--- On Sat, 4/23/11, Meredith <meredith2729@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Meredith <meredith2729@yahoo.com>
Subject: Securitization in A Nutshell
To: "Meredith" <meredith2729@yahoo.com>
Date: Saturday, April 23, 2011, 12:31 PM
Thanks JR !!!!
--- On Fri, 4/22/11, Balsaman <balsaman@optonline.net> wrote:
From: Balsaman <balsaman@optonline.net>
Subject: Securitization in A Nutshell
To: balsaman@optonline.net
Date: Friday, April 22, 2011, 5:06 AM
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/securitization-in-a-nutshell/
Securitization in A Nutshell
Posted on June 23, 2009 by Neil Garfield http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/securitization-in-a-nutshell/ http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/due-process-discovery-and-burden-of-proof/
According to the terms of any note I ever read, any payment from you or any third party that is intended to be a payment against interest, principal or both must be applied as such. You have hit the nail on the head with your question. When they pooled your note, the deal you signed was ended and a new one began — one to which you were NOT a party. You were mentioned but they never got your signature in the pooling and servicing stage, the securitization stage or the terms of the bond (mortgage backed indenture stage).Question: I was served with a complaint to foreclose and of course they lost the note as well as saying I hadn't paid since November 08. I in fact have paid up until March 31, 09, but it seems they have alloted my mortgage payment (at least 3/4) of them to suspense and fees.I've asked for months to no avail and all the other questions, like who holds my mortgage. IAre Mortgage servicers allowed to take my payments and apply them to wherever they want, even though I have never seen a notice regarding suspense???
ANSWER: Mary: According to the terms of any note I ever read, any payment from you or any third party that is intended to be a payment against interest, principal or both must be applied as such. You have hit the nail on the head with your question. When they pooled your note, the deal you signed was ended and a new one began — one to which you were NOT a party. You were mentioned but they never got your signature in the pooling and servicing stage, the securitization stage or the terms of the bond (mortgage backed indenture stage).The "pooling" resulted in giving themselves authority to pledge your payments and third party payments (AIG insurance, credit default swaps, Federal bailouts etc.) to cover the obligation of OTHER BORROWERS. This is a direct breach of the express terms of the note which describes how the payments will be applied.Follow me here. The "lender" who appeared on the papers at your closing was already prepaid on your obligation by third party investors. So one of two things are true: either the note is paid in full and there is no obligation nor is there anything for the mortgage to secure, or the note you signed was properly assigned to a third party who put up the money. But the note cannot be properly assigned and enforced against you if the terms are changed without your knowledge or consent. So it wasn't properly assigned. That means it is paid.Where does that leave the investor who put up the money that was used to fund your mortgage? The investor has received a bond (which is the same as a note) which includes all kinds of terms that you knew nothing about where the money was owed and guaranteed from several entities that you knew nothing about. The bond indenture says the bond holder gets a pro rata title to the mortgages and notes in the pool.So the "trust" is holding nothing — but so is the investor because the note you signed was not properly assigned — conditions were added to payment and risk, making it a different deal.So the investor has claims and may have been paid from the government, an insurer, cross collateralization, over collateralization or some other source including you. The investors claims against you are NOT on the note and mortgage because the note was paid never assigned in the legal sense.
The investor's claims are at common law or in equity since you did get a loan and some of the money the investor injected into the pool was used to fund your loan. But as soon as the investor sues you for unjust enrichment, constructive or resulting trust or whatever, you have counterclaims for all the TILA violation, predatory lending, appraisal fraud, slander of title, usury, etc. that could lead to a counterclaim for treble damages against the investor for things the investor never did — at least not directly.One thing seems certain — that any claim by the investor is unsecured and the ONLY party with legal standing to assert any claim against you is the one who lost money. The net value of the investor's claim is unknown but dubious at best. And so far the investors are suing only the servicers and investment banks for sticking them with deals made up of pure vapor.
« Wells Fargo Steps on A Rake (We Hope) — EGGS — a New Country June Reyno – June 23, 2009 Letter to President Obama about my police arrest »
9 Responses
Foreclosure resources | Montgomery County on the Mary-land Republic, on March 28, 2011 at 4:37 pm said:
[...] Click here for Neil Garfield, "Securitization in a Nutshell," Living Lies. [...]
Abby, on June 24, 2009 at 10:43 am said:
This is rich!! My house was sold at a Trustee' Sale last October (2008). JP Morgan Chase sent me the IRS form stating the value of the home at foreclosure was $$$. Just now, JP Morgan Chase sends me a notice saying that I have not paid property taxes and that is in violation of the deed/note. Is this SCHIZOID or what? Is Chase so big that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing?
The foreclosure was started by Chase but then all of a sudden US Bank started appearing on the recordings.
There are lots of illegalities with respect to recordings.
Steve, on June 24, 2009 at 7:49 am said:
Thank you for that wonderful comment BJ. It was full of use ful information. NEXT!
BJ, on June 24, 2009 at 3:36 am said:
Whoever wrote the Securitization in A Nutshell doesn't know what their talking about, their just giving people false hope with this misinformation. I've noticed a lot of misinformation on this site!
Steve, on June 23, 2009 at 10:19 pm said:
Looking at U.S. Codes Tilte 12 Chapter 27 Section 2607. " Special Information Booklet" Is there a form the broker was to have signed stating the home owner recieved it?
Most important Title 12 Chapter 29 Section 2803 "Maintenance of records and public disclosure" (6) Retention of information says Loan application must be filed one year after closing and on file three years after. If lender isn't responding to audit where would you obtain this record? Plus is there a limit on response. Been waiting well over two months.
Title 18 Chapter 47 "Fraud and False Statements" Sections 1006,1010, and 1014 read to imply any broker,lender or employee of a financial institution who defrauds or enters a false statement will be prosecuted. There are parts to sentences that says anyone who participates will be too. Is this the lender defense? The codes to me don't seem to imply that meaning as to the homeowner. I don't have the "Big Book of U.S. Codes. This the link I have
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/
Debbie, on June 23, 2009 at 8:23 pm said:
Don,
The trust/notes were paid in full, but the investors are officials, weathly people, and backed by a very long list of large corporations, including insurance companies.
Also, defaults are being enforced so that other investors/banks will win their derivative bets on whether the borrowers pays the loan or not.
Andrew, on June 23, 2009 at 6:01 pm said:
I'm trying to verify the Oregon ORS to satisfy the substitution by the trustor (owner of property) to replace the beneficiary and trustee for new of his own.
Where does one find this information in defense of the Defendent?
Don, on June 23, 2009 at 3:21 pm said:
This was explained in clear, concise terms. If this is true, then my deed of trust/note are paid in full.
So why is it that I can see this, but judges across the country are allowing parties to come in and foreclose?
IMO, judges will not give the homeowners their houses free and clear here in CA. The results so far have been mixed.
THE BIG A, on June 23, 2009 at 10:51 am said:
cant anybody call this what it is A PYRAMID SCHEME.
PONZI SCHEME. HIRE MADOFF TO UNRAVEL THIS WHOLE THING.
Wells Fargo Steps on A Rake (We Hope) — EGGS — a New Country
Posted on June 22, 2009 by Neil Garfield
And when that rakes hits them in the head, it will hopefully start a domino effect with the rest of the pretender lenders. OH Sup Ct – Wells Fargo AppealWF has decided to go for the brass ring by bringing an appeal from a case they lost. What they are saying to the Ohio Supreme Court is that if the borrower doesn't raise the issue of "who owns the loan" early enough, they have waived it. They are also saying that when they finally record the assignment documents should have no effect on who can enforce the note and mortgage. Lastly, and most importantly they are really saying "this is the way we do things now and the courts must conform to industry practice even if it leads to unjust, inequitable, foul results."All of this would have been considered a bad joke on a law school exam deserving an "F" for failure to have absorbed even the the most basic elements of Black Letter Law or even common decency. Now it is being treated as a real issue.TRANSLATION: WF wants the Ohio Supreme Court to rule that ANYONE in the securitization chain can enforce the note and mortgage and that the effect on the marketability of title to the property and the clouding of title should be ignored. And they are saying they can do that without notifying, serving or suing anyone else in the securitization chain — even though WF never funded the loan, doesn't have a dime in the deal and basically is using procedural devices the steal homes from unwary homeowners who do not have the legal expertise or access to to lawyers with sufficient understanding of securitization to oppose the obviously unfair and unjust result.When we started this blog we predicted that the entire issue, in legal circles, would come down to whether the pretender lenders were successful in getting the courts to see only the individual transactions, rather than all the transactions in the securitization chain taken as a whole. In legal theory this is known as the single transaction doctrine or the step transaction doctrine. The basic test is whether the deal would have ever happened if all the parties knew what was going on. The answer is clearly "NO!"
- Would an investor have knowingly invested cash into a pool where the loans were based upon obviously inflated property values that could not, would not and did not withstand the test of time (even a few weeks in some cases), NINJA (no income, no job, no assets, no problem) or were subprime borrowers with credit histories that were questionable?
- Would investors have funded $800,000 for a bond (mortgage-backed security) where the proceeds were to be used for funding a $300,000 mortgage and the rest was kept for fees and profits? Who would buy something for investment where the moment they executed the paperwork they were taking a 60% loss? Never mind the fact that on the secondary market the bonds are selling for $.01-$.03 cents on the dollar. So what does that mean? They are either worthless, unenforceable or both. The mortgage and the note have been "separated" unlike what you have always heard about mortgages following notes and vice versa….the legal consequences of securitization are this…the note is at best unsecured and worst ….for the investor unenforceable.
- Would borrowers have signed papers and put up their home for collateral if they knew about the inflated home values when they were depending upon the appraisers who were hired by the lenders?
- Would investors have signed papers and put up the cash for the securitization chain if they knew about inflated securities values, bogus AAA ratings and security quality when they were depending upon rating agencies that were hired by investment banks who were the issuers of the bonds and insurance policies from companies insuring the potential default of the mortgages backing the cash flows that provided the return on the securities without insufficient assets to cover the liability to pay in the event of a claim?
- Would borrowers have signed papers knowing that the profit being made by intermediaries was as much or more than the amount of their loan? Obviously not.
- How many borrowers would have knowingly signed papers and moved into a house from which it was certain they would be evicted? because the "lender" knew or should have know that mortgage would default with the first adjustment in payment…
- This all occurred because Wall Street and all the intermediaries, banks, mortgage originators, mortgage brokers etc. kept the investor and the borrower from ever meeting or even knowing they existed.
Even if this tricky theory of WF was to be accepted arguendo, in order to have a complete adjudicate of all rights and obligations and in order to clear title and present a certificate of title that was marketable (not subject to being later overturned by claims of fraud on the court) ALL parties in the securitization scheme must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Just how well would some hedge fund like it if they received a notice from Wells Fargo or Countrywide or Ocwen or HSBC saying that there was a foreclosure going on, that the hedge fund was named as a defendant because their interest mortgages and notes they were told they had purchased were about to be extinguished and kept by an intermediary?WF is trying to make the Ohio Supreme Court a party to fraud. Isn't that why Countrywide was sued by Greenwich Financial et al? The investors were saying that Countrywide had no right to agree to short sales, modifications or anything else because the Hedge fund owned the loans not the servicer. This is not theoretical… it is actual. Why did "mortgage modifications" come to a halt last fall and early this year? Despite Obama and Financial Institution rehetoric about assisting homeowners and modifyin "millions of mortgages" the Greenwich vs. Countrywide suit "froze" all modifications because the parties, from servicers to "loan mod" companies claiming to assit borrowers have NO authority to modify the mortgage and would not act for fear of similar litigation. WF admits in its brief that the issue is multiple liability for the borrower because ANYONE in the securitization chain can sue, but says that doesn't matter. Probably true. It doesn't matter to these interlopers but it sure matters to the "borrower" and the "investor" (both of which could simply be regarded as VICTIMS). They are the only parties that stand to lose money or assets….READ: actually be damaged.Of course the effect on title to the property is horrific. Think about it. You have a homeowner who is on the deed and upon foreclosure a certificate of title is issued to a party that was not named in the mortgage or deed of trust. You have a bondholder who has received a bond (mortgage backed security) listing the borrower and the security interest in the property as being conveyed to the investor. And it is all in the public record and public domain. You have a mortgage or deed of trust that when all the smoke and mirrors are cleared away says "we are going to pass the title around here to whomever we want and when we are good and ready we'll tell you who has title." So the notice of record declares that there will off-record transactions but that nobody can know until private parties declare the effect of those transactions. What they are advocating is the judicial act of ignoring the requirements of federal law, state law and common law.Why don't they just come out and say it like Dick Durbin, Senior Senator from Illinois said it "When it comes to banking, they own the the government." They certainly used the government as their private bank account (TARP, Federal Bailout, U.S. Treasury bailout and credits, etc.). Why don't we just come right out and say it — forget the constitution, forget the declaration of independence, forget the rule of law, forget federal legislation, executive agency rules, state laws and common law, we are now the Empire of Great Goldman Sachs.And they are saying this is "industry practice" now. True, it IS industry practice and that is why the indsutry as a whole has put itself in the position of potential civil, administrative and criminal liability and sanctions. But up until the last few years any such practice would have have been properly condemned.Everything is relative, a new "common industry practice" over a brief 5-10 years is not what changes Black Letter Property Law, which for 200 plus years has been belonged to the states. Just because the banking industry quit crossing their T's and dotting their I's and devised a scheme, using their own proprietary, member based, electronic system(MERS) to avoid the various state and local taxes and fees dues states and counties for recording an interest in real property.In a society of laws (not men) it is government that has the power to declare true title of record. It is only in a nation where we governed by the rule of privileged men instead of laws that we grant such powers to private entities and bind public branches of government to the edict of companies like MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems). EGGS seeks to complete its bloodless coup turning a republic into an oligopoly and unfortunately the Obama administration doesn't seem to get it even though the citizens of this once great country see it clearly. If this doesn't turn the rule of law on its head, I don't know what does.We can only hope that as these cases slowly move up the appellate process that all judges come to realize this is not an ideological issue it is a moral issue and a constitutional issue. We are under attack — even the people who don't think they under attack. The most basic rights enunciated in the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are being siphoned away. This is no longer about the people who have lost their homes or the people who are in the process of losing their homes. This is about the clear and present danger that any of us could lose anything we have by edict from the rich and powerful. If the Courts go along with it, we are doomed as a nation, as a society and as hope for the world.The genius' on Wall Street forgot that we are dealing with REAL property here and more importantly REAL people…and families. When we talk about "Black Letter Law" we are not just talking about circa last 200 years adopted from the English Lords where the issue of "standing" came from….Go back to your Bible and read the Old Testament Book of Ruth….even Boaz took off his shoe and had 10 elders in the town witness the legal transfer of interest in real property from Naomi's heirs so there would be no "cloud on his title" or one might say today that he "perfected his interest" in that property. Wells Fargo's argument is that a group of us in the mortgage industry came up with our own set of rules a few years ago and in recent history(the last 10 years not the last 100 years) it kind of became industry practice so ….we expect the courts ….after the fact to adapt to OUR standard….yeah right. Talk about a weak argument….it would get you an "F" in Law school…consequently the American public knows it doesn't hold water.Judges are you listening?10 Responses
- WELLS FARGO PROVES OUR POINT IN OHIO: SUPREME COURT WON'T EVEN HEAR IT « Livinglies's Weblog, on October 12, 2009 at 9:27 am said:
[...] WELLS FARGO PROVES OUR POINT IN OHIO : SUPREME COURT WON'T EVEN HEAR IT Posted on October 12, 2009 by livinglies SEE wells-fargo-steps-on-a-rake-we-hope-eggs-a-new-country [...]
John R., on October 8, 2009 at 4:27 pm said:
It would seem the Ohio Supreme Court IS speaking. I refer to Wells Fargo v Jordan . there's a link in this article to it… http://dannlaw.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/ohio-supreme-court-lets-wells-fargo-v-jordan-stand-foreclosure-plaintiffs-who-do-not-own-the-mortgage-at-the-time-of-filing-lack-standing-to-pursue-cases/ Enjoy!
baffledinga, on June 22, 2009 at 8:58 pm said:
Couldn't the Ohio Supreme Court refuse to hear this? It's kind of a cowardly way to deal with this but if they refused to hear this, then the lower courts ruling would stay in effect and WF's arguments would not be heard nor would there be a chance of the court ruling in WF's favor. The Court is not required to hear this, right? In GA, they often refuse to hear cases. Some politically charged, some not.
So, if the Ohio SC refused to hear this, that would be the end of this hogwash, right? Am I correct or am I missing something?
JL Semidey, on June 22, 2009 at 7:12 pm said:
These people and lawyers have no shame.
Dear Mr. Garfield What can we do to promote the borrower's case?
Shall we write letters?
To whom?
Rob Harrington, on June 22, 2009 at 4:08 pm said:
If the cdo market trached their buckets of toxic mortgages and converted them to bonds to get the triple A ratings to be able to dump these new instruments on the world market, wouldn't the note and mortgage simply have been converted in its form. Sam Adams uses the cup of water analogy…. how do you get the same cup of water back out of the pool? Can Wall Street have it both ways in securitization?
Is "produce the note" defense stalling the inevitable even if the note truly was lost and has yet to be "found?"
Was the note ever transferred physically beyond being sold to the pooling and servicing agreement?
What about aiding, abetting, co-conspiracy and co-venture in the case of PROVABLE FRAUD by the lender? I have the case on WAMU, but JPMorgan claims no liability and they want "their" house back – tough luck for me… but they can't find the note….
Help! Pro Se, no more attorney money – two WAMU cases.
I lose, I lose 20 years of hard work and playing by the rules…. and I lose everything.
usedkarguy, on June 22, 2009 at 1:21 pm said:
A question: All 4 in the Series Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp, Wells Fargo Home Equity Asset-Backed Securities(Certificates)2005-1/2/3/4 "unsold on dealer shelves", then turns up in the 1998 WFASC (formerly Norwest..)is that their "Bucket #3″? HSBC shows up as Trustee numerous times in the Filings search, does this create any "proof of agency"?
dny, on June 22, 2009 at 11:11 am said:
Woops. I see now that this appeal was just filed June 5, 2009. My bad. Still, very troubling.
dny, on June 22, 2009 at 10:58 am said:
So is it true that a case of this magnitude and potential far-reaching consequences for all of us is being argued before the Supreme Court of Ohio by financial behemoth Wells Fargo against a pro se litigant?!? What is currently going on with this case, which was filed in January 2009? Do the Appellees have counsel yet??? Has anything been put in to the Supreme Court by or on behalf of the Appellees?!? It seems that we should all be not only concerned, but directly supportive as well, perhaps with a fund?
erlinda, on June 22, 2009 at 10:47 am said:
well said neil and thank you for your input. i think as a homeowners we should take drastic actions against the lenders, banks and other entity who tried to take our properties by suing them.. let's bug our attorney general in every state about the "Fraudulent Transaction " of securitization mortgages. let all the homeowners whose loan is under securitization back by MBA, CDO, REMIC, & ETC. my understanding some Pooling And Servicing Agreement (PSA) investor who bought the security certificate secured by the deed of trust has a wording WITHOUT RECOURSE meaning if the certificate the investor bought and the property owners defaulted the loan the investor cannot go against the securitizer who sold the certificate, in other words "buyers" beware. so if the investor who owns the certificate cannot go after the securitizer, the trustee can go after the borrowers and foreclose the house. so the profits goes directly to the trustee (banks) and it is the big loss for homeowers and the investors who actually put the money. i think the lawyers should know about this argument. if you raise the question who hold my original notes, you could ask the court also to produce a recorded copy an assignment of mortgage/ deed of trust and a recorded copy of Pooling And Servicing Agreement it says everything in that agreement. SEC has also provided a copy of both document aside from recording in the county record where properties are located. if assignment of deed is not recorded, i don't think the trustee or the banks and lenders should have the standing to foreclosed until they have to show who really own the notes..
ALAN BARON, on June 22, 2009 at 10:14 am said:
My hope is that the Court see what you are saying , I for one don't feel good about this , who ever has the gold makes the rules. The lobbyist for Banks own the Senate , it only a matter of time until they get the laws changed in their favor. ( I pray I am wrong on this .)
We have President who laid down on cram down in BK , has done nothing to stop foreclosures and really stand up for homeowners. No change , pretty speeches that's all.
The media is clueless, and our courts are overwhelmed. Everyone is scared, confused and that is just how the powers that be want us to feel.
'Buckle your seat belts everyone it's going to get bumpy "
I hope for the best , but expect the worst.
However I will never give up, will fight the good fight and spread the word .
Thank you again Neil & Brad .
Alan Baron
Ohio Supreme Court Lets Wells Fargo v. Jordan Stand. Foreclosure Plaintiffs Who Do Not Own the Mortgage at the Time of Filing Lack Standing to Pursue Cases
In Forclosure, Predatory Lending, Uncategorized on October 4, 2009 at 11:32 pm
In a significant victory for consumers and particularly victims of predatory lending the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday quietly let stand what may turn out to be a landmark decision prohibiting banks, trusts and other loan servicing entities who cannot prove ownership of a mortgage note from foreclosing on Ohio homeowners.Following a trend originally initiated by U.S. District Judge Christopher Boyko, Northern District of Ohio in Federal Court, The 8th District Court of Appeals(Cuyahoga County) ruled in June of this year that banks, loan servicers and trusts did not have standing to pursue foreclosure of homes in Ohio if they could not prove that they owned the mortgage note at the time of the filing of the complaint. In Wells Fargo v. Jordan Judge Frank D. Celebrezze Jr. writing for a unanimous panel of the 8th District held that in order to bring a lawsuit in Ohio the plaintiff must have an genuine interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit:{¶ 21} "A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of the action. State ex rel. Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176, 298 N.E.2d 515, syllabus. The Eleventh Appellate District has held that 'Civ.R. 17 is not applicable when the plaintiff is not the proper party to bring the case and, thus, does not have standing to do so. A person lacking any right or interest to protect may not invoke the jurisdiction of a court.' Northland Ins. Co. v. Illuminating Co., 11th Dist. Nos.2002-A-0058 and 2002-A-0066, 2004-Ohio-1529, at ¶ 17 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The court also noted that 'Civ.R. 17(A) was not applicable unless the plaintiff had standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court in the first place, either in an individual or representative capacity, with some real interest in the subject matter. Civ.R. 17 only applies if the action is commenced by one who is sui juris or the proper party to bring the action.' Travelers Indemn. Co. v. R.L. Smith Co. (Apr. 13, 2001), 11th Dist. No.2000-L-014." Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603, 897 N.E.2d 722."It went on to hold, " If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law"The process of securitizing mortgages on homes in Ohio and throughout the country required multiple transfers of the note mortgage and in some cases a legal fiction was created around trusts and other holding vehicles that never acquired provable ownership of the notes in question. Loan Servicers only have the authority to foreclose that does or doesn't belong the actual owner of the note and mortgage.Seeking legal advice is more important than ever for homeowners facing foreclosure in Ohio . The issue of standing could cause thousands of cases pending in Ohio courts to be dismissed. Help for those who cant afford a lawyer is available at Save the Dream.Further, since Ohio Law has long recognized that the issue of Jurisdiction can be raised by a party in a lawsuit at anytime, there may be thousands of judgments granting foreclosure that are void putting the title to those properties in question. Ohio Courts have the inherent power to vacate the prior void ab initio judgments in foreclosure. Patton v. Diemer (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 68, 70, 518 N.E.2d 952.Anyone who's home has been foreclosed on since 2003 when the massive securitization of mortgage notes began in earnest ought to consider taking a look at their judgment and whether or not the plaintiff in the foreclosure had standing to pursue the complaint.http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/oh-sup-ct-wells-fargo-appeal.pdf
Due Process, Discovery and Burden of Proof
Posted on June 15, 2009 by Neil Garfield
Non-judicial process was never intended and could never be constitutionally applied as a mere trick to avoid due process. If these parties wish to initiate foreclosure they must, whether it is a judicial process or a judicial process, possess the attributes of the basic jurisdictional elements of standing and they must possess the attributes of being authorized to proceed by the true parties in interest i.e., the necessary and indispensable parties. The fact that a state allows non-judicial process does not grant carte blanche to any wily person or entity to try its hand at foreclosure and see if they get away with it.If they are allowed to continue to raise defenses and make allegations without establishing the basic jurisdictional elements of legal standing and without establishing and disclosing the real parties in interest, then the entire case and all foreclosures are a mere charade, inviting any unscrupulous character to attempt to create color of title over the loan and the foreclose on it."How do I prove that?" There are several answers. You know your loan has been securitized but the Judge doesn't. And even if it has been securitized, how do you show that defeats the foreclosure? In this post I will answer these questions, which appear to be the most asked.First, do NOT fall through the trap door of taking on the burden of proof. This is trickier in non-judicial states than judicial states but it is still possible to shift the burden of proof onto the pretender lenders if you do the right things and of course, if the Judge agrees with you. Remember these strategies presented here are valid in my judgment — but tactical, strategic and legal considerations by local licensed counsel trump anything I say here. And for those of you considering class actions, which appear to be popping up all over the country, leave the door open to "fraud on the market." By its very nature it is ipso facto a class action and eliminates many hurdles.In all cases, I strongly recommend a forensic review with all four legs of the stool, lest you tip over and fall on your ass. The TILA audit is not only not enough, it is incomplete without considering inflated appraisals, UCC, SEC and chain of title. Without ALL elements present you can't allege the right things that will enable you to argue that the right to rescind never started running because they withheld the identity of the real lender. Without the securitization information, you can't allege that the opposing party is a pretender lender. Without the chain of title information you can't allege that your rescission is effective and that off-record unreported fees and profits were earned. Without the inflated appraisal, you can't allege that the APR on the good faith estimate is not only wrong, it is fraudulent diverting the borrower's attention from what is clearly a usurious loan.And the forensic review process should INCLUDE the debt validation letter (DVL), the Qualified Written Request (QWR) and probably a notice of rescission under the three-day rule even if the closing was years ago. The good news is that with the QWR there is no restriction on the number of questions you can ask, there is a statutory duty to answer it and you can get a TRO just based upon the fact that RESPA has been invoked.I strongly advise that you retain a firm with a subscription to ABSnet that renders a separate and independent report on the loans of the specific class representatives so that you can produce, in court, copies of public records documents in the public domain that are subject to judicial notice to create the presumption that these defendants can't possibly own the note. By doing this, when asked about these specific loans rather than the way things work generally, you can say that these loans definitely did operate in the usual way, that you have copies of the public records to show, and that if the facts are any different it is only because the defendants did not properly report their activities to the SEC or have otherwise failed to answer basic questions of the borrowers like "who is my lender?"Don't leave an issue floating which is central to the entire securitization defense and offense: that it isn't so much whether they will suffer a loss for each foreclosure, but rather that they stand to lose nothing and gain everything. One of the following is true:1. They don't own the note and they have no authority to enforce the note or mortgage because they are not named on it and they have not been given express authority by the holders of the the note and mortgage along with indemnification for all costs, expenses, and claims.
2. They don't own the note and they have authority to enforce the note or mortgage because they have been given express authority by the holders of the the note and mortgage along with indemnification for all costs, expenses, and claims.Either way they don't own the note. By definition that is what securitization means. The reason for the procedure invoking limited discovery is to force these parties to either put up or shut up. Non-judicial process was never intended and could never be constitutionally applied as a mere trick to avoid due process. If these parties wish to initiate foreclosure they must, whether it is a judicial process or a judicial process, possess the attributes of the basic jurisdictional elements of standing and they must possess the attributes of being authorized to proceed by the true parties in interest i.e., the necessary and indispensable parties. The fact that a state allows non-judicial process does not grant carte blanche to any wily person or entity to try its hand at foreclosure and see if they get away with it.Whether you started in non-judicial or judicial forum, you are in court now. The pretender lenders wish to defend the against the borrowers' claims. They have no standing to defend except as nominal parties unless they can show they have legal standing and that the necessary and indispensable parties are present, disclosed and accounted for in this action. Defendants seek to divert the court's attention from the most basic elements of due process and fairness when they allege the "loss" they will suffer as "lenders." They are not lenders. That is the point of the lawsuit. If they are allowed to continue to raise defenses and make allegations without establishing the basic jurisdictional elements of legal standing and without establishing and disclosing the real parties in interest, then the entire case and all foreclosures are a mere charade, inviting any unscrupulous character to attempt to create color of title over the loan and the foreclose on it.Each day these defendants (pretender lenders) are allowed to proceed under cover of plausible deniability is another day in which the title of Plaintiffs/Borrowers will be further clouded by further off-record activity that will become on-record when they choose to do so, all in transactions conducted under cloak of secrecy and deception. The situation is bad enough without allowing these defendants (pretender lenders) to make this court complicit in their fraudulent claims, resulting in clouded and unmarketable title.
38 Responses
angry & not taking it, on June 21, 2009 at 12:24 pm said:
abby
GRAMM is "pompous lecherous deceitful self-imposed windbag" that karma will take care of… along with the likes of "THE BUSH family".
i'm just so tired of being bled dry by the entire "death by fee's group"..sheeesh!!
enuff already ; [
Del Chia, on June 21, 2009 at 10:01 am said:
Below is a draft outline of a paper I am trying to write titled: Banking on Default: Wells Fargo's Role in the Subprime Crisis. (My family has been to hell with them — we are not back yet as eviction is scheduled for 6/6/09, we have no funds and no place to go). Still we are in Federal Court with our complaint. What follows is the what I think is the context of why this happened. It is a tear sheet from the S&L Crisis — money flood the commercial real estate market, lots of over building, then bust, then lots of REO, lots of bank failures and industry consolidation. One of the key learnings from that period is that there was not a distribution channel for all the REOs. Well, Wells Fargo has led the industry on that front. Go to SEC filings and check out a free writing prospectus by Wells Fargo Asset Securities dated 2/1/08. Even before they foreclosed on our house, the were advertising "dealer shelf" products for some of the subprime and Alt- products they supposedly sold to Lehmans and others. They are advertised as "100% Wells Fargo Controlled." Anyway, I think there has to be something all of us can do if we want to to put some pressure on Congress to stop this until after an investigation has decided what to do with the banks. I am wiling to share my phone number, start a website, pay for a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal demanding they stop destroying innocent lives. Let me know if any of you are serious. And I would appreciate your comments to the outline on the paper I am writing. Any suggestions would be great. I believe all of us should unit and be a part of any hearings and investigation going. If you want to start a movement, I am game. I am ready, now. Please let me know.
DRAFT OUTLINE
1. Was the subprime crisis caused by a benevolent policy goal of trying to get people into affordable housing? Or, was the banking industry's lobby able to convince a few in the Government that a few, strong, national banks should be major players in real estate brokerage and management?
2. A public policy goal never discussed in the media is alluded to in the 1996 Mortgage Banking Handbook issued by the Office of the Comptroller ("OCC"):
"Depository institutions have traditionally originated residential mortgage loans to hold in their loan portfolios, and mortgage banking is a natural extension of this traditional origination process. Although it can include loan origination, mortgage banking goes beyond this basic activity. A bank that only originates and holds mortgage loans in its loan portfolio has not engaged in mortgage banking as defined here… The general shift from traditional lending to mortgage banking activities has taken place in the context of a more recent general shift by commercial banks from interest income activities to non-interest, fee generating activities."
3. Since the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act ("GLBA") in 1999, the banking industry and its regulators have tried to make the case that real estate brokerage and management (a non-interest, fee generating activity) are financial in nature. In December 2000, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury ("FEDS") released a proposal to would allow banking companies into new real estate businesses, under Sections 103 and 121 of GLBA. Their proposal was controversial then, and is especially so today. Congress has prevented the FEDS from finalizing their proposed rules through an annual prohibition included in the legislation that funds the Treasury Department.
4. In response to the FEDS proposal in 2000, every Congress since has introduced "The Community Choice in Real Estate Act" (currently H.R. 111) that would "…prohibit the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Secretary of the Treasury, respectively, from determining that real estate brokerage activity or real estate management activity is financial in nature, is incidental to any financial activity, or is complementary to a financial activity." Though the Act has never passed (it was last introduced in 2007), support for the prohibition has managed to keep the Federal Reserve's and Treasury's proposal from formally allowing the national banks into real estate brokerage and management.
5. Every time the national banks are supposedly banned from entering the "commerce" of real estate brokerage and management, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) celebrates. But if you take a close look at Wells Fargo's new business model, the national banks ARE in real estate brokerage and management. In fact, they have completely altered the industry of residential real estate as we have known it. Using "the back door entrance" that the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) left wide open, National Banks, since 1983, have been able to engage in real estate as agent (i.e., servicers) or trustee for its customers (specifically, investors). From the OCC's Annual "Activities Permissible for a National Bank, Cumulative," (April, 1999):
"Real Estate Brokerage and Related Activities as a Fiduciary: National bank with fiduciary powers may engage in certain real estate brokerage and related activities as a fiduciary … (e.g., management of real property as agent or trustee for its customers). OCC Interpretive Letter (December 20, 1990), OCC Interpretive Letter (September 13, 1984), OCC Interpretive Letter (July 12.4, 1983). "
6. Subprime mortgages are securitized very differently from prime, "agency" (Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc.) loans (RMBS). Subprime, single family mortgages are securitized as if they were commercial loans. Parties to commercial loans being entered into a CMBS securitization are financially savvy and sophisticated. Commercial players don't go into investment vehicles unless they are legally represented and the terms of the loans are negotiated.
7. Investors in a CMBS could care less about FICO credit scores. They gauge the risk of their investment in a CMBS based on the default risk and loss severities. As a CMBS is not an agency loan with the explicit backing of the US Government, a CMBS will isolate different loans with similar risks in a specific tranche. The "A" rated, investment grade tranches are safe. The B tranche, subordinated category (a.k.a. junk bonds) are often called "Loan to own" and defaults are often engineered. They are high-risk, high-yield and are of great interest to speculative investors and hedge funds. The reason they will invest in these risky loans is often based solely on the liquated value of the asset.
7. The OCC banned "Loan-to-own" (a.k.a. asset-based) loans, common in commercial real estate deals, in 2004 as this type of loan was the root cause of the predatory lending schemes. The Office of the Comptroller of Currency ("OCC") prohibited national banks from making residential asset-based loans in Title 12: PART 34 as follows:
§ 34.3 (b) A national bank shall not make a consumer loan subject to this subpart based predominantly on the bank's realization of the foreclosure or liquidation value of the borrower's collateral, without regard to the borrower's ability to repay the loan according to its terms…8. With this ban, the OCC expected to eliminate "…the most egregious aspect of predatory lending, where a lender extends credit, not based on a reasonable determination of a borrower's ability to repay, but on the lender's calculation of its ability to foreclose on and appropriate the borrower's accumulated equity in his or her home."
9. Advances in data mining allow a lender to use credit data in complex calculations that produce a "…more finely-calibrated evaluation of what loan terms to offer…," even if those terms are advantageous to — and understood by — only the lender. Asset-based loan schemes in the residential home loan market are "…particularly damaging because these vulnerable borrowers often have no significant assets except the equity in their homes."
9. This Subprime debacle in the residential real estate market was a tear sheet out of the book of fairly recent real estate history. The following is Chapter 1 from the 1998 "Trends In Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities:"
" In the early years of the 1980s, a number of events drew enormous amounts of capital into the commercial real estate market…the most important source of the surge…was the deregulation of financial institutions…The combination of higher levels of deposit insurance and reduced regulatory oversight gave all financial institutions in general, but Savings and Loans in particular, the incentive to get money out the door as quickly as possible…The commercial market became so liquid that, by 1984, it was awash in a sea of liquidity. Interest rates on commercial loans were actually close to rates on Treasury securities of comparable maturity. Next, Loan-to-Value ratios rose to their highest levels in recent years…The prevailing attitude of the day was that all real estate loans would be buoyed by rising collateral values. Clearly, this party could not continue.
As happens in the aftermath of most parties, the artificially induced real estate boom of the middle 1980s produced a hangover known as overbuilding. Empty office buildings, shopping centers, and condominiums began littering the landscape…The consequence of these actions was a substantial rise in commercial mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures…The Federal Institutions, Reform and Recovery ACT (FIRREA) of 1989 pretty much took S&L's out of the commercial real estate market…So it came to be that the commercial mortgage market swung wildly from having an overabundance of liquidity in the middle 1980s to a shortage in the early 1990s. Since 1994 commercial real estate markets have rebounded sharply nationwide."10. Was this entire, sad, painful mess orchestrated by bank lobbyists in order to consolidate the industry and re-invent the banking industry as a major player in real estate brokerage and management? Were the borrowers who were targeted of low-to-moderate income? In our neighborhood, no less than 28 Wells Fargo Home Mortgage offices within a 30 mile radius of our home have sprung up to handle all the defaults, foreclosures, deeds-in-lieu in Northern Virginia. Contrary to its own public press, a recent research paper by the Center for Public Integrity (using government data) titled "Who's Behind the Financial Meltdown" puts Wells Fargo at number 8. http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/economic_meltdown/
Abby, on June 21, 2009 at 12:34 am said:
Snippet from Molly Ivins column:
…Gramm, the great crusader against government spending, has spent his entire life on the government tit. He was born at a military hospital, raised on his father's Army pay, went to private school at Georgia Military Academy on military insurance after his father died, paid for his college tuition with same, got a National Defense Fellowship to graduate school, taught at a state-supported school, and made generous use of his Senate expense account. In 1987, a Dallas developer named Jerry Stiles flew a construction crew to Maryland to work on Gramm's summer home. Stiles spent $117,000 on the project but was kind enough to bill Gramm only $63,433. When Stiles got in trouble for misusing funds from a savings and loan he owned, Gramm did him some "routine" favors with regulators. Stiles was later convicted on 11 counts of conspiracy and bribery.
As a member of the Senate Finance Committee and the recipient of enormous banking contributions, Gramm did an even bigger favor for the financial industry in 1999 when he sponsored the Financial Services Modernization Act allowing banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to combine. The bill weakened the Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to help meet the credit needs of low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Gramm described community groups that use the CRA as "protection rackets" that extort funds from the poor, powerless banks. The bill is also a disaster for the privacy of bank customers and weakens regulatory supervision. As Gramm proudly declared, "You're not going to find a single bank, insurance company, or securities company that will say they were hurt financially by this bill."
To be fair, Gramm occasionally found it in his heart to assist the poor — like the time he suggested that mothers on welfare would be better off working for $2.50 an hour. A more typical Gramm vote, though, came on an energy bill that benefited oil and gas companies at the expense of consumers. "There are winners and losers in every economic decision," Gramm said portentously. He was then getting more oil and gas money than any other member of the Senate….
Abby, on June 21, 2009 at 12:28 am said:
The one person in the Enron scandal whom congress is not likely to subpoena is its own revered Phil Gramm, the retiring Republican Senator from Texas . Gramm and his wife, Wendy, have tight links to Enron, Wendy being a director and Gramm the pusher of legislation that assisted the company during its troubles last year….
MORE:
In 2000, as the Supreme Court was naming Bush President, Senator Phil Gramm slipped a bill exempting energy trading from regulation into Clinton 's omnibus appropriations act, avoiding hearings, floor debate and notice. Enron was all set to operate in the dark.
Abby, on June 21, 2009 at 12:17 am said:
Gramm's support was later critical in the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which kept derivatives transactions, including those involving credit default swaps, free of government regulation.
In its 2008 coverage of the financial crisis, The Washington Post named Gramm one of seven "Key Players In the Battle Over Regulating Derivatives", for having pushed through several major bills to deregulate the banking and investment industries, including the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley act that brought down the walls separating the commercial banking, investment and insurance industries2008 Nobel Laureate in Economics Paul Krugman, a supporter of Barack Obama, described Gramm during the 2008 presidential race as "the high priest of deregulation," and has listed him as the number two person responsible for the economic crisis of 2008 behind only Alan Greenspan.
Former Senator Gramm lives in Helotes Texas with is Dr. wife.
One of his quotes is '"We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness."
AND YET ANOTHER QUOTE:
"In economics, we define labor exploitation as paying people less than their marginal value product. I recently told Ed Whitacre [former CEO of AT&T, who retired with a $158 million pay package] he was probably the most exploited worker in American history because he took Southwestern Bell, which was the smallest of the former Bell companies, and he turned it into the dominant phone company on earth. His severance package should have been billions."
Abby, on June 21, 2009 at 12:09 am said:
former Senator Phil Gramm was a Republican at the time he was in the US Congress. He had been a democrat from 1978-1983.
His background is as an economist.
You really need to at least read the summary of that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act!
Abby, on June 21, 2009 at 12:05 am said:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s106-900&tab=summary
this is the summary of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
which you will easily see as the root cause of
our mortgage meltdown problems today due to Mortgage Backed Securities and other SPVs.
Abby, on June 20, 2009 at 11:58 pm said:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1999-570
check this out to see which congressman voted in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
Abby, on June 20, 2009 at 11:53 pm said:
As I understand it, the former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas , was chairman of the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs. He spearheaded efforts to pass banking deregulation laws, including the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999,
which removed Depression-era laws separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities.Clinton signed it into law on Nov. 12, 1999.
GRAMM'S STATEMENT AT SIGNING CEREMONY
FOR GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT
Sen. Phil Gramm, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, made the following statement today in a ceremony at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building , where President Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law:"The world changes, and Congress and the laws have to change with it.
"Abraham Lincoln used to like to use the analogy that old and outmoded laws need to be changed because it made about as much sense to continue to impose them on people as it did to ask a man to wear the same clothes he did when he was a child.
"In the 1930s, at the trough of the Depression, when Glass-Steagall became law, it was believed that government was the answer. It was believed that stability and growth came from government overriding the functioning of free markets.
"We are here today to repeal Glass-Steagall because we have learned that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers. We have learned that we promote economic growth and we promote stability by having competition and freedom.
"I am proud to be here because this is an important bill; it is a deregulatory bill. I believe that that is the wave of the future, and I am awfully proud to have been a part of making it a reality."
THIS IS THE MAN THAT HAS CAUSED MILLIONS OF AMERICANS TO LOSE THEIR HOMES!!
Philip S., on June 20, 2009 at 7:42 pm said:
Hey does anybody find it odd that the same way that they pre-empttivelyy pooled, securitized, & sold all of our loans together is the same way they got pres wilson contracted to sign the federal reserve act in advance in exchange for campain support? it kind of troubles me… wondering what the secrate deal was for & who it was with this time around.
Abby in CA, on June 20, 2009 at 12:51 pm said:
Angry–I am in East Bay-Dublin. Yes, I got the 3 day notice to quit after Trustee's Sale . I never knew the date of Trustee's Sale, because as soon as my BKR was dismissed (I had a BKR attorney who did not know how to deal with anything related to foreclosure—he only knew basic BKR), they went ahead with Trustee's Sale to themselves. (US Bank sold the house to themselves at much less than what JP Morgan Chase reported to IRS as their loss).
The recordings are messy and illegal. So, I used that to fight my UD until I could file my Fraud/TILA complaint.
The 3 day notice to quit was scotch taped to my front door at the end of Oct. 2008. I am still in my home.
angry & not taking it, on June 20, 2009 at 10:23 am said:
abby i'm in cal also… i'm in marin county . you are ?
is your situation "3 day quit" after a trustee sale?
we are really being played by finance leeches & the courts are being made complicit in fraud & usury ; [thank you for sharing abby – i wish you the best of luck ,better yet i wish you
"the better case"
Abby in CA, on June 19, 2009 at 5:56 pm said:
bt–what state are you in?
Angry-what state are you in? I have a guide for Calif folks who got a 3 day notice to quit and then had a UD complaint filed against them by the entity which bought the home at the Trustee's Sale .
http://www.scribd.com/full/16401692?access_key=key-24ib1nw4hoa854uh33v8
Angry–what else are you lookig for regarding UD?
once you find the guide at the link above you can see what else I have posted. most is free. I'm going to be adding more.
maineloanmodifications, on June 19, 2009 at 2:05 pm said:
Does anyone have a template for a Counterclaim for damages? I'd like to turn up the heat on Countrywide.
angry & not taking it, on June 19, 2009 at 1:17 pm said:
mario
can you post a link to the case you mentioned…if it is still onsite .
tiaabby.. i noticed you mentioning UD file do you have a link?
thank you… both
bt, on June 19, 2009 at 12:22 pm said:
Does anyone have any knowledge of wrongful foreclsure cases or case law? especially in nonjudicial states?
Does anyone have any TRO/Prelim lawsuit examples for filing a suit to stop a sale date?
Can unaswered FDCPA dispute letters by trustee stop a sale date? what about unaswered RESPA QWr's?
Abby in CA, on June 19, 2009 at 9:13 am said:
Now Obama wants to bulldoze parts of cities! What's next, bulldoze the homes people have been evicted from and bailed out by TARP or federal bailout monies?
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_bulldoze_cities/2009/06/18/226677.html
MARIO KENNY, on June 19, 2009 at 1:18 am said:
I am telling my friend to order her settlement complete with credit repair a retired Judge told her she will be paid off in whole with interest and the home she has them cornered, very well and the amount is 4.5 million. I hope it works in the morning I will be the happiest man for her. Finally I can get some satisfaction for the suffering and hard work of millions, so many families have been destroyed, so many kids have lost their education and put out on the streets, so may pets have lost a place to live then the property stays in disrepair, sold for pennies on the buck in the end. Was it all worth it?. What will Obama really do? so far he has presided over the greatest misery in modern history, the price was so expensive and many people will never be made whole again. Homes are for people and families not for banks to trade and sell. the same people with the 401k plans lost their homes and the 401K all at once, these are true fools and their money who became separated from their money and their place to rest their head. I hope Obama wakes up and make the people whole again. If this continues it will be the saddest days ahead and we are all paying very dearly.
Peace is inside the human but this war is raging all around us in our own lives.
Abby in CA, on June 19, 2009 at 1:01 am said:
Mario–I know it was June's home, but once the bank has completed foreclosure and gone through an Unlawful Detainer case (in california ) in court and then gotten a Writ of Possession…it is done. You are given a notice by the Sheriff with a lockout date…and he/she comes and puts a new lock on the home.
June could have tried to fight the Unalwful Detainer in the courts….one has to act fast to do this, but I did it.
I've put a helpful guide on ScribD for folks who get the 3 Day Notice to Quit, which quickly turns into an Unlawful Detainer action in Calif.
Calif. is non-judicial foreclosure state, so the UD is the first time anyone is in court.
I hope for the best for June. I hope she gets her house back and does not end up in jail.
I assume her trial is still going on.
I maintain that it is a waste of money for the DA to pursue her in court.
MARIO KENNY, on June 19, 2009 at 12:48 am said:
Abby,
this is June`s home she was getting back into her own home, she was evicted from her premise, it was her home. How can you get in trouble for breaking into your own home?
Abby in CA, on June 19, 2009 at 12:45 am said:
Mario-what has happened with June in court?
We all need to make sure that we stay within the bounds of the law. Losing one's home is such an emotional thing and one can see why June chained herself to her home. I think what really got her into all the trouble was allegedly 'breaking'?? back into her home once she was locked out.
How tragic. I assume a DA is prosecuting June? He really should have let it go. What a waste of money!
MARIO KENNY, on June 19, 2009 at 12:25 am said:
While one of our own is getting a huge payoff the other is or may pay a high price protecting her home. This is a huge disgrace the think that few of us actually are able to support JUNE. My heart is totally broken in to pieces to think June will or may pay a price but we will do very well we must band together to succeed, alone we cannot prosper.
MARIO KENNY, on June 19, 2009 at 12:22 am said:
Her Lawyer was nothing to talk about, I once believed in him but I was dead wrong. I also will never speak his name, as it could get me in huge trouble. I hope you all believe this and we must support JUNE I am so hurt for her. The tears are bitter coming down my face I actually feel so very sad.
MARIO KENNY, on June 19, 2009 at 12:15 am said:
I will never be able to speak her name but she may get the money in the morning she cornered them, I had posted the case on this site some time ago and no one took heed. I am so happy for her we had planned this for about a year, when we would talk and plan day and night she worked hard.
Don, on June 19, 2009 at 12:04 am said:
Florida is judicial, I missed that! Just pumped that your friend is going to nail them!
Abby in CA, on June 19, 2009 at 12:03 am said:
Mario–keep us posted. Did your friend have an attorney? or pro-se?
Don, on June 19, 2009 at 12:02 am said:
MARIO:
Is your friend in a judicial or non-judicial state and what type of fraud did they get the vultures in?
MARIO KENNY, on June 18, 2009 at 11:54 pm said:
A friend of mine may settle out of court tomorrow for 4.5 Million plus the house with citigroup in Florida
david schaar, on June 18, 2009 at 4:00 pm said:
I filed an action to quiet title here in pa also filed suit against pretnder assignee of mortgage for fraud changing the assignment date to make it appear it bought mortgage 4 years later than it did, prior assignment was not recorded, for years after, will let u know dave gobb@ptd.net
TM, on June 16, 2009 at 6:58 pm said:
Has anyone posted any Quiet Title Actions that have been successful? If not is there anyone with the resources to find these cases and post them? I think it would be a great benefit to fight the pretend lenders . Thanks
Connie, on June 15, 2009 at 9:12 pm said:
Can Someone please help me !!! I am still in my car. I watched Obama become President, January 20, and now, nearly six months later my closed case has not been re-opened, and a new case has not been filed. I am pleading for relief, we are in our second year of being homeless. . Patience of Job? an understatement, even Noah and his family was on the water ( with a roof over their heads) for one year and seven days. We need a life preserver. My God this is my prayer, restore us. I would love due process, and a home-cooked hot meal for myself and children.
susan, on June 15, 2009 at 6:30 pm said:
read your post on MERS. Now my loan is with MERS and I AQURA loan service is servicing my mortgage. However, my loan has been transferred so many times with different entities. I have not made a payment since March. So my question who is going to start the foreclosure? MERS? In addition the originator of my loan was MLN who is now out of business. So what next?
Freedom, on June 15, 2009 at 2:39 pm said:
The membership to ABSnet costs $25,000.00 , that is a liitle high, I understand this may be necessary, however is there another way to get this relevant info without going broke in the process?
If an independant oan audit firm becomes a member of this outfit, to charge $500 per audit would be prohibitive.
any other alternatives? there is another company called Loan Performance Corp., but they charge $400,000 per membership, it is for banks and large investors only.
L.Fitzgerald, on June 15, 2009 at 1:27 pm said:
After reading the " Due Process, Discovery …."
I think I found areas where defendant was written where plaintiff should have been , and vis versa .
That happened a few times Please read the article over and correct the mistakes ….if any ?
Thanks for a great article.
L Fitzgerald, on June 15, 2009 at 12:45 pm said:
FANTASTIC REPORT ! ! ! !
BRAVO ! ! !I wish this could be published by every news media in the Nation! ! !
This is exactly what is happening to us. We have a hearing pending in a motion to set aside judgment.
I am well prepared and ready to stand up in front of the Judge and claim my rights. I was never given due process and there are no assignments in the Public Records!
The attorney assigned to us from the Legal Aid Dept is not doing anything, in fact, he is acting as being on the Plaintiff's side.
Abby in CA, on June 15, 2009 at 12:29 pm said:
Not a counter claim. I filed a completely separate fraud/TILA/civil rico etc. claim in Superior Court CA .
maineloanmodifications, on June 15, 2009 at 11:10 am said:
Abby,
Is this a Counterclaim or a did you raise this as a separate Complaint?
Abby in CA, on June 15, 2009 at 10:23 am said:
I just need one question answered please. One of my defendants in my fraud/TLA case, New Century Mortgage, the pretender lender, is in Chpt. 11 BKR in Delaware , thus their attorney maintains they do not have to answer interrogatories or do document production. How do i get this information? Do I file a Motion to Compel with the Chpt 11 BKR judge or go to my Superior Court judge in California .
I need thier information to continue with my case, I have 5 other named defendants
Would greatly appreciates some guidance on this.
House was already foreclosed on, but I am still in it and fighting.
I am pro se. Thx
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Re: Fw: Securitization in A Nutshell
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Jim Crow <cornmash008@yahoo.com> wrote:
