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

Calwestern is a standard player in foreclosures. The thing to remember is that the function of Calwestern, Recontrust (BOA) et al did not exist before securitization. So the question to ask is why would they need a substitute trustee or different servicer to pursue foreclosure if the case was otherwise conforming to the conditions of a judicial foreclosure. The answer is that they wouldn’t and that the creation of these entities by the banks is simply to create an alter ego for the banks so it doesn’t seem as brazen as naming themselves as trustee, or attorney in fact, or authorized signer, whatever that means.

  • According to Arizona case law the trustee on a deed of trust is required to exercise due diligence at an even higher level than would expect because, the courts say, the protections of a judicial foreclosure are absent. In other words, the courts recognize that there is considerable peril resulting from moral hazard, as it would take very little to steal a piece of property, based upon the premise that the borrower did not pay (which is not always true, as some people, like RD continue to pay the taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc. on the property as per the terms of the mortgage, assuming the mortgage was valid). The hazard exists even without securitization.
  • With securitization, the moral hazard rises to new levels. If the creditor is either unknown, unidentified or difficult to define, then non-judicial foreclosure is simply not available to would-be foreclosers because they need a declaration of rights from the court to determine who is the correct beneficiary, who is the creditor who can submit a credit bid at auction, and who should receive a deed from the trustee if there is an auction.
  • With securitization as it was applied over the last 15 years the moral hazard went into the red zone. Investors were in all cases the source of funds for any loan that was funded. The mere existence of conditions in which there is an expectation of payback on money advanced does not create a secured loan. It might not even establish a loan, since there are other causes of action like unjust enrichment, constructive trust etc., that could come into play in suing to recover the money advanced. Nor does it necessarily establish the principal due because of the various third parties whose liability, inchoate until the loan is signed, becomes a procedural guarantee. When those third parties start paying on the obligation — to the investor who did not receive a note from the borrower but rather received a bond from their own entity which was “backed” by assets that did not exist at the time of the issuance of the bond and the advance of money by the investor — the borrower’s obligation to the creditor (if one can be identified) is correspondingly reduced AND the possibility of a new liability to the third party that made the payment arises.
  • Why are trustees substituted? Because the banks don’t want due diligence and extra care being taken to determine if the instructions on default and sale are correctly stated from an authorized entity. If they did, then the trustee would refuse to send the notice of default and the notice of sale. That would force the would-be foreclosers to plead a case in judicial foreclosure, which in Arizona conforms to most states on judicial foreclosure. This would shift the burden of proof to the banks, without a motion to realign the parties. Basic inquiry would raise red flags as to the existence of a default (servicer is continuing to pay), the amount of the obligation due (after third party payments on guarantee and counterparty liability), and the identification of the true beneficiary who is one of two parties to whom the trustee owes a duty of due diligence. If the foreclosure is illegal then BOTH the real secured party, if there is one, and the homeowner suffer maximum exposure to economic damage — and that is exactly what is happening.
  • Why can’t they win in judicial foreclosures and why are judicial sales void like non-judicial sales? Because if there is a creditor at all under normal definitions it must be the party who actually advanced the money and that is ONLY the investors. If it isn’t legally the investors it would be under some novel theory that does not conform to the theory of bills and notes developed over centuries and codified in the Uniform Commercial Code. And THAT TOO would obviously require a judicial determination, because without a judicial determination of how an intermediary could fill the shoes of the source of funds, there can be no foreclosure of any kind.
  1. All other parties are intermediaries like when you write a check, and the check is processed through the issuer’s bank (i.e., the bank shown on the check you wrote), the issuer’s bank’s account processor, the Federal reserve, the receiving bank’s account processor and the receiving bank. In this case, because there was fraud in the sale of the bonds to the investors, they are looking for relief from the investment bankers who sold them the bogus mortgage bonds — most of which were never issued on paper and were created only by the entry of data by hand or digitally in a computer.
  2. No group of investors have banded together or filed separate attempts to deal directly with the homeowner in court or out of court. The reason is that if they did so they would be adopting the fraudulent and predatory practices used in obtaining the signature of the borrower on loan papers that were riddled with deficiencies and faced with defenses, affirmative defenses and counterclaims for acts that they may well have known nothing about. The investors would be defenseless in a lawsuit with homeowners over the validity of the loan papers. They know that, and they know that  the value of the property was so artificially inflated that even if they won they would only recover pennies on the dollar after all the expenses of litigation and sale of the property. There simply is no reason for the investors to look for payment from homeowners. They have a much more alluring target — the largest banks in the world with the deepest pockets who perpetrated the original fraud on the investors by selling them bogus mortgage bonds that were not backed by assets, and even if they were backed by assets, those assets consisted of loans that did not conform to the agreement contained in the prospectus, pooling and service agreement and other securitization documentation.
  • So the function of the new intermediary parties in foreclosures who never existed before is to NOT perform the duties required of them by statute and common law. The original trustee, who is still legally the trustee on the deed of trust but might not know it, would perform the due diligence because they are not owned and controlled by the banks who are committing this fraud.
  • Again the moral hazard rises into and perhaps past the red zone when the intermediaries themselves pretend to be the creditors even though they were neither the source of funds at the closing of the “loan” with “borrower” nor were they ever party to a transaction in which consideration was paid for the legal transfer of the alleged obligation or liability of the “borrower.” The APPARENT transfer of the loan or note or mortgage is substituted for the real thing. And the more it is transferred the more it seems like there was something being transferred when in fact there wasn’t anything transferred, and in fact it is highly probable in most cases that there was no legal encumbrance ever perfected on the advance of funds that everyone is calling a “loan.”
  • The same method of operation was used with the trustee function. The apparent substitution of trustee gave rise to the appearance that the beneficiary had authorized the substitution and that the beneficiary had the right to substitute trustees. All the other documents flowing from the substitution of trustee and the “assignment” give rise to the appearance of a normal foreclosure, or something close enough that a quick glance satisfies most judges that everything is on order. But 100% of the time, when a Judge gives more than a casual glance the Judge becomes alarmed and sometimes downright irate that the banks are trying to pull something, and they are. This is ALWAYS followed by a confidential settlement where people get their homes without any mortgage and the debt is cancelled, because it was paid anyway (several times over in many cases) by third parties.
  • An assignment of a note does not transfer the note. If you write a check and the person to whom you write the check executes an assignment of that check, the recipient (assignee) cannot take assignment to your bank and get paid — not without the check — and even with the check they still won’t pay until they have the check and it is endorsed to the party who received the assignment (in which case they didn’t need an assignment — what they needed was an indorsement guaranteed by someone who vouches for the signature before they accept the check as an instrument that draws upon the money in your bank. There is no difference between a note and a check. You need an indorsement.
  • The indorsement needs to have some signature guarantee or other acceptable measure of security that the person who signed the indorsement was really the payee of the instrument. THIS IS WHERE THE BANKS STEPPED ON A RAKE. Out of pure greed, since the investors were not interested in recovering from the homeowners, the banks perceived an “opportunity” to create the appearance of transfer of the note under circumstances where it appeared as though the note was valid and it appeared as though the mortgage lien was perfected. IN ORDER TO DO THIS THEY HAD TO COMMIT PERJURY, FRAUD, AND BREACH OF VIRTUALLY EVERY LAW AND RULE REGARDING TRANSFER AND RECORDING OF LOANS, NOTE AND MORTGAGES OR DEEDS OF TRUST.
  • All of this brings us to the issue of what is euphemistically referred to as “robosigning” — which in actuality is forgery and suborning perjury. The signature of a person, real or imagined is affixed to documents by multiple people without the knowledge or consent of what is being done. The signature of the signer is false and unauthorized. The content of the document identifying the signer is false and unauthorized. The content of the document purporting to have some legal effect (assignment, substitution of trustees, etc.) is false and unauthorized.
  • The Banks want us to believe that the robosigning was nothing of the sort — that it was merely an ill-conceived mechanism for dealing with an overwhelming number of foreclosures. In fact, it is a substitute for real events that is getting by Judges who merely glance at paperwork instead of examining the paperwork. There would be no overwhelming paper crash if the securitization was real — because the securitization participants were required to execute all required documentation (in their own “securitization” documentation) contemporaneously with the loan closing. Had they done so, the securitization would have been real, and the paperwork would have been done, along with the loan closing, as each loan was completed. There would be no paper crunch.
  • The reasons they did not do so are many but they all boil down to one central theme. They intended to transfer the money of the investors and the borrowers around like “a whiskey bottle at a frat party,” (Mike Stuckey, MSNBC news) and sell the same loan multiple times through different instruments that made it look like they were creating exotic risk-sharing instruments, but in reality they were selling the same receivables multiple times without the buyers being aware of the reality of the situation because of the complexity of the instruments, which were only so complex because the banks didn’t want anyone to understand them. Even Alan Greenspan said that he and a 100 PHD economists could not understand those instruments. That was the intent and the result. A recorded, executed indorsed instrument, pursuant to law, would have put prospective buyers on notice that they were buying something that had already been sold numerous times.
  • Under the guise of anonymity and plausible deniability, the banks created the perfect PONZI scheme that only succeeded because they hid the transfer documents and continue to hide the transfer documents. The entire “bailout” by the government as well as the majority of the assets shown on the balance sheets of these megabanks is based upon the premise that the last transfer document shown was valid and establishes the chain of ownership. Any first year law student knows that the chain is only established starting at the beginning and connecting up each document to the next, with proper execution and delivery on each document in the chain. The lack of any consideration for the “transfers” that the Banks allege speaks volumes as to what they were really doing and they they had actual knowledge that they were committing fraud.
  • And THAT brings us to specific instances of fraud on the court, fraud on the homeowner and fraud on the investors accomplished through suborning perjury and forgery.
  • In R’s case, the substitution of trustee was alleged to have have occurred. It didn’t. The putative lender created an entity that enabled them to substitute their own entity for the real trustee. In this case the signatory was Pamela G. Her signature shows up in hundreds of similar documents in Maricopa County alone, most of which are completely different signatures, which means that at best, all but one of the signatures on all those documents was a forgery. Proffering that in judicial or even a non-judicial proceeding is illegal and probably constitutes suborning (causing)  perjury. The attorneys who regularly use such signatures are hiding behind various protections intended to allow Trustees and attorneys to rely upon what their client gives them. But most attorneys in fact are not actually retained in the conventional sense, so they don’t actually know the identity of their client. And with all the publicity and their own experiences in court they have good grounds to believe that the documents are not real — especially when the practice is to create those documents in the law office or using an outsource “service” provider.
  • Pamela’s signature also shows up in Declaration filed in California case. Since it is a document not normally proffered and her resume shows that she worked for CalWestern, it is possible or even probable that the signature on THAT document was not forgery, but it still was perjury or at least a lie as to its content. In any event, it contains a signature that does not match, even to a layman’s eye, the signature on Katharine’s substitution of trustee nor any of the hundreds of other documents where her signature was used to start the paperwork for a foreclosure.
  • We also have Pamela’s resume which does not list MERS as an employer nor any relationship with MERS. At the time she signed for MERS her resume says she was working for CalWestern. Yet her signature appears as a signatory for MERS as a VP substituting trustees. MERS is clearly identified as having no interest in the loan and in fact specifically disclaims any interest in the transaction, never handles any money, and disclaims any interest in the note, mortgage or other documentation of the alleged “loan.” MERS is also under a cease and desist order that was not in effect at the time the substitution was signed. MERS has also issued an order to all members NOT to use their name in any foreclosure proceeding, which would seem to be another disclaimer of any interest or authority to actually do anything.
  • If the substitution of trustee is invalid or void, then everything that happened after that is void. The “trustee deed” on sale of the property at an “auction” in which the bidder tendered neither the note nor any money was also void. I think this can be brought up de novo on appeal because it corrupts the title records.

39 Responses

  1. I have Luis Roldan as “Assistant Secretary” of MERS signed 2/10/2012 on my Assignment of Deed of Trust and I have Mary Ann Hierman as the document preparer for Corelogic in SC.
    Boy, they sure get around…………….

  2. If yo see this please send copies of Mary Ann Heirman docs to me for a man that needs them . He has one to share also. Please send to Shelleystotalbodyworks@comcast.net

  3. I know this is an old thread but if anyone still has docs with Mary Ann Hierman’s signatures please share. I also have the Notary L LLano California.

  4. My comment to BankofAmericaDenofThieves 1st off, I am doing my own investigation of records because when BOA comes after my house on March 6 2012 they are going to wish they had not. Your comment was very helpful to me in my investigation as I live in Pasadena TX I would like to share with you out of Texas Land Records and County Records the following information on File #20110481481 – Beneficiary’s mailing Address 2375 N Glenville Dr., Richardson, TX 75082 which is Bank of America also. Foreclosed on a home in Houston, TX.
    Assignment signed by Mary Ann Hierman Assistant Secretary MERS
    Notary is Teresa D Williams, San Bernadino County wth??? You also need to check out who they send the assignment back to. This one was supposed to go back to Brice, Vander, Linden and Wernick 9441 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250, Dallas TX 75243. Oh please Google these guys. In conspiracy of robosigning.

  5. Just got back from our county clerk’s office. I was amazed I have 3 outstanding mortgages on my home!!!!! 3 Holy shirt batman . I asked the clerk how it was possible? she stated they ALL have a claim to be paid. Funny thing is all the notes were taken out to pay off the previous one. Now New Century mortgage is out of business how do we get a sat note. I also have a signature of a ROBO SIGNER who states she is asst secretary for Mers Inc. Mary Ann Heirman who also is employed at 7105 corporate Drive Plano Texas 75024 which comes back as a bank of america. On the same document we have a Vazrik Sarafians Notary public Commission #1867732 who put his seal that mary ann heirman was before him on Sept * 2011, My question is if she has an office in Plano Texas why bother to go to California for a NOTARY does any but me think that this is strange?




  7. […] SEE why-the-bankers-will-lose-and-go-to-jail […]

  8. so much for the theory of deadbeat homeowners

  9. You’re right… every time I ask a person involved in real estate sales about all this, they are strangely silent…

  10. Cube2k and Abby: The questions to ask the cop the next time you see him is: how far underwater are you on the mortgages for those houses and have you checked the documents on file with the county to see if your title is clouded? Many people have no clue what is going on. However, with a wife who is a realtor, they know what is going on. Remember, many people made money on this scam, appraiser, realtor, title company, mortgage broker, mortgage banker, seller? and in some cases, the real estate developer.

  11. usedkarguy—this is from the article:

    “Deutsche Bank, the plaintiff in this case, was acting as the trustee on behalf of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital Inc., Trust 2006-NC5, Mortgage-Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-NC5, the mortgage pool that claimed to own the defendants loan.”

    “claimed to own”…but, the trust is EMPTY and the “fake loan” never even WENT to a “trust” pool…

    How is this not the biggest issue???

  12. @Geanette – where do you find a basis for the “right to a loan modification” that you refer to?

  13. Abby in Calif,

    thanks for sharing your story. It is obvious that people have bought the media stories and they are stuck in their fixed ideas of

    no pay on mortgage = must be trying to get a free house.

    Interesting that you have a cop on your area who owns 4 houses as the local cop in my neighborhood, just down the street, also owns several houses.

  14. There may not be quite as much evil as initially reported here. Countrywide created Recontrust solely to keep more of the foreclosure fees and costs in house as opposed to paying attys to do it. They were usually hotly opposed entry into new states by bar associations and attys via threats of unauthorized practice of law and legislation. I’m not as familiar with Calwestern, but it would seem to be the same thing. Not every shadow contains a monster, and not every action by the banks is indicative of fraud. Sometimes it’s just plain greed…

  15. Finally, a way to put some of these crooks in jail where they truly belong!! Such arrogance by the banks and disregard of American laws not to mention contributing to the suffering of the American people by not honoring their right to a loan modification, etc……these people have not social conscious or loyalty to the USA!! They should be put in jail for their crimes!!

  16. now we’re getting somewhere (I think)
    this was a predatory lending case. the guy got to keep the house and the RENTS for over a year, and then he forfeits the property. He gets his credit restored and 30 large. I’d take that deal……..


  17. Here we go—

    Federal Bank Regulators Scrutinizing Mortgage Lawsuits Against Banks, Opening New Worry For Investors, Bankers


  18. One Reason Not to Shut down Guantanamo Bay Prison.

    So We can House the Banksters.

  19. Here it is, usedkarguy…


  20. anybody see the blurb about Chase withdrawing all their credit card lawsuits in 5 or 6 states? I think they scrubbed the internet news story already. JPMorgan Chase has withdrawn the lawsuits which are robo-signed or initiated without sufficient paperwork review. No explanation has been given.

  21. Mr. Carbiener… the disease & ill repute you carry will manifestly curse through your polluted veins and soul to contaminate everything ,everyone ,everywhere you contact now and until your rotted carcass withers and dies ; ]
    good for you, enjoy!!

  22. “You are seeking portfolios, or pools of delinquent debt, not individual accounts. Portfolios or pools are groups of accounts that will number in the hundreds, or tens of thousands.”

    Why is this, a numbers game, as is any business as is your life,

    you can win more than you lose, or in the debt collector game, you can collect more than you paid. Odds are better in a large pool of sizable accounts. It’s a numbers game just like credit cards and when they securitized mortgages, same thing. Any business operates this way.

    Banks and Wall Street are business’s.

    Never once in that link I posted does it mention the leagal aspect of it all, contracts, UCC—nothing.

    Fear is what keeps people in line, fear of the unknown, fear of going to court, fear of “what if’s”.

    It’s time to turn the tables, they need to fear us

  23. see, your credit card debt and mortgage debt is just a business model, it’s a numbers game,

    as Neil once said, low hanging fruit to pick (or sucker into an agreement, my ad lip).


  24. Federal Bank Regulators Scrutinizing Mortgage Lawsuits Against Banks, Opening New Worry For Investors, Bankers

    Submit this storydigg reddit stumble WASHINGTON — Federal bank regulators are scrutinizing more than 150 home loan-related lawsuits directed at lenders and mortgage companies, a top official at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation plans to say Thursday, underscoring the threat the largest U.S. banks face from faulty and improper mortgage and foreclosure practices.

    The revelation will likely add to large banks’ woes, as the five biggest servicers — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial — currently face up to $30 billion in penalties from state attorneys general and federal agencies for wrongful foreclosures and other mortgage-related misdeeds.

    Lenders and servicers, which collect borrowers’ monthly payments and foreclose on them when they fall behind, face 67 pending class-action suits in more than 20 states that challenge foreclosures based on so-called “robo-signing” and other poor documentation practices, according to FDIC Director of Depositor and Consumer Protection Mark Pearce’s prepared remarks for a Thursday congressional panel.

    The companies face 57 additional suits in 25 states over alleged improprieties resulting from loan modifications in the Obama administration’s signature foreclosure-prevention initiative, known as HAMP, and 24 lawsuits over non-HAMP modifications, according to the remarks. Further, investors in mortgage securities have filed 21 suits that allege misconduct and seek to force banks to buy back the loans at face value, an outcome that could cost banks hundreds of billions of dollars.

    The FDIC is also tracking separate suits launched by state attorneys general in Ohio, Nevada and Arizona against Ally and Bank of America.

    Regulators sanctioned the banks in April, saying at the time that they expected the firms to improve their procedures and compensate abused homeowners.

    But those findings were based on bank-provided information and their own limited review of less than 3,000 loan files. And in that case, regulators didn’t act until reports emerged of banks’ shoddy practices. Private litigation — and the discoveries they could produce — could yield nuggets about poor behavior that regulators missed.

    Story continues below
    Regulators guide banks in deciding how much money to put aside to guard against losses — cash that otherwise could be used to pad their profits — and approve requests to pay dividends to shareholders or buy back shares to drive up the company’s stock price. Concerns over lawsuits — and the merit of plaintiffs’ claims — could derail banks’ financial plans.

    Bank of America shares are down 22 percent over the last three months in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. JPMorgan has slid 15 percent, while Wells Fargo has declined 13 percent. Citigroup has dropped 8 percent.

    “Servicing problems continue to present significant operational and litigation risk to servicers and originating banks,” Pearce plans to say, according to a copy of his prepared remarks.

    For the larger economy, the lawsuits represent potential pitfalls that could delay a broader recovery.

    “The housing market cannot heal and recover until mortgage servicing and foreclosure problems are resolved and systems are adequate to the task at hand going forward,” according to Pearce’s prepared remarks. “A comprehensive resolution for past servicing errors is essential to the recovery of the housing market and greater economy.”

    The five largest servicers, which collect payments for three out of every five home loans, are engaged in discussions with state and federal authorities to settle accusations of defective and sometimes-illegal foreclosure practices.

    “Poor mortgage servicing practices have both contributed to the creation of the housing crisis and acted as an impediment to its resolution,” Pearce plans to say, according to his prepared remarks.

    A recent Treasury Department audit of the 10 largest servicers in the HAMP program found that four of them needed “substantial improvement.” The remainder were found to need “moderate improvement.” None passed with flying colors.

    Pearce says in his prepared remarks that about 90,000 homeowners are contesting their foreclosures in court, an indication of poor mortgage and foreclosure practices. As a result, the average foreclosure took nearly nine months to process as of December, according to Pearce’s remarks. It took just four months as of 2007.

    * * * * *

    Mark Pearce 7-7-11 testimony

  25. Here’s a big FYI … hey folks ,, What do you do when you see the ship sinking? You suddenly have a health concern or you want “more family time” ,, couldn’t possibly be that you want to bail while there’s still money to loot for your golden parachute ….

    LPS CEO Resigns Due to Health Concerns
    LPS Conducting Search for New CEO; Executive Chairman Lee Kennedy to Serve in Interim

    JACKSONVILLE, Fla., July 6, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — Lender Processing Services, Inc. /quotes/zigman/516176/quotes/nls/lps LPS -3.41% today announced that Jeffrey S. Carbiener is stepping down from his positions as chief executive officer, president and director of the company for significant health-related reasons, effective immediately.

    LPS’ board of directors has established a committee to search for a replacement. In the interim, Lee A. Kennedy, the executive chairman of the board of LPS and the former chief executive officer of LPS’ prior parent company, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., will serve in the additional roles of president and chief executive officer.

    “I am proud of what this company has accomplished since its inception more than three years ago,” said Mr. Carbiener. “LPS has clearly established itself as an industry leader and a key strategic partner for our customers, and I believe that LPS is well positioned for future success. Although I would very much like to continue leading our outstanding team, because of recent changes in my health, I have made the decision to resign,” he said.

  26. The long awaited assignment’s showed up on June 24, 2011 online at the Cobb County Register of Deeds and I must have slacked off for a couple of days,as I used to do it every week. So when they filed 8 assignments each of them the same I was curious and excited at the same time, I am getting trigger happy [not at all but felt good to write it for y’all] and 2 of the 3 signatures once Googled, the first result produced 2 names Yuoda Crain as Assistant Secretary, Luis Roldan as the “NOTARY PUBLIC, from Caifornia. Mary Ann Hierman another Assistant secretary did not show up.on any search so far, but I am not holding my breath. I think she works for the biggest bank in “America” and may be signing with one of those “MERS” offical IDs you can purchase online what a great place we live in. We should all get together and foreclose on each others homes so we can use that plausible deniability we read about every day.What a great place we still live in. So I could possibly be or have the sheriff on his way to show up as I may have been bad enough they may not notify me, let them come I have lived here 23 years and it will be fun watching them empty out 1-2 car garage plus 1-4 bay shop 1850 s/ft and then the house. I will leave if I have to with all my neat PC stuff and give the rest of the good shit away. So 5500S/ft of house is a lot of stuff as a matter of fact anything upstairs I don’t give a s*** about anyways and the tenants will have to do that part.
    I am going to contact the consumer advocates on the local news and beef up the publicity for the people in north Atlanta that I have worked for over 34 years…..
    I thought Core Logic was just a data company for demographics concerning real estate data, and not in the loan foreclosing business, foreclosure with forged documents, guess I was wrong, please forgive me if I am wrong
    Great news- I finally got all my pre-op stuff done and a new right hip on the way August 2nd, can’t wait for that to be done, I have needed it for three years and have put up with the pain, I hope I can get by till I am healed before the s*** hits the fan.
    God Bless and don’t you leave that home of yours!!……

  27. Abby: Wouldn’t it be delightful if Officer James has MERS mortgages on all four of those homes? Don’t forgot what type of IQ you are dealing with when you deal with these people. Its funny how they are usually dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, yet their Democratic union is responsible for their bloated pensions; yet they would be the first to whine about it if reduced or if they were asked to pay more into it. Go figure. As a disclaimer, I do realize that not all police are neanderthals.

  28. bytheway, they asked me for my deed in lieu. Oh, that was 4 years ago. I’m still in my house. Now the other claimants are coming out of the woodwork (Triad PMI provider). If I live in a non-deficiency state, why would they be contacting me?
    Because they want to subrogate the claim. I sent them the copy of the fraud lawsuit. “By the way, how about I file for diversity jurisdiction and a realignment of parties? We can go Federal and you can pound on Wells like I am?”
    I am awaiting their answer.
    My point is that you can give them the house, but you ARE NOT isolated or indemnified against any other claimants.
    Not legal advice, just the opinion of a nitwit.

  29. All- even though it was a bit of an ordeal…i got the police report ID# and my files is going to be sent for investigation. SO–I strongly encourage each of you to file a police report with your local PD (fraud, fraudulent recordings, whatever illegal in your case etc). If they can’t deal with it, they will send it on to a task force.
    I gave just minimal information and told them I have court cases in multiple courts.

    Here is my experience.

    Just got back from PD. Sgt Copper ( I had sent a letter to the commander of PD with a few details) wanted a regular policeman to take my report. So I waited for Officer James Danvers to come in from patrol.

    Officer James started off with ‘so, are you one of those people who think they are gonna get their house free and clear??’ I was taken aback. He judged me and he wasn’t a judge.

    I told him I had been in multiple courts since 2008. He wanted to know why was I living in my house and not paying any mortgage. I said because the judge did not require it of me.

    I told him that I had started to point out some irregularities from the get-go with the recorded docs to the judge. I told him fraud was going on and fraudulent recordings being recorded down at county recorder and I provided a notary affidavit stating so.

    I also told him I was never in default and that I did not have any business dealings with US Bank and that the assignment to them was fraudulent. I never had the other loan number (the one not on my recorded deed).

    He was a real you know what. Then he went to the back to talk to Sgt. Copper. Then James came out and gave me my police report number and then he said he was sending my paperwork up to investigations unit.

    Next, as if to rub my face in all this…like my fault, he says….I own 4 home properties here in Tri Valley and my wife is a realtor! OH>>>I will be sure to never use her!!

    I should not have been interrogated as if I am a delinquent homeowner criminal. I was providing the notary affidavit, the fraudulent recordings and the information about the different loan numbers…..only one of which was on my deed.

    I hope the Officer James someday finds his chains of title screwed up!!

  30. The fraud started BEFORE you sat down at the closing table. The invisoloan documents were sold BEFORE you signed anything. The MIN number was on my loan documents BEFORE I signed them.

  31. from link:

    “The clawback provision was inserted into the law in response to public anger that banking and Wall Street executives at firms such as American International Group were being paid handsomely despite mistakes that helped bring about the 2007-2009 financial crisis.”

    REALLY??? Do they really do ANYTHING based on “public anger”???
    Yeah, right…someones nose is growing…

  32. The so-called “Trustees” in Arizona are not going to be able to hide behind 33-807(E) forever…

    “Defendant Quality Loan Service Corp. (“Quality”) has filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that Counts 1-6 do not state a claim for relief against it, as trustee. In support, Defendant Quality has attached a recorded Substitution of Trustee. The Court is puzzled by this document because it is signed by an officer of Defendant Quality, as agent for One West Bank, FSB yet (1) there is no evidence of such an agency, (2) there is no evidence linking One West Bank, FSB to MILA, Inc., the entity from which Plaintiff obtained the original loan, and (3) the Plaintiff has alleged a break in the chain of title regarding the loan and Defendant Quality as Trustee, which the Court must accept as true. Thus, while A.R.S. §33-807(E) may operate to dismiss a trustee in certain instances, if one of the allegations of a complaint is that the entity purporting to act as trustee has not been legally appointed as trustee, this statute would not come into play. Taking the allegations of the Complaint as true, causes of actions have been alleged by Plaintiff against Defendant Quality in Count 2 (alleging that Defendant Quality was not appointed as trustee by an entity in the chain of title to the underlying note/deed of trust), Count 3 (alleging that the document appointing Defendant Quality as trustee is false or forged), and Count 5 (allege fraud in the appointment of Defendant Quality as trustee), and Count 6 (alleging statutory and contractual violations in Defendant Quality’s notice of the trustee sale). The Court finds that there are no allegations against Defendant Quality stated in Counts 1 or 4. Therefore,
    IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant Quality Loan Service Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss as to Counts 1 and 4 only, with prejudice, and denying the Motion as to Counts 2, 3, 5, and 6.”

  33. Here we go again:


    (from above link):

    “Chris Boudreau of Brooksville, Florida says he is the unwilling recipient of a home makeover, courtesy of his mortgage company.

    21st Mortgage Corporation, which says it is a Berkshire Hathaway company on its website, allegedly hired a private firm to ransack and clean out Boudreau’s home, according to WTSP 10 News.

    …The Hernando Sheriff’s office sees things differently, however. They have no interest, they told WTSP, in investigating any charges of burglary, breaking and entering and trespassing, claiming the situation to be a civil matter.”

  34. So does the filing of a “Correction of Assignment of Deed of Trust” wash away their sins? Does it correct the robo and notary fraud problem?

  35. Yes, how the heck do you even legally SELL your house these days??? Is it even possible??? I wouldn’t mind staying in my house forever, but how does someone “fix” the paperwork LEGALLY if you have to or want to sell? What a mess…

  36. OK- HOW DO YOU DO A DEED IN LIEU or SHORT SALE IF NO ONE OWNS ANYTHING? If we do not want to litigate and are being offered a deed in lieu with forgiveness of the debt and forgiveness of any short fall. WHY would we want to fight in foreclosure litigation…it might take 3 years and mega bucks in Attorney fees. I don’t want a free house.

    Can’t you just ask the Loan Servicer to state in the Deed in Lieu that they will pay for or protect us (borrowers) from any entity that later comes out and claims they have a claim against us for the NOTE in the Future, a full Release of liability. I understand, this blog says we owe nothing for securitized loans.

  37. Seems to me the sooner we can prove that the fraud started (subprime “mortgage” being already falsely classified default debt), the MINUTE we signed the original documents—the better. If you can unequivocally SHOW how the fraud started AT THE VERY BEGINNING…then everything that happened afterward is just etc., etc., etc.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: