How the Other Side Sees Us

From a comment from icetea

Here’s a good powerpoint to read

http://www.mortgagebankers.org/files/Conferences/2010/LIRC/LIRC1011Lit1Huo.pdf.

Note that this is just the common view of most banks to litigation and what causes of action they are most prepared for.

As a Pro Se, I have learned that reading appellate decisions about how claims fail is very instructive (even if it isn’t a foreclosure case). What you may soon learn is that you can lose right at the beginning (to borrow from Neil’s admonition to win at the beginning).

• Most pro se litigants know just enough procedure to kill their cases from the get go and even a skilled attorney brought in later can’t fix what was broken.

• Many attorneys write crappy pleadings and were a complete waste of money for their client.

• You have to put in the very long hours at a real law library. Find your state/federal causes of action reference texts and learn the rules of what you have to plead – or should plead – in your complaint or answer.

• Learn about how cases get removed from State to Federal court and what that means to you – especially Twombly pleading standards.

• Learn the procedures of the court you are in. Not just the official statutes but find some books written to get attorneys up to speed on the procedures and terminology.

• Learn to search appeals decisions for your court (this is often available from the web). With a bit of keyword search skill, you can get access to how your state/fed court views the rules for proving various claims or how it views things like recission, Lis Pendens, injuctions etc.

• Evidence, evidence, evidence. Learn your court’s rules and objections. (If you watch Neil’s youtube vids, you might see a classic text on Evidence in the background … hint hint) Some of the books on evidence are massive so you will have to learn about what parts are likely to affect your case.

• Most of all, if you are going to do this Pro Se, you cannot learn everything you need to know from the web. Hit the real books made out of dead trees!

• Whatever you do, don’t mistake a rant against securitization (of which this blog has thousands) as a sufficient basis for your pleadings or motions.

Its way more work than you think. This is also why picking the right attorney with specific experience in this area of litigation – and familiarity with modern foreclosure defense – is critical.

114 Responses

  1. Patrick Pulati is a waste of all of your time. He is a phony who goes on these blogs to try to find people and scam them into buying his LFI Analytics crap. He got me to believe he is really an expert on this via his shill buddy lawyer friend Brian Angelini. Brian Angelini who I met via Patrick Pilati told me to pay for the audit and that he could help me for $800 a month to save my home. Patrick Pulati told me his audit costs $2000. as I spoke with him and told him of different lawyers I knew, he kept dropping his price, drop drop drop…then told me he will pay me referral fees if I open doors for him. I sent over mounds of violations by Chase where they fraudulently inflated my payments by 250% overnight and refused to give me any accounting of the reasons.
    They charged me monthly for insurance which I paid myself and never rectified the situation for a year. They offered me cash and forgiveness to move and then cancelled on the deal 4 months later. They offered me a repayment plan and sent me the docs only after the first payment is due, it goes on and on and on. Well after Pulati looked over the paperwork and went on and on as if he spent day and night on this for 10 days, I get a stupid report with like 3 things and the numbers were not even accurate. Like he said my taxes are $3000 a year. Ridiculous, how reliable is his report if he throws out numbers that are not even accurate? I was shocked to see none of the violations were listed which were intentionally done so the bank could steal my home.
    When I confronted him he proceeded to tell me I was an elitist because I complained about the growing crime in my area due to gangs. He told me he lives near areas where there are shootings and he doesn’t complain. What a freak show. He tried to do character assassination on me so the issue that he is a inept would not be addressed. I hung up on him realizing he is just a ridiculous, foolish person. He babbled on defending the banks and the bank bailouts. What more do you need to know. He has no intention to help and is a troll who
    goes around touting himself to be an expert. Stay away and do not waste your energy on this flake! You are all right, he is pro banks and understands nothing about the dervitives and scams the banks pulled on the people. He knows nothing behind the scenes and refuses to even educate himself believing the lies of the media. (Google sChristopher Story who was financial advisor to Margaret Thatcher, he spoke the truth and it is all fraud on the people the banks have no right to steal our homes!!)
    I plan to forward all documents and complaints to the Attorney General,
    BBB, FBI, etc. There are government warnings out there now that 99% of these auditors are frauds. I believed Patrick might be ok since that attorney told me to use him to build my case. Now I see, the atty. does that just to get his referral fee from Pulati.
    He should be kicked off of his website because he is a troll on here pretending he is somebody.

    Signed,

    Disgusted

  2. please notify me a
    ldmendoza2003@yahoo.com

  3. to edgetraderplus, im sorry for not thanking you sooner. i did get you advice. thank you for taking the time to respond to me. the hearing on the summary judgement went like this. i did not file any opposition to the summary judgement because in the past i have filed pleadins and the judge was ready to rule a minute after the hearing started so this time i found out that you could oral argue your opposition and thats what i did but not before i asked the judge to recuse himself on what i felt him and the attorney to have a working relationship. i explained to the judge that i knew that the attorney had a little over 20 cases there in unlawful detainer court all representing wells farg bank, na. i told the judge that the attorney had boiler palte motions to strike in which the judge granted on all. i told the judge that the attorney can not be possibly right on all accounts when it came to affirmitave defense on all defendants. the judge denied my motion to recuse eplaining that he only serves on the bench for 4 months that he rotates. (wonder what he rotates on)! so there for he does not have a working relationship with the attorney, end of that story. second i argued the summary judgement. when i was served the 3 day quit the attorney for wells fargo cited california civil code procedure 1161a. under this 1161a it states that this section only applies to floating homes, mobil homes and manufactored homes. then if you want to proced to 1161b you can but the attorney did not. the judge paused for a minute then the attorney spoke up and said “your honor i had to get the book out too just to see what ms mendoza was refering to. but your honor under subsection, “object your honor by ms. mendoza” your honor on the notice to quit the attorney for the plaintiff only cited 1161a which i recited. then i proceded to explain to the judge that the plaintiff not the plaintiff attorney has yet to prove that they have the endorsed note which grants them the entitlement to foreclose on my property. i explained to the judge that all plaintiff has produced was a trustee deed of sale which anyone can record at our county recorders office. then i brought the fact that the attorney had submitted documents showing how wachovia and wells fargo merged. i had documents showing how the merge took place between world savings, glden west and wachovia. that it wasnt a mear name change and that all certificates could be cashed out and reinvested or just cashed out. that no old certificates were going to be transfered with the merged. sooooooo that was wednesday august 25th and as of today september 1, 2010 i still have not recieved in the mail the order granting the summary judgement or denying it. we have a trial by jury set for september 7th and that leaes me only 5 days to prepare for trial. i emailed the attorney requesting him to agree on a continuance. after all he filed one and got his way. we will see. please send me as much suggestions as you can. if anything it makes me feel like im not alone here in california in pro per.
    sincerely and thank you for your time
    laurie mendoza

  4. Thursday 19 August 2010

    Laurie:

    Keep persisting, no matter what. If you believe the judge is prejudiced against you, due to the attorney
    “kinship,” ask for a new judge to hear your case. In Illinois, it is a matter of right, and when demanded, the judge has to bow out, without any reason being stated by defendant. See if that is true in your procedures.

    Find something factual which will deny summary judgment. Is there an assignment from the Lender listed in your note to the current plaintiff suing you? Where is the assignment from the original lender to current plaintiff?! Take nothing for granted. Drill down on the assignemt(s) and chain of title. Create doubt in any way you can!

    If the plaintiff is not the one listed in the note, challenge proper party standing. Is the plaintff claiming an injury caused by you? If a plaintiff does not
    plead a sustainable injury, it has no juticiable
    standing, at least in Illinois.

    If the plaintiff is not the one listed in the note, it may not be able to declare you to be in default. Deny that you are in default as the true lender has never made any such claim against you, nor has the true lender ever demanded any payment from you.

    Pay attention to the wording in the complaint as to HOW it is said you are in default. It may not actually say it. Instead, it may say you stopped making payments and own $x amount, etc. That does not make you in default until it is stated so by the lender.

    What was presented as a proveup as “evidence” that you were in default. Demand to see all of the records that are a part of your loan, including the entry that shows your loan is carried as an asset on the ledger books of the one asserting the claim. Do not accept a “I have examined the records and here is a summary.” Screw that! A summary is not proper evidence. Do not accept it. Deny whomever is attesting to the records that he/she is a first-hand competent witness. Said “witness” may have only reviewed the “summary” with no first-hand knowledge of the underlying records. You are entitled to make that demand.

    Throw at them everything and whatever you can. In Ilinois, and I am sure in all states:

    Summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should be granted only when movant’s right thereto is CLEAR AND FREE FROM DOUBT, and in passing on the motion, the TRIAL COURT MUST CONSTRUE THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED STRICTLY AGAINST THE MOVANT AND LIBERALLY IN FAVOR OF THE OPPONENT. Mollow v Santuci Construction Co, [1979], 78 Ill App 3d 249. Find a California equivalent case site.

    In your challenge to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, state that there are serious questions of fact, [which defeats summary judgment]. If the judge, the new one, by this time, ignores your facts, Object! immediately.

    “Objection!. This court is showing bias for the plaintiff and prejudice against me and ignoring my DUE PROCESS RIGHT to be heard in a meaningful way.

    Getting objections ON THE RECORD sets you up for appeal. If ther is no court reporter, create your own Bystander Notes of who said what and include any objection, along with the reasn for objecting, for the appellate court to see. Denial of due process, to be heard in a meaningful way, can be an issue of contention, favorable to you, if you handle it right.

    The judge and lawyer with push you around, knowing you are not familiar with procedures and demanding your rights. Do not let that happen!

    Just a few thoughts.

  5. to all ,
    i am in i would say final stages of unlawful detainer court. i have filed oppositions to motion to strike. denied. i filed motion to dismiss. denied. i requested a trial by jury. granted but now i have to beat the motion for summary judgement by an opposition to the motion to summary judgement. which i will lose and not get a trial by jury BECAUSE the judge and lawyer have a working relationship here in the carol miller justice cente in sacramento, california. i have found the lawyer fred kaisser to have boiler plate pleadings for motion to strike. if a defendant, and i mean any defendant who plaintiff wells fargo is represented by attorney fred kaiser files an answer to unlawful detainer the attorney kaiser will automaticaly file a motion to strike 3j affirmative defense and commissioner stanger will grant the motion to strike as well as anthing else this attorney presents to him. defendant can file as many oppositions, motion to dismiss, recuse the judge. bottom line you have no rights for a defense and you will not get a trial by jury no matter what. its a kangaroo court.
    sincerely
    laurie mendoza

  6. In Idaho, you lucked up and got to sock it to them good.
    Pays to be on your toes when it comes time to fight in court.
    I say Yes! We should all stop paying them, join the class action and prepare to fight.
    Safety in numbers, united we stand, divided they pick us off one by one.
    They are banking on (no pun intended) the majority to keep right on paying or struggling to pay no matter what.
    Put the fear of being labeled a deadbeat failure on them, scare them with threats of ruined credit for life.
    Make the majority believe they have no choice, no alternative but the streets if they don’t comply. Intimidate them into submission. Shame them into keeping quiet about what is happening to them.
    For the rest of us who try to fight back, they’ll bog us down in court, drain our resources in filings and stress us out with constant battles.
    Calls at work, at night and all day demanding payments, lie about what to do to get a modification and threaten us if we try to complain.
    There are too few lawyers to help and they know we must do much of this ourselves.
    It should be illegal for a deal as important as buying a house be allowed with the buyer so ignorant of all the legal ramifications of a mortgage contract.
    It’s totally one-sided and geared to benefit the lender and screw the borrower.
    I was one of the first to lose to an illegal foreclosure, didn’t know a thing except that my papers weren’t even signed by a judge, they played so many tricks, withheld the summons until after the trial was over, wasn’t notified of a sheriff’s sale, papers unsigned, lies on top of lies, GMAC refused to answer the phone or put you on hold forever.
    Since then I have learned a lot, I even trained for a brief time as a mortgage broker. That is what opened my eyes to what was really going on.
    The very intent from the beginning is for the lender to sell you a mortgage you will eventually default on! They will repeatedly refinance you into bankruptcy. They will do whatever it takes to get your house after taking all your money.
    This was taught to us from the first day of training.
    It’s all about the money, every time you refinance, that new note is sold for more than full value. Every time.
    They never reveal they are going to bundle the mortgage, never tell you about how they set you up with a servicer who has no authority to do anything but take your money, or that you are now paying for a mortgage they already sold and got paid for. You will never know unless you start checking.
    It was a scam from the start and the borrower never had a fair chance of getting out of the trap.
    You pay all the fees, deposits, appraisals, over and over again. You pay the note that gets higher and higher, you pay the taxes and all the other costs to a lender who doesn’t even own the loan anymore.
    Now they are training their lawyers how to fight us in court, how to get around producing the note, what to do when fraud is charged, when to just pay up and when to push to the limit.

    This is like living in the Twilight Zone, it’s all so unreal and incredible. How did so many get so deep that it crashed the whole economy?

    One thing I have learned from all this is that you can’t win if the other side is making up the rules and making you play by those rules.

  7. Hi Lisa,

    [Lisa wrote]
    “…You seem to have a good claim for fraud and uttering (the manufacture of false documents). You can sue an attorney personally … the attorney has an obligation which they affirm by signature that they have reviewed the merits of the Complaint and find them legally supportable (assuming they are not)….

    We definitely have a fraud claims and several others.

    As for the attorneys – they should be liable for helping conceal the frauds committed by these lenders. I see a big difference from the Tobacco lawsuits & the lenders. These foreclosure mills and lenders are taking an ACTIVE roll in the conspiracy. The lenders could NOT get away with their scams if their lenders were being honest-brokers (no pun intended).

    I find it somewhat comical that one hand the lender whines that they are obligated to read the loan docs per the agreement (PSA) with their client. Yet, the LAW requires that if they put their signature on the line – those damn docs are LEGAL. If the attorney files the assignment, they will find out real quick if the mortgage loan was ever legally secured. BY LAW and OATH – Officers of the Court, they are in violation once they participate with their client in the fraudulent scam.

    It is a contradiction of law for that law firm to deliberately foreclose knowing their client has NO legal STANDING to do so… How can a judge NOT bust that law firm and saction them for it? It does not make sense.

    Anyway – i am hoping to use our lawsuit to pierce the infamouse corporate shield – bust the trust – disbar the forelcosure mill attorneys – and take everything they own and their children will own. I want them left in the same damn position they attempted to leave my wife & i and as many others as we can bring with us to take down the lenders. I’m not a fan of class action but until MAJOR – MAJOR lawsuits are successful against these lenders – folks will continually be manipulated and injured.

  8. David,
    You seem to have a good claim for fraud and uttering (the manufacture of false documents). You can sue an attorney personally … the attorney has an obligation which they affirm by signature that they have reviewed the merits of the Complaint and find them legally supportable (assuming they are not).

  9. Hi Edge,

    hmm, so, why not LUMP them together as “conspirators” and file charges of fraud on the court…

    How can they knowingly commit or assist in a fraud? If a lawyer is busted with a felony charge, they are barred from practicing law, correct?

    If we repeatedly – relentlessly rip the law firms down, the lenders will run out of blockers to hide behind. One thing is certain – the lenders are dirty and so are the lawyers that protect them. While fighting an enemy it is always wise to cut-off the supply-lines and support.

    Its really just a matter of having TOO MUCH DIRT to fit under the rug. The law firms can hide lots of dirt for their clients – but that has an inherent problem – when someone shakes the rug dust is bound float out…

    These law firms are the rugs the lendes hide their dirt under. If the law firm knowing committed or assisted in their crime by hiding the dirt – they are automatically GUILTY.

    Can you imagine the dirt that would spew from their files..?

  10. Wednesday 11 August 2010

    Thank you for asking.

    Re Court: Plaintiff “bought” my property at auction back in February. Plaintiff went BK in May 2009, and according to the lawyer representing plaintiff in BK, their client never bid on, nor did it buy my property in February.

    Makes one wonder who the foreclosure mill debt collectors are representing in my case, yes? Theya re not the same law firm representing the “plaintiff” in the BK case, and the law firm representing “plaintiff” is totally unaware of my case involving their client.

    The BK is federal, my case is local, [state]. The local debt collectors appear to be running this case on their own, hoping not to get caught. “Plaintiff” was seeking confirmation of sale since April, but I am in their way.

    I have a responsive Notice and Demand to void the entire case, for a few reasons, all backed by case law.
    Yesterday, the “plaintiff” withdrew its motion to confirm
    sale.

    I told the judge I did not care what they want to do, they have no standing, and I have a Notice and Demand to void the entire case. Turns out, for the second time in a row, the judge did not have a courtesy copy of my pleading, and in any event, I have to refile my Notice and Demand for a Void Judgment for Want of Jurisdiction as a separate pleading since the “plaintiff” withdrew its motion.

    It gets interstinger.

    Cheers!

  11. QUICK NOTE

    Hey EDGE – how did you do in court yesterday, dude? Did you do okay…? Hope thigs went well…

  12. Why can’t we starting filing lawsuits and Grievances against the law firms representing the lenders.

    It is illegal for a lawyer to assist a client in a fraud or commit a crime. We KNOW they are assisting their clients in committing the crime.

    The foreclosure mill that filed against us is NOW being investigated because I filed complaints.

    Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal

    (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

    … (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

    … (2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

    … (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.

    (b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

    (c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

    (d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

    Fraud by Client
    [3] Under Rule 1.2(d), a lawyer is prohibited from counseling or assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. Paragraph (a)(2) states a specific application of the principle set forth in Rule 1.2(d) and addresses the situation where a client’s crime or fraud takes the form of a lie or misrepresentation. Sometimes a lawyer can avoid assisting a client’s crime or fraud by withdrawing from the representation. It also may be necessary for the lawyer to give notice of the fact of withdrawal and to disaffirm an opinion, document, affirmation or the like. In extreme cases, however, substantive law may require a lawyer to disclose information relating to the representation to avoid being deemed to have assisted the client’s crime or fraud. If the lawyer can avoid assisting a client’s crime or fraud only by disclosing this information, then under paragraph (b) the lawyer is required to do so, even though the disclosure otherwise would be prohibited by Rule 1.6.
    —-end snip—-

    Think about it – if a few attorneys were disbarred for assisting their clients FRAUDS – these Lenders would be left NAKED and the GAME would change significantly…

    That might sound crazy but if the Attorney Generals in our states started recieving 100s & 1000s of complaints by consumers – SOMEBODY would have to start doing something about it…

    If I have the money, I would file multiple lawsuits against the foreclosure mills – just hammering & hammering at their teflon shield until FINALLY I broke a hole.

    Our Grievance is being investigated because they filed FALSE AFFIDAVITS – but isn’t that exactly what Neil is talking about with the LACK of proper Assignment… They are committing FRAUD on the Court. I’ve had several exchanges with the Grievance Commission. They might have the balls to dismiss our Grievance – FINE – and I’ve told them to consider everything we exchange as EVIDENCE because this foreclosure mill FORGED the documents and by LAW any officer of the court with the knowledge of Fraud on the Court MUST BY LAW report it and ACT ON IT. There is no middle road – guilty or innocent.

    It is my sincere HOPE that the commission will respect the law enough to simply say ENOUGH and hold the lying bastard law firms accountable. THAT IS MY HOPE…

    IF NOT – well – “…give me liberty or give me DEATH..”

    Keep the Powder Dry….

  13. David

    Much more indeed.

    All of this is mind-boggling – and even more mind-boggling is the fact that they have gotten away with it – for this long.

    Foreclosures are nothing more but debt collection – similar to credit card debt collection – but this time they take your home.

    Bottom line is who accounts for recovery on the foreclosure – it is not the Trust/Trustee – even if the Trust was not yet dissolved at the time. Never see a judge even ask this question – and they rarely questioned it in credit card debt collection.

    Further, why all the fraud to conceal the identity of that party – and false documents, etc.?

    Many are making a pretty profit – and what are they reporting to the IRS? – if they are even reporting. All at the expense of so many losing their homes – and a faltering economy.

  14. Tuesday 10 August 2010

    David:

    You are dangerous…to the other side. You have one of the most important elements needed in battling the other side: an unswerving ability to exercise common sense and ask the right questions.

    The comments in your examples deal with fraud. Proving fraud places the burden of proof back on the one alleging it. No, nothing will void anything
    “automatically,” especially when pleading fraud.

    I find it easier to go after what the other side does not have…no standing from no chain of title, faulty assignment, etc.

    I have court shortly so cannot concentrate on repsonding, right now.

    Cheers!

  15. Hi Edge,

    [Edge-wrote]
    “ALL LOANS ARE TRANSFERRED AT TIME OF FUNDING. PHYSICAL ASSIGNMENTS ARE WITHHELD AS A POISON PILL OR DONE SO AT RETIREMENT. THATS A FRAUD TO THE INVESTOR HAVING NO BEARING ON THE BORROWER.”
    Transferred from whom to whom, at time of funding?
    What would be the first step in the assignment chain?
    ———–

    Edge (hope you don’t mind the short-term), I’m assuming you understand the UCC stuff regarding Instruments – mortgage loans.

    If the assignments are withheld, the loan was never securitized, correct?

    If the loan did not go through recordation, then it was never perfected, correct?

    If it was never perfected, then NOTHING could have Transferred by the Transferor, correct?

    If NOTHING transferred, then technically (legally), the Servicer has no authority demanding payment but more importantly, the Trustee has ZERO authority attempting to foreclose and demand something they have NO AUTHORITY to demand. They cannot be HOLDERS because nothing transferred. They cannot be bona-fide purchasers because Nothing of Value exchanged.

    In our case – the (supposed) original lender engaged in FRAUDS (U&O and others) – therefore they sold NOTHING – NOTHING transferred – and the ENTIRE transaction is null & void.

    —Appellate Court Snips—–
    91. “Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes ‘fraud,’ and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages.” Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co.. 92 F 26 817.

    92. “Any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is representation. There is no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations effected by other acts.” Leonard v. Springer 197 Ill 532. 64 NE 301.

    93. “If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations for an unseverable promise one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the considerations induced the promise.” Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L & C Co., 147 Wis 559. 572; 132 NW 1122.

    94. “The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise single or entire.” Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. Savings Bank, 227 Wis 550, 279 NW 83.

    95. “It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166.
    —-end snips—-

    The comment attached to 93 – “if any part of the consideration for a “promise be illegal, … the PROMISE, whether written or oral, is wholly void…

    That seems to STOMP anything a foreclosure mill could bring… However, since the foreclosure mill submitted False Affidavits attempting to foreclose on our property – committing Fraud on the Court – attaching that FRAUD to our Deed of Trust – shouldn’t that ALSO AUTOMATICALLY VOID the document because it has now been STAINED by the FRAUD?

    Every attorney I’ve broached that by looks at me like I have three heads… ??

  16. Hi ANONYMOUS,

    That is correct – folks were paying the mortgages – never late – never missed a payment but the servicer misapplied their funds creating a default. Even when these folks attempted to provide proof via canceled checks etc – the judges and/or servicer ignored it and proceeded to foreclose. My bet is this is happening MUCH MORE than we hear about…

    Solimon – I’m not sure what you are saying either…

    Something is very wrong with the system. There missing pieces to the puzzle. If a mortgage is sold to another servicer – technically the “instrument” must travel together. Yet, if the Mortgage is sold to be securitized in a Trust-Pool (don’t know the correct terminology) and then that Trust is dissolved – what happens to then..?

    Once that mortgage is sold into a Trust – everything about that loan is attached to THAT TRUST. The existence of the Servicer is limited to the rules within PSA. The PSA was created for & by that TRUST. If the TRUST is dissolved or impotent (help find legal terms), then HOW can that servicer demand payment. The SOLE legal authority by the servicer RESTS within the PSA established by the TRUST.

    I think these Servicers are figure out ways to BUY our loans for pennies on a dollar – simply to continue enforcing the Promise to Pay. If the Instrument travels together into a TRUST that dissolves (or whatever a damn Trust does) well then, the PROMISE TO PAY dissolves WITH everything else in the TRUST.

    I think they created a freaking quagmire they can’t get out. They deliberately tie the Servicer to the Trust to reap the profits – in fact, the indemnification – limited liability clauses designed by these boneheads to prohibit “us” peons from banging their deep-pockets – should apply BOTH WAYS – so that IF those Trusts or Trustee’s screw “us” then a liability HOOK is attached. However, an “unforeseen” DETACHMENT would seem is also inherent – if the life-blood of the servicer flows through the Trust via PSA – then decapitating the Trust – kills the Servicer as well…

    Sorry for the twisted connections but I’m hoping someone else might be able to see what I’m TRYING to say and actually say it RIGHT…

    An analogy would if your boss was fired – he can’t tell you what to do anymore. The SERVICER is the BOSS – and they are automatically terminated with the TRUST. Another way to look at would be – if the company you worked for closed up – your boss could no longer tell you what to do… The TRUST is the company – and the servicer is your boss. Kill the Trust – removes the servicer.

    So, in our case for example – our loan does NOT meet the criteria in the PSA. The repurchasing agreements are typically only 1-3 yrs. However, OUR LOAN has NEVER met the requirements of the PSA and it at this point it CANNOT meet those requirements. So, if the original lender cannot repurchase it – it does not nor did not meet requirements – where does the servicer get the authority to demand payment?

    Man, this makes my brain hurt..?

  17. Tuesday 10 August 2010

    MSoliman:
    “ALL LOANS ARE TRANSFERRED AT TIME OF FUNDING. PHYSICAL ASSIGNMENTS ARE WITHHELD AS A POISON PILL OR DONE SO AT RETIREMENT. THATS A FRAUD TO THE INVESTOR HAVING NO BEARING ON THE BORROWER.”

    Transferred from whom to whom, at time of funding?
    What would be the first step in the assignment chain?

  18. MSoliman,

    Interpreted David’s post to mean – some were being foreclosed upon – even if they were current (not being brought current) due to servicer misapplication of payments.

    Not sure what you are saying.

    CORRECT…MY ERROR. A LOAN ONCE DOWN 60 DAYS COULD BE DEEMED A DEFAULT A YEAR LATER. . .EVEN WHEN CURRENT. THE FRAUD I REFER TO MAY OR MAY NO BE IN THE SAME CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION. ITS DUE TO TIMING AND LENDER PERSONAL GUARNATEES.

    NO LENDER FORECLOSES ON ANYONE WHILE THE PERSONAL GURANTEES ARE STILL LIVE. IN THIS CASE, THERE NEVER WAS A REASON FOR DEFAULT OTHER THAN A PRIOR 60 DAYS DELINQUENT.

    MSOLIMAN
    EXPERT.WITNESS@LIVE.COM

  19. One answer to your questions is that many loans were pledged to the trusts but never actually made into the trusts.

    ALL LOANS THAT FUNDED WERE DONE SO AS “LOANS HELD FOR SALE”; “LOANS HELD AND SOLD” VERSUS LOAN HELD TO MATURITY
    These loans went into some dark rabbit hole.

    Another thing is that the investors purchased the money stream not the loans themselves.
    INVESTORS PURCHASED A DIVIDEND FROM A MEMBER BANK.

    The certificates were sold based on the level of risk the investor was willing to take. The highest payouts were for the tranches where the defualt would happen quickly.
    SENOR SUB CERTIFICATES ARE PURCHASED BASED UPON YILED AND MATURITY. SUBORDINATE STRIPS AR HIGHEST YIELDING

    However, since they really could not actually guarantee that a certain loan would be default, the loan could not be assigned until there was a default.

    ALL LOANS ARE TRANSFERRED AT TIME OF FUNDING. PHYSICAL ASSIGNMENTS ARE WITHHELD AS A POISON PILL OR DONE SO AT RETIREMENT. THATS A FRAUD TO THE INVESTOR HAVING NO BEARING ON THE BORROWER.

    THIS IS AN ACCOUNTING FRAUD UNDER FAS 140 FOR CONTROLLING INTEREST IN ASSETS ORGINATED AND SOLD.

    A COURT WILL STILL BE HARD PRESSED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE FRAUD AFFECTS YOUR OBLIGATION AND PROMISE TO PAY UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT.

    MSOLIMAN
    EXPERT.WITNESS@LIVE.COM

  20. Kickboxer

    Thanks.

  21. MSoliman,

    Interpreted David’s post to mean – some were being foreclosed upon – even if they were current (not being brought current) due to servicer misapplication of payments.

    Not sure what you are saying.

  22. The Process of Servcing Securitization

    Livinglies Reader – Not that I do not believe you – I do – but can you divulge a little more about people never late on mortgage – but still foreclosed upon?

    Servicing agents are winging it and record keeping for indemnity and surety claims are perhaps inconsistent. Consider satisfaction for claims paying down portfolios of loans deemed defaulted, delinquent of likely to go into default.

    Upon recourse claims being made on the Obligor and the servicing agents for early prepayments and default are required when a consumer cures a 60 day delinquent status.

    Rules call for a deleted status for asset at 60 days down. The lenders are commencing foreclosure…even after the borrowers are brought current.

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  23. The Process of Securitization

    Plaintiff claims are made from their substantial belief and attained from understanding, and therefore are lacking in comprehending all the facts. trustor’s and mortgagors still fail to allege how the trust investment platform and structure mandates two distinct and separate categories of material representations.

    Herein is the allegation for the registrant to offer a highly risk adverse and substantially safe investment upon which investors can determine from agencies ratings a verifiable consistent determination.

    Second is the notion the registrant can maintain a sound and compliant investment that takes into consideration all inherent risks whereby pooled mortgages may suffer and trigger a government mandate for verifiable economic assistance to keep Americans in homes.

    From a reputable lender’s perspective, foreclosure is rarely an attractive economic option. Most lenders or holders of home mortgages sustain large losses when they institute foreclosure. The outstanding balance on the loan may exceed the borrower’s equity.

    This issue is painfully real today, with home values falling nationwide. In addition, foreclosure, eviction, and selling the property are costly, particularly in areas with a large number of foreclosed homes on the market.

    According to a published journal report issued by an Ivy League school . . . “…during foreclosure, moreover, no income is coming in, only costs.”

    That no longer is the case. Lenders are using the government’s mandates for a workout and Call to a meaningful modification to steal from deaf dumb and blind consumers (who are alleged to be avid readers of this site. IT’S CALLED A TRIAL MOD PERIOD FOR QUALIFYING FOR RELEIF! In order to avoid the high losses associated with foreclosure, lenders and servicers may find it prudent to consider loss mitigation strategies that can increase recovery while avoiding foreclosure.

    Whereby the cause of an economic turndown is neither determinable nor predictable its causes are usually indicative of SYSTHETIC EXCESSES and speculative elements brought by a market place. Henceforth the banks and their contribution to the real estate market and need to support future investing through speculative valuations and lax credit acceptance deemed a critical component for drawing in borrowers.

    Registrants know the inherent risk to offering securities consisting of hybrid investments and speculative yields dependant solely on the registrations promises to pay. Structuring a solid and air tight bankrupt insulate investment that mandates a BASIS ACCOUNTING AND A SALE OF ASSETS TO TRANSFER LOANS was a HUGE MISTAKE leaving the registrant on the outside of a impematrable and guarded fortress.

    With respect to the REHETORICALLY challenged reader we mean the MILK IS COLD, AND BUTTER HARD AS THE REFRIGIRATOR DOOR IS SLAMMED SHUT.

    A return on investment comes from a lump sum dividend paid by the registrant to trust investors so do not look further to a trust to foreclose on your home. The appeal of having backed reinvestment with SFR mortgages is an illusion under a BK insulated means and method of protecting valuable bank assets now lost to the bank and not bankruptcy. GET IT!

    Rating the investment for soundness and safety are merely a perception upon which the servicing agent can be only relied upon to adequately process payments. Servicing agents are unaffected by any management controls exerted over the individual mortgage units aggregated into a pooled investment.

    Anything to the contrary is PUKE! I’m sorry but that is a fact!

    Therefore to what extent did rating agencies consider and did the participating domestic and foreign investment community rationalize these pooled investments were in fact sufficient offerings. By this we mean consisting of indirect government backed classes of securities. After all if the investment fails the Government will see fit to come out of teh closet to once and for all show why a Federalized banking system is required to support a free open market economy. Bank of Iceland, Banc De Estado, Bank of Ireland, Bank of America …Hmmmmmmmmmm!

    It’s unprecedented in US history to consider the willingness of the government to do a reversal in light of recent criminal landmark banking malfeasance and SEC securities fraud cases.

    Consider this view subject to the attorney generals efforts over the last decade to bring various grand jury indictments against similar promoters of negligent and fraudulent investment schemes. District courts have heard curiously identical corrupt investment matters ranging from Enron and by Fastow testimony (SPE SPV) going back to Keating and Continental Savings and even further back to the schemes and corrupt activities of Michael Milken.

    The Continental beating and meeting with Keating and Milken make things even more bizarre in hindsight. These matters are exceptionally eerie when you consider the economic catastrophe having spurred FIERRA in response to the collapse of the savings and loan sector of banking. What was caused in part by state regulated banking and material breach of trust was viewed due to an entrepreneurial mind set maintained by smaller banks. There, management was free willing, negligent and unlawful by comparison to the more conservative and proper major bank thinking.

    Therein was a lack of any judicial insulation for government protection against criminal activity that penetrated the affirmative defenses brought in those cases. The violations were in fact criminal deemed merely due to exceptionally creative banking or excessive risk based speculative financing unsuitable for member banks.

    A multitude of convictions and indictments over 20 years assured American and foreign investors both confidence and a stern warning to avoid crossing the path of the various jurisdiction overseeing the banking sectors. The message was never more dead versus alive in teh wake of banks commencing the new millennium.

    Whatever the view of past banking conduct and material misrepresentation it’s a fact the investment activity of major banks dragged into the mix medium and smaller banks who if willing to risk their appetite for exposure could foresee ably grow respective earnings and member bank rankings and size by participating in a program that brought Wall Street legitimacy and major bank participation in programs that defied the commonsense mandate for conservative investing.

    MSoliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  24. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

    Livinglies reader: The judges are not following the law, so in a hearing of a motion to strike affirmative defenses:
    1. Can we ask a judge to describe his knowledge of the financial markets? Of the securitization process. ?

    MSoliman: Look at the bankruptcy code and the IRS existing and revised rules for certain discounted asset and mark to market accounting. They clearly favor a courts willingness to rule with prejudicial favor weighted towards the company’s efforts to foreclose and restore life to its franchise in a troubled economy.

    Continue to avoid GAAP, FASB and IRS rules and you will be lost to the winning arguments. Embracing litigator’s antiquated case law is a zero.

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  25. The Process of Securitization

    This Plaintiff claims are made from substantial belief and attained from understanding, and yet are lacking when comprehending all the facts. Trustor’s and mortgagors still fail to allege how the trust investment platform and structure mandates two distinct and separate categories of material representations.

    Herein is the allegation for the registrant to offer a highly risk adverse and substantially safe investment upon which investors can determine from agencies ratings a verifiable consistent determination.

    Second is the notion the registrant can maintain a sound and compliant investment that takes into consideration all inherent risks whereby pooled mortgages may suffer. Especially if when triggering a government mandate for verifiable economic assistance to keep Americans in homes.

    From a reputable lender’s perspective, foreclosure is rarely an attractive economic option. Most lenders or holders of home mortgages sustain large losses when they institute foreclosure. The outstanding balance on the loan may exceed the borrower’s equity.

    Consider this a certain real determent today, with home values falling nationwide. In addition, foreclosure, eviction, and selling the property are costly, particularly in areas with a large number of foreclosed homes on the market.

    According to a published journal report issued by an Ivy League school . . . “…during foreclosure, moreover, no income is coming in, only costs.” Ha! That no longer is the case.

    Lenders are using the government’s mandate for a workout and call to a meaningful modification to steal from deaf dumb and blind consumers (who are alleged to be avid readers of this site).

    IT’S CALLED A TRIAL MOD PERIOD FOR QUALIFYING FOR RELEIF!

    Traditional rationale is in order to avoid the high losses associated with foreclosure, lenders and servicers will find it prudent to consider loss mitigation strategies that can increase recovery while avoiding foreclosure. NO LONGER TRUE…EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF! BANKS DO NOT KNOW YOU ….THE BORROWER

    Whereby the cause of an economic turndown is neither determinable nor predictable its causes are usually indicative of SYSTHETIC EXCESSES and speculative elements brought by a market place. Henceforth the banks and their contribution to the real estate market and need to support future investing through speculative valuations and lax credit acceptance was a critical component for drawing in borrowers.

    Registrants know the inherent risk to offering securities consisting of hybrid investments and speculative yields dependant solely on the registrations promises to pay.

    Structuring a solid and air tight bankrupt insulate investment that mandates a BASIS ACCOUNTING AND A SALE OF ASSETS TO TRANSFER LOANS was a HUGE MISTAKE ! It left the registrant on the outside of a impematrable and guarded fortress.

    With respect to the REHETORICALLY challenged reader we mean the MILK IS COLD, AND BUTTER HARD AS THE REFRIGIRATOR DOOR IS SLAMMED SHUT. NO CAN DO …NO FORECLOSURE IS POSSIBLE!

    A return on investment comes from a lump sum dividend paid by the registrant to trust investors so do not look further to a trust to foreclose on your home.

    The appeal of having backed reinvestment with SFR mortgages is an illusion under a BK insulated means and method of protecting valuable bank assets now lost to the bank and not bankruptcy.

    GET IT! NO CAN DO …NO FORECLOSURE IS POSSIBLE! GET IT!
    Rating the investment for soundness and safety are merely a perception upon which the servicing agent can be only relied upon to adequately process payments.

    Servicing agents are unaffected by any management controls exerted over the individual mortgage units aggregated into a pooled investment.

    Anything to the contrary is PUKE! I’m sorry but that is a fact! NO CAN DO … NO FORECLOSURE IS POSSIBLE! GET IT ?

    Therefore to what extent did rating agencies consider and did the participating domestic and foreign investment community rationalize these pooled investments were in fact sufficient offerings. By this we mean consisting of indirect government backed classes of securities. After all if the investment fails the Government will see fit to come out of teh closet to once and for all show why a Federalized banking system is required to support a free open market economy.

    Bank of Iceland, Banc De Estado, Bank of Ireland, Bank of America …Hmmmmmmmmmm!

    It’s unprecedented in US history to consider the willingness of the government to do a reversal in light of recent criminal landmark banking malfeasance and SEC securities fraud cases.

    Consider this view subject to the attorney generals efforts over the last decade to bring various grand jury indictments against similar promoters of negligent and fraudulent investment schemes. District courts have heard curiously identical corrupt investment matters ranging from Enron and by Fastow testimony (SPE SPV) going back to Keating and Continental Savings and even further back to the schemes and corrupt activities of Michael Milken.

    The Continental beating and meeting with Keating and Milken make things even more bizarre in hindsight.

    These matters are exceptionally eerie when you consider the economic catastrophe having spurred FIERRA in response to the collapse of the savings and loan sector of banking.

    What was caused in part by state regulated banking and material breach of trust was viewed due to an entrepreneurial mind set maintained by smaller banks. There, management was free willing, negligent and unlawful by comparison to the more conservative and proper major bank thinking.

    Therein was a lack of any judicial insulation for government protection against criminal activity that penetrated the affirmative defenses brought in those cases.

    The violations were in fact criminal deemed merely due to exceptionally creative banking or excessive risk based speculative financing unsuitable for member banks.

    A multitude of convictions and indictments over 20 years assured American and foreign investors both confidence and a stern warning to avoid crossing the path of the various jurisdiction overseeing the banking sectors.

    The message was never more dead versus alive in teh wake of banks commencing the new millennium.

    Whatever the view of past banking conduct and material misrepresentation it’s a fact the investment activity of major banks dragged into the mix medium and smaller banks. The small frys could, if willing to risk their appetite for exposure, foreseeably grow respective earnings and member bank rankings and size by participating in a CDO program.

    Afterall, the party brought Wall Street legitimacy and major bank participation into programs that now lgitimately defied the commonsense banking tradition for generating earnings from conservative investing.

    Antitrust violations of the Sherman act….It’s called the Process of Securitization

    By M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  26. Daniela,
    I am all for you telling Patrick to “get the fuck out of here!” I agree that the time for political correctness has long been over. I am also fighting these fuckers and they will never get another dime out of me! I’ve already beaten them–the only thing they can get from me is the house, and that’s not victory for them because they don’t want the house, they want MONEY! Well guess what–the “lender”‘s warehouse line of credit with the Bank of Zurenarrh has been cancelled! I’ve already beaten them, but I’m gonna see if I can’t beat ’em a little more! Maybe the judge will let me, maybe he won’t, but I aim to see this thing through to the bitter end and I have a feeling I’m gonna kick their ass and good!

    And now that I think about it, Patrick is so caught up in the false reality pushed by the banks that he is trying to shame homeowners for “using their homes as ATMs.” The truth is that it was the banks using the people as ATMs, first by selling the people shitty loans that the banks could insure, gamble on, and sell forward, and then by soaking the taxpayers in the bailout when the criminal loans couldn’t be repaid which the “lenders” knew would be the case in the first place!

    That’s what pissed me off about Patrick so much–he comes to Neil’s blog which we all read and contribute to in order to help each other fend off these rapacious bankerrorists, and then proceeds to peddle the false reality and the party line of the crooked banks, all the while pretending like he’s trying to help us. I’m so glad we all gave him what for; Neil has taught us all well.

  27. @ Anonymous,

    Quote: “ANONYMOUS, on August 9, 2010 at 12:43 pm Said:

    David

    Not that I do not believe you – I do – but can you divulge a little more about people never late on mortgage – but still foreclosed upon? Thank you.”

    _____

    I have seen a few cases where people were not in default but were still foreclosed on. This case stands out the most though:

    http://www.msfraud.org/unbelievable-foreclosure-story.html

  28. Hi Daniela,

    The one to keep in mind about doing anything against your house. They have “Special Hazard Insurance” that covers anything done to the house. So, you don’t want to give them a NEW HOUSE. Believe me – I thought the same things and in fact, told a judge the only better would be to put a few bodies in it and they didn’t like that comment…

    We have a 2.5 acre peninsula so after I thought about it being on the water – hmm, I’ll rent a damn bulldozer and bulldoze the entire property into the creek attached to the bay…

    Sadly, most folks do not connect the dots with the amount of violence this has already caused. What about the consequences of stress – etc. Yep, folks need to get a grip because this is taking a much bigger toll than merely a few 1000-bucks.

    Hey, it’s one thing if we all screwed up and made a mess. If that were the case, I would have no problem roughing it and helping others do the same. This is hardly the case. The lying thieves knew exactly what they were doing and as they saw the glass ceiling falling – they were already preparing. They knew exactly what would happen to the average family and continued setting them up…

    Check out – http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/07/04/must-read-missing-link-s-bank-of-new-york-v-michael-j-raftogianis/

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/08/09/wall-street-fines-giant-ponzi-scheme/

    This stuff in CRIMINAL and these folks need to stripped of everything they own or wish they were never born. They decide to do it rightly – or suffer the consequences and I don’t care what happens to them or their families.

