Due Process, Discovery and Burden of Proof

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

  1. 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 ; [

  2. 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/

  3. 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….

  4. 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.

  5. 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 industries

    2008 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.”

  6. 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!

  7. 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.

  8. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1999-570

    check this out to see which congressman voted in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

  9. 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!!

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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”

  13. 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.

  14. Does anyone have a template for a Counterclaim for damages? I’d like to turn up the heat on Countrywide.

  15. mario
    can you post a link to the case you mentioned…if it is still onsite .
    tia

    abby.. i noticed you mentioning UD file do you have a link?

    thank you… both

  16. 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?

  17. 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

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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?

  21. 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!

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. Florida is judicial, I missed that! Just pumped that your friend is going to nail them!

  26. Mario–keep us posted. Did your friend have an attorney? or pro-se?

  27. MARIO:

    Is your friend in a judicial or non-judicial state and what type of fraud did they get the vultures in?

  28. A friend of mine may settle out of court tomorrow for 4.5 Million plus the house with citigroup in Florida

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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.

  32. 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?

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. Not a counter claim. I filed a completely separate fraud/TILA/civil rico etc. claim in Superior Court CA.

  37. Abby,
    Is this a Counterclaim or a did you raise this as a separate Complaint?

  38. 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

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: