COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary
Editor’s Note: I had a law professor, actually two of them, who kept harping on single point virtually every class: start at the beginning.
It is the opinion of many law professors and myself, having taught lawyers on trial, motion and administrative practice and having written and taught substantive law, that many cases are lost as soon as the lawyer picks up the file. And THAT is because they think they remember what the statute says and they think they knew what some of the boiler plate documents say, and so to earn a fee that bill for reading and analyzing documents they never looked at. The Proof of Claim is one such document. Look it over carefully and FILE the objection to the proof of claim. Don’t assume that a single word on any paper submitted by a pretender lender is anything but English. Assume the falsity of everything and confirm it for yourself.
This is why I have stopped many BKR lawyers from simply using the defaults on their software systems for filing the schedules. I tell them don’t list the house as secured, because if you do, you are already conceding a point that you will later want to concede. Don’t list a party as a creditor whom you wil later claim is not a creditor.
From Brian Davies:
In two recent pieces I harped on the problems at MERS, the Mortgage Electronic Registration System. (“Support Representative Kaptur’s Bill: Time To Shut Down Mers And To Restore The Rule Of Law” and “Shut Down MERS”). Briefly, MERS purportedly offers an alternative to paperwork, maintaining an electronic record of mortgages that are usually packaged into mortgage backed securities (MBSs). When mortgages go delinquent, MERS helps mortgage servicers foreclose on homes.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45102004/Mers-Smoking-Gun-Part-1
AFTER EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT FITS MY CASE. INDYMAC BANK EMPLOYEES ARE THE SERVICER, FILER, SIGNOR, ASSIGNORS, ATTORNEY IN FACT, LOSS MITIGATOR, COLLECTORS, SELLER, DEPOSITOR, UNDER CRIMINAL CHARGES, ENDORSERS, AND THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. WHY WOULD A TRUSTEE WANT TO TAKE DOCUMENTS AND MOVE DOCUMENTS OVER THE WEST COAST TO FLORIDA TO NEW JERSEY, TO GEORGIA, AND THEN TO SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA. MAKES NO SENSE. THE MERS AUDIT TRAIL MAKES NO SENSE. THE REMICS HURT THE TIMING FOR THESE PEOPLE.
TALF HAD REPURCHASES OF SERVICER LOANS IN JULY 2009, A LOAN FROM THE GOVERNMENT. THE PSA SAYS THAT THE SERVICER MUST BUY BACK DEFAULTED LOANS. IN MY CASE THIS SHOULD HAVE OCCURRED. NO WONDER THE TRUSTEE DEUTSCHE BANK IS MAD AS HELL.
HERE IS A PROOF OF CLAIM. DONE BY DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE AGAINST A SERVICER FOR A CHAPTER 11. LOOK AT THE LIST OF MISSING DOCUMENTS IT IS OUTRAGEOUS. IT IS CRIMINAL AND IT IS PART OF THE COVER UP THAT DEUTSCHE BANK IS TRYING TO UNWIND BACK TO THE SERVICERS.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud |
A free-for-all on MERS? I most certainly hope so…
http://www.foreclosureindustry.com/2010/12/oaita-and-nailta-speak-out-about-mers/
Does anyone know the five states that don’t require wet ink notes?
It seems to me that the lost note issue is widely acceptable in every state.
Fannie Mae memos or training says it must approve the reason for a lost note. Anyone had that or do Fannie Mae loans slide through too?
……providing a similar state regulation via the Wisconsin Consumer Act………or similar statute…..
“In part one of this series I showed that MERS recommended that mortgage servicers retain the “wet ink” notes that borrowers signed. These notes are required in 45 states to foreclose on a home. Not only does the foreclosing party need to physically hold the note, but the note must be properly endorsed and transferred every time a mortgage is sold. A clear chain of title must be demonstrated to make the note valid. This is to protect borrowers from fraud — no one can manufacture a note, claim to be a creditor, and then take a homeowner’s property. And this is especially important when mortgages are securitized and bought and sold a dozen times — if there is no clear chain of title, the borrower can never be sure who is really the creditor.”
Here’s part 2:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/l-randall-wray/post_1423_b_795802.html
Anonymous, that Federal Reserve final ruling on 226, can I use that to force exposure of the pretender lender in my argument to vacate for fraud on the court/standing/real party in interest? In the context of “yerronnerrr… we don’t know who is holding our oobligation! The “investor”, or “PRESUMPTIVE MORTGAGEE”, is “confidential”, more specifically, UNPERFECTED, … that could be a hedge fund, the Govt., the FDIC, the New York Fed, it could be tied up in the Lehman Bros. Bankruptcy, as they are counterparty to the 1999 Trust these certificates were fed to,, not to mention Citigroup, as they are involved somewhere in every one of these deals”
. Sec. 226, will that apply to an unknown creditor in the State court?
I should think so. and if someone pipes up “Federal question”, I can cite good old “Clearinghouse”.
The above question and related content do not constitute the exchange of legal advice, nor is any attorney-client relationship sought to be established. This is a friendly exchange of legal theories permitted by law until the FCC starts regulating the internet.
The system is rigged and needs to be changed. The government is in on it with the pretender/lenders. As for AHMSI, they were in bankruptcy and went out of business. Consequently, they cannot ASSIGN loans to anyone. They need to be put out of business and prosecuted for crimes against homeowners, literally, by the millions.
Ludwig Wittgenstein:
“Most of the propositions and questions to be found in [the other lawyer’s briefs] are not false but nonsensical. Consequently we cannot give any answer to questions of this kind, but can only establish that they are nonsensical. Most of the propositions and questions of philosophers arise from our failure to understand the logic of our language.” (“Tractatus” 4.003)
i.e.: never use their language; never use their logic.
Wittgenstein again:
“The limits of my language mean the limits of my world”. (TLP, 5.6)
In other words: if use your opponents words and you live in his world.
Consider the premise and challenge the premise of every word and every phrase used by the adversary.
Use no word or concept provided by your adversary without carefully considering whether the use thereof constitutes a fatal admission against interests.
Also: remember that for the most part your adversaries are reading by rote from a banal pathetic script written by the other legal criminals (lawyers and judges) who have gone before them.
Finally: the victor always wins great battles by taking to the field and engaging the enemy at night, uphill from the enemy, in the rain and fog, and at the corners of four maps taped together.
American Home Mortgage was purchased out of bankruptcy by Wilbur Ross. What was the result of the above attached Deutsche Bank Proof Claim against AHM?? Were they compensated for loans that were supposed to have been repurchased by AHM and/or owed fees by Wilbur Ross?? Likely Ross just purchased all the loans in question.
The PSAs do require repurchase of loans for many reasons including missing documents. This supports contention that many loans should never have been securitized – and if not repurchased then fraudulently conveyed.
Also, loans may not stay in trust if servicer ceases to make advances. As AHM was in bankruptcy – they were not likely making any advances. Which means non-performing loans were also obligated to purchased by servicer and servicer owned.
Why isn’t the government investigating all – including repurchases that should have been, servicer advances, real party pocketing foreclosure proceeds, IRS violations, standing in courts, and fraud in the origination of mortgage loans??
AHM situation was not the exception, this was the norm for all.
Before supporting H.R. 6460, I would suggest you read the WHOLE THING!
We do NOT need federal usurpation of state recordation laws. Ms. Kaptor misses the boat on that. There are serious 10th Amendment concerns here and this bill only involves GSE’s, not the entire stem that MERS is involved with.
Quiet title actions are the only means of getting your property out of the mess MERS created … and if MERS is involved, they are a claimant. You want to put MERS out of business, then remember, according to your mortgage or deed of trust, they are a party to your action!
http://www.cloudedtitles.com
So if they were to buy the loan back and didn’t where dud my loan go where dud my payments go. Wells Fargo is purportedly master servicer by the way. Brain can you piece this together for me
And everyone get your fixation statutes. Allonges must be a permanant part of the note. Floating in ” cyberspace” until foreclosure time meets the color Dox shop printer doesn’t become an allonge, retroactively
That was all
the way up the securities chain. Again sorry about my
typing
Great. I asked for a dully negotiated ink signed note with allonges that go all
the way up the arc chain. Guesswhat. I sat in bk. For months whilst I found a litigator didvthey ever try to lift stay again. Nope sir. Brian davies I hope you knock them right out. I had one west ask for lift of stay by one wets attorney Kevin Hahn who later went to az superior court under power if sale as attorney in fact to get the forcible I came put of bk I couldn’t afford the payments and litigation that’s the catch 22 so the second I came put of that bk protection they stole my home. My atty at that time had done a dissappearing act and I was unrepresented and even if I wad fighting forcible is a foregone conclusion most of the time and they the court makes you pay a bond and ” rent” ( yep) so then how do you afford to litigate again a catch 22. So I was literally embezzled out if my own home.Brian could sure use your help you know the guys I’m
fighting you know their moves. We must answer early Jan they are trying to quiet title( and remove the lid pendens) hsbc trustee hold wild deed to the home and can’t deliver clear title we also have appraisal fraud claim. I amnso frustrated that the opposition are so slick but do do wrong by even working for the banks. None of us should have to fight for our law like this