    Strange isn’t – the liars simply forgot a few technicalities like recordation & assignments forget to sign a few things and it’s no big deal. I wonder why our signatures then become such a big deal…

    It sure would be nice be nice to be the pilot of an Apache Helicoptor fully loaded – maybe a Wart-Hog – or even a Predator – taking out a few 100-story pretty glass buildings would suddenly get their attention – taking a few of their homes in the process would send it home real quick. Then they would get the message and start rethinking about the lies and theivery done to the American people. It’s their choice…

  29. Zurenarrh and kickboxer:

    There was no violence or “crazy talk”. I am tired of political correctness. So yes !!!!!!!! I have the freedom of speech to tell Pulatie whatever I want.
    My husband and I worked, made decent money, save everything to buy our home. I improved with my own hands – learned how to do tiles, paint, cut the grass, etc … Dedicated my free time to improving MY HOME. Is this a sin ???? My husband had cancer, and 2 weeks after the surgery the a..h… wanted him to go back to work. We paid principal and interest and we wanted to pay the mortgage ASAP. We did not go on vacations, etc …
    The Wall Street f…..kers (sorry I DO NOT HAVE OTHER WORDS!!!!!!) shorted the lending industry what caused 1 Millions jobs to go right away – which created the cascade effect.
    Now we have no jobs, and we are loosing our homes. MAKE THE MATH – if you bought in 2002 YOU PAID YOUR HOUSE ALREADY.
    But because of 13 bankers – who are stilling the real estate market of this country, we can’t do anything!

    The judges are investing in toxic assets, Congress are being bought by the banking lobbysts, 10 MILLION or more Americans lost or will loose their homes.There is no RULE OF LAW!!!!
    COME ONNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You guys talked about violence ? Violence is David’s friend dying, or the other suicides that are not reported by the media . And all the other social issues arriving from the BIGGEST SCAM OF THE CENTURY.
    I DO NOT jeopardize Neil’s blog at all. I have courage and i am fighting and i will burn my HOME before i give it back to the banksters !!!!!!!

  30. Please help me with this doubts:

    The judges are not following the law, so in a hearing of a motion to strike affirmative defenses :

    1. Can we ask a judge to describe his knowledge of the financial markets ? Of the securitization process. ?

    2. Can we introduce newspapers articles as evidence: for example that American Home Mortgage could pay their storage and threw everything on the trash or that when they filled for bankruptcy the employees were so mad that they had shredding parties. (with original documents)

    Can we introduce books like the list bellow as evidence of fraud ? (by the way I red all of them)

    “The big short”

    “Chain of Blame”,

    “The trillion dollars meltdown”

    The Trillion-Dollar Conspiracy,

    Chasing Goldman Sachs: How the Masters of the Universe Melted Wall Street Down . . . And Why They’ll Take Us to the Brink Again ,

    13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown,

    The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry

    Lords of Finance ,

    Guide to Clearance & Settlement (How to clear CDS)

    The Quants: How a New Breed of Math Whizzes Conquered Wall Street and Nearly Destroyed It,

    The Greatest Trade Ever: The Behind-the-Scenes Story of How John Paulson Defied Wall Street and Made Financial History,

    Too Big to Fail ,

    Confessions of a Subprime Lender: An Insider’s Tale of Greed, Fraud, and Ignorance,

    Fool’s Gold: How the Bold Dream of a Small Tribe at J.P. Morgan Was Corrupted by Wall Street Greed and Unleashed a Catastrophe,

    Secondary Market Tax-Exempt Asset Securitization

    Thank you,

    Sorry for some mistakes but the I phone changes what you write sometimes and sorry for being rude. Put Pulatie deserves.

  31. David,

    One answer to your questions is that many loans were pledged to the trusts but never actually made into the trusts. These loans went into some dark rabbit hole.

    Another thing is that the investors purchased the money stream not the loans themselves. The certificates were sold based on the level of risk the investor was willing to take. The highest payouts were for the tranches where the defualt would happen quickly. However, since they really could not actually guarantee that a certain loan would be default, the loan could not be assigned until there was a default.

  32. Sorry about being vague…

    For an excellent article addressing the fiasco and showing how out of control these foreclosure mills are check out..

    EXCLUSIVE: Fannie and Freddie’s Foreclosure Barons
    Link –> http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/07/david-stern-djsp-foreclosure-fannie-freddie?page=1

    Here’s a snip
    Backdated documents, according to a chorus of foreclosure experts, are typical of the sort of shenanigans practiced by a breed of law firms known as “foreclosure mills.” While far less scrutinized than subprime lenders or Wall Street banks, these firms undermine efforts by government and the mortgage industry to put struggling homeowners back on track at a time of record foreclosures. (There were 2.8 million foreclosures in 2009, and 3.8 million are projected for this year.) The mills think “they can just change things and make it up to get to the end result they want, because there’s no one holding them accountable,” says Prentiss Cox, a foreclosure expert at the University of Minnesota Law School. “We’ve got these people with incentives to go ahead with foreclosures and flood the real estate market.”
    —-end snip—-

    Reading the entire article shows the extent of how pervasive rude these mills intend to be…

    One thing that keeps puzzling me…

    If a loan was properly Assigned – bogus Assignment – Assigned shortly before or after foreclosure…, well, how did they SELL that loan within a Trust-Pool to investors…?

    If the loan was never properly Assigned, it was NOT secured thus not qualified as a Securitized – Investment – and certainly not qualified per the REMIC Provision…

    Meaning, the investors are holding pretty-paper and the payouts being paid to investors essentially equates “shush-monies”. The monies being paid out is “only an appearance” of an actual investment. It keeps the investors from asking too many questions but the fact of the matter is their investment actually does not exist. If it did, then we wouldn’t be seeing the problems with Assignments.

    Neil has been pointing towards this but I find it odd that the “intersecting” parts between the borrower & investor is the recordation & Assignment which clearly did NOT happen therefore they clearly do NOT have an bona-fide Incestment.

    Just some scatter-thoughts…

  33. David

    Thank you.

  34. The person is part of the list already so I’ll let them get into details if they want…

    Suffice to say – they were never late – never missed a payment. As is typical – the servicer was not disbursing the funds correctly. The same happened to the older that was foreclosed on though the lady repeatedly called the servicer. The payments were incorrectly applied.

  35. David

    Not that I do not believe you – I do – but can you divulge a little more about people never late on mortgage – but still foreclosed upon? Thank you.

  36. Essentially, this is what will happen in court. The foreclosure mills justify their conscience because they are simply doing what they are paid to do. Pro-se litigants have a personal hook in the deal – the foreclosure mills have nothing but easy money.

    We started filing our lawsuit long before we stopped paying the mortgage. In fact, it was “after” we sent the demand letter with complaint attached to the builder and original lender when they filed to foreclose.

    We were left in a no-win situation because of what the BANK – BUILDER – APPRAISER – County Code Official – conspired and did. We cannot fix, correct, or sell our house because of their actions. It has cost us everything which is exactly the position the foreclosure mills want their prey to be in. Unfortunately, they filed false affidavits and committed fraud on the court. The judge dismissed the case without prejudice which means they will be back.

    My outrage and infuriation is that they ALL know it. The alleged original lender knew they pre-sold our loan so their liability was already limited at best. We paid the full mortgage for 8-months before moving into the house. That alone is a violation of the PSA. The house violates the zoning & building codes – another violation. IMHO – I do believe the mortgage loan – Instrument is VOID & Nullified because at NO-TIME was it EVER a legitimate legal Instrument. It is still isn’t…

    The idiocy of attempting to work this out legally – respectfully is futile because they have NO INTENTION of working anything out. Their intentions are clear – pound us into poverty – take the property – sue us for whatever else defiency or whatever and leave us for dead…

    Yet, at no-time did we participate with their lies & deception.

    I specifically gave Patrick countless proof that CW deliberately sold mortgages to consumers that did NOT know what they were getting. Yet, he believes these people are accepting their due-responsibility. How can they accept responsibility for something they have no-idea was done – worse it was done TO THEM and NOT the lender. That is hypocrisy on Patrick’s part. Yet, he will conveniently drop back to the courts continued mis-handling of these cases and proclaim victory.

    I agree with Frankielee – the fact of the matter is everyone should stop paying their loans and drive the lenders into bankruptcy. It would not take very loan – maybe 4-6 months and these lending institutions would collapse. Sadly, that will not happen because these lenders control the media which portrays every borrower in trouble as a deadbeat. Strangely, when I think back to a few weeks before settlement – I kept asking – don’t they need a U&O Permit – what about the lien waivers – invoices – how could they get a final inspection and appraisal to settle on a house that was NOT completed..? I was told it was all taken-care-of… hmm?

    I know of folks who were never late paying their mortgage and they were foreclosed. As for us – we simply attempted to sue the original lender so we could fix the house, correct the zoning – illegal U&O – lack of inspections – etc and just sell the damn place. The made it very clear – they will stomp us into submission – take the house – wash the title through the foreclosure process – pay for the illegalities using the special hazard insurance (Ins fraud) and auction for pretty penny pocketing the entire deal as another cash-cow for them.

    …and somehow the guilt manipulators want me to feel as though it was my-fault…

    All I know anymore is this driving me insane – I wake up several times per night with them on my mind and none of it is good. Gee maybe I can sue them for punitive damages for driving me crazy but do I have to takeout an entire building to do it…? It certainly appears that way…

  37. I agree with Zurenarrh, Please, no more crazy talk. We cannot afford to jeopardize Neil’s blog that way.

    It’s time to refocus our energies to the saving of our homes.

    Btw, Fannie Mae says home prices will continue to drop. Home prices in my area are already back to what they were in the year 2000. I wonder where home prices will be this time next year.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/fannie-mae-home-prices-to_n_672776.html

  38. Wow! These posts have really taken a turn! Looking back through this thread, I noticed a post I hadn’t noticed before:

    “kihenry, on August 6, 2010 at 8:25 am Said:

    Holy s–t Patrick. How much are the banks / “trustees” paying you to discourage borrowers from pursuing their actions? You give example after example of how the “lenders” have the borrowers by the short hairs and we don’t have a chance in hell of winning anything. But when you try a thinly veiled attempt at showing how un-biased you are, you give absolutely no examples of good defenses again the “lenders”. What gives?

    EDITOR’S NOTE: PERIODICALLY THERE ARE PLANTS AND SHILLS WHO ARE PAID TO PLACE MISLEADING INFORMATION ON THIS SITE. KIHENRY HAS BUSTED PATRICK, WHOEVER HE IS. BE AWARE THAT THERE IS HOPE, THE LAW BOOKS ARE ON YOUR SIDE, AND EVENTUALLY THIS WILL TURN.”

    Was it Neil that posted this Editor’s Note? Patrick said that Neil knows who he is. WTF is going on here? Is Neil disavowing Patrick? I would certainly think he would, given how Patrick’s comments have been totally at odds with the entire purpose of Neil’s blog…

    By the way, I am uncomfortable with the posts that advocate or insinuate violence. That is a good way to get this site shut down. And those posters who insinuate/advocate violence may also be plants/shills for the banks trying to get us all to start talking about committing violence in order to have this blog shut down.

    I, like everyone else, have strong feelings about these thieves trying to rob me/us, but we have to resist them nonviolently. They are trying to get us to turn to violence so they can do all or some of the following: use violence against us, make us look bad, shut down this blog/the web, make “borrowers” and homeowners in general with a beef against the banks look bad/crazy/unAmerican, etc. Let’s please not let that happen.

  39. Heck, even Alan Greenspan was encouraging American homeowners to spend their equity to improve their lifestyles.

  40. I do not regrey anything i said to Mr. Pulatie. I just watched and interview with Willbur Ross on charlie rose’s . There 8 managers including him working to match the same ammount of money Geithner is putting to buy the so called toxic assets, meaning … Our loans. For cents, like 20 cents on the dollar. They are robbing us and you know it. The propaganda is to make us feel guilty for buying the homes, for improving them, for trying to have a better life. No!!!!!only you bankesters can have that!! I am saying again and again: let’s stop paying everything mortages credit cards, car leases, student loans etc.., let the bank of international settlement go to hell. Lets tale our money from bank accounts, iras etc
    that will teach them how to respect us . The citizens the tax payers!!! I am sorry Pulatie you are not Lloyid you are Willbur Ross. Get out with your bs. the banks and hedge funds are stilling. We paid for our homes already!!!!! Then we paid again with the bailout . WTF ??? Why we still waist time with you!!!! Let’s concentrate! He is here to distract us.

  41. More party line talk Patrick. Bankers see foreclosures as something that will just have to keep going until they’ve all gotten through the system. Amazing hubris! What are you going to do with 40 million houses?

    Professor Stiglitz, nobel economist and former chair of the white house economic advisers said let the banks fail. “Should the taxpayers have to lower their standard of living for 20 years to pay off mistakes that benefited a small elite?

    “Dr Stiglitz’s radical proposal is a “Chapter 11” scheme for households to allow them to bring their debts under control without having to go into bankruptcy. “Families matter just as much as firms. The US government can borrow at 1pc so why can’t it lend directly to poor people for mortgages at 4pc. ,” he said.

    Help families instead of bankers? I wish Geithner could hear this, but he’s too busy catering to Blankfein and Dimon’s every wish.

  42. Patrick

    You will respond again – been there. Much offense to your statement: “Then there were the borrowers who used the home as an ATM, because they wanted to live a lifestyle that they could not afford” – the banks told them they could afford it – the banks told them their homes were worth far more than the home was actually worth – the banks created a market based on appraisal fraud.

    Do NOT blame the borrowers – the whole fiasco was simply a way for Wall Street to make money. The people were duped – scammed – defrauded – and what ever other word one can use to describe what happened.

    STOP BLAMING THE PEOPLE. Again – I am not in foreclosure – so I am not speaking for personal gain. You are trying convince the people to buy your gimmick – well, the people are smarter now – they will not buy it.

  43. Patrick,

    Why do you still ignore the FACTS that were provided. Countrywide put people into SISA loans – many without their knowledge. The EPS program used specifically to qualify borrowers that COULD NOT qualify is a FACT. You seem to skip past that… the other 965-thousand borrowers there scammed are also already admitted by Countrywide. What about them – who are they? That does not include the 15-20% of “un-qualified” borrowers put through the EPS system DAILY – just so they could fill the POOLs for Wall Street…

    The courts are allowing this to go untold. Sadly, that is exactly why I think it will not change until a few lender’s families are killed – maybe a few buildings destroyed with the employees… frankly – I hope it comes soon. Then maybe these lying bastards will learn. As for the borrowers who lying – the SAME TREATMENT. I know we did not lie and I do not nor have not made excuses for them. Wrong is wrong – no matter which side someone is one – a liar is a liar – but these lenders are destroying families then walking away with the prize. This is sick. I will settle this by law or 44-Desert Eagle – its’ their choice – it does not matter to me… You’ve been dealing with it since 2007… You’re a newbie – I’ve been dealing with these bastards since 2003. Hit the buildings with napalm that would be worth watching re-runs and I’d gladly send the videos every anniversary to their families… It is up to them – but the consequence is up to me.

  44. Seeing all the comments, I decided to write once more, and once more only. To again try and establish my credentials, for what it is worth:

    I have been involved in fighting the banks since Sep 2007. That is longer than almost anyone else doing what I do. I have testified in support of borrowers in Federal Courts. I have filed Declarations in countless cases in support of the borrowers. I have been in Settlement Hearings, and I have been to TRO hearings, and then the Order to Show Cause hearings.

    Daily, I receive calls from attorneys who are knowledgeable of events, asking for my interpretations, or how to counter lender filings.

    To reach where I am today, it has meant unknown hours of reading Court Filings from across the Country. I read the Pleadings of the Homeowners and the responses to the Pleadings. I study the demurrers and dismissals. Then I read the court’s rulings. My goal is to understand what works and what does not work. For what does not work, I try to develop new ways for the attorneys to argue their points, so that the arguments will be effective.

    One person complained that I did not provide information about what is working. If the person understood the court system, it would be obvious that what might work with one court or one judge will not work with another.

    Also, courts are jurisdictional. What happens in one jurisdiction means nothing in another jurisdiction, except as a point of reference. Courts will always look first to rulings in their jurisdictions.

    For example, if you have a Right to Cancel document without starting and ending dates of rescission shown, in the 9th District, it gives rise to rescission. In the 4th, rulings say that it does not give rise to rescission.

    The foreclosure process is also a major determinate. Statutes are different in each state, as is the rulings. Judicial Foreclosure states allow for a bit better defense of legal standing, but it depends upon the court as well. Florida has some good cases, but look how many Florida Courts have tossed out legal standing arguments.

    All have complained about my commenting on borrower fraud. The fact of the matter is that borrower fraud was rampant as well. Most often, from my experiences, those who committed borrower fraud are the ones who are most vocal about lender fraud.

    Yes, the lenders offered different types of programs like stated income. But did a lender ever hold a gun to a person’s head and demand that they take the loan? No.
    Did a borrower ever stop and think about whether they could afford the loan? Or was it just “get me a home”? Most of the time, the borrower never gave repayment more than a passing thought.

    Then there were the borrowers who used the home as an ATM, because they wanted to live a lifestyle that they could not afford.

    All I have been trying to say is that lender fraud was not the only problem. Often, borrowers were their own worst enemy.

    Now, everyone complains about not receiving HAMP modifications. There are some things that need to be said there.

    HAMP does not “require” a modification. It only requires that a person be considered.

    HAMP does not apply to privately securitized loans. The PSA takes precedent there.

    If an analysis is done of those people receiving HAMP modifications, you will find that for Back-End Debt Ratios, the “MEAN POINT” for the Debt Ratio is 64.7%. That means of every Pre-Tax dollar, 64.7 cents goes to debt. Factor in payroll deductions, and these people will fail. And presumably, these are the “GOOD “ HAMP applicants.

    People have complained on other threads about Indymac and other lenders not doing loan modifications.

    Were any of the complainers aware that the Indymac PSA only allows modifications if the servicer buys the loan back from the Investor first? Why would Indymac even consider buying back an “underwater” and “non-performing” loan.

    BTW, that is the basis for what I wrote about loan modifications and lack of intent being fraud. (Countrywide has many PSA’s with the same terms. Other PSA’s allow for no modifications, some allow no interest rate reductions, etc.)

    The fact that I was also trying to portray is that you can’t just read the arguments here and then scream lender fraud. The issues are far more complex than just what is written here. You must also take into account state statutes, federal statutes, the PSA’s, case law and much more.

    Much has been written about the issues with Assignments, both by the foreclosure mills, and also the lack of Assignments between the different entities in the Securitization Process. There are real questions that must be decided in the Courts, and not just at the local level or Appeals Court. These issues will have to be resolved at the Supreme Court, in all likelihood.

    When arguments are made about the lack of Assignments between the Trust Entities, there are issues regarding REMIC and True Sales. But, that is a problem for Investors to resolve. If you try to argue that in your own complaints, then likely it will be determined that you are arguing for a “Third Party Beneficiary”, and that would be tossed out for that reason.

    If you are arguing legal standing, then that gives rise to the defense that the “Deed follows the Note”. There is plenty of case law to support such arguments, and Commercial Code could be brought in as a lender defense. If such is the case, then Assignments may not even need to be made.

    Then, you have states like California where the Foreclosure Statutes don’t even require proving the Note.

    As to MERS and assignments, that is going to end up at the Supreme Court as well. Some state courts have ruled that MERS can assign Deeds. Others say no.

    Edgetrader talked about the fraud of Securitization and the level of fraud that was perpetrated on the investors. This poses even more issues to be litigated.

    If the Investors looked at the PSA’s and FWP’s carefully, and did their own due diligence, they would have realized that these were truly risky investments. The PSA underlines underwriting standards, credit standards and myriad other issues. They explain possible consequences of defaults, etc.

    The Rating Agencies are a different story. IMO, there was true conspiracy issues, but that must be addressed in Investor lawsuits. It is not applicable to homeowner issues.

    Here is the “Final Reality” that I must address.

    The banks have won the war with individual homeowner lawsuits. Sure, there are a few cases where homeowners have one, but these are few and far between.

    Even in Florida which has had the best results, only a few jurisdictions are responding in a positive manner to homeowners.

    In California, the banks will foreclose on at least one in four homeowners by the end of this. Might as well “turn out the lights” here.

    There are only two possible ways to end the Housing Crisis.

    One is to provide EVERY homeowner in the countrywide with a principal reduction to fair market value. But, this will not work because there are large numbers of homeowners who do not have mortgages, so they get penalized, and then there are even larger numbers of homeowners who have loans and who do have equity in their homes, so they would get penalized.

    Add to this the fact that the worst areas of home value losses were in CA, FL, AZ, NV and a few other states. The bulk of other states were not as badly affected. So persons in these states will complain.

    Then, you factor in that to force principal reductions, all PSA’s would need to have the modification provisions in their contracts invalidated. Do you think that will fly?

    Even worse is the impact on the banks. Contrary to what is publicly announced, over 90% of the banks in the US are insolvent. That is because of the bad portfolio loans on their books. It is also the reason why the banks are taking their time in foreclosures. If the loans are placed into default, then the reserve requirements shoot up expotentially, and the FDIC has to come in and take them over.

    The capital infusion to keep these banks going would make TARP look like a child’s piggy bank. And if the FDIC did not come to the rescue, then the entire banking system would crash, and the economy would crash to the point that the Depression would seem like good times.

    Sadly, the only other way to get the Housing Crisis ended, and return Housing to sustainable levels is to allow the foreclosures to continue, without the phony government modification programs. The mod programs only delay the inevitable without principal reductions. And reductions would not work.

    Some homeowners will be able to save their homes in various ways, including litigation, but these will be very few in comparison to the huge amount of foreclosures that will happen.

    There are no easy and good solutions to the problems we face. All involve pain, hardship and tragedy.

    Now, I fully expect everyone here to rant and rave and scream at what I have written. That is fine with me. Do what you wish. At least, I have tried to provide other information in my posts that should be known to all persons engaged in the “War against the Banks”.

    You don’t go to war with limited information about the other side. Nor do you go to war without knowing the “terrain” that you are fighting in. Wars are very seldom won. Instead, they are lost due to lack of timely information about what is ahead.

    If you are going to fight the banks, you need every bit of information, positive or negative, so that you can devise appropriate strategies. That information is your ammunition. Failing to acquire it beforehand and engaging in battles ill prepared will always lead to failure.

    I will monitor the replies, but I will not respond anymore, unless there is compelling reason to do so.

  45. These lying lenders & foreclosure mills should be treated exactly as terrorists. They know what they’ve done and know what they are doing. For that – they and their families are free targets. They have no fear – life is good. Take away their good life and make them fear – THEN they will change. Let it hit their families then suddenly they are brought back to reality. Until then they will steal & pillage whomever – wherever – and do-so because they can.

    They made the enemies – they are driving people like myself to insanity and I for-one have no problem delivering anymore. I don’t care if its a 500-story building on family day – drop the damn bomb – maybe then people will get the message. Maybe if a few were found hung from street signs – maybe a few beheadings of their families – I do not care what happens to them or their families. I pray – seriously pray it happens soon and is violently horrific. Then these bastards will learn. I did not lie – cheat or exaggerate on anything. We simply wanted to build our house and retire. They started it – I will finish it no matter what it takes. Its up to them. For now they have no fear and LAUGH all they to court… we’ll see what happens after reality gives them a reason to start think – was it really worth it…? They are intoxicated by their own arrogance & greed. They use the courtrooms for the dog & pony shows… That’s fine – I don’t know how a court works – but I do know how the street works.

    As the saying goes – Pride comes before a fall – they are very proud at what they’ve been able to pull off – the time is coming to pay the reaper and I will stomp the piss out of their asses – including their kids – wives – relatives and anyone who stands with them. I would rather be dead than live this life – they created this freaking nightmare and now they will live in it. We haven’t lost our home yet because they committed fraud on the court. But these are arrogant bastards – they will be back. We no longer have a lawyer because we can’t even afford my wife’s medication. Been married over 31-yrs and we have never been in a situation like this. I wake up every night – every night thinking of how much I hate these bastards – sooner or later that will turn to action. I hope not but as for me – I don’t care anyumore – they’ve destroyed everything I dreamed about and now they will live in my freaking nightmare… sorry to sound so morbid but I have absolutely nothing but bitter hatred towards these people and their families – let them pay the price for what they’ve done not only to us but to so many decent American families.

  46. edgetraderplus,

    Wow – and I thought I was angry!! Neidermeyer is right – this is not just about money – there are many incidences in American history as to money and power.

    The issue is – homes. Despite your reference to fraud upon the public by the federal government, this time the government made a decision to not help the “people” survive and, instead, chose to save financial institutions – and with knowledge of fraud by the financial institutions.

    We never hear about the babies, children, the elderly and sick, that have put out of there home and may now have no where to go. We only hear that it is the peoples fault – and, therefore, they must suffer.

    In other times of crisis – the government has at least made an effort to help the people (sorry if you do not like that word) – even if that effort was not the best choice available. I know of no other period when the government allowed a large proportion of the population – to take the fall to protect others. I am not referring to money – I am referring to eviction of homeowners – and that includes the babies, children, etc. that lived in those homes.

  47. ANONYMOUS & DAVID,

    Until we get some daylight on the actual deals the wall streeters sold to the actual cash money lenders we will have people looking at us from Patricks perspective. Patrick IS RIGHT , in a “blind man describing an elephant” sort of way.

    This is no longer about the money (although I won’t lie to you ,, I LIKE money) , all my adult life I have been screwed by the gov’t ,, I lost a great job in the 80’s at a aerospace contractors computer division when I repeatedly applied for a position that was in reality open to minorities only in order to meet quota’s ,, then in 2000 I lost another great job when the new telemarketing rules went into effect and my company lost 50% of it’s business overnight (overseeing about 50 worthless Indian UNIX programmers hired under fraudulent H1-B’s) ,, then in 2001 I went into an aquaintenances stock brokerage business and got my license 2 months before 09/11 ,,, I can honestly say I was the only broker that made money for all my clients, but I lost that job in 2003 because I had shaky finances and the owner was afraid of an audit (shaky finances due to wife wiring all ,, and I mean ALL , our available money to pay for her mothers hospital stay,, we had a gun to our head ,, it was outside the US and if money wasn’t sent she would have been booted out.)

    All my life I’ve been held to the rules or screwed by people gaming them, it’s high time that the crooks that are hiding behind undisclosed deals (with invalid and/or non-existant documentation) are held to the same standards.

    Personally I think the dollar will crash and burn before this is ever straightened out as nobody in the federal government has the cajones to get to the truth and hold the bandits feet to the fire.. we need a few million square feet of wall street real estate vacant and the personal fortunes of the culpable confiscated. My rule? If a deal can’t be fully described in 20 pages or less or accurately described in under 30 seconds STAY AWAY.

  48. Edgetraderplus,

    I know of what you speak. However, I’d take “America” out of the mix, because it’s now more global than ever, pure and simple. The term “multi-national” says it all. And now that the supreme court has not only given corporations rights, they’ve taken away their liabilities as well.

    We’re going to need a bigger boat.

  49. Saturday 7 August 2010

    Anonymous, quote:

    “This has been the biggest fraud upon the American people in the history of our nation. The people will eventually prevail – …”

    You seem to pay attention to detail. If you knew the history behind the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, you would understand THAT has been the second biggest fraud in the history of what used to be this nation.

    The biggest fraud, by far, is the existence of the Federal corporate UNITED STATES, purposefully named after the organic united states of America to confuse those who chose not to pay attention to such kinds of “details.”

    This mortgage scam is chump change when standing next to the fiat Federal Reserve Note that most everyone “believes” to be “money,” brought about as a direct result of the Fed Res Act of 1913.

    There are no accidents, especially in the statutes of the corporate Federal gov’t. Deception supreme.

    The “people,” as you say, will never prevail. The “people” had their chance when the Republic was formed. The “people” stood by in silent ignorance as the moneychangers took over, step by step, clinching the united states of America as their biggest “war” trophy.

    To this day, the “people” remain ignorant that there even was such a “war.” It is all there in case law, but who reads case law, anyway, when it comes to defending freedom and rights?

    It is always about “following the money.” The trail begins with Rothschild, starting in an obscure Jewish
    ghetto in Frankfort, Germany, a few hundred years ago.

    Truer words were never spoken”

    “Give me control of a nation’s money, and I care not who makes the laws.”

    Congress abdicated its constitutionally mandated control of this nation’s money when it turned over that power to a foregn consortium that created the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, creating AND controlling this country’s Central Bank.

    Jefferson, et al, fought just as hard to prevent such a scheme to gain control of the nation’s money as was fought during the Revolutionary War. The “people” eventually chose not to heed.

    Don’t ever bet on the “people.” History will then be on your side.

  50. Meant to address last post to PATRICK

  51. ANONYMOUS

    Tried to be polite to Patrick – it looks like that does not work. Sorry, Patrick – you just do not have a clue as to what has really gone on – and continues to go on. You are looking for opportunities.

    What you describe below is called a short refinance. This is an opportunity for people like you to make money. Bulk loans have been sold for quite some time at a fraction of stated value.. If the real creditor (and the fractional price paid) was not hidden in court actions – we would not need intermediaries like you to try to facilitate “deals”.

    You quote mostly state court decisions in one of your posts – few state courts understand the complexity of securitization that promoted widespread fraud. Your federal court case cites – are old.

    Do agree with you on one issue – class actions are not good for the people – and this is for many reasons.

    Know you will attack me – but for others here, the fraud was brewing long before you even took out the mortgage loan. Do not let others tell you otherwise.

    And, Patrick, in case you did not know, I am not in foreclosure. I am only here for the truth. You try to “simplify” a financial crisis that nearly destroyed our country (and it may still do that). This has been the biggest fraud upon the American people in the history of our nation. The people will eventually prevail – but it is not going to be by short refinances promoted by Patrick.

  52. David,
    Sorry to hear about your predicament. Your story sounds a lot like mine. I built my house myself, and at the end of the construction loan, the mortgage broker, who had signed documents showing two banks ready to give me a conventional loan at 6.5 %, suddenly said she couldn’t get me a conventional loan. I should have stopped right then and there and sued her.
    Instead, I found a different broker and was put into an unsustainable ARM with credit card rates, and a 2nd interest only. Lying scumbags and ver predatory. Countrywide, America’s Wholesale Screwer.
    Having said all that, I’d suggest that you try and take another hard look at the facts here. They are just places to live. It isn’t the end of the world. But more importantly, to settle into such bitter resentment is to give these folks way too much power over us. It’s not healthy, in any sense.
    I have come to the conclusion that I 100% refuse to give them that power. Take my house. I no longer care. I’ll be just fine as long as my peace remains unaffected. Carrying around such toxicity is bad for the soul. I wish you the best.

    Hi Frankielee,

    Thanks for the kind words… This isn’t about the house any longer. There are a number things going on but two that stand out very clear…

    One – as Edge-Trader-Plus as pointed out – it’s all about the money… when I was writing about this before – I wasn’t too clear – though I agree it is “all about money” for THEM – it is NOT about the money for me… which takes me to my other point…

    Two – this is now about principle… something that these lenders & foreclosure mills have no comprehension of…

    We started building back in 2002. Had a small construction rider of 25k to remodel the old farmhouse. Hurricane Isabel hit our area very hard. This is a 2.5 acre peninsula that we own and the house was destroyed. The insurances did not payout. We lost most everything including our life’s savings because the plan was to build out of pocket so we would NOT have a mortgage.

    We were approved for 600k but the loan was only 284k. We asked them to rewrite the loan so we could re-build. No problem – credit was great – no blemishes hiccups and our business was growing strong. After paying 2-yrs on an interest only loan and they never came through re-writing I finally told them I was paying any more. I pleaded with them to rewrite the loan or convert to a land-loan so I could get financing elsewhere. Nope – but the Senior VP and cronies drove 2.5 hrs to see the property – gee – I wonder why…?

    We found a builder who introduced us to his lender. At the same time a buyer for our business came along and gave us a deposit – price 1.3 million dollars. We thought finally things were coming together. Shortly after construction started the numbers were not adding up – missing 70-100k. I alerted the lender – tried to talk with the builder – but the lender warned me if I terminate the builder they could foreclose…? I was livid-dumbfounded and confused. We were also told that we could NOT sell the business until the construction was completed on the house – otherwise that would be breaching the contract by changing vocation.
    Long story short – the house was never completed – the business buyer purchased another business and we’ve lost everything in the process. The lender closed the loan using a fraudulent appraisal – which I have pictures and can easily prove it. The were able to get a local county official to give them a fraudulent U&O Permit to use for closing.

    Skipping tons of details it comes down to this – the lender did not care if they broke the law because they pre-sold the loan to Countrywide – who also pre-sold the loan to CWALT INC – a trust to sell Certificates. Our loan violates the PSA on countless issues – it also violates the REMIC Provision making them liable to the IRS.

    So, after being gang-raped by three federal institutions – I am tired of their games. The FBI has taken our case because there is so much Fraud involved. What gets under my skin is that I tried – honestly tried to work this out every way I possibly could. I even explained to the foreclosing attorney that their client had actionable causes against the original lender – they were defrauded…

    Silly me – that loan was never sold – this supposed original lender used Countrywide’s warehouse funds and never technically sold it to Countrywide. That’s why they weren’t suing the original lender – THEY ARE THE ORIGINAL LENDER.

    I consider myself a dead-man walking. I don’t care what happens anymore. This is now my life for their life or BOTH GO DOWN – it doesn’t matter to me. Allowing them to take this house is nothing – we hate this place. But allowing them to get away with it – NOT A FREAKING CHANCE. If I have to follow that bastard home and beat him to bloody-pulp – so be it. I will do to him and his family what they have done to mine and others. I tried to work it out – and if the courts suddenly wake up and start following the laws – maybe it won’t come to that but I don’t see that happening. We are dealing with people that have no conscience. There are other places to live – you are right. They will take those as well. Allowing them to get away with this with reaping the consequences is only “empowering” them to do more. They are no different than the terrorists we are fighting overseas. IF they are not killed and removed – they will continue manipulating and lying and thieving and taking advantage decent hard working people. I will gladly sacrifice what life I have left to remove 10 – 20 or 1000 of them… It is WELL WORTH the sacrifice for our future. That is why we sent soldiers overseas – that (IMHO) is what must be done here to free us from the slave-drivers disguised as lenders & foreclosure mills. Oh, and the lady that was found dead – she was murdered. She simply went to the store to get a soda but was living in the wrong neighborhood… 37-yrs old and a great mom – she worked for us for about 10yrs – murdered…. These are the unspoken consequences by these lenders…

    I honestly don’t mean to sound crazy or morbid. I am tired of the arrogance of these people. I have never broken the law nor even been in a courtroom but I will do whatever necessary to put these rabid dogs down…

  53. David,

    Sorry to hear about your predicament. Your story sounds a lot like mine. I built my house myself, and at the end of the construction loan, the mortgage broker, who had signed documents showing two banks ready to give me a conventional loan at 6.5 %, suddenly said she couldn’t get me a conventional loan. I should have stopped right then and there and sued her.

    Instead, I found a different broker and was put into an unsustainable ARM with credit card rates, and a 2nd interest only. Lying scumbags and ver predatory. Countrywide, America’s Wholesale Screwer.

    Having said all that, I’d suggest that you try and take another hard look at the facts here. They are just places to live. It isn’t the end of the world. But more importantly, to settle into such bitter resentment is to give these folks way too much power over us. It’s not healthy, in any sense.

    I have come to the conclusion that I 100% refuse to give them that power. Take my house. I no longer care. I’ll be just fine as long as my peace remains unaffected. Carrying around such toxicity is bad for the soul. I wish you the best.

  54. Sorry Kickboxer,

    I disagree – there was nothing constructive about his arrogance. He is trolling and baiting – and deliberately used broad-strokes to cloud the issue. This is typical.

    Our income was inflated by over 200k per yr. I gave them docs showing 100k – we had a construction loan based upon the income I reported to them – yet, when they did the refi converting the loan to a perm loan – we were magically given a 200k raise. Stating we earned 300 per yr is absurd but sell us a loan on a house never inspected – never even legal within the state is crazy. Now – we cannot sell the house because of the banks illegal orgies with the builder, appraiser, county gov official – and we cannot fix the house because no builder will touch it without permits… but somehow “IF” they foreclose “magically” all those illegal acts WASH AWAY…

    Dropping the “F” bomb is the least of what I would drop on these useless scum. I would gladly park a McVeigh U-Hauler under their buildings – let it rip – and hope their kids and families are ALL AT WORK WITH THEM THAT DAY. Let them feel the pain they have caused. These bastards have destroyed families & lives.

    A friend ours was just found DEAD in NJ. Their house was foreclosed. They were forced to move into a gov-housing project. She went to the store and was never seen again until last week. She had three kids… That is the type of thing these Puliatie people don’t see or even care about. So, would she be alive today had they not been tossed from their home… Here’s another twist – the loan was only 60k – but the payments were 900-bucks. Do the math – how much freaking interst does that come out to be?

    IMHO – these lenders – foreclosure mills – etc – should be treated like terrorists and that includes their families. I have zero respect for lying theives and that is exactly what they are. The only Pulatie was doing was BRAGGING how his buddies have manipulated the courts on the side of the banks. WHO on this freaking website does NOT already know that…? He isn’t trying to help anyone but himself. It’s called guilt manipulation – and he is simply trying to soothe his guilty consciences for ripping these families off…

    Let a few Oklahoma type bombs rip through their buildings and after about 5-10 – THEN the gov will get the message. No one wants to see folks die over – but until the reasons for them to continue are removed – they will relentless keep doing the same thing. I did not lie – cheat – or exaggerate on anything – THEY DID. this is LIFE or LIFE in my book – my for house for their house – my family for their family – I tried everything I could to work this out rightly and we will still go to court if I can. But in the end – comes around goes around and I will deliver what I feel is necessary – no matter what the Pulatie’s want to convince themselves with…

    Someone could not have convinced me that I would EVER even think in such a way but after what we’ve been through and after what I’ve read – NOTTA A FREAKING CHANCE – they are lairs & theives and the only thing I hate worse are those who defend them. I wake up every night thinking about how much I hate these people – no matter what I do – it never goes away. We only wanted to build a house – retire and live our lives… They had other plans – well, I did not pick this fight – but I will be damn sure to finish it – law or not – I know what I did and did not do – they will pay – period.

    Pulatie was given FACTS – that Countrywide & others have already admitted. Those families are being tossed to the streets and have no-idea they were screwed. The foreclosure mill that came after us filed FALSE AFFIDAVITS – forged the damn signatures forged the notary. He might get away with a double standard in the courtroom – but he will NOT get that double standard on the street. Whip my ass in court – and I will whip much more on the street. If anyone can find the place where I lied or even implied or whatnot on my loan docs – I’ll sign it over to them… They lied – they know it – their game is simple – beat the consumer into poverty until they have nothing left to defend – then dance with the judge blow-kisses & hugs – pretend to be sorry for the circumstance – then POUNCE ON THAT TITLE – and sing ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST… that is what the lenders – servicers – foreclosure mills are doing… THEY WILL PAY one-way or another – they will pay.

  55. Regardless of who Patrick is and what he stands for, nobody should have disrespected him. We can all agree to disagree in a respectful and adult manner. Hopefully without a grudge too.

    Dropping the “F” bomb on him was not cool. That is not “light and love.” We’re all frustrated with our situation but nothing good comes from attacking one another.

  56. Google Patrick’s name and you will find a complaint on the “Rip Off” report accusing Patrick Pulati, the loan broker of negoitating “bad Loans”.

    That may explain why he seems to be “defending” the opposition..

  57. Patrick,

    I gave you a list of the illegalities Countrywide already admitted – equating to 965-borrowers sold illegal loans to consumers they knew could not repay – and that the consumer would NOT HAVE KNOWN about their scheme…

    Why gave you ignore THAT TRUTH..?

    I gave you a snip from another lawsuit involving Countrywide’s special computer software (EPS) used ONLY for borrowers that could NOT be put through their normal Underwriting system (CLUES) – yet you ignore it…

    The fact that Countrywide CHANGED MANY LOAN from Conventional to SISA loans without the borrower even knowing seems to slip past you as well…

    WHY..?

    Do you think the folks on this list are freeloading whiners looking for free-ride?

    What I know is this – the clock is ticking… I hope the BOMBS start exploding… Then suddenly the court manipulators will change their minds about who lied and who is refusing to take responsibility. Let the McVeigh U-Haulers start delivery – watch and see – reality has a way fixing truth…

  58. Actually, Patrick did a wonderful job in fullfilling Neil’s thread title, “How the other side sees us.”

    The other side sees us as 200,000 people per month losing our homes due to fraud perpetrated on the banks, and by the practice of using our homes as ATMs. Plain and simple.

    The bankers like to throw around the term “moral hazard”. Moral hazard coming from those clowns is just too freakin’ funny!

    JP Morgan’s (where Satan resides) David Lowman in April testifying before the House Finance Services Committee said, that “principal reduction could reward households for consuming more than they can afford.” This coming from a bank that received $25,000,000,000.00 in TARP funds. Hilarious!

    Let’s get this straight….the folks losing their homes in 2010 aren’t subprimers. They’re not fraudsters. They are the chronically unemployed due to a recession that they didn’t cause. A recession (depression?) that WAS caused directly by the JP Morgan Chases of the world. The same group that has never even hinted at a thank you for TARP, or an apology for their actions that created this crisis in the first place.

    JP Morgan Chase discussing moral hazard, now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are. The same JP that has discovered that microlending is a new frontier that can take from the absolute poorest of the poor.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-04/hedge-funds-bet-on-poor-in-simpsons-farce-commentary-by-william-pesek.html

    The same JP that Cuomo is investigating for “lending practices that are driving seniors and lower-income patients deeper into debt.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11323190

    The same JP that a federal Judge is prohibiting 10 J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. employees, including Vice Chairman Steven Black, from having any further dealings with a $225 million loan the bank arranged for a big Mexican cable-television operator.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704700404575391672959413594.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    The same JP that was ready to watch the entire world shrink into a black hole rather than take part in the rescue of AIG, instead insisting to Geithner that they should receive 100 cents in the dollar, “or else!”

    http://www.thenation.com/article/153929/aig-bailout-scandal

    The same JP that just had it’s best quarter ever. In 2009, just one year after taxpayers rescued Wall Street from falling into the abyss, bonuses for financial employees in New York City rose 17%, to reach an astonishing $20.3 billion. Now we’re two years out, and after months of wrangling with financial regulations and more stringent rules regarding payouts, things certainly haven’t changed much. Record bonuses yet again. Still no thanks to taxpayers.

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/08/06/wall-street-bonuses-are-back.aspx

    Simon Johnson: “When you really do want to take on megabanks through the courts – and have found the right legal theory and compelling lines of enquiry – they will threaten to collapse or just contract credit.” Such as when Jamie Dimon said to Geithner, “if we “demonize” our big banks in this fashion, it will undermine our economic recovery and could weaken financial stability around the world.” Read: we will shut this planet down of you don’t do exactly as we say.

    Only when America, and the world for that matter, wake up and realize that these crooks do nothing for anyone, nothing worth anything….period! They don’t make anything. They don’t help main street. They don’t do anything but rob from the low and middle class. They and their usurious ways need to be eliminated from the world’s vocabulary. The world’s situation will not improve until such a time. That’s how I see them.

  59. Saturday 7 August 2010

    Patrick…you just don’t get it.

    It IS important to hear the other side, which would be court cases from which one can learn how the other side is posturing itself.

    What has been so tedious and self-promoting is YOUR side, which you present as being the only pertinent side with which a reader should be concerned.

    LOL! You are too much.

  60. Edgetrader,
    Here is the problem. None of you want to hear the other side because it means that you have to admit your own culpability.

    To quote Jack Nicholson in a “Few Good Men”……

    “You can’t handle the truth”.

    Now, I will end my participation in this thread. I am not going to waste any further time on people who are afraid to admit their own culpability as well as the banks.

    It is a waste of my time.

    I wish all of you the best in your actions. Hopefully, some of you will succeed.

  61. Saturday 7 August 2010

    From Pulatie:

    “I did this…”

    “I am working on that…”

    “I am innovative…”

    “I, I, I, I…..”

    It is always about you, and it it always about what you have seen borrowers do, taking shortcuts, leaving a spouse off a loan, etc, etc.

    How did all of these homeowners twist the arms of those in the banking industry and Wall Street, forcing all of the falsification of credit reporting, forcing the lowering of application standards so that those who could fog a mirror could get approved?

    Shame on borrowers for creating this atmosphere! Shame on borrowers for forcing those who control the purse string to loosen them into meaninglessness!

    Poor bannkers. Poor Wall Street. [ Rich, rich lawyers.]

    And you, Mr White Knight writing in to save the day, citing the numerous audits you have performed, for the lenders, no doubt, who are in desperate need against the conniving homowners.

    Everytime you point the finger at faulty homeowners and borrowers, remember, three are always pointing back at you.

    A shill? No.

    A sham? Yes.

    The bar for your egotistical standards is so low a slug has difficulty crawling under it.

    But, what am I? Just another pesky homeowner who forced the bankers and Wall Streeters to lie and steal.

    Mea culpa.

  62. I was going to respond to both neidemeyer and ANONYMOUS’ posts but Daniela’s comments deserve far greater attention.

    Daniela, you know absolutely nothing about me. You have no idea what I have done for the “audit” industry, nor the advice and assistance I give to attorneys daily.

    And you have no idea of the groups or projects that I am involved in that are designed to give relief to owners in large amounts.

    For example, I am working with certain parties on a project that would allow bulk loans to be bought for under 30 cents on the dollar. The loans would then be modified to 50 cents on the dollar, creating a win-win scenario for all parties. Of course, someone like you would complain because the investor did not write your loan down to what they paid.

    I am involved in other projects as well that are intended to force banks to the table for realistic mods in massive scale.

    For the people who know what I do, I have been one of the innovative thinkers in trying to develop strategies to deal with the foreclosure crisis. I began this in Sep 07, and have spent 365 days a year since working.

    The truth is that most of what is written with the blogs and the theories that are expounded will not work in the courts. That is because the judges see a homeowner in default, arguing concepts that mean nothing to them, and often are dubious at best. Other arguments made fly in the face of actual case law.

    Class actions will not work. for homeowners. That is because a class action must be argued on the basis of one or two allegations. The problem with loans is that every loan is different and the facts related to it are different, so class action will not work, unless you can argue situations like Elder Abuse, and loans, and even these are fact specific.

    When the attorneys and other persons I am involved with think that they have found a “winning formula” for the individual homeowner, many ideas of which the people here have not even thought of, the judges are quick to shoot the arguments down. the arguments could be appealed, but the homeowners don’t have the money to fight any longer, so the ideas cannot be tested further. Likely, in today’s litigation environment, the ideas would still end up on the courtroom floor.

    It is for the above reasons that I spend 50% of my time involved in other tactics to benefit homeowners, putting together the right people and concepts to begin to stabilize housing.

    I bring things up here from time to time, saying things that need to be said. When I posted my comments, I knew that people here would contest what I say, but it needed to be said.

    I review files daily that the foreclosure process is “tainted”, the servicing is flawed, the broker or lender have engaged in fraud, and rampant TILA/RESPA violations have occurred.

    But all of that is just a part of the picture. I also see in the same files borrowers who have refinanced continuously every year or two, using the home for an ATM, spending the money, and back in financial trouble again.

    I see people who are whining about Option ARM fraud, but they have kept refinancing from one Option ARM to another.

    I see people who deliberately leave the spouse off the loan application, and go stated income. The spouse is left off because of bad credit, high debt levels in her name only, or the both have engaged in buying multiple properties in only one name, to hide what they are doing.

    Just in the last two days, I had one woman, working for a hospital, buy two homes in a new sub-division, next to each other, and claim both as owner occupied. She went to two separate brokers, who went with two different lenders, and nothing was disclosed on either app about the other property.

    These are just a small sample of what I see weekly. The borrowers have committed their own fraud, or have no financial sense and make bad decisions. Yet they are the first ones who claim that the lenders defrauded them, and want to use every angle to save the home, and often want it for free.

    Yes, there were large numbers of people genuinely defrauded, and I try everything I can for them. These people include the elderly, and non-english speaking persons.

    But there is an equally large number of people who knew what they were doing, and now are claiming fraud, when caught with their pants down.

    These are the people that have to first admit to themselves that they were a large part of the problem. After they admit that, then they make the decision of what they want to do, and how they want to fight. (When I mentioned banks beginning to go after borrowers for fraud, it was to caution people about what could happen, and what we will be seeing more of.)

    Isn’t it time for the people who engaged in fraud themselves, or simply made bad financial decisions to quit playing the victim card? Isn’t it time for them to “own up” to their own actions? It is not an easy thing, but it can offer some clarity to what needs to be done.

    And, it is one hell of a lot easier to live each day being honest with yourself.

    Now, Diane, for your comments about your loan. If you have actual proof that three different parties claiming to own your loan, then you should have an easy time arguing legal standing. Then, you may actually have a chance of getting your home free and clear. But that all remains for a court of law to decide. It is a question of fact.

    Now, your personal attacks against me, and your request to Neil to ban me from the website.

    For your information, Neil and Brad know who I am. I met them at a seminar and talked at length with each. There were people at the seminar that I had done exams for and who raved about me. At the attorney seminar, there were attorneys that I worked with.

    Neil and I have honest differences about how we interpret things. When I have time, I point out my views. And, I can tell when I “hit” a nerve because there will often be a posting in a few days better explaining a position, etc.

    My problem with the blog is that I get calls continuously from people having read the posts, and then when they call, they literally say that “they want to make the lender prove the note”. Invariably, they then say they want to get their home for free.

    These people have an unrealistic view of what is going on. They read a few posts where homes have been awarded in Florida, and they think that this is the standard in every state. Unfortunately, that is not so. As a result, I have to waste time educating the person about what the true status is.

    Also, I have a real difference with the way case are reported here. Cromwell v NDEx West was one. This was reported as a victory for the homeowner. (BTW, I know “the Kimster”. And I know her attorney. But, I did not do her audit, though I know the person who did, and I will not have a thing to do with that person.) The “victory” was a TRO until the trial. When I say the complaint, I knew that she would lose at trial, and I did tell several people what to expect. Nowhere here have I seen a “Heading Post” of the final results. This is where I think that Neil and Brad do a disservice.

    Now, with the personal attack on me, the good news is that you are simply an angry homeowner who is in danger of losing her home. It sounds like you have valid issues regarding note ownership, but unless I see a file and all the documents, it is only hearsay to me.

    At this point, I thought about asking why you were in foreclosure, but that does not matter. You would likely not even mention it, and if you did, it would be to blame everyone but yourself. Your “anger” at me would tend to suggest such a response, and it would be telling.

    Before you start to accuse someone for being a fraudster and working for the banks, and then demanding that the person be banned, it would behoove you to find out more about that person. You never know when you might be alienating someone who could be of benefit to you in the future.

    Actually, you should read the entire set of comments made, reading what “angry and not taking it” wrote, and perhaps even what I posted about loan mods and lack of intent defenses.

    You should also read what I have written at Iamfacingforeclosure.com and the ml-implode blog. Then you would realize that I am not someone who is working for the banks.

    I tell it like it is, and lets the chips fall from there. I will not pull punches, and am not in this to just make a buck.

    I don’t accept homeowners for clients unless they have an attorney who knows and understands what we are fighting, and the attorney has stated that my work is needed.

    I have come out against “audit” firms who are simply a scam, and I have written for a state-wide CA paper a series of articles about the entire foreclosure process, loan mods, selecting an attorney, audits, and much more.

    So, the next time you attack the integrity of a person here, research the person before you put your foot in your mouth.

    (BTW, there is a report against me on one website that is a complete fraud. It was done by an “auditor” who reads this blog. He was ticked because I would not share information with him. You will find that not only did I respond to the complaint, but a client did as well. I tell this so when you see this, you know it is out there.)

  63. Notice how this Pulatie guy comes to the blog when we are getting to new defenses or organizing. Get the fuck out of here because I am sure you are Lloyd Blankfein using another name. You are part of the same people who wants to continue to make us feel somehow guilty for buying our homes when the truth is you fuckers banksters idealized- organized and perpetraded the crime. Please Neil block him from the blog. I have documents of 3 different people saying they own my loan your idiot. How do you explain that??????? For all my friends here sorry for my language but I can’t hold it anymore. Don’t waist time exchanging with this ah!!!!

  64. Patrick Pulatie

    Not disputing what you write – but, here is your one mistake. You write – “but the loan is held in a Trust..” The loan is no longer in a Trust – if it even was from the onset. This is a big problem. And, in bankruptcy court, if you do not get the real creditor right – the debt still stands.

  65. Patrick Pulatie ,

    **************************** you say ******************
    And for those who say securitization is illegal. What about this?

    Fannie Mae and Freddie securitized their loan products in different ways starting when they were formed. So, are their actions illegal as well?

    Eliminate all securitization and you have another problem. Money for mortgages will not be there. Banks will end up requiring 20% down, and very stringent underwriting and credit criteria.
    **********************************************************
    First off I see absolutely no problem with requiring 20% down and having the borrower actually pass real tests for income , job longevity , assetts and such ,, THAT IS A GOOD THING THAT WE NEED TO GET BACK TO.

    Second , NOBODY has said that securitization is or should be illegal. What is wrong is that the wall street banks had absolutely no skin in the game and would buy any loan and actively encouraged the making of loans to people they knew would not be able to repay because they would package and sell the securities before the fish started to stink too much. Securitization is fine but it has to be done right. In all of these cases layer upon layer was added for no other reason than to isolate the banks from the product they created because they knew they were perpetuating a fraud on the big money investors (don’t tell me they didn’t know , I used to be a stockbroker and still have a series7 license and friends in Manhattan). It is these layers meant to protect the banks that are now being used as OUR protection ,, they created companies (MERS) and divisions within banks to hide transactions and defraud local and state governments of recording fees they legitimately owed, documents they need to show who owns what and how they own it never actually existed (except as a line item in a spreadsheet with no real method of showing who, how or what was paid for the transfers) and that is our nuclear tipped ICBM. I don’t care if my title is clouded ,, I’ll be in this house forever and they won’t be able to touch it.

  66. Patrick,

    Although you cite well, the reality behind this entire fiasco is that, if it weren’t for the selling out of the entire United States government, the laws themselves wouldn’t have been steered away from the consumer, and stacked in clear advantage to the financial industry that has run roughshod over the globe, reducing the entire lower and middle class to paupers and squatters.

    Prior to this great “selling out”, every single contract entered into imposed upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and enforcement. The covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires “that neither party do anything to deprive the other of the benefits of the agreement. In the event of breach, general tort remedies might be available to the borrower. The obligation of good faith present in every contractual relation is not an invitation to the court to decide whether one party ought to have exercised the rights provided to it by agreement. Rather, it is an implied undertaking not to take opportunistic advantage of a borrower.”

    Another way of viewing this issue is when the republicans sold bankruptcy down the river in 2005. Just after that, John A. E. Pottow, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School wrote:

    “[He] proposes that the catalyst driving individual
    bankruptcy rates higher than ever is the level of “bad
    credit”—or credit extended to individuals even though there is a reasonable likelihood that the individual will be forced to default. While the author recognizes the need to hold individuals accountable for the debt they incur, he contends that bankruptcy reform should be targeted towards those creditors who are partly, if not chiefly, responsible for causing a debtor to default, given creditors’ competitive advantage in determining the repayment capacity of individuals. To this end, the author explores the idea of imposing private liability on consumer lenders who bear primary responsibility for a debtor’s financial default through a contract defense to collection, or possibly an affirmative cause of action in tort. The explosion of consumer credit card debt in this country is not just a problem of reckless borrowing; it is equally, if not more, one of reckless lending. Fixing liability on the party in the lending relationship best situated to ferret out these reckless loans that lead to bankruptcy may shock the system, but such a jolt may be just what the system needs.”

    Good luck trying to get anything like that through the bought and paid for legislative bunch of knuckleheads we’ve got on the hill. If in fact there were simple laws in place that enforced “fair dealings” and “good faith” reasoning, along with private liabilities to those who chose to ignore the same, I think our world would look a whole lot different right about now. But I suppose it’s too much to ask for George Bailey’s return. My fear is that we’re stuck with Gordon Gekko from here on out.

  67. OK Patrick, that is what I was referring to in my last post. (Apparently I was writing mine while you were posting yours) Some good counters or different approaches to common defenses. I too have a loan that was immediately transfered to Countrywide after closing and now in a trust, soooo….the note and DOT were seperated and are now void???

  68. “No one else ever figured out that if the PSA prevents modifications, or if the only way a mod can be done is by buying the loan back from the investor, then when the servicer engages in negotiations with no intent to do the mod, then it is fraud. Once I created that argument, I went out to find the court cases to support.”

    Well good for you – I never figured that out either and it was interesting to hear. I definitely appreciate hearing both sides of an argument (although in this debacle, I’m more for most of the homeowners, but it does depend upon the circumstances).

    I’m in BK court myself with a similar issue to the case you described in your last paragraph and would love to hear about how those arguments are made/won, different theories, without breaching confidential details of course. Like KB, I don’t have a McMansion either or a NINJA or liar loan – I had to jump through every stinking hoop there ever was when I got my full doc loan.

    A decrease in income and 10 months of the bank keeping me on a never-ending mod, even after I kept in touch 1-2 times per week to make sure things were on track (and was given every excuse in the book), has left me at the point of no return. While I realize there is no law that the banks have to modify, they willfully and deliberately capitalized on my arrearages and now I cannot recover. I found MERS, broken assignments with my mortgage and will be pursuing those issues. My “trial payments” are now being made for my OWN trial.

    Please don’t be driven off & do continue to provide us all with info (even if it may not be want we want to hear).

  69. Again Patrick, you seem to have an over abundance of bad news,(which is still good to know) however if you were even as much as just a disinterested third party, why not say something to the effect of: So here’s what you need to do to counter these motions or here’s how the pleadings should look. No winning cases for this side?

  70. zurenarrh,

    I am not on the side of the banks. But it is important that homeowners know the counter arguments that are made and court rulings that say otherwise.

    That is the problem that I have with this website. You only receive one side of the story. Cases running counter to what Garfield promotes never gets posted.

    If I am to be effective for my attorneys, I must be able to present both sides of the arguments. They cannot go into court and get “trapped” by arguments that go against their client.

    One of the most important things that I do is to try and development new arguments that are easy to understand. That way, the court has an easy way of understanding the issue.

    For example, Yield Spread Premium is a big issue, but it gets no play from the court. So a YSP was paid in the amount of $15k on a $500k loan. Judges don’t understand this. However, I took the issue and broke it down into easy to understand terms. “The YSP increased the monthly payment on the loan by $400, and for the life of the loan.” Just that knowledge alone presents many different ways to argue against YSP.

    I am also the one who developed the argument regarding Mods, negotiations, PSA’s and fraud. No one else ever figured out that if the PSA prevents modifications, or if the only way a mod can be done is by buying the loan back from the investor, then when the servicer engages in negotiations with no intent to do the mod, then it is fraud. Once I created that argument, I went out to find the court cases to support.

    That is what I do. Hardly anyone else who claims to do audits would ever consider such things. That is why I am the go to guy for many attorneys. It is also why I don’t put up with crappy arguments that will not survive a motion to dismiss in courts.

    Calling me a “shill for the banks” is plain wrong. I don’t shill for anyone. I examine documents, and I tell the story of the loan and the borrowers. I let the chips fall where they do.

    There is so much bad information floating on the Internet and it leads to people advancing arguments that will never be accepted in court. People need to know the difference between good and bad.

    Now, I have to get back to work. I have a Declaration to do for a homeowner in BK Court. The Assignment of Beneficiary was done to B of A/Countrywide, but the loan is held in a Trust. Therefore, the Note and Deed are still separated. This is becoming a common practice, especially with Aurora being the servicer yet the loan is in the trust.

  71. Here are a number of cases.

    In Ceballos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Index No. 29711/2008 (New York Supreme Court, Queens County), the borrower sued lender Wells Fargo, among others, alleging that plaintiff’s income was inflated on the loan
    application and that fraudulent representations were made to the lender by the mortgage broker regarding the property and plaintiff’s ability to qualify for a loan. Plaintiff alleged that Wells Fargo was negligent in its underwriting of the home mortgage loan and failed to use due diligence to
    verify plaintiff’s income. Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the complaint arguing that it owed no duty to the borrower. The court agreed, dismissing the negligence claim, affirming that, “Concerning the allegations of ‘negligent underwriting,’ a mortgagee owes no duty ‘to ascertain the accuracy of information provided to it by the mortgagor.’”

    In George B. Eronini v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Index No. 100828/2009 (New York Supreme Court, Richmond County), the borrower claimed that Wells Fargo unlawfully increased his mortgage loan payments and advised
    tenants that a foreclosure action would be commenced. Eronini sued Wells Fargo for negligence and breach of contract. In its motion to dismiss, Wells Fargo argued that a lender (Wells Fargo) owes no duty in negligence to a
    borrower (Eronini). The court dismissed the negligence claim holding that, “The plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable cause of action, rather, that any
    duty was owed by the defendant merely because of its role as [mortgagee].”

    In Yolanda Mejias v. Premium Capital Funding, LLC d/b/a Topdot Mortgage and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 23 Misc.3d 1115(A), 885 N.Y.S.2d 712 (N.Y. Sup. 2009), the plaintiff alleged that the lender “should have known” that Plaintiff “could not afford to make mortgage payments on the subject property.” Plaintiff asserted a claim for negligence alleging that the lender had a duty to Plaintiff to “exercise due care and diligence when requiring Plaintiff to make mortgage payments” and that it “failed to exercise due care”
    because it “knew or should have known” that Plaintiff could not afford the mortgage. In its motion seeking dismissal of the Complaint, Wells Fargo argued that it owed no duty to Plaintiff and that Plaintiff had not set forth any special relationship between the parties from which a duty could be
    found. The Court granted Wells Fargo’s motion, finding no basis “for attributing to [the lender] any duty of care towards plaintiff.”

    In Dellmero Lobban v. Lincoln Management Restoration Group, et al., Index No. 4135/2009 (New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County), the borrower claimed that his signature was forged on a contract directing that insurance
    proceeds be paid by the lender, Wells Fargo, to the contractor rather than to Plaintiff. The borrower sued Wells Fargo alleging that it acted negligently by releasing insurance funds based on the forged document. The Court granted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss, holding that, “a mortgagee owes no duty to the plaintiff, mortgagor.”

    Tenenbaum v. Gibbs, 27 A.D.3d 722, 813 N.Y.S.2d 155 (2006) (dismissing negligence claim holding, “as a mortgagee bank, [defendant] did not owe any duty of care to ascertain the validity of the documentation” provided to it by mortgagor);

    Beckford v. Northeastern Mrtg. Inv. Corp., 262 A.D.2d 436, 437 (1999) (lender “did not owe . . . a duty of care to ascertain the accuracy of the information provided to it” by borrower);

    Cendant Mortgage Corp. v. Packes, 37 A.D.3d 515, 516, 831 N.Y.S.2d 200, 201 (2d Dep’t 2007) (mortgagee not liable to mortgagor for negligent misrepresentation based on inaccurate appraisal, absent a special duty of care outside of contractual duty);

    Harris v. Adejumo, 36 A.D.3d 855, 856, 830 N.Y.S.2d 561, 562 (2d Dep’t 2007) (no duty of care owed by lender to prospective borrower);

    CFSC Capital Corp. XXVII v.W.J. Bachman Mech. Sheet Metal Co., Inc., 247 A.D.2d 502, 504–05, 669 N.Y.S.2d 329, 332 (2d Dep’t 1998) (dismissing negligence claim and holding that mortgagors “failed to demonstrate the existence of any duty on the part of [the mortgagee] . . . nor ha[d] they demonstrated the breach of any such duty”);

    Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Cafferty, 174 A.D.2d 932, 571 N.Y.S.2d 628 (3d Dep’t 1991) (mortgagee had no duty to monitor construction project and thus cannot be held liable to the mortgagor for negligence in the administration of the loan).

    For federal court cases, see:

    In re Lois/USA, Inc., 264 B.R. 69, 121 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2001)
    (dismissing negligence claim because no “special relationship” existed between lender and
    prospective borrower);

    Middle East Bank, New York Branch v. Harmony Sportswear, Inc., No. 93 Civ. 228 (JFK), 1994 WL 74057, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 1994) (dismissing negligence claim because borrower did not identify legal duty independent of the contract);

    Sinclair Broad. Group, Inc. v. Bank of Montreal, No. 94 Civ. 4677 (LMM), 1995 WL 70577, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 1995) (dismissing negligence claim, where plaintiff alleged negligence arising from defendant’s oral promise that a provision in the loan agreement would not be enforced, holding, “Courts have consistently rejected the notion that a lender owes a duty of care to a prospective borrower”).

    These are New York cases. There are cases in most every state that say the same.

  72. patrick
    thank you for engaging us here …
    yes borrowers [I] & others have an accountability , in an effort to both admit & address my responsibility i was met with deceit and omission by Their effort too set up “the fall” in a contract of impossibility .
    You Sir are also a STAND UP kinda guy.. I find the info you supply useful
    ” better too know the trap that awaits ” then allow ideology of fair & semi ethical practices that may cloud my decisions . A “true” business model is where both parties can sustain the exchange for & to the benefit of “each other” . Most of what was [is] going on is “take the $ and run” no accountability as is the mantra of the “Broker & bank “, “bankruptcy remote” ,”no agency relationship”
    BTW ..you sure did draw some fire in here huh?..hahaha ; ]

  73. Patrick,
    You said “Read the case law. Courts have ruled time and again that lenders have no responsibility to determine the ability of the borrower to repay the loan.”

    Please provide at least one quote from a case demonstrating the above, along with the case info (parties, state, etc.). I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying I’d like to read it for myself.

    By the way, I respect that you’re sticking around and taking on all comers. I think you mean well, but your relentless defense of the banks is unbecoming. And unnecessary–the banks are doing just fine. And it would be different if you were playing devil’s advocate, but you really seem to be on the side of the banks and the power structure. Maybe you don’t see yourself that way, but that’s how it looks to a lot of us here.

  74. Patrick Pulatie,

    **************
    you state:

    You are making arguments read here that have little or no basis on court rulings.

    You are referring to Pretender Lenders, etc, and who the true lender is.
    **************

    To that I say you must be confusing my reply with another one .. I did no such thing ,, I was merely pointing out that your car dealer analogy was grossly inaccurate and that we are dealing with invalid chains of possession/ownership and that the parties involved are bypassing the fraud they created by having other parties perform the duties that they themselves lost authority to perform,, the other parties are also not eligible to perform those functions but as they are closer to the original transaction falsifying and forging supporting documents is less involved. Why do you think that both LPS and DJSP in my back yard have both been caught forging documents?

    Most of what you posted is correct and factual but if you think ANYONE involved is clean and pure I’d suggest a long vacation and lots of boat drinks until you get it … The banks that engineered and encouraged the fraud and powered the bubble with “free money” to anyone with a pulse and “no id or verification required” are the source of the problem and since they are politically connected they got paid off with trillions of my dollars and yours.. Even if I were to be *given* a house tomorrow I’ll be paying off the bankers forever with the national debt and my taxes…

    What makes this so insidious is that people must have housing and the banks fraudulent lending practices more than doubled housing prices in my area before the crash , I wouldn’t really care if the banks engineered a bubble in the price of seashells.. Seashells aren’t something I need to live ,, something that the act of living compels me to buy.. The price bubble/increase occurred while according to the Federal government Americans salaries have been stagnant for over 35 years (in inflation adjusted dollars) , that is why housing prices have generally tracked inflation numbers… This is the end game for the US dollar … I quit paying as my income is down 50% over 5 years and my home is down 60%+ in valuation.. If I paid it would take me 16 years to get back to break even … I’M NOT THAT STUPID ,, Morgan Stanley walks when they’re upside down and so do I … It’s legal , it’s in the contract and I’m exercising my contractual rights. If I get 3/4/5 years of payment free living I’m good. And the bank doesn’t care since they’re not really part of the payment stream anyway and foreclosing in my area where there is already 4 years of inventory for sale is counter productive as they would have to pay the taxes , HOA , repairs , pool service and much more.

  75. Patrick,

    So, the homeowners lose everything because they must be held accountable – and the lenders keep the scam money – keep the multiple insurance fraud money – foreclose on the properties – commit insurance fraud again by using the “special-hazard-insurance” claim to repair – repaint – tidy the place up about – ALL because the sold loans designed the fail…

    …did someone pass the bong and I didn’t see it…? What’s wrong with that picture..?

    Patrick – of those 965-thousand families that Countrywide as ADMITTED they sold them loans they could NOT repay – and DID SO by HIDING that fact from the borrowers – how many of those are guilty? According to Countrywide THEY did it themselves.

    Of those loans put through the EPS system of Countrywide are those families responsible too?

    I went over loan docs with someone who’s payment jumped from 700 to over 2100 bucks… Her loan docs show conventional loan – with a summarized amoritization schedule. We ordered a set from the Title company and what’s that – those are differet docs and she had a 40yr loan… but I guess she was the dumbass for not knowing her docs were not the ones submitted… well, that’s what happened to the 965-thousand folks – and that’s what happened to the loans sent through the EPS system…

    Defend them all you want – give me a McVeigh U-Hauler and I’ll gladly deliver it. They are terrorists – my advice for those folks is to find employment elsewhere because this puppy is going to pop…

    You are right though – the courts persistently ignore the FACTS and TRUTH. There goes the neighborhood – this time though – it will be THEIR neighborhood.

  76. Kickboxer–You make an excellent point when you say this: “As far as all the negativity, why do those that claim it is a “lost cause” also claim that they have “case winning” arguments or possess some knowledge but yet they never share it here?” I’ve wondered the same thing. They always seem to suggest that only attorneys can handle this type of thing yet disparage most attorneys as being not up to the task for one reason or another.

    David–Nice analogy with the rehab drug doctor. And killer info…

  77. Read the case law. Courts have ruled time and again that lenders have no responsibility to determine the ability of the borrower to repay the loan.

    People had to show common sense when buying a home. Large numbers were mislead, and I know and accept that. But there were large numbers who absolutely knew what they were doing and still did it anyway.

    And there were the ones who were totally and complete irresponsible financially.

    Actions have consequences.

    I am saying that you can fight the foreclosure process but know and admit to yourselves at least if you were also culpable.

    And for those who say securitization is illegal. What about this?

    Fannie Mae and Freddie securitized their loan products in different ways starting when they were formed. So, are their actions illegal as well?

    Eliminate all securitization and you have another problem. Money for mortgages will not be there. Banks will end up requiring 20% down, and very stringent underwriting and credit criteria.

    Loans will be difficult to come by. Most people will not qualify.

    You can’t have it both ways.

  78. Friday 6 August 2010

    Patrick:

    You are pushing the envelope too much, now. You claim to be on the side of those here, yet you keep pointing the finger at borrowers without giving “credit” to the lenders and the system “they” created to literally push refinancing and new buying based on “potential” price appreciation of the asset and NOT on the borrowers questionable/poor credit standing, OBVIOUSLY not qualified for a majority of the loans made.

    It was the LENDERS who allowed to “sucker” borrowers to line up for unlimited amounts of “set-up to fail” loans. Yet you persist in negating the responsibility where it belongs…the very same system you are “advocating” for on this site., as though the “lenders’, Wall Street did nothing wrong. That greedy group were the enablers, without whom NO borrower could have received a loan.

    Once again, MONEY WAS NOT LOANED…EVER!!! It was all created by computer blips on balance sheets. You fail to understand the credit banking system and continue as though everything said is of no consequence…”It all means the same. Money was lent.”

    Not a single penny was ever loaned.

    Your responses to everyone are glib to the point of saying your are “right,” and everyone else does not “see” your “experience/wisdom.”

    You may not be a shill, but you do not stand behind the people on this site, borne out by your comments, and you appear to over-estimate yourself.

    Just my opinion.

  79. Holy s–t Patrick. How much are the banks / “trustees” paying you to discourage borrowers from pursuing their actions? You give example after example of how the “lenders” have the borrowers by the short hairs and we don’t have a chance in hell of winning anything. But when you try a thinly veiled attempt at showing how un-biased you are, you give absolutely no examples of good defenses again the “lenders”. What gives?

    EDITOR’S NOTE: PERIODICALLY THERE ARE PLANTS AND SHILLS WHO ARE PAID TO PLACE MISLEADING INFORMATION ON THIS SITE. KIHENRY HAS BUSTED PATRICK, WHOEVER HE IS. BE AWARE THAT THERE IS HOPE, THE LAW BOOKS ARE ON YOUR SIDE, AND EVENTUALLY THIS WILL TURN.

  80. Franklee,

    You are blurring issues… No-one is claiming EVERY borrower is clean. Your are assuming the borrowers KNEW or had a reason to know – which frankly is the opposite of the Code of Ethics bankers are supposedly held to… but the fact of the matter is of the 142-Billion Dollars worth mortgages mentioned – THOSE BORROWERS did NOT KNOW and HAD NO REASON TO KNOW… and the FACTS show that NOT ALL BORROWERS had a reason to know or had the ability to even figure it out. The 142-Billion Dollar number is merely a SLICE of loans Countrywide wrote – HOWEVER – THEY HAVE ADMITTED that the borrowers were SCAMMED – that’s what it means. You’re argument is with Countrywide ADMITTING to the very thing you claim otherwise…! I am NOT saying it – COUNTRYWIDE already ADMITTED IT. So, you think it’s the dumbass borrowers fault ANYWAY…?

    I have NO ISSUE with personal responsibility – holding homeowners accountable – but the fact of the matter is – THEY are the ONLY ONES being held accountable. It is illegal to sell a loan that someone cannot repay – period. It is more disgusting KNOWING that these same lenders are now ILLEGALLY collecting the Mortgage Insurance on LOANS THEY DESIGNED TO FAIL. How many have gone to jail for insurance fraud?

    Read these admissions – —-snip—-
    • the company [Countrywide] admitted that had those guidelines been in effect during the relevant time period, “it would have rejected 89% of the option ARM loans it made in 2006, amounting to $64 billion, and $74 billion, or 83%, of those it made in 2005.”

    • …employees were pressured to issue loans to unqualified borrowers by permitting exceptions to underwriting standards, incentivizing employees to extend more loans without regard to the underwriting standards for such loans, and failing to verify documentation and information provided by borrowers that allowed them to qualify for loans.

    The Supervising Underwriter further stated that since late 2004, Countrywide’s Structured Loan Desks employed software called the Exception Processing System or EPS in order to obtain approval for loans that were exceptions to and should have been rejected by Countrywide’s underwriting standards. As many as 15% to 20% of the loans generated each day at the Company’s Structured Loan Desks were run through EPS and very few were ever rejected. This practice was confirmed by documents publicly filed in an Alaskan criminal case against a former Countrywide manager charged with extending improper loans, which reveal that the objectives of EPS were to “[a]pprove virtually every borrower

    —-end snip—-

    The lenders controlled the deal – NOT the borrowers. This isn’t about “ALL BORROWERS” – poor little borrowers – it’s about those borrowers that WERE setup and given loans designed to fail and that those borrowers would NOT have normally figured it out.

    The absurdity of the your position is that it flies in the face of DISCLOSURE. If someone handed me a Disclosure form written in Portuguese and everything was correct – it STILL does NOT mean anything to me because I don’t speak the language. That’s what they did… They created a set of loans that were based upon 50-freaking variables that even most damn judges – attorneys can’t figure out – handed that to the consumer while talking a line of bull-$h!t at the same time…

    No here is attempting to BLAME everything on the lender. However, there is a very large segment of foreclosures where those folks were scammed because the lender BROKE the law. Broke it deliberately and knowing exactly what it would do to the borrower. There is NO FREAKING WAY those consumers should be left holding the bag. Those lenders should be FORCED to rewrite those loans to WHATEVER amount necessary for those consumers to keep their homes. If it was a 300k house and they could only afford 50k – tough – that lender should be forced to rewrite the loan for 50k and EAT the rest…

  81. Franklee,

    You are avoiding the issue. Personal responsibility. Where is it? Everyone blames the banks and plays the innocent card. It is easier to be a victim and blame everyone else, instead of accepting a part of the blame.

    Angelo,

    I thought I answered your question. I said fight it if you want, just know what the other side knows. If a person committed fraud themselves, then they need to know what is possible from banks. I am not saying that the actions of Goldman were ethical, but there are many valid arguments that it was nothing more than short selling.

    And courts have ruled that CDS are side transactions, using the Pool as a reference point only. That would suggest that it would be akin of betting on the outcome of the Super Bowl.

    You should also blame the true culprits. Since the 1970’s, the US has turned service oriented. Services do not create wealth. Only construction and manufacturing does. Once the Dot Com bubble burst and the recession hit, then 9-11, there was only one industry to pull the US out of recession. Housing. And that was the problem, government promotion, low interest rates, and emphasis on home ownership. There lies the largest culprit.

    Zurenarrh,

    Sure homeowners used their homes as ATM’s and we all know it. What does that show? Irresponsible behavior on their part. No financial commonsense. They refinanced, pulled money out, bought their toys, went back into debt, and refinanced again and again, doing the same thing over and over again. The banks had the programs, but I have never yet heard someone say that any bank held a gun to their head and forced them to sign.

    If these people were truthful with themselves, then they would have realized that they were living a lie in their lifestyles. They would have sold their homes, got control of their financial lives, and then started over again. But, that would mean that they had to be truthful with themselves.
    As to your remarks about letting the lenders prove the borrower’s fraud, then you got a part of what I wrote. Just as long as the borrowers who engaged the fraud understand the potential consequences, then let them fight. But, let them be truthful with their attorneys so the attorneys can decide if they want to take the person as a client.

    A shill? No way. And if you knew me, and knew that things that I am working on, you would understand. But I am objective in what I do. I see both sides, and I can take the same loan and create valid arguments on either side. I know that the banks were offering loans that people could not repay, and much of that would be predatory lending, but what was the borrower’s part? Doesn’t he have to be responsible for his own actions? When does personal responsibility come into play? Why play the victim without admission of their own culpability?

    Stated income loans have been around for decades. They served a useful purpose. That was to offer loans to people who had employment with seasonal income streams, or self-employed persons who wrote off most income, but could afford the payment. In 2000, it seems that lenders everywhere began to offer the loans to all, and that began the real problem. But, again, no one twisted the persons arm to sign the loan documents. So, if the borrower knew the income was wrong, and that they could not afford the loan, why sign?

    Zurenarrrh

    Regarding your comments about banks lending money or “promissory notes in exchange for credit” is semantics. Nothing more. Try arguing that in a court.

    Angry,

    Glad to here Chris is working out for you. She is a “unique” individual for sure. Hmmm, it is Friday, so I may get a call from her.

    Yes, the banks gamed the system, but so did too many borrowers. My problem is the number of borrowers who will not admit that they did things wrong themselves.
    You cannot believe the number of calls that I get from loan officers, realtors and professional investors wanting to go after the banks. These people all claim that they were defrauded, and yet will not admit that they themselves were at fault because they gamed the system. These are the ones that the banks will go after with vengeance.

    All I ask from people is that they admit that they were a part of the problem.

    Kickboxer,

    I emphasize for your situation. Your situation is certainly different and was not the result of negative behavior on your own part. And you certainly have company in your situation.
    My comments are not directed at people like you. There are directed at the myriad others who did engage in such behavior, and blame everyone but themselves.

    As to why there are many people with unique strategies that don’t post the strategies here, I can understand why. Many of the strategies are complex, and involve
    understanding of many different factors. To post the basic strategy, Pro Se litigants and incompetent attorneys read a portion and then run off and file complaints, based upon only having a portion of the knowledge. Then, because they don’t understand the full argument, the judge rules against them, and more “bad law” is created.

    As well, when a new strategy becomes common, the lenders figure out a way around it, and then a whole new strategy must be developed. The truth is that we are at war against the banks. War is act and react. And one does not lay all the cards on the table for the other side to see.

    David,

    Investors are going to be the ultimate key in fighting this. And they have valid claims. In fact, I am in negotiations to work with some investors and other parties affected by the misrepresentations of the lenders.

    But that does not absolve individual homeowners of their own lack of due diligence. But, it is easier to be the victim.

    Edgetraderplus

    Banks engage in fractional lending. They take in money, then lender it out, at what was 90 cents on the dollars. This happened time and again.

    Securitization perverted this process because much of the money came from Wall Street, through various credit lines, etc. So one can argue that Wall Street lent the money, but it does not change the basic facts.

    Call it money, credit, exchanges, rocks, or tree leaves, it all means the same. Money was lent.

    People,

    My post was all about homeowners taking responsibility for their actions. Most knew or should have known what they were doing. Why take out loans that they could not repay? Why live beyond their means and treat their homes like an ATM?

    They want to fight the banks and foreclosure firms, let them. But let them also be honest with themselves about how their own actions contributed to their situations.

  82. Patrick,
    Countrywide sold 142-Billion Dollars to borrowers that Countrywide KNEW could NOT afford to repay. Countrywide sold those loans and evidence shows the borrowers had no reason to suspect they were being setup. At that time Countrywide had 14,905 foreclosures on the books. According to Countrywide the average amount was 147k. Do the math – that means over 965-thousand borrowers were sold ILLEGAL loans by Countrywide. How many of those families were foreclosed – lost everything and yet have no freaking idea that loan was illegal?

    Should those families be penalized? How many of those loans has Countrywide already claimed the Mortgage Insurance – and the countless OTHER insurances on those policies – KNOWING DAMN WELL the loans were designed to fail..? Our military should drop a damn BUNKER BUSTER of every freaking Countrywide/BofA building in the Country – preferably on family day – MAYBE THEN our legislature will get the message. If that does not piss people then read the following because it will…

    —-snip—-
    Par – 100
    The Supervising Underwriter further stated that since late 2004, Countrywide’s Structured Loan Desks employed software called the Exception Processing System or EPS in order to obtain approval for loans that were exceptions to and should have been rejected by Countrywide’s underwriting standards. As many as 15% to 20% of the loans generated each day at the Company’s Structured Loan Desks were run through EPS and very few were ever rejected. This practice was confirmed by documents publicly filed in an Alaskan criminal case against a former Countrywide manager charged with extending improper loans, which reveal that the objectives of EPS were to “[a]pprove virtually every borrower and loan profile” and “[p]rocess and price exceptions on standard products for high risk borrowers.”

    Par – 101
    The Supervising Underwriter further stated that if a potential borrower applying for a SISA* loan provided a bank name, address and account number for asset verification, it was the practice at Countrywide not to verify the bank balance…
    —–end snip——

    Well – now – look at that – a special software package created SPECIFICALLY to get around the Underwriting guidelines… hmm, let’s see – 965-thousand from the top that were scathingly lied to and ripped off – Countrywide wrote 850-Billion in 2005 (I think) do the math – what is 15-20% of 850-Billion dollars…? If the average loan was 147k per Countrywide’s data – how many FAMILIES were sold ILLEGAL LOANS – pre-set for DEFAULT – and how many now live in the streets – drug alleys – kids no college – committed suicide – etc… I wonder if al Qaeda has a suggestion box – I’ll GLADLY put the names and addresses of each CEOs families – hell, I’ll send their entire EMPLOYMENT list with names & addresses so they can be used a practice targets.

    Here’s the law that used to apply – but today is somehow magically ignored…
    ——— snip ——
    A misrepresentation is fraudulent if the maker (a) knows or believes that the matter is not as he represents it to be, (b) does not have the confidence in the accuracy of his representation that he states or implies, or (c) knows that he does not have the basis for his representation that he states or implies.
    —— end snip ——

    Here are a few snips from the Appellate Court
    —— snip ——
    91. “Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes ‘fraud,’ and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages.” Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co.. 92 F 26 817.

    92. “Any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is representation. There is no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations effected by other acts.” Leonard v. Springer 197 Ill 532. 64 NE 301.

    93. “If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations for an unseverable promise one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the considerations induced the promise.” Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L & C Co., 147 Wis 559. 572; 132 NW 1122.

    94. “The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise single or entire.” Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. Savings Bank, 227 Wis 550, 279 NW 83.

    95. “It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166.
    —–end snip ———-

    Now – here’s a few snips taken directly from a Banc of America Securities LLC – Newsletter for their Securities Clientele. Some of the files I downloaded the other day via back-door – have over 1000 pgs and this little sweet-pea from BofA is only one 14-pager… They KNEW exactly what was going on and worse WHAT it was going to do to the borrower…

    The Newsletter is called – RMBS Trading Desk Strategy – gee, I just love strategy-talk…

    —snip—-
    Introduction
    Within the plethora of alternative mortgage types that have been introduced over the past few years, one product that has attracted a fair amount of attention in recent months is a fixed-rate interest-only (IO) mortgage. Borrowers make only interest payments over the IO term of the loan, after which the loan switches to being fully amortizing for the remainder of the mortgage term. For example, one of the most popular types of IO mortgages is a 10/20 mortgage: these are 30-year fixed-rate loans with an IO term of 10 years followed by a fully amortizing term of 20 years. Note that the lack of principal amortization over the IO term results in a spike in scheduled payments at the end of the IO term thus subjecting borrowers to a payment shock.

    Fixed-rate IO mortgages are available in a number of different flavors, with 10/20s being the most popular by a wide margin.1 10/20s are securitized in the agency market in FNNP (Fannie Mae) and FHH0 (Freddie Mac) pools. Figure 1 demonstrates that fixed-rate IO pools have comprised an increasing portion of Agency fixed-rate production over the past year or so. Figure 2 shows that this trend is even more pronounced in the alt-A sector — a number of conforming balance fixed-rate IO mortgages have been placed in alt-A deals with privatelabel execution continuing to offer a competitive alternative for originators.
    —— end snip ——–

    I like the personal touch at the end of the first paragraph – “…Note that the lack of principal amortization over the IO term results in a spike in scheduled payments at the end of the IO term thus SUBJECTING BORROWERS TO A PAYMENT SHOCK…” I guess that gave them a few giggles… I wonder if they would feel that way after they greeted with a baseball bat – maybe an angry mob drag their kids out and stick needles in their arms – let them live in section-8 gov housing – I wonder if they would still feel the same way… but hey, it was the dumb borrowers…
    Here’s another snip from the SAME doc…

    —-snip—-
    The popularity of 10/20s can be ascribed to the same fundamental factor that has driven the explosion of alternative mortgage products over the past few years – a decrease in housing affordability. All of the so-called “affordability products” are associated with a lower initial monthly payment, thus making it easier to qualify for a larger mortgage. We expect issuance of IO mortgage-collateralized pools to remain robust as long as housing affordability continues to be a concern.

    Understanding the 10/20 Borrower
    The modern day menu of mortgage products offers a number of different options for borrowers. For some time now, borrowers have been able to choose between Hybrid ARMs with various different reset terms (1/1s, 3/1s, 5/1s, 7/1s, 10/1s) and fixed-rate mortgages with different terms (10-, 15-, 20-, or 30-years). These mortgages were traditionally fully-amortizing but the landscape has become even more crowded with the availability of IO-variants of the above mortgages. In order to choose between these different products, a borrower must consider a number of different factors including:
    • The borrower’s current financial situation and their expectations for future income growth;
    • How long the borrower intends to stay in the house (“tenure”);
    • How comfortable the borrower is with the mortgage payment changing and;
    • The cost of the mortgage relative to other available mortgage products.

    The list above, while not exhaustive, gives a sense for the complexity of the decision.
    —-end snip —-

    Typically, the above just sounds like smart business. I was self-employed most of my life. I have no issues whatsoever with earning a profit and being smart about it. The issue I have with this is that THESE BASTARDS KNEW they setting these folks up for failure – period! They knew the demographics of these folks and DELIBERATELY designed the loans so the average person could NOT figure out what the hell they were getting. These borrowers trusted these brokers, lenders, agents and they were deliberately betrayed. This is NOT some freaking stereo system or a damn car. This will burn them for the rest of their lives – they will pay higher interest – have marks on their credit – and these lying lenders KNEW this would happen. That damn report goes much deeper and it PROVES without a doubt these lenders KNEW these folks would be in trouble. Anybody who sets up another family for failure that significant to cause a catastrophic event for these families – is not worth the air they breathe and should be exterminated. I have zero conscience for arrogance at that level – these people should be treated as terrorists and hunted down – and I personally, believe that is what it will take before they get the message. If the law isn’t going to protect the citizens, then the citizens need to protect themselves.

    —-snip—-
    Below are snips from lawsuits already filed – admitted – and accepted by the courts. Tell me if this was all the borrower’s doing…

    • …Countrywide employees did not properly ascertain whether a potential borrower could afford the offered loan, and many of Countrywide’s stated income loans were based on inflated estimates of borrowers’ income. For example, (1) a Countrywide employee estimated that approximately 90% of all reduced documentation loans sold… had inflated incomes; and (2) one of Countrywide’s mortgage brokers, One Source Mortgage Inc., routinely doubled the amount of the potential borrower’s income on stated income mortgage applications.

    • …a review of 100 stated income loans by the Mortgage Asset Research Institute revealed that 60% of the income amounts were inflated by more than 50% and that 90% of the loans had inflated income of at least 5%.

    • …Countrywide thus admitted to the Office of Thrift Supervision that even though 60% of its potential borrowers would not have qualified for a Countrywide loan with an interest rate of 6.8%, they were qualified for the same loan with a teaser rate of 1.25%, even though that borrower would likely experience “payment shock” and be unable to pay off the loan in the near future. Even when Countrywide employees received proper income documentation (i.e., a W-2 form) demonstrating that the borrower did not qualify for a loan, the loan was submitted as a stated income loan so as to obtain approval of the loan.

    • …employees were pressured to issue loans to unqualified borrowers by permitting exceptions to underwriting standards, incentivizing employees to extend more loans without regard to the underwriting standards for such loans, and failing to verify documentation and information provided by borrowers that allowed them to qualify for loans.

    • …According to the California AG, Countrywide used a system called CLUES or Countrywide Loan Underwriting Expert System. A Countrywide underwriter would enter the borrower’s financial and credit information and the terms of the loan into CLUES, which would then provide a loan analysis report that indicated whether the loan was within Countrywide’s underwriting guidelines. CLUES reports stating that a borrower was not within Countrywide’s underwriting guidelines often were ignored in order to effectuate the loan.

    • …The California AG Complaint alleged that Countrywide’s practice of approving loans based on the borrower’s ability to pay the teaser rate (as opposed to the fully indexed rate), as admitted to by the company in the May 7, 2007 letter to the Office of Thrift Supervision, commenced in 2005.

    • the company [Countrywide] admitted that had those guidelines been in effect during the relevant time period, “it would have rejected 89% of the option ARM loans it made in 2006, amounting to $64 billion, and $74 billion, or 83%, of those it made in 2005.”

    —-end snip—-

    and that’s just a warm-up…

  83. Friday 6 August 2010

    Off topic…does anyone have a link to any Qualified Written Request post[s]?

    The “search” function is useless.

    TIA…

  84. Friday 6 August 2010

    Just as a point of lawful clarity, banks are forbidden to loan out depositor’s money. Plain and simple.

    Modern Money Mechanics explains how banks are permitted to loan out money by “creating” it, using the borrower’s signature via computer entries.

    Patrick makes a point, valid from his POV. However much one can blame many/some/a few borrowers, they pale by comparison to the fraudulent scheme complicitly promoted by Wall Street interests.

    There may have been some fudging by borrowers, but there was outright fraud and deceit by the other side, all across the spectrum, including mortgage brokers.

    It is what it is.

  85. Hi Patrick,

    Your comments are very true regarding the courts and their rulings… You are VERY WRONG about the facts…

    My computer was out because of storms last night… I will supply you with FACTS that these people not only did NOT know they sold junk-loans – it was hid from them… this is already on record and admitted by Countrywide and other lenders…

    Your comments are akin to a drug dealer hanging out at rehab clinics selling drugs. Everyone realizes the folks at rehab are there with a problem and so do the folks with the problem. So the drug dealer is making tons of money even getting a few chuckles as those folks stumble away with their fix. What puzzles me about that is why are only the rehab folks be arrested and losing everything they own. It was strange because no one could figure how these folks were getting the drugs… then one day someone noticed the drug dealer was the damn doctor…

    So, is the doctor a smart business man merely trying to keep repeat business or does the doctor have an obligation NOT to sell illegal drugs to his patience? Per you business model everyone is fair-game.

    Ye, even after they learn the doctor is selling illegal drugs and many of his illegal clients have overdosed, they still do not arrest the drug-dealing doctor…?

    Have you ever heard of computer sytem designed by Countrywide called EPS..?

    In practically every Investor lawsuit I’ve read recently – everyone one involves Mortgage Fraud..? BofA came out with a report a few months ago stating they expect a 600% increase in foreclosures… Did someone spike the water for the entire country – hey, can I borrower a million bucks – I can’t pay it back but can I, can I mister..? I know quite a few folks going through this yet, I do not know ONE who signed up for a loan they could not afford.

    Is it legal for a FDIC lender to sell a loan to a borrower that cannot repay? I downloaded over 400 megs of docs a few days ago – these lenders knew exactly how these borrowers would react – knew when they would default – knew how those folks would react – and knew the loan was more than they could handle… But here’s the real question – if the lenders controlled the entire aspect of the market – typically called MONOPOLY – then knew the market was imploding – how could they continue representing to their clients the borrowers that the markets are great – housing is steadily going up – you can simply refinance in a few years – etc… That’s my beef – the lenders knew the glass ceiling had cracked and was about to tumble – instead backing down – they became the doctor selling the drugs in rehab. They created the drugs specific for addiction – then cut the folks off knowing they would force them into rehab where they could control the deal more discreetly. The problem they ran into was the ceiling fell before the floor dropped out so now everyone sees their dirty deeds.

    Your comments are sobering facts of how our courts have distorted this ordeal. These lenders need to be taught a serious lesson. If the courts don’t do it – the PEOPLE will and the lenders deserve whatever comes their way and I hope it is nothing less than SHOCKING. If McVeigh were around I’d send him a check… that’s what these lenders and foreclosure mills deserves…

  86. Even though many of the victims (yes, I call them victims) were subprime, not everyone who got caught in this mess was subprime. Even though subprime lending triggered this whole mess, most American families have been affected.

    We were prime rate borrowers with a great loan. We did not lie, exaggerate, or falsify our loan applications. We provided proof of income. Our credit scores were in the upper 700s. We purchased a 1970s fixer upper that is less than 1200 sq. ft. We lived very modestly and did not live beyond our means. No McMansion for us. No boat, no vacations.

    Once the economy started to fail, my husband lost his job. He lost his livelihood because of the greedy and irresponsible banksters that created all this. The construction industry was affected very early on so that we have been going through this longer than most folks. We spent our savings trying to keep afloat hoping that things would improve. Once the savings was gone, we lived off of our credit cards. Finally, my husband found a job but he is making 1/3 less than before. In the meantime, while our income was going down, the cost of living kept going up. So, basically, we could no longer afford our house payment by no fault of our own.

    We did not create this problem but here we are. Who is going to make my family whole again? Our servicer would not even give us a modification. They do not care that we have steady income, or that before the economy collapsed we were NEVER late on our mortgage. None of that matters. They just want to foreclose and sell our home.

    Yes, lately it is very discouraging to come here and read the negative posts. It is especially discouraging to me because I already have my own doubts. I have learning disabilities. I am probably the least qualified person to go at this pro se. I am not fully understanding what everyone else here seems to understand. This whole thing is complex and it sucks. I still can’t figure out the significance of FAS140 or GAAP. I read the same chit over and over again and I still don’t get it. Regardless, I have to try and I don’t mind doing it. At this point, I have a lot more time than I have money.

    At the very least, let it be a matter of public record that I defended our family home. It is very important to me that the records show that we at no time abandoned our home. We will not do cash for keys, short sale, deed in lieu, or walk away. Nope. We won’t surrender it.

    As far as all the negativity, why do those that claim it is a “lost cause” also claim that they have “case winning” arguments or possess some knowledge but yet they never share it here? How can anyone’s conscience allow them to hold back information from those that so desperately need it? And if my neighbor has lung cancer, should I say to him/her, “well you smoked two packs per day therefore you brought this upon yourself!” It’s not nice to kick people when they are down.

    I love the way Tresspass Unwanted ends her posts with “Light and Love.” I have given those two words a lot of thought lately. Light and love. It is how I want to be treated. It is how I will treat.

  87. My bad: the Fed publication quoted from below is not called “Money Matters,” it’s called “Modern Money Mechanics” and scans of it can be viewed here:

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Modern_Money_Mechanics.pdf

    The quote I referred to can be found on p. 6.

    Just to be clear, banks do not “lend” in the same way that you or I “lend,” according to the Fed. That is to say, when a bank “lends” money, the bank does not have to do without the “money” it “lent” until the money is paid back. That’s because the bank doesn’t actually lend “money”–it “lends”, in the words of the Fed, “credits.” In other words, the “loan” is made merely through entries on the ledger of the bank–the promissory note goes on one side and the check to the “borrower” (or “credits” to the borrower’s account) goes on the other side to balance out the note. No actual paper money or gold or silver change hands. The promissory note IS the “loan.”

    When you or I lend money, however, we DO have to go without the money until it’s paid back. If banks did the same thing, then that’d be OK. If you gave a bank a promissory note for $500,000 and the bank gave you $500,000 in cash or precious metals, then the bank would actually be lending money and having to do without the use of that money until it was paid back. But that is not what happens at all.

    If the bank actually had to do without the money until it was paid back, then charging interest would have some justification. But in the system we labor under, the bank is NEVER at risk of losing money when they make a “loan” because what they call a “loan” is actually an exchange of paper for paper–we give a note for X amount, they give us a check for X amount. A bank defines a “loan” thusly: the borrower gives us money to sell back to the borrower. The deposit of the promissory note by the bank IS the loan to the borrower.

    It really makes no sense at all–since my promissory note IS my “loan,” according to the Federal Reserve, why is the bank even necessary? I

  88. Patrick
    all in all i agree with you….BUT the system was gamed..totally.
    The bank have ALWAYS taken advantage of EVERYONE they can, EVERYONE. There are as many predatory loans as sustainable loans because the very nature of banking has become to prey on those that have the most to loose with the least amount to fight back.
    The Gov is and was ALWAYS fully aware and as such complicit in this scheme .
    Your arguments are solid & your thinking is logical & for the most part proven.
    BUT the judiciary has been purchased and for fear of admitting this those with VALID claims will lose as if they have no rights because they DO NOT.
    You did a great job on the audit you did for me & my attorney [who btw is a GREAT laywer, and a amazing example of an unselfish & caring person.. THANK YOU Chris Gardis!!!]
    myself with a $250,000 balloon payment at the end of a 30 year loan ,this is a mortgage at the end of a mortgage…why???
    The game was & is rigged , we [ALL comsumers] were doomed from the start.
    Greed is the working principle that drives the banking & financial industry ,this didnt have to be this way as .
    SOOOOOOOOOO…
    I WANT A BANKERS HEAD ON A FUCKING STICK!

  89. More reality…

    Patrick argues that “banks loan money that has been provided to them by the depositors.” That is the conventional wisdom, but like most such “wisdom,” it is half right–or half wrong. The Federal Reserve itself tells us that banks “do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits” (“Money Matters”).

    The Fed goes on to say this in the same publication:
    “What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’ transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by [the same amount].”

    So a “loan” is also a “deposit.” That’s a pretty good trick! The Fed admits that what they’d have you believe is a “loan” is actually–in their words, mind you–an exchange. We give the banks a note for X amount and they credit our account for X amount. How is that a “loan” in any standard, commonly used and understood sense of that word? Simply put, it isn’t.

    What is happening in this scenario is that the “borrower” is giving the bank the money to sell back to the “borrower.” It’s like if I said to a friend, “Hey, do you want an apple?” And my friend says “Sure!” So I say, “OK, give me an apple.” So he gives me an apple which I then hand right back to him and say “Here’s that apple you wanted–now you owe me two apples!”

    That sounds absurd, but that’s exactly what happens with the banking system. It’s just that we’ve been trained to accept it. We’ve been taught to think of that type of transaction as laughably fraudulent on its face where apples are concerned but we’re supposed to treat it as normal and a law of nature where money is concerned.

    So Patrick’s assertion that “banks loan money that has been provided to them by the depositors,” is actually half right, but not in the way he probably means it. His assertion is exactly correct in the sense that the bank deposits our promissory notes and then calls that a loan to the maker of the promissory note–although it’s the bank in this case that is the depositor, not bank customers who have checking accounts and deposit their paychecks into the bank.

  90. Patrick,
    We all appreciate the facts. Not all of us have viewed as many loans as you have.

    However, the homeowners who “used their homes as ATMS” were only able to do so because the banks allowed (if not downright encouraged) them to do it. The banks knew full well that they shouldn’t make loans to someone who couldn’t repay, and they knew full well that they set up the terms of the loan such that it’s impossible for that person to repay. That’s why there are supposedly underwriting standards and appraisal standards and usury laws and so forth.

    The borrowers weren’t the ones who came up with stated income loans. No one here is saying that borrowers are all innocent lambs. Sure, some borrowers engaged in fraud, just like their banks did. Do you mean to say that the borrower’s fraud is somehow worse than the bank’s? If the bank can prove fraud by borrowers, let them do it. That’s their battle. Ours is to prove the bank’s fraud, which is obviously rampant.

    You say you’re not a shill for the banks. Then why are you defending them? Isn’t that the job of the judges the banks have bought and paid for? The banks don’t need defending; they’re making record profits while millions–literally–are being tossed out of their homes. And they’re making record profits because they issued loans to anyone with a pulse, establishing a shell corporation to hide what they were doing with the loans (i.e., MERS), knowing those loans would go into default but nonetheless selling securities based on those loans anyway, packaging all of that into various derivatives–which by definition have no value in and of themselves but instead were derived from the crappy loans the banks intentionally made, then sitting back and waiting for it all to fall apart so they could then claim losses on those derivatives and be paid 100 cents on the dollar for them by the taxpayers when the derivatives, again, have no actual value in and of themselves. That too, is reality. That is fact, which is what we like to traffic in here at Living Lies.

    And none of that would have happened if the banks hadn’t created “brilliant” “financial products” like stated income loans so that they could have more assets on which to base those derivatives. Somehow a borrower overstating her income pales in comparison to that scheme of the banks, which not only allowed the borrower to overstate income but also which wanted the borrower to overstate her income so the loan could be issued. Even though the bank could have easily verified the income. But if they’d verified the income, they wouldn’t have been able to get the signature on the note, and that’s what they wanted more than anything–signatures on notes. That’s where the money comes from.

    And if you think that borrowers just voluntarily thought to themselves “I’m gonna rip off this bank and lie to them about how much I make,” you obviously weren’t there when the broker was telling the borrower that they should feel free to overstate their income. Oh, the broker didn’t come right out and tell the borrower, “Honey, you should overstate your income;” no, of course not. It was all nods and winks and subtle–or not-so-subtle–hints and insinuations from the broker. “Honey,” the broker said, “the bank is not going to verify your income.” At that, Honey looks up from the application with a puzzled expression, and her eyes are met by Brokerman’s winks and body language practically screaming “I’m not telling you to lie on this application, but I’m not NOT telling to lie on this application.”

    So if shaming the readers of this blog while defending the banks doesn’t make you a shill for the banks, then pray tell what does? Maybe you’re not actually being paid to defend the banks and so therefore aren’t a shill if one adheres strictly to the definition of that term. But in my book, a shill is a shill, whether professional or amateur.

    I don’t want to and won’t get in a pissing contest with you. But I have noticed a lot more disparaging, discouraging commentary here on the site lately that tends to reinforce the following ideas: that the banks can’t and shouldn’t be challenged, especially without a lawyer; that you won’t win, so don’t even try; borrowers are to blame for this state of affairs; Neil doesn’t know what he’s talking about; don’t waste your time trying to defend your rights; etc. Well I say “nuts to all that!” And that’s only because I’m trying not to say “fuck all that noise.” Wait. Whoops!

  91. Patrick

    I agree that there were people who took advantage of the inflated house prices and used their homes as an ATM, but where does the blame fall? The banks screwed up and didnt have to worry about taking responsibility for their actions, they just told everybody that if we fail the whole economy will fail, and they got bailed out. true or false? so where was their “caveat emptor” on their part, they knew that they would be made whole.
    It was a no lose situation for them.
    When goldman got caught for bundling all those bad loans together and bet the other way, is that not a problem? They got a slap on the wrist and made a killing, they settled because of the possible discovery that they might have to give up.
    As for the PMI, Please tell me why arent any of those banks foreclosing on houses? Becuase the never paid out a dime of the claims and took back the property.
    You still havent answered my question, what should happen with the fraud that your talking about, should the homeowner fight it, or just let them get away with it.

  92. Oh, I’m sure you’re right. You argue very convincingly that you are correct. 30 to 40 million homebuyers were fraudsters, they duped the bankers into believing that they were capable of maintaining home ownership.

    How dare they! Lock them all up! 40 million BAD, BAD home buyers who duped these simple-minded bankers into believing that living in a home of their own was affordable. The poor bankers were so duped. Maybe we should give them more TARP money, since they’ve been so pillaged.

    You know what? You make me sick! You are what is totally wrong with this entire system. Go forth and procreate with yourself.

  93. Neidermeyer,

    You are making arguments read here that have little or no basis on court rulings.

    You are referring to Pretender Lenders, etc, and who the true lender is.

    Well, here is one for you. If you want to argue that, then any bank that has ever made a loan is a pretender lender. That is because banks loan money that has been provided to them by the depositors. Therefore, in your arguments, the depositors are the true lenders.

    Technically, in a perverted sense, that may be correct, but try selling that to a judge.

    You make generalized arguments that mean nothing. Every loan must be taken and reviewed upon its own merits. Every loan is different. Making generalized statements does not do a bit of good.

    If you are going to argue that in a court, then you need to be ready to file an appeal. No judge will even give it consideration, especially if someone like me was on the other side. I would show that the arguments were plain absurd.

  94. The comments are exactly what I expected.

    People do not want to take responsibility for their own actions.

    If people read the documents and did their due diligence, they knew that they could not afford the loan. Yet they took the loan out.

    Fraud was rampant everywhere, but the borrowers were their own first line of defense. Caveat Emptor. “Let the buyer beware”. Now, they argue fraud elsewhere for their own mistakes.

    If you have a person that refinances every year, doing cash outs to pay off consumer debt, and this is a consistent pattern, then they are their own worst enemy. And they should end up losing the home.

    Every borrower signed loan documents that included that it was a stated income loan and the borrower was aware that the loan was stated. Therefore, it is on themselves. By signing that document, they set the stage to take the blame themselves.

    The argument about credit default swaps paying the loan off and then there is no more debt is completely bogus. The debt still exists. Courts have ruled that CDS are separate agreements using the tranche only as a reference point.

    When a PMI company pays the loses on a loan, it does not negate the debt. In fact, the Note is to be transferred to the PMI company for further collection efforts, if they desire.

    If you had read articles I had written about MERS and other issues, you would know the true facts of MERS. It was created to enhance Securitization and the lending industry, and to support the economy and housing. It was developed in good faith, with Fannie Mae and Freddie two of the major players in the development. However, as with everything, if taken to an extreme, it can be abused.

    As to what I write in my exams and declarations to the court, I do cover the issues related with securitization, MERS and the foreclosure process. In fact, I completely destroy the foreclosure process. I have found forgeries of documents that others could only conceive. And the attorneys argue these points.

    I have also developed arguments in numerous other areas that attorneys are beginning to use against lenders.

    But, that does not dismiss the actions of the borrowers either. Each borrower had their own responsibilities and to ignore that is just plain nonsense.

    Judges understand this. That is why they blow most homeowners out of the water. But present a valid, well thought out argument, with facts and not assertations and unproven theories, and the arguments deserve to be dismissed.

  95. So Patrick, for someone who has been here for a long time, answer me this:

    1) If a person takes out a 600k loan and represents that he makes 50K a year, was he set up to fail and the bank who wrote the note took out credit default swaps anticipating failure, is that fraud???

    2) If a loan was securitized and the note was paid in full, from counterparties i.e AIG. Is the homeowner still responsible for the note, or should the banks, who you seem to represent, get paid off and double dip and collect from foreclosure too?

    3) Was MERS an entity created to perpetrate this massive fraud on the american people?

    4) So, let me get this right, if the lenders are commiting fraud with the assignments and substitutions, do you bring that to the courts attention on behalf of the banks that you represent?
    or are you also compliant with the fraud.

    Would love to get your point of view for this basic questions!

  96. Patrick Pulatie,

    You wrote.. “If a person buys a car, he knows that he had better make the payments, or it will be repossessed. If he gets a credit card, he knows that he makes the payment or the creditor will come after him. Why is it different now?”

    The difference is that the used car dealer shopped your credit app to the bank he deals with and arranged your loan.. he padded it by a small percentage on the rate (2-3%) as his cut and the loaned amount was equal to the actual selling price of the car… If you don’t pay the dealer doesn’t even know about it unless the bank starts rejecting the apps he is bringing to them… If you don’t pay the BANK repo’s the car because the BANK has the real interest in the loan… In our situations the BANK was lied to by the car dealer about the sellers credit and down payment, the car dealer inflated the selling price to the bank rep and the DEALER is repo’ing the car on behalf of the BANK because the paperwork is all wrong despite having no interest in the deal at that time. We go to jail for straw man purchases ,, the servicers and trusts and such are acting as straw men …

  97. Folks,
    I have been reading this blog for years. Some who read this blog know who I am.

    I have been actively involved in the foreclosure fight for three years now. In that time, I have reviewed easily over 3500 sets of loan documents, been to court numerous times, and file Declarations in support of homeowners continuously. I work only at the request of an attorney, and refuse all other work, especially Pro Se litigants.
    What I about to say is going to ruffle some feathers, but someone here needs to say it.

    1. Yes, the lenders are committing fraud in many different ways in the foreclosure process. This is especially related to Assignments and Substitutions.

    2. Yes, homes are being foreclosed upon unlawfully.

    But, I read here all the time how the lender illegally did the loans. I read complaints of fraud and other items in the loan originations. But here are some things that you need to know.

    1. Courts have continuously ruled that a lender has no fiduciary duty to a borrower. Their duty is to the bank and their investors. So these arguments fail.

    2. The FDIC and OCC have issue guidance letters regarding determination of the ability of the borrower to repay the loan, but they are only guidance letters. There is no statute that says otherwise, except in relation to HOEPA loans. And almost every loan out there does not qualify for being a HOEPA loan.

    3. Option ARMS were disclosed in accordance with the TILA statutes. Attempting to argue TILA on this will fail.

    4. TILA and RESPA violations mean nothing. Sure, a few judges may allow more arguments regarding them, but if one out of a thousand arguments succeed in front of just one judge, it is worthless.

    5. The success stories you here are about getting TRO’s and Injunctions. This means nothing until the trial occurs, and almost everyone loses at that stage.

    Now, to rattle your cages.

    In over 70% of the loans I have reviewed, the borrowers knew what they were doing. They knew what stated income meant, and they knew, or should have known what the loan was about. Most of them used their homes for ATM’s, continuously refinancing and paying off bills.
    Many decided that they would become the local Donald Trump of real estate. They were going to buy homes and make millions. If someone tried to tell them otherwise, then they just ignored the person.

    These same people are now the ones crying foul against the lenders and foreclosure companies. “Don’t take my home.” They fight every step of the way, making arguments that the procedural process is flawed. They use arguments that have no merit in court, and when the judge sides with the lender, they scream that the judge is “biased”, or on the side of the lender.

    If a person buys a car, he knows that he had better make the payments, or it will be repossessed. If he gets a credit card, he knows that he makes the payment or the creditor will come after him. Why is it different now?

    People from all over the US went into these transactions ignoring basic reality. That reality was that they could not afford the home, but they had dreams of success with no basis in reality. Now, they are caught with their pants down, but instead of admitting their mistakes, they lash out at the lenders, blaming the lenders instead of themselves.
    Better to echo the victim role, than admit that they were wrong.

    When I examine loan documents, all I need to look at usually is a property profile and I know what has happened. I have a loan application and credit scores and I can reliability recreate the person’s life. It is not that hard when one has looked at so many loans as I have.

    I know when borrower fraud exists. When it is so apparent, I do a memo to the attorney advising them of what to expect and to use caution. I do this because, believe it or not, homeowners lie to their attorneys. They omit details and misrepresent items so that the attorney will take the case.

    (BTW, for those who claim Option ARM fraud, GET REAL!!!!!!!! Did you really expect to get a $600,000 loan at 1% with payments of $1,929.84 per month? That would mean that you borrower $600000 and repay a total of $694,741.22. Did you really believe that? If so, what the hell were you thinking? If you were thinking…………………….)

    What homeowners do not know is that they put the attorney in jeopardy when they do this. Not only can the attorney be sanctioned and pay the lender’s costs, they also risk their license. But………that does not matter to the homeowner who knew what they were doing. Anything goes to save their home, even if it means ruining someone else’s life.

    Lenders know about this fraud. I have been contacted by attorneys for lenders asking for me to examine loan documents for fraud in lawsuits against them. Usually, the lender wants me to examine documents in order to force “buy-backs” of loans from other lenders that they bought the loan from.

    Now, this is changing. Wells Fargo is beginning to file lawsuits or countersuits against homeowners for borrower fraud. If they have someone like me backing them up, then the homeowner not only faces the loss of their home, but also major financial implications, and also criminal actions and time in jail.

    These lender actions are going to happen more and more often.

    Some of you are going to claim that I am a shill for the banks, but that is not so. I deal in reality. When I do an examination, I deal in facts. If I speculate about something, I can back up my conclusions with a logical argument.

    I know that many here are “guilty” of what I write. I know this because I have gotten phone calls from a large number of persons here. When I get the call, I don’t pull punches. I only work for attorneys, so I am going to tell the truth.

    Most of you will deny what I write, especially if you engaged in this behavior. Confronting the truth is difficult at best. For most, it is not an option that they want to consider.
    For those who will take this into consideration…..are you willing to accept the consequences if the bank comes after you?

    And for all who engaged in this behavior and blame the banks but not yourselves, when are you going to take responsibility for your own actions? Most people had the knowledge and understanding to know what they were doing, but chose to ignore it. Are you now, or ever, going to admit that you made bad decisions and foreclosure is the end result.

    I said that I was going to rattle cages, and if people genuinely look into themselves, they are likely to see what I write is true. Then, it is a simple matter of deciding what to do.

    Frankly, I don’t care what you decide. If you decide wrong, then it is you that must live with the consequences.

  98. Hypothetically, if within a Court Complaint, a homeowner seeks to Quiet Title due in part to Wrongful Foreclosure, would it make sense for the homeowner to ask the Court for:

    CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENT-SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE;

    ….AND, if the proof was sufficient for the Judge to carry out that request, would the cancellation of the Substitution Of Trustee automatically cause the Notice Of Default, the Notice Of Trustee’s Sale and the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale, to be null and void? Or, would it also be prudent for the homeowner to also seek relief for SLANDER OF TITLE RE: NOTICE OF DEFAULT, NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE AND TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE?

  99. Mr. Garfield started this thread with the title “How the other side sees us.” Based upon everything I’ve seen coming from our government, from the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches, it’s painfully obvious that THEY ARE the other side. Tarp worked. Of course it did. You gave trillions of dollars to trillionaire gamblers. What’s not to work?

    Hamp hasn’t worked. Of course not. You’ve given $200 million dollars to the same jerk trillionaires that caused this fiasco to begin with, knowing full well that they’re much happier foreclosing than doing anything meaningful. And just try and stop them. But you’d better be careful, Jamie Dimon et al will follow through with their threats to seize up the markets so tight that you won’t be able to pull dental floss through little Timmy G’s posterior. They have us coming and going folks. End of story.

  100. From a PBS interview, June 22, 2010:

    Judy Woodruff: We heard Secretary Geithner say today that he thinks the TARP program has worked remarkably well. -snip- Well, let me ask you about the home mortgage foreclosures. You had a very animated exchange with the secretary over that question.

    Elizabeth warren: We did.

    Judy Woodruff: He says the success, as we heard him say, can be measured family by family, that it was never intended to help everybody.

    Elizabeth Warren: Well, you know, no one disputes that. Of course it was never intended to help everybody. But it was intended to help somebody. The problem we have got — let me put it this way. This is a program that is saving a tiny number of people, ultimately, by getting them into affordable mortgages that the estimates are they will be able to sustain over time.

    And for every one of those families that goes in, there are many, many more families who never make it. And the kinds of numbers we’re looking at, we’re looking at mortgage foreclosures that stay well over a million families this year, next year, the year after that, the year after that.

    That has implications, not only for those families, but for the financial institutions that are holding those mortgages, for the construction industry, for our overall economy. We have a serious problem and a limited amount of time to get ahead of it. HAMP is not getting ahead of it.

    Judy Woodruff: And what’s your understanding of why the government — why the administration, why the Treasury Department isn’t doing more?

    Elizabeth Warren: It is — it’s as if we had a boat that’s taking on gallons of water, and they’re trying to bail it with a teaspoon.

    And, actually, I will give you an example of that. This program has now been in effect for 15 months. It has an allocation to try to deal with a very large problem. The allocation is $50 billion. And, so far, they have actually spent less than $200 million on mortgage foreclosure relief.

    It is a — it is a badly designed program that, from the beginning, was too small, too slow, couldn’t be scaled up.

  101. I’d say that doing something is better just rolling over. There’s many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lip and these supposedly powerful attorneys are not perfect. No one, not even the mighty attorneys of the pretender lenders, knows everything. Their cases are based on fraud which can be easily picked up on by anyone who can read and invest a little time into deciphering their documentation.

    Even if it’s a losing battle, homeowners should stand their ground. Resistance is victory!

  102. Dave – the irony of your comment is strange…

    —-Dave Wrote—-
    “…it’s your house! Going pro se/pro per in matters like this (when you have no other option) is only delaying the inevitable.

    Do you really have any business spending hours upon hours in a law library doing research when you should be working trying to bring in a paycheck?…”
    —end-snip—-

    The VERY purpose for many of these websites is because THERE ARE NO COMPITENT ATTORNEYS or at best they are FAR & FEW between.

    If you think for one-second that I would NOT rather have an attorney handling our case, man, you need to change your bongwater more often (meant as a joke)… Honestly, after being gang-raped by three federal insured institutions – filing false affidavits against us – spending 60k on attorneys – and knowing we never broke the law – while they committed mortgage fraud – and a litany of other illegal acts… – Leaving my wife & I in an impossible situation having a house that was never finished, never inspected, no legal U&O Permit, that cannot be fixed, cannot be sold, and sure as hell would not pay the million dollar mortgage even if we could afford it…

    As I’ve said before – these lenders have lied & manipulated millions of families – deliberately selling loans those could NOT afford to repay and did-so without those folks even knowing how to figure it out. It would be a glorious day to hear BofA, Citi, Lehmann, CW, and all the others were BLOWN from existence – and ALL THOSE THAT WORK FOR THEM TOO…

    These disgusting manipulators have destroyed the lives of millions of Americans. Yep, some were biting off more than they should have – but nearly the number that are losing their homes. Those working for the lenders are open TARGETS in my book – they deserve whatever evil awaits them. How many decent folks have taken their lives – driven back to their addictions – destroyed families – etc have these lying pukes been responsible for…? I used to counsel folks with addictions for years – something like this would take-down someone who was clean for 5-10 years and what disgusts me more – they have NO-IDEA they were sold a damn loan that was DESIGNED TO FAIL…

    Those freaking lenders should be executed and I hope they pay the ultimate price for their greedy deeds.

    There is NO EXCUSE for something like this… I do not know anyone in this situation that would not rather hand their case over to an attorney rather than attempt this themselves. I don’t know ONE PERSON… The issue is not about folks “wanting” to roll the dice and take on the big-bad lenders themselves – the issue is finding an attorney with enough integrity to take their case… Personally, I don’t see this changing until something very horrific EXPLODES on these lenders taking away their reasons to continue lying and abusing these folks. These lenders have no conscience they are the same as the terrorists we are fighting – no difference at all… Until they are given a reason to STOP – they will continue destroying the lives of millions of families regardless if their actions are illegal immoral or whatever – that much we should all know because that is the message clearly being sent.

    Not trying to sound morbid – just my thoughts…

  103. Dave Krieger,
    said: “Do you really have any business spending hours upon hours in a law library doing research when you should be working trying to bring in a paycheck?”

    We should have peaceful enjoyment of our homes. This is orchestrated, we know that, and you even stated: “Going pro se/pro per in matters like this (when you have no other option) is only delaying the inevitable. ”

    If it’s orchestrated, as mine was, with six (6) attorneys, any to act, then after you deal with this, some other catalyst may come up.

    I read how old people have been dispossessed. I have the utmost respect for older persons who have life experiences longer than mine. We are not corporations, we are not persons, we did not consent to assume the role of trustees/beneficiaries without our knowledge, we are not cestui que trusts,
    We are men and women and children, the spirit of the Creator in a vessel. We are human beings. In our representative status we are ‘in propria persona’ and ‘sui juris’.
    I’m not a fighter. I don’t get into arguments and disagreements. I’ve been robbed of my liberty. I should be able to peacefully possess my land without outside coercion and influence; and a court has enjoined me with another ‘legally’ and placed a ‘threat, duress, coercion’ over my unalienable right to life at my own estate, by giving a judgment that will provide an unfettered pass for a man with a gun to knock on my door and put his hands on me if he felt he needed to, and remove me from my property. At any time a writ of possession can be issued. Whether it will or not, is not the issue, it’s the violation of the free will to live without the threat of a future trespass that is the issue.
    Do you think you can violate one’s free will and not be held accountable?
    Furthest from the truth.
    Those that orchestrate this, got someone of their free will to carry it out beneath them. From that standpoint on, all those underneath the top of the problem are willing participants in the violation of Universal Law of Free Will.
    Those at the top are indirectly involved, because their contract is with a willing participant, so they feel they haven’t violated any universal law if someone else is carrying out the deed.
    Thought is the energy, not the physical deed.
    Thought is the creative energy, so it is included in the violation of the free will, just like that action of a pen stroke to judge against another, or the action of a sheriff to trespass and tell another leave their home or face physical removal of themselves and their possessions.
    Because all things are possible, we happen to be in a portion of the universe where the private contract of the soul with its maker, to allow one to walk upon the land and live freely, is being trampled upon. The balance of nature will prevail. It’s part of the divine plan.
    A Creator can see all possibilities for an action, and if in mass the creations cry out for relief and remedy, we will be are are being heard.
    Those that orchestrate, can; only because those underneath them, will. When the balance of nature removes those that will, then those that orchestrate, can’t.
    There is a remedy, always.
    The divine plan is larger than any man can comprehend.

    Light and Love,

  104. Thanks everyone for reading my comment – helps me feel less like Sisyphus.

    In my case, I have already “won” by not calling the pretender-servicer 20 months ago and begging in tears for yet another chance to sign my rights away.

    So there was over $30k worth of checks I didn’t write. As a rough estimate I have put in a thousand hours of work in my fight so at $30 an hour – works out ok for me.

    I certainly don’t expect my case to go all the way to trial ever or even to get a clear decision from the court in the next few years.

    But I sure as heck can put enough obstacles in front of the other side to have them run through their limited legal budgets while they stall on providing me with accounting discovery. Not the most elegant or fast way to get a Quiet Title or dismissal with prejudice done – but it is all I have.

    There are no fast wins in this fight for the homeowner. However, the lack of a fast win doesn’t guarantee an eventual loss.

    Thank you Neil !!! Without your work on this blog, I would have been eaten by the system once again.

  105. Well Dave….If there had been ANY attorneys that knew ANYTHING about these issues (and I interviewed plenty) back in early 2009, then I would have hired one. Sorry, but I could not find anyone in Idaho who could do the job. And…as far as the loan application…yes, the lender changed it, not me. I would never commit fraud.

    So, all in all…do I” have any business spending hours in a law library instead of bringing in a paycheck?” Yes, that is my business and not your business. And frankly, considering the outcome, I think I made many hundreds of dollars per hour, so I was bringing in a “paycheck” in a way.

    And to everyone out there, sorry to get so in the face of Dave, but it drives me crazy when people get snarky on this blog because Neil has done so much to create a community here wherein people can help each other. So let’s do that, let’s help each other.

  106. Someone please comment on this, as I’m curious. I saw the slide show and one of the slides said MERS vs MERS Inc. What is the difference? Thanks.

  107. Fact pro se is the only option for most so your doomed unless you spend every waking hour studying a very very complex thing and your still no where near equipped to stand up to attorneys who have Bern well prepared for probably a decade to knock you down like a tiny knat ifyou can sustain the the income necessary to pay a quality attorney that actually believes he can win lol actually believes it’s very important and not about just one house which is just a house in comparison to what we should be really fighting for then you havea chance just speaking from experience. This is very very tough and I’ve heard stories far orse than mine. I ush someoe would do a documentary and show it every Thursday night or something. Neil doa documentary with case histories and real people stories of the huge impact this has had on real people real families real lives shock the world.

  108. Dave
    aren’t you an attorney?

  109. Very good respone, Dave. I have come to the conclusion that you should do as much homework as you can, find other who know what they are doing, and interview and find an attorney who gets it. Going down a dark alley by yourself, or being led down one by an attorney without a flashlight will prove to be a mistake. Granted, there are some pro-se who can wrap their head around this stuff sucessfully, I would say that most do not. If you are really trying to fight and save your house, you can’t cut corners……

    Keep up the fight!

    -Seeking Rememdy

  110. Be a patriot! Find a good attorney – Stop your payment.
    and Stand up to these usurious bastards

  111. ISNT THERE A SAYING ABOUT REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT.

  112. Thanks for this post … it goes back to my original argument that this matter is not a parking ticket … it’s your house! Going pro se/pro per in matters like this (when you have no other option) is only delaying the inevitable.

    Do you really have any business spending hours upon hours in a law library doing research when you should be working trying to bring in a paycheck?

    I also noticed that quiet title actions were on the .pdf file attached to this. It was very informative. Everyone should read this before thinking about going pro se-pro per when it’s their home we’re talking about here. While there are slander issues that aren’t covered on this .pdf which make quiet title actions more formidable, the action itself may extinguish the mortgage or deed of trust, but the note still remains (unsecured, but it still remains) and that has to be defended as well.

    One has to analyze (which is what I’ve been doing) what the total game plan is here. If you as a homeowner fudged on information on your loan application, you could be in serious trouble with feds too for mortgage fraud. If on the other hand, the lender fudged it for you, that’s another story.

    Also of interest to note this .pdf did not come out in defense of MERS … odd, isn’t it? One case cite?

    Since the MBA is focusing on the DOT and the NOTE, this should tip you off that there may be flaws with the DOT that will work to your advantage.

  113. Hi,

    I am in Idaho and I sued my lender pro se for fraud, tila violations, respa violations, state consumer protection violations, etc.

    The lender immediately removed to federal court. I amended my complaint taking out the federal claims and filed a request to remand back to state court. I drove it to Boise and literally got if filed a couple hours before they got an answer filed. The judge granted my amendment and the remand. It went back to state court.

    That was the smartest thing I could have done. State law has plenty of protections for consumers as well as mortgage practices acts as well as causes of action for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty (you have to plead a “special relationship”.)

    After a year and a half of motions and hearings which took about 5-10 hours a week of my time, we finally settled. They took a $120,000+ hit on a short sale and the second lender took a 30% hit on principal in the short sale. The first was incredulous that the second would get anything. I told them, hey, they are not getting sued for fraud, YOU are! So the second got $230,000 on a $320,000 loan. Yes, they were lucky and they knew it. So in the end, I sold the house to some lucky buyer at a great price and I got out with my skin on, and the first took a hit and hopefully got their eyes opened a little. It was worth the effort. And I am happily moved into a nice smaller home.

    My main focus on the case was that they, the first, had created a false loan application. One that had increased my income. And they had me sign it at closing. I only signed it because I thought I was signing my original application in essence to state that nothing had changed. I can tell you the judge was not keen on what they had done. I am a licensed financial professional and a very credible person and I hope that what I left that judge with was that if I could be taken advantage of, then the not so sophisticated average Joe could get totally duped.

    Anyway, now I help other people make decisions on their loans for free. I also have spent hours getting a local attorney informed about the issues and he “gets it”. I do litigation support for him. We have worked on four cases and focus on simple state law issues that the judge can understand. We are working on a case now that is interesting. We didn’t get the complaint (for unlawful foreclosure…faulty assignments, MERS, etc. ) filed prior to a Plaintiff bank filing for post-foreclosure eviction. We are glad the lender filed because now we are just answering their complaint and counter-claiming against them.. Now we know who we are dealing with! We are exploring using this tactic in future cases. We do tell people not to leave the home.

    Anyway, if you are in Idaho, I have an attorney for you. We are also working on deficiency judgment analysis. So many folks are worried about def. judgments. Most of you don’t have to worry, you have affimative defenses. (This is consumer advice, not legal advice, I am not an attorney).

    Good luck to all of you. This issue is going to go on and on until we win some simple common sense cases in state courts. Keep it simple! There are plenty of outrageous yet simple allegations to make in the complaint.

  114. icetea: Great input! Which state are you in? Do you have a blog/website?
    Thanks!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: