TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE HOMEOWNER SOLUTIONS

I know this is going to get more than a few people mad at me. But here are some rules of thumb to detect when you have been approached by someone with a “solution” to your mortgage problem, when in fact, at best they are mistaken and at worst, they are scam operators:

  1. GUARANTEES: If the service involves anything more than information a guarantee is a dead ringer for a scam. Even in the area of information, those of you who have ordered services from us will see disclaimers all over the place. Much of the information posted by bankers is either wrong or misleading.
  2. STOP PAYING YOUR MORTGAGE PAYMENTS: Anyone who tells you this is looking to redirect money from those who are seeking to collect your regular monthly payment into their own pockets. While I strongly believe that in securitized loans (96% of all loans) the servicers and others who are collecting from you have no right to do so, the cessation of payment can have grave consequences. Even a lawyer would be reluctant to tell you to do that.
  3. UP FRONT MONEY: The regulators are right. Other than lawyers, giving money to someone without any actual work or results is taking a big risk that you’ll never see your money, the person, or any results. Even with lawyers, the higher the retainer up from the lower your expectations should be. Retainers generally should not exceed $3500 for lawyers, depending upon how they structure the rest of the fees (contingency, monthly, etc.)
  4. DON’T HIRE ANYONE WITHOUT CALLING REFERENCES: Better yet, don’t use anyone who is not referred to you from someone you already know.
  5. OUT OF STATE VENDORS: Other than procuring information and research assistance an out-of state person, lawyer or not, cannot do you much good. Lawyers can only practice in the jurisdiction in which they are licensed. If your property is not located where the lawyer is licensed, then it is probably true that the lawyer will be, at a minimum, restricted in what they can do for you.
  6. MULTISTATE ACTIONS: State law varies considerably from state to state even on some of the simple stuff. I realize that the fraud allegation aspect covers all 50 states and maybe there is something in there than could be sustained as a certified class action or “mass-joinder” action, but I  have grave doubts that such actions will produce any real results, other than lulling you into a sense of complacency and allowing your real rights to lapse with the statute of limitations. File your own lawsuit. Allegations that comply with pleading requirements in one state most probably do NOT comply with the pleading requirements of other states. Remedies for the same proof of facts will differ from state to state. I’m inclined to say take a pass on such “opportunities”particularly when there is an “upfront fee”.
  7. SALESMAN: Even lawyers need to be careful on this one. A client should be solicited by the lawyer, not by a salesman. The attorney client relationship can only be formed when the client enters into a direct relationship with the lawyer. BUT there is nothing wrong with paralegals and staff members getting the fact gathering out of the way before you meet with the lawyer. Like a doctor’s office, the repetitive takes are performed by technicians who are trained to get your “vitals.” Interstate sales calls are particularly suspicious to me, and of course sales calls that involve services from non-attorneys should be closely scrutinized.
  8. PRO SE LITIGATION ASSISTANCE: If you are thinking you will represent yourself with the help of a non-lawyer, the results are likely going to be disappointing even in the best of circumstances — but I do know of hundreds of cases where it has worked well. My problem is that this litigation gets more sophisticated each day and harder for non-lawyers to understand the procedures and presentations required in motion hearings, evidentiary hearings and pleadings. I won’t say don’t even do it, but I will say that if you take a single step or make a single decision without at least consulting a licensed attorney in the jurisdiction in which your property is located, you are probably going to make some fatal mistakes.

41 Responses

  1. Reposted without typos’

    Pillage, plunder, marauder, what’s next?

    RE: Mass Joinder

    Hmmmm know of a “Someone” in NJ collecting money from consumers for mass joinder in CA and who did not turn over funds to CA Agent for M. Steiner I believe.

    CONSUMERS ‘Stranger Danger’
    “Stupid people sign stupid contracts every day.” K.Petrides

    Why would a consumer trust a mass joinder?

    You can’t see the actual brief and the retainer agreement appears to turn over all interests to the ‘entity’.

    Agreements are contracts you may inadvertently turn over your rights to your property allowing ‘agent’ to take your property.

    Who will you be the beneficiary of the decisions in settlement or civil trial?

    Consumers get educated. Any contract that you sign (a retainer is a contract) should have a clause to protect the consumer from non-performance right?

    The tactic utilized on the NJ consumer (not me) was the joinder will stop the bank from foreclosing and the bank does not want to go to trail and will settle.

    WARNING: When the ‘marketing party’ states that ‘THEY’ are in Agreement with BOA to stop any foreclosures?

    Ask, may I see a copy of that Agreement please.
    Show me where I am a beneficiary of the Agreement?

    Sadly suspect will the consumers be forced into bad loan modifications that benefit?

    Important update from Max Gardner below:

    From: O. Max Gardner III
    Wed, Apr 27, 2011
    Subject: Mass Joinder Cases
    To: Boot Camp Attorneys

    Court Documents In ‘Mass Joinder’ Contingency Fee Lawsuit Suggest One
    Attorney May Be Pocketing Upfront Fees From Clients Without Telling
    Co-Counsels

    Posted: 26 Apr 2011 09:03 PM PDT
    Court documents filed in a Los Angeles, California Superior Court in connection with a ‘contingency fee’ (ie. no upfront fees) mass joinder
    lawsuit on behalf of homeowners who were allegedly screwed-over by Bank
    of America and others indicate that an all-out brawl has apparently
    broken out involving the attorneys from separate law firms who initially
    came together, as co-counsel, to represent the multitude of homeowners
    bringing the case.

    More specifically, the subject documents represent a motion filed by one group of the plaintiffs’ attorneys essentially requesting that the court
    boot two specific attorneys from any further involvement in the case, at
    least with respect to certain specified plaintiffs.

    Among the concerns of the attorneys filing the request with the court is
    that they have received reports from some of the homeowner/clients that
    at least one of the other two attorneys is pocketing upfront fees from
    them for joining this ‘mass joinder’ lawsuit without the knowledge or
    consent of the motion-filing attorneys which, according to them, is a
    case that is a contingency fee case requiring no upfront fees from the
    homeowners.

    For the court documents, see Ronald v. Bank of America, et al. – Motion
    to Remove Mitchell J. Stein.

    See Brookstone Law, SML and Apex Join to Protect Homeowners for a recent
    press release issued by the motion-filing attorneys in this case which,
    in part, addresses the racket some other attorneys are perpetrating in
    connection with collecting up front fees from bankster-defrauded
    homeowners in exchange for allowing them to sign up for ‘mass joinder’
    lawsuits.


    Regards,

    Mary Cochrane
    I am a researcher. I am not an attorney, and I don’t know legal things. Even if I think I know, the fact is that I don’t know . I choose to share information related to ‘loopholes’ that harm consumers.

    Get Educated.

    Victory Over Theft Exchange!

  2. Pillage, plunder, marauder, what’s next?

    RE: Mass Joinder

    Hmmmm know of a “Someone” in NJ collecting money from consumers for mass joinder in CA and who did not turn over funds to CA Agent for M. Steiner I beleive.

    CONSUMERS ‘Stranger Danger’
    “Stupid people sign stupid contracts every day.” K.Petrides

    Why would a consumere trust a mass joinder?

    You can’t see the actual brief and the retainer agreement appers to turn over all interests to the ‘entity’.

    Agreements are contracts you may inadvertenly turn over your rights to your property allowing ‘agent’ to take your property.

    Who will you be the beneficiary of the decisions in settlement or civil trial?

    Consumers get educated. Any contract that you sign (a retainer is a contract) should have a clause to protect the consumer from non-performnce right?

    The tactic utilized on the NJ consumer (not me) was the joinder will stop the bank from foreclosing and the bank does not want to go to trail and will settle.

    WARNING: When the ‘marketing party’ states that ‘THEY’ are in Agreement with BOA to stop any foreclosues?

    Ask, may I see a copy of that Agreement please.
    Show me where I am a beneficiary of the Agreement?

    Sadly suspect will the consumers be forced into bad loan modifications that benefit?

    Important update from Max Gardner below:

    From: O. Max Gardner III
    Wed, Apr 27, 2011
    Subject: Mass Joinder Cases
    To: Boot Camp Attorneys

    Court Documents In ‘Mass Joinder’ Contingency Fee Lawsuit Suggest One
    Attorney May Be Pocketing Upfront Fees From Clients Without Telling
    Co-Counsels

    Posted: 26 Apr 2011 09:03 PM PDT
    Court documents filed in a Los Angeles, California Superior Court in connection with a ‘contingency fee’ (ie. no upfront fees) mass joinder
    lawsuit on behalf of homeowners who were allegedly screwed-over by Bank
    of America and others indicate that an all-out brawl has apparently
    broken out involving the attorneys from separate law firms who initially
    came together, as co-counsel, to represent the multitude of homeowners
    bringing the case.

    More specifically, the subject documents represent a motion filed by one group of the plaintiffs’ attorneys essentially requesting that the court
    boot two specific attorneys from any further involvement in the case, at
    least with respect to certain specified plaintiffs.

    Among the concerns of the attorneys filing the request with the court is
    that they have received reports from some of the homeowner/clients that
    at least one of the other two attorneys is pocketing upfront fees from
    them for joining this ‘mass joinder’ lawsuit without the knowledge or
    consent of the motion-filing attorneys which, according to them, is a
    case that is a contingency fee case requiring no upfront fees from the
    homeowners.

    For the court documents, see Ronald v. Bank of America, et al. – Motion
    to Remove Mitchell J. Stein.

    See Brookstone Law, SML and Apex Join to Protect Homeowners for a recent
    press release issued by the motion-filing attorneys in this case which,
    in part, addresses the racket some other attorneys are perpetratrting in
    connection with collectiing up front fees from bankster-defrauded
    homeowners in exchange for allowing them to sign up for ‘mass joinder’
    lawsuits.


    Regards,

    Mary Cochrane
    I am a researcher. I am not an attorney, and I don’t know legal things. Even if I think I know, the fact is that I don’t know . I choose to share information related to ‘loopholes’ that harm consumers.

    Get Educated.

    Victory Over Theft Exchange!

  3. Joyce Louise,

    The trust is GSAA Home Equity trust, 2005-10, Asset Backed Certificates 2005-10. The I.D. # or Central Index Key # is 0001337005 (as I’m led to believe).

    Funny thing about it is after March 2006 their doesn’t appear to be any acttivity in the 10K filings.

    Anonymous, care to jump in here…..I’d love to have your input as well.

  4. In 2008, I typed up all of the notes I had on 20 different cases wherein foreclosure was avoided with the exception I believe of one and the homeowner elected not to take the lender up on their offer.

    I was going to present the stories for a book to be published but simply could not get the edit work done as I had a responsibility to my clients. Those notes were never published, but I believe now, from what has transpired that perhaps some of these stories might be helpful to homeowners, those who were already foreclosed and those who are still facing foreclosure. Some info will be new to the readers and some will not. And when the Congress held their hearings, they gave the servicer a pass and as such, the servicer had a go to continue to abuse the homeowner and take their homes. God help those homeowners who will be fighting deficiencies.

    Rather than putting the book out for sale, I think it might be helpful to simply put them on my website for everyone to read without having to pay for it. May be worth something and may not. But none of these loans were ever foreclosed except for the one I mentioned. Perhaps a strategy that might work for you when you become aware of the mortgage related issues of these borrowers.

    If possible, I will put the stories up by March 1, 2011 on my website for those who might want to overlook editing issues and read the content.

    I hate the saying of most attorneys who have told me time and time again, the lender can do anything they want. Wrong!!!! And I don’t appreciate that attitude.

  5. For all of those who are facing potential foreclosure, I do hope you have not only audited for standing, but have audited your Payment history. Working on two cases right now whereby the servicers have collected regular monthly payments and applied to principal and escrow throwing the homeowner into default and the servicer has accessed late charges of over $1300 as we have been fighting this issue for almost two years.

    Not only should the borrower not have to pay the late charges, but like they said, there can be no rhyme or reason why banks make up policy as they along by using ambigous contracts to do so.

    Every month they threaten foreclosure and have refused to correct the mistakes even though a provision of the Deed of Trust says they must do so.

    In this case, the mega bank says their policy does not allow them to go back and reapply the payment correctly (the IRS is going to love this), so not only does the homeowner lose his interest deduction, but he is being foreclosed on for not making the payment.

    Since when does Company policy override the provisions of the Deed of Trust which guarantees to the homeowner that payments will be applied in accordance with the DOT. The provision does not say the borrower has two months to report the incident to the Servicer or they do not have to correct it. I don’t think that is going to fly. They should have disclosed such a policy through their escrow account notification – to the borrower

    Idiots – These are going to be reported to the IRS, but in the meantime, the homeowner faces this threat continuously. The DOJ, HUD, OCC, US Senator all were advised of the issue but no action.

    I know about this and the servicer cannot win if they go to Court unless the Judge just simply wants to ignore the true facts.

    We will see.

  6. Gary:

    I sure would like to know your PSA series so I can take a look at it. One has determine all of the players. Most certainly, even though the PSA probably says that Argent will transfer the loans to the Trustee, there were some players in between that are obligated (in order to protect their interest) that have endorsed that note and there should be assignments. Chain of ownership is important, but there could be other issues regarding the provisions of the DOT or Note which will give you ammunition.

    I have given you an example of conflicts between provisions of their own DOT in the following:

    The applicable law statement in the DOT is a very effective tool for one of my cases. In fact, I asked the question for what it was worth to HUD – if applicable law is in conflict with federal law, which prevails: Both times they answered applicable law.

    For example, para 3 of DOT says for Collection of Escrow, that the owner of the Note will follow applicable law. At the time of signing the DOT, the day of closing, my client signed the DOT accepting the fact that the lender said they would follow applicable law. A year later, rather than accepting the borrower’s right under applicable law to defer his taxes, the lender denied the homeowner his right and in doing so, breached the contract a second time by paying his taxes and then circumventing the law by increasing his payment. by doing so.

    In otherwords, the lender represented they would do one thing, but did just the opposite because, in the PSA, they clearly say all taxes will be paid annually; therefore, they could not allow any homeowner to defer his taxes (set aside until he passes away or sells the property). In otherwords, lender agreed in para 3 that they would follow the law that applies, and in this case state law trumps. Their para 4 under charges and liens say the lender has a right to pay the taxes if the borrower doesn’t so in that event, para 3 and 4 are in conflict with each other. The contract is confusing (cannot be with respect to DTPA laws of the state). This is what your DOT is saying. Just look at your DOT and see how many times the lender said he would follow applicable law. Some attorneys think the DOT represents a violation of the DTPA, some do not. But when they allegedly induced you to sign the DOT, the first breach of the contract because they “Knew” they could not follow applicable law if they honored their contract with the PSA. Potentially, if proven, this contract may be considered void. I am not advising anyone, but am bringing you up to date on a case example now in play.

    The dilemma of the lender is: hey, if the homeowner doesn’t have to pay his taxes then the lender is going to have to circumvent state law by doing so and then increasing the borrower’s payment beyond his ability to pay it so, down the foreclosure path he goes.

    Can you imagine a lender having to fund taxes on behalf of the homeowner simply because the PSA says all taxes will be paid annually. The investors don’t care who pays it, the homeowner or the lender, but somebody according to the PSA has to do it. You can see the dilemma for the lenders if they lose because thousands of DOT exist utilizing this very same verbiage.

    The homeowner will accept whatever the appeals court decides, but just staying in the hunt has been a real battle. So it is not a matter of default, it is a matter of the lender having to win this issue or the lender/servicer in order to honor the PSA investors, will have to pay them and it will open the door for so many other eligible citizens to defer their taxes.

    In the Prospectus it clearly states to the investors, there may be some violations of state and federal law to contend with because they knew they were going to be violating some of them so the investor was put on notice and it was the only way they could protect themselves if they got caught doing it.

    The lender has to do what they said they would under the DOT but in the meantime, they have to honor the PSA provisions as well. Oh well, we need the court to decide.

    Please let me know which pooling series you are in I would like to look at it to see what it says. I presume you have a copy of the endorsed note to compare to any assignments that may have been filed. I think regardless of how the note and DOT are construed to be fictitious and not true obligations, etc one still needs to chart out the ownership by what was presented as if these were not frudulent transactions. Case in point is if they are proven to be valid, then at least you know whether or not the true ownership title is correct. I believe that is what Neil’s operation does and is an extremely valuable service. Also, Anonymous really knows about the detail of these fundings and ownership chain, probably more than most.

  7. Joyce Louise, Thank you for the info.

    Here’s a bit more…..this is how my chain of title appears,

    Argent>>>Deutsche
    v
    v
    Ameriquest (servicing)
    v
    v
    Countrywide (servicing)
    v
    v
    BOA / BAC (servicing after CW was bought)

    Here is how the PSA describes the parties involved…..

    GS Mortgage Securities Corp. >>> Depositor
    Countrywide Home Loan Servicing >>> Servicer
    Ameriquest Mortgage Company >>> Responible Party
    Deutsche BNTC >>> Trustee

    I contend that the loan could Not have been directly assigned to Deutsche via the Argent assignment mentioned earlier which must include the sale of the Note/DOT at least twice (not servicing rights) in order for the loan to be securitized, am I wrong?

    I went further in the DOT and found this…..

    “Lender at it’s option…..may appoint a successor trustee” and “without conveyence of property, the successor trustee shall succeed to all the title and power and duties conferred upon Trustee” by DOT and APPLICABLE LAW.

    What is happening with that statement?

    In the DOT, APPLICABLE LAW is defined as…..”all controling applicable federal, state and local statutes, regulations, ordinances and administrative rules and orders (having the effect of law) as well as all final non-appealable judicial opinions”

    Now appling that defination to the PSA how does statements of loans not being preditory and negatively ammortized apply (this wordage is in my PSA)?

    I have more, just can’t get to it this morning.

  8. Gary:

    Selling the note and lien is one thing while selling the servicing rights is another. Two different animals.

    The items you read in the servicing disclosure are standard operating procedure and it is possible to combine the disclosure of the servicing entitiy at the time of origination so they don’t have to issue hello and goodbye letters again to meet the time requirement, but when the new servicer is not an affiliate of the last servicer, they must record the assignment of transfer of servicing.

    Although Argent originated this particularly loan, they did not retain the servicing. Ameriquest took over the servicing rights for 30 days and then named AMC as the next loan servicer for the next 30 days. In this case, because they were affiliates of each other, Respa does not require them to record the Assignment of Transfer of Servicing Rights. The hello and goodbye letters are required however in all cases but can be combined at the time of origination for the first servicer.

    Now, comes Homeq who is named as the master servicer in the PSA agreement . They were not affiliates of Argent or Ameriquest or AMC, so the transfer of Servicing Rights between AMC must be recorded by Assignment in the real property records.

    Many times the servicer, to prove they have been collecting the payments and that the account is in default, will present a loan reconciliation, not the actual payment history. By issuing a loan reconciliation (manually prepred), they omit showing the servicers of record of all the servicers and simply show the current servicer. That is not a true copy of the transaction listing of which servicer collected which payments. The deal was to get ready to transfer the servicing to the ultimate servicer named as the MASTER SERVICER in the trust. They needed at least 60 days after they originated and decided which loans went to which trust.

    Purchase of servicing rights is worth a great deal of money and that comes into play here as well and I expect that Ameriquest was paid a substantial amount. In otherwords, Ameriquest probably funded your loan but then sold the servicing and was able to make a lot more money. Where did that money come from and who paid for it?. The judge accepted the loan reconciliation even though there was nothing to identify the client, property address, or the current servicer. Ridiculous.

