BOA’s Tactic of Attempting to Use Judicial Notice in Lieu of Evidence

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

see BOA Request for Judicial Notice

Pro Se litigants and attorneys who have not dealt with evidentiary issues surrounding judicial notice get caught by this tactic all too often. Judicial Notice can ONLY be used to establish that something is in the public domain or in public records. It does not eliminate the need to establish a foundation for the document nor are the contents of the document taken as true unless you let it be that way. By citing to the statutes allowing for judicial notice and maintaining your hearsay and other objections (foundation, authenticity, truth of the matter asserted) you can be sure that BOA or any of the other players achieve nothing.

The factual issues surrounding the possession of the note, creation of the documents, authority to sign, forgery, fabrication and notarization are all preserved unless you waive them. And that is exactly what happens in many courtroom situations. The Judge is not going to help you out on this. You have to know what you are doing and make the proper objections once the judicially recognized document is attempted to be used to prove something. Judicial notice only establishes the existence of the document, not that what is contained in the document is true.

The Banks are successfully using this ploy to escape the necessity of putting on perjured or incompetent testimony from a witness who has no personal knowledge to establish the foundation and authenticity of the document and the truth of what is recited in the document. Pro se litigants and lawyers who have not researched the issue assume a defeatist attitude when the court agrees to take judicial notice, without realizing that the court is only saying “OK, I’ll take it as a fact that this document was recorded on the date shown at the book and page shown on the document.” The Court is saying “there is no need to bring someone in from the property records office to establish that the document was recorded.” For everything else BOA needs a live speaking witness with personal knowledge and competence to establish the document and authenticate it.

What the Judge is not saying is “I accept this document and everything in it as true and I accept this document as evidence of the truth of the matters asserted in the documents, including the authenticity and authority for signatures.” The mistake made is out of ignorance, and staying silent as the attorney for the megabank blithely asserts that the matter is settled. Don’t let it happen to you.

61 Responses

  1. Tony, anyone that can’t appreciate that there is more than one way to look at something simply can’t be reasoned with. I quoted one case, not many, and it is still good law in the 6th circuit. The code doesn’t say what you say it does, and that requires no opinion or subjective reasoning. It is what it is. As to the effect on the parties of a motion for relief being denied, you’re simply wrong. It does not, without some affirmative claim for relief result in anything more than the motion being denied. The claim is still valid and the lien is still in place

  2. hkon
    history teaches us:
    sacrifice is sometimes necessary though i am so not a volunteer lol
    but listen, inertia, fear and anxiety are mans ever present enemies
    the480 BC, THE greeks defeated the persians in PERSIA prior to the Greek spartan warriors fought to the death in what was a ridiculous davies ( pun, power toyou Brian) and goliath battle with the massive persian army who were advancing on Greece, those soldiers knew it was a suicide mission but with single minded belief in freedom made that stand and are remembered as “the glory of Greece”
    now bear with me ,the Persians were so “phased” by the Greeks heroism, after the battle they widthdrew and went back to Persia. A YEARLATER THE GREEKS WENT TO PERSIA AND KICKED THEIR ASS.

  3. tnharry,

    Lets not get off subject, you tried to use case law and you failed. Plus you ever shepardize your cases? Mostly all your cases had negative treatment. If you used that in court you would lose. Unless you part of a buddy buddy system and your in with the judge, and that’s a whole different matter.

    The true point on here is that people look at your postings with some weight and they should not. You pull up case law that works for you not case law that has a strong foundation. Your case law at best is nothing more but court shopping for cases.

    An relief out the automatic stay defeat show that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the anything the so called secured party has. The filings they put in are moot and can be stricken. Judge can not use there wide base discretion on this period.

    Also knowing all the outcomes are wrong. There is no outcome but the right one. Tell me this why would someone pay a lawyer mostly all there money, to be told look this is the ruling when in the code it does not say anything about that? All the lawyer is doing is trying to protect there back, when even if the courts did a ruling like that the lawyer should tell the judge they are wrong and prove me your right and point it in the code.

    As always lawyers are cowards and love there job then really protecting there clients rights. Check your own case law you used, they tell you nothing in the code stops a debtor from dismissing there case. The judges instead use discretion instead of the code itself, plus ruling in equity and not law. If no one has filed a claim and we all know the only group that ever files a claim is bankers, how would the court be able to use discretion powers? Again court lacks jurisdiction they can not do nothing.

  4. and Tony, surely you would admit that, even if you don’t think it would happen, my point of view is a possible outcome? and isn’t knowing all the possible outcomes necessary when making these kinds of decisions?

  5. wow Tony, you certainly are angry today. i made it pretty clear that i cut and pasted that from one case, not many, and yes, it came from my lexis account.

    not sure where you went off on the specific of dismissing after beating a motion for relief from stay. and by the way, merely beating a MFR doesn’t prove lack of standing. it doesn’t prove anything more than the creditor failed to meet their burden of proof. if the debtor has no affirmative claim for relief pending, merely defeating the MFR doesn’t equal the debtor getting a positive ruling on standing. if the debtor opposed the motion AND filed his own objection to the claim, THEN there’s the opportunity for a positive ruling for the debtor.

    and we’re going to have to agree to disagree on the dismissal. i don’t think the code supports it, cases say there’s no absolute right, and i’ve seen it happen firsthand.

    you’ve been calling me out for a while now, but it doesn’t appear that you’re identifying yourself either.

  6. Tnharry:

    I will go across on each of your cases:

    1. In re Klein the debtor was dead, so he wasn’t even filing to dismiss. No wonder court had the right to rule.

    2. In re Mathis was overturned by In re Schwartz, 58 B.R. 923. Plus In re Mathis was about debtor argued that since accounts receivable were being paid, creditors were reducing amounts of claims against debtor, and state court was the better forum in which to decide the matter, his motion for dismissal was justified. This has nothing about you dismissing the bankruptcy if you beat them in an relief of the automatic stay.

    In re Schwartz was about debtor doing a fraudulent transfer in bankruptcy and said debtor can’t dismiss. Again nothing to do with beating so called secured creditor in an relief.

    3. In re MacDonald was about debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition in bankruptcy. Debtor testified that he initiated his bankruptcy case as a result of legal fees for a previously pending lawsuit. Because that suit settled, debtor filed the motion to dismiss his bankruptcy case.

    Again nothing about debtor filing because they beat so called secured party in an relief of the automatic stay. These cases that you are using is about so called secured party thinking that they have a leg to stand on. They would not object if they didn’t have a leg because they wouldn’t have STANDING TO FILE AN OBJECTION.

    4. In re Compston was about the debtors were involved in an automobile accident. They sought to dismiss the proceeding so that they could file a new Chapter 7 petition that would include any postpetition claims emanating from the accident.

    Again nothing about debtor filing because they beat so called secured party in an relief of the automatic stay. These cases that you are using is about so called secured party thinking that they have a leg to stand on. They would not object if they didn’t have a leg because they wouldn’t have STANDING TO FILE AN OBJECTION. How can secured party be prejudice if the party can’t SEEK RELIEF?

    Also In re Compston was overturned by IN RE: KATHY L. HURLEY, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION and I quote:

    “Trustee objected on the basis that dismissal would prejudice the new creditors and that dismissal for the sole reason of refilling was insufficient under Bankruptcy Code § 707(a). The right to dismiss was not absolute because a debtor had to show “cause” but that the debt incurred for which debtor wanted to dismiss the instant case was for unforeseen medical bills. The court did not believe that the new creditors were parties in interest or that they had standing to the object to the Chapter 7 proceeding because notice only had to be given to pre-petition creditors, not post-petition creditors. Thus, such post-petition creditors were not “entitled” to a notice. The court further found that no prejudice would result if the dismissal was granted.”

    Did you read that because they did not have STANDING.

    I didn’t want to do this but I have to because you write that you are a lawyer, but in reality you are not, or one bad lawyer working for GOOGLE & GOOGLE. STOP using google search as a law firm then come on a blog and act like you are a lawyer. Too many people take this kind of advice and it is wrong.

    Tnharry did you not pay for your lexis nexis bill? Maybe you should file for bankruptcy, because your cutting and pasting doesn’t help you any. Heck it isn’t even from Westlaw or lexis nexis, you can tell by the case sites that it isn’t.

    So please stop giving this very bad advice. Or were you testing me to see if i was a lawyer? If so did I pass 🙂 Or do you work for the banks and are trying to throw pro se litigants off the right path.

  7. @Tony – i respectfully disagree. That’s just not what the code says. After notice and a hearing, and upon good cause shown, you can dismiss. The following is cut and pasted from In re Sheets, 174 B.R. 254.

    Although not specifically provided in the Bankruptcy Code § 707, the case [**4] law is clear that the debtor can move for dismissal of a voluntarily filed case. In re Mathis, 50 Bankr. 482, 486 (Bankr.E.D.Ark 1985); In re MacDonald, 73 Bankr. 254 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1987); In re Compston, 161 Bankr. 636 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1993). However, a Chapter 7 debtor does not have an absolute right to dismissal of his case. Id. Rather, a debtor must show why a dismissal is justified. MacDonald at 256. To grant or deny the voluntary Motion to Dismiss rests within the sound discretion of the Bankruptcy Court. In re Klein, 39 Bankr. 530, 532 (E.D.N.Y. 1984); In re Martin, 30 Bankr. 24, 26 (E.D.N.C. 1983).
    Thus, in order for debtor’s motion to dismiss to be granted, the debtor must show adequate “cause” per § 707, and that such dismissal will cause no prejudice to creditors.

    And, if there’s a huge asset that can be used to pay creditors but for the debtor voluntarily dismissing, then that’s not “good cause” and it is prejudice to creditors. Not merely my opinion, but that of just one of many reported cases.

  8. Also your motion can not be denied either. Too many case law on this, so please don’t let tnharry make you think they can say no. Only in an involuntary bankruptcy can they say no.

  9. tnharry,

    The point was you can dismiss, but I am glad you were getting technical. If you can stay like is the question.

  10. @makeithappen – different sale. trustee sale in BK, not trustee sale in foreclosure

  11. @Tony – there’s no voluntary dismissal in a ch7. There is in ch13, but not 7. In a 7 you technically have to file a motion to dismiss and have it granted by the court.

  12. BTW, Ibanez is the perfect example isn’t it?

  13. usedkarguy
    I’m just as confused as CONFUSED is now. You stated:

    “…good luck trying to convince the judge the “title is a sham” after the “confirmation of sale” hearing. the point is MOOT at that time. YOU’RE DONE. Very few judges will look at fraudulent conveyance AFTER THE SALE, as you had plenty of time to raise the issue prior to sale. they have cases to process up the ass, and the last thing they’re going to do is re-open closed cases that have been adjudicated.”

    I don’t understand why judges sould consider a case MOOT after the confirmation of sale if the “lender” never had standing to initiate the foreclosure. My understanding is:
    Lack of standing = Court’s lack of jurisdiction = Void Judgment, a nullity that can be attacked at anytime…so the confirmation of sale wouldn’t matter, it’s a nullity.

    I’m confused…what am I missing?

  14. If Patsy Campbell can do it—so can we…the banksters/fraudsters/government idiots did it TO THEMSELVES…

    _____________________________

    Meet the great-grandmother who is every lender’s nightmare: The tireless woman who has fought off foreclosure for 25 years.
    By DANIEL BATES
    Last updated at 12:48 PM on 5th December 2010

    Patsy Campbell remembers well the last time she made a payment on her mortgage.
    It was back on October – October 1985.

    Since then the great-grandmother, 71, has constantly been under threat of foreclosure but by working the legal system she has fought off every attempt to kick her out.

    Over 25 long years she has launched dozens of appeals, fought countless courtroom battles and seen off four different companies which owned the mortgage on the detached property in Okeechobee, Florida.

    During that time all seven of her great-grandchildren were born, four presidents and three recessions and came and went, and two of her marriages have collapsed.

    But still she still fights on, refusing to pay the $211,000 cost of the mortgage plus interest, which is now $8,000 more than the value of the property.

    By representing herself she has also learned the legal system so well that any effort by a lender to to repossess her home is met by such a flurry of paperwork they can hardly cope.

    ‘They’re not going to take this house,’ Ms Campbell defiantly told the Wall St Journal. ‘I intend to stay in this house and maintain it as my residence until I die.’

    The extraordinary case, branded ‘the foreclosure from hell’ by the mortgage’s current owner, began in 1978.

    Ms Campbell’s husband-to-be Paul Campbell took out a $68,000 mortgage on the home in a middle-class neighbourhood of Okeechobee from local lenders First Federal Savings and Loan.

    The pair married in 1980 and that year he died from emphysema.

    Five years later Ms Campbell stopped paying the mortgage because she became ill and got behind on the payments, she told the Journal.

    Then the letters started arriving demanding money – but she refused to pay.

    Over the years the mortgage changed hands five times, and each time the loan company took her to court to pay it back, but she fought them off.

    Two cases were thrown out because the lender was not prompt enough in foreclosing.

    Another matter was won by Ms Campbell because a bank waited too long to prosecute her.

    Clerical errors have also given her a window to appeal whilst other lenders were merged or collapsed, putting back the litigation once more.

    In 2007 a judge threw out of all but two of Ms Campbell’s defences but, ever the resourceful litigant, she countered by filing for bankruptcy, blocking the foreclosure until approval from a bankruptcy judge.

    The current owner of the mortgage is Iowa-based Commercial Services, a distressed debt buyer which has been trying to wrap things up.

    Robert Summers, the real estate lawyer for the firm, said it was ‘every lender’s nightmare’.

    In just the 10 years since he took the case on in 2000, Ms Campbell has appealed seven times, each involving a mountain of paperwork, he said.

    Should Mr Summers have his way, the current hearing on Ms Campbell’s bankruptcy should take four months to conclude, then he plans to take her to trial for the foreclosure.

    Commercial Services’ latest court documents say she owes the $63,801 plus $148,000 in interest accrued over the years, making a total of $211,801. The house is valued at $203,000.,

    Mr Summers said: ‘She doesn’t get a free ride.’

    Ms Campbell, however claims that after 25 years of fraud and paperwork errors nobody actually owns her mortgage, making it void.

    ‘If they had a case, they would have already won it, years ago,’ she said.

  15. I’m with you, cubed2k…Yee Haa and yipeekayay!!!

  16. hkcon,

    “I get a $15,000.00 windfall from my dad’s trust and all of a sudden my lawyer wants to change the payment schedule from $1,000.00 a month to “gimme that $15,000.00″ if you want to to file adversary proceeding in a chpt 13. I refused, fired him, and went pro se. ”

    See, now that’s the thing. You fired your lawyer and went pro se.

    You see people are wimps and you are not. That is the hidden thing in all of this. The banks know people are wimps and do not know and they trust some lawyer, etc etc etc.

    It’s the old knowledge is power but underneath is the people are in fear.

    I don’t know, I was in fear when I defaulted on all my credit card debt. Never done it before, I had no idea what would come of it. I’ve had to research endlessly to find the truth. And lo and behold, nothing has become of my defaulting.

    So I post here to try to help. I don’t know still further. But oh well.

    I am a happy camper at this point in time. And I will never borrow money from a bank or wall street company again. I will make my own way, one way or the other. And to tell you the truth it is exciting and fun. I no longer need to rely on credit or the loans. It’s too fun. I don’t need no stink’in government or bank to help me to survive.

  17. Anonymous,

    “Trustees?? Borrowed names and who then do they really represent??? even in BK— No one knows who anyone really is due to huge maneuvering. . Documents invalid —everywhere.”

    And Thus I’m gettin my six shooter and ten gallon hat and cowboy boots. It’s the Wild Wild West again.

    That’s Carie.

  18. Tony,

    “Remember it is voluntary filing you did and you have a right to drop the bankruptcy.”

    NOW, that is a mouthful and very insightful.

    “Voluntary”

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/voluntary

    I will have to research that further. That seems kind of important. Like you voluntary send a debt validation letter to some debt collector who is not really a debt collector but a debt buyer.

    Like you voluntary send in your financials to get a loan mod.

    Like you voluntary to do a lien in lieu of foreclosure.

    Like you do a voluntary short sale.

    I have to check that out.

  19. hkcon,

    Thank You. Very Nice indeed.

    “Now, “Lis Pendens” filed at county, signed up with mass litigation lawsuit and coming up on 3 yrs. still fighting”

    Hey, why not, what does one have to lose.

    I say, get over it is stressful, it is more stressful for them.

    I think Donald Trump said if you lend me 100,000 bucks I got a problem. If you lend me 1 million, you the lender got a problem. I say BULLSHIT. If you lend somebody any amount of money or credit, YOU the Lender got the problem. And don’t forget it. So, make it their problem, not yours. It’s all total BS.

  20. Trustees?? Borrowed names and who then do they really represent??? even in BK— No one knows who anyone really is due to huge maneuvering. . Documents invalid —everywhere.

    Oh, if only the US codes were adhered to — the way everything should be. But, they are not. They have become meaningless because fraudsters have learned to manipulate every law /code/rule/document possible. This was/is the name of the game. And, it continues — and continues– and continues. .

    Tn — government wants all behind them. Wants to just make it “go away.” Maybe they will succeed –temporarily — but, all will resurface. They know the fraud is massive. And, it will NOT go away. Investigations will resurface — over and over — because the victims will not quit until justice is served.

    Sorry if it hurts anyone’s “profit” — but, your profit will not last forever. Only a matter of time.

  21. Well, at the risk of being called an idiot by tn, I am going to jump in here. Filed Chpt 7 in early 09, using a bk lawyer who reaffirmed the debt on my first, and got my second and all credit cards wiped out. discharge in Oct. 09 with a 90 day agreement not to foreclose from the banks attorneys. I get a $15,000.00 windfall from my dad’s trust and all of a sudden my lawyer wants to change the payment schedule from $1,000.00 a month to “gimme that $15,000.00” if you want to to file adversary proceeding in a chpt 13. I refused, fired him, and went pro se. Filed a second chpt 7 listing the house as unsecured and exempt and not reaffirming the debt. I am still in the house, the trustee had no interest in selling the house. Granted, I did not get a second discharge. and my objection to the proof of claim etc… fell on deaf ears…but my point is that the house does not have to be sold, the trustee is not a god, and do not let anyone tell you that things have to be done a certain way. set up a trust and put another person on it and let them file bk and that got the bank’s attorneys mad enough to go for “extraordinary” relief. which I did not fight. another sale date impending so “trustee verification” service put it off another month. Now, “Lis Pendens” filed at county, signed up with mass litigation lawsuit and coming up on 3 yrs. still fighting. Do not give up!!!!!fight these dirty sons of bitches to the last flipping legal document and then make em pay you to leave. History shows that making the cost of invasion to high is the only way to get the invaders to leave…Athens to Afghanistan…bleed them with a thousand cuts ….never quit because if we do then there will be nothing left for our prodigy and it is to them and our ancestors that we owe ever ounce of our being not to cave and become docile little slaves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  22. People on here need to stop acting like they know it all. Tnharry, the trustee does have the power to sell property but there is a loop hole and there is plenty of case law on it.

    Lets say you filed chapter 7 and the bank filed an relief of the automatic stay. If you can beat the relief hearing and the judge rules they don’t have standing and at best it is an unsecured debt, you can drop the chapter 7 filing period. Remember it is voluntary filing you did and you have a right to drop the bankruptcy. Then trustee does not have any power. This method has been done numerous times in history by pro se filers, it got challenged and has been upheld that you can do this.

    Also remember the claim might be unsecured but that does not mean that they get paid anyway. The trustee can only pay what can be proved in bankruptcy. Seeing that you showed they don’t have standing if the trustee sell the property, you would get mostly all of cash back anyway. also if your other debts out way the sell of the house the trustee will give it back to you and when he does that he is giving it back free and clear of all liens.

    Read the bankruptcy law and case law.

  23. What say ye, tn?

  24. I have a question on the property being used to pay unsecured creditors. If the bankster cannot prove it is a creditor and has standing, then what?

  25. My advice was on personal experience from a friend who lives in my town, that’s what he did. So it’s not my thoughts but actually occurred.

    I do like Carrie’s WIld West. I’m gonna get a 6 shooter and a holster. Maybe I’ll make it a double. Ten gallon hat as well. My new mock-up. Howdy partner. Spurs too, forgot about those. No more gym shoes, boots it is.

    My life is pretty stress free since I’ve stopped paying my credit cards and mortgage. I’ve never been happier. Knowing the truth sure does help.

  26. Are you?

  27. carie are you one of those people who have to have the last word or are you actually that argumentative?

  28. Right, the question is— WHICH attorney, financial advisor, or pastor can you TRUST??? Seems most of them are flailing around trying to figure out what to do, just like Washington…

  29. since we’re quoting definitions :

    11 USC 544

    The trustee shall have, as of the commencement of the case, and without regard to any knowledge of the trustee or of any creditor, the rights and powers of, or may avoid any transfer of property of the debtor or any obligation incurred by the debtor that is voidable by–
    (3) a bona fide purchaser of real property, other than fixtures, from the debtor, against whom applicable law permits such transfer to be perfected, that obtains the status of a bona fide purchaser and has perfected such transfer at the time of the commencement of the case, whether or not such a purchaser exists.

    The trustee is essentially a BFP of the property at the filing of the case. The sham title you refer to would not matter to the trustee by operation of law. And anyway, he or she will be conveying clear title by virtue of the court order signed by a federal judge.

    This all started because @confused was asking what he should do. You may feel very confident in your theories and claims regarding your property, but he said he was ready and willing to give up and wanted to be done with it all. I would imagine he’s more confused now than this morning. @confused, please stop reading these comments and just go talk to an attorney, financial advisor, or pastor.

  30. unencumbered:
    Definition:
    Asset or property that is free from debt, and clear of any legal defect in its title and, therefore, can be easily sold or mortgaged.

    THERE IS LEGAL DEFECT IN TITLE.

  31. I never said anything about a “closed case”, usedkar…

  32. as long as it’s not making any sense, go ahead and quote Chapter 9 and 11 too. what was “Chap 7 followed by Chap 13” supposed to mean? The trustee’s already sold the property in the chapter 7, so why file a new Ch13 or convert the 7 to a 13?

  33. Chap 7 followed by Chap 13…

  34. Carie, what the hell does “Besides, it’s Chap 7…” mean? What do you think a CH7 is anyway? IT’S A LIQUIDATION. Look at the name of the freaking code section. And get some facts before you spout facts and theories out of your own ass.

    A BK trustee can and will sell an unencumbered asset to pay the creditors. In fact, they have some pretty astounding powers to do so. Once the judge signs off, they’re conveying clear title and all the theories just don’t matter anymore. So sayeth the great smart ass…and of course, the United States Bankruptcy Code.

  35. If you don’t WANT the answers, DON’T ASK THE QUESTIONS! I’m surprised you stick around, harry.
    they can and WILL sell it, and good luck trying to convince the judge the “title is a sham” after the “confirmation of sale” hearing. the point is MOOT at that time. YOU’RE DONE. Very few judges will look at fraudulent conveyance AFTER THE SALE, as you had plenty of time to raise the issue prior to sale. they have cases to process up the ass, and the last thing they’re going to do is re-open closed cases that have been adjudicated.

  36. What say ye, oh Great smart ass tn?

  37. Besides, it’s Chap 7…

  38. But they can’t sell it if the title is a sham…

  39. which will prompt me to remind you that if the real estate is unencumbered, it is subject to being sold by the trustee to pay your creditors, including your unsecured mortgage lender. and that’s probably not the result the clever lawyer and/or pro se bankruptcy debtor was planning on

  40. Which brings us back to the “house debt” being unsecured and dischargeable in BK, which has been done by some people.

  41. nonjudicial is irrelevant to the debt issue. bk wipes out all personal liability on the debt. foreclosure, deed in lieu, or short sale can all have additional, unintended consequences

  42. […] Livinglies’s Weblog Filed Under: Foreclosure Law News, Foreclosure News Tagged With: crisis, foreclosure, […]

  43. No such thing as a “stress free life”…although I do have MUCH LESS STRESS when I finally realized the law is actually on MY SIDE.

  44. curious as to why BK is something you need? are in a non judicial state, as if so no point to BK for most folks. still if there is fraud involved it might get you a federal judge, but ask yourself what will be the end result of each option you consider. either one will alter your life forever. I would order a lumina search before you make any decision.

  45. and how’s that working for you carie? do you live a stress free life or are you always wondering who’s on the other end of a knock on the door or a ringing phone? the long drawn out fight isn’t for everyone. some regular posters clearly have good days and bad days that is reflected in their postings. if he wants to be done, let him. he can file BK, wipe everything clean and start rebuilding. in a few years he’s better off than he is now. fight if you want, but if you really are “done with it all”, then don’t prolong unhappiness trying to make a point. with that said, Cubed’s advice was good – file and don’t move immediately. they WILL offer you money to move and their first offer can and should always be countered

  46. “Judicial notice only establishes the existence of the document, not that what is contained in the document is true.”

    Lovely.

    @confused and tn:

    Since the whole housing scenario has become our modern day Wild West, why not just make our own rules? Hell, they did! I never wanted a “free house’…I just wanted JUSTICE—and when I found out about the BIGGEST FRAUD IN AMERICAN HISTORY, I decided JUSTICE meant doing everything I could to NOT GIVE MY MONEY TO CRIMINALS. If that means disputing the hell out of everything they throw my way, then by God I’m going to.

    You say you “get it” and “I want to settle and start over.”

    Just by saying that you really don’t get it, because there is no “starting over” at this point, because EVERYTHING IS ILLUSION and cover-up, and fraud. EVERYTHING.

    you say: “I want to end this with my Servicer and loan in a Securtized Trust”.

    There is no securitized trust.

    File BK and DON’T walk away…just stay…and educate yourself…and fight…and don’t give them any more money.

    It’s the new Wild West…you’re either packin’ or giving up…

    Yee-haa.

  47. although Cubed’s advice is pretty darn good….

  48. @confused – please go talk to a local atty rather than soliciting incredibly important, life-changing advice from definitely unknown and possibly woefully uninformed people…

  49. confused,

    TNHARRY is right. If you want to be done with it, then file BK.

    But, why not just stay and let them do what they want, ignore letters phone calls, then make them give you money to move after it sells at foreclosure sale, and make them pay $20k as they offer $3k at first but it costs them $25k to evict you. Or let them them evict you as more times goes by and you can save money. And if after all that, they go after you, then file BK. I don’t know, just some of my thoughts. Hey, the world is whatever you can get away with it.

  50. Martha, I am with you, the way all this has happened it seems it really doesn’t matter anymore what is recorded and by who. The recorders have shown little interest in cleaning up their registries and it is easier to raise taxes on their citizens then go after all the fees they lost because of unrecorded docs. At least we the people will pay the fee for recording an interest to Daffy Duck. The title companies either won’t insure or use an exception as to the chain of title anyway yet the people pay hundreds of dollars for them to insure. I am not a lawyer either but I worked in the mortgage biz in the olden days and my company was not in the REO business.

  51. Dear CONFUSED, on July 14, 2011 at 9:29 am said:

    May I suggest as a consumer who has purchased the who the ‘loan trust’ is that holds the loan, you purchase from Luminaq the report. Once you have the name of the loan trust please contact cloudedtitles.com as I have. Shortsale does not solve your problem. You can list your house anytime under an attempt to sell under a shortsale. You only need to document the transaction when there is an offer. Short sale does not stop anything bad that may happen to you for owning a debt. Thanks to Luminaq I am in good hands now.

  52. Object to every single thing. Cite the state code and the federal. Convey a percent interest to daffy duck, record it and ask for judicial notice on it. Use that to show that the fact a document is recorded means absolutely nothing except someone walked in and had someone make a copy for the public record. That’s what I would do. That’s not legal advice as I am just a dummy

  53. @confused – if you really want to be done, why not file bk and walk away? if you want to fight, fight. but these are answers only you can provide, not this site.

  54. HOW DO WE EVER MAKE IT STOP?

    I want to end this with my Servicer and loan in a Securtized Trust. I want to avoid foreclosure litigation and complete a short sale.

    I have read this site for a while and get it. Should we not try to strike a deal via short sale or Deed in lieu and just litigate and make them prove the loan, I am not one of those folks seeking a free house by quiet title. I want to settle and start over.

  55. Woulda shoulda coulda.
    The banks attorneys are the worlds best
    the banksters are the worlds best liers on paper and off
    how many lawyers make up congress

    Home | My NASDAQ | Tools | Brokers | Company List | Real-Time Quotes

    Register | Log In

    Quotes & Research Market Activity News & Commentary Investing Insights My NASDAQ
    Jul 14, 2011 | 10:49AM
    US Market Open  NASDAQ 2800.04  3.12  0.11% | DJIA 12542.17  50.56  0.4% | S&P 1321.22  3.5  0.27%

    Most Popular Stories
    OIL FUTURES: Crude Falls Amid Concerns Over Economic Recovery
    OIL FUTURES: Crude Tumbles in Line With Euro On Debt Concerns
    House Panel Uses 2012 Spending Bill To Restrict Environmental Rules
    US House To Vote On Cuts To Renewable-Energy Research
    MARKET SNAPSHOT: Stocks Gain, Then Lose, After Fed Minutes

    Back to Headlines
    Print Version
    Stumble it
    Tweet it
    Facebook
    LinkedIn
    More Options

    Large US Banks Submit Plans To Fix Foreclosure Operations

    By Alan Zibel, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

    WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The largest U.S. banks have submitted plans to fix their troubled mortgage-servicing operations, responding to orders issued in April, a bank regulator said Wednesday.

    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates national banks, said eight institutions–including Bank of America Corp. (BAC), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) and Citigroup Inc. (C).–have met a July 13 deadline for submitting detailed plans. The OCC will now review the banks’ action plans, which will remain confidential, a spokesman said.

    The four big banks, along with 10 other home-loan servicers, have been under investigation by federal regulators and state officials over breakdowns in procedures for handling foreclosures and requests for loan assistance.

    Banks, state attorneys general and federal officials are working on a broad settlement of the allegations, which emerged last autumn after several mortgage services acknowledged using what are known as robo-signers, who filed documents to foreclose on homeowners without personally verifying the documents’ contents.

    Each bank is required to hire an independent consultant to conduct a “look back” of all foreclosure proceedings from 2009 and 2010 to evaluate whether they improperly foreclosed on any homeowners.

    The OCC is establishing a public-complaint process through which borrowers who contend they were harmed by banks’ foreclosure practices can have their complaints reviewed by an independent consultant. The banks are also required to have their consultants conduct reviews of certain segments of borrowers, including military members, for improper foreclosures.

    On Capitol Hill, Democrats who have long called the OCC too friendly to banks have been skeptical that the review process is going to be thorough or fair. They are pressing the regulator to make public the findings of the bank consultants. The OCC has said it plans to publish only general reports on the reviews.

    “There is a loss of credibility by the regulators–specifically by the OCC– that more disclosure would address,” said Rep. Brad Miller (D., N.C.) said in an interview this week. “We’re still at a stage where we have a hope of shaping [ the look-back process] to make it tough and appropriately independent.”

    Miller also said he is pushing to make the bank consultants’ reports be subject to a second review by an interagency group of regulators, which would examine the consultants’ work.

    An OCC spokesman said the agency “may require changes” to the banks’ plans and said the agency aims to coordinate the banks’ plans with the efforts of other regulators.

    -By Alan Zibel, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9263; alan.zibel@dowjones.com

    (END) Dow Jones Newswires
    07-13-111650ET
    Copyright (c) 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

  56. I’m familiar with the Rules of Evidence, I just didn’t go into enough details, but here is one for you: An Assignment of Mortgage Anti-dated 10 years and executed by DocX employee completely altering the history of the Note and completely eliminating a court settlement entered into previously. I had documents and other evidence which I produced in Answer, which were also filed in “public records” years before, but Judge chose to rule in favor of bank.

    I do want to thank you for your tip, though, every bit of information put out in the public will help someone. Thank you.

  57. For those who are interested here is a list of RMBS Pools from BOA, found publicly available on the net….
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/60016479/BAFC-2007-5-Prior-Pools-June07

  58. For those who are interested here is a list of RMBS Pools from BOA, found publicly available on the net….

  59. Check local listings, but documents recorded in public records are usually self-authenticating. So it’s not those judges “unfortunately claiming”, but rather an application of the Rules of Evidence. Get a copy or download it from the internet. Read it, get familiar with it, and take it with you to any hearings.

  60. Unfortunately, Judges in PA (both State and Federal) claim that once a document is in the public records, it is “self authenticating” and accept the document as evidence that all statements contained therein are “true” and “factual”. How do you overcome that when your objections, cites, and exhibits are treated with a shrug of the shoulders and dismissed as “you don’t understand the law”?

  61. I, as pro se raised such request, due to the fabricated/fraudulent filings made in foreclosure action. The authenticity, authority and other challenges to Plaintiff right.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: