Foreclosure Defense Florida

The Servicers, The Banks, The Debt Collectors DO NOT OWN THE NOTES THEY ARE FORECLOSING…THEY ARE NOT "Holders" Under the Uniform Commercial Code!

fannie-mae-foreclosuresThe debt collectors that are going into courtrooms and throwing Amerikans out into the street in most cases do not own the notes they are foreclosing on.   But that does not stop them from going into courtrooms all across this country and committing perjury, fraud and engaging in improper legal tactics in pursuit of their activities to throw Amerikans into the street.
No one will hold them accountable.
No one will force the debt collectors to disclose on whose behalf they are actually working.
Are these debts owed by the federal government? By shadowy foreign operatives? By terrorist cells and organizations? By China?
We’ll never know just exactly who we are transferring billions of dollars in wealth and the physical dirt that is the United States of Amerika because they’re all being permitted to hide, conceal and not disclose any of this.
Dark and perilous days are ahead of us because “our” nation’s court system failed to stand up for fundamental court and basic amerikan rights.
And the details disclosed in this document are directly contrary to the legal position articulated in most foreclosure lawsuits, “the plaintiff is the holder”. Under the Uniform Commercial Code they are not in fact the “holder” based on these facts:

Fannie Mae is at all times the owner of the mortgage note, whether the note is in Fannie Mae’s portfolio or whether owned as trustee, for example, as trustee for an MBS trust. In addition, Fannie Mae at all times has possession of and is the holder of the mortgage note, except in the limited circumstances expressly described below. Fannie Mae may have direct possession of the note or a custodian may have custody of the note. If Fannie Mae possesses the note through a document custodian, the document custodian has custody of the note for Fannie Mae’s exclusive use and benefit.

In order to ensure that a servicer is able to perform the services and duties incident to the servicing of the mortgage loan, Fannie Mae temporarily gives the servicer possession of the mortgage note whenever the servicer, acting in its own name, represents Fannie Mae’s interests in
“¢ foreclosure actions,
“¢ bankruptcy cases,
“¢ probate proceedings, or
“¢ other legal proceedings.
This temporary transfer of possession occurs automatically and immediately upon the commencement of the servicer’s representation, in its name, of our interests in the foreclosure, bankruptcy, probate, or other legal proceeding. When Fannie Mae transfers possession, the servicer becomes the holder of the note as follows:
“¢ If a note is held at Fannie Mae’s document delivery facility, Fannie Mae has possession of the note on behalf of the servicer so that the servicer has constructive possession of the note and the servicer shall be the holder of the note and is authorized and entitled to enforce the note in the name of the servicer for Fannie Mae’s benefit.
“¢ If the note is held by a document custodian on Fannie Mae’s behalf, the custodian also has possession of the note on behalf of the servicer so that the servicer has constructive possession of the note and the servicer shall be the holder of the note and is authorized and entitled to enforce the note in the name of the servicer for Fannie Mae’s benefit.



  • Randy Frodsham says:

    The article says “Fannie Mae at all times has possession of and is the holder of the mortgage note, except in the limited circumstances expressly described below.” It specifically says Fannie is a “holder,” not “holder in due course.” Since a “holder” cannot transfer more rights that they themselves have, any subsequent holder of the note would also be merely a “holder” and not a “holder in due course.”
    I have have heard (but have been unable to locate anything that would verify as orrect) that a “holder” and a “holder in due course” are two very different things with very different levels of enforce-ability of the provisions of the note. I have heard that a “holder in due course” has all the rights of enforcing the provisions of the note as the original lender – can collect the payment stream and foreclose on the security (home) should the payment stream stop; however, a “holder” only has the right to collect the payment stream, NOT foreclose the security.
    I have also heard that, since “without recourse” is a conditional endorsement (and all securitized notes are endorsed in this manner), upon acceptance of a conditionally endorsed note, that owner (AND ANY SUBSEQUENT OWNER) of the note is merely a “holder” and can never be upgraded to “holder in due course,” meaning that all they should be able to do is to sue for the unpaid payments. PERIOD – NOT foreclose (which is what they are actually doing).
    Am I correct?

  • Randy Frodsham says:

    I find it curious that you saw fit to simply delete my comment and question (The question was intended to be legitimate, by the way.) although there was no rant, and there was nothing demeaning to anyone or any thing. Perhaps the question simply came under the “too hot to handle” catagory? The action os simply deleting the question does speak volumes.

  • speakout says:

    The $64,000 question- Where is the receipt of the funding of the so-called loan? Who funded the loan? How did they fund it? Cash, check or money order or wire? They want us to pay back in cash, check or money order. What about the APPLICATION that they applied a CUSIP number to and traded on Wall Street? This is the disclosure the banks do not want to reveal, as it will show that WE funded the loan with our signature (our credit) that converted it to cash. There is no money in our society, ONLY credit. We did not get paid a bag of gold coins in the “loan”. Did anyone get a check written in their name? I didn’t. All I got was a piece of paper that says “For a loan I have received, I promise to pay….” This was signed BEFORE the closing. Double entry accounting. Where is the note ledgered? It was deposited or It was converted. Conversion is illegal without disclosure and compensation. So the deposit needs to be credited to us and zero’s out the debt!
    The banksters want ALL the properties because China, etc. is NOT buying anymore of US paper debt. The banksters have nothing to trade- so they are stealing our homes and the crooked judges are helping them do it. No one can tell me the judges don’t know what is going on by now. They are co-conspirators in the fraud. Look at the $43 trillion lawsuit by Spire Law Group against ALL the banksters on behalf of all homeowners filed in NY. It needs to be supported by all defense lawyers.
    I recently read that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is the most powerful court in US. That was where the original government was located before the “corp” moved it to DC. Our REAL government was hijacked and is being run by a private corp. called the US. Offices are vacant. We need to re-occupy the REAL US government offices and take back our country. This should be the Occupy movement. Recent court rulings confirm this. See Rod Class- private Attorney General.

  • Richard says:

    All of Idaho Judge’s retirement is vested in mortgage backed securities, and they refuse to recuse! and do not sign an order! I think they justify it by using the rule of necessity? know any more?

  • Richard says:

    almost impossible to get a hearing on the merits! 46 of the United States settled with Lenders Processing services…1125 million, Idaho filed its own suit for almost a million..same merits! lost paperwork HAMP applications, told to be 90 days late to qualify, (default)…dual processing (testimony if Julie Williams…) Unfair and Deceptive pattern and practice! Consumer protection lawsuit…but you identical merits may never be heard!

  • Richard says:

    typo…125 million

  • bill says:

    i stopped paying a servicing co. mortgage payments 3 years. i am still living in the house and paying taxes .i only have one problem , a few phone calls a week

  • bill says:

    servicing companies (debt collectors)are all alike. just like charge cards ,they have made us offers .we owe 120 thousand and our last offer was 44,500 and settle.

Leave a Reply