top of page

October 4, 2022:  

After YEARS of unwavering, publicly recorded (courts), provable OFFERS TO PAY THE OWNER OF MY MORTGAGE DEBT, this homeowner finally decided the courts would not enforce her right by law to have an audience with the PROVEN debt-owner, allowing instead 3rd party debt collectors to conduct a foreclosure auction and take her home for the audacity she insist she pay her actual "injured party owner of the debt and not an unproven agent" who repeatedly rejected her payments then never ceased actions to steal her home instead.  Claiming to "collect for"  an unknown maybe even non-existent owner and injured party, who apparently didn't want their payments either, favoring real property acquisition instead, just like their "agents" .... what a coincidence!

SHE PAID THE "RANSOM" TO THESE AGENTS' ATTORNEYS - UNCONDITIONAL TENDER OF FULL PAYOFF, thus exercised her Right of Equitable Redemption PRIOR TO the auction.  




Screen Shot 2022-10-04 at 9.18.55 AM.jpeg

Audio reading of above article + Feedback and transcript

[Full article]

[Affidavit of

Thomas Adams

Screen Shot 2022-08-23 at 11.40.04 AM.jpeg
UD Benchguide FC - 1 (7).jpeg
Screen Shot 2019-03-14 at 11.18.49

             "Okay ... sooo, Mr. Rent-a-Bank, you agree you're

              Trustee of the Trust that supposedly owns our

            note and loan, but you know ZILCH about our note

and loan ....  and this cluelessness is your shield from being sued for damages -- or so you hope. You have "no loan-level data" but no       other type of data is relevant here.   And as "trustee" you're       utterly mystified about the Trust you supposedly serve as "trustee" for?  What curious cluelessness!   What unacceptable unaccountability Mr. Rent-a-Bank as Trustee, sir!   Firmly unaware           then, if any loan or note even exists, let alone if the Trust

  or any of its beneficiaries own it. However you're SURE only

 a 3rd party debt-collector and "servicer," the only entity on

earth with a shred of any "loan-level data" is perfectly qualified

                 to assert ALL attacks against note-maker!    

                 You wear IGNORANCE as INNOCENCE.

               Logic-fail. WHO'S INJURED            HERE?"

"This looks like a case of too many law schools these past 40 years (?) leaving out of the curriculum American Law of Negotiable Instruments, UCC Articles 3 and 9...  These notes are all negotiable instruments.   A "declaration of default" on a note can only be decreed by a proven note-owner, but homeowners are made to admit they're "in default" just because they missed a payment.  Even if the debt-collecting servicer instructed them to miss one or more payments to qualify for a loan modification!    Younger judges even seem to have no idea about 'presentment' on the note."

1 (52).jpeg

"Boss of the


confused baby.jpg
Screen Shot 2019-03-31 at 8.30.17 PM.jpg
Screen Shot 2019-01-01 at 10.11.44 PM.jpg


Posted April 2012 and still timely because the crisis is still very much afoot.  Easy laymen's terms and promises to be an eye-opener.    Thank you to attorneys John and Alicia Campbell and Eric Vieth. Note:  it makes sense that these people are good at conveying and de-mysitifying this:  John is also on the faculty of Sturm College of Law at the University of Denver; and we've seen time and again that law scholars who love logic and have more invested in Principle than in filthy lucre and a fallen injurious busiinss model -- would come through and reverse-engineer one of the greatest wealth and land grab heists of the century.   

What is "MERS?"   Check out minute 32 for ten minutes on the colossal mess known as "Mortgage Electronic Registration System."

Screen Shot 2019-03-24 at 2.48.31 PM.png


                                                                          CHRISTOPHER L. PETERSON*    (2011) 


ABSTRACT -       "In the mid-1990s, mortgage bankers created Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) to escape the costs associated with recording mortgage transfers. To accomplish this, lenders per- manently list MERS as the mortgagee of record instead of themselves to avoid the expense of recording any subsequent transfers. MERS’s claim that it is both an agent of the lender and the mortgagee, and the huge gaps left in the public record, give rise to a range of legal issues. This Article addresses whether security agreements naming MERS as a mortgagee meet traditional conveyance requirements and discusses the rights of counties to recover unpaid recording fees. The author explores the challenges facing judges, legislators, county recorders, and investors who must resolve these issues to rebuild confidence in real property recording systems."

            * Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law. 

Screen Shot 2018-05-29 at 7.03.05 PM.jpg

" ...  No one should have the legal right to take your home merely by winking and nodding their way around a significant flaw in the securitization model and whatever burrs it may leave on the industry’s saddle. …

Is there anyone with a present contractual connection to you or the loan who has actually suffered a default? If not, any… foreclosure begins to bear an uncanny resemblance to double dipping.

It is time for Judges to dust off the principle of fundamental fairness that lies at the heart of our legal system, demand a level playing field, and stand behind alternatives to foreclosure that serve the legitimate interests of homeowner and industry alike. ..."

From Living Lies post:  HERE>

Full articleI 2015  by Maine lawyer Rockwell P. Ludden:

UD Benchguide FC - 1 (10).jpeg
Play button

"It's a Lie.  Pure and Simple."   10/22/21, by Neil Garfield

Good Foreclosure Defense Gets Down to Basics: No Default

Posted on October 5, 2021

by Neil Garfield

"All successful defenses to foreclosure attempts basically come down to one fact: When tested, the claim cannot be supported because it is untrue."

UD Benchguide FC - 1 (69).jpeg





....   The fundamental shift that occurred when investment banks entered the lending marketplace under false pretenses was that securities brokerage firms were entering that marketplace without any risk of loss and with every intent of making immediate “trading” profits that in many cases exceeded any amount paid to or on behalf of any homeowner.

This complete absence of risk is what accounts for the inflated appraisals and underwriting of transactions based upon the ability to sell securities instead of the ability to profit from the interest on loaning money. 

Who had a risk of loss?

....  Any investigation or research into securitization as it is currently practiced invariably and universally comes to the same conclusions every time. The only parties at risk are the homeowners and investors who loaned money to the investment banks under the false pretense of the sale of unregulated securities. Everyone else in the middle got paid in full. Most of the people and especially the investment banks got paid money that in some cases was hundreds of times the amount that they had previously been paid for introducing, brokering and underwriting transactions between the only two parties that had any financial stake.



....  Pursuant to common law and statutory law in virtually all countries for more than 4 centuries, possibly back to the year 1215 (Magna Carta) all contacts require the following basic elements to be enforceable:

  • Meeting of the minds as to the subject matter

  • Reciprocal value paid by each in money or action

  • No violation of any other laws prohibiting either the contract or the promises

  • Execution of the contract by words and behavior.

  • Incorporation of restrictions. duties and obligations contained in other statutes or authority.

  • If in writing, a  memorialization of all of the above.

Those elements, each of them, have not been present in any transaction with any homeowner or consumer since the late 1990s. It isn’t a loan just because someone labels it as a loan. It must be a loan and there must be both a borrower AND a lender.   ..."

UD Benchguide FC - 1 (67).jpeg
LEGAL_RESEARCH_image (1).jpg
Screen Shot 2019-03-20 at 2.32.24 PM.jpg



Paid in Full

Paper:  The Nexus of Fabricated Mortgage Loan Assignments and Unlawful Home Foreclosures

by James Campbell, Policy Studies, Univ. of WA

(download available from Social Science Research Network)


From the abstract:  "Who has the legal right to foreclose on your home?  More importantly, who doesn’t?    


Unlawful foreclosures are not just financial crimes against

individuals and families. At the eviction stage, they are  crimes perpetrated together with the threat of violence.  Five years after the 2008 economic implosion, it is clear to anyone with a shred of sensibility that many financial regulators have become Wall Street commodities to be bought and sold. If that were not the case, by now there would have been hundreds, if not thousands of arrests, convictions and imprisonments; just as there were in the aftermath of the Savings and Loan debacle in the early1990’s.


Twenty years hence, our leaders are benign at best and complicit at worst. This is a legal issue that has haunted the foreclosure crisis since it began in 2008. During the 1990s, U.S banking interests launched an all-out campaign to repeal many of the federal banking regulations which were enacted by Congress in the aftermath of the stock market crash of 1929. Bit by bit, those regulations were stripped away until finally, in 1999, Congress repealed what was arguably the single most important financial regulation born out of that financial crisis: The Glass-Steagall Act. This deregulation allowed the rapid return to the same casino-like behavior that characterized the financial industry in the 1920s.

Although many foreclosures are legitimate, a large percentage of them which were started since 2008 involved fake or forged documentation, the most egregious of which are recorded mortgage assignments involving private label securitized

trusts created between 2004 and early 2007. In 2013,

such unlawful foreclosures continue to occur daily,

on a massive scale, in every State of the Union. ..."

1 (25).jpeg

Bank of America Corporation partners since 2008:  MERS, Wilshire, Merrill Lynch, Countrywide, M&T Bank, Wilmington Trust, Nationstar

1 (36).jpeg
1 (78).jpeg
1 (26).jpeg




commit the tort of wrongful foreclosure"

1 (52).jpeg

In 2014 there was never an Assignment of deed-of-trust recorded to the below  "beneficiary" until 2018 after four docs were rescinded & filed anew to finally name the below 2014 entity in a "corrective" Assignment amending the 2009 record as stated, nine years later.   

But in so doing, their careful "legal corrective" to amend Assignee name also sneakily (and fatally) altered the name of the original Assignor who should have remained the original "lender," who didn't exist in 2009 let alone in 2018. Maybe I wouldn't notice.  Four prior records were officially "rescinded" and four new records filed, finally consistent with this "corrective" Assignment...  


Yet if it's recitals were true in 2009 as purported, it then created a fatal fork, retroactively,  with both the 2012 and 2013 Assignments, making BofA into felony filers (?) while leaving a gaping admission that the same entities had been relentlessly threatening foreclosure on our home for over five YEARS on a defective Assignment to "Nationstar" who denied the charge the entire time, but then revealed utter confusion as to who it was supposedly collecting for... i.e., the "injured party."   Luckily this 2018 "corrective assignment" cured their confusion. ....

Oh, spoke too soon: See below their 2018 Notice of Trustee Sale names NOT this new Assignee they went to much trouble to "legally correct."  Nope: the original secretly-obliterated 2009 Assignor "AEGIS the non-existent" is yet again raised from the dead since they went bankrupt in 2007, and here featured prominently as the named "beneficiary" on the operative 2018 Notice of Trustee Sale, allegedly the one who authorized the auction they completed on our house in 2019.  Perfect.

"Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners"

Yet God has kept us in

1 (40).jpeg

2013   Nationstar

in a 30-day span

1 (78).jpeg

Meet & Confer phone 430.41. 

See 1/30/2019 blog post CA  Homeowners Bill of Rights

1 (21).jpeg
1 (78).jpeg

All three above variations penned by Nationstar to formal complaint to Consumer Financial Pro-tection Bureau (CFPB) differ between their own 3 responses AND with attorney-named "injured party" during 2017 suit.

1 (19).jpeg
1 (78).jpeg
1 (20).jpeg
1 (78).jpeg

"Aegis" is named as "beneficiary" in both Notices of Trustee Sale in 2016 and 2018 but Aegis ceased to exist in 2007, by bankruptcy in public record. And "MERS" Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems never owns any loans or notes, and in deposition has admitted as much.  MERS also never initiates or authorizes any foreclosures.  

DEPOSITION OF William Hultman, MERSCORP   HERE>    and e-book >>>

1 (28).jpeg
1 (22).jpeg
1 (23).jpeg
bottom of page