24 Responses

  1. This is absolutely outrageous. Fraud runs rampant and Obama says DON’T STOP.

    WATCH THE VIDEO as others are calling for a moratorium Obama and his nazi thieves say DON’T STOP NOW.

    Not only did he not sanction those who did not cooperate with the modification program they signed onto as part of their bailout, they are adding insult to injury by foreclosing illegally.

    I just saw this, its a couple of months old, but it doesn’t change at all how obvious it is that he is a liar who is doing his best to destroy everything America has stood for.

    October 12, 2010
    As Fraud Scandal Grows, White House Opposes National Moratorium on Foreclosures
    Share263
    Towns_web

    A coalition of as many as forty state attorneys general is expected to announce Wednesday a joint investigation into the recent revelations that major lenders may have committed fraud while forcing thousands of people out of their homes. While senior congressional Democrats have joined the calls for a national moratorium on foreclosures, the White House is arguing against punishing the industry. We speak to Democratic Rep. Ed Towns of New York. [includes rush transcript]

    http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/12/as_fraud_scandal_grows_white_house

    Is it any wonder that people are becoming homeless and seemingly without recourse?

    How could it be otherwise when the man who pretends to be president acts as a cheering section for the thugs and frauds. The fact that they are dressed in suits and ties doesn’t change anything, they are still thugs, thieves and liars with Obama leading the charge.

  2. brian davies,

    Yes — but the crux of the challenge by the banks in the MA SC was that the loans were already assigned by securitization process. MA court nixed this. So — even if documents are presented BEFORE foreclosure is commenced — if securitization documents were not valid to begin with — then how can documents prepared months or years later (but before foreclosure action) — be valid when there was never valid conveyance to start with????

    That is question I presented elsewhere — and what, I believe, some experts have ignored in Ibanez.

  3. The amicus c. Jams macguire PDF can be seen on foreclosure hamlet

  4. It’s also on foreclosurehamlet

  5. I wonder if those same powers will allow me to submit a lost payoff note. I paid it off but I lost the receipt. Who you going to believe? the banks that have been caught lying over and over and the attorneys AT LAW who support their fraudulent and illicit foreclosure activity?

  6. What do you not understand? I testified in 2005 that Servicers had no right to add “fees” onto our “mortgage” because we never signed a contract with them. Therefore all extraneous fees imposed on you by a PSA that affects your mortgage payments are null & void. If there is an attorney or judge, congressman or senator who can prove otherwise, I’m waiting!!!

  7. impressive piece of work………

  8. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nelson Pang. Nelson Pang said: Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Pleading and Document … http://bit.ly/hKK5KD […]

  9. b davies,
    Ignore that crap it’s advertising.

  10. http://www.scribd.com/doc/47116558/MASS-JOINDER-AGAINST-UNIVERSAL-AMERICAN-MORTGAGE-COMPANY-OF-CA

    MASS JOINDER LAWSUIT IN CALIFORNIA FOR FRAUDULENT LENDING. WOW THEY SHOULD HAVE JOINED ME, WITH THE ADVERSARY AND THE 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT.

  11. Thank you for posting this, Mr James McGuire. Thousands may be helped because of your bravery and ability to speak plainly. “He who hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

  12. Now if we can only get the judges to re read this until they completely understand it!

  13. I found a lot to ponder in a Fannie Mae document about its requirements for document custodians. For instance, this is found on page 25, under the heading 7.1 Documents Required by Fannie Mae:

    “The original mortgage (or deed of trust) note or Lost Note Affidavit which must be executed by the Seller (See Section 8.1). If the original note is missing and the Seller has exhausted all reasonable means of obtaining the original note or an original duplicate note, Fannie Mae may authorize the Seller to substitute a notarized Lost Note Affidavit, or similar substitute documentation for a missing note. There are limitations on the percentage of Lost Note Affidavits present in any individual pool, which are defined in the individual Seller’s Master Agreement. (See Section 9.1 for additional instructions regarding Special Feature Code 157).”

    First question: WHAT in the world is an “original duplicate note?”

    Second question: So Fannie Mae decides whether to authorize the Seller to substitute a notarized Lost Note Affidavit?

    Third question: Has anyone checked to see how many lost note affidavits are allowed and the number found in each pool?

    This document also has clear information about required note indorsements.

    If you prefer not to download a .pdf file, the document is also on Scribd.

    Title: Fannie Mae Requirements for Document Custodians

    Here’s the .pdf document.

    http://www.efanniemae.com/is/doccustodians/pdf/dcreqdoc.pdf

  14. frankielee,

    Well, they don’t have any proof of PERFECTION. Correct lien perfection never occurred because they hid behind their TRADE NAME. The ability to foreclose is GONE.

  15. FrankieLee,
    It has to do with LOCAL Real Estate Law…

    When one transfers ownership of a real property, the new owner MUST both be NAMED and REGISTERED (by most State Laws). An ambiguous party cannot own property.

  16. OK, that’s it!
    The whole ball of wax.

  17. @concerned and anyone else with an opinion

    The brief reads:

    “Failure to name correct parties could possibly be fatal to the enforcement of the terms in the Mortgage Note or Security Interest.”

    I hate ambiguity like this in a legal brief. How would one know whether or not failing to name the correct party IS or ISN’T fatal to the document? Has anybody run across this issue before? Like concerned, my loan docs also fail to show the true creditor.

  18. take home–hopefully in California

    Antonelli and Enright list a number of takeaways from the Ibanez case.

    Those takeaways include foreclosure by a party that has not been assigned the mortgage has no standing, and the foreclosure is void; where the mortgage is assigned after origination, the foreclosing party must have validly been assigned the mortgage prior to noticing the foreclosure sale; a valid mortgage assignment is not limited to an assignment of mortgage in recordable form; a mortgage is a conveyance of an interest in real property, and it must contain the name of an assignee to be valid (assignments of mortgage in blank are void); the mortgage does not “follow the note” in Massachusetts; the mortgage holder holds the mortgage in trust for the purchaser of note; and the note purchaser has equitable right to obtain an assignment of mortgage.

    They also note that the Ibanez ruling is not prospective because the Ibanez decision is not a change in common law (holding not limited to future foreclosures).

    Among others, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., a long-time advocate of the Ibanez case, applauded the Supreme Court ruling as a victory for homeowners because it upheld a judge’s decision to invalidate two U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo foreclosures as these banks “failed to prove that they followed the appropriate legal process documenting their ownership of the mortgages.

    “The failure to properly transfer loans through the appropriate legal ‘chain of title’ is no technicality,” she said, “but rather part of a long pattern of predatory and negligent behavior by Wall Street.”

  19. mortgage servicing news release today 11 18 2011

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/47105813/National-Mortgage-News-The-Ibanez-Effect-on-Past-Future-Foreclosures

    The Ibanez case ruled against the lender in a lender-borrower dispute over the validity of a foreclosure proceeding is not just a highly political homeowners’ protection issue. It sets a precedent expected to greatly affect the mortgage industry in the future.

    Like what you see? Click here to sign up for a National Mortgage News free trial and daily newsletter to get the latest feature stories, news headlines, data, and in-depth analysis on the issues impacting the mortgage industry.
    The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on the Ibanez case—which states that U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo did not have standing to foreclose on a borrower because they failed to follow proper legal procedure in the mortgage transfer and securitization process—is about to turn into the cornerstone of future foreclosure proceedings not only in Massachusetts.

    Sean O’Toole, CEO and founder of ForeclosureRadar.com, is one of many mortgage market insiders who expect servicers to “have their hands full” when processing and managing foreclosures.
    It may be a while before foreclosure activity stabilizes “and some clarity” comes to the foreclosure process, he said, not only at the federal but also at the state level.

    In his view the recent example of the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision made it clear that lenders must follow the letter of the law in each state rather than simply continue industry practices. Such compliance requirements that have the power to turn into sizable legal responsibility for lenders “could certainly slow one type of activity while accelerating another.”

  20. This should be sent to every court in the United States.

  21. If the item #1 referring to ‘perfection’ requires that the TRUE lender be identified, my loan fails on that. The lender that was identified was, in fact, only a TRADE NAME, not the name of any licensed or registered lender, let alone the fact that the loan was ‘table-funded’ and thus never had any funds from even the supposed company who used that TRADE NAME.

    How can that trade name usage result in any type of ‘perfection’?

  22. This has happened other times wherein one clicks on what seems to be available links…and nothing connects.

  23. Joyce,

    The direct link is this: “http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/amicuscuriae-james-mcguire.pdf”

    I got to it by clicking into it on the second page presented. Rather confusing.

  24. How do we get to thissite to read it?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: