***********************************************
If you can show me the note holder for my loan I would be grateful ,, then I could compel discovery. The simple truth is that for 60-75% of all mortgages written in the last 15 years they were underwritten by investors that not only aren't a party to the note but that are TO THIS DAY hiding their involvement as the financial instruments used to fund the mortgage pools are often at legal odds with the terms of the note itself.
Please read http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/180787_86_opinion-lehman.pdf
here's one opinion as to the meaning of that ruling...
The relevance is that if the derivatives are construed as part of a single transaction in which the homeowner loan was funded, and that there are conditions under which the derivative operates that add or change the original contract as set forth in the note, then the original note was REPLACED with a new deal that did not include the homeowner.
This means the original obligation was replaced with a new obligation in which parties inserted themselves into that contract without disclosure to either the investor who funded the transaction or the homeowner who secured the transaction with the home. In my opinion (check with your own lawyer) the legal effect is that the note was a nullity the moment it was signed or assigned. This eviscerated the security rights of the creditor — although the creditor (if he/she/they can be found) might have some right to sue in equity to create a constructive trust over the property — subject to the various defenses and counterclaims available to the homeowner.
I do not agree with your assertion. The contract was not violated for the homeowner. Note holders have the right to sell the notes. The note payer does not have the right to stop sale of the note. I understand that some Marxist judges have ruled according to your interpretation. Those judges are violating property rights in my view. I do not think that your interpretation has been widely applied.
Even if your interpretation was widely applied, it would just be legal technicality. The interpretation would undermine the housing market. You are unhappy with the behavior of originating lenders, mortgage brokers, real estate agents, and credit rating agencies. You are trying to obtain compensation from this group at the expense of the current note holders. I am not sure why you do not have similar distaste for buyers. Many buyers were involved in the fraud also. They are not innocent bystanders. I realize that some buyers are victims but they should seek redress from the parties involved in the transaction.