COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

“What we are seeing is a paradigm shift where Judges are no longer afraid to see homeowners win.” — Neil F Garfield




It will be interesting to see how HSBC reports this and similar cases recently won by homeowners. The bottom line, as stated by the Judge in California, where Unlawful Detainer successes have been rare, is that the pretender lender was attempting to enforce a mortgage that didn’t legally exist and that their attempt to evict the homeowner was a sham. Here’s the story. For privacy reasons we will call the homeowner Donald.

3 years ago Donald ceased making payments on the subject mortgage (Deed of Trust) and challenged the servicer to come up with a full accounting and a description of who was involved in the securitization chain on his loan. The fight started in and out of Bankruptcy Court, a “sale” at one of those fake auctions where the Trustee “Sells” the property to the fake lender in exchange for a credit bid instead of cash. Then came the UD actions, which were cancelled, continued or otherwise moved again and again. Donald persisted.

Somewhere along the line, Donald was staring at his paperwork and compared the legal description on the Notice of Sale with the legal description on the deed he received from the previous owner. THEY WERE NOT THE SAME. One used the letter N denoting North and the Other S denoting South. So he compared it with the legal description that the previous owner had received. The legal description on the deed he received from the previous owner was the same as the legal description on the deed the previous owner had received.

Then he hired a surveyor to tell him which, if any, of the two legal descriptions was correct. The surveyor reported that the deed Donald received from the previous owner correctly stated the legal description of his home. And the legal description that the previous owner had received on his deed was the same as the legal description on Donald’s Warranty Deed. So it was clear that Donald had a legal title to the property and a chain of title that matched up.

As the litigation proceeded, Donald was moved to look at the legal description of the property on the Deed of Trust. THAT matched the legal description of a parcel 50 miles North of where his home was located. It also matched the legal description on the Notice of Sale. So he had found one of the keys to the holy grail of foreclosure wars — the Notice of Sale was defective and according to statute in California, Arizona and elsewhere, had to be perfectly correct in order to obtain nonjudicial foreclosure. Thus when HSBC tried to force Donald out of his home he was now defending on the new grounds THAT THE NOTICE OF SALE WAS DEFECTIVE because it had the wrong legal description. Then he attacked the foreclosure sale stating that the Sale was void and that HSBC therefore didn’t own it. There were many grounds he could have and did mention; but the one he highlighted and dug his heels in on was the legal description.

Since the Deed of Trust did not describe the right property, it is void as against Donald and his property. HSBC is left with an unsecured debt and there are no summary proceedings for HSBC to skate around the law now. Because if they want to pursue the debt or pursue reformation of the Deed of Trust they must bring a lawsuit, they must plead their case, they must attach real exhibits, and they must prove their case with real witnesses testifying from personal knowledge to authenticate the documents they want to use to re-establish the mortgage (Deed of Trust). More than that, they must prove that they either loaned Donald the money or that they purchased the obligation using their own funds or credit. But we all know that the real creditor will emerge in discovery as a group of investors who might well be suing HSBC long about now, to get their money back because they have since figured out they were sold a holographic image of a bag of air instead of a pool of mortgages.

Thus HSBC lacks standing and lacks the ability to establish itself as a real party in interest. The UD was ended with Judgment for Donald, vacating the sale at the fake auction, thus leaving Donald with the home without any mortgage.

There are hundreds of details in every closing and our livinglies staff has been improving the COMBO title and securitization analysis to find and report on more and more of them. The reporting is going back further to see what emerges from mistakes made in legal description to other errors rendering the Notice of Sale invalid or rendering the mortgage void. It’s getting time to rock n’ roll.

56 Responses

  1. @JG

    I agree with you down the line—after dragging me in for ostensible purpose of an evidentiary hearing to “find” the purported SOF-subject agreement, and facts supporting my equitable estoppel by their perfunctory claimed detrimental reliance, AND to support my standing MTD—which involved all the securitization material ———ie loan list not filed etc—–instead of that set of events Im facing LPS’ general counsel flown in from Jville for this event———and my lawyers charge out stating the Judge wants me to settle or….????

    .—they shove a great complex settlement agreement before us ———and we are driven into this —setup if you will———–opposing counsel for AHMSI running the show—gen counsel for LPS there only to sign off————but AHMSI has no signer present nor does BNY the nominal plaintiff———-a pile of docs to sign for settlement——neither i nor my attys get copies of signed stuff——and BNY cant sign that day————-no signers——-and much later I get a copy of the supposed finalized agreement with a rep of AHMSI signing for AHMSI AND also on another line for BNY–with no proof of representative capacity–so if the purported “original note” they handed over 3 months later is a forgery BNY will be claiming “i did not have a thing to do with this”

    they put us to extremes to try to assure the chain of custody of the purported note was secure-from their atty to my QDE——-they ducked and dodged —refused inspection of the document by a QDE prior to handover date———-stated my atty had already “looked at it” and thereby accepted it even if it is a forgery

    The QDE and my atty had to physically go pick this document up on 12/30/10—-

    they threatened to send the doc in the US mails –presumably handing it to their pwn in house mail-room and thence the PO? ————im sure they would have testified normal practices followed in their mail room—-just bad time of year for receiving mail

    so piling up costs just to get the purported note back after asserting basically a good copy would do

    the agreement not signed by the plaintiff———-

    Vis settlement-I spent 2 hrs going over MTD and motion to enforce purported verbal settlement by my 1st atty————who was to testify-i never found for or against me————all this planning day before this evidentiary hearing –and agreed settlement never came up—like what terms would be acceptable-nothing

    lead like a sheep down the chute to a slaughter

    we vacated per this unsigned agreement [by plaintiff] on 11/29

    The fine print in this agreement required more or less we not knowingly permit damage to the property—-i thought it was to not allow kids to tear the place up

    they wanted to force us in contract “to maintain” casualty insurance–indefintely–they had an escrow

    but late it occurred to me after rereading the fine print not permit damage that i could get trouble if i overtly terminate coverage ————and cant turn off electric out of my name
    ———–the house was next to our farm—on 12/25 XMAS day-my wife goes by and sees ice and water pouring from under garage door———-they had taken the house on premise they were to winterize it——-the FAS reps said it twice

    they had unfettered access for month of December————and did no winterization-it was an oil-fired boiler heating system——–not even turn water pump off————doors left unsecured against wind-door popped open and garage piping froze——–then boiler ran out of oil—–i had to buy oil to meet the not allow damage clause–pay electric bill-and even so house frozen

    they were in such a hurry on the settlement slaughter that they ignored my oft-noted claim not to trespass—–the house lane went through the farm and farm gate-we left ot open for them to winterize———my wife met FAS reps on 11/29 to open the gate and give them permission to pass until an easement or alternative access through their own frontage could be worked out

    my wife there alone at the appointment time to let them through our farm gates

    after all this beating from them we cooperated to prevent wanton destruction of the house and deal in good faith——–stupid us

    they told her flat out-good thing you showed up to open your gate or we would have cut the locks off and gone in anyway…… was a body guard type–kung-fu–i guess in case my wife was going to resist–arrested soon afterwards for drug violations

    she was scared—–

    but they let the house freeze anyway which i could not grasp–why?

    then i called my insurance agent————-i asked if delivery of title to them terminaed my insurance -no!

    I told them the house was frozen——-an adjuster came out and did his thing–he called FAS etc as per their little note on the door–notably back door to house left wide open after wind? and inner doors from garage to house unloocked too–a neighbor scared away a panel truck one night around XMAS week ???

    Insured destruction? We hear noting from FAS–AHMSI–nothing until we get a letter demanding we turn over the insurance check that they assumed was issued to both us and AHMSI—-except I never made a claim and I dont know if the check was later paid to them for the destroyed house

    the insurance coverage was 3-4 times the market value of the home–you draw your own conclusions

    so what do i do next?

    we vacated 11/29————-their FAS reps walk in –place a sign on door

  2. @douglasg: Which is correct? Certainly if the deed is correct, the other docs
    are problematic for the banksters. Think it has at least to do with notice to third parties. Call title companies in your area – ask for an examiner. Keep at it til you get someone to talk to you. I am not sure that the defect is valuable to you in regard to the f/c notices. It stems more from a potential problem with the original loan documents (which will then impact the f/c notices).

  3. @db – I know what estoppel ist It’s one of the reasons I have a tome of bankster mtd’s and mtn’ for Sj, etc. – to use their bs said here over there. Like MERS saying it is only art 9 of the UCC which applies to prom notes secured by interests in real property. Like MERS appeal brief in NB wherein they disavowed an interest in notes / loans to avoid licensing. Like Aurora Loan Services stating its only a loan servicer and not subject to TILA and Respa.

    Are you bound by your old attorney’s representations? I don’t know. The SOF may be applicable and if so, that took care of that, right? They weren’t damaged by a 30 day pause. Their claim of equitable estoppel holds no water imo. ( I would think that ee requires some real detrimental reliance and I don’t see any.)

    It’s very much like the network attorneys to rely on a single proposition, and generally with no valid support for even that.

    Which reminds me, and this is no small thing. Isnt it so that a business, at least a corporation, must have a state presence to sue or be sued in that state?

  4. @johngault –sorry a bit confusing——–they say you or your representative [atty]verbally and piecing emails agreed to settle on terms favorable to them-seizure [claim made by sealed motion]——–you assert statute of frauds [in open responsive motion practice] —–then they assert against you the doctrine of equitable estoppel–that THEY have made partial performance under a purported verbal settlement agreement——–they REFRAINED from taking truly aggressive action against you. For a 30 day period?? or less?

    This is AHMSI’s record of positions in a nutshell on file in Hancock County Ohio.

  5. @johngault

    iv been flogged down this path—1st they claim verbal agreed settlement–defense is statute of frauds then counter-defense is euitable estoppel against the party seeking to undo the transaction –that the homeowener wants to reverse a verbal deal—typical explanation for statute of frauds is drunk giving away his house for a drink [appropos]——but the counter is equitable estoppel–example a man agrees to buy blackacre, moves in lives there a couple years then wants to back out———–all kinds of fact patterns——estoppel is an equitable defense akin to waiver

  6. @Shelley A. Erickson

    This is great work, really excellent assembly of info, and I am studying the concept carefully—-law changes over time and a new administration or aggressive prosecuters may move this way–or request statutory clarification if defenses are raised.

    “There is a law that is part of the patriot act that says the recording of false documents in public record for the purpose of stealing property is an act of terrorism. It doe not say shoddy or insufficient, it says false documents.”

    A couple thoughts—–specifically the question would be the degree of intent involved. Did a broker preparer clearly intentionally misrepresen the zip code–and did others up the line blindly /intentionally overlook patterns? Would we describe it as “gross disregard” , and by statute assert that “negligent disregard in combination with a pattern of intentional conduct by others constitutes culpability–civilly and if more than once-criminal or is that guy even entitled to the one stupid bite if its big enough?

    also have you identified anything in the legislative history–contemporaneous legislative statements on record or in committee reports then or since that suggests this interpretation was intended. Lastly can we state that Dodd-Frank indicates legislative endorsement of this interpretation by embracing any of these administration interpretations?

    That would be equivalent to statutory expression on the legislaive intent argument that Congress is constructively aware of administrative positions even if they do not expressly address them???

  7. @Pirjo

    Re zip code misrepreentation. Can you catalog where the source of the misrepresentation was? Realtor?

    Did appraisal report reflect that false zip code?

    I would think you would have to connect the original person [eg realtor/broker etc] that made the misrepresentation to the originator –ie the named lender on the original note that you signed –like American Home Mortgage Acceotance Inc in 2003-7, pre-bankruptcy, or similar predatory lenders

  8. @ JG:

    I respect your views–you are a credible person on this site—-In this case I am sure there is variation beween states so bth of us can easily be right or wrong.

    However, the late filing and/or process used to establish a new mortgage or deed of trust is exclusively a matter of priority as between creditors . The debtor if he has signed the document agreeing to correcting deeds etc –its boilerplate in closings and settlements—and you can be certain that opposing counsel will take the path i have suggested–state what i have said and if there is no defense raised by the debtor, the court will issue a default order drawn by the creditor etc—

    if the debtor raise the defense that the written agreement to fix documents etc—is not broad enough to cover a total new document because the original was lost—-then I would fully expect the bank counselor to file a motion for dismissal of the answer or a motion for summary judgement–whatever the procedure in that jurisdiction

    This is a reasoned view –not a definitive expression of opinion and reasonable persons may disagree——–but I sure would be doing this if I were representing the bank-God Forbid.

  9. @db – just one more – It may be that a IF a court were inclined to impose an
    equitable lien, it maybe couldn’t or wouldn’t if you have your home homesteaded. It appears to be an esoteric issue. Got this from a quick search I did of equitable liens at google. I guess it may depend on the date prescribed to the equitable lien – if it were back to the ‘original’ date or if it is the date of any order-ish. Kind of complicated, of course. One way or another, tho, since a h/s may be beneficial, maybe you should file one or at least ask a professional, if you can find one who warrants the title.

  10. @DB, well, I thought about this some more. I surely couldn’t say for sure that
    a court wouldn’t impose a lien on some equitable theory and that’s really where they’d be coming from. Best to look up those kinds of cases, not the form that worries you. By the way, does that form say it inures to the benefit of successors to the interest in your note? Or just the original lender?
    Get thee a LoisLaw account for a month and get it over with.
    (The toll these things take is life-threatening; I wouldn’t disagree with that one bit)
    Start by searching “equitable lien” in your jurisdiction appeal’s court cases. Also try “lost deed of trust”, “lost mortgage”,” lost instrument”. Then repeat these 3
    like this, say: ” lost instrument near200 equitable lien”.

  11. @DB-There’s nothing I hate worse than MERS than a lawyer who throws his client under the bus. I better stop here.

  12. @DB – the form a borrower signs at closing is generally in regard to typos or to reform a document. with errors. It is not an assurance by a borrower that he or she will sign a new debt or collateral instrument. The borrower already signed those, and I don’t believe a borrower under any circumtances may be forced to sign another. The truth is no doubt that the document was lost somewhere along the line, in which case the bankster is most likley out of luck and has an unsecured note (at best). BK would take care of that. Don’t forget that homestead.

  13. @ E. TOLLE:
    “Different contract remedies apply, there are different formalities required by law for real estate contracts to be effective (the lineage of this principle goes back to the 1677 Statute of Frauds) as between the parties to the contract, and a separate recording system to make realty contracts good against third parties. ”

    I used to think that too. Until AHMSI filed a “motion to enforce settlement” based on a conversation and a few emails with my then atty whereby they asserted he had verbally agreed for me and my wife to hand over a deed in lieu of foreclosure, then called my attorney as a witness to this purported action——–and I had even scratched out his authority to make any agreements on my behalf in the fee/representation agreement.

    One has to raise the statute of frauds as an affirmative defense——you can waive it if you do not know any better-then they will assert in this case equitable reliance–you took the money etc-too late to abort the deal.

    And my 2nd lawyer had written an email to the opposing counsel to the effect that “attorney 1 [who allegedly verbally agreed to throw my family in the street] “had a rein on me”———–any attorneys out thee that want to comment on this little charade?

  14. @kac
    “@ tnharry–they can try to record it, however, they sent me a letter and a new mortgage deed several months ago asking for me to sign it–they sent a copy of a letter where I said I would correct documents after closing if necessary. ”

    I believe they might be able to take that document and pray the court to either order you to sign a new deed -or sign it for you or order a sheriff or something along those lines depending on the state–sorry its a psych war—–you get your hopes up then they dash them ———after a while on the emotional roller coaster, you lose you lunch–or in my case—my dinner every night from the damage to my stomach from ulcers

    the machines which actually are programmed to direct the filers etc may even have such features as how much life insurance you have [enough to pay the note?]–your health —your marriage status–recently divorced? —your age—maybe run a few algorhthms including “actuarials” health insurance risk pool —everything needed to predict whether you will survive the process ——but that is conjecture——-who would ever do such a thing?

  15. kac – wondering if there’s anything stopping them from recording your DOT now. Assuming they can even find the original, that is. Each state is different, but I know many would not have a problem with them recording it after all this time.

    The recordation of a deed of any type or mortgage in a motgage state gives statutory notice to any potential lenders or buyers, title insurers, that the property has an encumbrance-somebody besides the deed owner-has an economic interest in the realty -this constructive notice must be filed to put a new buyer on notice that they cannot buy the property outright from the seller –where the secured party failed to file the deed.

    That is black-letter old law. So theoretically a possessor homeowner could sell the realty to an innocent buyer and extinguish the lien as a practical matter. The debt would still exist as an unsecured note–if they can prove the debt.

    I think this fact pattern could turn out very interesting in such a situation because my guess is that the title company will ALSO LOOK TO MERS and refuse to allow financing to the buyer. Attorneys that do title searches for cash buyers do not access MERS —unless the laws are changing they would not be negligent for failure to look at MERS —but my guess is the banks would love to take up a case that results in a decision that MERS recordation constitutes some sort of actual or constructive notice outside the traditional system-as for instance if the realtor involved had access and that knowledge is attributed to the buyer. Such rulings could in effect displace the need for recordation in courthouses entirely and attorneys squeezed out of real estate transfers entirely–which would greatly facilitate future frauds.

    Who regulates MERS in private transactions—-who orders corrections if they double record–does their system even red-flag a double record ? I do not know but Im curious about it.

  16. @Todd, I’d like to be able to help you with that question, but I don’t understand it.
    Seller? Seller of a home? “…and no authorization determined since no title as signing officer is made either next to the scribbled name”?

  17. We need more investigation and comment as to the effect of non-acknowledged notary public; at the tabled-closing the “Seller” party is not present, then a fax copy is sent from 100+miles away with no printed name below a scribbled signature. Is a contract perfected if the notarization was a lie, since the party signing cannot now be identified, and no authorization determined since no title as signing officer is made either next to the scribbled name?

  18. @cubed2k, be careful with those statutes regarding recording and rushing to judgment when you come upon just one. I keep saying this like a broken record, but here’s one more, anyway. NV, for instance has a statute which says assignments don’t have to be recorded. Think that’s the end of the story? Well, it isn’t. There’s another one which says if a doc which impacts an interest in real property is NOT recorded, It is only binding on the parties who made that doc. Say abc executes an assignment to xyz, but the assignment is not recorded. It’s binding between abc and xyz, but has no impact on anyone else, including the homeowner. The assignment is not ‘noticed’ to third parties (parties who are not abc and xyz) until it’s recorded. It’s not binding, not effective to anyone other than abc and xyz until it’s been recorded / noticed.

    tnharry’s knowledgeable, but no one knows those statutes in every state. Take 10: Look at your state’s recording statutes regarding real property interests. ALL of them. You’d be doing others here a service. So would people in other states.

  19. Just thought everyone might enjoy seeing a Naples, FL attorney turn the tables on BOA. The bank was foreclosing on a house that had been PAID FOR IN CASH and Attorney Todd Allen couldn’t get the bank to respond to his requests. So, he hired a moving van and got two sheriffs deputies to go with him and they went to the bank in person. That’s thinking outside the box! And it was effective, and covered by the news.

    here it is for those who want to see it. It gives me warm fuzzies.

    Homeowner forcloses on Bank of America!

  20. tnharry, which states do not have these requirements of assignments being recorded?

  21. I love it when a plan comes together, good job Donald !

  22. If Donald the homeowner could locate a major mistake on his Deed, why couldn’t the bank or the low life scum they hire to steal homes make this same discovery? Goes to show you they are more interested in getting the deed to the property than making sure the paperwork is TOTALLY correct. Granted mistakes do happen along the way, but that mistake should have been noticed long before Donald found it.

  23. I was sold a property in the Bay Area under the wrong zip code. Of course the
    zip code I was told it was in is highly superior and has almost twice the median price of the zip code it is actually in. I am about a block outside of the premium
    zip code. When I told the realtor about this she said “Oh, you should go down
    to the title company and change that”. Out Deed of Trust states the wrong zip code. Could I use this to my advantage in any way when trying to seek modification or what not?

  24. SALEM — John O’Brien is a man on a mission.

    The South Essex register of deeds, who has been on a crusade to hold major banks accountable for their role in the home mortgage crisis, is now turning his attention to what he and others say are forged mortgage documents being pumped out by lenders seeking to back up foreclosures.

    Yesterday, he refused to accept two documents purportedly signed by “Linda Green” — a name that appears on nearly 300 other mortgage documents already on file at the South Essex registry and on thousands of other mortgage documents being filed around the country.

    The documents are what have been referred to as “robo-signed” — generated by a Georgia-based company called Docx.

    O’Brien and other registers say that Docx was set up by the banking industry to create documentation after homeowners whose mortgages were being foreclosed began going to court demanding proof that the bank seeking to foreclose on them actually owned the mortgage.

    It’s a situation that stems from another move by the banking and mortgage industry — the creation of a company called “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,” or MERS, to electronically keep track of millions of home mortgages.

    Banks and lenders used MERS to avoid the cost of filing paperwork at county land registries all over the country as mortgages were bundled, bought and sold. When banks started being challenged in court as to their ownership of the mortgages, they had to find a way to generate paperwork.

    O’Brien said Docx stepped in, using a staff of low-wage employees, including one named Linda Green, to sign the documents (not a robot, as the nickname might suggest).

    “My registry will not be a knowing participant in this fraud against homeowners,” O’Brien said in a statement. “From today forward, lenders be on notice, the Southern Essex District Registry of Deeds will not record robo-signed documents.”

    O’Brien recently began looking for documents signed by “Linda Green” and two others, “Korell Harp” and “Linda Burton,” after seeing a story on “60 Minutes.” He found 274 “signed” by Green, in 22 different types of handwriting. He also saw signatures from two other robo-signers, Korell Harp and Linda Burton.

    He’s still looking.

    “I find this practice very troubling on many levels,” O’Brien said. “It has completely jaded my understanding that a notarized document was something that could be relied upon.”

    Beyond that, however, O’Brien said he doesn’t want to be a party to fraud and potentially put the registry in violation of a new state law.

    That law took effect last August and makes it a crime to file and record any document that contains false information with a register of deeds.

    “To do so would make me a willing participant in a continuing scheme which has corrupted the chain of title of thousands of Essex County property owners,” O’Brien said.

    O’Brien, who is the first register in the state to refuse the robo-signed documents, will be speaking about his campaign to a statewide meeting of land registers in Worcester and at the National Association of Registers conference in Atlantic City later this month.

    To check your deed

    Please Sign Our petition… It will be formally presented to the NACRC’s

    NACRC’s AKA National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials & Clerks

    NACRC’s Mission:

    To provide professional training and leadership development, through the promotion of networking, technology innovations, educational programs and legislative monitoring on national issues that affect county recorders, election officials and clerks, to better serve the public.


    Provide members the opportunity to exchange information on a national level concerning their respective offices.
    Provide members with continuing education programs including the Certified Public Official program.
    Keep members fully informed of rapidly changing technologies.
    Provide a stronger voice in Congress on federal legislation affecting county offices.
    Be the source for county officials when they need answers.
    Ethics Statement:

    All members of the association are required to live up to and abide by the highest ethical principles in the conduct of their affairs as elected officials and as members of the association. Any member who is convicted of a felony or a public offense involving dishonesty, or who has violated their State or other professional association ethical principles or guidelines, may be subject to removal from any office held within the association, as well as any membership benefits at the discretion of a majority of the present and voting members of the board of directors of the association.

  25. @Shelley – the question bears asking : Does your state actually require that assignments be recorded? Many states do not have such a requirement.

  26. Lynn Syzmonaik has some new fuel for us on Fraud Digest. She has been digging. “The Devil is in the Details: When did the Trust Acquire the Notes and Mortgages a Study of 4,580 Florida Assignments”. My deed of trust has no assignments recorded since it was filed. No proof Deutsche and Chase have any right to foreclose. The deed of trust is still in Long Beach name. A lot of people do not know Chase did not acquire WAMU until one week before I filed my lawsuit. Which is in August 2009 or Sept. I have to look back to make sure what month. It is posted on the web when Chase acquire WAMU. Long Beach was a branch of WAMU. I had filed a dispute of debt the recorders office to block Chase and Deutsche bank. They never answered it to date. My sons mortgage assign was done on July 02, 2010 four and a half years after the DOT was recorded. Lynn’s report shows this is fraud assignment. I have proof of ROBO signing on his also. I have recorded Neil Garfields letter of Objection and letter of Urgent Memorandum, and letter is Dishonor, and a letter from a helper and patriot over the web of Notice of Cancellation of the Deed of Trust and Notice of Lawful Seisen. And have them on the way to the department of records to record with the state auditor.

  27. we need to change the laws to state shoddy, and insufficient, or any resembling words defining anything other than accurate, truthful and lawful is defined as illegal, fraud. There is a law that is part of the patriot act that says the recording of false documents in public record for the purpose of stealing property is an act of terrorism. It doe not say shoddy or insufficient, it says false documents. The FBI defines economic crimes are : BI — Terrorism 2002/2005
    There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is
    defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and …
    Published on: 2010/05/21, Last Modified on: 2010/10/12

    The FBI considers economic crime to be the same importance as terrorism
    FBI — White-Collar Crime
    That’s white-collar crime in a nutshell. The term—reportedly coined in 1939—is
    now synonymous with … How to Report Fraud – Contact Your Local FBI Office …
    Published on: 2010/03/17, Last Modified on: 2010/09/16
    FBI — Colorado Assistant U.S. Attorneys and Others Honored by …
    Oct 27, 2010 … Submit a Tip on Crime/Terrorism · Report Internet Crime …. He has handled a
    wide variety of complex economic crime matters. …
    Published on: 2011/04/22, Last Modified on: 2011/04/22

    (FBI) investigates matters relating to fraud, theft, or embezzlement occurring within or against the national or international financial community. These crimes are characterized by deceit, concealment, or violation of trust, and are not dependent upon the application or threat of physical force or violence. Such acts are committed by individuals and organizations to obtain personal or business advantage. The FBI focuses its financial crimes investigations on such criminal activities as corporate fraud, health care fraud, mortgage fraud, identity theft, insurance fraud, and money laundering. These are the identified priority crime problem areas of the Financial Crimes Section (FCS) of the FBI.

    The mission of the FCS is to oversee the investigation of financial fraud and to facilitate the forfeiture of assets from those engaging in federal crimes. The FCS is divided into four units: the Economic Crimes Unit, Health Care Fraud Unit, Financial Institution Fraud Unit, and the Asset Forfeiture/Money Laundering Unit.

    The Economic Crimes Unit is responsible for significant frauds targeted against individuals, businesses and industries to include: corporate fraud, insurance fraud (non-health care related), securities and commodities fraud, telemarketing fraud, Ponzi schemes, advance fees schemes, and pyramid schemes.

    The Health Care Fraud Unit oversees investigations targeting individuals and/or organizations who are defrauding the public and private health care systems. Areas investigated under health care fraud include: billing for services not rendered, billing for a higher reimbursable service than performed (upcoding), performing unnecessary services, kickbacks, unbundling of tests and services to generate higher fees, durable medical equipment fraud, pharmaceutical drug diversion, outpatient surgery fraud, and internet pharmacy sales.

    The mission of the Financial Institution Fraud Unit is to identify, target, disrupt, and dismantle criminal organizations and individuals engaged in fraud schemes which target our nation’s financial institutions. Areas investigated in the financial institution fraud arena include: financial institution failures, insider fraud, identity theft, check fraud, counterfeit negotiable instruments, check kiting, loan fraud, and mortgage fraud.

    The Asset Forfeiture/Money Laundering Unit promotes the strategic use of asset forfeiture and ensures field offices employ the money laundering violation in all investigations, where appropriate, to disrupt and/or dismantle criminal enterprises. The term, “follow the money,” leads to the identification of assets which can be forfeited and lead to the effective and efficient disruption and dismantling of illegal money laundering apparatuses.

    This report addresses the various priorities of the FBI in financial crimes and the FBI’s efforts to combat them. Each section provides an overview, statistical accomplishments, and successful investigations for the identified crime problem. Where appropriate, each section also provides ways in which the public can protect themselves from being victimized.


    I. General Overview
    In July 2002, President Bush formed a task force comprised of senior executives from numerous federal agencies to address the barrage of corporate fraud cases that surfaced in the wake of the Enron scandal. As the lead agency investigating corporate fraud, the FBI has focused its efforts on cases which involve accounting schemes, self-dealing by corporate executives, and obstruction of justice to conceal illegal activities from criminal and regulatory authorities.

    The majority of corporate fraud cases pursued by the FBI involve accounting schemes designed to deceive investors and Wall Street analysts about the true financial condition of a corporation. Through the manipulation of financial data, the share price of a corporation remains artificially inflated based on fictitious performance indicators provided to the investing public.

    The FBI has not observed any major changes in criminal trends relating to Corporate Fraud. It is anticipated that the number of cases will continue to flourish. The FBI is committed to this problem. It remains the #1 priority within the Financial Crimes Section. There are presently 405 Corporate Fraud cases being pursued by FBI field offices throughout the United States. This represents a 100 percent increase over the number of Corporate Fraud cases pending at the end of Fiscal Year 2003. Eighteen of the current pending cases involve losses to public investors which individually exceed $1 billion. The volume of cases has yet to reach a plateau, with three to six new cases being initiated each month.

    Corporate Fraud investigations involve the following activities:

    (1) Falsification of financial information, including false accounting entries, bogus trades designed to inflate profit or hide losses, and false transactions designed to evade regulatory oversight;

    (2) Self-dealing by corporate insiders, including:

    (a) Insider Trading;
    (b) Kickbacks;
    (c) Misuse of corporate property for personal gain; and,
    (d) Individual tax violations related to self-dealing;

    (3) Fraud in connection with an otherwise legitimately-operated mutual or hedge fund (including, for example, late trading, certain market timing schemes, falsification of net asset values, and other fraudulent or abusive trading practices by, within, or involving a mutual or hedge fund); and,

    (4) Obstruction of justice designed to conceal either of the above-noted types of criminal conduct, particularly when the obstruction impedes the inquiries of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), other regulatory agencies, and/or law enforcement agencies.

    The FBI has formed partnerships with numerous agencies to capitalize on their expertise in specific areas such as Securities, Tax, Pensions, Energy and Commodities. The FBI has placed greater emphasis on investigating allegations of these frauds by working closely with the SEC, National Association of Securities Dealers Regulation, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and United States Postal Inspection Service. These agencies contribute significant personnel, resources, and technical expertise to Corporate and Securities Fraud investigations.

    The FBI has worked with numerous organizations in the private industry to increase public awareness about combating corporate fraud, to include: Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the North American Securities Administrator’s Association, Inc. These organizations have been able to provide referrals for expert witnesses and other technical assistance regarding accounting and securities issues. In addition, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and Dunn & Bradstreet have been able to provide significant background information on subject individuals or subject companies in an investigation.

    II. Overall Accomplishments
    Through Fiscal Year 2005, cases pursued by the FBI resulted in 497 indictments and 317 convictions of corporate criminals. Numerous cases are pending plea agreements and trials. From July 1, 2002 through March 31, 2005, accomplishments regarding Corporate Fraud cases were as follows: $2.2 billion in Restitutions, $34.6 million in Recoveries, $79.1 million in Fines, and $27.9 million in Seizures. As Corporate Fraud statistical accomplishments were not provided before July 1, 2002, the following statistical accomplishments are reflective of this time frame through Second Quarter, Fiscal Year 2005.

    Select corporate fraud investigations conducted by the FBI throughout Fiscal Year 2004 include Enron, HealthSouth, Cendant Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston, Computer Associates International, Worldcom, Imclone, Royal Ahold, Peregrine Systems, and America On-Line. The above-highlighted ten investigations have resulted in 120 indictments/ informations and 79 convictions.
    Currently the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of HealthSouth is on trial in Alabama. Several additional high-profile trials are anticipated, to include the trial of Enron’s former CEOs and Chief Accounting Officer, anticipated to begin in January 2006.

    III. Significant Cases

  28. @carie – i posted my thoughts on your bk questions

  29. Wow, usedkarguy…interesting article…once again “shoddy” replaces the word “illegal” or “fraudulent”…???

  30. What if the name of the trustor (homeowner) is spelled incorrectly on the Deed of Trust, the Notice of Default, and the Notice of Trustee’s Sale – when compared to the Grant Deed?

  31. Home sweet foreclosed home: Queens man returns to home after judge overrules bank’s foreclosure
    BY Robert Gearty

    Sunday, June 5th 2011, 4:00 AM

    Johnny Ferreira may be the luckiest guy in Queens.

    Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, a struggling homeowner who loses his home to foreclosure will never see it again.

    Last month, a judge vacated a bank’s foreclosure sale of Ferreira’s home, effectively handing him back his keys.

    As a result, Ferreira is preparing to move back into the same brick two-family with postage stamp front lawn, snug backyard and tidy driveway he’d been evicted from two years ago.

    “He loves that house,” his lawyer, Penkaj Malik, said. “He doesn’t want to move” again.

    The extremely unusual ruling appears to be a one-of-a-kind victory in New York for a homeowner in a battle that banks almost always win.

    The problems started in 2009 when Ferreira was evicted after his home in East Elmhurst a few blocks from LaGuardia Airport was sold at auction.

    He fought back in court.

    “I am helpless at this point and beg that the court intervene and assist me in regaining title to my home which I was defrauded out of,” he said in an affidavit.

    Malik made it clear to Ferreira the odds were against him.

    “When he came to me I said his chances of winning were slim to none because judges are loath to do something this drastic,” the lawyer said.

    Then Queens Supreme Court Justice Allan Weiss suddenly set aside the auction sale and ordered Ferreira “restored to possession.”

    “It’s pretty unusual to undo a foreclosure sale in New York,” said Josh Zinner of the nonprofit Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project. “There is a pretty high standard that has to be met and generally speaking, there has to be fraud or abuse in the actual sale.”

    Weiss ruled that Ferreira was never served with the foreclosure papers, depriving him of due process. The judge said the bank’s document was filled with errors, including an incorrect docket number, and was never filed in court.

    “It was just shoddy paperwork,” Malik said.

    The judge’s unusual ruling comes as attorneys general in all 50 states are investigating lenders for foreclosing on homes with inaccurate and shoddy paperwork.

    Zinner said Weiss’ decision shows the courts are starting to closely scrutinize documents that lenders submit in foreclosures.

    Ferreira declined to speak to a reporter, but in an affidavit filed in court he said he didn’t know his house was in foreclosure until he got an eviction notice.

    He claimed he was then misled by a Long Island loan modification company in his bid to recover his home. The company, Amerimod, charged Ferreira $8,000 and told him to stop paying his mortgage to qualify for a modification.

    He chose the wrong company. In August 2009, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo sued Amerimod and its president for defrauding distressed homeowners with “foreclosure rescues.”

    Ferreira’s home was then sold to Deustche Bank, the trustee for the mortgage holder, on March 27, 2009. He’d lived there less than three years.

    In court papers, Ferreira said that when he received the eviction notice, Amerimod steered him to a lawyer who only made matters worse. That lawyer, without his permission, agreed to a stipulation giving Ferreira 30 days to move.

    “We have been living hand to mouth and with family and friends who have been kind enough to allow us to stay with them,” Ferreira said in court papers. He, his wife and their two children wound up in a basement apartment elsewhere in Queens, said Malik.

    It’s not clear when he’ll be able to move back in, his lawyer said. The next step is to get his name back on the deed and negotiate a new mortgage payment plan. The house is worth less than the amount he owes, so it’s unclear if his luck will hold.

  32. sorry, tnharry…I saw him on “Inside Job”, and he really upset me…as I”m sure you can tell…
    By the way tn, I just wrote a response note re. the chap 7 info on the Deutsche Bank/Herrera post—can you read it and give any insight? Thanks.

  33. The most important thing right now that we need to do in my opinion. is to spread the word on this petition.

    I got it for the past two days on the Latimes and huffingtonpost. I also saw others who have. This must be updated every two hours so we stay on top.

    Regarding this California case. There are many other cases like this. The tide has definitely turned.

    Be Strong and Courageous.


    TnHarry is correct in theory. But the problem is their are 10 other theories that can counter his theories. That is why the petition is the most important thing in my opinion The Judges and politciians ultimately depend on the People Citizens.

  34. You guys may not have noticed this, but carie wants to talk about Larry Summers…


    Wikipedia on Larry Summers…what a glorious legacy…what a pig.

  36. kac, it sounds like you have vice grips on banker sac. Don’t let go. Squeeze, rinse, repeat.

    Any attorney will tell you that many areas of law are loose….not so when it comes to real estate. A man’s/woman’s house is/used to be sacred grounds….not allowed to be trampled upon with bad law.

    Adam Levitin speaks to this fact at his blog Credit Slips Org:

    One of the things any first year law student learns is that real estate is different. Different contract remedies apply, there are different formalities required by law for real estate contracts to be effective (the lineage of this principle goes back to the 1677 Statute of Frauds) as between the parties to the contract, and a separate recording system to make realty contracts good against third parties. While the law has dispensed with formalities in many other areas, that just isn’t the case with real estate, not least because of the recognition (ala De Soto) that clear title to real property is so fundamental to economic activity.

    Anyone with a background in secured lending also knows that paperwork matters. Misspell the name of the debtor so that it doesn’t show up in a UCC search, and you’re unperfected. Check the box for a termination, rather than a continuation of a security interest (ala BoA with Heller Ehrman), and you’re unperfected sol. Dotting “i”s and crossing “t”s matters.

    So, congratulations on being astute enough to catch the criminals at their game of deceipt.

    BTW, the statement from levitin above, “clear title to real property is so fundamental to economic activity….” explains in a nutshell why our economy will never return to a normal state until the fraud is revealed and dealt with. Contrary to Jamie Dimon’s belief, the banks have to be disassembled as if they were badly designed Lego creations and their designers/handlers jailed. Dismantle them and be done with this whole concept of TBTF. Only Dimon and the top .01% will bitch and moan. For everyone else, it will be puppies, butterflies and organic sugar free sno-cones on spring days forevermore.

    Read the rest of Professor Levitins well reasoned post here:

  37. Sorry, more on Mr. Wonderful Larry Summers…after all, his AGGRESSIVE pushing helped us get where we are today…

    From Wikipedia:

    …”Many critics, including President Barack Obama, have suggested the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis was caused by the partial repeal of the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act. Indeed, as a member of President Clinton’s Working Group on Financial Markets, Summers, along with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Arthur Levitt, Fed Chairman Greenspan, and Secretary Rubin, torpedoed an effort to regulate the derivatives that many blame for bringing the financial market down in Fall 2008.”

    Watch Summers “in action” in the Oscar winning documentary “Inside Job”.

  38. Nice kac. Sounds like you have your smoking gun when you need it.

  39. @ tnharry–they can try to record it, however, they sent me a letter and a new mortgage deed several months ago asking for me to sign it–they sent a copy of a letter where I said I would correct documents after closing if necessary. Needless to say, I did not resign the document and thought to myself “thank you very much for the proof that you do not have the original mortgage deed somewhere!” Oh and this letter and “new” deed to sign also contained no legal description. However, when I had asked for a copy of all mortgage docs with a QWR a couple years ago, I had been supplied with a copy of this mortgage deed, with my signature, and a complete (albeit incorrect) legal description. So, when push comes to shove, I have proof it was altered… 🙂

  40. EXCERPT:

    …”Larry Summers did even better. The Wall Street Journal reports, “Mr. Summers joined D.E. Shaw Group in late 2006 as a managing director. He helped develop strategies including new businesses and also helped evaluate investments for the New York firm, which oversees about $30 billion in assets, making it one of the biggest hedge-fund managers in the world.”

    The New York Times publishes, “Mr. Summers and Shaw executives say his role there was to be a sounding board for Shaw’s traders. But interviews with friends and former colleagues suggest that Mr. Summers’s role at D. E. Shaw was wider and more complex.”

    The Business Insider goes further. “According to the NYT, Larry Summers worked just one day a week while making $5.2 million in two years at hedge fund D.E. Shaw.”

  41. Great, Good and Marvelous work seems too shallow for praising a person who fights and wins against any bank (banks are too big though just a $2 shelf company but there is huge fake goodwill in favour of conniving banks). Hats off to you bro!

    There hasn’t been any such cases in Fiji. However, my case is before the court and I am still fighting. My lawyers deleted afew clauses which I had put in my Affidavit against illegal credit creation by my bank. My loan account does not show any transfer/deposit done by bank into loan account and just shows Loan App $25,000; Transfer to my personal cheque account#xxxxxx $25,000 being drawdown to build my house; then the similar transactions carry on. These is clear to be illegal credit creation out of thin air.

  42. kac: Just a thought – If you don’t have a mortgage recorded against your title, why wait for them to find it and record it against your title? Transfer your title into another entity (your family trust, for instance). That would make the mortgage ineffective as you no longer hold title as stated in the mortgage.


    This from the guy who pushed hard for and made a lot of money from the “Great Heist”…he should be on death row…

  44. excerpt from article linked below:

    …”After the value of his investment plunged, the story goes, Laspina found no buyers or renters and so simply stopped making payments. His lender, Wells Fargo, was apparently not at odds with the idea, and the loan was written off, the house subsequently given to Laspina.”

    http: //

  45. kac – wondering if there’s anything stopping them from recording your DOT now. Assuming they can even find the original, that is. Each state is different, but I know many would not have a problem with them recording it after all this time.

  46. It’s certainly worth reading your legal descriptions. Problems with my legal descriptions (like the fact there was none) is what led me to look at what was actually recorded at the registry of deed. Much to my surprise, there was nothing recorded! Nearly three years with no payments, and no foreclosures looming, I smile every month when I get the notice from BoA that I am “seriously delinquent.

  47. I had a boss once who said, “when all else fails, we use the cockroach defense” (crawl all over everything)

  48. A win is a win even if it is due to a technical mistake.Great that he won teaches us all to look a little more carefully at our paper work as you might not see everthing.

  49. I have to agree with Marie. Great for Donald, but it was fact based and won’t apply to 99.9% of others. As for suing to get his money back, he still has an unsecured debt that he made voluntary payments on. Probably not an option. It would’ve been interesting to know what happened in the BK. If he didn’t discharge the u/s debt to HSBC, then they could still sue him for the debt and record their judgment as a lien against his property, effectively “fixing” their doc problem.

  50. In the foreclosure wars, this lucky typo won’t take us too far

  51. Hip Hip Hoorah!!! Kudos to the homeowner. I’ve been checking post dated assignments and illegal substitutions of trustees with no recordings, securitizations that wreak unlawfullness, but I didn’t check th legal description on anything. Too simple I guess. Now I’m going back to check. Thank you for the heads up.

  52. good news. the fight is picking up speed. this man has won back his retirement. now he must sue for all payments he has already paid including his downpaymnet. that is the next step.

  53. they must prove that they either loaned Donald the money or that they purchased the obligation using their own funds or credit

    Under UCC the properly endorsed note should be produced “put up or shut up”–hopefully that court will reflect that. But w/o a chain of custody you have no certainty that the note is real or unstolen.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: