONEY IT IS NOT TO THE TRUSTEE OR THE PARTY PRETENDING TO BE THE BENEFICIARY. BASED UPON THE SEC FILINGS THERE IS PROBABLE CA– USE TO BELIEVE THAT YOUR LOAN WAS HANDLED AND TRANSFERRED, SOLD, SLICED AND DICED MANY TIMES. DESPITE THE CURRENT TREND OF COUNTRYWIDE AND OTHERS TO SAY THIS INFORMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL, THERE ARE VERY FEW JUDGES THAT WOULD AFFIRM THAT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW THE IDENTITY OF YOUR REAL LENDER. YOUR POINT IN GOING TO COURT IS NOT TO SAY THAT YOU AUTOMATICALLY WIN AND THEY LOSE. YOUR POINT IS TO SAY THAT YOU WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE MERITS OF THE DEFENSES, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS YOU HAVE AND THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE THE RIGHT OF DISCOVERY ALL UNDER THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

I double and triple checked my typing before I posted that link… but looks like a missed a letter.?.. Oh well..here goes!!
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Nestle_(NSRGY)

HA..the dirty bastards blocked the link!…Just GOOGLE SEARCH THE WORDS: WHO OWNS NESTLE?