Foreclosure Fraud in a Nutshell

Bill Butler 2013

The untold story in the foreclosure crisis unfolding across America is that, following a foreclosure perpetrated by one of the October 2008 Bailout Banks (e.g. Bank of America, Citibank, JPM Chase, Wells Fargo) Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac suddenly appear as the record owner of Average Joe’s home. These federal government sponsored entities then go into local housing court and get a court order authorizing them to evict Joe. If Joe resists, these supposedly charitable institutions obtain a writ ordering the local sheriff to forcibly remove Joe from his home.

Newt Gingrich recently admitted to accepting $1.8 million from Freddie Mac ($25,0000 to $30,000 a month during one span of time) for advising this proto-fascist entity. Gingrich claims that he supports Fannie and Freddie because he believes the federal government “should have programs to help low-income people acquire the ability to buy homes.” But Fannie and Freddie don’t do this and never have. When government “helps” someone by subsidizing the purchase of something (through easy credit or lower-than-market rates), it makes that something more expensive. Helping someone buy something that is overpriced because of your help is not help. Fannie/Freddie subsidies not only hurt the low-income people they intend to help, they hurt everyone by subsidizing, and therefore distorting, the entire housing market. Fannie/Freddie’s charity has now taken a dark turn. Like their Depression-era New Deal predecessor the Regional Agricultural Credit Corp., Fannie/Freddie are now repossessing homes at an increasing and alarming rate.

Mr. Gingrich either does not understand economics – government subsidies make things more expensive, not less expensive, and therefore hurt their intended beneficiaries – or he is a vain, selfish, and cynical man with no interest in actually helping his neighbor.

You decide.

THE OCTOBER 2008 BAILOUT PAID OFF THE HOLDERS OF MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITES AND DERIVATIVE INSUREDS-(LEAVING NO INJURED PARTIES)

The facts indicate that the Federal Reserve “printed” at least 16 trillion dollars as part of the 2008 bailouts. The bigger questions, however, who got it, why and what did the Fed get in return? The Fed doesn’t just print money. It prints money to buy stuff. Most often this is U.S. Treasuries. That changed in October of 2008. In and after October 2008 the Fed printed new money to buy mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that were defaulting at a rapid rate. Want proof? Here is a link to the Federal Reserve balance sheet which shows that the Fed is holding over a trillion dollars in mortgage-backed securities that it began acquiring in 2008.

Why is the Federal Reserve holding all of these MBS’s? Because when “the market” collapsed in September of 2008, what really collapsed is the Fannie/Freddie/Wall Street mortgage “daisy chain” securitization scheme. As increasing numbers of MBS went into default, the purchasers of derivatives (naked insurance contracts betting on MBS default) began filing claims against the insurance writers (e.g. AIG) demanding payment. This started in February 2007 when HSBC Bank announced billions in MBS losses, gained momentum in June of 2007 when Bear Stearns announced $3.8 billion in MBS exposure in just one Bear Stearns fund, and further momentum with the actual collapse of Bear Stearns in July and August of 2007. By September of 2008, the Bear Stearns collapse proved to be the canary in the coal mine as the claims on off-balance sheet derivatives became the cascading cross defaults that Alan Greenspan warned could collapse the entire Western financial system.

Part of what happened in October 2008 is that the Federal Reserve paid AIG’s and others’ derivative obligations to the insureds (pension funds, hedge funds, major banks, foreign banks) who held the naked insurance contracts guaranteeing Average Joe’s payments. To understand this, imagine that a cataclysmic event occurred in the U.S. that destroyed nearly every car in the U.S. and further that Allstate insured all of these cars. That is what happened to AIG. When the housing market collapsed and borrowers began defaulting on their securitized loans, AIG’s derivative obligations exceeded its ability (or willingness) to pay. So, the Fed stepped in as the insurer of last resort and bailed out AIG (and probably others). When an insurer pays on a personal property claim, it has “subrogation” rights. This means when it pays it has the right to demand possession of the personal property it insured or seek recovery from those responsible for the loss. In Allstate’s case this is wrecked cars. In the case of AIG and the Fed, it is MBS. That is what the trillions of MBS on the Fed’s balance sheet represent: wrecked cars that Fannie and Freddie are now liquidating for scrap value.

Thank you, Mr. Gingrich. Great advice.

BUT FANNIE/FREDDIE WASN’T MY LENDER AND WASN’T MY MORTGAGEE, SO HOW CAN THEY TAKE MY HOUSE?

To understand how it came to be that the Fed has paid Average Joe’s original actual lender (the MBS purchaser) and now Fannie and Freddie are trying to take Joe’s home, you first have to understand some mortgage law and securitization basics.

The Difference Between Notes and Mortgages

When you close on the purchase of your home, you sign two important documents. You sign a promissory note that represents your legal obligation to pay. You sign ONE promissory note. You sign ONE promissory note because it is a negotiable instrument, payable “to the order of” the “lender” identified in the promissory note. If you signed two promissory notes on a $300,000 loan from Countrywide, you could end up paying Countrywide (or one of its successors) $600,000.

At closing you also sign a Mortgage (or a Deed of Trust in Deed of Trust States). You may sign more than one Mortgage. You may sign more than one Mortgage because it does not represent a legal obligation to pay anything. You could sign 50 Mortgages relating to your $300,000 Countrywide loan and it would not change your obligation. A Mortgage is a security instrument. It is security and security only. Without a promissory note, a mortgage is nothing. Nothing.

You “give” or “grant” a mortgage to your original lender as security for the promise to pay as represented by the promissory note. In real estate law parlance, you “give/grant” the “mortgage” to the “holder” of your “promissory note.”

If you question my bona fides in commenting on the important distinction between notes and mortgages, I know what I am talking about. I tried and won perhaps the first securitized mortgage lawsuit ever in the country in First National Bank of Elk River v. Independent Mortgage Services, 1996 WL 229236 (Minn. Ct. App. No. DX-95-1919).

 

In FNBER v. IMS a mortgage assignee (IMS) claimed the ownership of two mortgages relating to loans (promissory notes) held by my client, the First National Bank of Elk River (FNBER). After a three-day trial where IMS was capably represented by a former partner of the international law firm Dorsey & Whitney, my client prevailed and the Court voided the recorded mortgage assignments to IMS. My client prevailed not because of my great skill but because it had actual, physical custody of the original promissory notes (payable to the order of my client) and had been “servicing” (receiving payments on) the loans for years notwithstanding the recorded assignment of mortgage. The facts at trial showed that IMS rejected the loans because they did not conform to their securitization parameters. In short, IMS, as the “record owner” of the mortgages without any provable connection to the underlying notes, had nothing. FNBER, on the other hand, had promissory notes payable to the order of FNBER but did not have “record title” to the mortgages. FNBER was the winner because its possession of and entitlement to enforce the notes made it the “legal owner” of the mortgages.

The lesson: if you have record title to a mortgage but cannot show that you have possession of and/or entitlement to enforce the promissory notes that the mortgage secures, you lose.

This is true for 62 million securitized loans.

 

Securitization – The Car That Doesn’t Go In Reverse

There is nothing per se illegitimate about securitization. The law has for a long time recognized the rights of a noteholder to sell off pro-rata interests in the note. So long as the noteholder remains the noteholder he has the right to exercise rights in a mortgage (take the house) when there is a default on the note. Securitization does not run afoul of traditional real estate and foreclosure law when the mortgage holder can prove his connection to the noteholder.

But modern securitization doesn’t work this way.

The “securitization” of a “mortgage loan” today involves multiple parties but the most important parties and documents necessary for evaluating whether a bank has a right to foreclose on a mortgage are:

(1) the Borrower (Average Joe);

(2) the Original Lender (Mike’s Baitshop and Mortgages or Bailey Savings & Loan – whoever is across the closing table from Joe);

(3) the Original Mortgagee (could be Mike’s B&M, but could be anyone, including Fannie’s Creature From the Black Lagoon, the mortgagee “nominee” MERS);

(4) the “Servicer” of the loan as identified in the PSA (usually a Bank or anyone with “servicer” in its name, the entity to whom Joe makes his payments);

(5) the mortgage loan “pooling and servicing agreement” (PSA) and the PSA Trust created by the PSA;

(6) the “PSA Trust” is the “special purpose entity” created by the PSA. The PSA Trust is the heart of the PSA. It holds all securitized notes and mortgages and also sells MBS securities to investors; and

(7) the “Trustee” of the PSA Trust is the entity responsible for safekeeping of Joe’s promissory note and mortgage and the issuer of MBS.

The PSA Servicer is essentially the Chief Operating Officer and driver of the PSA. Without the Servicer, the securitization car does not go. The Servicer is the entity to which Joe pays his “mortgage” (really his note, but you get it) every month. When Joe’s loan gets “sold” multiple times, the loan is not actually being sold, the servicing rights are. The Servicer has no right, title or interest in either the promissory note or the mortgage. (nor does the “trustee”) Any right that the Servicer has to receive money is derived from the PSA. The PSA, not Joe’s Note or Joe’s Mortgage, gives the Servicer the right to take droplets of cash out of Joe’s monthly payments before distributing the remainder to MBS purchasers.

The PSA Trustee and the sanctity of the PSA Trust are vitally important to the validity of the PSA. The PSA promoters (the usual suspects, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., Merrill, Deutsche bank, Barclays, etc.) persuaded MBS purchasers to part with trillions of dollars based on the idea that they would ensure that Joe’s Note would be properly endorsed by every person or entity that touched it after Joe signed it, that they would place Joe’s Note and Joe’s Mortgage in the vault-like PSA Trust and the note and mortgage would remain in the PSA Trust with a green-eyeshade, PSA Trustee diligently safekeeping them for 30 years. Further, the PSA promoters hired law firms to persuade the MBS purchasers that the PSA Trust, which is more than100 percent funded (that is, oversold) by the MBS purchasers, was the real owner of Joe’s Note and Joe’s Mortgage and that the PSA Trust, using other people’s money, had purchased or soon would purchase thousands of similar notes and mortgages in a “true sale” in accordance with FASB 140. (A to B to C to D requires three true sales-no prper conveyance and no true sales means the “trust” has nada…the “trustee” has nada…)

The PSA does not distribute pool proceeds that can be tracked pro rata to identifiable loans. In this respect, in the wrong hands (e.g. Countrywide’s Angelo Mozilla) PSAs have the potential to operate like a modern “daisy chain” fraud whereby the PSA oversells the loans in the PSA Trust, thus defrauding the MBS investors. The PSA organizers also do not inform Joe at the other end of the chain that they have sold his $300,000 loan for $600,000 and that the payout to the MBS purchasers (and other derivative side-bettors) when Joe defaults is potentially multiples of $300,000.

The PSA organizers can cover the PSA’s obligations to MBS purchasers through derivatives. Derivatives are like homeowners’ fire insurance that anyone can buy. If everyone in the world can bet that Joe’s home is going to burn down and has no interest in preventing it, odds are that Joe’s home will burn down. This is part of the reason Warren Buffet called derivatives a “financial weapon of mass destruction.” They are an off-balance sheet fiat money multiplier (the Fed stopped reporting the explosive expansion of M3 in 2006 most likely because of derivatives and mortgage loan securitization fraud), and create incentive for fraud. On the other end of the chain, Joe has no idea that the “Lender” across the table from him has no skin in the game and is more than likely receiving a commission for dragging Joe to the table.

A serious problem with modern securitization is that it destroys “privity.” Privity of contract is the traditional notion that there are two parties to a contract and that only a party to the contract can enforce or renegotiate that contract. Put simply, if A and B have a contract, C cannot enforce B’s rights against A (unless A expressly agrees or C otherwise shows a lawful agency relationship with B). The frustration for Joe is that he cannot find the other party to his transaction. When Joe talks to his “bank” (really his Servicer) and tries to renegotiate his loan, his bank tells him that a mysterious “investor” will not approve. He can’t do this because they don’t exist, have been paid or don’t have the authority to negotiate Joe’s loan.

 

Joe’s ultimate “investor” is the Fed, as evidenced by the trillion of MBSs on its balance sheet. Although Fannie/Freddie purportedly now “own” 80 percent of all U.S. “mortgage loans,” Fannie/Freddie are really just the Fed’s repo agents. Joe has no privity relationship with Fannie/Freddie. Fannie, Freddie and the Fed know this. So, they are using the Bailout Banks to front run the process – the Bailout Bank (who also have no cognizable connection to the note and therefore no privity relationship with Joe) conducts a fraudulent foreclosure by creating a “record title” right to foreclose and, when the fraudulent process is over, hands the bag of stolen loot (Joe’s home) to Fannie and Freddie.

 

Record Title and Legal Title

Virtually all 62 million securitized notes define the “Noteholder” as “anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payment under this Note…” Very few of the holders of securitized mortgages can establish that they both hold (have physical possession of) the note AND are entitled to receive payments on the notes. For whatever reason, if a Bailout Bank has possession of an original note, it is usually endorsed payable to the order of some other (often bankrupt) entity.

If you are a Bailout Bank and you have physical possession of an original securitized note, proving that you are “entitled to receive payment” on the note is nearly impossible. First, you have to explain how you obtained the note when it should be in the hands of a PSA Trustee and it is not endorsed by the PSA Trustee. Second, even if you can show how you obtained the note, explaining why you are entitled to receive payments when you paid nothing for it and when the Fed may have satisfied your original creditors is a very difficult proposition. Third, because a mortgage is security for payments due to the noteholder and only the noteholder, if you cannot establish legal right to receive payments on the note but have a recorded mortgage all you have is “record” title to the mortgage. You have the “power” to foreclose (because courts trust recorded documents) but not necessarily the legal “right” to foreclose. Think FNBER v. IMS.

The “robosigner” controversy, reported by 60 Minutes months ago, is a symptom of the banks’ problem with “legal title” versus “record title.” The 60 Minutes reports shows that Bailout Banks are hiring 16 year old, independent contractors from Backwater, Georgia to pose as vice presidents and sign mortgage assignments which they “record” with local county recorders. This is effective in establishing the Bailout Banks’ “record title” to the “mortgage.” Unlike real bank vice presidents subject to Sarbanes-Oxley, Backwater 16-year olds have no reason to ask: “Where is the note?”; “Is my bank the noteholder?”; or “Is my Bank entitled to receive payments on the note?”

The Federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision agree with this analysis. In April of 2011 the OCC and OTS reprimanded the Bailout Banks for fraudulently foreclosing on millions of Average Joe’s:

…without always ensuring that the either the promissory note or the mortgage document were properly endorsed or assigned and, if necessary, in the possession of the appropriate party at the appropriate time…

The OCC and OTS further found that the Bailout Banks “failed to sufficiently oversee outside counsel and other third-party providers handling foreclosure-related services.”

Finally, Bailout Banks consented to the OCC and OTS spanking by admitting that they have engaged in “unsafe and unsound banking practices.”

In these “Order and Consent Decrees,” the OCC and the OTS reprimanded all of the usual suspects: Bank of America, Citibank, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, MetLife, MERSCorp, PNC Bank, US Bank, Wells Fargo, Aurora Bank, Everbank, One West Bank, IMB HoldCo LLC, and Sovereign Bank.

Although the OCC and OTS Orders are essentially wrist slaps for what is a massive fraud, these orders at least expose some truth. In response to the OCC Order, the Fannie/Freddie-created Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), changed its rules (see Rule 8) to demand that foreclosing lawyers identify the “note owner” prior to initiating foreclosure proceedings.

NEWT’S FANNIE/FREDDIE ENDGAME: PLANTATION USA

Those of us fighting the banks began to see a disturbing trend starting about a year ago. Fannie and Freddie began showing up claiming title and seeking to evict homeowners from their homes.

The process works like this, using Bank of America as an example. Average Joe had a securitized loan with Countrywide. Countrywide, which might as well have been run by the Gambino family with expertise in “daisy chain” fraud, never followed the PSA, did not care for the original notes and almost never deposited the original notes in the PSA Trust. Countrywide goes belly up. Bank of America (BOA) takes over Countrywide in perhaps the worst deal in the history of corporate America, acquiring more liabilities than assets. Bank of America realizes that it has acquired a big bag of dung (no notes = no mortgages = big problem) and so sets up an entity called “BAC Home Loans LLP” whose general partner is another BOA entity.

The purpose of these BOA entities is to execute the liquidation the Countrywide portfolio as quickly as possible and, at the same time, isolate the liability to two small BOA subsidiaries. BOA uses BAC Home Loans LLP to conduct the foreclosure on Joe’s home. BAC Home Loans LLP feeds local foreclosure lawyers phony, robosigned documents that establish an “of record” transfer of the Countrywide mortgage to BAC Home Loans LLP. BAC Home Loans LLP, “purchases” Joe’s home at a Sheriff’s sale by bidding Joe’s debt owed to Countrywide. BAC Home Loans LLP does not have and cannot prove any connection to Joe’s note so BAC Home Loans LLP quickly deeds Joe’s property to Fannie and Freddie.

When it is time to kick Joe out of his home, Fannie Mae shows up in the eviction action. When compelled to show its cards, Fannie will claim title to Joe’s house via a “quit claim deed” or an assignment of the Sheriff’s Certificate of sale. Adding insult to injury, while Joe may have spent years trying to get BOA to “modify” his loan, and may have begged BOA for the right to pay BOA $1000 a month if only BOA will stop the foreclosure, Fannie now claims that BOA deeded Joe’s property to Fannie for nothing. That right, nothing. All county recorders require that a real estate purchaser claim how much they paid for the property to determine the tax value. Fannie claims on these recorded documents that it paid nothing for Joe’s home and, further, falsely claims that it is exempt because it is a US government agency. It isn’t. It is a government sponsored entity that is currently in conservatorship and run by the US government.

Great advice Newt.

CONCLUSION

It is apparent that the US government is so broke that it will do anything to pay its bills, including stealing Average Joe’s home.

That’s change that both Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich can believe in.

APPENDIX

More and more courts are agreeing that the banks “inside” the PSA do not have legal standing (they have no skin in the game and so cannot show the necessary “injury in fact”), are not “real parties in interest” (they cannot show that they followed the terms of the PSA or are otherwise “entitled to enforce” the note) and that there are real questions of whether any securitized mortgage can ever be properly perfected.

The banks’ weakness is exposed most often in bankruptcy courts because it is there that they have to show their cards and explain how they claim a legal right, rather than the “of record” right, to foreclose the mortgage. More and more courts are recognizing that, without proof of ownership of the underlying note, holding a mortgage means nothing.

The most recent crack in the Banks’s position is evidenced by the federal Eight Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in In Re Banks, No. 11-6025 (8th Cir., Sept. 13, 2011). In Banks, a bank attempted to execute a foreclosure within a bankruptcy case. The bank had a note payable to the order of another entity; that is, the foreclosing bank was “Bank C” but had a note payable to the order of “Bank B” and endorsed in blank by Bank B. The bank, Bank C, alleged that, because the note was endorsed in blank and “without recourse,” that it had the right to foreclose. The Court held that this was insufficient to show a sufficient chain of title to the note, reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded for findings regarding when and how Bank C acquired the note.

See also, In Re Aagard, No. 810-77338-reg (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2011) (Judge Grossman slams MERS as lacking standing, working as both principal and agent in same transaction, and exposes MERS’ alleged principal US Bank as unable to produce or provide evidence that it is in fact the holder of the note); In Re Vargas, No. 08-17036SB (Bankr. C.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2008) (Judge Bufford correctly applied rules of evidence and held that MERS could not establish right to possession of the 83 year old Mr. Vargas’ home through the testimony of a low-level employee who had no foundation to testify about the legal title to the original note); In Re Walker, Bankr. E.D. Cal. No. 10-21656-E-11 (May 20, 2010) (holding that neither MERS nor its alleged principal could show that they were “real parties in interest” because neither could provide any evidence of the whereabouts of, much less legal title to, the original note); Landmark v. Kesler, 216 P.2d 158 (Kan. 2009) (in this case the Kansas Supreme Court provides the most cogent state court analysis of the problem created by securitization – the “splitting” of the note and the mortgage and the real party in interest and standing problems that the holder of the mortgage has when it cannot also show that it has clean and clear legal title to the note); U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez, 941 NE 40 (Mass. 2011), (the Massachusetts Supreme Court denied two banks’ attempts to “quiet title” following foreclosure because the banks’ proffered evidence did not show ownership of the mortgages – or for that matter, the notes – prior to the Sheriff’s sale); and Jackson v. MERS, 770 N.W.2d 489 (Minn. 2009) (this federal-gun-to-the-head – certified question from federal court asking for state court blessing of its already decided ruling – to the Minnesota Supreme Court is most notable for the courageous dissent of NFL Hall of Fame player and only popularly elected Justice Alan Page who opined that MERS should pound sand and obey state recording standards).

All actions based on fraud are void ab initio-not eligible to invoke equity.

MN Statutes

513.08 VOID WHEN MADE TO DEFRAUD, EXCEPTION

Every conveyance of any estate or interest in lands, or the rents and profits thereof, and every charge upon lands, or upon the rents and profits thereof, made or created with the intent to defraud prior or subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration of the same lands, rents, or profits, as against any such purchasers, shall be void…

609.625 AGGRAVATED FORGERY

• Subdivision 1. Making or altering writing or object. 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 by the maker or alterer under an assumed or fictitious name, or at another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority, is guilty of aggravated forgery and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both

609.64 RECORDING, FILING OF FORGED INSTRUMENT

Whoever intentionally presents for filing, registering, or recording, or files, registers, or records a false or forged instrument relating to or affecting real or personal property in a public office entitled to file, register, or record such instrument when genuine may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.

609.527 IDENTITY THEFT

Subd. 2.Crime. A person who transfers, possesses, or uses an identity that is not the person’s own, with the intent to commit, aid, or abet any unlawful activity is guilty of identity theft and may be punished as provided in subdivision 3.

Subd. 3.Penalties. A person who violates subdivision 2 may be sentenced as follows:

(5) if the offense involves eight or more direct victims; or if the total, combined loss to the direct and indirect victims is more than $35,000; or if the offense is related to possession or distribution of pornographic work in violation of section 617.246 or 617.247; the person may be sentenced as provided in section 609.52, subdivision 3, clause (1).

Subd. 4.Restitution; items provided to victim. (a) A direct or indirect victim of an identity theft crime shall be considered a victim for all purposes, including any rights that accrue under chapter 611A and rights to court-ordered restitution.

(b) The court shall order a person convicted of violating subdivision 2 to pay restitution of not less than $1,000 to each direct victim of the offense.

(c) Upon the written request of a direct victim or the prosecutor setting forth with specificity the facts and circumstances of the offense in a proposed order, the court shall provide to the victim, without cost, a certified copy of the complaint filed in the matter, the judgment of conviction, and an order setting forth the facts and circumstances of the offense.

Subd. 5.Reporting. (a) A person who has learned or reasonably suspects that a person is a direct victim of a crime under subdivision 2 may initiate a law enforcement investigation by contacting the local law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction where the person resides, regardless of where the crime may have occurred. The agency must prepare a police report of the matter, provide the complainant with a copy of that report, and may begin an investigation of the facts, or, if the suspected crime was committed in a different jurisdiction, refer the matter to the law enforcement agency where the suspected crime was committed for an investigation of the facts.

Subd. 5a. Crime of electronic use of false pretense to obtain identity. (a) A person who, with intent to obtain the identity of another, uses a false pretense in an e-mail to another person or in a web page, electronic communication, advertisement, or any other communication on the Internet, is guilty of a crime.

(b) Whoever commits such offense may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

(c) In a prosecution under this subdivision, it is not a defense that:

(1) the person committing the offense did not obtain the identity of another;

(2) the person committing the offense did not use the identity; or

(3) the offense did not result in financial loss or any other loss to any person.

1. c) Whoever commits an offense under paragraph (a) or (b) may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

609.52 THEFT

Subd. 2.Acts constituting theft. (a) Whoever does any of the following commits theft and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 3:

(1) intentionally and without claim of right takes, uses, transfers, conceals or retains possession of movable property of another without the other’s consent and with intent to deprive the owner permanently of possession of the property; or

(2) with or without having a legal interest in movable property, intentionally and without consent, takes the property out of the possession of a pledgee or other person having a superior right of possession, with intent thereby to deprive the pledgee or other person permanently of the possession of the property; or

(3) obtains for the actor or another the possession, custody, or title to property of or performance of services by a third person by intentionally deceiving the third person with a false representation which is known to be false, made with intent to defraud, and which does defraud the person to whom it is made. “False representation” includes without limitation:

(i) the issuance of a check, draft, or order for the payment of money, except a forged check as defined in section 609.631, or the delivery of property knowing that the actor is not entitled to draw upon the drawee therefor or to order the payment or delivery thereof; or

(ii) a promise made with intent not to perform. Failure to perform is not evidence of intent not to perform unless corroborated by other substantial evidence; or

(iii) the preparation or filing of a claim for reimbursement, a rate application, or a cost report used to establish a rate or claim for payment for medical care provided to a recipient of medical assistance under chapter 256B, which intentionally and falsely states the costs of or actual services provided by a vendor of medical care; or

(iv) the preparation or filing of a claim for reimbursement for providing treatment or supplies required to be furnished to an employee under section 176.135 which intentionally and falsely states the costs of or actual treatment or supplies provided; or

(v) the preparation or filing of a claim for reimbursement for providing treatment or supplies required to be furnished to an employee under section 176.135 for treatment or supplies that the provider knew were medically unnecessary, inappropriate, or excessive; or

(4) by swindling, whether by artifice, trick, device, or any other means, obtains property or services from another person; or

(5) intentionally commits any of the acts listed in this subdivision but with intent to exercise temporary control only and:

(i) the control exercised manifests an indifference to the rights of the owner or the restoration of the property to the owner; or

(ii) the actor pledges or otherwise attempts to subject the property to an adverse claim; or

(iii) the actor intends to restore the property only on condition that the owner pay a reward or buy back or make other compensation; or

(6) finds lost property and, knowing or having reasonable means of ascertaining the true owner, appropriates it to the finder’s own use or to that of another not entitled thereto without first having made reasonable effort to find the owner and offer and surrender the property to the owner; or

(7) intentionally obtains property or services, offered upon the deposit of a sum of money or tokens in a coin or token operated machine or other receptacle, without making the required deposit or otherwise obtaining the consent of the owner; or

(8) intentionally and without claim of right converts any article representing a trade secret, knowing it to be such, to the actor’s own use or that of another person or makes a copy of an article representing a trade secret, knowing it to be such, and intentionally and without claim of right converts the same to the actor’s own use or that of another person. It shall be a complete defense to any prosecution under this clause for the defendant to show that information comprising the trade secret was rightfully known or available to the defendant from a source other than the owner of the trade secret; or

(9) leases or rents personal property under a written instrument and who:

(i) with intent to place the property beyond the control of the lessor conceals or aids or abets the concealment of the property or any part thereof; or

(ii) sells, conveys, or encumbers the property or any part thereof without the written consent of the lessor, without informing the person to whom the lessee sells, conveys, or encumbers that the same is subject to such lease or rental contract with intent to deprive the lessor of possession thereof; or

(iii) does not return the property to the lessor at the end of the lease or rental term, plus agreed-upon extensions, with intent to wrongfully deprive the lessor of possession of the property; or

(iv) returns the property to the lessor at the end of the lease or rental term, plus agreed-upon extensions, but does not pay the lease or rental charges agreed upon in the written instrument, with intent to wrongfully deprive the lessor of the agreed-upon charges.

For the purposes of items (iii) and (iv), the value of the property must be at least $100.

Evidence that a lessee used a false, fictitious, or not current name, address, or place of employment in obtaining the property or fails or refuses to return the property or pay the rental contract charges to lessor within five days after written demand for the return has been served personally in the manner provided for service of process of a civil action or sent by certified mail to the last known address of the lessee, whichever shall occur later, shall be evidence of intent to violate this clause. Service by certified mail shall be deemed to be complete upon deposit in the United States mail of such demand, postpaid and addressed to the person at the address for the person set forth in the lease or rental agreement, or, in the absence of the address, to the person’s last known place of residence; or

(10) alters, removes, or obliterates numbers or symbols placed on movable property for purpose of identification by the owner or person who has legal custody or right to possession thereof with the intent to prevent identification, if the person who alters, removes, or obliterates the numbers or symbols is not the owner and does not have the permission of the owner to make the alteration, removal, or obliteration; or

(11) with the intent to prevent the identification of property involved, so as to deprive the rightful owner of possession thereof, alters or removes any permanent serial number, permanent distinguishing number or manufacturer’s identification number on personal property or possesses, sells or buys any personal property knowing or having reason to know that the permanent serial number, permanent distinguishing number or manufacturer’s identification number has been removed or altered; or

(12) intentionally deprives another of a lawful charge for cable television service by:

(i) making or using or attempting to make or use an unauthorized external connection outside the individual dwelling unit whether physical, electrical, acoustical, inductive, or other connection; or by

(ii) attaching any unauthorized device to any cable, wire, microwave, or other component of a licensed cable communications system as defined in chapter 238. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the electronic video rerecording of program material transmitted on the cable communications system by a subscriber for fair use as defined by Public Law 94-553, section 107; or

(13) except as provided in clauses (12) and (14), obtains the services of another with the intention of receiving those services without making the agreed or reasonably expected payment of money or other consideration; or

(14) intentionally deprives another of a lawful charge for telecommunications service by:

(i) making, using, or attempting to make or use an unauthorized connection whether physical, electrical, by wire, microwave, radio, or other means to a component of a local telecommunication system as provided in chapter 237; or

(ii) attaching an unauthorized device to a cable, wire, microwave, radio, or other component of a local telecommunication system as provided in chapter 237.

The existence of an unauthorized connection is prima facie evidence that the occupier of the premises:

(A) made or was aware of the connection; and

(B) was aware that the connection was unauthorized;

(15) with intent to defraud, diverts corporate property other than in accordance with general business purposes or for purposes other than those specified in the corporation’s articles of incorporation; or

(16) with intent to defraud, authorizes or causes a corporation to make a distribution in violation of section 302A.551, or any other state law in conformity with it; or

(17) takes or drives a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner or an authorized agent of the owner, knowing or having reason to know that the owner or an authorized agent of the owner did not give consent; or

(18) intentionally, and without claim of right, takes motor fuel from a retailer without the retailer’s consent and with intent to deprive the retailer permanently of possession of the fuel by driving a motor vehicle from the premises of the retailer without having paid for the fuel dispensed into the vehicle; or

(19) commits wage theft under subdivision 1, clause (13).

(b) Proof that the driver of a motor vehicle into which motor fuel was dispensed drove the vehicle from the premises of the retailer without having paid for the fuel permits the factfinder to infer that the driver acted intentionally and without claim of right, and that the driver intended to deprive the retailer permanently of possession of the fuel. This paragraph does not apply if: (1) payment has been made to the retailer within 30 days of the receipt of notice of nonpayment under section 604.15; or (2) a written notice as described in section 604.15, subdivision 4, disputing the retailer’s claim, has been sent. This paragraph does not apply to the owner of a motor vehicle if the vehicle or the vehicle’s license plate has been reported stolen before the theft of the fuel.

Subd. 3.Sentence. Whoever commits theft may be sentenced as follows:

(1) to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $100,000, or both, if the property is a firearm, or the value of the property or services stolen is more than $35,000 and the conviction is for a violation of subdivision 2, clause (3), (4), (15), (16), or (19), or section 609.2335, subdivision 1, clause (1) or (2), item (i); or

(2) to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if the value of the property or services stolen exceeds $5,000, or if the property stolen was an article representing a trade secret, an explosive or incendiary device, or a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II pursuant to section 152.02 with the exception of marijuana; or

(3) to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if any of the following circumstances exist:

(a) the value of the property or services stolen is more than $1,000 but not more than $5,000; or

(b) the property stolen was a controlled substance listed in Schedule III, IV, or V pursuant to section 152.02; or

(c) the value of the property or services stolen is more than $500 but not more than $1,000 and the person has been convicted within the preceding five years for an offense under this section, section 256.98; 268.182; 609.24; 609.245; 609.53; 609.582, subdivision 1, 2, or 3; 609.625; 609.63; 609.631; or 609.821, or a statute from another state, the United States, or a foreign jurisdiction, in conformity with any of those sections, and the person received a felony or gross misdemeanor sentence for the offense, or a sentence that was stayed under section 609.135 if the offense to which a plea was entered would allow imposition of a felony or gross misdemeanor sentence; or

(d) the value of the property or services stolen is not more than $1,000, and any of the following circumstances exist:

(i) the property is taken from the person of another or from a corpse, or grave or coffin containing a corpse; or

(ii) the property is a record of a court or officer, or a writing, instrument or record kept, filed or deposited according to law with or in the keeping of any public officer or office; or

(iii) the property is taken from a burning, abandoned, or vacant building or upon its removal therefrom, or from an area of destruction caused by civil disaster, riot, bombing, or the proximity of battle; or

(iv) the property consists of public funds belonging to the state or to any political subdivision or agency thereof; or

(v) the property stolen is a motor vehicle; or

(4) to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both, if the value of the property or services stolen is more than $500 but not more than $1,000; or

(5) in all other cases where the value of the property or services stolen is $500 or less, to imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both, provided, however, in any prosecution under subdivision 2, clauses (1), (2), (3), (4), (13), and (19), the value of the money or property or services received by the defendant in violation of any one or more of the above provisions within any six-month period may be aggregated and the defendant charged accordingly in applying the provisions of this subdivision; provided that when two or more offenses are committed by the same person in two or more counties, the accused may be prosecuted in any county in which one of the offenses was committed for all of the offenses aggregated under this paragraph.

• Subd. 3a.Enhanced penalty. If a violation of this section creates a reasonably foreseeable risk of bodily harm to another, the penalties described in subdivision 3 are enhanced as follows:

(1) if the penalty is a misdemeanor or a gross misdemeanor, the person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both; and

(2) if the penalty is a felony, the statutory maximum sentence for the offense is 50 percent longer than for the underlying crime.

Federal Violations Title 18

18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS

•  241. Conspiracy against rights
•  242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 19—CONSPIRACY

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 42—EXTORTIONATE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 43—FALSE PERSONATION

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 47—FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 63—MAIL FRAUD AND OTHER FRAUD OFFENSES

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 77—PEONAGE, SLAVERY, AND TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 79—PERJURY

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 81—PIRACY AND PRIVATEERING

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 95—RACKETEERING

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 96—RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 101—RECORDS AND REPORTS

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 103—ROBBERY AND BURGLARY

•  2111. Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 113—STOLEN PROPERTY

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 119—WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 121—STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS

18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

18 U.S. Code § 287 - False, fictitious or fraudulent claims

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

18 U.S. Code § 479 - Uttering counterfeit foreign obligations or securities

18 U.S. Code § 493 - Bonds and obligations of certain lending agencies

18 U.S. Code § 495 - Contracts, deeds, and powers of attorney

18 U.S. Code § 514 - Fictitious obligations

18 U.S. Code § 657 - Lending, credit and insurance institutions

18 U.S. Code § 876 - Mailing threatening communications

18 U.S. Code § 880.Receiving the proceeds of extortion

18 U.S. Code § 894 - Collection of extensions of credit by extortionate means

18 U.S. Code § 1001 – False Statements

18 U.S. Code § 1341 - Frauds and swindles

18 U.S. Code § 1342 - Fictitious name

18 U.S. Code § 1343 - Fraud by wire

18 U.S. Code § 1344 - Bank fraud

18 U.S. Code § 1345 - Injunctions against fraud

18 U.S. Code § 1346. “Scheme or artifice to Defraud”

18 U.S. Code § 1348 - Securities and commodities fraud

18 U.S. Code § 1349.Attempt and conspiracy

18 U.S. Code § 1956 - Laundering of monetary instruments

18 U.S. Code § 1957 - Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

18 U.S. Code § 2076 - Clerk of United States District Court

18 U.S. Code § 2319 - Criminal infringement of a copyright

18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason

31 U.S. Code § 3729 - False claims

42 U.S. Code § 1983.Civil action for deprivation of rights

42 U.S. Code § 1985.Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

42 U.S. Code § 1986.Action for neglect to prevent

42 U.S. Code § 1988 - Proceedings in vindication of civil rights

BILL BUTLER SUMS IT UP:

My position is that a MN quiet title action requires a lien holder to bear the burden of proving the legitimacy of its lien. This has been MN law for 150 years. It’s also my position that this means that the foreclosing party must show that it is entitled to enforce the note. This could be a note holder or even an authorized agent acting for the note holder. Bank would be wise to provide and produce the original note, but i could imagine circumstances where a bank or servicer could prove a right to enforce without producing the note.

Because banks bear the burden of proof and because not one of 62 million securitized notes or mortgages was properly securitized in accordance with NY trust law (deposited into a trust within 90 days of securitization closing), the banks have an impossible burden. I know this because I consulted with one of the inventors of securitized mortages before i started my first case. MERS and the OCC ultimately agreed with my position and i was taken out of the game shortly thereafter.

$12 an hour robosigners exist because of the original failure to establish securitization trusts. Robosigners are needed to fraudulently sign assignments of mortgage because the trusts were never established; because of this failure 62 million securitized mortgages have no legal owner.

Quiet title and its shifting burden of proof is what my cases were about, not showing notes.

The truth will eventually come out because the lies are easy to trace. Every fraudulent foreclosure has a fraudulent recorded assignment of mortgage that started the process.

COMMON LAW HANDBOOK NOTES

Statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land

-Hoke v. Henderson

…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.

-Cruden v. Neale

…common law is the real law, the supreme law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are not the law.

-Self v. Rhay

All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process. All are for government authorities only.

-Rodrigues v. Ray Donovan

 

All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void.

If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional.

A law repugnant to the constitution is void.

-Marbury v. Madison

If the constitution prescribes one rule and the statute another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.

-16 am jur 2d sec 155

OFFICERS OF THE COURT HAVE NO IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY WHEN VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

18 USC 241-242,

Upon conviction, subject to a 410,000 fine, ten years in jail, or both, and if theft results, life in prison.

42 usc 1983, 1985, 1986

Clearly established the right to sue anyone who violates your constitutional rights. Judges are deemed to know the law, and are sworn to uphold it, cannot plead ignorance of the law-therefore, there is no judicial immunity.

Judges have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.

Cohen v. Virginia

Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the constitution wars against that constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land, the judge is engaged in treason.

-Cooper v. Aaron

It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizens.

-Boyd v. United

COURTS OF RECORD ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND THEREFORE COURTS OF JUSTICE

AT LAW-to be done according to the course of common law, as distinguished from a proceeding in equity. (Bouvier’s law 1856 edition)

The people rule, not government servants…

The Law of the land, due course of law and due process of law are synonymous.

-People v. Skinner

-State v. Rossi

-Direct Plumbing Supply Co. v. City of Dayton

Stoner v. Higginson

No higher duty rests upon the court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principals of the constitution.

-Downs v. Bidwell

Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.

-Piper v. Pearson, cited in Bradley v, Fisher

The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State.

-Schware v. Board of Examiners

FROM AWARRIORCALLS.COM

“Truth fears nothing but concealment”

“The voice of the people is the voice of God”

“The ‘Law of God’ and the ‘Law Of The Land’ are all one”

“Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived”

“He is not deceived who knows himself to be deceived”

“Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.”

LAW RECOGNIZED AS SUPREME ON THE LAND

COMES FROM GOD

10 COMMANDMENTS = COMMON LAW

SERVICE CORPORATIONS EMPLOYEES DO NOT MAKE LAWS

THEY CREATE POLICY, CODES, RULES, STATUTES

WHICH ONLY APPLIES TO THEIR

SERVICE & CREATED CORPORATIONS [BIRTH CERTIFICATE]

ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE CREATED TO PROTECTTHE PROPERTY OF MAN PERIOD!

OUR TRUSTHAS BEENMISPLACED

i, claim Every man and woman IS born free

[we are not slaves [subjects or ‘Legal’ person[s]

Every man & woman is EQUAL under the LAW

[law from our creator is recognized as supreme]

“DO NO WRONG OR HARM” [TRESPASS]

Consent or Contract only binds a man or woman

CORE WORDS TO KNOW AND MASTER

PROPERTY

TRESPASS

[2 types of trespass]

WHO

_______________________________

PROPERTY

RIGHTS

YOUR FLESH AND BLOOD BODY

LAND, HOUSE, CAR, BOAT ECT…

ANY and ALL MATERIAL THINGS

ANY and ALL THINGS WE CREATE

OUR CHILDREN UNTIL ADULTS

SPOUSE [HUSBAND OR WIFE]

HOPES, DREAMS, BELIEFS,

COURT CLAIM [ALL PAPER WORK]

ANYTHING EXCLUSIVE TO US

___________________________________

TRESPASS

UNLAWFUL CONVERSION OF OUR NAMES

FRAUD

THEFT

EXTORTION

BREACH OF CONTRACT

PHYSICAL HARM

THREATS

DAMAGE OR LOSS OF PROPERTY

COLLUSION

BARRATRY

PERSONAGE

STALKED, TERRORIZED HARASSED

TRESPASS ON THE CASE

[2nd type of trespass]

COURT CLERKS

[TRESPASS COURT PAPERWORK = PROPERTY]

________________________________________

WHO = man or woman

WHO CLAIM ‘i’ PROPERTY

WHO CLAIMS WRONG OR HARM

WHO CLAIMS BREACH OF CONTRACT

WHO IS MOVING THIS COURT

WHO’S LAW IS BEFORE THIS COURT

WHO’S COMMON LAW [ENGLISH, USA ECT]

WHO CLAIMS DEBT DUE AND BE TRUE

WHO WROTE THIS DOCUMENT

WHO IS THE BUILDING MANAGER/SERVICE CORPORATION MANAGER?

WHO IS NOT A WHAT OR A THING [FICTIONS]

i AM A MAN, NO? (NOT A LEGAL PERSON)

WHO CLAIMS i PROPERTY?

AM i PROPERTY?

WHO CAN ADMINISTER PROPERTY WITHOUT RIGHT?

WHERE IS THE MAN OR WOMAN WHO CLAIMS AND CLAIMS PROOF THAT i INJURED THEM?

DO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE APPLY TO A MAN?

I AM THE BENFICIARY, HERE TO ASSIST IN SETTLING THIS MATTER. i WILL NEGOTIATE, SETTLE, DISCHARGE AND SETOFF ALL CLAIMS UPON PROOF OF CLAIM-AND HAVE ONLY BEEN REQUESTING THIS FOR 11 YEARS. Rather telling, no?

IF WE ARE UNDER ADMIRALTY/MARITIME LAW-WHERE IS THE VALID CONTRACT?

IF WE ARE UNDER COMMON LAW-WHO CLAIMS AND CAN PROVE INJURY?

IF WE ARE UNDER EQUITY-EQUITY ABHORS UNV CLEAN HANDS AND EQUITY DOES WHAT SHOULD BE DONE-AND PROVIDES REMEDY FOR ALL WRONGS…

IRS 8594

IRS 1066

IRS 56

Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement

Proper conveyance per PSA 32.01 and NY Trust law

Chase/FDIC/WaMu Paa requires bills of sale/recieivers deeds

Chase violated NMS and the 4/12 consent decree with the 10/2/12 forgery

Chase received $461 billion plus in bailout monies-dwarfing their $#5 billion in fines/penalties for serial offenses. Deutsche at $17 billion and Credit Suisse at $10 billion while still impressive criminals, are but relative pikers.

Broken Chain of Title is fatal-see Chase v. Kim, US Bank v. Ibanez etc…Assignees are required to prove up business/accounting records that are the purported basis. Assignees LACK adequate firsthand knowledge per rules of evidence.

My purported mortgage borrower covenants require me to vigilantly defend title against all criminal threats by interlopers, strangers and imposters.

Why did SPS let their MN collectors license lapse in June, 2018-and are thus an invalid (criminal) entity?

Why is DBNTC not extant in CA, or DE, or registered in MN?

Why does UCC-11 show NO liens?

15 USC 1692-where is debt validation?

MN 336.9-210-where is proof via complete and full accounting records?

MN 336.9-203-where is proof a debt was acquired for value, from a party with rights to convey. And documented via authenticated security agreement?

MN 336.2-203-No full conveyance equals NO conveyance of any kind.

MN 336.3-501-I may and should demand proof. Only correct, true, proven party can enforce.

MN 336.3-305 says where illegality exists-there’s no obligation all is nullified and I am entitled to recoupment.

MN 336.3-104 and 105-say I am issuer, drawer, maker of the note.

MN 336.8-102 and 105, and MN 336.8-503 and 511-I hold entitlement rights and have superior interest in any proceeds.

12 USC 1821 d 13 makes the FDIC administratively responsible and superior to courts.

MN 603.63 and 64-FELONIES

MN 336.3-308 requires complete and proper indorsements.

MN 336.3-309 requires full and complete evidencing of rights, proper transferring and proper possession FOR EACH STEP.

MN 580.02 requires ALL assignments to be recorded.

MN 513.03, 04 and 08 provide that fraudulent attempts are VOID.

MN 336.8—511-As entitlement holder my claim has superior status.

MN 336.8-503 makes clear the note DOES NOT belong to the bank.-I MUST STATE THAT CLAIM

The only party entitled to payments is also the only party entitled to declare default and to enforce

Only IF there was valid conveyance-per the persons deemed owners clause in the PSA-the named cert holders are the ONLY parties that may enforce.

The PSA-section 2.01 page 70 requires the depositor to properly all rights, title and interest via proper negotiation (note with ALL proper indorsements) and assignment (mortgage) to the trustee, per MN law all properly recorded…and -per the PSA master loan schedule.

Page 74 states that the trustee will be identified and held harmless and thus CANNOT BE AN INJURED PARTY

Per the FDIC, the Fed and Paatalo and Diberts research-Chase Received NADA from the FDIC-thus have and had NO interest-and nada to convey…nemo dat

The NJ documentation declares that the paper REMIC ain’t a trust

MN 336.3-203-only a lender can hold the borrower approved interest in land-and only a lender can convey a full beneficial interest…a servicer cannot, a trustee cannot.

A servicer is NEVER connected by contract to a borrower/homeowner.

A servicer can never hold the borrower approved interest in land.

A trustee is only a trustee if/when a res (property) has been conveyed to a trust.

A trustee can never hold the borrower approved interest in land

Per the BK-the 3001b rule states that a proof of claim can only be filed by the CREDITOR…or their authorized AGENTt.

Only INVESTORS or their AGENT can file proof of claim.

Mortgage servicers are NOT creditors…they are NOT investors…they are NOT authorized agents. They have NO contract with the trustee.

ONLY the real party in interest has STANDING to file a lawsuit. Once the question/challenge is raised-it MUST be resolved. Relief can only be granted where subject matter jurisdiction exists.

If STANDING is lacking-a suit must be dismissed-an invalid void judgment must be vacated.

Awarding complete and final relief is IMPOSSIBLE where standing/capacity/subject matter jurisdiction DOES NOT exist and the real party in interest is NOT before the court.

If an indispensable party is absent-a judge has no choice but to dismiss or vacate…they have NO discretion to exercise.

NO PROPERTY INTEREST CAN BE VALID UNTIL IT IS LOCALLY RECORDED.

FAILING TO FOLLOW THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS WASTHE FIRST BLOW…FAILING TO RECORD ALL CONVEYANCES/ASSIGNMENTS PROPERLY INFLICTED THE SECOND BLOW-THESE BLOWS ARE FATAL…

BETWEEN THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS AND MANDATORY RECORDING STATUTES WHICH ARE ALMOST AS UBIQUITOUS…-IF A SALE/CONVEYANCE/ASSIGNMENT IS NOT RECORDED WHERE PROPERTY IS SITUATED, THE BORROWER APPROVED INTEREST IN LAND DOES NOT MOVE…A FAILURE TO RECORD NULLIFIES VALIDITY AT THE COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE.

NEMO DAT-ONE CANNOT GIVE WHAT ONE DOES NOT HAVE…PERIOD.

AGAIN-PER UCC 3-203(D)/MN 336.3-203(D)…ONLY THE FULL BENEFICIAL INTEREST CAN BE CONVEYED…A PURPORTED TRANSFER OF ANY LESS INTEREST CONVEYS NOTHING (IF A TRANSFEROR PURPORTS TO TRANSFER LESS THAN THE ENTIRE INSTRUMENT-NEGOTIATION OF THE INSTRUMENT DOES NOT OCCUR. THE TRANSFEREE (PURPORTED NEW OWNER) OBTAINS NO RIGHTS AND HAS ONLY THE RIGHTS OF A PARTIAL ASSIGNEE.

ROBOSIGNERS CANNOT/DID NOT TRANSFER THE FULL BENEFICIAL INTEREST-THEY LEFT THE BORROWER APPROVED INTEREST IN LAND BEHIND. THUS, THEY LEFT THE BORROWER APPROVED INTEREST IN LAND BEHIND.

IN THE EDGAR FOLDER ALONG WITH A PSA-THERE SHOULD BE A MLPA-WHERE IS IT?

INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS REGARDING THE NOTE-Norman Sirak

1-The “note-holder” is NOT the person who physically holds the note. Rather, a non-holder entitled to receive the “borrower’s” payments is the note holder.

Receipt of borrower payments, (and entitlement thereof), not physical possession of the note, dictates the person granted the rights of the note holder.

2-The non-holder entitled to receive the borrower payments can exercise rights of enforcement granted to a note-holder under MN 336.3-301.

3-No one else can exercise the rights of enforcement conferred by 336.3-301. “person entitled to enforce an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a non-holder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of the holder.

A “mortgage” can only be enforced by, or on behalf, of a person who is entitled to enforce the obligation the mortgage secures.

INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS RE NOTE AND SECURITY INSTRUMENT

1-The term lender in the security instrument and the note holder in the note are two titles referencing the same person

2-Both the security instrument and the note confer the right of enforcement upon the party entitled to the borrower’s payments.

3-ONLY the note holder, lender or someone authorized to act on their behalf has the right to enforce a mortgage.

Failure to follow the requirements of the statute of frauds renders every such purported transfer invalid and unenforceable.

IF properly conveyed via securitization-since investors are entitled to the borrower’s payments, THEY are the note holder/lender and are EXCLUSIVELY entitled to enforce the note and security agreement.

1-The current note holder-lender, namely investors, are not disclosed at the local recorder’s office.

2-Formalities for the statute of frauds are not performed. The borrower approved interest in land is still owned by the original lender, because transfers occurring under securitization are all unenforceable.

3-MN 336.3-203 requires that full beneficial interest for a bearer instrument be conveyed. NO enforceable interest is transferred if only a partial beneficial interest is purportedly conveyed.

4-Even if a party is acting on behalf of the current note holder-lender, failure to perform the formalities of the statute of frauds still renders any transfer invalid under the UCC.

EVERY kind of foreclosure action, be it non judicial or judicial, REQUIRES this process to be initiated by the owner of the note and security instrument.

Owners/Investors are the only parties that can pursue foreclosure-and only if they can plead and prove an injury in fact.

Further, their presence has to be acknowledged…and recorded.

Unless and until the real parties in interest are engaged, a foreclosure action cannot proceed.