Here Is Your Chance To Check If You Are The Victim Of Mortgage Fraud

Tyler Durden's picture

Wondering if you are one of those suckers paying a mortgage in limbo, with all the payments due to some non-existent mortgage noteholder getting retained at the servicer banks? Well, if you can spare 3 minutes then "Where's the Note" is for you. The website, which is on the verge of a viral break out, has a simple message: "Whether you are facing foreclosure, have an underwater mortgage,
or are just a concerned homeowner, it’s important that you contact your
bank and demand to see the original note on your mortgage.
It only takes a few minutes using our free online tool." Quick, simple and easy. And in a few days your mortgage bank will have no choice but to tell you if they do in fact have your original mortgage note. And if not - welcome to cost-free living, courtesy of MERS and millions of rushed and fraudulent mortgage note assignments. Yes, it will mean the end of the GSEs, but it will also mean the accelerated write downs on thousands of MBS tranches which will rapidly collapse into insolvency (there is only so much Mark to Unicorn can cover up) and eventually take the insolvent TBTFs banks with them.

From Where's the Note's mission statement:

The Wall Street banks’ foreclosure system is a mess. Their total disregard for mortgage laws and standards is what created the foreclosure epidemic in the first place. Now, their total mismanagement is catching up to them. As of today, some of the largest mortgage lenders – JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and GMAC (now called Ally) – have been forced to halt foreclosures in 23 states and growing. We can’t rely on Wall Street banks to follow basic rules. We have to hold them accountable. At very least, they must provide the mortgage notes.

When Wall Street banks securitized, packaged, sold, and resold our mortgages, they created a system where it is often impossible to figure out who actually owns mortgage notes and therefore has the authority to foreclose on properties. But the big banks are getting tangled up in their own web. Recent events have exposed a handful of banks that are throwing families out of their homes even though they don’t have the mortgage note that proves they actually have a legal right to do so. There have been instances of two banks trying to foreclose on the same home, and in at least one case, of a bank trying to foreclose on a house where the homeowner had never even taken out a mortgage with anyone in the first place.

Whether you are facing foreclosure, have an underwater mortgage, or are just a concerned homeowner, it’s important that you contact your bank and demand to see the original note on your mortgage. It only takes a few minutes using our free online tool.

Execute your legal right to demand your mortgage note after the jump:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Conrad Murray's picture

Happy fun time for all!

Edit: Gerri Willis interviewed the President of MERS at the top of her show on the Fox Business Channel.  Wasn't too bad.  He sure didn't seem too comfortable talking about this mess.

Conrad Murray's picture

Google Plans Alternative Inflation Index Using Web Data:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39626164

Tortfeasor's picture


Site leads to seiu.org?  Those guys are NOT your friends.

Do yourself a favor, call a local attorney.  Get a referral from your state bar, if you need to.  Don't go off of just a random website.  

I would definitely not add my name to an SEIU database, thanks.

Bob's picture

You scared me there.  SEIU=Service Employees International Union.  Obviously providing a service to their membership and the common man.  Of course, if you're a fat cat, I could understand your horror--it's true, they do want your money. 

Tortfeasor's picture

I'm a little guy with a deep passion to see this fraud uncovered throughout the system.  Some hack SEIU data-log is not going to help anyone uncover anything.  There's a lot better ways to attack this mass-fraudation.

Bob's picture

No doubt.  It looks to me like a simple tool to help folks get the answer to a simple question. 

TheMonetaryRed's picture

Well, of course HR 3808 was a Tea Party Republican-sponsored bill. 

So maybe THAT is why they put up the site. 

Tortfeasor's picture

The political posturing here by the SEIU is obvious.  It's the potentially nefarious datamining, alongside the blatant "practicing law without a license" that bothers me, and others.  Whatever your hard-on is for SEIU (and Ron Paul, somehow) get back on track or gtfo.

TMR, Whole Foods closes soon, so I'm assuming you'll be kicked off shortly from the free internet in the food court.  Have a good night.

Fish Gone Bad's picture

I was watching a homeless man dig in a dumpster today, fish out a pineapple, and eat it.   Winter is fast approaching and it really sucks to not have someplace to live.  Being able to surf the web is not high on people's lists when they are destitute.

jeff montanye's picture

clearly you are a "little guy", tort.  convincing argument too.

Tortfeasor's picture

TMR, in case you moved over to the free wi-fi at Starbucks:

HR 3808 has nothing NOTHING to do with this mess.  It's a complete red herring.  The validity of a notary's signature has no effect at all on the truthfulness of an affidavit. 

TheMonetaryRed's picture

HR 3808 has EVERYTHING to do with this and HR 3808 was sponsored by a Tea Party Republican. Are you on the Tea Party's mailing list? Somehow, I'll bet you are. 

Grayson and SEIU are on record against Foreclosure Fraud.

The rest is tin hat B.S.. 

 

Tortfeasor's picture

Did you read the bill?  Do you have a legal background?

I'll go first - I did read the bill, and I am a foreclosure defense attorney representing homeowners.  I know this area inside and out.  HR 3808 has NOTHING to do with it!  It only says that states must honor other state's notary rules.

Tell me how HR 3808 has Everything to do with it.  Go ahead.  Do you understand the difference between a notarization and testimony?  Do you read anything other than headlines?  ZH got the 3808 thing wrong, as did most everyone else.

"Grayson and SEIU are on record against Foreclosure Fraud".  Strong position, bro.  Tell me, are you pro or anti rape?

dussasr's picture

+1

I love it when facts are used to dismantle partisan rhetoric...

Hidetora's picture

I know this is a rather mundane/open question but, where do you see this winding up?

title examiner's picture

Have you not seen the examples of signatures, obviously executed by different hands?  Are you sure which side you are on?

I find Ad Hominem attacks to be much more distasteful than Red Herrings. 

In the Red Herring scenario, a deliberate attempt to divert attention away from a legitimate enquiery is requisite.  I note that you have not explained WHY everyone else is WRONG and YOU are RIGHT.  Your framework is that there is no possible argument that could spring forth from 3808, or you would have dropped something other than Red Herring, perhaps . 

Being unsupported in any way, your argument are mere bare assertions.  You could have ended the discussion by explaining it, after you developed your credentials.  But you chose to toy with the guy:  "tell me how HR 3808 has Everything to do with it."  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Just how many logical fallacies do you wish to tender?  You say you are the expert, but you expect a layman to submit a clever argument that really fancy lawyers have constructed, but which requires HR 3808.

It is more logical to concede that these folks are attempting to PREVENT any Red Herring arguments from being created in the 11th hour--particularly bad execution--certainly out of distrust.  They simply do not wish out of state documents to be granted MORE DIGNITY than they have already been granted.  They certainly do not wish for any last minute loopholes or means of escape to be created for the criminals.

I set up MERS as a title defect the very first time I ever saw it, as I have stated before.  That was years ago and I did in fact, complain bitterly about it to any who would hear, including district attorneys, regional counsel for title insurance companies and etc.  I happened to get in some residential titles, as a diversion from my normal commercial routine, as a part and parcel to having done the A&D phase.

OK. Since you are an expert foreclosure defense attorney, I'm sure that you can shed a lot of light on the topic--and we'll be able to see exactly what kind of light you are shining.  Don't forget citations, as I intend to check them.

Why didn't you file suit some years back and prevent this entire crisis by prevailing in successive courts?  Why didn't a given Federal Prosecutor from any district do it?  Why did the diverse federal agencies sit on their hands?

If lawyers are such super geniuses, why is our economy about to follow the path of the Soviets?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

title examiner's picture

Ohio is a Judicial Foreclosure state.  Try this on for size: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/civil/CivilProcedu... Check out rule 56.  Summary Judgment.

If the affidavit fails to get admitted...somebody probably got problems.  Robo Signers would have a hard time making all those court dates and lots of questions to answer about all the variations of their signature, not to mention the quiz at the end about the details inside their affidavit.

red herring?  I prefer pickled red herring--especially if in Shuba, a lovely Russian Herring and Beet Salad.

The vetoed act probably had other uses, beyond prevailing in summary in opposed judicial foreclosures.  Lots of documents get notarized and this is almost always because a statute requires it.

The real question becomes:  What are those other statutes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tortfeasor's picture

Keep reading.  Post 645112, below.

nmewn's picture

It's a contract. It's your right.

The agent or holder is legally bound to disclose on request who is holding a signed contract bearing your notarized signature as proof you are not paying the wrong entity.

Nobody needs the SEIU for that.

 

Uncle Remus's picture

SEIU are the brown shirts of the New Reich.

SWRichmond's picture

Not quite yet, but they're happy to try out for the role.

Who will carry out the night of the long knives, the IRS?  Or maybe that's why the FBI just ordered $97 Million of 5.56 ammo.

http://www.washingtonreb.com/2010/10/10/virgils-sunday-musing-2/#more-4060

 

Uncle Remus's picture

$97 Million of 5.56 ammo

At government prices, probably not as much as what is stashed in a few city blocks in LA, NY, PHX, etc., etc. Which is more than easily offset by the quantities 7.62x39 pouring in.

Ripped Chunk's picture

"Where's The Note" better move the servers offshore. Tonight.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

"Where's The Note" will soon be declared a terrorist web site by the White House intelligence czar (oxymoron alert), thus allowing for the "legal" hacking by the NSA/CIA/MIA triumvirate.

Actually it will be subcontracted to the "Internet" divisions of CSC/SAIC/Xe for plausible deniability purposes.

obewon's picture

Great comment, CD!

There is more truth to your commentary than most viewers of this site may realize, and it's highly likely that this "dirty work" will be subcontracted out to one of the DC beltway bandits; SAIC, CSC, & Booz Allen are leading candidates.

Tortfeasor's picture

Not likely, considering that appears to be a service union website.  More likely they are collecting info for less than upstanding reasons.

i-dog's picture

Indeed. "Let's add all these inquisitive homeowners to the No Fly List (or move them to a FEMA holiday camp), before they find out they've been screwed".

TheMonetaryRed's picture

"Where's The Note" already HAS been declared a terrorist web site - 

by ZH readers. 

Hey, um, where's your boy Ron Paul on the Foreclosure Fraud crisis?

I forget: what actions did the Great Libertarian Hope take on HR 3808?

I know where (left-wing-liberal, SEIU-supported) Alan Grayson stands, but strangely NOT ROn Paul. 

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

See, now you're just taking shit and throwing it at the fan. Which shows you to be the asshole you are.

I challenge you to find one post by me where I claim allegiance to Paul or even a desire to support Ron Paul or any other politician from any party. Of course, when throwing shit, one doesn't care where it lands, as long as everyone gets dirty.

Loser!

TheMonetaryRed's picture

I see and by suggesting that the "White House Intelligence Czar" would be offended, whose political messaging did you think you were emulating?

Google "White House" and "Czar" and then tell me that your comment was apolitical.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I see.

So what exactly does Ron Paul have to do with "intelligence czar"? Because you were implying I was a Ron Paul supporter and now you're pointing to those words as proof. Or is this just more shit for your fan? 

Do words have political copyrights on them? Is that it? And I can't use a word if it's tagged? Can I begin using it again if I use Bing and something different comes up or is Google the standard bearer for political orientation? 

Is there such a thing as an "apolitical" word or is it the moron listening to the word that determines the politics of the word? What happens if both parties use the word? What happens if neither uses it? What happens if you join the 100 monkeys searching Google?

Just because you can use Google doesn't mean shit. Try looking up "Zero Hedge" and "moron" on Google because I just did and I came up with "TheMonetaryRed". Of at least it will from now on since I just used all three together in a sentence.

Vernon Wormer's picture

Your original comment was dead on. Keep it up.

TheMonetaryRed's picture

CD, as you would understand perfectly well, in the context of this blog your "White House Intelligence Czar" remark forces people to choose - do they want to be on the side of the accused "terrorist" or do they want to be on the side of the "Czar". In this crowd, you know exactly what they'll choose, which is why you chose the words you chose. 

My point was that it was ZH readers, not the White House, who were making the tin foil hat accusations against the SEIU site. 

Now, is ZH populated by Ron Paul supporters or isn't it? 

So maybe I was talking to them and not "accusing" you of anything. 

SEIU made its position plain and did something. 

SEIU-backed Alan Grayson has been THE leader in the House on this issue that I know of. 

Meanwhile HR 3808 was sponsored by Tea Party Republican Aderholt and Ron Paul has done jack on Foreclosure Fraud. 

That's my point. 

geminiRX's picture

I will support anyone who will end this bullshit on Wallstreet but unfortunately that is not likely to happen in the US where the presidency is simply bought by the largest corporate lobby group. 

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Sir,

I used that phrase deliberately to be facetious. My proof? The two words that followed in parentheses. As in "White House intelligence czar (oxymoron alert)". My original post was sarcastic towards the military/intelligence powers that be. And also deadly serious when I pointed out that the state intelligence services contract out to private/public companies a lot of "remote" activities.

And my words stand on their own, as is most of my writing. I am clearly someone who does his own thinking so please don't use a broad brush and then claim I'm also part of the painted landscape.

And since you hit the "reply" button under my first comment, you were replying to me personally. If you wish to speak to the blog, you place an original comment. And since you posted several times about the same thing, namely Ron Paul, you have an agenda here and you're simply back peddling with me to save face. "Your point" had little to do with my original comment and you were simply using my comment to springboard your agenda. As I said, you were throwing shit at the fan.

Nice try.

Bob's picture

I got a good chuckle from your original remark, CD.

People are getting way too damn serious in here, imo. 

Fish Gone Bad's picture

People are waaaaaaay too serious.  When I was a kid, I was pretty much dirt poor.  I remember hearing the phrase, "Is glass half full, or half empty?"  To which I asked, "Where can I get a glass?"

williambanzai7's picture

We already know the DOD is watching developments in the world of finance. You better bet that sites like ZH and Where's the Note are on their threat matrix. Stuxnet will arrive here any moment.

Uncle Remus's picture

Stuxnet will arrive here any moment.

There's an app for that...

doerr's picture

The site is sponsored by SEIU.

TheMonetaryRed's picture

No, the site IS the SEIU

Strangely, NOT Ron Paul

Gee, I wonder why?

Ripped Chunk's picture

Then I guess the servers should stay in the US at the current deflationary fees................

SWRichmond's picture

Do you want Dr. Paul to be your watchdog for everything?  Has he been asked to do an interview, or excluded with the ease with which the media can exclude anyone it wants?

Fred Hayek's picture

He's got to!  He's our only hope against the omnipresent evil of Waddell & Reed!

TheMonetaryRed's picture

Was he excluded from the floor of the House of Representatives?

WWas Ron Paul excluded from talking about HR 3808 in the Financial Services Committee? 

Why don't you just tell me what Ron Paul did in Congress about Foreclosure Fraud?

 

Tortfeasor's picture

Why don't you tell us what HR 3808 has to do with mortgage fraud?

Tortfeasor's picture

Read the bill yourself.  This is such a red herring.  The bill has no effect on the efficacy of attacking faulty affidavits from out of state signators.  None.  The notarization doesn't verify the Truth of what an affiant is testifying to.  It only says certifies that "Yes, Mr. Mortgage Fraudster took an oath before he signed that document".  That's it.  Nothing else.

Different states have different rules on registering as a notary and what qualifies as a proper notarization.  HR 3808 simply says that a state like Mississippi must accept a Texas notary's notarization so long as it complies with Texas state law, even if it doesn't comply with Mississippi state law.  That's all.

The dems think they can somehow turn this into political points by misdirecting some of the angst at HR 3808 (which was sponsored by 2 Rs and 2 Ds).  As a foreclosure defense attorney with over 400 current cases in this area, I can tell you with certainty that HR 3808 would not have hurt my ability to properly defend a foreclosure.

Do you disagree?  Go ahead, you have infinite space below to prove me wrong.

Fish Gone Bad's picture

You totally rock!  I thoroughly enjoy reading your well informed, and well written posts.  Please consider me a fan.

ATTILA THE WIMP's picture

Peter Thiel is one of Ron Paul’s main advisors (read handler) and Mr. Thiel is a Bilderberger 

http://www.nndb.com/people/030/000124655/