    Argent appears to be nothing more than a mortgage broker in your case if indeed the loan was funded by another lender (table funding) and probably Ameriquest. Have to get the proof. If that is the case, then to disclose that Argent is selling the servicing to Ameriquest would be a misrepresentation I think since, they didn’t own the servicing in the first place. Otherwise they are going to be classified as a mortgage banker with the ability to fund the loans they originate and servicing released.

    In your case, it looks to me like Argent originated, alledgedly transferred the servicing rights to Ameriquest, but actually endorsed the note and assigned the loan to Duetsche Bank, as trustee of your pool. Again there are two different things going on here.

    I may be wrong about this because it has not been verified but it really looks like the note should be endorsed by Argent to Ameriquest to the Depositor to the trustee and assignments provided and recorded relative thereto should have been executed and recorded within the time frame allowed by the PSA. Remember, normally, they have an added statement in the PSA that the seller has more time to get everything recorded, BUT, IF CERTAIN EVENTS HAPPEN, LIKE A DEFAULT, ETC., THE SERVICER MUST RECORD THE ASSIGNMENTS. This of course was not done in most of these defaults because as you can see, no assignments are of record and probably were not produced until the robo signers got busy. You think.

    The PSA was not in recordable form so when needed, in our county, it was not acceptable to allow certain events to happen. In otherwords, the transfer to the trustee of the mortgage loans was not of record nor did the power of attorney rights within the PSA have any effect. Therefore, if a POA was utilized for any reason or to prepare affidavits and assignments, then they best have a separate poa. One Texas Judge refused to accept the PSA as proof of ownership by the Trustee. No mortgage loan schedules were attached so he could not find the client’s name and ruled it out.

    Again, the wiring instructions from the title company will help to determine who the loan was funded by unless you have a full set of disclosures provided by Ameriquest at the time of origination. Most of us believe now that the sale of the securities came from the Depositor who actually was the company that provided the funds to Ameriquest so they could table fund your loan for Argent. This could be the scenario in your case. ACC was the parent company but I do not believe they funded any of the Argent loans, I may be wrong.

    I see you are looking at your paperwork closely and also you will see certain statements in your disclosures that show, this was a product to be produced that could be sold in the market and all aspects of the loan must result in such a product. Thus, the big move to securitize these loans under PSA requirements which does not allow them to follow applicable law in some states. They knew they were going to run into trouble and they did with this one. But that is what happens when you use a Uniform Deed of Trust through out the nation.

    I do not believe that the SEC ever read the Attorney’s template opinion of loans that were to be produced for these trusts. I think they accepted the attorney opinon based on the fact that one was produced for each pool registered. Attorneys admit they did not verify any of the documents, etc.

  9. Joyce Louise,

    In your reply to me I believe we’re on the same page here with a few twists involved.

    In my case…..

    Argent represents itself in the DOTas follows…..”we do not service the loans we ORIGINATE and we have not serviced mortage loans in the past three years”…..Now what does that statement say about LENDING?

    Argent further states in the DOT…..”we will assign, sell or transfer the servicing of your loan at ORIGINATION to our affilate company named Ameriquest Mortgage Company”.

    These statments are found in the RESPA SERVICING DISCLOSURE.

    Less than three weeks after closing Argent assigned the loan directly to Deutsche Bank, by-passing sale and transfer WITHOUT RECORDATION by at least three(3) other entities necessary to securitize the loan.

  10. Joyce Louise- thanks so much for the additional info, keep it coming. As to why the investors didn’t question anything, they were probably shown remittance reports which had been doctored up to give the appearance of propriety. Like a second set of books, so to speak. I have yet to see where a servicer has produced a remittance ledger in court. And yes, I think ANONYMOUS could give us all an example (names ommitted) of notes held as collateral in different trusts at the same time. That would be illustrative.

  11. Thanks Ian.

    While the transaction would seem simple if they followed prudent lending and the rule of law, that as you know, was not the game.

    Yes, by recording false documents it is a felony in most states. However, there have been I am sure those sellers of mortgages who took the chance, but most did not..

    They weren’t just trying to save recording fees, but were trying to curtail the cost of producing those assignments and controlling the chain as is required as any true creditor should want done. If the procedure for transferring loans is followed correctly, this can reduce the yield on a portfolio and by the time the servicer does it two or three times, it is indeed very costly.

    But because of the avoidance of certain issues which the sellers of these mortgages wanted to avoid, they used the pretender lenders as you have all stated they did and to record for the world to see would be to reveal all and as such offer challenge by those that would do so, the homeowners) the SEC (even though they will not do one thing about it) and perhaps other creditors whom might believe they have a claim on the same loan. Is anyone checking to see if the pools actually have the same loan collateralizing various securities in different trust? I don’t know. Anonymous or some of those can probably answer the question. They are the experts as I see it and truthful.

    Been there done that in 1987 when the 1980’s demise was upon us and the servicer could no longer make three mortgage payments to those investors claiming an interest in one loan which they all claimed belonged to them.. The originator of the loan sold the note to two different other companies after closing, retained the servicing so he could control the cash flow, but never recorded one assignment except to the first creditor who table funded the loan. Here we had a title company working in tandem with the seller of those loans. It only took 10 years for those homeownrs to clear their titles so they could eventually sell their homes. And judges want to know why just holding the note doesn’t always prove they have the right to bring action. They may be one of them, but there could be more.

    So I believe, because it was understood in the industry that buyers of these loans, the depositor and the trustee, were not checking for assignments, that there was at least five year time frame for the schemers to make lots and lots of money. Does that seem intentional to you if selling to more than one entity was pursued.

    Who was making the payments on the other two loans that claimed to be the investor (creditor)?, The servicer appears to have funded the monthly prin and interest through their investor accounting system. Strange as it seems why didn’t those investors question escrow accounts and why there were no delinquencies, where were their auditors, etc. These were not securitized pass through loans. idiots.

  12. Joyce Louise- excellent post which we can all use as a template for our own research. But you said”it seems as if they didn’t want to pay for recording true and accurate information in the county recording office” (I am paraphrasing here) How about, “they didn’t have any true and accurate information?” Once the info is put into writing(recorded) they are caught. So they have all gone the robosigner route, forgeries, false attestations, bogus notaries, stolen notary seals, etc. Keep up the good work.

  13. I meant to say in the first paragragh that Argent , if they did fund, only funded that money provided to Ameriquest.

  14. Gary:

    On one of my cases, Ameriquest was a servicer for 30 days before transferring the servicing to AMC. However, Ameriquest was not just the servicer, they were the warehouse line which was made up of the sold securities by Park Place, therefore, Ameriquest was the Lender and the Servicer for 30 days. Argent funded no money except that received from ARgent.

    Once the loan funded by Ameriquest as a table funding, Ameriquest must reassign the Note back to Argent so they could be in place to execute the PSA, the way the agreement filed with the SEC said they were scheduled to do. When the note was was transferred it was endorsed Argent to Ameriquest and Ameriquest to the Trustee of the Pool. It is in conflict with the PSA by doing this because Argent was the Seller and Park Place was the Depositor (who provided the investors money) to Ameriquest. What is missing is the assignment from Argent to Ameriquest and then Ameriquest to Park Place and of course from that point, Park Place to the trustee of the Pool. In this manner one would think that Ameriquest was the true lender and Argent, the pretender lender and it is so. They just didn’t want to have to follow the TIL AND OTHER DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THEY DIDN’T WANT TO BRING AMERIQUEST IN BECAUSE THEY HAD TO HUGE CLASS ACTION SUITS AGAINST THEM AND THE SEC MAY HAVE CAUSED THEM A PROBLEM.

    Seems to me however that if this is the case, why is it that the Law Firm who issued what appears to be template opinions (required by the SEC and for the Prospectus) that they did not devulge who the real lenders were.

    I know ACC was the owner of both Argent and Ameriquest,, but I noticed in the name listing of companies that Park Place was in parathesis beside the name Ameriquest. So I believe it was Ameriquest who funded the loan, was required to endorse the not and in doing so, they violated the PSA because Ameriquest is only named as a potential servicer in the event, HOmeq goes South. Hmeq did go South, but Ameriquest was out of business, so the trustee appears using a sub servicer, Ocwen. Not sure about that, but they are now showing up in some of the pools.

    This business about not describing the note is quite interesting. Seemed real simple before all of that got started.

    Borrower takes a loan out by signing the note and D/T. Argent was nothign more than a mortgage broker and Ameriquest was the lender who secured its funds from Park Place through sale of securities. Argent may or may not have been paid off, but Ameriquest funded the loan. Now in the PSA agreement it shows the valuable consideration paid by the Depositor Park Place paid 1/2 cash and 1/2 non preferred securities.

    We do indeed need to look at the general ledger to determine where the funding came from because it could change this whole ball game. When using a warehouse line, the paper trail is important to determine, table funding or no. And you go with that. In the meantime, the homeowner got the benefit of the money to buy the home and investors have been buying and selling notes since the cows came home.

    It would seem to me that the money is owed, but it is not owed to those who have not followed the law and who are stealing homes from which they have no interest in by collecting twice as some of you have indicated. Filing intentionally false affidavits and assignments has everything to do with the fact that they intend to steal the person’s home because for some reason, they made the costly error of not telling the truth to the SEC, the borrower and the investors. What a mess? Could this be because no one wanted to pay for the recording of accurate and true information in the county offices. Irealize their is a control feature for servicers to keep up with these sales, but what else is new? It was standard operating procedure.

    This is why so many judges ruled, you took the money and bought your house, now you have to pay somebody. Wrong answer. We may have two or three some bodies trying to collect on the same note. They just don’t get it.

  15. about 3 weeks ago there was a posting on here by someone saying that Mitchell J Stein was heading a mass joinder lawsuit against B of A, and later the other big banks. they stated that they had appx 1400 persons join the lawsuit so far. the one time retainer fee is $5000, which they said , “gets you a seat at the table”, and also STOPS b of a from being able to foreclose on your home. living lies said if anyone joins this mass joinder lawsuit, to please post feedback on this site. i would like to know if anyone has joined this lawsuit. it seems like al good idea since it stops any foreclosure proceedings, and makes b of a have to deal w/ you on a new mortgage and new terms. any opinions on this mass joinder lawsuit, please let me know. thank you, Darrell
    darrellsturgill@hotmail.com

  16. Jan van Eck

    …..”it might be useful to keep in mind that, if your “note” was funded by a warehouse loan, then the “Note” does not describe the Obligation, which is between you and someone else not written up on the “Note.” The “Note” becomes a convenient fiction”…..

    Jan, can you explain this in more detail respective to “does not describe the obligation.

    Here’s my issue. On my note, Argent Mortgage LLC is named as the “lender”, lending the amount of “X”. Many are aware that Argent was a subsidy of ACC Capital Holdings (a warehouse lender). I’m also fully aware how Ameriquest is tied into this mess as servicer.

    Argent did not “lend” any money….. they used a “line of credit” in the borrowers name from ACC Capital from pooled funds of wall street investors to make the “loan”.

    How would you take this scenario one step further?

  17. M.T, I apologize for the behavior of those who ‘pretend’. You’ve had a lot of “pretenders” in your life. I apologize for them so we can cleanse their dirty deeds from your energy stream and you can be successful in your endeavors.

    I felt #2 was good advice, because someone reading this site will think the solution is cut and dry, don’t pay a pretender, and they can’t foreclose.

    The hard lesson is, no matter how bad they do things, in the end a judge is the one who dispenses the judgment that will make or break you.

    I do not engage in controversy. I paid for 10 years. They just ‘up’ and went away. I get a letter telling me to stop paying them and to pay someone else. By the time I read the letter, I immediately write the senior vice president who wrote the letter about this ‘new contract’ without consideration. I find out they were already gone, this senior vice president was already in place at the replacement, yet using the previous lender’s letterhead to notice of the change.

    I withheld payment to the new guy asking for more than a letter. I needed to see an assignment. I got letters telling me to pay because they have an ‘interest’ in my home. I wrote the trustee on the deed and asked him if he knew what was going on, and he responded in writing that he had no duty to respond to me that he was bound by trust law and he would give the title to the beneficiary who had the note and an interest secured in the home. So I wrote the senior vice president of that company asking if they were the beneficiary who had the note with an interest secured in the home. I got a phone call telling me they represented investors and they were trying to find out why I felt I didn’t have to pay them. I told them I don’t see an assignment and I have no proof that before my company left, they didn’t sell everything off, or was satisfied with my 10 years of payment (the 10 years was all the principal and a little usury so I felt the original ‘lender’ may have been satisfied and ‘didn’t’ sell the account when they left)
    The more I researched the more shocked I was. Two out of three credit reports had the new company, disputed one with the new company and one without and they both came back as valid.
    By the time we got to 4 months of me withholding payment, the senior vice president sent me a huge file of information regarding my account (all electronic printouts), and a copy of a certified copy of the note from the title company (I can get a copy of a certified copy of the note from the title company, that’s not proof I owe the ‘new’ guy, it was proof I owed the previous lender who left). I looked at the accounting information and it showed I had paid the new company the entire year of 2009. I assure you, the new company’s letter state to start paying them in November. I made a final payment in October. I never put the new company’s name on the check. Yet their accounting stated I had paid them the entire year and all the previous years the statements had the name of the previous lender. So I searched the SEC site. Found out the new company filed an SEC document showing they would take over my former lender in Nov 2009. Well if you didn’t take over until Nov, why are you providing defective docs stating I paid you 10 months before the take over. Then they filed a notice of acceleration sale, and then they appointed a substitute trustee (Hellooo! can we say, out of order and not allowed!) Only the ‘Lender of record’ can appoint the substitute trustee, with no assignment the lender of record has abandoned the Deed, and this ‘nobody company’ pops up and files a notice of accelerated sale stating that the trustee has been appointed and then file the appointment 7 days later. So the notice and sale was done without a valid trustee. AND the original trustee still had the title to the property. I had written him. I was notifying the Attorney General the entire time of the fraud..took all documents, all letters, everything, and showed them the layers of deception in the foreclosure process. (No, no notice of default was ever filed either…because I didn’t owe them money) But in a non-judicial state, once these companies put you in their sites, it’s 21 days and they have your home being called outside the courthouse and there’s no cop or anyone to stop the theft. I used my cell phone to videotape it. I asked the woman calling the sale if she had the note and the deed, and she looked at me and said, ‘I don’t have to talk to you’. It was mindblowing.
    Realize, I was trudging along happy and paying thinking in 20 more years, I’D HAVE THE TITLE to my home, not that for the past 10 years I was paying a thief who put me in an unconscionable contract. But once the beneficiary abandons the trust, there is nothing for the trustee to administer. It became void right then and there. Without that assignment, that Deed of trust was unenforceable. And I know what an assignment looks like because my 10 year company had changed their name before and did and assignment to show their new name and I was refinancing at the time and refinanced using their new name ‘before’ they changed it and still saw the assignment from the old name to the new name.
    There was so much done wrong, the fake trustee did a credit bid on behalf of the company since she was ‘representing them’ and her bid was the only bid and she called the home sold and I was just floored. I kept looking under county filings to see what happened and I kept searching under my name for 7 days and saw nothing, then I searched under the ‘fake’ trustee name and saw she had a Trustee Deed to the ‘pretender’ out there and the description was my property description. So I called the original trustee and left a message that night and said, please don’t give them title to my home, they do not have the note nor the original deed. A woman called back, she said they had nothing to do with it anymore. We talked back and forth and I explained I had a case with the AG and that it was a fraud foreclosure, I told her about getting one note from the senior vice president, a certified copy from the title company, I told her the law firm had a totally different copy of a note. I told her there can’t be two versions of the same documents and stated that no one had the originals, maybe the company sold or destroyed them, but don’t give them my title. (People and judges forget, the title was given by ME to put into the trust until I paid, and it’s not a bargaining tool for racketeering or financial enslavement to an unsecured entity). She got kind of quiet and said. Their client is our client too! (Well that beat all. Then I understood) I was summoned to court to ‘get off their property’. I watched as the law firm that did this to me, with their botched paperwork, no assignment, a notice that was faulty, affidavits stating things were to the ‘best of their knowledge’, stating they represent Fannie Mae obtained the title from a lender who bought the home in a foreclosure sale.
    I don’t belong in court. I should not be pulled into a controversy, especially one over my own home, as long as I pay and people have the right papers in line and are on the up and up, then I should be at my home, giving water to the trees and feeding the birds in my back yard, not standing in court trying to keep my roof over my head after spending months trying to figure out what happened to my ‘lender’ and why this new company threatened to take the home and did not abide by the law. BASIC LAW. I had exhibits as part of my answer, signed the service of process as a non-resident alien (it’s an affinity thing), and here I am, what’s the saying, to swear an oath is to call God to testify, and I’m there as alive as life can be, and this judge basically called God a liar and said to get out of the home. It was a clumsy situation being in their court trying to speak ‘truth’ in the midst of deception and lies, and to show with their own paperwork why I should not be there, and all this judge cared about was whether I was secretly videotaping the session, she stepped out and the bailiff called me to a back room to ask me that. And she rendered her decision to her detriment. Her decision was so biased it was one big ERROR, stating that Fannie Mae bought the home at a foreclosure sale so I needed to vacate the home. No judge lady, one who judges, the pretender lender did a fraud sale and came in to your court saying they had the title and represent fannie mae who wanted the home. Totally different, but I’m not one for controversy, so you won’t find me appealing anything in your system.

    There is a greater system that takes care of people like me. The meek who are allowed to be meek. Who are allowed to be without controversy, and who are allowed to love unconditionally, and who have unalienable rights that include being free from trespass.

    Letting a fiction displace me is a great travesty for all involved.

    My neighbors got together, and we packed up my things and I got out of there. The Creator opened every door I needed open to move, including getting a moving van when all were sold out. That’s how I knew there was a greater plan, or shall I say judgement at play than the one placed on me by a judge who heard not a thing and did not review anything.

    You know what bothers me most. The realtor squatting on the home…like an ambulance chaser, except he chases sheriffs who serve writs of possession so he can claim the house is abandoned or wait for the sheriff to kick you out so he can claim the house abandoned.

    That guy ‘NAILED’ a for sale sign into the trunk of my tree.

    That tree is alive.

    As a society, we care nothing about life. It’s sad, but it requires a cleansing of sorts to separate the wheat from the chaff. Mother Earth deserves nothing less.

    I humbly watch as the cleansing takes place, and it has begin. You’ll notice it.

    Light and Love,
    Trespass Unwanted, alive, allodial, corporeal, life, live born, born alive, free, freeman, jure divino, whole blood

  18. Ian, I think the Dutchman’s position is that, if an open warehouse line was used to fund, the real lender was never disclosed. Probably the reason our title agency won’t produce the wire transfer from the closing: a big, fat Regulation Z violation, which by itself, gets you about a thousand bucks. It’s the ability to toll the statute that is important. JvE? good guess?

    As long as we have attorneys present, question: If the plaintiff/bank petitions the court to remove the lis pendens and the judgment they obtained because of a “settlement”, do they have to re-file with a new action when the settlement is, shall we say, broken?

  19. Used car guy:

    I don’t see anything wrong with giving you some info, but I need to check with the attorney. He is always on my case about giving out stuff.

    I think our request for new trials is very telling and might be of some help.

    Going pro se we thought it best to detail the transactions in our pleadings because we knew it would probably end up in appeals court, but our attorney said, the judge didn’t read any of that stuff. I said, well those were our arguments and a lot of judges don’t understand loan servicing technique or buy and selling portfolios. He even told the Appeals court that we were put too much so the lower court would not read it.. That as pro se we did not know any better and gave too much material to read. So you go figure.

    In this clients case, we were the plaintiff’s not the bank and the judge didn’t even realize it until he said, well I guess I will have to rule in the favor of the Plaintiff’s thinking the bank was the Plaintiff. After that, of course we had to correct him, I knew we were in trouble. It was laughable after court though.

  20. jan van eck- could you please give me your take on why, if the loan was funded by a warehouse line of credit, then the obligation was not described by the note, and furthermore was used to bamboozle the investors. Thanks.

  21. Joyce, thanks for your insights. I’d like to see some of those pleadings you mention, as I need help constructing an action. Hope you can share something, privately. usedkarguy@yahoo.com

  22. Also be careful of foreclosure defense groups working at large claiming to help they are working for the banks they don’t do not one thing for your case just make a lot of excuses why nothing is meaning done this people will cause you to lose your home based on a small up front fee and monthly payments don’t do it its fraud I just experience the same thing with a group out of forth worth Texas I will post the name as soon as I find their contract stay clear they are working for the banks

  23. @ anonymous yes you are correct I don’t know the details however the topic was a generalized situation.I was not referring to the detail incident.here’s a generalized question that everyone will comprehend what I was referring to. Did anybody put a gun to your head and told you by force against your will to do business with that Atty you were referring to? Get my point as it was your fault because it was voluntary for you to decide whether to do business or not with that Atty.(in no way,shape or form I am not defending that Atty you speak of) I was also scammed by a bk Atty in my past and wasted my hard earned money that I will most likely not see again.live and learn. add it to your experience.

  24. When making the decision as to “fight” or “leave,” it might be useful to keep in mind that, if your “note” was funded by a warehouse loan, then the “Note” does not describe the Obligation, which is between you and someone else not written up on the “Note.” The “Note” becomes a convenient fiction which the securitizers use to bamboozle the investors (and slice off about 45% of the capital off the top for banker bonuses).

    the next thing to keep in mind is that, if your “Note” was securitized, i.e. put into a “trust,” then for sure the principal is already long since paid off by credit-default swap insurance. Since the “insurance” was sold “non-recourse,” what ends up is that the Note is Paid (by the insurance, just not by you, so you don’t know about it) and the paid Note just sits there in some folder at some bank or trustee, not stamped “Paid” even though it is.

    So the temptation then arises to go collect on the same Note twice – first from the insurance policy, and then by either selling the Note to pond-scum bottom feeders like DLJ Mortgage Capital, or OneWest Bank, and so forth, which they then foreclose on, kick you out, and sell the property to the next guy (if someone really dumb is going to write the title insurance, which outfit in turn is going to never pay on those insurance contracts as the title insurers are all ending up in the BK COurt soon enough), or alternatively they simply hire a foreclosure mill, get dummied “Assignments,” and do the foreclosure suits in-house. Either way, a small group of about 3,000 New Yorkers end up with all the accumulated wealth of the entire country. Until the outraged, fed up with the willfull blindness of the Courts, go get their guns and settle up in the streets, Wild West style, which I fully predict will be the next phase in this saga.

  25. I have an excellent paralegal who understands procedures, strategies and lawyer game-playing who is keeping people in their homes. E-mail me if you would like more info at ExpressItNow@aol.com – You ‘pro se litigants’ don’t have to go it alone.

  26. ITS ALL POLITICS ANONYMOUS. Our cases are so simple even allegedly incompetent Steven Kop should win. It is the Judges bosses that are not allowing justice.

    This video was done in the year 2000 by rage against the machine.What are they prophets? This sh#t has been going on for along time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0

    ARBEIT MACHT FREI (The slogan at Auschwitz)
    NEVER AGAIN

  27. nomods, with out going into details of my case I can assure you based on your zero knowledge of my case that you have o% authority to comment on anything to with your saying that your 99% sure that it is my fault. You don’t have any information that would make you qualified to make such an absurd statement.

  28. @ anonymous, coming from past experience, I would say 99% was your fault not the Atty as it is your due diligence to research and be educated about your surroundings prior to hiring an Atty as it is your hard earned money that you are risking on the line. If there was such a lawyer that had all the answer we all would be flocking to that Atty than being here on this site educating ourselves.

  29. SMALL BANKS ARE FIGHTING BORROWERS TOOTH AND NAIL FOR JUDGMENTS.

    Could borrowers sue the FDIC or FEDERAL BANK REGUALTORY AGENCIES for contributory negligence? for lack of supervision of the FDIC bank, and allowingthe bank to write thousands upon thousands of loans with out proper due diligence, predatory loans, Ninja loans, etc.

  30. Katheryn:

    I feel the same and are doing the same. although the house is underwater , why should those fruadulent b**tards get it. They have collected and abused people and I too am sick and tired of their games and their crimes.

    I would rather fight like hell, then walk away easy. No thank you, I’m here to stay till the end, one way or another, as Pro Se and keep on learning how to protect my rights.

    Isn’t that what the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution is all about??

  31. My personal experiences with attorney Steven Kop is that you should be very careful if you plan on using him in the southern California area. The way he has treated my case has left me completley frustrated,unsastisfied, and remorseful of the decision I made in hiring him.

  32. “”Know when to give up, and just move out.” Surpised this wasn’t on the list.

  33. WF : NEW BIGGGG PROBLEMS :

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/10/Banks.pdf

    Need more People to join it

  34. I disagree on #2. So, I am in the middle of a loan mod, the bank all lies, and forecloses on me. And I am suppose to keep making payments?? Pretty dumb advice from this website? Anyone who pays a PRETENDER-LENDER is an IDIOT! Seems there are a lot of people here who do not know what they are talking about in a lot of areas! 3yrs, later and I am still in my house, and have 3 Crooked Lawyers off this website, milked me for every penny, till I woke up and went …PRO SE! And I will win my house FREE & CLEAR!

  35. I hate to say it, but I have worked on too many cases whereby clients did pursue the use of a jurisdictional attorney and in most cases, they simply took the money and did not perform. So, it becomes a toss up for those who have enough knowledge, both about finance and lawyering, that can come up with a strategy. And as was stated, even the attorneys are having to be trained.

    We filed a case back in 2007 that virtually named all of the issues: no standing, fraud, the whole gambit and that, this loan and others were produced for no other reason than to obtain a product for Wall Street. The attorneys just couldn’t get it.

    During this time, as Neil said, the case became increasingly complex and there we were trying to fight the big bank and its counterpart loan servicer.

    They filed no less than 5 MSJ’s over three years and we filed no less than 3 request for new trials going after the Judge solely for his negligence and in your face arrogance. As you can see, we won two of those rights for new trial.

    Katheryn is right. We were going to fight, not just for the home, but to show them down here that JUdges are not going to get away with it. We won all but the last MSJ because the Judge refused to look at the evidence of false allonges and affidavits, Assignments were out of order and recorded that way at the county. ignored the reason for our lawsuit completely, said it was without merit when thousands of homeowners would be affected, and even our charts that clearly showed the bank was without standing even though they had the original Note.

    We argued back and forth and finally the Judge awarded the MSJ to the bank and we immediately put it in appeals. The Judge did not like what we claimed, but the whole time we were claiming it from 2007, we wrote the brief as though it was addressing the appeals Court. Gee I am glad we did that because since then, in 2009 and 2010, the real story of the fraud is being presented and now the Judge is up before the Appeals Court and his blatant and obvious wrong doing.

    Since the case was in Appeals the bank has filed three attempts to foreclose. None successful. We went before three other Judges who said, no no no, to the banks attorneys, you fellas are going to have to answer for this, this and this . But the attorneys for the bank the last time around never showed up. The injunction itself is in limbo, but active and we have to tell you, these Judges were on it and called it in a fair and equitable way.

    The strategy of your suit must be laid out. WE did not have one when we first started, but what one of the pro se litigants had was a 40 year background in origination and loan servicing technique. Not much was known in 2007 about the securitizations and the fraud, but right up front they filed, this bank does not even own the note. A real key to eveveryone’s arguments with respect to standing. She had it start to finish and knew all about the mindset and approaches attorneys would use to get around the truth because she had the best of training from mortgage attorneys that she worked for when things were honest and truthful and attorneys made sure mortgage companies did not do things that were not legal.
    A little something this bank did not know.

    WE finally got an attorney when the case went to the appeals court and he is having a field day learning all about the masterful fraud that became a part of our case.

    Once we got our footing on the strategy, addressing the issues was a lot easier. It just so happens the pro se litigant had 40 years of mortgage background and was way ahead back in 2007, but it was just greek to the young attorneys and the Judge.

    Going pro se is very tough. Para legals work great as Neil said. Make sure you understand what is happening and the actions the attorneys can take. Even if we lose the house, at least we gave it at the onset what most attorneys were unable to do and we are sure proud of that.

    Although the purpose of the lawsuit was for code violation by the banks, we never had a chance to argue because of all of the MSJ’s. The appeals court is going to love that, plus all of the judicial errors the Judge made.

    People can go pro se, but it is tough and they need a plan of action and a strategy to pull it off. This site has given an awful lot of information, about standing, and there are so many other issues that can come into play that will reinforce the standing issue. Most cases that I have seen never even addressed the servicing aspect to the degree that they could have.

    Right now they are backed into a corner. Maybe we won’t win our appeal, but when a Judge did what this Judge did and when he worked in tandem with the pro se litigant by not asking the right questions, there will be some justification, I can assure you.

    I think we finally convinced the last judge that we had a “Note in Transition”. At the time they were trying to show the bank owned the note, we proved the trustee had a fidiariary duty to require repurchsae for the benefit of the certificate holders, and the note had since then been endorsed back over to the Depositor. So, I guess the trustee did not have the standing the court needed so they gave us yet, another TRO, no foreclosure.

  36. There is nothing you’ve said Neil that anyone worthy should get mad at you about, as this is all excellent advice and right on the mark!

    The only thing I would add is that indeed this form of litigation is also getting harder for attorneys to understand and keep up with, if they are not doing this every day as a primary form of their practice. The other side has virtually unlimited funds and the attorneys they generally hire will stop at nothing to “win” all those billable hours and retainer fees.

    Very challenging at the very least.

    Keep up the great work Neil!

  37. Great Advice. What is the solution when there is not a lawyer or paralegal to be found in your state who wants anything to do with these issues? As my husband puts it, “is the possibility of saving the house really worth what you are putting yourself through?” My answer, “yes”. If we all don’t put forth an effort, the white collar crime continues. I don’t want to look back thinking, woulda, coulda, shoulda.

  38. Great advice Neil.
    #2 – so true, if they aren’t assigned your mortgage, you have to weigh the consequences, and in my case, a judge took my home and gave it to them, contrary to law. I believe they didn’t have an assignment because they didn’t have the security interest, and I also believe they were operating on a first in line, first in time business module so they could have bargaining powers with the judge’s decision to displace life for fiction when the true creditor shows up

    I wouldn’t do a bankruptcy to keep a home, but that’s just me.

    — if these maxims were followed, we’d not have such human suffering at the hands of man holding the office of judge. Men, who are playing the role of God and deciding the fate of many — They are agents of Lucifer, and all of this is more about revealing who they are, than keeping a home — No one remembers the name of the lawyer for the plaintiff, but everyone remembers the name of the judge that decided for a non-living, non-breathing corporation and signed a writ of possession or unlawful detainer.

    revelation — c.1300, “disclosure of information to man by a divine or supernatural agency,”
    apocalypse — late 14c., “revelation, disclosure,”

    o Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.
    o It is the duty of a good judge to remove the cause of litigation.
    o A good judge decides according to justice and right, and prefers equity to strict law.
    o The ignorance of the judge is the misforture of the innocent.
    o A good judge should do nothing from his own judgment, or from the dictates of his private wishes; but he should pronounce according to law and justice.
    o The judge ought to decide according to the allegation and the proof.
    o The judge is the speaking law.
    o The judge does demand more than the plaintiff demands.
    o To a judge who exceeds his office or jurisdiction no obedience is due.

    o It is punishment enough for a judge that he is responsible to God.

    Revelation 20:12
    And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

    (This people is why I say, Game Over! Judges have massively displaced the Creator within by the millions per year and their name is in the many books that will be opened, which will keep their name out of the Book of Life?

    I say, if judges don’t recognize life in their courtroom, why should their names be in a book of something they ignore?

    o A judge ought to decide according to the allegations and proofs.

    o The law ought not to fail in dispensing justice.

    o An oath has in it three component parts – truth, justice and judgment; truth in the party swearing; justice and judgment in the judge administering the oath.

  39. And you’re very right about the complexity of litigation. One false move and you can be outie.

  40. No. 8, last sentence. Yep. But, attorneys will not give procedural advice generally. Not without a big fat retainer to review the entire case and then, sorry, good luck getting them to actually review it. Really, they just wont’ do anything unless they’re retained for the case. Please note I made no judgment – I simply stated what I believe are the facts.

  41. In regards to number 8, pro se litigation, it might be useful to find an experienced paralegal who is competent with filing, and has people available who can write motions and responses and file the necessary paperwork, as possibly being a better alternative to going it alone with no one to turn to.

    Better still could be if the paralegal has worked in law offices already and even has people they can call and consult with.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: