11 Responses

  1. And the beat goes on …

    Foreign banks find fortune in crisis


  2. Bob cheers. This will help me

  3. How was this piece of information obtained?

  4. Consider banks/lenders loan agreement,money and bookkeeping entries, a truthful,whole truthful explaination . Which is equal protection of both parties. Ask the banker/lender should the one that funded the assumed loan(exchange) be repaid the money. Ask banker/lender to sign affadavit that you are wroung. Did you agree to be swindled? It’ an exchange not a loan. Fraud and Usury Violations. Wake up people ,We deserve justice and Truth!

  5. Speaking of fraud, here is a good example of a recent winning Opposition to a bank’s motion and two copies of a note:

  6. Their is only one word here, MONEY, MONEY talks and bull-shit walks,Its Frude, documentation does not lie,
    no sanctions by the judges, then no enforcement of the rule of law, they will play the odd’s and win just about every time. We need a U.S. law to stop this action. the only real party in interest is the “Homeowner”

  7. Bob G.

    It’s all here and plain as day … please open http://www.scribd.com/doc/31943068/Machado-PBC-037322-Transmittal-Letter
    The Investor (Deutsche Bank) is named on the form but the law firm is instructed to sue in another name Indymac … this is FRAUD and it is done because the supporting documentation (or in this case lack of documentation) does not lead all the way back to Deutsche Bank or if it does it shows that the note was split off (“bifurcated”) and is no longer valid.. Indymac has no interest in the mortgage. If they succeed the law firm is instructed to put the loan/house in the name of Deutsche Bank National Trust as Trustee…

    ** dear website designer ** can a “preview post” function be added?? Thanks**

  8. So far, all judges appear to have done is sanction the party causing the fraud to have been committed. I am seeing that in only a few cases (like In re Nosek) that on appeal, sanctions are reversed, especially where the fraud is obvious or can be proven. Mark Mausert and others claim a different approach, in the filing of documents under NRS 357. Most every state has such a similar statute, but in order to enforce it, you have to file a criminal complaint with the county district attorney that is affected; however, they may be reluctant to enforce it (primarily because they don’t understand what it is you’re asking them to consider as a fraudlent fiing in the courthouse records) … you might consider suing the County Recorder for failing to enforce the statute, which will bring the County Attorney into the fray and THEN the DA will be notified and will be “asked” to enforce the statute. DA’s customarily only take cases that further their political careers. These cases are eggs on faces.

  9. The fraud needs to be explained better.

    I don’t understand the fraud issue involved.

  10. From Scribd Comments:

    Machado (PBC 037322) Transmittal Letter
    This is a copy of a Foreclosure Transmittal Package letter from IndyMac to a foreclosure mill law firm through the Fidelity and LPS system. This i… (More) This is a copy of a Foreclosure Transmittal Package letter from IndyMac to a foreclosure mill law firm through the Fidelity and LPS system. This is what the LPS system sends out to law firms in their network. You can clearly see that it provides all the information about the loan, who the real party in interest is and it instructs the law firmst to foreclose in the names of parties that are not the real party in interest. (Less)

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: