FROM T BROWN:
To all, I don’t see why we are getting mad at each other , we need solutions. I’m fighting just like everyone else is; but everybody i tell my story too, tells me I’m ahead of the “game”. I have the original NOTE signed in blank in my hands. I’m not the bank the original NOTE has not helped me one bit, and no one not even Neil has made a suggestion as to what I do next. The NOTE is all powererful in the hands of the bank , but when it is in the hands of a “layman” it is worthless and before anyone asks I’m in South Carolina.
FROM THE EDITOR: Actually I CAN tell you what to do when the note shows up.
- First of all don’t assume it IS the note even if it appears to match the copy you have. When they come up with the “note” there is a high probability that technology (fabrication and forgery) was involved. Personally I was sitting on the witness stand as an expert witness when the opposing attorney handed me the “original note.” He said “I am handing you the original note.” And then he asked “You are holding the original note in your hands, isn’t that correct?” And I said I don’t know since I am not familiar with the signatures and I have not inspected the note. And he asked if I would concede that if the signatures were in fact those of the borrower, that this was the original note. Now I was a litigator for 30 years and I teach other lawyers how to litigate these issues. You have to think things through. Why would the lawyer ask a perfect stranger if this was the original note. Answer because he has nobody else to testify that it it is the original note. Why not? So he was looking to get the paper into evidence by an admission from the borrower’s expert that the note was the original when it was being presented (and had never been shown before that morning) for the first time. Something smelled fishy. “Wait a minute,” I said, “I need to inspect this.” After a few minute of looking carefully at the note I said “I am an opinion witness, and in my opinion this is not the original note. It is a printed fabrication using a color printer. The signatures appear deep and dark and yet the there is no impression on the back of the paper. In my opinion, based upon the facts of this case and the repeated attempts to get the original note, I believe this was literally printed this morning.” “No further questions,” he replied.
- As for the note being signed in BLANK, this is a common. And if you can prove that it was blank when you signed it, you can challenge its admission into evidence simply because the terms of the obligation were not on it when you signed it. The argument is idiot-proof: the note can’t be evidence of the obligation (which normally the note is used for) because the terms of the obligation were not on the note. If they want to prove the obligation, they must find another way — like with witnesses who will actually say that the would-be forecloser (pretender lender) has lent money to the borrower (not true) or that the pretender lender has paid the party who appears on the closing documents and therefore is a real party in interest with standing to make a claim (also not true). They never can get a live witness to say that because it would be perjury. They ALWAYS use affidavits that are worded carefully to avoid the charge of perjury but which give the impression that the affidavit it attesting to facts when it is in fact doing no such thing and the person signing has no knowledge of the transaction independent of what is on the affidavit which was prepared by the lawyer and possibly never read by the person who signed it.
- As for the real original note appearing in court, THAT doesn’t end the inquiry. How did they come into possession of the note. Where did it come from? Mere possession of the note doesn’t give any more rights that non-possession. If you give a note to a courier to give to someone else, does that mean the courier can stop off at the courthouse and sue you? And if the note reaches the recipient, why was it being sent? was it being sent for safe-keeping or an an incident to a monetary transaction in which the recipient was the the intended assignee or indorsee of the note? These are the right questions and if pressed you’ll probably get the answers you were looking for.
FROM MIKE HANSEN
Color photocopies are frequent and easy to identify.
Besides having no ridges on the reverse of the signature page, the “magic marker” test will show if
there is any ink present.
A yellow magic marker contains a solvent which
will smear the blue ink. A color photocopy will not
smudge. Try the experiment yourself and do it in
front of the judge. Then try it with a small sample of
the signature on the Note. If it smears, its real, if not
its a counterfeit color photocopy.
Filed under: foreclosure |
[…] WHEN THE NOTE SHOWS UP « Livinglies’s Weblog […]
I want to send you , Neil the details of my pending foreclosure…perhaps it can help you to help others…will try to do so as soon as am able…next week I go to Sterns office to examine the so called original note with 2 endorsements to see if it is genuine…
I requested an emergency hearing over a year ago to bring closure to this unpleasant situation…unlike the many others, I was not behind with my payments…in fact, I used to pay extra principal to fast track the end of the payments…I already have 2 satisfaction of mortgages so it never was my intentions to loose my home…of more than 20 years…home was re fied in 1997…
As I was saying, after the complaint was filed and I responded Pro Se, the Stern office responded with a one page response saying that 1. they are not debt collectors, 2 am out of timing ( not sure what that meant) and that they would send the amounts owed so I could pay…then couple weeks after, they sent this intimidating looking letter head with all these names and a deadline to pay off loan…I ignored completely and filed with my docs…
then in Jan they sent an amended complaint with some fraudulent affidavits and another recently created assignment from Deutsche Bank to Deutsche supposedly done the September prior to the first complaint in October…I saw immediately that they wre fraudulent…by the way, both signed by Jeffery Stephan…this was months before the fraude was exposed with the robo signers…
So, I asked the bailif if I could get a calendar date for a hearing and he instructed me to go do the motion and showed me some possible availalbe dates…
I filed the motion and when I called the new judge secretary, she said I had to send my info to Sterns office first for their approval which was not true…I could have filed my motion and then send copy to them and they could have responded if the date was suitable or not…I di dnto know they were in cohoots…so they knew ahead of time what I planned to do and what I was filing…
the next morning I went to the court house to file the motion…my docket was missing…I keep regular checks on that docket…currently some files are removed…anyway…I asked where was my docket, it was in the judges chambers and was taken there by the Stern lawyer to the judge…so I went to the judge office…sure enough it was there…but I had filed and recorded the motion meanwhile…
the atmosphere in the judges office was really different than when I first went to see the bailiff…very antogonistic…
I asked about the date for my hearing, the secretary said it ws denied…I asked why, she said I dont get an explanation…I asked her if it is in writing so I can have a copy, she said, no, it wont be…I said I need it in writing that the judge actually denied me a hearing to bring closure to this case…the mortion included the fraudulent affidavits and the reprimanding of the attorney base on the code of ethics and his untruthfullness, etc….
I told the judge secretary that I would not leave until I got a copy in writing, and the judge was listening in the opene door…so she saw my determination and went to speak with the judge and then cam eout and said I had to ait outside until she types it up andhe signs it..so I waited and got it in writing…
so when I heard about the robosigners and saw that name, I knew my God had exposed to me the fraudulent docs….imagine…my file was left there for all these months…
the secretary told me I had to get an attorney for my case…so I got one and he respoonded to the amended complaint …I di dnot like that…that complaint should have gone through the process to be allowed to be amended esp since it was sent AFTER I had already responded…anyway…maybe just as well.. it will show their intentions…
so, the file remained in limbo for over a year…and while I was away…the plaintiffis attorney filed a second amended complaint, this time with the judge granting the motion…however, the plaintiffs request was that I not be allowed to respond to this amended complaint and the judge actually granted him the request..that the defendants not be allowed to answer this amended complaint…
then another trip to the courthouse, and no one knows the signature of the judge…just a scribble, and then I found out that we are in the rocket docket pool….
also, a hearing is set for later this year to review the files and why it is that the foreclosure is where it is at…
Unbelievable…but what is believable? So I am planning to file a supplementary complaint after I vet the so called original note…which the copy filed by the attorney is endorsed but not by all the assignments the originally sent…also, date on note is different than date mortgage was signed and hud signed…then they never produced a copy of the original mortgage..they used the recorded on from the courts….so where is the original mortgage that should accompany the note…
since all these revelations, I started to wonder if indeed they owned my note…
QUESTION, should not the copies sent from the servicer be the same as the one the attorney has?
Interestingly enough, I had requested prrof that the servicer owned my mortgage…they sent me a copy of the hud, mortgage (already recorded) and note with a certified stamp saying it was a copy of the original…with no endorsements…
QUESTION: why did Stern not attach these as exhibits with the original complaint? Why did they create a one page note from GMAC? And why not from Homecomings the servicer?
WHY did GMAC send a letter with another one attached to it from Homecomings last July saying they were the new servicers? That the servicing was transferred to GMAC?
WHY is only the judge page with the denied motion in the docket and not the full motion that explains the purpose of the motion for hearing?
HOW can a judge deny my due process to answer to an amended complaint?
Thank you …
What to do with a note that shows up with an
endorsent in blank? I found the case of In re
Wilhelm, BK IDaho 08-20577, 407 B.R. 329, instructive.
Probably show up on google search. The decision was in July of 07, I believe.
To T. Brown, is there a chance you can get a cert’d copy of the note from the title company to demonstrate that it matches YOUR note? Also, your original lender ws compelled to keep records for a number of years.
Is there such thing as an assignment of a lost note? Even if an assignment is done by way of a separate agreement in lieu of an endorsement on the note itself, it’s my understanding an ‘assignment is not valid until the assignee actually has possession of the note, or at least the assignee has no right of
enforcement as to that note. I know this is true when a note is not claimed to be lost. Maybe someone can comment on the case when the note is allegedly missing.
In a particular case I have somewhere, an ALS’ employee testified that MERS wants the note endorsed in blank to
foreclose. Unfortunately, whomever has possession is claiming rights to those notes. In my case, ALS finally came up with a note end’d in blank which does not match our file copy. They have accused us of manufacturing OUR note and have even asked for sanctions!!!! If you want to win your cases, you must familiarize yourself with the rules of evidence.
Thank you…in S. Florida…will do…
yvonne: If you are in FL or especially in central FL and need a real forensic document examiner with proper credentials contact dubiousnotes@hush.com with your questions.
Thank you, Neil..where can a bona fide forensic be found…and should this be done by the plaintiff or the defendant challenging the signature?
Thank you for your response…
YVONNE. YOU WILL NEED A REAL FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXAMINER WITH PROPER CREDENTIALS
What if the signature does smudge but a good forgery? I had that happened once on 2 checks by a new employee…extremely good likeness to the original…almost fooled me except for the amounts and the circumstances surrounding them…
What then? Will a forensic help?
Thank you for your response…
Color photocopies are frequent and easy to identify.
Besides having no ridges on the reverse of the signature page, the “magic marker” test will show if
there is any ink present.
A yellow magic marker contains a solvent which
will smear the blue ink. A color photocopy will not
smudge. Try the experiment yourself and do it in
front of the judge. Then try it with a small sample of
the signature on the Note. If it smears, its real, if not
its a counterfeit color photocopy.
Thursday 16 September 2010
David:
The burden of proof always belongs to the party making an assertion, and that is why it is important to challenge everything the “lender”/plaintiff presents as evidence, including the note. Proof that a note is original rests with plaintiff, under penalty of perjury, of course.
If one does not make these demands in a timely manner, they are waived and whatever “evidence” plaintiff presents without challenge/objection, is then presumed to be true from that point on.
Another thing…the servicer sent copy of mortgage and copy of ‘note’ with copy of hud statement…with different dates…
these were never given to the homeowner at time of closing which was done in homeowner’s home…
Upon request, servicing company, who did not file foreclosure, but the ‘trustee’ did…sent these..however, when the foreclosing attorney and guess who???? the big mill…
when he filed his complaint…never once attached any of these docs to the complaint…just some copies of recorded assignemnts…and a one page made up ‘note’ from a different bank…GMAC…(Deutche the alleged trustee)
Why did he not also attached what the servicer sent? And why did he adamantly claimed lost note…until a year later, and after fraudulent affidavits of other assignments..finally registered an ‘original’ at the courts?
Please respond someone..thanks…
Do forensics realy show proof of originals or electronic copies?
Also, I understand there are some notes out there that are not negotiable due to their having conditions?
What happens once an assignement of mortgage is recorded? How can it become unrecorded?
I have a situation where the mortgage was alledgedly signed on one date and the date changed without initials and recorded ..the change of date was to match the note that was alledgedly prepared and signed on a different date…
Also, as a refi…the previous banker did not record a satisfaction until a year after the refi…what were they doing here? Did they have the note..did they not transfer it to the new ‘owner’ that gave the refi? 12 months of a floating note??? Would appreciate comments on this…thanks
Neil and Zinger, Anyone.
If the maker –homeowner refuses to authenticate the note based on lack of expertise, as you both have noted, then who does authenticate it?
Zinger: who is supposed to authenticate that piece of paper?
Another easy way to see if a Note was produced on a Laser printer, either color or black and white, is a clothing iron.
Toner in a laser printer is actually very fine pieces of plastic. If the suspect note was printed on a laser printer, and you place a blank piece of paper and iron over the signature, the heat from the iron will re-melt the plastic toner and 2 things will happen..
1) the pages will stick slightly, and
2) some of the toner particles from the signature will be transferred to the blank piece of paper (backwards obviously).
Both will NOT happen on a wet ink signature.
I would LOVE to see an attorney do that in a court room infront of the judge and see the look on the plaintiff attorney’s face when the signature lifts off the page..
Can you say instant dismissal and hearing on fraud charges????
Bob
I just sat in a trial where the forclosing attornies handed the judge 4 different ORIGINAL notes… …. You need an expert to tell if its original or not. Unless you know what to look for.
Are you foreclosed on and sale over and evicted? IF NOT then I seriously doubt you have the ORIGINAL note,. If you do then it is separated from the deed of trust.
I just wrote a post about that separation thinghttp://su.pr/1l1hrK
The thing is (IMHO) banks are usually really reluctant to part with the promissory note.
[…] WHEN THE NOTE SHOWS UP Posted on September 15, 2010 by Neil Garfield […]
Wednesday 15 Septemb er 2010
D Krieger:
You volunteed the infirmation that you had a book on quiet title coming out “in two weeks.” I am guessing that was about a month ago, but have heard nothing more about it after sending you an interest, as you requested.
What is the story?
David C Breidenbach ,
At my closing (Wells Fargo/Option One via a local broker) the closing agent was following strict instructions from WF that the docs must be signed in BLACK ink , obviously because they were going the reduce to electronic file route…
On a faked note you can expect the signatures to be the weak point ,, the text on the original came off a laser printer so there is nothing to differentiate a fake from an original there. If you look at the signatures under magnification a real signature will leave indentations in the paper and will appear as a solid line with ink absorbed at tangents by the fibers,, obviously a “signature” printed by a color laser will be a series of dots. On the subject of dots remember that most color lasers place a coded pattern of yellow dots on every page as an anti-counterfeiting measure for currency and cashiers checks… You can easily see the yellow dots with a blue light (any light source with blue plastic film over the bulb will work) I would look closely to see if all pages match each other… I would suspect that the yellow dot pattern on the last/signature page may differ on many docs from the earlier pages… You can get a high magnification microscope that connects to your pc or laptops usb port … for about $35 ,, the differences you’ll see are unmistakable.
help
Quite some time ago – someone here – pointed out – that “without recourse” means there can be no “putting back” of the note – but Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement – includes REPURCHASE of notes for various reasons. And, many investors, including Fannie/Freddie – are now trying to force REPURCHASE of loans they claim were not compliant. – many of these loans years old. All meaning – notes were NOT “without recourse” – and therefore, not negotiable as stated..
I am seeing notes endorsed on the back of the page (when there was room on front) and allonges removed. All of this is in addition to the frightening descriptions here of fabricated original notes.
All of this affects the negotiability of the note – this was an issue addressed by Pepperdine law professor – but, do not think he was even aware of the potential forgeries. This is a big issue. But, if this is the case – sounds to me that it is job for DOJs – what are they doing – anything? Only a few seem to be acting.
David C Breidenbach, – Do not think the “custodians” in SEC docs exist anymore in that capacity anymore – if they ever did to begin with. Most originals were first sent to short-term warehouse lenders – as collateral – something called a “Letter of Transmittal” may show transfer of original docs – – where they wound up from there – is anybody’s guess.
MR GARFIELD THE LAW OFFICE OF PITE DUNCON LLP IN SAN DIEGO USED THE US MAIL TO SEND THE FEDERAL BK COURT A COPY OF THE OG BALLOON NOTE TO ME AND THE JUGDE THAT WAS TAMPERED WITH. 2009 THE OG COPY WAS CERTIFIED AND HAD A MERS MIN NUMBER BUT DID NOT HAVE MY OG LOAN NUMBER. IN 2010 THEY SENT A OG COPY OF THE NOTE WITHOUT THE MERS MIN NUMBER WITHOUT THE OG LOAN NUMBER. YOU CAN SEE THE LINES WERE THEY TAPE THE NUMBER OFF. THEY ALSO TAPED OF THE MIN AND LOAN NUMBER OFF THE DEED OF TRUST.MY OG AND CERTIFIED COPYS HAS THE MERS AND LOAN NUMBERS ON THEM.ME AND MY ATTORNEY FOUND OUT WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO HIDE THIS THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF FRAUD ON THE COURT AND MAIL FRAUD. TOO HOMEOWNERS HAVE EVERY DOC LOOK AT BY A DOC EXAMINER******DO NOT TAKE THE BANK WORD. ITS NOT WORTH YOUR MONEY YOU PUT IN THERE BANKS
ENDORESED in blank “WITHOUT RECOURSE”
it is still confusing to me… if the NOTE presented in Court is endorsed in blank “WITHOUT RECOURSE” and this endorsement stamp was endorsed after closing;
IS the NOTE null and void?
IS the NOTE just made an unsecured NOTE?
Is the NOTE still valid and the money still owed?
WHAT does the UCC say about the endoresement in blank and WITHOUT RECOURSE
OF COURSE MY PREVIOUS COMMENT IS AN OVER SIMPLIFICATION BUT AND IT MAY NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT ALL FACTS, BUT I WANTED TO STIR THE POT A LITTLE TO MAKE THE BRAIN JUICE FLOWING
the THING HERE IS TI UNDERSTAND THAT THE COURTS ARE LOOKING AT THIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE THAT WE ALL OWE THE MONEY AND THAT THE PRETENDER LENDERS HAVE A CASE BECAUSE WE DID STOP MAKING PAYMENTS FOR WHATEVER REASON.
WE ARE THROWING ARGUMENTS AS TO THE SEPARATION OF THE NOTES, THAT MERS IS HERE AND THERE, THAT THE DOCS ARE FORGERIES, ETC. i AGREE WITH ALL THESE ARGUMENTS, THEY ARE VALID. BUT IN THE SECURITIZATION WORLD WE WERE A VICTIM OF MONEY DID EXCHANGE HANDS AND SOME ONE DID ACCOUNT FOR IT. SOME ONE MADE TRANSFERS, SOME ONE ISSUED COMMISSION CHECKS, SOME ONE MADE PROMISES, SOME ONE ISSUED G.F.E.’S, DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED ON THE TABLE WITHOUT PROPER DISCLOSURE OF THOSE TRANSFER, FEES AND COMMISSIONS.
IF YOU DO HOLD THE NOTE AND IT WA ENDORSED TO YOU FOR SOME REASON THEN IT MAY HAVE BEEN GIFTED TO YOU AND YOU MAY BE LIABLE FOR TAXES. WHY NOT DO AN ACTION TO QUIET TITLE.
IF YOUR LOAN IS IN A POOL AND IT WAS A REFI, ALL WE NEED IS A $35.00 DIFFERENCE FROM WHAT YOU WERE TOLD AND THE ACTUAL AMOUNT FOR THAT TO BE A TILA VIOLATION.
I BELIEVE JUDGES WILL GET MORE AGGRAVATED TOWARD A PARTY THAT IS HIDING SOMETHING THAN WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF SOME ONE FORGED MY SIGNATURE. AT THE END THEY WILL LOOK AT IT AS YOU HAVING HAD THE ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOUR PROPERTY WAS FRAUDULENTLY APPRAISED OR NOT.
i WOULD GO AS FAR AS TO SAY THAT AFTER VERY LONG SLEEPLESS NIGHTS, I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT TO FOLLOW THE MONEY IS THE KEY TO A SOLUTION FOR OUR TROUBLES.
IT’S THE MONEY STUPID. WHAT ARE THE CRIMINAL ELEMENTS IN THE FORECLOSURE MILLS GOING TO ALLEGE, THAT THE $1,000,000 FEE THAT WAS PAID TO THE MIDDLE MEN ON YOUR TRANSACTION WAS AN ACCOUNTING MISTAKE? THEN THEY SHOULD REIMBURSE THAT FUNDS. THEY COULD SAY THAT THE FEES PAID ARE NOT A PART OF YOUR LOAN AND THAT YOUR PAYMENTS WERE PROPERLY ALLOCATED TO YOUR ACCOUNT. IF THAT IS THE CASE THEN WHY THEY CHOSE TO BLOCK US ALL.
I BELIEVE THAT HAVING SAID A LOT, INSURANCE COMPANIES AT THE END ARE MORE PRACTICAL AND EVEN HONEST IN DEALING WITH FINANCIAL ISSUES. IF YOU HAVE A ACCIDENT AND YOU SUE THE INSURANCE COMPANY THEY WILL USUALLY TRY TO REACH A FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT. THE LENDERS WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE COURTS HAVE CHOSEN TO FIGHT US ALL THE WAY, EVEN THOUGH WE WERE ALL WRECKED IN A VERY TOXIC MORTGAGE STEW.
I AM JUST AMAZED AS TO HOW POWERFUL THESE BANKSTERS ARE. AFTER SEVEN MILLION FORECLOSURES SINCE 2006, THE COURTS AND THE PUBLIC STILL SEE US AS IRRESPONSIBLE, AS DEAD BEATS AND THE BANKSTERS AS THE VICTIMS AND THE PARTY BEING HARMED. THE JUDGES TELL US THAT THEY CANNOT ALLOW OUR UNJUST ENRICHMENT BUT THEY ALLOW PARTIES WITHOUT STANDING TO COLLECT AND TAKE AWAY OUR HOMES WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
TODAY AFTER LISTENING TO THE RADIO AND WATCHING THE NEWS, I WAS ABLE TO REAFFIRM WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SHARE WITH MANY PEOPLE. TODAY AFTER THE RESULTS OF YESTERDAYS PRIMARY ELECTIONS, WE ARE HEARING ABOUT THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT AND THEIR EFFORTS, THEY ARE IN THE NEWS CYCLE.
WHAT ABOUT US, THERE ARE OVER 62,000,000 MORTGAGES NAMING MERS AS THE MORTGAGEE AND I DO NOT SEE MANY PEOPLE PROTESTING OR BEING ENERGIZED ABOUT COALESCING AROUND AN ISSUE THAT IS BANKRUPTING US.
THIS IS A POLITICAL SEASON, LET US GET TO THE POLITICIANS. LET US SEND THEM A $20 CHECK WITH A LETTER TELLING THEM WE WILL SUPPORT THEM IF HE FIGHTS FOR US, LET US DO IT TO BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS.
THEY HAVE TO REPORT EVERY DONATION YOUR NAME WILL BE ON RECORD. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND THEIR ATTENTION JUST LIKE THE BANKSTERS WHEN THEY TAKE THESE POLITICIANS FISHING AND TO FANCY DINNERS IN THEIR PRIVATE JETS.
THE ONLY ONES WHO WILL CHANGE THE STATUS QUO ARE US AND NO ONE ELSE. OBAMA WILL NOT DO IT. HE MAY BE THINKING ALREADY AS TO THE PROBABILITY OF HIM BEING A SINGLE TERM PRESIDENT.
THE BANKSTERS ARE PUSHING COURTS LEVY SANCTIONS AGAINST FORECLOSURE DEFENSE LAWYERS, MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO HIRE SOME ONE WITH A SOME BRAINS.
LET US DO IT.
LET US FIGHT.
Excuse me I’m sorry for the confusion I meant I have the original note ENDORSED IN BLANK duly negotiated to me .
To Judge; its interesting, if the servicer can persuade the homeowner in an ordinary situation to deliver a DIL, then that servicer is set up to do the same thing as the Arizona case–but without approval by anyone. maybe thats why the Fed quasis fannie freddie are so gung ho on pushing voluntary DILs. They are all set up to modify the loans for a federal fee for the benefit of a speculative buyer. Pity they will not let underwater borrowers adjust to what the new spec buyer value/price——-if a home is priced at an uninflated amount an awful lot of people could afford the home they live in now. Obviously, there is more money in it for the servicer to go through this charade instead—diminishes investor cash flow with borrower approval and no cloud on title.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You guys hear about this commercial property case decision in AZ? commercial banks don’t have to foreclose to take the property !!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://nreionline.com/finance/news/cmbs_court_decision/
I HAVE THE NOTE, not shouting at anyone The Bank that is foreclosing Knows I have the note, what I was trying to say was when the bank shows the Note signed in blank to the court they win. What Can I do since I have the original note in my possession, Motion for summmary judgement? The note is also stamped fully paid and satisfied: Last page says pay to the order of ……………. signed by the senior vice president.
Neil, thanks for using my comment but I think you misunderstood, The Original note was duly negotiated to me signed in blank… all the Bank has submitted is a lost note.
We have a new player in the game as of last October (2009) …
IBM
Yes, you read that right. IBM is now in the mortgage processing business, having bought Wilshire Credit Corporation from Bank of America Home Loans (BOA).
You can bet these folks really didn’t understand that they were going to get tangled in the web that was weaved by lenders. You can Google IBM purchases Wilshire Credit Corp. for more details. The Beaverton, Oregon location expects to hire over 600 people to run this facility.
The question is: What happened to all of the “former certifying officers” like Melissa Tomlin, the notary public that’s also a MERS “assistant secretary”?
If any of IBM’s new personnel are made MERS’ “certifying officers” anywhere through this mess, IBM now can become a Defendant and they have deep pockets and are worth suing when you find fraudulent documents you can tie to them. More insider “poop” will be coming soon so stay tuned.
This discussion is one of the most valuable I have seen on this post. my guess is that there is a contractor out there with purported access to stacks of paper that supposedly searches out a note for a bank custodian on request. Payment is based on delivery of a piece of paper that looks like the note. The note was scanned after closing and an electronic record made. The contractor has access to the electronic version–maybe just the certified copy that was originally reduced in size. We all know we can regenerate a copy of the note from even a resized electronic copy. The paper used to print the notes in the 1st place appears to have been dictated by the originator or the banks–seems to be typically an off-white eggshell color on paper that is very specific in weight and texture. 1st thing the opposing counsel will do is refer to the texture as “proof” the note is orginal. Now all the contractor needs to do to score his $1000 fee is to use best available technology to perform the acts described by the author on the correct paper stock that matches your take home COPY from closing–and you are fooled. The attys can rely blindly and attempt to get somebody to authenticate the copy using the sneak tactics that the author described. The real forger is in a contractor facility in alpharetta or Mendotta or in a basement in NYC–far from the jurisdiction of the defrauded court. Therefore, even if they get caught red-handed with a photocopy and the fact is attested by a forensic expert in paper/ink etc., the bunch just say; “Oh who wouldve guessed? I wonder how that happened?” The LPS DOCX document creation service in Alpharetta did not appear to have gone this far-but they did things pretty questionable in document ceation–ie they were pretty creative in doc creation!
Now the question I have is, assuming that a person is boggled by the question that was put to neal-the maker of the note –you the homeowner says –gee i cant tell if its my signature or not–looks like a copy tome -but im not a forensic expert. Does that not compel the purported holder to either produce an expert re papewr etc—or make the party that was supposed to exercise custody of the note to authenticate it under risk of perjury? Would not the proper person to authenticate the note be the custodian of the note and mortgage file–as named in the trust documents filed with SEC?
Please tell us Neil–notes are coming out of closets now.
I am not sure if T Brown meant a blank note or a blank endorsement. The Plaintiff produces the alleged Original Note and the lender in this case is a mortgage broker NovaStar and NovaStar uses a blank endorsement on the note. How does a blank endorsement effect a foreclosure case.
Also the note is endorsed to NovaStar but the mortgagee listed on the mortgage is MERS. MERS is acting solely as the nominee for the lender and or lender’s successors and or assigns.
Based on this information the note and the mortgage were separated at closing making the note an unsecured debt. Knowing this is one thing but what are the statutes and prior court cases that support this fact in court. It is one thing to know something but it is another thing to prove it in court with facts, (statutes and precedence). Any help out there with this.