Economists, Obama administration at odds over role of mortgage debt in recovery


Economists, Obama administration at odds over role of mortgage debt in recovery

Economists, Obama administration at odds over role of mortgage debt in recovery

Whoa! You have to read this article-

Lets get one thing perfectly clear. We know Congress is corrupt. AND Obama as President, CEO has the power to pretty much do anything he knows is right to protect the people after piling their life savings into their worthless properties and now drowning in debt because of the banks fraud. Obama cannot blame anyone but himself for this failure.

Watching banks destroy ones wealth in Real Estate is not part of his job description as he failed to do so.


One year and one month before President Obama won reelection, he invited seven of the world’s top economists to a private meeting in the Oval Office to hear their advice on what do to fix the ailing economy. “I’m not asking you to consider the political feasibility of things,” he told them in the previously unreported meeting.

There was a former Federal Reserve vice chairman, a Nobel laureate, one of the world’s foremost experts on financial crises and the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund , among others. Nearly all said Obama should introduce a much bigger plan to forgive part of the mortgage debt owed by millions of homeowners who are underwater on their properties.

Obama was reserved in response, but Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner interjected that he didn’t think anything of such ambition was possible. “How do we get this done through Congress?” he asked. “What could we actually do that we haven’t done?”


© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



This post was written by:

- who has written 9152 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

9 Responses to “Economists, Obama administration at odds over role of mortgage debt in recovery”

  1. Charles Reed says:

    One of my first not so greatly written letters to President Obama told of my distrust in Geithner who authorize AIG to pay out the claims to Goldman Sachs and other hedge funds that made these CDS bets.

    Geithner also did not feel he was a regulator as the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY when in fact he was a regulator of some of the big banks.

    Now it Geithner opinion after all of Wall Street is bailout to include Fannie, Freddie and GM that home owners have behaved in a bad matter and should not be rewarded for their risky behavior…is this not the kettle calling the pot black?

    We get to a point in Sept 2012 when Geithner in asking the Sept 2009 appointed Assistance Director of the FHFA DeMarco to allow the underwater borrowers who have not missed payment and have good credit to refinance their mortgage loan. The Fed spent $1 trillion to artificially lower the Prime interest rate that every rich borrower and upper class borrower went out and received a new lower interest rate but went it come to other who did not miss payment and because of no fault of theirs, the property values decrease but where not allowed to refinance because this dude DeMarco who is governing over Fannie & Freddie, who is bailout to the tune of $190 billion, where without the injection of fund could not pay its bills, but is chastising borrowers who have done nothing to cause the depreciation of their property as it was all due to bank creating a bad product and selling it to others.

    Now we got another problem I been writing about and that is 800,000 GOVERNMENT INSURED LOANS being foreclosed illegally on the instructions of Ginnie Mae which is a wholly owned Federal Government company. I told everyone from the White House to the out house that it was impossible for any loan placed into a Ginnie Mae pool to ever be foreclosed because the debt is not purchase by Ginnie Mae making the blank endorse Note a non-negotiable document, because a Note without a debt is actually nothing.

    Notes are document of debts due and if your not in possession of the Note you don’t have a debt and if you don’t have a Note then you cannot claim a debt. A Note that has a does not have a debt cannot be titled and place against the property because there is not a debt ever due!

    So we the Citizens are due back to our FHA and the FHA Mortgage Insurance Premium plus the VA and VA Guaranty Fund are due in total $264 billion. We can continue to let Ginnie Mae rip us off and allow the crooks to have the illegal gotten gains or we can get back our money….plain and simple!

  2. Ken Hansen says:

    “Obama cannot blame anyone but himself for this failure.”

  3. nydeemarie says:

    Charles, this part I understand…

    Notes are document of debts due and if your not in possession of the Note you don’t have a debt and if you don’t have a Note then you cannot claim a debt.

    but you lost me here…

    A Note that has a does not have a debt cannot be titled and place against the property because there is not a debt ever due!

    Please explain…

  4. nydeemarie says:


    To date 47 states have adopted the Article 5 revisions and at least 29 states of adopted the Article 9 revisions.

    The revisions to Article 9 will modernize the law to facilitate electronic commerce and will streamline the process for filing financial statements to perfect security interests. In Pennsylvania this will involve the elimination of the dual filing system. The revisions also modernize rules governing perfection and priorities, default and enforcement. Among the changes of special interest to Pennsylvania lawyers will be the fact that the assembled economic unit doctrine, virtually unique in Pennsylvania, will be eliminated.
    How they overrode some state constitutional mandates

    ie.. No Legislators may interfere. or permit an interference with the business of the County Clerks is beyond me…


    Be that as it may, would the 21 day rule, as mentioned below, apply??

    Mortgage Notes–Must You Have Possession to Be Secured?

    In re Investors & Lenders, Ltd., 165 B.R. 389 (D. N.J. 1994)

    Comment: When taking a security interest in instruments, you must take possession of those instruments. However, UCC law does allow a 21-day period for certain instances–when an instrument is first acquired (you have 21 days from the time you give value until the time you take possession of the instrument) and when an instrument is released (you have 21 days in which the debtor can sell, exchange, present, collect, renew, or transfer the instrument). Except for these two time periods, you must have possession of the instrument if you wish to claim a secured interest. Here, the lenders went three years without taking possession, and so they were unable to satisfy their claims against the defunct mortgage company.

  5. Charles Reed says:

    Nydeemarie, The simply thing to this crisis is that if you did not lend monies or buy that debt there is no way for a party to place a lien against your property.

    A Note is a contract agreement to only pay back debt and if there is no debt, there is no negotiable Note.

    What taken place as these loan are group together and turned into securities, now you got a different financial agreement that does not involve the borrowers who never agreed to be in a securities.

    A Note/Contract has the two parties in borrower and lender and both has right under the contract, but that contract is only valid if there is a debt owned by the borrower and the debt is wiped clean once the lender turned “issuer” places the loans in a pool and relinquishes the Note signed endorsed in blank to Ginnie Mae who by law cannot create (originate), but or sell a home mortgage loan.

    So what we know as a fact in the case of ANY loan that was placed into a Ginnie Mae pool is that a blank Note was relinquish to Ginnie Mae, making it impossible for there to ever be a valid lien against the properties because the debt holder not longer hold the Notes. As Ginnie Mae cannot purchase the debt there is actual no Note.

    The paper Note does not and cannot contain debt, however Ginnie Mae plays this shell game of hiding who actual is the holder of the Notes and does not have the servicers of the loans inform the borrowers who is actual suppose to be the owner of the debt, but actual there is no debt once the loan are bunched together as a securities.

    Ginnie Mae is running a Ponzi scheme were it does not have a dime invested and cannot involve itself in the lending of monies so it come up with this scheme that get people to invest monies into the Mortgage Backed Securities by having taxpayer insure the principal investment of the “investors” at a 100%, then the funds from the sell of the securities there is the advancement of funds to lenders/issuers and in return the monthly principal and interest the home borrowers are paying are used to pay the principal and interest of the lenders/issuers.

    Borrowers are not actually having their balances reduce because it going to pay the lenders/issuers debt. The trick of the Ponzi is to have slipped back the blank Note and give credit to the loan as if all the while the principal & interest payments where being applied all the while. Ginnie Mae in the standard Ponzi scheme was to keep getting investors to supply their loans to place in pools which Ginnie Mae has no financial interest in.

    Ginnie Mae is making monies without any investment of its own and no actual ownership in the underlying collateral, meaning they could not access the collateral as it does not itself have a lien against the properties and has to trick the local land recording offices that the lenders who cannot be reunited with the Notes, to not have even contracted the counties about a transfer of the Notes, so it appears as if nothing ever took place and the lenders/ servicers take advantage of the administrative foreclosure procedure hiding from the court the truth of the relinquishing of the blank Notes.

    It called a Ponzi scheme that make Bernard Madoff love like a choir boy!

  6. nydeemarie says:

    Please bear with me Charles…

    I come from the County that provoked our Chief Judge, on behalf of the New York State Court of Appeals, to ask,

    “Tell me, Mr. Newell,” the judge said. “Who runs Suffolk County? A vigilante committee?”

    As you can imagine… we’re a bit behind the 8 ball here… lol

  7. nydeemarie says:

    An interesting case dealing with the Mortgage Transfer Tax…

    2012 NY Slip Op 06986 HUDSON VALLEY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Appellant,
    No. 154.

    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided October 18, 2012.


    The Court describes the recording and transfer of title as a privilege…

    New York’s mortgage recording tax (MRT) (Tax Law § 253) is an excise tax on the privilege of transferring title, not a tax on the real property subject to the mortgage issued to secure a loan.


    I remember reading that the failure to pay the mortgage recording tax will lead the Court to conclude that the conveyance was made without consideration.


    I have to call my clerk and see if there is a fee to record and/or certify every assignment and/or mortgage..


    Personally, I think that at least in NY the whole chain which includes every assignment, mortgage, and or judgment must be acknowledge or proved, recorded and certified to establish the right to foreclose…


    If true, the MERS in the end avoided nothing…

  8. Charles Reed says:

    I have written NY Attorney General Schneiderman in both his positions as Atty Gen & Mortgage Task force to inform them that if they only take any loan originated or purchase by Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) and it will show the fraud that MERS actual is.

    Because in 2006 WaMu made an agreement to service all of WaMu’s 1.3 million government insured loan to be serviced by Wells Fargo Bank which is not a deal base in fact because at the time of the agreement WaMu does not actual have ownership to a single loan as they are all in Ginnie Mae pools, and Ginnie Mae is suppose to have in it physical possession the blank signed endorsed Notes.

    New York blow the top off this thing, as the mortgage backed securities (MBS) are govern under NY law, and with WaMu is it shows that $1.1 trillion in Ginnie Mae don’t have any underlying collateral the secure these securities.

    Because WaMu was seized on Sept 25, 2008 what was to be a cover for Ginnie Mae in allowing Wells Fargo to act as the servicer, because once the loans where in the Ginnie Mae pools and the Notes are relinquish to Ginnie Mae in blank form and can NEVER be returned to the lenders because the Notes are non-negotiable as Ginnie Mae not inserted on the contract and cannot sell a home mortgage loan ever!

    What MERS does by after the failure of WaMu is to illegally assign title to Wells Fargo who has not purchase the debt associated with the blank Notes that are acting as the custodian of records for Ginnie Mae. However as Ginnie Mae is not on the Note as all as the purchaser of the Note and is not on title at the local county recording offices because they are not the “holder in due course”, they use a trick where MERS is saying that they are the sole beneficial for the lenders, and works on the behalf of it members however Ginnie Mae is not a member of MERS as a lender.

    MERS is fully aware that Ginnie Mae is trying to claim ownership of the government loans in Ginnie Mae pools because they request through their GinnieNET system for the lenders turned “issuers” who are selling the MBS, to input the data into MERS for a Transfer Beneficial Rights – Option 1, that is suppose to transfer to Ginnie Mae the title inside the system.

    Now Ginnie Mae publishes in it’s Frequently Ask Question dated Feb 2, 2010 only one day after the effective date of the VA HAMP program, to not ask them about modification but to ask your servicer about this process because Ginnie Mae is not an investor and Ginnie Mae does not buy or sell home loan and also that Ginnie Mae and does not make home mortgage loans.

    So the fact is there is no way possible that ownership can be ever transfer over to about because Ginnie Mae who not purchase the debt has no standing to do so. Now MERS step in as if they are receiving direction from the actual “holder in due course” and that there was some type of sell which in fact they can be none because Ginnie Mae does not buy any.

    WaMu show the total scheme which is the same with a non failed bank because Ginnie Mae process of getting the blank Notes is standard for the pools, and under UCC the purchasing party has the burden of proving that purchase. What MERS does is take advantage of local county recorders who don’t ask for a copy of the Notes in it current state which if they did would have to show that the Notes are endorsed to who MERS is alleging is the “holder in due course”, and in every case if checked would have had a blank endorsement on the Note, thereby stopping the illegal recording from taking place.

  9. nydeemarie says:

    I had a WAMU loan serviced by WAMU.

    There was no mention of Wells Fargo or to my recollection Ginnie Mae, but some correspondence did become very interesting after 2008… lol


Leave a Reply

Advertise your business on