This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

"Where's The Note" Update

Tyler Durden's picture


SEIU or not, here is a status update from Where's The Note, as the recently launched campaign to request proof of mortgage note existence approaches the 20 day limit by law within which banks have to respond to all properly-submitted verification claims.

Heard Anything?

When news broke that Wall Street had made a total mess of our mortgages, we launched a website that let homeowners ask their bank a simple question: where's my mortgage note?

By law, banks had 20 days to respond to your request. We're coming up on 20 days - can you give us a few minutes to tell us what you've heard? Click the appropriate link:

We've already started to hear back from some of the 200,000 homeowners that have gone to our site. So far, the responses are troubling.

Some banks claim they have no idea where the note is. Others have sent what they claim is the note, but closer inspection shows that it's a completely different document.

But, the most troubling of all is the response that many homeowners have gotten from Bank of America. They're telling customers they have no legal right to see their own note. Think about how absurd that is; your mortgage note is a contract you signed with your bank - and they're telling you that you can't see it?

Did your bank give you a similar response? Click here to alert your state attorney general:

We aren't going to get to the bottom of Wall Street's mess overnight. But step one is alerting the authorities if your bank fails to honor your request in a way that you think is acceptable. And if there's any hint of possible fraud, it needs to be investigated immediately.

I'll send you another update once we hear back from other homeowners in the same boat as you. If we're going to keep paying thousands of dollars to these banks, we have every right to demand some shred of accountability from them.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:06 | 691636 King_of_simpletons
King_of_simpletons's picture

American public = Kevin Bacon in this clip.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 20:41 | 692030 El Hosel
El Hosel's picture

   We don't need no stinking notes....  Just give me a hand with these bags.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 02:14 | 692540 Fed Supporter
Fed Supporter's picture


see this:


A must read, covers all MERS litigation to date.

....Parties seeking relief from stay must be aware that by presenting a motion to the Court, they represent that the “allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support...[.]” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b)(3). The Movant was unable to provide evidentiary support for its allegations when called upon to do so. It is the claimant’s burden to bring information regarding the relationships between the parties to the Court. “If the claimant is the original lender, the claimant can meet its burden by introducing evidence as to the original loan. If the claimant acquired the note and mortgage... the claimant can meet its burden through evidence that traces the loan from the original lender to the claimant. A claimant who is the servicer must, in addition to establishing the rights of the holder, identify itself as an authorized agent for the holder.” Compliance with these rules is not difficult and this Court will require it in order to preserve the rights of debtors. Any motion filed with the Court must be true and have support as of the date of the motion.... [A] movant cannot state that it is the “current holder” of an instrument if it is not.146



Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:14 | 691644 cossack55
cossack55's picture

I wish SEIU would expand their efforts with Wheres my Constitution?  If you don't hear back from the Goobermint why they are violating Constitutional Law in instances too numerous to list within 20 days, file a complaint with the PBOC.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:56 | 691842 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Ooohh heh heeeeh!


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:18 | 691651 saulysw
saulysw's picture

"... the 20 day limit by law ..."

Laws can and will be changed.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:22 | 692111 macholatte
macholatte's picture


what's the penalty if they don't perform?





Mon, 11/01/2010 - 23:23 | 692366 Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

"Laws can and will be changed."

That is why God invented Chris "Douche Bag" Dodd and the lame duck Congressional session...

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:21 | 691658 MeTarzanUjane
MeTarzanUjane's picture

What's the name of the website? On a long enough timeline errbodies note gets lost.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:36 | 692137 Lucky Guesst
Lucky Guesst's picture

+ 800 Taj Mahal suh-weets!

Who the heck is junking everything that makes me laugh?

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:21 | 691659 optimator
optimator's picture

Why should the banks have to produce the mortgage document when the President of the U.S. doesn't have to produce his birth certificate.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:43 | 691722 mynhair
mynhair's picture

Not the mortgage, the DOT.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 20:07 | 691981 ReeferMac
ReeferMac's picture

Rim Shot!


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:23 | 692114 bigkahuna
bigkahuna's picture

Why all the junk? Its an honest question right?

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:41 | 692150 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Yeah.  Obama pulled Building 7, too.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:59 | 692190 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

He has told us repeadedly not to question the official story.  The official story which the Commision ITSELF has questioned when they said they were "not given enough of the evidence."  Do you get it?  They were not shown all of the evidence, and they say so.  But you know, I have a mountain of facts, and people like you just want to shut your eyes, muff your ears, and stay in your happy place.  Stay if your fucking happy place coon.  Do not come out of that cave, because I don't think your tired eyes can handle this light.  It would obviously start a fire you do not think you could handle.  Go back to sleep up in yer nest coon.  Goodnight.

Oh, and I junked you for that disrespectful and ignorant comment. 

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 23:02 | 692285 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Disrespectful?  To whom?  You? 

Frankly, I rank the whole deal along with who shot JFK (and yes I know where I was and what I was doing when the assassination occurred).   We are not going to get the full story from any of these government agencies or individuals.   I do NOT know how it happened or who planned it or who executed it.  I'm a peon with no special knowledge other than what I am provided with.  I've read ALL the information, watched ALL the videos, and corresponded with a ton of folks on the matter.  After all this I just can't take a stand.  On any given day I can swing one way on the issue or the other way on another day.  If I wanted to believe it there is plenty of really well done information on the matter, but I find the contrary evidence (that is what the gov't and media report) to be pablum -- but that doesn't make it untrue.   I don't know, can't know with the info I have, and will probably never get the real scoop unless some guilt-ridden death bed confession pops up out of the blue.  Sorta like how Deep Throat came to light.  

Now, with all that said, my comment was no snarkier than this, which was what I was replying to:

Why should the banks have to produce the mortgage document when the President of the U.S. doesn't have to produce his birth certificate.

That was cute but smacked of the same "disrespect" that you speak of.

Now, fuck off.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 08:58 | 692809 Clinteastwood
Clinteastwood's picture


You are so open-minded your brain fell out.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:40 | 693299 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture
I quote from one more articulate than I.   If that is not to your liking (perhaps you think I don't have a thought of my own) then your acceptance of what others say on the matter is on the same plane.
by chindit13
on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 08:28

Having spent a good deal of time reading all sides of the 911 issue, I find the following sites far more convincing:

On the first site is a photo of the intial collapse of the South Tower.  The upper 35 floors are buckling exactly where one would expect after being struck by a commercial jet. 

As for the Pentagon, a friend of some thirty years was outside less than a mile away and personally watched the commercial jet strike the building.  The fellow is hardly an illuminati or paid disinformant, and he has uncorrected 20-20 vision.  The missile story, in my mind, is thus dead.  Your mileage may vary.

CogDis of this site writes much about pigeonholing observations, refusing to see things that do not match pre-conceived notions, and purposely closed minds.  I wonder if he follows his own prescription, as yesterday he wrote that what he believes is "scientific fact" and any expert with a differing view is absolutely a paid disinformant.  That is hardly an open mind.

In the end, things have to make sense.  The linked sites offer plenty of reasons why WTC7 fell, but there is no explanation, or only poor ones, why WTC7's collapse was necessary for the supposed conspirators.  Similarly, the appearance of controlled demolition (the tallest building ever brought down in this way was 27 floors and required hundreds of man-hours of preparation;  imagine the time to set the charges for 270 floors of steel beam structures) leaves the question...why bring that down in this manner?  If the goal was shock and awe, wouldn't it have been more spectacular to achieve the greatest 7-10 spare pick-up in the history of bowling, rather than have the buildings collapse in their own footprints?  Are we to assume the perps had a quota limit on death?  They suddenly got religion and decided not to kill anymore?

Occam's Razor is a useful implement.

Believe what you wish, and junk away at your leisure.  And by all means refuse to even consider that you might be incorrect.  Be proud of the part you have played on this site of eliminating debate and differences of opinion, and turning what used to be interesting discussions into self-masturbatory echo chambers.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:33 | 692132 TheJudge2012
TheJudge2012's picture

As of this comment there are 12 trolls who junked you.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:44 | 692162 Lucky Guesst
Lucky Guesst's picture

Yeah, somewhere in a Chicago bath house there are 12 extra towels still sitting at the front desk. 

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:52 | 692185 traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

I made it 13. I find the birth certificate question to be either (1) a demonstration of the author's false buy-in that there really is a difference in the two party system; (2) ignorance of the facts (; (3) a planted attempt to discredit the Tea Party (which I am not a member of) or similar ideals; or (4) at the least a discussion of an irrelevant item. And sure it's relevant whether a President is a citizen and therefore eligible to serve. However, don't you think they could forge something like that if it really didn't exist, and what are they just going to throw their arms up and say "oh, you caught us, we poured billions into making him President, and we admit he's not a citizen". Finally, do you really think the President has any actual power?

p.s. the "you" is the Royal "you".  

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 22:08 | 692206 TheJudge2012
TheJudge2012's picture

It's not a bc with a doc or hospital name. Because of Hawaii's lax rules his grandmother may have sworn he was born in Hawaii so his mother wouldn't have to pay an atty to go thru immigration, and then the document that he put online would have been issued as well as automatic newspaper birth announcements.

He can stop hiding his bc, school and travel records because he's not even natural born, something he should know since he's a constitutional scholar - supposedly.

Benjamin Franklin's letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775:

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author

This is letter 459 in this link:

Vattel's Law of Nations states both parents must be citizens at the time of the child's birth for the child to be natural born.

Def of natural born in Vattel's Law of Nations:

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 22:22 | 692229 kwvrad
kwvrad's picture

excellent link thankyou Judge2012...

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 22:52 | 692276 TheJudge2012
TheJudge2012's picture

Yes it drives the trolls nuts.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:22 | 691668 Matt SF
Matt SF's picture

"no legal right to see their own note"

Translation: bend over and take it b*tch!

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 23:27 | 692371 Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

Dear Bank of Ass-holes,

If you don't produce the note... I am stopping all mortgage payments and I am hiring the biggest dick head attorney I can find... Until you produce the note...

Love Underwater Joe...

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:23 | 691669 mule65
mule65's picture

If you signed something then you should have a copy.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:28 | 691686 truont
truont's picture

Of course, you have a copy of your mortgage note.

The whole point of this exercise is, does your bank have the original mortgage note?

Rumor is that there are multiple claims on the same note, so banks don't want to produce the note and expose the fraud.

Multiple Mortgage Securitizations = (Fractional reserve banking)^10

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:37 | 691708 saulysw
saulysw's picture

There is the rub.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:13 | 691775 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

so succinct!


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:38 | 691710 Calculated_Risk
Calculated_Risk's picture

Not just that. The lienholder must hold the original note to be able to return to you after payment in full, because most government agencies DO NOT recognize copies of documents. e.g. try getting a passport with a non certified photocopy of your birth certificate...

So, even with your copy, you may not be able to sell/transfer anything because it's not an original/certified copy.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:48 | 691731 mynhair
mynhair's picture


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:48 | 691732 Careless Whisper
Careless Whisper's picture


a lot of the notes were endorsed in blank (assigned w/ the name left blank). that means they were turned in to "bearer notes". that means whoever is in possession of the orignal is the note holder. so you can see it is quite important to determine who is in possession of the original.


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:52 | 691743 AR15AU
AR15AU's picture

I heard some one (Deninger?) explain it as such: a Promissory Note is in the same family of financial instrument as a Federal Reserve Note. In other words, a copy is non-negotiable, if you lose your Federal Reserve Note, you cannot show up at a bank with a photocopy and pretend its the same thing as the original note.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 19:27 | 691897 dkny
dkny's picture

Wouldn't that have been detected much early on, as the payments by the homeowners would not have been able to support the cashflow of multiple securitizations?

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 20:42 | 692032 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Hencewise some might tend to think this is a ponzi...if they just kept selling enough of the securitization thingies, the'd have plenty of cash-flow.


It would only be detected according to your logic if the whole thing was legitimate, which I don't think is quite clear.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:09 | 692090 tallystick
tallystick's picture

No, because the proceeds of the 2nd, 3rd, etc. sale were then used to purchase treasuries. The returns on the treasuries were higher than the mortgages when you take all of the defaults and foreclosures into account.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 12:55 | 693561 Nels
Nels's picture


Wouldn't that have been detected much early on, as the payments by the homeowners would not have been able to support the cashflow of multiple securitizations?

No, that's the beauty of this Ponzi scheme.  As long as they can resell that mortgage into yet another MBS, there is a big flow of cash to fake payments to the multiple 'owners'.

And, if the buyer goes under, and the MBS fails, the Ponzi created probably bought multiple insurance policies (CDS) to pay off yet again.

Eventually, you'll be right.  But the folks who set up the Ponzi will be both rich and long gone by that point.  After we jail those folks with their hands in the till, we need to look around for those folks walking or running away with a big smile on their faces, and a bulging bank account.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:08 | 692086 jus_lite_reading
jus_lite_reading's picture

NOW you get it! I was waiting for someone, a common person to see the light! Spread the word folks, if they can't produce your note, you don't have to pay. It's as simple as that. Don't believe me? Ask a good shark of a lawyer- NO POSESSION OF NOTE means no obligation to pay.


BofA is not too big to fail.


Tue, 11/02/2010 - 00:43 | 692468 Fearless Rick
Fearless Rick's picture

Got news for ya: BofA is done within six months. The selling has been relentless since June, when it broke support. And when BofA goes down, it's taking the whole country with it. They've already thrown the system for a loop with their poor handling of Countrywide and it's about time this whole thing gets unraveled.

We really have reached a tipping point. Is it just me or does anyone else around here get the distinct impression that the pols are just trying to hold this thing together until tomorrow?

Once the elections are past they know what lies where, so to speak, they might get back to more shuffling papers around in congress, but they're screwed, hung out to dry, flapping in the wind. They haven't the resources to do anything constructive and the in-fighting is intense. Between BofA flipping like a beached Moby Dick and an entirely split congress, they're FUCKED, royally.

There's probably going to be some major shit hitting some very large fans before the end of the year. That faux flag the other day was just a test run. They will blow things up soon because they're desperate.

One more question, to anybody still roaming around here: It is my belief that when "the big one" hits, as in the gov't going down, many people will have seen it coming, like those around here. I don't believe for a moment that there weren't quite a few informed observers and participants who knew what was happening before the '29 crash. Jesse Livermore comes to mind. Do you think the "black swan" will appear out of nowhere or is the handwriting on the wall already quite clear?

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:33 | 692131 Buck Johnson
Buck Johnson's picture

You are correct, that is why they don't want to show the note.  If it shows that their are multiple claims, right there is a clear cut case of one act of fraud.  The banks are in massive trouble and the govt. is slowly starting to see that 2 years ago they only saw the tip of the iceberg and the rest is coming up.  The US might go down in economic history as the biggest ponzi economy ever on the planet that imploded.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:39 | 691719 iDealMeat
iDealMeat's picture

How many times has your mort. been traded? then lost, and had false info put in it?

At what point do you get pissed off?  After 15 to 30 years when you've "paid it off" and never sent the note?

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:01 | 692073 Goldmund
Goldmund's picture

If you signed something then you should have a copy.

So my mortgagee and the court are going to rely on my copy? The one I'm going to use whiteout on and reduce the amount to 1/10th of the original principle and recopy?


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:28 | 691683 junkhand
junkhand's picture

agree.  if you sign something, you SHOULD have a copy.

of course, that's not the issue if you're the defendent, now is it?  doesn't the plaintiff have the burden of proof in civil matters?

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:32 | 691698 Panafrican Funk...
Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

Depends on the judge and/or jury.  Everything is negotiable.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:37 | 691707 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You signed a contract with someone else.  The question is, did the person holding the mortgage now actually buy that note.  What happens when the note isn't transferred, but you keep making payments, and pay it off, and get rewarded with an eviction notice from the real note holder?  I guarantee that mortgage note trolls will appear if this shit goes on much longer.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:03 | 691759 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Depends.  If the note is transferred to another party and you keep paying the first, then you allege the right to set-off the payments and/or join in the bank you kept paying.  The transfer documents between banks should require the first to pay the transferee.  In all likelihood, both would be included as defendants in the foreclosure action, given the transferee would have no idea if you had actually been paying the note and it would seem incredibly strange if you have a payment history of on time every month for 2 years and then as soon as it's transferred, you never make a payment. 

It also depends on your note/mortgage documents because these may outline the procedure for assignment/transfer.  In other words, you may have signed away such things as your right to question the holder of the note...  or limited it in some other form or fashion (remember, the banks draft the contracts).  Likewise, you may have signed away adequate notice requirements for any transfer and/or limited the responsibilities of the transferring bank.

In short, you are not going to find but a handful of cases where the party bringing foreclosure is some unknown third party that never had anything to do with anything.  In virtually all cases, the party seeking to foreclose on a debtor's house is the party that has paid for the note...  the problem is getting the paperwork in order to prove the underlying transaction/lineage of ownership.

Also, the issue of paying the wrong party each month is really not cause for concern...  that really isn't up for consideration in these cases...  most everyone gets a statement every month telling them the principal balance of their note...  if that doesn't go down, then you've got a problem. 

Further, if you get notice of the assignment of your note and it is serviced by the same party, then no big whoop...  there isn't an issue...  if it's serviced by the new owner, and you get notice, then you need to pay the new owner or risk being declared a volunteer.  However, you have the right to determine whether the new owner is in fact the new owner...  this can generally be accomplished by calling the old owner and getting something in writing saying it was transferred...  good to go.  Although, if you start paying the new owner and have done so for the requisite amount of time, you will probably be deemed to have waived any issues regarding the validity of the assignment...  outside of foreclosure of course.  In other words, after you make payments for 6 months to the transferee of your note, you'll be hard pressed to argue you should not have to keep paying now for some reason...  unless of course, you're not getting credit for the payments...  but again, this can be verified incredibly simply and probably in 20 minutes or less.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:45 | 692165 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Why the HELL would anyone junk this comment?

This is going too far folks.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 23:12 | 692338 tomdub_1024
tomdub_1024's picture


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 23:47 | 692404 Lucky Guesst
Lucky Guesst's picture


Junk = bad?

Since junk means heroin in slang and the trolls are likely crackheads on government needles, I was assuming when they junked me that they can't get enough of my awesome comments and they'd sell their babies for more!

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:38 | 691711 spinone
spinone's picture


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:43 | 691714 spinone
spinone's picture

Just a clarification - they have 20 days to acknowledge receipt of your letter, and 60 days to respond.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:47 | 692171 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I joined in the fun and submitted the requisite info via the website.  I got NO response from Wells Fargo.   Today I got the follow up email shown in the article.  I responded that I got no response so the site took me to a complaint letter that will go to my AG!

Now that's a solid follow through.  We shall see how that works out.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:43 | 691724 merehuman
merehuman's picture

We have your house note. Send 129.99 for a copy  to

Wemakeupshit inc.

doubleup st.

dead end city


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:46 | 691728 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

The bank doesn't need your mortgage payment. They can steal all they want from the federal reserve.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:58 | 691752 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

Good point.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:48 | 691733 JuicyTheAnimal
JuicyTheAnimal's picture

What if they already took your house.  Can you say show me the note that gave you the right to do so?


Also, is Bank of New York and Bank of America the same company? 

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:59 | 691755 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture


Your attorney can get that info.

No BONY and BAC are separate companies.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:11 | 691773 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

You can try.  Something that would really help a prospective attorney would be if you were not in default at the time of foreclosure...  lot easier case to make for the court to set aside the judgment.  Also, did you make an appearance in the foreclosure action?  If so, probably not helpful either.  Remember, at some point in time, you signed a mortgage...  that mortgage is enforceable against you despite being robostamped or whatever...  the trick is having the right party to bring the foreclosure action...

you're going to be met with the following argument: "your honor, why do we need to set aside the foreclosure when this guy is just going to default on his mortgage again next month and we'll be right back here". 

Don't expect to get your house back either, unless it's decreased substantially in value and the BFP doesn't want it any more...  damages against the bank will be all... 

In my state, given our tort reform laws, I'm not even sure that punitive damages would be allowed...  which are the only things that a lawyer is going to be interested in to take the case...  especially considering if you didn't pay your mortgage, you probably don't have enough money for a retainer...

This is not the panacea a lot of downtrodden americans are hoping... 

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:47 | 691832 centerline
centerline's picture

Agreed.  No panacea.  This is an entirely different beast.  Maybe a short-term save for those facing foreclosure - but otherwise I am not sure anyone knows what it will mean for the rest of us... aside from being the straw that broke the camels back per se regarding the current banking system / economy!

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:28 | 693258 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Yep.  security law (possibly, holy shit), property law (what's the big deal?  we need to determine priority for hopelessly underwater parties?)

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 19:15 | 691862 Unlawful Justice
Unlawful Justice's picture

The banks are robosigning not because they're lazy.  They have a procedural issue that can't be fixed with straight up documents.   There is a hole in this bold front and someone is going to find it.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:27 | 693244 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Sort of.  The law has a reset button for the chain of title called a quiet title action.  What will happen is all the potential parties who might own the note/mortgage all file a lawsuit and ask for the court to decide who owns it.  Then, they go and file a foreclosure suit against the owner/occupant and there can be no dispute as to the correct party to bring the action... 

The only issue will be is if the note/mortgage were separated and whether this causes some permanent disability/voidance of the documents.  I sincerely doubt that will be the case.  Rather, unity is necessary to bring foreclosure, but a lack of unity does not void the underlying documents (that would create an inequitable result given J6P would walk away with a house scott free).

The hole is with securities, not with property law...  in the event there is an issue with property law, it will be priority of the unrecorded mortgage transfers (get to the back of the bus).

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:49 | 691735 Nacho.Libre
Nacho.Libre's picture

I called Citimortgage about a week ago and asked them to send me everything they had on file with regards to my account.  I had also called them at the end of September asking them for confirmation that they had the note.  In September, they faxed me a copy of the note and of the deed of trust.  The faxed copy they sent me had a stamp on it saying "pay to the order of Citimortage with no recourse Everbank"  Wellllll.....

Today I get in the mail a copy of everything they have on file, and what do I find to my suprise?  The note they sent me via mail does NOT have a stamp on it.  I suspect they pulled it from the county docs.  But MORE interesting is that my signature on the mailed copy does NOT match the signature on the faxed copy.  I do believe that is fraud. And the plot thickens! 

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:59 | 691756 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

Substitute the word "Note", where the word "Corn" is":

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:17 | 691779 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

fraud against who though?  One of the elements of fraud is for you to have suffered damage.  What is your damage, at this time, exactly?  Further, another element is a misrepresentation to you...  what was that misrepresentation exactly?

It's not going to be fraud until they foreclose...  and, even then, it is a fraud upon the court....  not you so much.  In all likelihood, the party foreclosing did in fact pay consideration to do so...

If you don't have anything better to do, go ahead, knock yourself out...  otherwise, you're wasting your time. 

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:32 | 691800 erik
erik's picture

Yes, by all means, lay down and don't do anything about it.  C'mon, are you kidding me?  How are there two notes with two different signatures?  Maybe his damage is not knowing if his bank holds the actual note since he's been given two separate copies.

You are not wasting your time given the context of today's mortgage mess.  At the very least, you would be doing every other American a favor by requiring that our financial denizens actually follow sound practices.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 23:20 | 692227 Fed Supporter
Fed Supporter's picture

@ Macho Man

see this:



"Subsequently, the debtor (this time with

counsel) filed an adversary proceeding against

Deutsche with numerous counts: wrongful foreclosure;

fraud, deceit and misrepresentation; void

lien; unfair servicing practices; intentional infliction

of emotional distress; and violation of fair

debt collection practices act. The court denied

a motion by Deutsche Bank for summary judgment

in a Memorandum of Decision issued Feb.

23, 2009, in Schwartz v. Deutsche Bank National

Trust Co., Adv. Pro. No. 07-4098, (Feb. 23, 2009),

finding that the order denying the second motion

for relief was a finding that the foreclosure was

invalid. The court concluded that “[i]t is too late

for the Defendants to argue that the foreclosure

was commenced and conducted by the proper

party. They are barred by the principle of collateral


Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:39 | 693285 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Duh.  That's not what we're talking about here.  We're talking about prospective lawsuits against the bank/institution claiming to hold your note/mortgage.  Big difference between a prospective offensive suit and an essentially defensive suit (although you're the plaintiff) attempting to set aside a fraudulent judgment...

Like I've said many times, it's J6P's wet dream to get fraudulently foreclosed upon...  free lottery ticket...  at this point, all the transgressors have the ability to pay the judgments, punies, etc.  If you are the victim of a fraudulent foreclosure, you and your attorney are going to end up being happy people most likely.

In contrast, wanting to know where your note, etc. is will not yield the same result...  in fact, you probably will be dismissed for a failure to state facts upon which relief may be granted...  you have no damages...  and there have been no misrepresentations...  all these things change when you lose your house... 

In short, shut the fuck up and keep making your payments.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:38 | 691814 centerline
centerline's picture

So, legally it is not fraud until someone attempts to use the "fraudulent" document in a legal action?  Until someone is "damaged" by the "fraudulent" action?


I can sort of see this in a legal context (I am clearly not a lawyer)... but, I would also think that simply presenting such a copy would constitute intent to commit fraud at least.  And the homeowner is just supposed to wait around and see if something or nothing comes of it... maybe during the closing on the sale of the property someday in the future.


Not with you there Machoman.  Your statements look rather trollish.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 19:15 | 691870 Greenweather
Greenweather's picture

Personally, nothing would make me happier than if Machoman was wrong -- who wouldn't love to watch the banks twist in the wind for awhile?  Sign me up.

That said, everything MachoMan is right -- damages would be marginal in these cases absent a situation where the bank is taking steps to foreclose, i.e. notifies the DOT trustee that the borrower is in default.  Slander of title is only applicable when something has been recorded against the title.

If you have serious and legitimate concern that you've been paying the wrong party, then you can consider putting your money payment into an escrow account set up for the specific purpose of holding the monthly payment.  But do your due diligence beforehand and do it with a paper trail.  Otherwise when your lender does the inevitable and defaults you, you'll be able to show the judge/trustee that you were not making your payments in (somewhat) good faith.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:44 | 692159 centerline
centerline's picture

From a pure legal standpoint, I completely see it.  No argument there.


My point is more along the lines of thinking it would be rather foolish not to chase this down.  The bank has showed the homeowner what could amount to be willingness to commit fraud and/or that critical paperwork is FUBAR.  Its not like we are dealing with a missing receipt for a cheap Kmart thingy.  In my opinion, this is more akin to finding out you might have a seriously screwed up IRS file.  Maybe nothing.  Maybe is a disaster waiting to happen at a really bad time (Murphy's Law of course).  Why take chances with something like this?  Would you feel comfortable continuing to blindly make payments?  This is not about whether you have been "damaged" in my opinion.  It is about not waiting around until you are "damaged" if you have the rights to seek remedy for broken paperwork/chain of custody/etc.  The banks have done nothing to earn our trust and trust should not be blindly given.


If it were me, I wouldn't jump right away into setting up an escrow account and diverting payments.  Just personal choice here.  Rather I would want to find out more about my rights.  Rights to make sure paperwork is handled properly - and rights in dealing with a situation wherein that paperwork turns out to be FUBAR.


However, I would like to add that I think your advice about going escrow is really good advice to put out here for people to see - as opposed to just stopping making payments and arguing with the bank.  Got to play by the rules here... there are right ways and wrong ways to go about this for sure.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 00:59 | 692491 Fearless Rick
Fearless Rick's picture

Naw, naw, naw. Check into rights of recision under TILA, RESPA and other state laws. Essentially, you can file for recision within three years (don't owe anything) of your mortgage, though in the case of fraud you may have unlimited time since you only discovered the fraud at some point after three years, take it to a court and if the bank is found guilty of violations, they could not only have no claim on the property but face having to return all proceeds (all your mortgage payments) and possible treble damages and fines and prison time.

Remember, TILA, RESPA and many state laws dealing with property rights are sacrosanct and very tightly written. The penalties for screwing with another person's real property can and should be severe.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:39 | 693301 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

care to cite any provisions/case law specifically?

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:42 | 691821 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

The fraud is that you've been paying a huge percentage of your paycheck to someone who has no legal claim on the money. 

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:59 | 691845 Mercury
Mercury's picture

You'd think that would upset the someone to whom you really do owe mortgage payments to.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 19:18 | 691874 Greenweather
Greenweather's picture

Whom, in apparently all of these scenarios, has decided to take a vacation and not register so much as a peep of discord, right?  Laches, anyone?


Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:45 | 693327 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

goddamnit, this is getting tiresome.  They're not listening greenweather.  YOU DO NOT GET TO COMPLAIN WHEN IT WAS YOU WHO SIGNED A PROMISE TO PAY.  The bank you're paying right now every month is 99% likely the proper party to pay.  In the event it is not, you have rights/defenses under the law, presuming you had no notice/you didn't otherwise contract away your right to question.

The only thing you'll have standing to sue on is to ask the court to determine the proper holder of your mortgage/note so that you may transfer clear title.  This will not get you out of paying, this will only, potentially, change the party you have pay... 

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:12 | 692094 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

unless that someone is the FED of course

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 22:13 | 692213 centerline
centerline's picture

Not really.  They probably sold that mortgage.  I don't think this is as much about the payments as it is the chain of custody for the title.


On the money side, the mess is primarily the RMBS market from what I understand.  A whole different story that is potentially dragged into the light by the paperwork debacle.


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:54 | 692186 centerline
centerline's picture

Just the tip of the convoluted mess.  I suspect this is going to be a disaster to unfold, which is precisely why the paperwork is missing or incomplete.  It is has all been electronically  "spreadsheeted" to death... sliced and diced, packaged, leveraged, sold, securitized, sold again, hedged, sold some more, etc. into oblivion.  Humptey Dumptey will probably never get put back together again.  And all the Kings horses and all the kings men are standing around to bash your head in if you try!

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 19:01 | 691849 rapacious rachel wants to know (not verified)
rapacious rachel wants to know's picture

machoman works for BofA

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:48 | 693337 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I work for a small law firm that handles a myriad of lawsuits...  foreclosures included.  We represent all sides of foreclosures...  and do not represent BoA.  Further, I am on your side...  the problem is, legally speaking, most people are completely ignorant of the issues at play.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 19:44 | 691893 Nacho.Libre
Nacho.Libre's picture

I'm not behind on my payments and I'm not in any way looking at foreclosure.  However, I do want to know who owns my note and who I am paying, because if these banks cannot foreclose on people for lack of standing and not having the proper notes, how will I get my house when I'm done paying my mortgage. 

I will tell you this.  I took out the mortgage with Everbank.  Within a couple of months, I received a letter from Everbank and from Citimortgage that the SERVICER would be changing.  There was no mention of an assignment of my note.  When I went to the MERS system, it says that Fannie is the "investor." When I called Citi, they confirmed that, yes, fannie is the "investor" and that they are the "servicer." But they went further on to say that they are the "lien holder" of my note.  My understanding was that the lien followed the note.  So, if the investor/note holder is Fannie, how can they be the lien holder?  And when I am done paying, if all my payments are being made to Citi as servicer, but supposedly are going to Fannie as the investor, then how can Citi release my note?   They are not the holder of the note.

So, I requested all information on my file.  And, low and behold, a forged signature.  The fraud is that they note they supposedly hold, that says they own it (the one with the assignement stamp), has a fraudulent signature.  I didn't sign that note, so I should not be paying them that money.  They have in effect created a false note and are telling me I have to pay them.  If I am paying someone on a fraudulently signed note, then yes, I think I am being damaged because my money is being stolen from me and I may never get my house fully cleared in the end. And how is it not fraud to send me a note with my falsified signature to make me believe that I owe them money that I may not owe them? 

I will work to get to the bottom of this.  It might not be much money or a mcmansion, but it is my house and I am paying for it with my work and sweat, so I want to make sure everything is right.  I sent copies of what Citi sent me to the attorney who did my closing and owned the title company.  He said he would check his records and get back to me. 


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 20:16 | 691992 erik
erik's picture

nacho, you are my hero for today.  I commend you on your efforts.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 20:46 | 692041 skipjack
skipjack's picture

Send copies to your state's Attorney General and ask  him/her to look into this fraud, for a start.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 22:00 | 692196 centerline
centerline's picture

Good luck chasing this down Nacho.  Keep us posted of your progress if you don't mind.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 01:03 | 692498 Fearless Rick
Fearless Rick's picture

Get a good, disinterested attorney. One that only interested in justice and his fee and go for the jugular. After all, they will go for yours.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 02:19 | 692544 Confused
Confused's picture

Good luck sir. 

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 12:12 | 693410 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I want to advise you of a few things before getting too involved.  First, you probably signed away/limited your rights with regard to your ability to question the assignee of the note/mortgage when you signed the documents.  As a preliminary measure, go back to the original documents (the ones you have a copy of) and read the sections dealing with assignment/transfer.  You may get your answer right there.

Second, if you make payments for a certain amount of time (whatever the trier of fact may determine), then you may have waived the issue of assignment.  Meaning, if you did not think X bank was assigned the note, then why did you keep paying them? 

Third, one of the issues with fraudulent concealment is that it has to actually be concealed.  You cannot complain when all you had to do was ask for it...  no one was denying you the ability to see the transfer docs/forged signature (this is how you know about it now)...  you do not get to slumber on your rights and expect a court to care.  A reasonable person would inquire whether the payments he was making was to the correct party...  In short, you may run into statute of limitation issues given the possible lack of fraudulent concealment.

Fourth, as a rudimentary observation, the holder/investor/owner of your note/mortgage does not need to be the same as the bank you are paying monthly.  This function can be outsourced to another party and they may be given the holder/investor/owner's rights to foreclose.  The problem is, an assignee may not gain rights his assignor did not have...  meaning, the servicer better be for damn sure that the holder/investor/owner has actually been transferred the note/mortgage before proceeding with pissing off the court in a foreclosure action...  and that the note and lien are held by the same party.

Last, you should not pay anyone who is not going to give you credit for making your payments.  If you are sincerely worried that you may not get credit on your principal for the payments you have made, then I suggest you might want to set up an escrow account and file a lawsuit to determine who you should pay.  My guess is that you may face dismissal, but a patently forged document in the chain of title would likely be enough to get you to a judge to determine who you should have to pay...  remember, this isn't something where you walk away not having to pay anyone...  it's just to determine who you should have to pay...  no free lunches.

PS, best of luck...  I personally would enjoy nothing more for the TBTF banks to take a big shit and not have to pay taxes to prop their sorry asses up in perpetuity.  However, I think there is reason to temper expectations on these matters... 

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:41 | 692149 CharlieBitMe
CharlieBitMe's picture

You're kidding right? Tell you what Macho, I have these official looking "mortgage forms" that have your signature on them. You apparently refinanced your house back in 2007 to the tune of $1million

As of the beginning of next month, I expect you to promptly pay me principal and interest on this amount. If you're late I'll flag your credit and I'll charge you late fees. If you stop paying I'll foreclose on your home. Cool? What? You want to see proof that I own the title to your home? No problem, give me a fax number, or a mailing address and I'll send you a photocopy. You don't like photocopies? Come on man, any self respecting judge in most states will consider that sufficient evidence to take away your property. Who the fuck do you think you are asking for the note? It's because of idiots like yourself that due process and the the fifth amendment are now historical curiosities.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:51 | 693343 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Apples and oranges.  Clearly, if you have no interest whatsoever in the note, then you have no ability to collect payments/cloud my title.  That's not what we're talking about here and that has an incredibly small % of occurrence.  You're arguing an incredibly small exception as the rule...

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:56 | 691749 doomandbloom
doomandbloom's picture

dude...where's my note?

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 17:59 | 691753 LeBalance
LeBalance's picture

Since there seems to be a variance in the content of the reply, there is no clear cut stance being taken by the Bank.  That is very funny.

IF they were smart they would universally respond: "Pound Sand."

And then we would be off to the SCOTUS and a ruling for the Bank, the Owner of the SCOTUS.

Then riots, then urban weenie roasts, then NAU.


:) LB

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:03 | 691760 mynhair
mynhair's picture

All your notes are belong to us - bitchez.

--Chinee proverb

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:38 | 691815 kiwidor
kiwidor's picture

I love you.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:04 | 691762 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

We are banks

You must pay us

It is imperative that we survive

Do not question us

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:44 | 691824 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

Too Big To Fuck Up.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:11 | 691772 Mae Kadoodie
Mae Kadoodie's picture

There once was a note, pure and easy
Playing so free, like a breath rippling by
The note is eternal, I hear it, it sees me
Forever we blend and forever we die..

There once was a note, listen
There once was a note, listen

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:21 | 691784 SpeakerFTD
SpeakerFTD's picture

So I am now in a brother-in-arms with the SEIU?   Seriously?  Has Mish been alerted?

Wow, a bit of the old the enemy of my enemy is my friend. 

Of course, should we allies prevail, I have a feeling the day after will make the Cold War look like Sunday afternoon tea.


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:50 | 691833 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

SEIU (i.e., Purple People Beaters) = Obama's shock troops.

Obama = Cloward-Piven politician.

Cloward-Piven = Marxist utopia cum martial law cum societal breakdown.


Any questions?  How can bank-owned governments transform into government-owned banks?


(Hat tip to K. Marx, Comm. Manifesto, Plank #5)

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 19:54 | 691953 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

Stop junkin' me, Shylock.  I'll jam a stiletto in your testicle until you cry, "Oy vey!"

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:26 | 691794 erik
erik's picture

so now the question is, what do you plan to do about it?

please keep us up-to-date.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:31 | 691795 mynhair
mynhair's picture

O/T, but have to.

K. Denninger is a political douche.  Having that neophyte wax loquacious over his moron political theories today, was more than I could handle.  The moron voted for Dumbo!

So, piss off, Karl, and move to CA.  We don't need idiots like you here in FL.

God knows we have enough in Miami.

Specifically, the whiner is voting for Beezlebub for goobinor, cuz "he can't vote for the lesser of 2 evils anymore".  Dumbo wasn't the lesser, he was the worst.

If we keep electing Denninger acceptables, we are done.  Get new blood in now, and vote them out next time, if you are dissatisfied. 


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 18:59 | 691843 rapacious rachel wants to know (not verified)
rapacious rachel wants to know's picture

thanks for the post Jamie

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 19:13 | 691863 creator8
creator8's picture

Don't you think its funny that Attorney Generals in most of the states are going after Google harder for stealing passwords than for banks stealing homes.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 00:09 | 692437 Lucky Guesst
Lucky Guesst's picture

I was working on a campaign here in Ohio earlier this year for an awesome guy named Steve Christopher - never been in politics before. Anyway when he turned in his signatures to be put on the ballet, 1000 were necessary and he had almost 3000, it was stamped as received 2700 by Jennifer Brunner. A couple weeks later the secretary of state announced we only turned in 750. As if! Total corruption, they didn't let him on the ballet because he was the real deal and had enough support to win. This isn't hearsay, I was volunteering as assistant directly to him and his wife so I witnessed this first hand!

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 02:27 | 692550 Confused
Confused's picture

Shameful really. I've heard similar stories from others. But lets be honest, you aren't surprised are you? 

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 19:19 | 691876 anonnn
anonnn's picture

IANAL but the fiollowing may be helpful.

While a bank may not be under obligation to produce the note for your eyes, it may well have to  prove it has legal standing to foreclose, which means they must respond to request for evidence they are the assignee of the note.

I.e. Show me the assignment paper that you have been assigned the note.

That is different than "show me the note".

This is required , e.g., to know who can give me clear title when I make the last payment...the note assignee.[I think "assignee" is correct terminology.]

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 19:25 | 691891 FatFingered
FatFingered's picture

I requested to see a copy of my note (really dumb because of course they have a copy on their computer filing system), I also requested to to know who owns the note and a list of the chain of title.  The original lender has gone bankrupt and there has been no assignments recored at my County.  The Wells Fargo Representative (my loan servicer) verbally told me that Fannie and Freddie own it.

They sent me only a copy of the note with a sickeningly kind letter attached.

It matters to me who has the original note.  If they have lost it I would like to bargain for some of the HAMP money.  I would like to reduce my interest rate by a couple points, and waive the requirement to insure replacement value on my place.  My Insurance company's rates are increasing at a ridiculous rate and I would rather just insure the just the loan value if I could.  Than I would sign a new fresh note for them to take better care of.

I really do not think the banks will be sending their only original copy.  I think requiring an avidavit stating the chain of title and the name of the current note holder would be more helpful.


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:22 | 692112 tallystick
tallystick's picture

The point is NOT for the bank Y to send you the original signed note.  The point is for them to provide either a valid chain of assignment from bank A to bank B to bank C on up to bank Y.  If bank Y can't provide a valid chain of assignment, THEN it has to have the original signed note endorsed in blank, because if they can't prove how they got it, they have to prove it's the original mortgage note. That's the law in a nutshell.

Either way is valid for the bank, problem is they don't seem to be able to do EITHER.  They can't provide evidence of valid chains of assignment, or produce the original notes.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 02:38 | 692560 FatFingered
FatFingered's picture

I concur.

This is what I will request in writing next as they ignored me last time.


Thanks tallystick for clearing that up.


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 19:27 | 691895 Insiderman
Insiderman's picture

Where does one by surface-to-air missiles?

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 19:27 | 691898 tempo
tempo's picture

I was 1 of the BOA responses that included a "verification signature" on a copy of my original note.  However, There was no info on notary or endorsement.   However BOA informed me that another entity now owns the mortgage.   I have no idea if the mortgage is recorded in MERS name at the court house.   I suggest everyone demand to see their note.   Anyone who is even close to being underwater should demand to see the note held by the bank and hire a good real estate attorney to review the note before making another payment.   You may have won the jackpot and may live free for the rest of your life.   This is a big time conflict between the international banking cartel and State property law.   Something gotta give.  is very user friendly site that provides a great demand letter and the email addresses for most banks.   Great job!!

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 19:42 | 691932 Northeaster
Northeaster's picture


"We may use your non-personal information in order to better target advertisements" -

GTFO, and your grammar sucks.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 22:55 | 692290 Hidetora
Hidetora's picture

Looks, reads and feels like a Chinese hack site looking to pimp more "dry" wall.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 19:54 | 691954 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

Some of you people are brain dead, the importance of who has your note is related to who you signed a contract with. If a third party holds a debt from a contract that you signed with another party under the original agreement then that third party holding the note has no standing. If you didn't sign a contract with them, then you don't owe them anything.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 19:57 | 691962 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

Thank you.  I've always wondered how my mortgage could be sold to another financial entity without my approval.  (Although there may have been a clause that said: "You agree to allow us to sell this note to anyone...etc").  How many of you have been to a closing?  It's all, "Sign here," and "sign here," time to read anything.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:03 | 692078 ouchtouch
ouchtouch's picture

That is garbage, a note is a negotiable instrument and can be transferred to anyone by indorsement, just as a check can.  Don't give legal advice when you don't know what you are talking about.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:27 | 692123 tallystick
tallystick's picture

Yes, but just as a check has a valid chain of endorsement, a mortgage note must have a  valid chain of assignment. A third party can't come along and claim you owe them money unless they can provide evidence for how they acquired the debt.

When a  third party claims you owe them money, you obviously should demand proof that the debt was succesfully conveyed from the lendor you contracted with, to the present third party.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 23:04 | 692317 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

You make a really good point, that was what was wrong with many of the mortgages, they were never properly endorsed. 

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 23:11 | 692310 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

Hmm, well apparently your statement is only true in certain circumstances, such as a mortgage (I guess it has to be stated in the contract that it is a negotiable instrument).

However if it were me I would still make the same argument if it were a unilateral contract we were talking about, which all promissory notes are. I don't think that promissory notes are really all that lawful because they are a self binding contract. Without two wet ink signatures I wouldn't classify it as a contract in the first place (Yes I know that almost no one would agree with me). Secondly the third party, regardless if consideration was given in the original loan, would not be able to prove a loss suffered by the debtor. 

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 20:33 | 692018 jvandeventer
jvandeventer's picture

My name is John VanDeventer and I work in the new media department at SEIU - one of the groups involved with These are my own words, not necessarily representative of the members of SEIU or any of the other groups, etc, etc, etc. Before I offer a few thoughts on, let me make a few sworn statements as a response to some of the general trends I see emerging in the comments. (I don't have a Bible at my desk, but I do have a Bible app on my iPhone, so I'm putting my hand on that...)

1. I am not a socialist or a communist.
2. I've read the Constitution. All of it. And the Federalist Papers. All of them. I love the Constitution and a quick office poll shows that so does everyone else here.
3. Yes, I am... a liberal. But I didn't even have an official party affiliation until I moved to DC. Then I registered as a Democrat so the few votes I got would count.
4. We have no secret plans to harvest people's information if they use Our number one goal is giving homeowners back some of the power they have under the law when it comes to their mortgage. The tool makes it easier to do that, but if you want to copy and paste the letter we wrote and use your own fax machine to send it, have at it. We will send follow-up emails to people as the campaign progresses, giving them more ways to take action. Each one contains an unsubscribe link at the bottom.
5. I am not Tyler Durden. Just for the record.

Moving on... Our traffic stats show lots of people have found our site through zero hedge, so I wanted to give you a really brief overview of the origins of the campaign and where we're going from here.

We, like all of you, have been trying to bring attention to the chicanery that's been going down on Wall Street for years. Especially when it comes to banks using peoples' homes as chips in risky and possibly fraudulent bets. When the media started to catch wind about the robosigner nonsense, we scrambled to put the finishing touches on the site and go live. The result was about 100,000 visits to the site in the first three days. The very first responses from the banks were sort of haphazard and breathless - ie, they told the truth ("we have no idea where your note is"). But, they quickly circled the wagons and started replying with very standardized responses. Bank of America's response (and they're not the only ones) was the most shocking to us: "you have no legal right to see your note."

But, in all the responses, the vast majority of homeowners did not get their signed mortgage note sent to them as required under RESPA.

So far nothing here that loyal zero hedge readers wouldn't have guessed would happen. But, where do we go from here? It seems to me that the challenge before us is not trying to find potential fraud in the mortgage market. It will be picking which of the many, many blatant examples of potential fraud we want to pursue and drilling down on them. We decided, though, that no matter which avenue we take, the first thing to do out of the gate is to get these cases logged with state attorneys general. We have seen through media reports that banks are trying to use spin to put finite caps on the scope of the problems they've created in the mortgage market. Only 23 states. Just a few thousand homes. Mere procedural issues. Isolated incidents.

We just want to make sure AGs know that's bull. I've read through every response we've gotten from homeowners so far - and these are not mere procedural problems. They are systemic failures across all states and over a large percentage of the market that need to be addressed. It doesn't mean we aren't going to keep giving homeowners ways to take action with their bank or otherwise. It just means we want to show AGs the scope of this problem and avoid the "resolution" to this issue being a deal hammered out between AGs and Wall Street - without homeowners having any say.

I know there's a lot that we don't agree on. Someday I'd be happy to discuss those issues over a beer or two. But I have a hunch that, when it comes to this issue, we're not that far apart. The "real" economy is getting the life sucked out of it. Whether it's flash trading or securitizing mortgages, this "rule of law be damned" mentality on Wall Street is not sustainable.

We just want some shred of accountability. And we think homeowners deserve to have a seat at the table when their house is on the line. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 20:46 | 692042 ExploitTheMarket
ExploitTheMarket's picture

Thanks for posting and I too am sure there is much we agree on...Also, I must say that if you have read and love the constitution you should not be supporting the Obama Admin & the democrats (this is a major contradiction). Why don't you support someone like Ron Paul instead ( a true supporter of the constitution) ???

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 20:53 | 692057 jvandeventer
jvandeventer's picture

I feel like this falls squarely into the "conversation over beers" category. But I appreciate your point of view; it doesn't fall on deaf ears. And I've read a lot of what the good doctor has written. I agree with some stuff, not other stuff. Same with Obama. At the end of the day, I vote based on the relative amounts of "stuff."

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 23:19 | 692353 BrosMacManus
BrosMacManus's picture

Pray tell, is it because it involves politics and your personal beliefs?

I know you started this thread with the caveat that the views expressed are your own and not necessarily those of the esteemed SEIU, however, your visit here on ZH is most definitely political, as nothing SEIU does is altruistic or for the little guy. NOTHING.

You rep for an organization, imvho, that is balls deep into politics and perpetuating the scam that has been and continues to be perpetrated on J6P. Please explain why the banksters are the SEIU's sole target of this "Where's the Note" political scheme with no mention of Bwaney Fwank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, not to mention taxpayer owned Fannie Pack and Freddie got Fingered?

I was one of the individuals that clicked on the scheme link when first posted to ZH, and I immediately closed my browser when I realized it was "organized" by the SEIU. You refer to quite a bit of traffic has been directed to the scheme's link via ZH, and now you come trolling along saying, "Hey guys, we're in this together."

I call bullshit.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 00:00 | 692421 jvandeventer
jvandeventer's picture

I can only come on here and tell you exactly who I am and what we're trying to do. I am being as transparent as humanly possible. If the point you are starting at is that nothing SEIU does could ever be good and everything I say is a lie - we're probably not going to get anywhere. Which is fine. We're not doing this to win hearts and minds - we're doing this to help homeowners.

The reason I didn't mention Barney Frank (spelling), Chris Dodd, etc, is because none of those people have lost or manipulated anyone's mortgage note to my knowledge. Now, I'm not trying to be cute - I know what you're trying to say and I appreciate your point. But, it's odd that you are trying to get me to argue the politics of this issue in the exact same paragraph that you accuse me of... making this a political issue.

I have an inkling that you won't believe anything I say. But, just in case, I will now reveal the real reason we care so much about this issue. SEIU is made up of 2 million Americans. Many of them have mortgages. Many of them have retirement plans. Almost all of them have bank accounts. And all of them feel the heat one way or another by the mess Wall Street is making of our economy. So, of course we care about this issue.

Again, I don't want to belittle your point that your personal politics and mine are probably different. I just refuse to let personal politics get in the way on issues where I think we'd be better of working together.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 00:39 | 692463 msjimmied
msjimmied's picture

Thank you. You handled yourself remarkably well! Appreciate all your efforts, and you're right, let's focus on helping people and correcting injustice. The politics etc will be taken care of at a later date. This is not the time to accentuate differences. Don't pay any attention to the junks or the nastiness.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 03:30 | 692576 traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

Yes, thanks for posting. Diversity of opinion always strengthens communities. And for now, our interests seem aligned. Thanks for getting the attention out there that people should be looking into their notes. Cheers...

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 20:51 | 692054 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Thank you John.  Well done.  I've taken some of the suggested language and added some of my own and sent it to Wells via ordinary mail.  I'll be very curious to see what comes back.

ps.  Ignore the junkers. 

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 20:59 | 692070 jvandeventer
jvandeventer's picture

Thanks - best of luck. I'm curious to know what comes back, too. If you get anything way out in left field, I'd be interested to hear about it. My email is [first].[last]

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:36 | 692135 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

You seem like a nice guy. With that being said...

Suck a cock lib. I will never endorse your site, nor would I have my family visit any affliate of it.

Sorry bitch.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 21:37 | 692141 jvandeventer
jvandeventer's picture

Fair enough?

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 22:07 | 692204 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

They really came out of the woodwork....

Staying on message is a problem for some folks.  Political kool-aid drinkers all.

I've participated in the "campaign" and replied to the follow up as I outlined above.  My AG should be up to speed on at least my case. 

Bottom line, and this is also to all the tin-foil hat wearers:  The Where's The Note program will surely do no damage, will raise some eyebrows, and will have some hard stats to deal with.    There is a lot said here at ZH about "what should be done".  Well, here's your chance to do something other than blathering and blustering on.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 01:22 | 692512 tomdub_1024
tomdub_1024's picture

WTF dude? Got a little sand in your jock?

He came here, to a most hostile of places for a union prole, and explained their motivations. Let's afford him a fair hearing, but, that may be too much to ask...

And some wonder why corps have taken over...hook, line, sinker...ring a bell?

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 22:52 | 692279 tomdub_1024
tomdub_1024's picture

Thank you for your input.

What we need now is for people to put aside petty differences and focus on the common concerns that affect us all. Left/Right/Liberal/Conservative are not the issue, and we used to be able to discuss, agree to disagree, etc, but sadly it seems TPTB has us nicely corralled into these false divisions (nevermind those conveyors leading to that big building with the stench permeating...just get on, all is well).

I would like to believe that we all can agree that the return of the rule of law would be in EVERYone's best interest, in the markets, in housing, etc.

Though I distrust unions (I was a union steward at one point in my life, and struck for recognition at another, so have a bit of insider experience (...but I got better...)), I have no problem working together towards a common goal, after its reached, then we can dither the details, or go our separate ways, having worked together to restore rule of law and a level(er) playing field.


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 23:21 | 692360 jvandeventer
jvandeventer's picture

Maybe it's just all these campaign ads - but that seems like the most rational thing I've heard all day. :)

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 23:40 | 692394 BrosMacManus
BrosMacManus's picture

Thanks in large part to the $227 million "contributed" by the pawn-broking Purple People Beaters this year.

How 'bout we repeal the PPB's exemption under the DISCLOSE Act, hmmm?


Tue, 11/02/2010 - 00:16 | 692440 jvandeventer
jvandeventer's picture

Ha. Every single "fact" here is a bit off.

- I have not seen a single news report that puts us anywhere in the ballpark of $227 million. I mean, not even close. I just Googled it and put the figure at about one fifth that amount. I have no idea if that's accurate or not.

- Nothing about the DISCLOSE Act can be repealed, because it was not passed into law. It was a response to Citizens United (which we opposed) that passed the House but failed in the Senate.

But, I get it. You hate SEIU.

Wed, 11/03/2010 - 23:02 | 698247 BrosMacManus
BrosMacManus's picture

I stand corrected, on both counts.

Nonetheless, my personal sentiment remains re: unions in general, and your organization's politics and tactics in particular. Nonetheless, you didn't take my bait - kudos.

A more useful site, where corporate, union, & professional association 2010 election cycle contributions (filtered based on % split be/w D's & R's) is at

Eye opening.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 23:55 | 692413 tomdub_1024
tomdub_1024's picture

may I ask a favor? In the spirit of working together, can you try to get your union to oppose S. 510:FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, as it is written?

Your union has sway with the current admin, and I am very sure many union members are gardeners, and/or prefer locally grown food, small farm produce. This bill does not include specific language protecting these rights (rather nebulous, open to "future" interpretation) and gives the big ag corps WAY too much power and say.

Spent most of my life in MN, a "shop" state, and loaded with small farmers and those who support them. They are not too happy about this bill, and that it would limit herbs/supplements/natural health/alternative health, bringing us into Codus Alimentus, already passed in the EU.

This is an issue I have tried to work with both "lefty hippies" and "righty conservatives", to no avail, because BOTH sides get hung up on certain words, like "as nature intended" or "as G-d intended", though they want the same end result, but cannot be open to the common food.

Make it an issue, bring it to the forefront, its the same as with housing, the big corps steal what is our right (whether rule of law, applied equally, or natural rights, that I can choose my food sources...)...make it happen....

Thank you for your consideration.


Tue, 11/02/2010 - 00:46 | 692473 jvandeventer
jvandeventer's picture

Interesting. I would be lying if I said I knew much about the issue or that I thought I could have a ton of impact within SEIU on it. Those broad based decisions on policy, issues, etc, come from the membership and then we help figure out how to get it done.

But, you should feel free to shoot me an email with some info on the issue. If only for my personal enlightenment...

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 02:20 | 692543 tomdub_1024
tomdub_1024's picture

sent you an email, and ...well...MAKE it an issue, start with your fellow members, squeaky wheel gets the grease and so forth...

I will give an honest attempt at working together, regardless of the shit I may get, both here and at work.

It may fail, and that's okay, just a part of doing business as any entreprenuer knows.

If it succeeds, then we have something to tell our children/grandchildren...that we actually made a difference in a moment in time (and I get to grow veggies in peace, which is all I am asking, that and my natural herbs for healthcare).

Kudos for posting here, and the ball is in your court now...:)


Mon, 11/01/2010 - 23:30 | 692376 BrosMacManus
BrosMacManus's picture

Your distrust due to past union experience aside, the SEIU's goals and those of J6P are not common goals. The SEIU wants pawns to extract unionization of the banking cartel, a pound of bankster flesh via class warfare schadenfreude, and concentrated power by their dutch rudder chosen political class.

Use SEIU, not the other way around.

Tue, 11/02/2010 - 02:08 | 692446 tomdub_1024
tomdub_1024's picture

The common goal is restoration of the rule of law, and a level(er) playing field, or, at least SOME resemblance of justice and fairness. The banksters and corporatists have too much power, which needs to be shaved down a bit.

We can argue "right to work" vs "shop" later. The immediate need is to call this sh*t out and fix it. 

What's the purpose of ZH to begin with? To call this sh*t out (unless I misread something over a year ago).

Good lord, I never thought I'd be defending a union here, being the minarchist/fiscal ly-conservative/socially-liberal (basic liberatarian) hippy...(but not too smelly, and I am allergic to patchouli...:).

If they can help with a goal, then so be it, the Allies included the Soviet Union to defeat corporatism(facsism), and they argued for 40 years afterward. But the IMMEDIATE goal was achieved.

In simpler, familiar words, the enemy of mine enemy is my friend, until the common enemy is vanquished....then we can pick up the new battle.

Wed, 11/03/2010 - 23:12 | 698273 BrosMacManus
BrosMacManus's picture

I hear ya. A counterbalance to corporate involvement in the political process is essential, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend analogy makes me think Iran-Contra, helping Saddam in the Iran/Irag war, funding the mujahadeen vs. the Soviets, House of Saud and all of the other quid pro quos we've been involved in that went south.

Unions' unholy alliance w/ our political class worries the hell out of me.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 20:33 | 692019 plocequ1
plocequ1's picture

Dont buy a house. Rent. Done.

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 20:41 | 692029 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

What he said.  Rent from the noblemen, serfs!

Mon, 11/01/2010 - 20:46 | 692036 plocequ1
plocequ1's picture

No, My Mothers basement Apartment. Hotplate and Toaster oven included.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!