ON VACANT PROPERTY NOTICE SEND LETTER CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Dear Sirs:
Attached is a copy of a notice stating the property is vacant and unsecured. This is untrue. It also indicates that your inspection never occurred. If it was unsecured as you claim your inspection agent would have been able to see inside that the property was not vacant. If such an inspection ever occurred it would have been clear that the property is both occupied and secure.
But the first point is that one of the co-owners is in bankruptcy and your letter is contrary to the stay imposed by the court.
Secondly, you have still failed to answer our questions regarding the identity of the creditor on our loan obligation. From your own information and the information obtained through investigation, we know you claim to have originated the loan, but you have provided no evidence that you ever funded it. We know that you claim to have sold the loan to a government sponsored entity, but you have provided no evidence that such a transaction took place. You claim that you have purchased said loan back from the government sponsored entity but you have provided no evidence that such a transaction took place.
Thus by your own admission, your notices have been without any authority to have executed and sent them. We have stopped payments because we have no assurance that you are the creditor (in fact what we have now make it highly questionable that you are or ever were the creditor); in addition we have no assurance that if we made a payment, it would ever get to the creditor, as defined by Arizona statutes and case law.
Lastly, we contest the amount due on any claimed obligation. It is at best unknown. We have a claim for a fraudulent appraisal, which based upon facts known to us and claimed by you to be true, is a representation of value that was wildly wrong. We now know that the appraisal was fictional and inflated and it was based upon said appraisal that you claim to have originated or facilitated the loan, giving us the impression that you were underwriting this loan in accordance with industry standards of review, analysis, confirmation and approval. In fact, that is no more possible that any effort was made to “underwrite” this loan than it was for you to have actually had an inspector visit the property.
The vast difference between the value used in the appraised value has caused us an enormous loss for which you are responsible.
Very truly yours
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud |
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by SteveTaff. SteveTaff said: EXCUSE FOR BANKSTER BREAKING AND ENTERING: TRESPASS AND POSSIBLE CONTEMPT OF COURT: http://t.co/edQHI1A […]
Hope you can make it stick.
S
“What happened here was that an attorney went in and filed a “quiet title” action – that is, to remove any clouds on the title. The problem MERS instantly ran into is that it has publicly disavowed being a real party at interest – that is, it’s only a nominee. Therefore, it doesn’t have to be named.
This is a major problem for them. See, the point of MERS is to avoid paying recording fees. But the point of property records is to provide a clear and clean record of who owns a property and who has an interest in it – including who has a lien. MERS entire purpose is obscuring this and abstracting it to a thing inside their database only, making the disclosure of the underlying facts a function of the investor’s desires, rather than one of public notice and record.
Unfortunately for MERS (and those who bought paper allegedly “secured” in this fashion) state property law says otherwise in a number of jurisdictions. Specifically, State Property Law in some jurisdictions requires that security interests be held by a named entity, just as a deed must be. That is, you can’t transfer a deed “in blank” nor can you have a security interest “in blank”; the identity of said person or corporation has to be known and recorded.
What happened here is that an enterprising attorney, recognizing this, sued for quiet title – that is, to remove any clouds on the title. Since MERS was not entitled to be noticed as they by their own words and actions are not a real party at interest, they didn’t know about it. The title companies, which were on the original records and the original writer of the mortgage, who were in the records, didn’t bother to respond because the title company doesn’t hold the paper and the original lender was paid in full when he sold off the note – so he has no real interest either.
Oops.”
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=177536