"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: http://action.seiu.org/page/s/investigate

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.

Comment viewing options

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

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


Fed Supporter's picture


see this:  http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/a-survey-of-cases-mers/


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



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.

saulysw's picture

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

Laws can and will be changed.

macholatte's picture


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





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...

MeTarzanUjane's picture

What's the name of the website?

ZeroNote.com? On a long enough timeline errbodies note gets lost.

Lucky Guesst's picture

+ 800 Taj Mahal suh-weets!

Who the heck is junking everything that makes me laugh?

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.

mynhair's picture

Not the mortgage, the DOT.

bigkahuna's picture

Why all the junk? Its an honest question right?

RockyRacoon's picture

Yeah.  Obama pulled Building 7, too.

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. 

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.

Clinteastwood's picture


You are so open-minded your brain fell out.

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.

TheJudge2012's picture

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

Lucky Guesst's picture

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

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 (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp); (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".  

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:

kwvrad's picture

excellent link thankyou Judge2012...

TheJudge2012's picture

Yes it drives the trolls nuts.

Matt SF's picture

"no legal right to see their own note"

Translation: bend over and take it b*tch!

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...

mule65's picture

If you signed something then you should have a copy.

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

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.

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.


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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.


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?

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.

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?

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?


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?

Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

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

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.

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.

RockyRacoon's picture

Why the HELL would anyone junk this comment?

This is going too far folks.