Just recently, we’ve been alerted by several homeowners about Fraud Stoppers videos and literature that contain lies and disinformation. For example they claim that the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas stated in LANDMARK NATIONAL BANK v. KESLER that “the splitting of the note and mortgage creates an immediate and fatal flaw in title”. The alleged quote posted by Fraud Stoppers doesn’t exist, most scammers make up quotes in an attempt to back up their ridiculous arguments.  Moreover, courts around the country have held that a deed of trust ” ‘split’ from the note through securitization, DOES NOT render the note unenforceable. JOHNSON V. HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, 2011 WL 4373975, at *7 (S.D.Cal. Sep.20, 2011); CERVANTES V. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (The “split the note” theory has no sound basis in law or logic.).  

To make matters worse for unsuspecting homeowners, a federal court found a homeowners arguments supplied by Fraud Stoppers to be “meritless:”

“Plaintiffs apparently learned their securitization theory from, as nearly half of the Complaint is verbatim from this website.”

They’re also disseminating other nonsense:  Real facts regarding the Daly case can be found here:

Sadly, homeowners have already succumbed, or will succumb to Fraud Stoppers slick marketing campaigns, but Mortgage Fraud Examiners will continue to expose these scammers, and others like them, to warn the public, and unsuspecting homeowners that may be facing foreclosure.



  1. “The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgagn with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.*” Carpenter v. Longman, 83 U.S. 271 (1873).
    It would appear that when the note and mortgage are Separated, the note becomes an unsecured instrument much the same as an unsecured credit card. In fact, a recent article came Indicated that a New Jersey court found that when The note and mortgage are separated, anyone attempting to enforce either one must possess both.


    1. You have your facts wrong, every court in the country that has heard the argument, holds that the note is enough: JOHNSON V. HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, 2011 WL 4373975, at *7 (S.D.Cal. Sep.20, 2011) (refusing to recognize the “discredited theory” that a deed of trust ” ‘split’ from the note through securitization, render[s] the note unenforceable”).


      1. There is also a need to be cognizant of the fact the the judicial system is fictional. Court case decisions are not necessary based upon “law”, but on “opinions” from those who are/have the power to decide what is right or wrong. We can not expect truth from a “system” that inherently false.


  2. I have paid Fraudstoppers after Holmes & Gault who did it audit on my property that was taken illegally and a small court in East Tawas I owned my home for 18 years never missed a payment actually there’s two legal pieces of property I own Fraudstoppers said they help me register a complaint in federal court for losing with Bank fraud committed by Bank of America. without even going to court but yet I can’t get through to Tony or Frank or anyone I spoke of maybe I need to go to her attorney generals office ?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s