<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for UltimateBK.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ultimatebk.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ultimatebk.com</link>
	<description>Information and Resources Pertaining to Filing Bankruptcy and/or Foreclosure Defense in the BK Courts</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2011 01:46:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on In re Walker – California Court (Eastern District Bankruptcy Court) confirming what we have been saying all along – MERS HAS NO INTEREST TO CONVEY TO ANY OTHER LENDER, in this case, CitiBank. Where is the note? by Bankruptcy Lawyer</title>
		<link>http://www.ultimatebk.com/phoenix-bankruptcy-lawyer-asks-where-is-the-note-in-bankruptcy-court/#comment-239</link>
		<dc:creator>Bankruptcy Lawyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2011 01:46:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ultimatebk.com/?p=40#comment-239</guid>
		<description>Why Banks get to foreclose, or lift the automatic stay without proof they followed the legal steps is an interesting question.  I suppose it is because the United States might really collapse if proof was required.  Dirty little secret I suppose.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why Banks get to foreclose, or lift the automatic stay without proof they followed the legal steps is an interesting question.  I suppose it is because the United States might really collapse if proof was required.  Dirty little secret I suppose.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on In re Walker – California Court (Eastern District Bankruptcy Court) confirming what we have been saying all along – MERS HAS NO INTEREST TO CONVEY TO ANY OTHER LENDER, in this case, CitiBank. Where is the note? by Challenging wrongful foreclosure : Foreclosure Defense Resource Center</title>
		<link>http://www.ultimatebk.com/phoenix-bankruptcy-lawyer-asks-where-is-the-note-in-bankruptcy-court/#comment-233</link>
		<dc:creator>Challenging wrongful foreclosure : Foreclosure Defense Resource Center</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:36:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ultimatebk.com/?p=40#comment-233</guid>
		<description>[...] note&#8221; the note should be an issue in every case if you can demand proof of such.  Cases like In re Walker have discussed how the mere assignment of a deed of trust, without the note, is a legal nullity [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] note&#8221; the note should be an issue in every case if you can demand proof of such.  Cases like In re Walker have discussed how the mere assignment of a deed of trust, without the note, is a legal nullity [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on California Appellate Court tells U.S. Bank its promises to a borrower &#8220;we will work with you&#8221; on a loan modification may be enforceable by Bankruptcy Lawyer</title>
		<link>http://www.ultimatebk.com/san-francisco-foreclosure-and-bankruptcy-lawyer-talks-about-oral-promise-to-help-with-a-loan-modifcation-promissory-estoppel-and-fraud/#comment-228</link>
		<dc:creator>Bankruptcy Lawyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:30:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ultimatebk.com/?p=387#comment-228</guid>
		<description>Thanks we are doing the best we can to supply California and Arizona property owners with the best information on bankruptcy litigation and foreclosure defense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks we are doing the best we can to supply California and Arizona property owners with the best information on bankruptcy litigation and foreclosure defense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on California Appellate Court tells U.S. Bank its promises to a borrower &#8220;we will work with you&#8221; on a loan modification may be enforceable by Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.ultimatebk.com/san-francisco-foreclosure-and-bankruptcy-lawyer-talks-about-oral-promise-to-help-with-a-loan-modifcation-promissory-estoppel-and-fraud/#comment-224</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:48:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ultimatebk.com/?p=387#comment-224</guid>
		<description>Wonderful blog post. I was checking continuously to this website &amp; I’m very impressed! Extremely helpful info, especially the middle section.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wonderful blog post. I was checking continuously to this website &amp; I’m very impressed! Extremely helpful info, especially the middle section.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on In re Walker – California Court (Eastern District Bankruptcy Court) confirming what we have been saying all along – MERS HAS NO INTEREST TO CONVEY TO ANY OTHER LENDER, in this case, CitiBank. Where is the note? by Bankruptcy Lawyer</title>
		<link>http://www.ultimatebk.com/phoenix-bankruptcy-lawyer-asks-where-is-the-note-in-bankruptcy-court/#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>Bankruptcy Lawyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:15:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ultimatebk.com/?p=40#comment-54</guid>
		<description>Hi Todd,

Thanks for the heads up.  I will follow up to see if I can review your pleadings and case status on pacer.  Best of luck in proving what we all know - MERS has no note to convey, and the transfer of a deed of trust by itself (often to an entity that cannot prove it owns the note) is a legal nullity.  The system is bogus.

Steve</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Todd,</p>
<p>Thanks for the heads up.  I will follow up to see if I can review your pleadings and case status on pacer.  Best of luck in proving what we all know &#8211; MERS has no note to convey, and the transfer of a deed of trust by itself (often to an entity that cannot prove it owns the note) is a legal nullity.  The system is bogus.</p>
<p>Steve</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on In re Walker – California Court (Eastern District Bankruptcy Court) confirming what we have been saying all along – MERS HAS NO INTEREST TO CONVEY TO ANY OTHER LENDER, in this case, CitiBank. Where is the note? by todd macaluso</title>
		<link>http://www.ultimatebk.com/phoenix-bankruptcy-lawyer-asks-where-is-the-note-in-bankruptcy-court/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>todd macaluso</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:07:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ultimatebk.com/?p=40#comment-53</guid>
		<description>Steve,

We have this issue teed up in usdc sdcal.  May be of interest to you.
Todd</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve,</p>
<p>We have this issue teed up in usdc sdcal.  May be of interest to you.<br />
Todd</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Phoenix Foreclosure Lawyer launches UlitmateBK.com Bankruptcy Resource Supersite! by Bankruptcy Lawyer</title>
		<link>http://www.ultimatebk.com/phoenix-foreclosure-lawyer-launches-ulitmatebk-com-bankruptcy-resource/#comment-44</link>
		<dc:creator>Bankruptcy Lawyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Jan 2011 22:47:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ultimatebk.com/?p=21#comment-44</guid>
		<description>Please leave us your phone number.  We do these loans on a contingency fee basis.  Or Call us at (877) 276-5084</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please leave us your phone number.  We do these loans on a contingency fee basis.  Or Call us at (877) 276-5084</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Loan Servicer Must Have Valid Credentials to Lift Stay in BK by Is PRODUCE THE NOTE or SHOW ME THE NOTE a viable foreclosure defense strategy in Arizona? Phoenix Foreclosure and Real Estate Lawyer discusses. :: Produce The Note Attorney</title>
		<link>http://www.ultimatebk.com/a-loan-servicer-must-have-legally-valid-credentials-to-file-a-motion-to-lift-the-automatic-stay-in-a-chapter-13-bankruptcy-case-in-arizona/#comment-31</link>
		<dc:creator>Is PRODUCE THE NOTE or SHOW ME THE NOTE a viable foreclosure defense strategy in Arizona? Phoenix Foreclosure and Real Estate Lawyer discusses. :: Produce The Note Attorney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Oct 2010 22:13:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ultimatebk.com/?p=69#comment-31</guid>
		<description>[...] Here is our blog post on Weisband: http://www.ultimatebk.com/a-loan-servicer-must-have-legally-valid-credentials-to-file-a-motion-to-li.... [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Here is our blog post on Weisband: http://www.ultimatebk.com/a-loan-servicer-must-have-legally-valid-credentials-to-file-a-motion-to-li&#8230;. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Loan Servicer Must Have Valid Credentials to Lift Stay in BK by Arizona Foreclosure Basics: Foreclosure lawyer Steve Vondran discusses whether there is an obligation for the “lender” to produce the original promissory note before conducting a non-judicial foreclosure sale in Arizona. : Foreclosure Defense Resource</title>
		<link>http://www.ultimatebk.com/a-loan-servicer-must-have-legally-valid-credentials-to-file-a-motion-to-lift-the-automatic-stay-in-a-chapter-13-bankruptcy-case-in-arizona/#comment-30</link>
		<dc:creator>Arizona Foreclosure Basics: Foreclosure lawyer Steve Vondran discusses whether there is an obligation for the “lender” to produce the original promissory note before conducting a non-judicial foreclosure sale in Arizona. : Foreclosure Defense Resource</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Oct 2010 22:10:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ultimatebk.com/?p=69#comment-30</guid>
		<description>[...] Here is our blog post on Weisband: http://www.ultimatebk.com/a-loan-servicer-must-have-legally-valid-credentials-to-file-a-motion-to-li.... [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Here is our blog post on Weisband: <a href="http://www.ultimatebk.com/a-loan-servicer-must-have-legally-valid-credentials-to-file-a-motion-to-li..." rel="nofollow">http://www.ultimatebk.com/a-loan-servicer-must-have-legally-valid-credentials-to-file-a-motion-to-li&#8230;</a>. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on In re Walker – California Court (Eastern District Bankruptcy Court) confirming what we have been saying all along – MERS HAS NO INTEREST TO CONVEY TO ANY OTHER LENDER, in this case, CitiBank. Where is the note? by phoenix bankruptcy attorney to challenge mers loans and other pretender lenders in motion for relief from automatic stay in bankruptcy court : Foreclosure Defense Resource Center</title>
		<link>http://www.ultimatebk.com/phoenix-bankruptcy-lawyer-asks-where-is-the-note-in-bankruptcy-court/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>phoenix bankruptcy attorney to challenge mers loans and other pretender lenders in motion for relief from automatic stay in bankruptcy court : Foreclosure Defense Resource Center</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:46:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ultimatebk.com/?p=40#comment-6</guid>
		<description>[...] (2) Second, GMAC asserts that by virtue of the MERS Assignment of the Deed of Trust, it is a beneficiary of the DOT and entitled to enforce and foreclose the DOT under Arizona law. (again, how could GMAC have a security interest in the debtors property if the loans were sold to Lehman, and then to SASC who had the right to receive principle and interest payments – a traditional concept of “beneficiary”)?  There is also legal authority that MERS assignment of the Deed of Trust, without the note, is null and void and conveys nothing.  See our blog posting on In re Walker case in California Bankruptcy Court. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] (2) Second, GMAC asserts that by virtue of the MERS Assignment of the Deed of Trust, it is a beneficiary of the DOT and entitled to enforce and foreclose the DOT under Arizona law. (again, how could GMAC have a security interest in the debtors property if the loans were sold to Lehman, and then to SASC who had the right to receive principle and interest payments – a traditional concept of “beneficiary”)?  There is also legal authority that MERS assignment of the Deed of Trust, without the note, is null and void and conveys nothing.  See our blog posting on In re Walker case in California Bankruptcy Court. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

