OHIO SLAM DUNK by Judge Morgenstern-Clarren: US BANK TRUSTEE and OCWEN Crash and Burn

Pretender Lenders — read and weep. Game Over. Over the next 6-12 months the entire foreclosure mess is going to be turned on its head as it becomes apparent to even the most skeptical that the mortgage mess is just that —  a mess. From the time the deed was recorded to the time the assignments, powers of attorneys, notarizations and other documents were fabricated and executed there is an 18 minute Nixonian gap in the record that cannot be cured. Just because you produce documents, however real they appear, does not mean you can shift the burden of proof onto the borrower.

If you say you have a claim, you must prove it. If you say you are the lender, you must prove it.

Bottom Line: Every acquisition of residential real property that was allegedly subject to a securitized mortgage is subject to nullification whether it was by non-judicial foreclosure, judicial foreclosure, short-sale, modification or just a regular sale. Every foreclosure, short-sale or modification is subject to the same fatal flaw. Pension funds are not going to file foreclosure suits even though they are the ones who allegedly own the loans.

Legislators take notice: Just because bankers give you money doesn’t mean they can change 1000 years of common law, statutory law and constitutional law. It just won’t fly. And if you are a legislator looking to get elected or re-elected, your failure to act on what is now an obvious need to clear title and restore the wealth of your citizens who were cheated and defrauded, will be punished by the votes of your constituents.

In_Re_Wells_Bankruptcy_OH_ND_Decision_22_Jun_2009

memo_20090212_Motions for Relief From Stay Update – Endorsement of Note by Alleged Attorney-in-Fact_pmc-2

memo_20080709_Additional Guidance on Motions for Relief From Stay_pmc-1

memo_20080212_Tips for How a Motion for Relief From Stay Can Proceed Smoothly Through the Court _pmc-1

memo_19980824_Motions for Relief From Stay_pmc-1

6 Responses

  1. Thank you MAX!!

  2. Apply for relief. You can also make a claim that your access tot he courts is being blocked and that you are unable to pay such a high filing fee. I’m not so sure how this is actually working since it just recently went into effect. But one thing you can do is go into Federal Court or file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy where the filing fees are much lower. Don’t give up, Go get ’em! Consult with local counsel either on our list or someone else you “gets it”. They usually will work things out with you on the fees and costs.

  3. Great Site – very informative, but, realistically, how are the borrowers in Florida supposed to use this information in their Counterclaims when they now have to pay $1,900 in filing fees?
    $50,000 or less will pay $395.
    $50,001 to $250,000 will pay $900.
    $250,001 or more will pay $1,900.
    Using an Attorney “that gets it” will cost money (well spent). Placing an “affordable” amount of mortgage payment in an escrowed account monthly (to show good faith) costs money. Now, coupled with these huge filing fee increases, the public’s rights of redress and recovery in the Courts are effectively curtailed. You may have the best argument(s) against foreclosure and for recovery, but if you must waive your rights to Counterclaims because of the cost, you lose.

  4. This is not the same case as the previous article about ” Wells Fargo stepping on a rake.” Is this the same one?

    also, how do we view archived articles?

  5. Wells v US Bank is one of the three most important cases on the issue of whether or not the residential mortgage backed trust trualy transferred and assigned all of the notes up the line from the originators to the Trustees. And, the case does away with the mispalced notion that an Allonge can be used dto prvoe up anything. Wonderful case from a great Bankruptcy Judge.

  6. See the whole story at http://www.chicagotribune.com

    WASHINGTON 1:23 P.M., June 29, 2009–The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can apply wsome of their own laws to big national banks operating within their borders, a decision proponents calleda huge win for consumers and for states seeking more power to regulate financial activities.

    The high court ruled that a state attorney general cannot on his own issue a subpoena against a bank that has branches in that state and others. HOWEVER, THE COURT ALSO SAID THAT NATIONAL BANKS ARE SUBJECT TO SOME STATE LAWS UNDER THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT, AND AN ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN GO TO COURT TO ENFORCE THOSE LAWS. (EMPHASIS ADDED).

    “What this decision today says is that states have the ability to enforce their own laws, (against national banks) as long as they follow state due-process procedures, which generally mean issuance of a subpoena which can be challenged in court,” said lawer John Cooney, a former assistant solicitor general counsel at the Office of Management and Budget.

    ….the story continues….

    The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals of New York City had ruled that the responsibility for such investigations rests with the Comptroller of the Currency, a part of the Treasury Department, and other federal agencies.

    Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan said he was disappointed with the ruling. (read the balance of the story)

    I’ll bet he was.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: