Here is the link to the docs: http://ia341339.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.azb.529181/gov.uscourts.azb.529181.docket.html



I’ll send the court order to ya’ll when I have it! 

For those of you who can’t wait, you can take a look on PACER at the documents that this homeowner filed in their case: Adversarial 2:09-AP-01728SSC  This ruling came after their FOURTH Amended Complaint.  The judge kept telling them to amend their complaint and although discouraged, each time they did and now… they have made history in Arizona.

42 Responses

  1. @JC, the Raftigianis (Judge Todd) case provided a cite, which was short and concise, and detailed what a court must see to deterimine these issues. It was nothing at all complicated; the judge said succinctly, logically, and legally appropriately, “I need this and this to be able to rule on this matter.”

  2. BD, thanks for the links. Can’twait to read

  3. I think there is no note, at least zero interest by or availability to the servicers, to modify. I think when loan modification is actually done, it’s a new loan. Servicers can’t modify loans – they just can’t, anymore than I can.

    When that gang signed up for HAMP funds, it was a charade (hate the word fraud because judges dont’ react well to it in the cases of bench-perceived white-collar gentility) to get the HAMP funds. Guess to make this clear I’ll have to say it: they ‘pretended’ they could modify loans in order to enter into a contract with a branch of OUR government to get OUR money, that is, they entered into a contract with we the people under false pretenses. Think about the very mechanics of modifying a loan which allegedly went through securitization….. it can’t be done.

    So to continue the charade, they mess around and mess around with most applicants before denying the modification they really can’t make in the first place. The ones they do “make” as I said and do believe are new loans. Everything connected to it is a sham. They must be using the HAMP funds 1) to make your new loan and 2) to continue the payment stream on your “old” loan. And given the inane, asanine, doomed-for-failure-on-a-good-day carte blanche-ness of receiving those funds, they sure as hey don’t want to part with them. They want to come after your home to offset their volantary guarantees on the payment stream and to add fees and alleged costs, which are then credited against the stream.

    What the he– kind of contract is it which even if viable creates such a huge conflict of interest? I’m ABC bankster. I was just handed (another) 25 billion dollars. I’m stuck with the payment stream on your old loan,and if I make you a new one, I have to part with some of that 25 billion and I have to keep your new loan on my own books – I can’t sell it -no one will take it. I don’t get to collect any fees for selling it once or 5 times. I’m not even a lender, for Pete’s sake(!). I’m probably not even licensed as one.

    Many, many people with similar circumstances try like heck to get modifications with no success. It must be a lottery – some winning application number gets the new loan, and then only so Joe Banksters can claim they’re making them to keep up appearances.
    As usual, there’s no oversight. There was clearly no stinking forethought, either, by the crafters of this
    insipid piece of dog-doobage. Unless the true forethought was to move more taxpayer dollars to the banksters under guise of HAMP.
    Who the heck was it that came up with the HAMP idea? What idiot sticks didn’t do their homework to learn the real mechanics of this – that it can’t be done? And why in the name of the Lord would they give yet more money to the very people who caused this malaria in the first place? Isn’t this like giving a drunken college kid your check book, even if modifications could be done?
    What’s to do about it? Can you imagine real audits of all this baloney? Those HAMP funds should be taken back and put into escrow where they will be used for their intended use. Of course the banksters would sqwuak, but how mch when it is shown that they entered into the contracts on false pretenses?
    In the meantime, I tell you, if I were a HAMP litigant, I would name the rat-b’s who signed the fraudulent
    contract for the bankster in my list of parties. I think people have tried suit against the other side, i.e., Geitner unsuccessfully. It might be that the proper allegations weren’t made. There are at least two suits being litigated just now wherein it has been determined that HAMP created a right of action by the homeowner since the homeowner was an intended beneficiary of the contracts. (kind of like Judge Todd just ruled that homeowners are intended beneficiaries of securitization)

    There just can’t have been any diligence done before those HAMP contracts were executed. If there had been, those crafters would have known their contract served no legal, intended purpose since modifications can’t really be done.
    Attorneys involved in HAMP actions might do their damnedist to cause the banksters to explain just how these alleged modifications can be done….

    Also, on info and belief, servicers record their modification phone calls. Try to get these recordings in discovery. If it’s not illegal, I would record my own modification phone calls. (RS – about 25.00) And I would keep a log of every person I talked to, what day, what time of day, what number I called and so on.
    This HAMP business is insult to injury. It’s just SO wrong.
    Maybe we need our own national registry of failed modification efforts. Maybe a computer-smartie reader will set one up, bare bones type.
    My sympathies to Mr. Gesler and every American homeowner in his boat. I certainly understand how the banksters actions in the first place negatively impacted his own ability to make his payments.

  4. Yes indeedy Mr. Gesler:

    And the situation has gone from bad to worse since 2009 and the people just keep doing business with these financial institutions.

    Why? My suggestion is: that we stop doing business with these financial institutions and two, recall all of the senators, house and state and national.

    We have had no one repreenting the people’s business for many years – but this is definitely an “in your face” attitude by those who are supposed to represent us. They helped caused it by doing nothing and they are continuing to do nothing – except let the banks become our “new rule of law” – Thank you no.

    In your case, this same thing has happened to other people as well and I am thinking about a good doctor in New Jersey who went basically through the same thing – He hired an attorney and when they called me, they couldn’t get it done either.

    He gave his financial info on at least 6 occasions and his attorney also gave it – but the bank said they didn’t have it.

    That was over a year ago – I may give them a call today to see how they made out.

    You appear to have some good issues but you will need legal representation and that my friend is just as chancy as doing business with the banks themselves.

    Good luck

  5. I am a licensed family therapist over 28 years, California with clear record. Had high FICO, a lot equity when banks failed Sept.08, had never missed a mortgage payment. My home is Silver Lake District of Los Angeles. I have lived here since August 2, 1985. In 2004, no cash out. HLMC June 1 2004, listed today on MERS as investor, and servicer,HLMC since lost license due to fraud, July 1 2004, New Century Servicer, lost license, contracts bought buy Carrington. MIne was sold to Morgan Stanley as investor, and Countrywide, as servicer, December 1, 2004; Countrywide sold my identity in 2008, then December 2008, Bank of America took over servicing. Began with August 4. 2009, with link from Senator Feinstein email to work with HUD approved counselor to submit my first formal loan mod. hardship letter,both medical and financial due the effects of bank failures on my practice, Bank of America, declined no reason, October 31, 2009. I applied repeatedly for and the more I applied the more perverted the sadistic double binding sadistic abuse from Bank of America became. I wrote Moynihan then the abuse became exponentially worse. My medical problems became worse, and new medical problems developed as a result of the cruel abuse. Bank of America hid my January 2010 payment for over three months, my mother died of stroke during this period, when they were in extreme abuse mode. They lost my tax returns and other documents many times dragging the process out. Because they would not properly allocate my payments, I refused to give them more money until they worked out a loan mod with me. They stretched it out until the last decline was January 2011, reason, I owed too much in back payments. As of yesterday, I was still in work out mode, but I think they are getting ready to start a foreclosure. I ordered a RESPA, and the documents appear forged. BAC said Deutsche was my investor. Deutsche says no way, they are my trustee, and walked me through my SEC PSA Securitization with no notary and or official stamps. Deutsche told me the would cooperate with my attorney. I said I don’t have an attorney. Several fishy variables, think it is time for an attorney. The stress, from the sadistic abuse, caused me to stroke, fall down a cliff, to incur serious internal injuries, and concussion, on top of P.T.S.D. and Major Depression. Started S.S.D.I months ago, and about to finish application with my Internist’ s support. I had just finished my final stage of life home repair renovation prior to the Sept. 08, bank failures, and I was suckered in to believing the disinformation about working with your friendly servicer. the SBA ARC HUD program and avery other program I could apply for. It was all a lie. Now they want my home. I rent my upstairs, am now disabled from bank abuse hate crimes, and my tenant rent is my my only income until my S.S.D.I is approved. I am about 59, but life span has been shortened. I can not tolerate CW BAC bank abuse hate crimes and constant paperwork any more. Pleas help. Sincerely,
    Gary Gesler PhD. Bank Abuse Broken Soul.

  6. The link to the documents http://ia341339.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.azb.529181/gov.uscourts.azb.529181.docket.html no longer works.

    Any chance of re-posting them?


  7. […] Thanks to Niel Garfield from Livinglies. […]

  8. I don’t see how this case is transformational…yet. The last utterance on record by the judge says Bailey has no support for his claims. Doesn’t sound like the court is siding with the homeowner there. This is NOT a final decision in this case. It IS a positive sign the court has asked for the custodial records and affidavit that they haven’t been tampered with since 2006 (I’ll bet the trustee is sweating bullets over that one!). The fact the case has been continued to Jan. 2011 is not a good sign; a lameduck congress might retroactively indemnify the banks against all their fraudulence, and, there’s absolutely no guarantee the new congress will be any better in serving the banks and screwing the people.

  9. Angelo,

    I understand. Attorneys says the same thing. Thus, try to point out what discovery you need. The most critical discovery is from the trustee – who is most likely the plaintiff on behalf of some trust. Need the trustee ledgers – and custodial documents. But, the judge has to grant this discovery. No expert can testify to trustee ledgers that are not produced. Also need derivative contracts – and this is even more difficult to to get through discovery because they will claim privacy.

    The only potential parties that may be able to demand these documents are the AGs – they have to start working on our behalf. If the AGs do not know what to look for – they cannot do their job.

    Give much credit to all here who have flushed out the Robo-signers. But the Robo-signers were utilized for a reason – to conceal. If the AGs do not look into into the real fraud that the Robo-signers conceal – we will continue to be handicapped in courts.

    This is more than finding experts to testify about what really happened in the securitizations. These experts can only testify as to how the securitizations were intended to be executed by the PSA and Prospectus. This is about concealment of the fraud. This is about accounting. The courts have been reluctant to grant and ENFORCE discovery. And, if the AGs do not do their job – all will remain concealed.

    It is now – or never.

  10. Anonymous
    I hear ya but I can’t use a blog posting as an affidavit in a opposition to summary judgement. I would love to put forth an argument about the whole chain of event. I don’t want to come across like a crazy homeowner looking desperate. I would love to get someone who has the knowledge of this subject for a fee of Course.
    Thanks anyways.

  11. Angelo,

    The experts are here at Neil’s site – I just try to contribute to the posts to help in general. My comments come after years of research, conversation with many academics, and conversations with the SEC – and other government agencies And, by academic and personal experience..

  12. Because the price of everything is becoming more and more, it becomes difficult to meet both ends. Everyone is looking for ways to increase your monthly income in one form or another to cover expenses. There are many people with so that you do not need to work harder, while already high income, but not all people are lucky enough to get the maximum income level. Are still working on some options to maximize their income. This article will focus mainly on how to maximize their income.


    Thank you for the detailed analysis on the subject, we have had numerous discussions on the topic before. Obviously you have an accounting backround and extreme knowledge of the subject area. Thank you for your help and time. I know this forum wouldnt be the same w/o you.

    That being said, my question is do you know of a competent Expert witness who I can use in my case, that will give a detailed explanation(affidavit) of exactly what you are putting forth.

    Thanks again.

  14. Thing is folks, you have Fannie Mae pushing foreclosing attorneys to push evictions no matter what. We were retained to represent a homeowner who had received a temporary loan mod in January 2009 and never missed a payment while sending his P&L 9 times with Chase saying they lost it. They finally denied him and started foreclosure proceedings without even allowing him to remedy the account.

    We filed a suit prior to the sale, and the attorney went thru with sale. After the sale realtor shows up with rental opps or asking if they wanted money for moving expenses.

    Then sheriff shows up with eviction notice. As we are dealing with foreclosing attorney, they tell us that Fannie Mae is pushing them to evict them and move on.

    So, we are adding them to suit. Fannie Mae are huge crooks!

  15. I have been saying this since 2008!

    Joyce Cauthen is right when she says ” judges dont care “, or they did care what the docs say! I would say that IF 80% of Defendants had the money to fight their cases, or Appeal their cases, ALL would be overturned.

    Circuit Judges that play the rocket docket game we’re either incompetent, or knew there was a slim margin of their cases getting over turned.

    From where I sit, the Appeal Courts Do get it as do Federal BK Judges!

    Most circuit judges have mortgages, and MOST are probably UNDERWATER! This bias is carried into their rulings especially the “Old School ” Judges who still believe the Note & Mtg reside in a Bank Vault on the shady corner of Main Street in their Home Town.

    Like I said, File a CHAP 7, affirm the mortgage, and see who shows up on the proof of claim? You can be the Claim will be Perjury & Fraud, then sit back, and let the games begin!

  16. To concerned and Anonymous, I found this today and I wanted to post it in the thread about defective chains, but that thread went away…concerned and I were wondering about it, and Anon you brought this up in another form….

    · The Bank of New York, as trustee v. Alderazi, et als., NY Supreme Court, County of Kings
    · Borrower did not appear in the foreclosure action.
    · Plaintiff submitted an ex parte application for the appointment of a referee.
    · Application was denied for lack of standing.
    · Recorded mortgage listed MERS as nominee for America’s Wholesale Lender.
    · Mortgage was subsequently assigned to Bank of New York.
    · Assignment was signed by an assistant vice president of MERS as “authorized agent pursuant to Board of Resolutions and/or appointment”.

    · Bank of New York v. Alderazi continued…
    · The Court cited HSBC v. Yeasmin and noted that it was held that for an assignment that was signed by an agent to be valid “…a power of attorney
    is necessary to demonstrate how the agent is vested with the authority to assign the mortgage”.
    · No proof that America’s Wholesale Lender ever authorized MERS to make an assignment.
    · MERS, as nominee, is an agent and only has those powers granted it by its principal.

    · Bank of New York v. Alderazi continued…
    · MERS claimed that language in the mortgage itself granted it the right to assign.
    · Court found that the language was under the “BORROWER’S TRANSFER TO LENDER OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY” section. The
    borrower may have granted MERS the right to assign—but it is the lender who must grant the right.
    · Moreover, the Court found that there was no language in the mortgage that specifically confered the right to assign.

  17. OK, so how would this affect things real time? Such as, if the debt is unsecured, then it gets blown away in BK. No more debt. But what about all of the payments that people made for years on the fraudulent, undeserved servicing? I would hope that would be taken out of someone’s hide, if for nothing more than watching the pain and agony 🙂

  18. TMT and H

    Trustees have no documents – and more importantly – they do not have the remittance/collection ledgers mandated by the PSAs – that show that they have been receiving all payments advanced by the servicer – or that they are accounting for foreclosure recoveries. Non-accrual means servicers stopped advancing payments. And, I am finding that no Trustees will submit affidavits that falsely state that they are receiving payments. The Trustees will NOT go this far. This means – the foreclosure mills are in trouble. But – you have to ASK for these ledgers.


    The documents are a mess. No trustee is the creditor – no trustee to any trust is the creditor. The Federal Reserve has supported this in their Interim Opinion for the May 2009 Amendment to the TILA. (now rule). The creditor is never a trust – and never a trustee. ANY assignment signed this year is subject to the 2009 TILA Amendment. The creditor is the entity that holds your loan collection rights on it’s balance sheet. Trust/Trustees do NOT have balance sheets. I have published excerpts from the TILA Amendment here before. THEY MUST DIVULGE THE CURRENT CREDITOR TO YOU – or they are in violation of the amendment.

    And, yes – it is a closed pool.

    Yes – I am saying – “IF they had not had all these blunders, even a PROPER set of assignments would result in an unsecured debt. ” And, this is because the receivables are charged off – and collection rights sold for pennies on the dollar to third parties – if the owner bank still has “asset” buyers. The secured mortgage loan, in effect, is written off – all that remains is a default debt. I am aware of some attorneys that may be trying to test this in court. But – the problem here is that foreclosure mills try to keep themselves attached to the original “security” trust – even though collection rights have been removed (although this does not involve transfer of the actual original security in the trust – which was just a conversion of on – balance sheet receivables to off-balance sheet sheet securities).

    When receivables are no longer accruing – the receivables becomes non-accrual – that is a write-off by the actual entity that owns the loan. You cannot write off a loan – get the IRS tax benefit – and still claim the loan is secured. Especially, if the loan was fraudulently conveyed to begin with – and especially if the loan was fraudulently conveyed tor more than the asset value.. .

    But this is complicated – hope AGs are onto it. Have to be prepared that foreclosure mills will try to recreate documents – although this should obviously be illegal – some may say it is OK. Have to be prepared and counter at every flaw in the scheme.


    Great Post. I am starting to understand the shell game.

  20. Sipinfall,

    Can you imagine the press if 1/4 of the American population – and increasing – filed for bankruptcy?? Maybe their tune would change.

    Remember – Congress voted down Bankruptcy Reform – twice – and for a reason —– the banks said NO. They did not want to discharge debt that exceeded the stated home value. But, if the entire debt was charged off – and collection rights removed from security Trusts – by default derivative swaps/contracts – well – the debt is really no longer secured – anyway. Did we really need the Reform – or just adequate courts?

  21. Anonymous,

    Given our exchange on other posts about “America’s Wholesale Lender” and my solitary assignment signed THIS year (using MERS) from AWL DIRECTLY to the BoNY Trustee for the CWABS certificateholders, where there are landmines in the very assignment, let alone trying to claim that the supposedly-DEFAULTED loan has any document chain to put it into the CLOSED pool, I think I may see why, in having to refile the BK, I do not see any new filing of their erstwhile proof of claim.

    The proof of claim filing I do have is with the prior BK case. Litton filed the document, citing BoNY as Trustee to the CWABS certificates. A copy of a copy of a copy of the note (acquired from the Title Company) was included with a copy of the DOT.

    So, with mine there is the big problem of how any entity can do an assignment to start with and then they muddied the waters with Litton put in charge of using MERS to do a substitution of Trustee, then the supposed assignment of the DOT via MERS from AWL to the BoNY Trustee that was already the ‘investor’ per other court docs filed in 2009. (If you are following, we just went in what I see as a legal version of an Escher print – you know, the artist who’s drawings had impossible buildings, or water running up-hill, depending on perspective.)

    Now you say that even IF they had not had all these blunders, even a PROPER set of assignments would result in an unsecured debt.

    Looks like I have a non-starter ‘de novo’. Then, after that, many fraudulent documents and actions based on fraud.

    By the way, has anyone else noted that Karen Quiller notarizes docs fro Litton but also there is a JPMorgan Chase “Lockbox Specialist” by the same name in the same Texas city that is home to LITTON? (Houston)

    Yep, we may need to have some of those prints of Esher’s drawings handy for the court so they are reminded that they need to pay attention to see how the ‘legal’ perspective is twisted in the mental games of securitization.

  22. @ TMT….It surely is a three ring circus for sure. But of course 99.9% of the time the trustees don’t have the paperwork to provide the servicers. That’s why they got these fraudclosure mill lawyers from to begin with and to do whatever necessary to get these homes fraudulently. And now they’re trying to place the blame solely on the servicers when they were and are in on the ponzi scheme from the very beginning. What a bunch of low down dirty underhanded snakes.

  23. This is more than three ring circus to me. Trustees may not have docs to provide to servicers that caused this humongous mortgage documentation mess…. And I see those people are playing blame-games to one another.


  24. BUSTED!

    You’d think the Civil courts would have got this before the Feds did! This being the case, why defend on the civil side? File for BK, and sucker the Credit Imposters into filing a fraudulent Proof of Claim.

    Why wast time with incompetent circuit judges who are already biased?

  25. Congrats to all involved.

    BK is important in foreclosure challenges. BK must acknowledge the identity of the CURRENT creditor – or the BK is false.. Other courts skirt around the current creditor issue. Further, believe BK courts will eventually acknowledge that if the current creditor is actually identified – the debt is actually unsecured.

    Also, regarding AG investigations (from prior post)- AGs are not well versed in financial engineering. Assume – ridiculously – that all documents are suddenly and magically – in order. Assume that the SPV Trusts did – and are – operating as intended. The problem with these set-up Trusts – is the way derivatives were derived from the Trust – and how these derivative conflict with BK law that demand identification of the current creditor. AGs should be aware of the following:

    Once the loans are removed from balance sheets and securitized into a conduit Trust – the income is passed through – BUT – the securities themselves remain in the off-balance sheet conduit Trust OWNED by the bank. Most of the income derived from the Trusts was via derivative pass-through – which are not securities. The securities to the Trust DO NOT change hands by derivative contract – they remain with the security underwriter owners. And – this is the “trick” in courts other than BK courts.

    CDO derivative investors and Credit Default Swap derivative holders – never actually hold the security which is claimed to be part of the trust. And, when the loans are in default – if the trust is operating as intended, the defaults are pooled together and removed – BUT NOT by the security – the security does not change hands. Instead, only “collection rights” are SWAPPED out of the Trust to an unidentified swaps holder or third party. And, there are numerous derivative “contracts” derived from the original Trust securities.

    Even though the “security” does not change hands – the collection rights – via derivatives – DO CHANGE hands. Foreclosure attorneys believe they can still claim to be part of the original trust – even though collection rights have been swapped out and the Trust/Trustee WILL NOT receive recovery proceeds. This is a court “trick” that AGs will have to come a long way to understand. The courts have bought this “trick” – but Bankruptcy courts are under stricter law to ascertain the CURRENT CREDITOR – to whom the debt is owed. And, pretending that the debt is still owed to the Trustee – on behalf of the trust – is simply fraud. Derivatives are NOT part of the Trust – they are contracts – and not securities and not part of the original Trust. To the contrary, the security underwriter disposes of collection rights via the derivatives. And, if these derivative are not honored – the security underwriters are in big trouble. Hence the government bail-out and concealment.

    Only bankruptcy court can force the identify of the current creditor by law. Other courts can ignore – hiding behind false documents/affidavits/holder in due course/note possession. And, other courts are susceptible to the foreclosure fraud that falsely claims that the collection rights still belong to the Trust – despite removal to undisclosed derivative and swap holder/third party contract holders. None of this is available to the public.

    The banks cannot disclose these swaps holders/third parties due to private contracts that are not regulated. If the banks were to disclose these relationships – the banks would be under far greater legal liability than the foreclosure itself.

    Trying to get AGs to understand this – will not be easy. But, Bankruptcy courts are under obligation to ascertain the current creditor who will benefit by the foreclosure.

    All of this assumes the loans were properly conveyed to the Trust to begin with – which they were not. Nevertheless, derivatives are tricks that conceal the real party in court and conceal the current creditor.

    Thank you to BK judge in Arizona – for recognizing and challenging the process. Let us hope the AGs also soon catch on. There is much to be divulged that has not been divulged to date.

  26. I hope BK judges in Cali see this.

  27. For an anatomy of crime, see NV 08-01400.

  28. I have downloaded the judge’s minute order. If anyone wants a copy, email me at johngaultwhoam@yahoo.com
    I thought the ruling was peculiar, but she did order them to get their records.

  29. Matter:
    Reporter / ECR: ANDAMO PURVIS
    Courtroom Clerk: WANDA GARBERICK
    Bankruptcy Judge:
    Date / Time / Room:
    Case Number: 2:09-bk-06979-RTBP Chapter: 11
    Hearing Information:
    TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 09, 2010 10:00 AM 7TH FLOOR #701
    ADV: 2-09-01728
    HEARING RE Motion to Dismiss Complaint Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss, With Prejudice, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended
    Complaint To Determine The Validity, Priority or Extent Of a Lien or Other Interest in Real Property and Petition For
    Injunctive Relief filed by KYLE S. HIRSCH of BRYAN CAVE LLP on behalf of BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING
    R / M #: 50 / 0
    Mr. Hirsch goes over the background of the complaints that have been filed, and notes that this is the fourth amended complaint
    with no basis. Mr. Bailey gives his statements to the court on the note.
    HEARING TO JANUARY 13, 2011 AT 10:00 A.M.
    Page 1 of 1 11/09/2010 3:06:57PM

  30. Jan van Eck,

    I just ran across a post of yours on this board from way back in the spring concerning those of us who have AWL as pretenders. You mentioned a wormhole for spaceships. Can you contact me? frank101@q.com

    Thank you

  31. To H.

  32. Thank you JESUS………GOD IS GOOD…….It’s time for justice because GODS people are suffering at the hands of these dirty underhanded heartless crooks…GLORY TO GOD

  33. about the case noted above, all of that has taken place before the public became so aware. In all fairness to the Judge, these issues are complex and I believe to some extent that he may not have understood the long winded arduous brief that the pro se filed. In fact, because of the information that was presented by brief , and not by an attorney with proper technique, it was a bit overwhelming. That is why I believe there should be a certain techique in order to provide it in simple form as possible so that a Judge can fully understand it. The purpose in telling you about this case is to let you know that homeowners must not assume that the Judges understood or that just because you presented it in a brief that the brief was read in total. We do not know that., he may very well have, but just did not make it an issue at the hearing sufficiently to let us know. The Judges have a big job to do and I think they will get much closer to the issues so that a fair and just hearing can be had. so just let us leave it at that. Justice will prevail, I am sure.

  34. We have a case in appeals because the Judge saw no significance in questioning the documents that were submitted to the Court regarding their affidavits, power of attorney, assignments and an allonge which was issued even though the note had already been endorsed by someone else. I bet he wishes he had done so now because in reality, he ruled twice in the banks favor by awarding MSJ’s to the bank. Fortunately, the homeowner was able to file for a new trial hearing and he won on that deal because the banks screwed up their response and the Judge had no choice but to vacate his first award to them.
    After that, the bank filed two more msj’s and on the fourth, they were able to convince the judge they had the note, thus they were the owner. But he would not question why they were preparing and executing notes which they had no authority to do and the fact that the POA was not valid due to other issues. Again allowed to explain the importance of what we considered fraudulant documents, It was Plaintiff’s contention (the homeowner in this case) that no assignment of the note and lien could legally be executed except by the last party in interest. or the one legally authorized to execute the assignment. Oh my, Believe it or not, the bank tried once again to foreclose because the Judge awarded their MSJ, but now finds himself facing the homeowner once again because the homeowner filed a TRO, which was granted by another Judge based on the case being in appeals and the bank not properly certifiying the f/c notice. Has this thing gone full circle or what? Oh did I mention that it appeared the current owner which the Judge originally approved may have sold the note and they were still attempting to foreclose in the pror owner as trustee. We just wanted them to let us know why there was a name change, maybe it was okay or maybe the owner did not change. One only had to look at the new creditors name on the 30 day demand that came out and which gave us further evidence to support a TRO Request. so it did not look too good to this new Judge and they stopped the foreclosure. That Judge after stopping the foreclosure, sent the case back to the Judge that gave the lender the right to foreclose in the first place. As it turned out, the defendants all five of them did not show and their representative said they were not served. Well, we served the attorney of record for them so this was confusing to us. However, their attorney was served about the TRO hearing and he told the judge he was there to defend his law firm because now we had included them in the TRO. Strange this Judge did not ask him why he did not notify his clients, but he didn’t and this judge required that we serve everyone all over again. Well, at least the homeowner stopped the sale and we do not expect them to try to foreclose in December because they are one of the ones being investigated and hopefully will want to lay low for a while. No one can under estimate the arrogance of these banks. I do hope Judge Russo is right, but it certainly did not happen with this case. The homeowner deserves a trial for all of the alleged claims but he never had a chance, he was pro se for one thing and only hired the attorney to handle the appeal. it was not because he did not handle it properly, but because the Judge appears to have had a closed mind and looked only to the fact that they had the note, and the borrower was in default. As friend of the court he allowed me to give a disertation on the about proper affidvits, allonges and assignments, when the PSA’s are involved. I was doing nothing more than talking to a brick wall. I was so exasperated at one point I remember turning to the Court sideways so I could look at the faces of the people in the Court room and their attorneys and talking about the PSA depositor and trustee and I said – WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE.? Just like in the movie, Close Encounters. It was very quiet and the Judge just looked at me and thanked me for my recital. I think Judge Russo might have been aware that this type of treatment was already being forged against the homeowners so she did the right thing. We had already done all of those things in 2009 and again in 2010, but still we lost. And now we are in the Court of Appeals waiting for the big boys to answer our brief, particularly now that all of this has become a public issue. They had no standing to bring any action against this homeowner but they won the right to do so anyway. The plaintiff filed pro se and certainly he was not an attorney but like he said to the Judge when he kept telling us, these are just contract issues. Like the Plaintiff told him – but Judge that is why we are here so the Court can determine whether or not my rights under the contract have been violated. I will never forget hearing those words, but Judge that is why we are here. But he was ignored and f rom then on, we knew we had an uphill battle to contend with. It is one thing for the lenders to fight their case, but it is quite another when a Judge allows certain actions on their part that were highly questionable without further investigating those actions when proper support lay in front of him. Like Judge Russo said, you don’t know whether their is negligence or fraud until you get to the hearing so it can be explained. We belive that the Appeals Court will overrule the lower court’s decision and allow the homeowner a right to trial because they will base it on the merits of the case that the Plaintiff provided to them, which is all he wanted. It now looks good for the Plaintiff now that all of you hardworking people have gotten the word out to the Public, the feds, the law enforcement officers and the lenders themselves.

  35. i hope there will be jutice for peaple who lost there homes who were scamed by lenders and mortgage servicers takeing money from the hard working peaple who were fighting to keep there homes this fraud should stop.

  36. Agreed, Jan.

  37. Please, lord, let this be a ‘BoNY-Mellon as Trustee for CWABS” or let the sun shine broadly enough to see ALL that is in that little ole vault!

    [And if you suddenly settle this case, we will be following in the tracks, making the same requests in other courts.]

    Get out the oil for the hinges since it is probably needed.

  38. What is going to be interesting is how the term “custodial records in the vault” is interpreted. If the Court ultimately requires only the production of the custodial Note, then the victory is partial. If the Order requires the production of everything under the sun sitting in that vault, then the disclosures are going to prove embarrassing.

    Yet this is consonant with the teachings of Judge Learned Hand, (US Supreme CT) who famously said, as to Discovery: “Let the sun shine in.” The view was that the Court is enriched by having all the items brought to the table, not having stuff excluded by gamesmanship over discovery Rules.

    Good to see that the Conservative courts of today are warming to the idea of full discovery.

  39. Yay! I hope the tide is turning. Good news for those in AZ!

  40. WOO HOO!!! We’ve got ’em…..cornered. AGs breathing down their neck, investors suing for buy backs and homeowners suing in all 50 states…..and now judges seem to be understanding!!!!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: