Fla Ct Finds JP Morgan Intentionally and Knowingly Committed Fraud on The Court

SERVICES YOU NEED

As basis for the legal case, WaMu had submitted an assignment of mortgage, which however the court just found never actually belonged to WaMu, and instead was carried on the books of Fannie Mae.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s an old story to us but it’s news to everyone else. Yes it IS fraud, and all you have to do is look, inquire and aggressively press the opposition.

Just like Wells Fargo in Massachusetts, GMAC now in 23 states so far, the story is always the same — the lawyer doesn’t know who he/she represents and doesn’t care, the documents submitted are fabricated and forged and the representation that the would-be forecloser is a creditor is a plan and simple lie — only revealed AFTER they are pressed to support their claim of standing, real party in interest, holder of the note etc.

ALL the foreclosures and notices of sale, motions to lift stay, motions for summary judgment start the same way. Some party picked at random from the securitization chain comes in and starts a foreclosure sale (non-judicial) or a foreclosure lawsuit after documents are fabricated showing a chain of title that never happened and doesn’t exist.

MOST of the time borrowers and the Courts are intimidated by the presence of a “Bank” (which is neither acting as a bank nor was it the lender, creditor, or payee at any point in the process of the closing of the transaction between the homeowner as borrower and the investor as lender).

SOME of the time, borrowers are successful in their challenges to the foreclosure. The reason is not that the rest of the foreclosures are proper, right, legal or equitable. The reason is that in those cases where the borrower is successful they managed to get the Judge to pause long enough to actually look at the documents being presented and to allow the borrower to inquire as to their authenticity and authority. If there is such an inquiry the borrower wins. If there is no such inquiry, the borrower loses.

ALL of the proceedings in which foreclosures were initiated in both non-judicial and judicial states are fatally defective and has resulted in a pile of debris called “title” when in fact no title has been transferred, no credit bid was ever submitted and no deed was issued with authority from a party who possessed the right to convey title.

Each day an angry judge realizes he/she has been duped for years by these antics of people he knew and trusted. Criminal acts, contemptuous of the law and the Courts have been committed in millions of foreclosures.

None of the agencies that are charged with responsibility to regulate the activities of these banks, institutions or companies has lifted a finger to impose existing rules and regulations that were designed to prevent this behavior and punish it when it occurs. None of the Courts want to apply clear Federal law on the subject in the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act. Because when it comes right down to it, the facts unfolding in the lead news stories and in the court orders being entered are downright unthinkable.

We have now come to that fork in the road where we must stop anyone who asks”why would they lie?” and simply admit that it has ALL been a BIG LIE and we have been living this lie for 10 years, hence the name of this blog.

So there is no mistake about it I am stating the opinion that NONE of the foreclosure sales on residential property in which the loan was originated as part of a securitization scheme are valid. They are void. If you think you lost your home you’re wrong no matter what anyone tells you. Any lawyer who studies this instead of responding from a knee-jerk “I remember that issue from law school” will come to the same conclusion — the title chain is not just clouded, it is fatally defective. That means the foreclosures were void according to existing law. It is the same effect as if I signed a warranty deed conveying title to YOUR home now. Such a document might LOOK good, but it is fraudulent, because I don’t have the title to convey much less warrant that it is good title. But if Judge won’t let you speak or won’t even consider the possibility that I would flat out lie and file a totally fraudulent deed, I’ll win and you’ll lose. That’s what is happening.

JPMorgan Brings Foreclosure Case In Mortgage In Which It Was Just A Servicer, Court Finds Bank Committed Fraud

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/16/2010 16:37 -0500

An interesting development out of Jean Johnson, Circuit Judge in Duval Country, Florida, where in a case filed by JPMorgan/WaMu, as Plaintiff, and law firm of Shapiro and Fishman, attempted to evict defendants Hank and Marilyn Pocopanni. As basis for the legal case, WaMu had submitted an assignment of mortgage, which however the court just found never actually belonged to WaMu, and instead was carried on the books of Fannie Mae.

Once this was uncovered is where this case gets really interesting: In point 5 of the filing we read that the “plaintiff predecessor counsel made “clerical errors” when it represented to the Court that the plaintiff was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage rather than the servicer for the owner.”  Which means that only Fannie had the right to foreclose upon the Pocopannis, yet JPM, as servicer, decided to take that liberty itself.

And here the Judge got really angry: “The court finds WAMU, with the assistance of its previous counsel, Shapiro and Fishman, submitted the assignment when [they] knew that only Fannie Mae was entitled to foreclose on the Mortgage, and that WAMU never owned or held the note and Mortgage.” And, oops, “the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that WAMU, Chase and Shapiro & Fishman committed fraud on this Court” and that these “acts committed by WAMU, Chase and Shapiro amount to a “knowing deception intended to prevent the defendants from discovery essential to defending the claim” and are therefore fraud.

While the Judge in this case did not also find declaratory damages against the plaintiff, and while the case of the defendants is unclear (we would expect Fannie to file a foreclosure act on its own soon enough), the question of just how pervasive this form of “fraud” in the judicial system is certainly relevant. Because if JPM takes the liberty of foreclosing on mortgages as merely servicer, when it has no legal ground for such an action, who knows how many such cases the legal system is currently clogged up with. The implications for the REO and foreclosures track for banks could be dire as a result of this ruling, as this could severely impact the ongoing attempt by banks to hide as much excess inventory in their books in the quietest way possible.

Our advice to any party caught in a foreclosure process is to immediately go to http://www.fnma.com and use the Lookup Tool to see if Fannie is still mortgage owner of record, if a foreclosure suit has been brought up by a plaintiff other than the GSE. (Editor’s Note: He’s not exactly right here. All you will know is that FNMA claims on its site that it is the owner. The “owner of record” is the party who shows up in the title search of the only place that counts — the county recording office — which is why we tell everyone to get that from us or another party. 99 times out of 100 the “owner of record” is the originating lender who is often out of business — and THAT is why I insist on repeating that these loans are not and never were secured and that no security instrument has ever or could be filed for perfecting a lien on the home.)

We are confident quite a few other such cases will promptly appear.

43 Responses

  1. Is it my imagination or is there quite a few BP type “damage control” commercials on TV for Chase and GMAC???

  2. BREAKING

    California AG Brown Singles Out Chase Robo-Signer

    Fri, 2010-10-01 15:38 — NationalMortgag…
    Robo_Signer_Pic

    California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has demanded that >>>JP Morgan Chase <<< prove immediately that it is complying with state law or, if it cannot, halt foreclosing on California homes. "I'm taking this action to further protect California homeowners on the brink of foreclosure," Brown said, "JP Morgan Chase, like GMAC/Ally Financial, has admitted that its review of key foreclosure documents was a ruse. I'm directing Chase to prove it is following the law before it continues foreclosures in California."

    California law prohibits lenders from recording notices of default on mortgages made between Jan. 1, 2003 and Dec. 31, 2007, unless, subject to limited exceptions, the lender contacts or tries diligently to contact the borrower to determine eligibility for a loan modification. A notice of default must include a declaration of compliance with California law.

    JP Morgan Chase, the nation's third largest loan servicer, has admitted that employees signed affidavits in 56,000 foreclosure cases nationwide without first personally reviewing the contents of the borrowers' loan files. As a result, those borrowers lost their homes based on affidavits the bank never confirmed were accurate.

    This practice strongly suggests that any purported verification by JP Morgan Chase that it complied with California law before beginning foreclosures here is also questionable. JP Morgan has suspended foreclosures in 23 other states that, unlike California, require a court order for foreclosures.

    On Sept. 24, Brown sent a similar letter to Ally Financial Inc., formerly known as GMAC Mortgage, directing it to prove it is complying with California law or cease foreclosures in California until it can. The Attorney General's office is in contact with Ally.

    For more information, visit http://ag.ca.gov.

  3. Same problem with forged notaries with these lenders. Anyone needing some investigative information regarding the following lenders, brokers, servicers, notaries …

    Goldman Sachs
    Litton Loan Servicing
    HSBC
    Fremont Investment and Loan
    Marti Noriega
    John Crandall
    Brenda Mckinzy
    Leigh Blackwell

    Go to the link below

    https://fdaaccount.box.net/shared/a1pjz9sz5c

  4. @Mike,
    It’s a crappy video, I cut off people’s heads, BUT the admission is there!

    email me

    pooleykaren at yahoo dot com

  5. @ karen pooley

    I am in the biz of getting publicty. I would like to get copy of vid, have a transcript madeand get it up on 30plus vid sites, a podcast, ettc.

    You can contact me via website

  6. @Marla,
    I just point blank ASKED them. And the Chase employee admitted that these signatures are in “some cases” replacing the original signatures which Chase has destroyed.

    Like I said, the element of surprise.

    Neil, would you like this film?

  7. Way to go Karen. How in the world did you get someone to admit to that? Let us all know.

  8. Yesterday, I went down to “Chase Home Ownership Center” in my orange jumpsuit with “JP MORGAN CHASE” written on front and back……had a camera rolling…….and got one of the Chase people to admit ON CAMERA that they use these “modification papers” to replace the signatures from the original documents that they have “lost, mutilated or destroyed.”

    Surprise, it’s a beautiful thing.

  9. Use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for Freddie and Fannie.

    in my case, Citi began foreclosure. Then in chapter 13 filed a proof of claim and motion for relief from stay.

    Through the suggestion of Mr. Edstrom, I checked Freddie’s website which reported that they own the mortgage.

    I emailed them a freedom of information request and followed up with certified mail.

    The next day I received confirmation by customer service that they “owned” the loan.

    The day after that, the legal department for Freddie sent me a message confirming the same and giving me their loan number and listing Citi the “seller” and “servicer” of the loan.

    So in the Bk court, I stated the facts and attached Freddie’s messages as further proof that Citi lacks standing.

    In the hearing this week, the judge asked Citi’s lawyer to brief the issue of how Citi could own the note and Freddie be the owner of the loan.

    It’s a motion on a full calendar so the judge wants everything in writing. Citi’s brief and response to my objection in two weeks, my reply at the end of October.

    Thanks to all who have invested time in my education. Daniel Edstrom, Deontis, Ann, to name a few.

    I don’t know where this case is going, but I like my side of the board for now. Any comments on what to do when a Freddie ownership is known, and the servicer is pretending to own the loan, contact:

    davidwood100@yahoo.com

  10. Bob G

    I am not an attorney. But, attorneys have told me that the TILA Amendment is law, and the Opinion is now “Rule” for the law.

    Difficult for state laws to override federal law – very exceptional – see below. .However, if you do not bring up the TILA Amendment in state court – court will not address it. Nevertheless, it is important support when challenging the party who claims to be the current creditor.

    Regardless, my point was to discuss how the guarantor acquires legal title after issuer default – which occurred. Thus, did Fannie/Freddie acquire legal title after issuer default? The congressional purpose of the TILA amendment was to assure that borrowers know their creditor. The FR opinion was largely done to define – who is – and who is not the creditor – and circumstances that may change the creditor – for which, the Ginnie Mae example describes.

    General for preemption:

    “State law provisions are preempted to the extent that they contradict the requirements in the following chapters of the TILA and the implementing sections of Regulation Z[i]:

    * Chapter 1, “General Provisions,” which contains definitions and acceptable methods for determining finance charges and APRs. For example, a state law would be preempted if it required a bank to include in the finance charge any fees that the TILA excludes, such as seller’s points.
    * Chapter 2, “Credit Transactions,” which contains disclosure requirements, rescission rights, and certain credit card provisions. For example, a state law would be preempted if it required a bank to use the terms “nominal annual interest rate” in lieu of ”APR.”
    * Chapter 3, on “Credit Advertising,” contains consumer credit advertising rules and APR oral disclosure requirements.

    Conversely, state law provisions may be appropriate and are not preempted under the TILA if they call for, without contradicting chapters 1, 2, or 3 of the TILA or the implementing sections of Regulation Z, either of the following:

    * Disclosure of information not otherwise required. A state law that requires disclosure of the minimum periodic payment for open-end credit, for example, would not be preempted by the TILA.
    * Disclosures more detailed than those required. A state law that requires itemization of the amount financed, for example, would not be preempted, unless it contradicts the TILA by requiring the itemization to appear with the disclosure of the amount financed in the segregated closed-end credit disclosures.”

  11. ANON

    Just because the Fed “ruled” on something or another doesn’t mean that a state court judge is bound by that ruling if it is contrary to state/ucc law.

  12. Cheryl

    I understand – the process is greatly flawed and – I know of similar incidents regarding Fannie/Freddie.. Impossible to get a straight answer. If BOA services your loan – it is most likely that they own rights to receivables – but, maybe, not the whole loan – at least at onset – maybe they own now. It is all part of covered-up process. The process changes – at the whims of a “system” – that we are NOT privy to.

    And, if whole loan was once owned by Freddie/Fannie – according to Fed Res. – it reverts back to issuer – once there is default – by either the issuer – or by the borrower – that is, until BOA disposes of it. And, courts deny discovery??? Need courses in financial engineering.

    I have seen so much fabricated – and agree – the government agencies WILL NOT help. (OCC ranks at the top) I am NOT in foreclosure – not in default – and have no clue where my loan is – or who I am really paying. Been told by agencies that I am “unusual” and they will help – but then they say NO HELP- WHY?????.

    If the servicer is a subsidiary of a major bank/investment firm/hedge fund – than it it most likely that the parent currently owns your loan- given the above. However, there are servicers that are not subsidiaries of banks/investment firms/hedge fund – and trying to find out who then owns the loan – is like finding a needle in a haystack.

    Bob G.,

    I am so tired of hearing about producing the original note. 1) we do not even know if it a valid production 2) it must be in CURRENT possession and properly conveyed to party prior to foreclosure 3) it must be validly negotiable – many questions as this – due to misrepresentations/warranties and repurchase demands.

    The Federal Reserve Opinion responds to a HUD inquiry. The Opinion is now Rule. HUD counsel no longer has a say. The Fed Res – has ruled. Fed has ruled that title reverts to the Guarantor upon issuer default – and this may be Freddie/Fannie/Ginnie – or private Guarantor – once the security issuer defaults. And, all of these issues – were in default – called a “trigger event.” – i.e. the massive credit default swaps that were immediately demanded execution – and could not be performed – hence – the bailout.

    We cannot continue to focus on stale issues – we must look to everything – every nook and cranny that allows the real creditor to avoid disclosure and law firms that refuse to identify the real creditor in foreclosure actions. This is not new. It has been going on for a LONG time. But, the massive volume in foreclosures – is NEW. We need to individually focus – and to organize to expose the fraud to support our claims to judges – who just do not seem to get what is really going on.

    And, I resent that “investors” are beating us – in the courts. How can they claim fraud – but we are – well, just meaningless.

    There is much going on – that we do not know. All the more reason for securitization reports by Neil – you need to trace the source – and all named players. But, must go beyond that in discovery – and find those that are not named as players. Without Neil’s documents – there is not even a start. You cannot even begin the process. I am not advertising for Neil – NO AFFILIATION – but, I know, the securitzation analysis is critical – to even begin to know –
    THE FRAUD.

    And, again and again, we MUST support each other. We MUST organize to force full disclosure.

    We cannot continue to be VICTIMS.

  13. Anonymous

    BOA is my servicer not my lender. BOA reassigned to BAC Home Loans (old countrywide) and now have reassigned to CIG HFI 1st lien mortgage which is a phantom within BOA. I have a lawsuit. They never foreclosed. I got to them before they came to me.

  14. Anonymous

    I had a title and loan search done on this website. The title search could not find my mortgage loan or my address anywhere which leads me to believe it was not securitized.

    I received a confidential statement from my lawyer of the Fannie Mae repurchase agreement. FTC. Federal Reserve, Atty General, OCC (the worst) would not even listen to me. But Fannie Mae’s regulator OFHEO I got ahold of and they made Fannie Mae Fraud Dept. call me within 1 hour. OFHEO is not the regulator anymore. Now Fannie Mae states I never did have a loan with them and I have FM underwriting findings with my name and falsified addresses on them.

    Fannie Mae has a File ID No. that is different than the Lenders mortgage loan no. BOA Alt-A loans are a big part of Fannie Mae’s business. They will never turn against BOA.

  15. ANON –

    Wouldn’t Fannie and Freddie still have to produce the original note? Furthermore, what is the opinion of HUD’s counsel based upon? What specific laws are they citing?

  16. dny

    Believe it is simply the Fannie Mae loan number – which would be different from the originator’s – and servicer’s number (how could we have so many numbers???) And, sometimes is shown on credit report – along with originators number. Look at old loan reporting.

    Interesting what the Federal Reserve writes in it’s Interim opinion – refers to Ginnie Mae – but perhaps same applies to Fannie/Freddie (also guarantors). See below:

    “The Board has received a letter from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of General Counsel, in its capacity as legal counsel for the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), seeking to clarify Ginnie Mae’s status under Section 404(a) of the 2009 Act. Ginnie Mae guarantees securities that are collateralized by mortgage loans. HUD’s letter states that, as the guarantor of these securities, Ginnie Mae obtains equitable title in the mortgage loans but further states the issuers of the securities retain legal title to the loans that collateralize the securities. According to HUD, legal title to the loans is not conveyed to Ginnie Mae unless the issuer of the securities defaults in its obligations. If the securities issuer defaults, Ginnie Mae can immediately extinguish the securities issuer’s interest in the loans and take legal title. Based on HUD’s representations and legal opinion regarding Ginnie Mae’s status, the Board believes that the requirements of section 226.39 do not apply to Ginnie Mae until it finds the issuer in default and acquires legal title to the loans.”

    Me again – thus, since all the issuers defaulted on securities (hence the swaps and bailouts) – did Fannie/Freddie/Ginnie then acquire title??? Not saying all loans were securitized – and not saying all loans were Fannie/Freddie – but believe this example from Federal Reserve needs further explanation.

  17. ANON, can you shed light on what a Fannie Mae “collateral number” is? Since it seems to always be a different number from the originator’s loan number, is it referring to a different loan, the same loan or something else entirely?

  18. Cheryl

    Most us will never see a Repurchase Agreement , and will never be told about a repurchase. In effect, a repurchase means the loan was originated with misrepresentations/warranties to the actual lender – in your case BOA. It means that the loan was not securitized and contained origination flaws. Repurchases were (and currently are) a bit part of the mess.

    All corporate/government entities (including Fannie/Freddie which are now government owned) cover for each other. And, if you are litigation – government agencies/entities – such as the SEC, Federal Reserve, OCC (Comptroller of the Currency), etc., will not provide you with any help or give you any information.

    We have foreclosures not being done in the name of Fannie/Freddie – when in fact they are owned by Fannie/Freddie, and we have foreclosures, like Cheryl’s being done in the name of Fannie – when they were never owned by Fannie. With everyone protecting each other – we never get straight answers.

    Fannie/Freddie “look-up” website is worthless. If you get a “No” answer – just try to call them and ask them if your loan was ever a Fannie/Freddie – and when did the loan cease being a Fannie/Freddie – they will not answer.

    And, for anyone who did a refinance, check your older mortgage loan on credit report. Sometimes, the credit report will give a Fannie/Freddie collateral number under a prior originator reporting. It is important to check your old mortgage loans if you refinanced. No lender would easily just give up your loan ownership to a new lender. They held on to those loans – without informing you. Fannie/Freddie were particularly guilty of this. Refinance generated much income for all involved. And, most of the subprime lending was refinances – not purchases. Last refinance is most likely connected to prior refinance.

  19. Can u publish your “repurchase agreement from fannie mae to boa?

  20. Fannie Mae is foreclosing. I saw a random document on my county courthouse records with their name on it. I was very shocked.

    Fannie Mae knew and covered for BOA in my case. Fannie Mae was involved in the beginning of loan process. Months after closing I received the FM underwriting findings and they sent BOA red flags about my property address (they could not find it in the system); my income was inflated; but BOA ended up giving me a loan anyway. I have a written repurchase agreement from Fannie Mae to BOA. To this day I think Fannie Mae covered for BOA and I do not believe I ever had a Fannie Mae loan due to the data I have.

  21. Florida’s Kangaroo Foreclosure Courts: Judges Denying Due Process on Behalf of Banks

    Florida is ground zero of the foreclosure crisis. In addition to being one of the epicenters of the housing meltdown, it has also become the jurisdiction where local lawyers have been the most effective overall in unearthing how servicers and foreclosure mills have engaged in widespread document fabrications and use of improper affidavits to foreclose.

    This abuse of contracts and legal procedures matters because the courts are the last bastion of defense of the individual. Even libertarians, who keenly oppose government mission creep, give courts an elevated role as a protector of rights.

    Given the success that local attorneys are having (it has reached the point where the state attorney general’s office has opened an investigation into three so-called foreclosure mills operating in the state), pushback by the mortgage industrial complex was inevitable. The old saw about “best government money can buy” now looks to apply to the courts, the one area most people assume to be relatively free from tampering by well funded interests.

    The New York Times did report on this development, but its account was such a pale version of what is happening on the ground as to give readers a distorted picture.

    These new foreclosure-only courts are special creations of the Florida legislature, funded separately from the usual court system. They are manned by retired judges, which means in many cases they are not familiar with real estate law.

    But perhaps most important, the explicit objective of these courts is to clear up the backlog. And that is coming to pass not by the Legislature having thrown enough resources at the problem (that is, having greatly enlarged court capacity to process more cases in parallel) but by pushing for faster resolution. The problem is that an accelerated process runs roughshod over due process and allows banks to foreclose when they may not be the right party, or worse, when the foreclosure is the result of servicing error.

    Let’s look at one example of banana republic faux justice in the US, via a speech by foreclosure court Judge Roger Colton to his court on how the day was going to go. It’s simply breathtaking. He says that if the bank is foreclosing, he’s not going to consider any evidence that the foreclosure is in error (servicing errors, plaintiff can’t provide proof it owns the note, which means it might not be the right party and procedurally, means it lacks standing to take action). He says he has already heard everything, there is a lot of unemployment in the area; he is going to schedule a court date, but that is merely a deadline for negotiation. In other words, he makes it abundantly clear he has no interest in hearing evidence. When he gets to seeing a defendant after his speech to the court (p. 13), he rubber stamps what the bank wants without even considering the evidence. And apparently his entire day went like that. The summary from an attorney who was representing a client before him that day:

    On 8/30, I had a Summary Judgment Foreclosure hearing on Palm Beach County’s “Rocket Docket”. The judge spoke for 14 minutes to the crowd, of mostly pro se defendants, about how they should just agree to the summary judgment and the plaintiffs, (whose attorneys (Shapiro & Fishman had a dedicated courtroom and to whom he referred to as “my attorneys”) would be gracious (Ha!) enough to allow them to stay in their homes for 120 days if needed (even though the statute says he only has to give them 30). When it came to hearing arguments which were fully briefed and provided to the court (pursuant to the instructions of the Divisions head judge) he only allowed 30-60 seconds for argument, failed to read any of the papers, failed to review the plaintiff’s foreclosure package,flatly ignored the Affidavit filed in Opposition, ignored my plea for a trial, signed the judgment and dismissed me. I never was permitted to even read the proposed judgment or to examine the “newly discovered” allonge which Shapiro’s counsel said I had no right to see.

    Newly discovered allonges (separate documents with endorsements on them) are fakes; this is the new preferred method of document fabrication. Per the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), an allonge is to be used ONLY when all the space that could be used for endorsement of a note has been used up. That means margins and the reverse side. And when an allonge is employed, it has to be so firmly attached to the original as to constitute a single document. Hence, no way can it travel separately and suddenly be discovered if it were legitimate.

    If you think this case is isolated, here are some reports via e-mail courtesy Lisa Epstein, who runs ForclosureHamlet. The first is from Miami-Dade (emphasis theirs):

    I went with a family member to court in attempts to stop a foreclosure sale….we were there sitting in court waiting….I heard this judge take on other cases….Regardless of their issue this judge just kept on denying every motion that he was hearing. Not even taking the time not even a minute or a second to even glance at the documents these poor homeowners were bringing to him.

    People were telling him that they have been approved and/or were being considered for a modification under HAMP and that they were there to ask to have the sale of their home stopped because apparently the plaintiffs attorneys were not aware of this information. As you may all know, most of these attorneys DO NOT maintain constant contact with their clients, therefore servicers even though they may place in their system for a sale to be postponed based on loss mitigation approval, still, it doesn’t reach their attorneys in time to actually stop the sale. So homeowners are being told by the servicers to actually try and contact the attorneys because they are not able to. Unbelievable but true….

    Once the homeowner left the court room the judge asked… “what is this HAMP that these people keep claiming they are approved for?” mannnnn I said to myself… “this judge must have been pulled from retirement from another part of this world, and to get put on the stand to make these decisions… the courts must really be desperate for not even taking the time to even educate them about the huge issue at hand with these foreclosures and modifications and fraudulent documents etc…. then after denying a few more cases in less than 2 minutes he said… “WOW… and i got paid to do this everyday 5 days a week?… this is easy.”

    There’s is actually much more of the same, multiple instances with particulars, with the judge clearly operating from the presumption that the borrowers were all deadbeats and the sale would go forward.

    This message comes from Hillsborough County:

    As I previously noted, when I attended court, many many cases were missing the note and mortgage. Many of these were located later but they definately did not meet the deadline for 20 days ahead and the question is–is anyone reviewing these for fraud? My assessment is that court staff are too buried and have no training in this. I literally saw pile after pile of cases moving through the system like a Burger King window. Legitimately, the court staff can say they are overwhelmed….One could ask, how do you have a summary judgment without the note and mortgage????? I do not feel that what I witnessed was something done on purpose to hurt the homeowner. instead, I feel that the judges believe that the homeowners have not met their obligations and they still haven’t “gotten it” that lawyers could blatantly lie to the court and present false documents. But I honestly did not feel as I observed that there is some horrible conspiracy taking place. It’s more like the judges are bending over too much to assist their “work partners”, i.e., the attorneys handling the cases, to pull their cases together.

    Further confirmation of the e-mailed reports comes from Mark Stopa, a Florida attorney:

    When do judges decide who wins a foreclosure case? Do they evaluate each case on the merits? Or do judges see “foreclosure case” and automatically decide, in their minds, that the bank is going to win (but refrain from announcing such until entry of final judgment)? In other words, is the outcome of these cases predetermined by some judges? …

    My experience yesterday, though, as outlined in this Motion to DQ Judge, makes me wonder, not about myself, but about the thousands of cases in Florida where homeowners don’t have an attorney. I strongly encourage you to read the entire Motion to DQ Judge, as it’s a matter of public record, but here’s the cliff notes version.

    On August 19, 2010 at 9:30, a summary judgment hearing was set on a mass-motion calendar. My clients were pro se until just a few days prior, so the documents I filed in opposition to summary judgment had not yet made it into the Court file yet. As such, the Judge thought my clients were pro se. At or before 8:15 a.m. on August 19, 2010, the Judge entered conformed copies of a Final Judgment of foreclosure even though the summary judgment hearing was not scheduled until 9:30 a.m. that day. That’s worth repeating:

    The judge entered a Final Judgment of foreclosure more than an hour BEFORE the scheduled hearing.….

    At 9:30, when the hearing began, I voiced my concern about this to the Judge. She was obviously caught off guard, but it quickly became apparent to me that her “procedure” is to make conformed copies of the Final Judgment, to be mailed to the parties, prior to the hearing (and to send out those copies to all parties immediately upon conclusion of the hearing). Essentially, she’s already made up her mind before the hearing, is holding the gavel in the air, and is ready to throw it down as soon as the hearing starts.

    Moreover in Florida, the public is being barred from observing these trials. In Duval County, Palm Beach County, and Hillsborough County (and this is not a full list), police are refusing entry, claiming safety issues (overcrowding) when lawyers and defendants report there are plenty of open seats. The First Amendment Foundation has urged concerned parties to write letters of protest to judges denying access, including camera access. That battle has not yet been escalated.

    Contrast this rubber-stamping of these cases with the statement of the Florida attorney general: ““We’ve had so many complaints that I am confident there is a great deal of fraud here.” Representative Alan Grayson has asked the Florida to halt all foreclosures in the state pending the outcome of the investigation of the state attorney general, since 80% of the foreclosures are undertaken by three of the four foreclosure mills under scrutiny.

    But don’t hold your breath. Even though the Supreme Court is preparing a response to Grayson’s, the Chief Justice, Charles Canady, is very much a corporate Republican. In other words, doing the right thing will no doubt be deemed to be too inconvenient.

  22. I just went to the court house and got my certified copies of my documents to be safe including Substitution of Trustee that has been on file 9 months. I would not be surprised to see documnets vanish from the file if in fact they are fradulent.
    If I have a certified copy I will be that much closer to proving FRAUD.
    Keep Fighting

  23. Anonymous said:
    “And, if Fannie does still own collection rights …then Fannie was a party to the fraudulent foreclosure – by allowing JP Morgan/WAMU to falsely file it. Question is – what did Fannie know, when did they know it, why did they conceal it, and what are they still concealing??”

    Good point, and Fannie is unquestionably a party to the fraudulent foreclosure because it is now their official, written policy to have servicers create assignments of mortgage/deed of trust and note from MERS to the servicers even though Fannie claims to own the note. This official policy can be found on p. 3 of this pdf:
    http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/29248253-mers-may-not-foreclosure-for-fannie-mae.pdf

    The procedure described in the pdf is exactly what Fannie did in my case, even though my fake assignment (which my servicer now admits didn’t transfer the note to them) was done in 2009, before this became the official written policy. Fannie is NOT off the hook–they not only participated in the fraud, they are the fount of it. They unquestionably initiate this assignment fraud.

  24. Bob G – yes, I meant the borrower. The borrower has already been subjected to a fraudulent foreclosure, and fraud on the court. In addition, he/she has lost much time in trying to resolve the issue (negotiate) with the real creditor. This time cannot be recovered. Not that I am a fan of modifications – but at, the very least, the window opportunity for a modification – is likely gone.

    In addition, although Fannie – may try to come in now – borrower has actions against JP Morgan/WAMU – maybe even for emotional distress. And, again, what did Fannie know – and when did they know it???

  25. Five States now MOVING …… We still got a Long Count to go, now we’ve got speed up the train.

    ===================================

    Blumenthal: Halt Foreclosures
    Lee Howard

    Attorney General Richard Blumenthal demanded today that GMAC/Ally Finance Inc. halt all foreclosures in the state, saying the company has been filing defective foreclosure documents in Connecticut.

    “The GMAC/Ally foreclosure steamroller should be stopped so the company can be held accountable,” Blumenthal, who is running for the U.S. Senate, said in a statement. ““THE BANK’S APPARENT FAILURE TO FOLLOW BASIC LEGAL PROCEDURE — A POTENTIAL FRAUD ON THE COURT — IS APPALLING AND UNACCEPTABLE.”

    Blumenthal said his office is investigating, but already has turned up some questionable documents. He said the investigation likely will involve the practices of other banks as well “BECAUSE THESE FAILINGS INVOLVE MUCH MORE THAN MERE TECHNICALITIES, AS GMAC / ALLY HAS CLAIMED.”

    Blumenthal’s action comes after Jeffery Stephan, a GMAC/Ally Financial employee, admitted not verifying the accuracy or properly notarizing thousands of foreclosure documents, Blumenthal said.

  26. […] GARFIELD’S NOTE: It’s an old story to us but it’s news to everyone else. Yes it IS fraud, and all you have to […]

  27. If you have a case against your opponent, don’t consider class action. Consult an attorney for your own suit. If you do have a case, act. If you fit better in a class action, so be it.
    Be careful prior to giving up your rights to collect for what happened to you. Get your house back, first and foremost.

  28. To: Karen P.

    The reality is peoples opinions are formed and controlled by the MSM. Until something happens to THEM. I mean DIRECTLY and personally. Then MAYBE the critical thinking faculties reactivate. But it usually takes a JARRING event like a HEALTH ISSUE. I mean when FISCAL or physical well being is threatened or seriously diminished.

    Learn from the MSM, use their tactics as a strategy to effectively communicate with those friends and relatives.

    I SORT OF CHANGED THIS…….

    HINT: If I tell the TRUTH a thousand times it will overcome a Living
    Lie.

    I too have been faced with those circumstances. To be uber honest? I have yet to truly find an easy answer to waking people’s critical awareness when it has been electronically DRUGGED into unconsciousness.

  29. Quite simply, why won’t you let the dog sniff your locker?

    Right now we’re assisting a homeowner who has three different “banks” all pursing him for the SAME loan!!

    Finally, Judges in Texas are starting to see that the non-judicial railroading of homeowners is wrong.

  30. Well, I just got my answer. The Beth Cotrell deposition has come out. Now I just need answers on Carl G. Smith, signor for Chase.

    If you have any info on this guy please email me at mikemaunu@gmail.com

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-27/jpmorgan-based-home-foreclosures-on-faulty-court-documents-lawyers-claim.html

  31. If my servicing lender was AHMSI but my master servicer was Wells Fargo does that include me in the class actions?

    Shouldn’t these class actions be formed in the same way it was offered to the investor (in the Prospectus). This way you would cover all parties involved.

  32. The correct web address for lookup on Fannie Mai is http://www.fanniemae.com/loanlookup/

    Again, I’ll ask, why hasn’t there been the publicity of Chase’s Robo-Signor Beth Cottrell?

    And does anyone know anything about Carl G. Smith of Chase as well?

    When I Google I find nothing for him? Is he imaginary?

  33. Karen, though you may feel you are alone you are not. My mother said to me, “What difference would it make if there is fraud, you couldn’t pay your mortgage anyway.” Because of a lawsuit my mother was in she should understand fraud. My neice works for WF as well as a cousin. Who do you think my family members side with? After all I could not pay my mortgage so what do I expect. Karen, you have a family of supporters out here that are with you. Yes, it can be lonely out there. Hopefully all of us who lost our homes will one day get our homes back. The fight has just begun for all the injustice that has been done to everyone.

  34. “While the Judge in this case did not also find declaratory damages against the plaintiff, and while the case of the defendants is unclear (we would expect Fannie to file a foreclosure act on its own soon enough), …”

    ANONYMOUS, good points and don’t forget, as opined above, “they” would expect Fannie to file a foreclosure on its own soon enough” – PERHAPS that is just as soon as they can forge yet another assignment of mortgage to fabricate evidence of Fannie’s standing in a Florida foreclosure action? Shows the author “mostly” “gets it.” Last time I checked, foreclosure in Florida is on a mortgage, not on a note.

  35. What’s wrong with this picture? Every day that goes by there are new reports of fraud, and yet NO ONE HAS BEEN ARRESTED! Why aren’t Barry S. Fishman and Gerald M. Shapiro behind bars?

    Why is Jamie Dimon allowed to roam free, when JP Morgan has filed thousands upon thousands of fraudulent foreclosure claims? What about Stern? Why are these foreclosure mills still operating, when they’ve been shown to be actively engaging in fraud on a repeated and on-going basis?

    How come three members of congress can write fannie mae about the foreclosure mill atrocities, and nothing happens, and it’s still business as usual? Even though fannie knew about these crimes way back in August…

    OK. Here’s the answer. Because there’s just way tooooo much money to be made in the racket of “originate to distribute”. The very business model that brought down our global economic system is still very much alive, and has even been “protected” in the Frank Dodd bill with a little 5% skin in the game.

    But they’re already getting around that as we speak, as they have the ability to write the laws that they need. It’s so easy! You just have your extremely high paid attorney-lobbyist write the legislation, tell the senator why it needs to be enacted, (since they’re not smart enough to understand the complexities of high finance i.e. how to best fleece the world) pay the legislator a huge fee which is nothing compared to the rewards that will be gained from gaming the system, and poof! Done deal! It couldn’t be easier.

    Until people realize that they’ve been marginalized, their very lives have become something for Wall street to securitize and trade on, until they realize this fact and get really pissed off about it and demand change, NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

    THEY are simply making way too much money trading on us. We’re commodities, very much like pork bellies or lumber, and we need to keep silent and evict when told to by the bought and paid for courts of the United States of Corporate America.

    Yes Karen, I too feel very alone in this fight. I see that even the investors who are supposed to be the most sophisticated folks out there, have to rely on the street’s interpretation of the asset’s innards, as they’re just way too complicated….and yet, we homeowners are supposed to argue securitization fraud in court? Huh? Yeah, right. Move along folks, it’s just another family on the curb, move along.

  36. Karen,

    I think we all have gone through this. It’s hard when family and friends either do not believe you or just simply do not undertand. Most people do not understand the magnitude of the fraud that was committed from the origination to the present. My mother who is a real estate broker thought I was crazy when I tried to explain what is happenning.

    The attorneys who I thought were friends, heck I even saved the life of one of them, think I am nuts. This is the reason why I went pro se. It was not for a lack of trying to find competent attorneys but because everyone I thought would understand wanted nothing to do with this.

    Just stay on course and do not let anyone discourage you.

  37. I’m wondering if any of you are losing friends and family members over this foreclosure issue?

    I feel very betrayed by many people within my “circle of friends” and wondered if I was alone in this?

    I am going to be fighting to win against the multi-national corporations and my own loved ones, it seems, would rather they win.

    I am very lonely in this fight.

  38. ANON – what you stated below doesn’t look right. Please advise further. Thanx.

    “Third, if Fannie does still own collection rights – and now comes in to foreclose – the borrower has lost numerous rights by the fraudulent JP Morgan/WAMU foreclosure – ”

    Did you really mean “borrower?”

  39. First, although Fannie/Freddie now have difficulty ridding themselves of loans – when everything was in full swing, Fannie and Freddie were able to rid themselves of loans. Thus, it is very unlikely Fannie still owns collection rights in above case.

    Second, if Fannie did sell collection rights – it will not show up in the “look-up” system – even though they did own the loan. It is removed from the system.

    Third, if Fannie does still own collection rights – and now comes in to foreclose – the borrower has lost numerous rights by the fraudulent JP Morgan/WAMU foreclosure – including the opportunity to negotiate with his/her true creditor and in compliance with government mandates for modification. And, the borrower has counter-claims for fraud/fraud upon the court. This is why it is important to file counter-claims and not just challenge the foreclosure.

    And, if Fannie does still own collection rights – and (Bob G) may or may not have original (not fabricated original) note – then Fannie was a party to the fraudulent foreclosure – by allowing JP Morgan/WAMU to falsely file it. Question is – what did Fannie know, when did they know it, why did they conceal it, and what are they still concealing??

  40. Great article by Yves Smith this morning over at Naked Capitalism:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/09/more-evidence-of-bank-fubar-mortgage-behavior-florida-banks-destroyed-notes-others-never-transferred-them.html

    And Yves is calling on her readers to come up with a fun name for the mess–if anyone here as any ideas…..

  41. The shall set you free. Find out the truth by helping yourself. Do not wait for the courts to come to your aid. You can use a simple legal and lawful Administrative process to find out if your bank or servicing co. has a right to foreclosure, but YOU have to do something about it. All the news here and cases being won are on your side to get it done. We are collecting names to get class action suits going against Wells Fargo and other banks. Thanks Robert 860-599-5557

  42. If FNMA starts the foreclsoure, but they don’t have the original note, shouldn’t they also be kicked off the playing field?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: