SEE wells-fargo-steps-on-a-rake-we-hope-eggs-a-new-country

SEE 2009-Ohio-1092

Exactly as we predicted, the Wells Fargo appeal was an arrogant display of attempting to alter the law simply on the basis of the size of the institution. Bullying at its stupidest. They were looking to create precedent to say that anyone in the securitization chain can bring enforcement of a note, anyone can bring enforcement of an obligation, and anyone can bring enforcement of an encumbrance (mortgage or deed of trust). Their brazen approach was rejected by Ohio trial and appellate courts, and then summarily rebuffed by the Ohio Supreme Court who simply won’t even hear their argument.

Arthur Meyer, arguably one the most preeminent experts on banking, has repeatedly said that every five years bankers like to step on a rake. This they did when they decided to play in a game of financial Russian roulette and then tried to steamroll over their mistakes in court. You can of course fool some of the courts all the time, and for a while they were fooling all the courts all the time, but they cannot get past the adage in paraphrase that “you can’t fool all the courts all the time.” These players — all of them — are impostors with only a fraudulent scheme on the agenda. In the process they are causing a massive national bottleneck of title problems that will haunt anyone involved in land transfers for decades to come.

The inescapable fact is that there are two ends of a stick. You cannot pick up one without picking up the other. On one end is the “investor” who purchased a financial product defined as mortgage backed securities; on the other end is the homeowner who purchased a financial product defined as an asset backed security. The two securities are inextricably linked. Without the investor, there would be no homeowner doing any transaction. Without the homeowner, there would be no investor doing any transaction. This simple truth requires us to center in on one single question: who is the Lender in this transaction and how do we talk to him/her/them/it?

19 Responses

  1. ACS foreclosed on me and by doing so they breached the mortgage contract and violated the “Fair Debt Collection Act.” as well. I requested my loan history to see all the applications of payments transactions posted on my account for the last year of 2009 and they refused to provide. Under the “Fair Debt Collection Act.” I have the right to the information I requested . They breached the mortgage contract because there is no true default on the mortgage payments. According to the mortgage contract or the “Deed of Trust” they can foreclose only if there is a default. I have always paid the mortgage on time either in full or according to ACS terms under loan modification plans during two trial periods pending disposition of the applications. The amount I owe are the discounts of the trial periods and now they want me to pay all the discounts at once called it default and moved on with foreclosure. ACS violated Fair Debt Collection Act by not providing the information I requested on my loan and foreclosed without default just to get the money back from the trial periods discounts for which they agreed upon, especially that I was current with my mortgage pmts when I applied for loan mod. They are good to pay for all the damaged they created and fined for breaching of mortgage contract.

  2. Lisa E

    Details! Details make the DIFFERENCE ……..

    So I ask …. Where’s the lubricant ?

    (For others reading this…. It’s not about legal strategy.)

  3. Hmmmmmmmmm, let’s see if I get this……..

    There’s a big ole’ stick.

    I’ve got one end.

    The similarly financially ruined investor has the other end.

    There’s a bunch of middle men bent over picking up the money that the homeowners and the investors dropped during the shakedown.

    Hmmmmmmm……….big stick…………bent over middle men………

    I dunno.

    What to do seems pretty obvious to me!

    Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
    Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)

  4. I think I should set up a “Foreclosure Defense” Kiosk in the parking lot across the street from their branch. That would be FUN!

  5. Jose, is that Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corpotation, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., or HSBC as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities ____ ____ Trust 200_-1-12? Yes, they ARE schizophrenic, but they are the same company. They list in the SEC 384(?) registrants. I say again, my mortgage (Wells Fargo Home Equity Asset-Backed 2005-2) is held under a 1999 Trust that houses former Norwest Bank assets (actually, they are liabilities in the form of uncollectable/extinguished loans). Wells Fargo is a glass half-full, of *&%$!

  6. The issues presented in Wells Fargo v. Jordan see http://wp.me/pClhN-l go beyond the greed or arrogance of banks, they go to the constitutional rights of citizens in Ohio and elsewhere to live free of anyone using the color of law and the cloak of the courts without even owning the note or mortgage that they are trying to foreclose

  7. zurenarrh,

    MERS is not a duck.
    It doesn’t walk like a duck.
    Look or Talk like a DUCK.

    If a state law says that’s OK;
    it’s STILL a duck, I think I’d try
    my luck in a Federal Venue

    Otherwise I’d have to consider
    clicking my heels THREE TIMES
    and maybe I’d end up moving to
    Kansas, Arkansas or perhaps a
    Nevada jurisdiction.

    YES. I’m being cynical. ;O)

    Is there someone here that can shed
    more light as to the consequences of these
    Connecticut views?

  8. Holy lack of consideration, angry & not taking it–checked out MERS on the site you linked to and read this opinion from an attorney:

    “The Connecticut procedure flows from the concept of “bearer paper,” where the mortgage follows the debt and a party entitled to enforce the note should be able to enforce the mortgage (especially when it is the named mortgagee, as is MERS in a MERS mortgage). This concept has been established for about 200 years and is codified in Sections 3-109 and 3-301 of the Uniform Commercial Code. A promissory note is bearer paper when it has been endorsed in blank by endorsement or allonge.

    Simply stated, any party that possesses bearer paper is entitled to enforce it. Because MERS’s agreements with its members provide for the members to maintain the original note endorsed in blank, MERS may obtain possession of the bearer paper by two means. First, certain officers of the MERS member are also certifying officers of MERS, therefore allowing an in-house transfer of the note. The second method, for states such as Connecticut that require production of the original note, is delivery of the original note to the plaintiff’s attorneys, which may constitute delivery to MERS because the attorneys are on record as being the agents of MERS. While this procedure has not been tested on an appellate level, it has been regularly applied in Connecticut and is based on a statewide rule.”

    This is from 2006 and may now have been “tested on an appellate level,” but if not–geez louise! Read that $#!+ again:

    1) “certain officers of the MERS member are also certifying officers of MERS, therefore allowing an in-house transfer of the note”

    2) ” delivery of the original note to the plaintiff’s attorneys, which may constitute delivery to MERS because the attorneys are on record as being the agents of MERS”

    I’m flabbergasted that they would think any of this BS would withstand the slightest scrutiny…although #2 does sound an awful lot like what maineloanmodifications is describing in his comment from 10:54 a.m.

  9. Wells Fargo is truly the stage coach to hell!!

  10. maineloanmodifications said:

    “Why would they go through the trouble of conjuring up multiple fake assignments to themselves if their defense argument has any validity?”


    Why is it that MERS says “no assignments are necessary” throughout the life of the loan and then when they want to “authorize” themselves or someone else to steal your house, suddenly assignments are very important and very necessary?

    It’s interesting that you are in a battle with BAC fka CW–I am too. The more motions and memorandums they file, the clearer it becomes that they don’t really have much of a defense. In fact, at one point, they suggested dismissing “the entire matter” if they are not the real parties in interest!

  11. my brother was foreclosed by Wells Fargo, when his lawyer took his eye off the ball, however, we recently found by looking into all his paper work that Wells Fargo, used three different identities to cheat with their lawyers the system. The judge did not catch the fact that every time well fargo filed a lawsuit they used the same loan number but the decided to use three different Well Fargo entity names.

    They wanted to game the system, now with all this decisions things will definitely change on his favor.

    We should all call our local media and share the good news to see if they dare to report on it. I doubt it.

  12. I can see the false “truth” that these bunch of thieves have been trying to pull on us all crumbling (crying,sure!), once again ladies and gentlemen, i can see and hear the EVIL MACHINE breaking down, evil can only do so much before justice over runs it!! the end may not be near, but is certainly closer than 12/18 months ago. And as days go by the thieves are getting closer to have to buy themselves a jar of baseline!!
    To Victory America!!!!!!

  13. I am the victim twice of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage that claims to be the Lender and offered me a Loan Modification that is still pending. I know that Wells Fargo is not the holder of the “NOTE” because one dos not exist; The original lender was First Frankling which also victimized me forclosing a ghouse that a never fail a payment loosing in two years $70,000.00 dollars including a down payment of $23,000.00 that I paid in 2007. I nee all the help that any one can offer.


  14. maineloanmodifications

    look into this before you raise your argument re MERS fraudulent representatives claim ..i believe i found [sorry i’m a blur after 36 hrs of reading].
    mers has an affiliate arrangement with servicer’s. i dont know if or how it holds up to challenge..check 1st & see if the info re mers is here @ http://www.usfn.org.
    good luck!

  15. Old hands here already know this, but for the newer folks to the site the case started in Ohio lower courts as Wells V Jordan. Oties Jordan, the homeowner, represented as a pro se litigant in his Appeal to the 8th District Appellate Court of Ohio (I don’t know about the lower court case). As far as I know he represented the same for the Ohio Supreme Court case as well.

    I don’t discourage people from hiring affordable, available and competent counsel, if such can be found in your area and in a timely way. But many are forced by one circumstance or another to act pro se. There are cases being defended by some pro se litigants that are meeting with success. Do not be discouraged in this either.

  16. Its what I recommend to every lawyer NEXT, you MUST sue the law firm, lawyers and does and roes you are entitled to ID and must serve. Suing the lawyers gets this settled faster!

  17. Precisely. We need to stick to a basic Black Letter Law for Defense. When, and they will, commit Fraud on the Court through fraudulent assignments and false representations, the Defendant must become an Offendant(if you will) and move the Courts for Sanctions for nefarious conduct. See Nosek vs Ameriquest, Judge Shack’s cases, ect…

    I just had a Motion for Summary Judgment dismissed because the Plaintiff (Countrywide) could not prove it was the holder of the note, and provided no admissible evidence to the Court.

    I have already Moved for Sanctions based on Ameriquest vs Nosek, and a couple Judge Shack Cases in NY where fraudulent assignments were discovered.

    I just received the Plaintiff’s response to my motion for Sanctions. Their arguments are weak. Their are relying on MERS policy to appoint members as “official agents”, I will rip this argument apart using the 2 recent Supreme Court decisions against MERS, furthermore, even MERS’s policy does not call for outright fraudulent strawmen posing as AVP for multiple parties.

    Countrywide, now dba as BOA, is trying to use their weakness, that they are so layered, where America’s Wholesale Lender acts as a funding unit, cannot have standing, so they commit fraud in assigning Notes electronically through MERS to the subsequest Countrywide parties, and now enevitably to BOA, who is really the US Government? as their argument. They claim because America’s Wholesale was their trade name, that they can merely claim possession of the Note because its purportedly endorsed in blank and America’s was a Countrywide unit. That’s a stretch. Why would they go through the trouble of conjuring up multiple fake assignments to themselves if their defense argument has any validity?

    Now the Plaintiff (now presumably BOA) through the same Counsel, Schectman Halperin Savage, is purporting to have the Note in their possession. Since when does UCC law allow for a Negotiable Instrument to be in possession of a lawyer, purporting it to be Bearer Paper and enforcible by anyone who possesses it? Must it not be accepted for Consideration paid? Yes. Furthermore, MERS cannot electronically nor physically assign Notes.

    Yet they allege to hold it, which is Hearsay, and they’ve provided no admissible evidence to suggest they represent the Real Party in Interest. We all know the real party is likely thousands of other people who all share an interest in the same pool of notes. They have committed a Fraud on the Court through Affidavits and Pleadings alleging to be the Holders of the Note. They are going down the same road as Ameriquest’s counsel did in Nosek vs Ameriquest.

    I am preparing a response to their arguments as I write this. Wish me luck.

  18. More evidence that will help us all. Thank God the courts are not owned by the banks. Neils comments and this site is the number one place to educate oneself and take action to keep you home. Most of what is going on is just because most of us just think we did something wrong. I am working with Charles Lincoln foreclosure help. He is looking for potential victims and witnesses to put together a class action suit against Wells Fargo. Call Robert @ 860-599-5557 Good luck everyone.

  19. “This simple truth requires us to center in on one single question: who is the Lender in this transaction and how do we talk to him/her/them/it?”

    If all this lawyerly language confuses you, just read the above quoted statement 10 times before you go to bed. When you wake up, you should know what to do.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: