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


EDITOR’S NOTE: We have all said what they did was criminal, now it is becoming official. And before you naysayers start complaining, let me point out that this has actually followed an orderly progression and you will see it many times over in the coming months.

  • First we started with the deductive logic and investigation, and allegations by borrowers in court. They were not taken seriously until the number of such complaints reached a crescendo, but that is the way our system works.
  • Then the regulators, who had turned a deaf ear to anyone writing a letter complaining about the servicing of their loan or the behavior of a pretender lender, turned themselves around and entered a slew of cease and desist, consent orders and those orders have teeth and can be used by borrowers in discovery and in their pleadings. The agency findings of misbehavior are presumptively correct.
  • Now the justice system is getting involved, because building criminal cases takes a lot longer than civil cases or even administrative cases against the banks. Remember they have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt — not merely on innuendo or they “must have done it” or anything but that they did do it, they knew they did it and they did it with criminal intent.

Wells Fargo accused of forging loan documents

By Doug McMurdo
Posted: Sep. 22, 2011 | 2:02 a.m.
Updated: Sep. 22, 2011 | 8:27 a.m.

A Las Vegas attorney who represents people facing foreclosure has accused Wells Fargo of forging loan documents. The allegation is the latest sign that efforts to hold mortgage lenders accountable are escalating in Nevada.

In court papers filed this month in Clark County District Court, attorney Dave Crosby alleged bank employees committed forgery and fraud in making a $350,000 loan to a father of four who was unemployed at the time.

“They forged signatures, they backdated documents,” Crosby said. “We’ve got them cold.”

Crosby said the bank has presented two deeds of trust for the same property. One bears the signature of Olivia A. Todd, who on Jan. 27, 2010, was identified as an assistant secretary with MERS, Inc., a mortgage servicer from the Phoenix area and a co-defendant in the lawsuit.

But on Feb. 16, 2010, Todd’s signature appears on a second deed of trust, where she is identified as the firm’s president. Both assignments were notarized as authentic, Crosby said in court papers.

Crosby made his allegations in a request to have a judge review three failed mediations between him and his clients, Ryan and Mical Henderson of Las Vegas, and lawyers with Wells Fargo, formerly Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.

Attempts to contact bank attorney Kevin Soderstrom were unsuccessful. Calls to Wells Fargo also went unreturned.

Nevada Foreclosure Mediation rules allow for a judicial review of failed mediations. In Clark County, District Judge Donald Mosley hears all such reviews.

The Legislature created the Foreclosure Mediation Program in 2009 to help thousands of troubled homeowners in the state, considered ground zero of the U.S. housing crisis, where tens of thousands of homes have been abandoned or foreclosed and a staggering 80 percent of homeowners owe significantly more than their homes are worth.

But banks and title insurance companies have not always been able to prove they own the mortgage and have the right to foreclose.

The Henderson case is the latest shot across the bow of mortgage lenders. The Nevada Supreme Court has issued rulings favoring homeowners in several recent cases on appeal. Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto is expected to file criminal charges against bank and title company employees, as well as notary publics, over allegations of robo signing.

The term applies to a practice of signing affidavits attesting that bank officials have reviewed documents and found them proper even without making any review.

When the robo-signing scandal erupted last October in Florida, bank employees admitted to signing 10,000 documents a month without knowing whether they are legitimate.

Masto’s office declined comment on any plans for criminal action against robo-signers. She has taken an aggressive approach to holding banks accountable, and the Legislature earlier this year enacted new laws regarding robo signing.

Crosby said he suspects robo-signing is widespread in Nevada. One of his cases was the subject of an appeal filed with the state’s high court, and he used the lender’s own words against it.

Supreme Court justices found in favor of Crosby’s client, Moises Leyva, ruling unanimously that lenders have an absolute duty to strictly follow foreclosure mediation rules exactly as written.

More important, the high court ensured lenders couldn’t simply provide a sworn statement, often from their own employees, that they were the lender even when they failed to provide a verified copy of the deed of trust.

“They admitted how disorganized they were, that they lost paperwork,” Crosby said.

In court papers, Crosby accused Wells Fargo of continuing to play outside the lines. He alleged that a document the bank produced during mediation was backdated and bore a style of notary stamp that didn’t exist at the time it was signed. The document is included in the court file.

He also alleged that two documents bore the name of a bank employee and “are notarized by the same notary, (but) both signatures do not belong to the same person.”

Crosby wants Mosley to rule that Wells Fargo acted in bad faith, to award sanctions for the “obvious forged, backdated and falsified documents” and to award cash sanctions.

Crosby will ask Mosley to fine Wells Fargo an amount equal to the difference between the loan and the home’s current value.

The Supreme Court in its recent decision has made it clear to judges that such sanctions are appropriate when lenders are found to have acted in bad faith. A hearing has been scheduled for Oct. 6.

Review-Journal writer Chris Sieroty contributed to this report. Contact Doug McMurdo at or 224-5512.

119 Responses





  2. […] NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL (Catherine Cortez Masto) TO FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST WELLS FARGO FOR F… Posted on September 28, 2011 by Neil Garfield […]

  3. The Nevada AG Catherine Cortez Masto is very, very corrupt. Next up – Chief Nevada Attorney General Ann McDermott for BACKDATING and FORGING court documents in Carson City.

  4. I will right away snatch your rss feed as I can not in finding your e-mail subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Please let me recognize in order that I could subscribe. Thanks.

  5. evoldog1234

    That is what I thought —- just clarifying.

  6. 😎

  7. @Anon – he was referring to me, lol

  8. Anonymous

    The sovereign State of Virginia is deliberately choosing to ignore the finer points of securitization in favor of the more familiar rules on commercial paper.  I don’t like it at all because it strips me of  any  right to challenge the creditors right to enforce the note (lost, by the way)

      Every state had its quirks. I read that in CA you will not be heard as a victimized homeowner unless you are prepared to Tender.  Where’s the due process in that?

  9. @ carrie,

    1. Do not not represent yourself in any legal matter!
    2. For under $25.00 give or take you can buy “Clouded Titles” by Dave Krieger on on-line via PDF download. Read it.
    3. Come back here and look up an attorney in your State that “Get’s it”.
    4. From reading here and Dave’s book I found have identified my loan from Countrywide that was issued in 2005. Am I still going to have an expert do it yes!
    5. Can I afford my home yes and I paid plenty.
    6. Why should I pay the current servicer who is the “pretender lender” who may not be able to produce my note when I pay my home off which will be an amount over 1,000,000.00?
    7. By the way most of the homes in my subdivision were financed by Countrywide. Currently 12 are in foreclosure dragging the value of my home down to 200,000.00.
    8. I have zero financial interest in this site or Dave’s book.
    9. If you were charged with Capitol Murder tomorrow and the State filed notice of intent to seek the Death Penalty – Would you represent yourself?

  10. Was being intentionally vague in not citing the particular individual so as to maintain the protocol of “politeness” and no personal attacks…but thought it would be obvious, if you read between the referrences…


  11. DEFINITELY not referring to you…sorry, thought that was obvious…was only bringing it to your attention…

  12. evoldog1234,

    Not sure who you are referring to — but, homeowner victims are my only concern.

    I cannot tell you more — but, will say — I am not in foreclosure, I am not in default, and I am not in any “business” that purports to help homeowners. Only here for the truth.

    As to my own background — ANONYMOUS.

  13. tnharry

    Do not discuss connections to evidence and procedure here — I am not an attorney. But, take my word — well aware.

    And, damages — easy — when creditor was concealed. Just have to know the creditor — to allege them properly. Not just violations of law here — but, denied right to confront and negotiate with “creditor” in violation of HAMP. What did homeowner lose — or is losing?? the right to save their home. And, yes, have that right.

    Sounds like you want those homes bad — Tn — will not last — just too much fraud. Understand you may make a living on this — but, you just cannot continue to make living on fraud. Eventually — game over.

    Marie — first you have to understand securitization — posted elsewhere — second you have to understand that PSA and Prospectus cannot deviate as to stated chain of title. Every “i” must be dotted — or there is no conveyance — not even as to cash flows.

    Then you have to understand how delinquent cash flows are removed from trusts — because — there is no longer a cash flow.

    This is what NJ judge focused on — and other judges in NY and elsewhere. NO proper execution — no chain — and no conveyance — no holder. But, again, that is all only if loan is performing — when not performing — removed — and that chain is undisclosed — why??? deregulation — they do not have to divulge – or so they think. But, violation of law.

    Easy to tear apart chain by PSA — as to initial “non-conveyance” of cash flows. And, that is just the start.

  14. Anon,

    In my humble opinion based on a limited and brief yet quite enlightening assessment, it appears that particular “self-annointed resident experts” are not really particularly qualified to be barking it up as much as they do…which may explain why, short of financial gain, they would spend so much time barking it up in a cyber forum…to the “unwashed” pro se litigant and desperate homeowner grasping at straws, they may appear to be quite knowledgable as they revel in their self-agrandizing whipping about of the legal lingo, and they may even briefly fool other true professionals who may get caught by not expecting to have to have that particular guard up here; but in reality, they are likely little more than “cyber legal tarzans” that effect no particular influence upon their “real life world”, and would most assuredly have their fuzzy little hat handed to them by any half decent pro se litigant…I guess all I’m saying, is consider the source, and maybe reconsider the weight you have thus far allowed them in shaping and affecting your decisions and opinions…an unfortunate reality, but probably real, no less…


  15. you’re such a pessimist, tn…it’s getting really boring…

  16. Anonymous

    Thanks for your views on Horvath, a very discouraging case for the home team. I’m not sure that the court makes the fine distinction you do. Worse, how do you prove, with all the shenanigans the banks engage in, that the transferor had no right to payment. Once it’s endorsed in blank, it’s cash. Forget about the PSA, the case all but dismisses securitization protocols.

  17. @carie – great. of course, there are 8 other elements of fraud you have to prove. was the misrep material? did you really rely on it? and what are your damages? i’ve said it 100 times on this site – fraud is a fun word to say, hard to allege with specificity as required under the rules of procedure, and much harder still to prove.

  18. Anon – i respect your opinions, i really do. I may not always agree with them, but i don’t question how well informed you are on the issues. With that said, you seem wholly unwilling to avoid issues that you are weaker in such as evidence and procedure. I’m not even sure to what you are directing your tirade about security investors. What is the flaw in my comments this evening to which that is aimed?

    I don’t have a financial interest in any of this. The banks don’t pay their attys on a contingency basis. Outside of a bankruptcy court, your statement “fail to challenge creditor status” is meaningless. Breach of contract, quiet title, tila, respa…those are claims.

  19. “A contract is not binding if it’s contents were misrepresented to the promisor. “fraud” (Park 100 Investors v. Kartes) Park 100 Investors v. Kartes, 650 N.E.2d 347″

  20. Tnharry

    Whose side are you on??

    Neil has had a problem by identifying security investors as the creditor. I have long disputed this one issue with Neil. Becoming increasingly difficult for Neil and others to support this false notion.. This does not negate Neil’s effort here to help homeowners — just this ONE issue is improperly “concluded” by Neil. Are you saying that you support it too??

    In order to draft a proper complaint — you have to have the basics in place first. Defining as to who is a “creditor” — is the number one basic. If you fail to challenge creditor status — and support that security investors are creditor — you are, in effect, negating homeowner victims rights. Is that your position???

    Look, Neil may feel sorry for security investors — fine — but, I do not. They are not — never were — and never will be the creditor. And, in fact, I resent their claims to “current cash flows” based upon usury rates and fraud – and NO transfer of legal title. Nevertheless, many here refuse to accept the truth — and, I must question — why?. .

    Believe this has been a major flaw here — since the onset. But, since you — apparently – have a financial interest — cannot blame you for fighting for what you think is deserved to you. However, wholeheartedly — I disagree with your analysis –in entirety.

    You are — in my opinion — entitled to nothing. But, that does not mean you are not a “general nice guy” — just means —- YOU ARE WRONG. And, not here in homeowners best interest.

    But, have a nice day.

  21. It’s the principle.

  22. @carie – I’d start with quiet title. Recouping the money is more of a tall order. You did in fact get a benefit from making payments in that you were living there during the time. Not impossible, but a tall order. And if the quiet title is successful, do you really need to risk alienating the judge or jury by asking for all your money back too?? Not knowing when you’ve won can backfire on you.

  23. @carie – I’ve seen those statements too but haven’t seen them say how they did it. Therefore it seems suspect to me. I haven’t done that. Why would I tell you how when I myself haven’t seen that result. I have outlined for you specifically a proven method to wipe out a lien in bankruptcy.

  24. I mean, come on, tn—What would be the exact cause of action or pleading if I want to sue them with regards to the fact that they have no proof of conveyance to the trust and no proof that my payments went to a “loan” in the trust??? And I want all my money back because they can’t prove it???

  25. @carie – after all the direct questions you’ve asked and I’ve answered I’m almost hurt by that comment. I’m not saying anything Neil hasnt said before and should say once a week.

    Drafting a complaint that will pass muster is the first crucial step. If you screw it up the tone is set for the rest of the suit.

  26. Like, for example, I’ve seen people post here about how they have received a judgement for full nullification of banks security interest and full repayment of all payments made to servicer…I’m sure you know about these and what how to do it—why don’t you share???

  27. Yeah, tn—whose side are you on, anyway? I’m just sayin’…

  28. @anon – really? You’re not finding that from me?? I don’t know how many more times I can give the same advice. Keep it simple and concise. Tie the allegations to the law. Tell a coherent, non-conspiratorial story in your pleading. If you allege fraud, take the time to learn and plead all the elements of fraud. Same with breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or any statute. All of those require specific elements and proper form to survive dispositive motions.

    Don’t ramble. Don’t treat a complaint as an “airing of grievances”. Don’t “usually” quote cases in a complaint.

  29. @marie & enraged

    ok, sorry about my comment earlier. Do over, strike it from the record.

  30. I need help right now. wells Fargo had me forced out of my home or be arrested. 3wks ago one west bank was claiming ownership of my home as they have been for the last year…onewest sent two attorneys to my hm 3 wks ago w/police ….the police were there only as formality. according to lawyers and police. I showed the one west attorneyd whytheyhad no interest in my property and they peacefully left. next. thing u know 3 wks later the police show up at my home stating Wells. Fargo owns the property andstate I’m trespassing and I must leave now or be arrested. that was 3 days ago
    all my belongings are still in the house including all the furniture. judge denied my pendency of action. they were to try eviction, then I could make them try and prove it. they pulled a whole new above the Law trick. can anyone give me know how to get back into my home pls. I will do ex parted tomorrow but I think that will get shut down too. isn’t there some type remedy. + harmony. 619-240-2325

  31. tnharry

    Technicalities are — agreed — far too often criteria for court dismissal and summary judgment. However, pro-se are SUPPOSED to be — given much more leeway.

    Fact that technicalities so commonly occur — is all the more reason for those with knowledge to prevent such a happening.

    Not finding that from you.

    And, yes, Carie — you should be able to demand from discovery.

    Dismissal for technicalities — is court cop-out. Further evidence of covert power to suppress evidence in courts across the US.

  32. Marie,

    Friend– UCC universal — very little divergence among states. How they interpret — may be the “conflict.” We will get there — you are taking the VA case out of context.

    You have to realize — old interpretation — replaced by current law that incorporates securitization. Creditor — holder/equitable/legal title — all now — redefined.

    If you are going to plead old “interpretation” before a court — you will get old “interpretation.”

  33. dny,

    Well, you raise a very important point — were the notes ever secured to begin with? Not by subprime refinances — they were not.

  34. Marie —

    You fail to quote the rest of case — re — possession — possession is only achieved by conveyance — what you quote is old “idea.”

    Quote —

    “Since then, Virginia law has hewed to this basic approach in a variety of ways. Principally, HN2Go to this Headnote in the case.the state has ensured that notes remain easy to transfer by adopting the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code governing negotiable instruments. Those provisions set forth a relatively simple set of rules. Instruments may still be endorsed in blank, see Va. Code Ann. § 8.3A-201(b), and once they are so endorsed, they may be negotiated (that is, transferred) “by transfer of possession alone,” see id.; see also id. § 8.3A-205(b) (“If an [e]ndorsement is made by the holder of an instrument and it is not a special [e]ndorsement, it is a ‘blank [e]ndorsement.’ [**9] When [e]ndorsed in blank, an instrument becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone until specially [e]ndorsed.”). After a transfer, the recipient of an instrument obtains whatever rights the transferor had, which in the case of an instrument endorsed in blank amounts to plenary power to enforce the instrument. See id. § 8.3A-203(b) (“Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument.”). In other words, just as before, possession of a negotiable instrument endorsed in blank permits the holder to enforce it. Id.; see id. § 8.3A-205(b) (establishing that the holder of an instrument endorsed in blank has the right to demand payment).”

    Thus, in order to have “possession” — there must be conveyance — which is what NJ judge argues. Thus, question becomes — was there EVER possession??? Not if — not conveyed. Key word – Marie — is possession — no where does it state that illegal possession “conveys” rights. Contrary — it states possession must be conveyed by the holder of an instrument — and relies upon the validity of the transferor valid right to transfer to begin with.

  35. @carie – this is not meant as any disrespect at all, but if you don’t understand what i’m referring to regarding rule 12 and failure to state a claim, then you desperately need legal help. you are really doing yourself a disservice proceeding pro se

  36. @carie – no. a claim is a legally recognized basis for relief, either based in statute or common law. fraud, negligence, breach of contract, etc. even assuming your loan didn’t make it into the trust, that’s not your claim, nor can you show damages from it. the investor who bought the MBS expecting that the loan had properly been a part of the trust would have that claim and the resultant damages perhaps. although due to the buy-back provisions in place, he hasn’t really been damaged either

  37. so—if a “claim’ is a demand for enforcement of a right—isn’t it a right of mine to demand that the servicer show conveyance of “loan” to the trust—and how/if my payments got there??? And then if they ignore or show no proof—I can sue them for all the money they took from me while “pretending” that it was going to the trust???

  38. @carie – old school?? winning a motion to dismiss because of a plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted never goes out of style….i’m referring to rule 12

  39. Marie, ANONYMOUS – difference between application of UCC-3 and UCC-9 in foreclosures of allegedly SECURED notes?

  40. And Carie….

    I’m post “foreclosure” so the name of the trust was on the foreclosure notice.

    It doesn’t matter what NJ says. Virginia law controls Virginia. The courts in Va say the mortgage folllows the note and horvath gies further and says the assignment is pretty much irrelevant in case of a conflict with the note. Virginia is totally reactionary, ultraconservative and favors the so-called creditor to the exclusion of any other theory

    I went to see a foreclosure DEFENSE specialist (Atty) when I realized what I’d been sucked into with the mortgage and how the banksters were inexorably dragging me into foreclosure. He said, “pay the mortgage.”. I said,” but I don’t owe these people” He said, “well you owe somebody; you’ll get credit.”. A true story

  41. It was said in the article above that “The [Nevada] Supreme Court in its recent decision has made it clear to judges that such sanctions are appropriate when lenders are found to have acted in bad faith.”

    … Does ANYBODY care to opine on the above and:

    “Crosby wants Mosley to rule that Wells Fargo acted in bad faith, to award sanctions for the “obvious forged, backdated and falsified documents” and to award cash sanctions.

    Crosby will ask Mosley to fine Wells Fargo an amount equal to the difference between the loan and the home’s current value.”

    Have any commenting attorneys out there taken a similar approach? Ever?

  42. Anonymous

    Horvath v BNY (jul 2011)
    We exchanged postings about this mid Sept.  See quoted except from case:

    Marie says:
    September 18, 2011 at 6:34 pm
    Horvath (2011):

    Indeed, the state’s policy dating back to at least 1827 has been to allow the bearer of a negotiable instrument (that is, the person to whom funds are owed) to endorse the instrument “in blank.” Whitworth v. Adams, 26 Va. (5 Rand.) 333, 1827 WL 1200, at *45 (1827) (Cabell, J.). Such an endorsement allows the bearer to transfer the instrument freely, insofar as it makes possession the sole precondition to enforcement of the instrument. Id. (“[H]aving been endorsed in blank, every bearer or holder, be he agent, trustee, finder or thief, has a right to sell [the instrument], and to transfer it, by delivery.”).

  43. …except that it’s old school—haven’t you heard it’s the new Wild West out there??? Whatever works and whatever it takes is how it’s done in an unprecedented situation…

  44. @carie – i like to think of it as a public service announcement

  45. Marie

    Please provide the Virginia case. Hate to say it, but as conflicts of interpretation of law continue across the country and issue eventually goes to higher court — put my bets on NJ interpretation over VA – if VA is stating thieves can enforce.

    But, again, please provide the VA case —you can look up the NJ case — Bank of New York v. Michael Raftogainis . .

  46. tnharry’s words to live by—copy/paste–insert name here—

    ’till the next one, eh?

  47. thank you kenneth taylor for such a shining example of what not to do with regard to litigation. keep it simple. don’t rant and rave. use concise statements explaining how the facts of your case lead to legal conclusions. don’t ramble on about 18 different conspiracies, including using your name through the postal service. don’t use words like pretender lenders, robo signers, strawman , foreclosure mills , defunct trust, fraud, forgery, trustees, fraudulent appraisal (particularly if you don’t really understand them) expecting that they alone will do anything for you. and even if you can show that they are relevant to your case, be prepared to show how these issues have damaged you. the goal – state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and then be able to actually prove it.

  48. tnharry,

    I misunderstood – I thought you were saying that she had answered my Q’s on arresting lawyers and AG writs of mand/proh.

    I now see that you were referring to my question as to whether you were a lawyer or not, but even so, she did not answer that at all…all she said was that you were in biz in TN, she did not say that you were a lawyer…

  49. Marie—ANONYMOUS said:

    “— that is why you have to show that the party claiming to be creditor is NOT the creditor.
    UCC – is pretty much universal. NJ judge has analyzed very well — in order to be a “holder” — there needs to be conveyance,.
    Trust “ownership” claim can be torn apart by failure to convey — and failure of servicer to advance payments….”

    I stopped my servicer cold (for several months now), when I demanded (in an email), PROOF of conveyance to the trust and PROOF of servicer advancing payments…they not only never answered me, (even though up until then I had almost daily communication with the same email “person”), they are now totally ignoring me. Kind of like the way a third party debt collector ignores someone after you send them a cease and desist letter…

    Forgive me if you have mentioned this here before—but did anyone give you a name/number of a “trust” that your “loan” was supposedly pooled into?

  50. Anonymous

    I respect your knowledge of these matters very much, but the Virginia case is crystal clear. A thief can enforce the note. And in Virginia the note controls the mortgage notwithstanding the assignment, ie, doesn’t matter who is named in the assignment We know this logic is really idiocy but caselaw is law nonetheless.

  51. Happy New Year to our Jewish brothers and sisters.

    Anybody care to comment on the below excerpt from the posted article above? It looks like it is related to the discussion regarding alleging forgery… I have not seen this formula used before, where a proposed “fine” relates to “loan value” minus related home “current value.” Would such a “fine” be sought as a credit to the homeowners, or simply go to the Court? Excerpt is:

    “Crosby wants Mosley to rule that Wells Fargo acted in bad faith, to award sanctions for the “obvious forged, backdated and falsified documents” and to award cash sanctions.

    Crosby will ask Mosley to fine Wells Fargo an amount equal to the difference between the loan and the home’s current value.

  52. @evol – that’s the one i was referring to

  53. tnharry,

    I’ve looked back thru this and the ‘Nevada” thread, and cannot find the post by anon to me, that you refer to, all I find is ths one:

    ANONYMOUS, on September 28, 2011 at 4:48 pm said:

    Tnharry — in “business” — Tn — just tell us how your business operates.


    Please point it out, or cut/paste here.

  54. Marie

    Yes, you do not know who debt buyer is (and banks are debt buyers too) — that is why you have to show that the party claiming to be creditor is NOT the creditor.

    UCC – is pretty much universal. NJ judge has analyzed very well — in order to be a “holder” — there needs to be conveyance,.

    Trust “ownership” claim can be torn apart by failure to convey — and failure of servicer to advance payments.

    Know some courts are “slow” — but, things are changing.

  55. Enraged,

    To EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY rehash the standing aspect relative to forgery, it just occurred to me that if they sold my house on the steps (or any other way, for that matter), while knowing there was a forged doc in the title, that there are applicable Land and Criminal Code statutes that apply, no? I will have sent them proof of the forgery, cert return receipt,, so they would be going forward “knowingly”, which I would think satisfies the criminal statutes, as opposed to me not giving them proof until AFTER the sale, and illegally selling my house (theft) would give me standing, no?

    Same with criminal intent, if I have sent the proof of forgery to the FC attys along with a demand that they cancel teh sale, adn they inform me in writing, or on a recorded phone call, that even being aware of teh forgery they were going to go forward with the sale, that I would have standing to press charges for criminal intent, no?

    Another thing I forgot to ask concerns the state, not the individual, taking out criminal charges – I have a friend who’s house was burglarized by their kid’s friend. The police thought the people’s kid was also involved, and told the folks that the police would not press charges against the other kid, unless the parents swore out a warrant against THEIR kid.

    So, how does THAT fit into the mix, as far as it not being the individual that presses charges? I would think if those parants could swear a warrant against their kid (which they did not), I could swear out one against someone for theft or criminal intent, no?

    And, since I’m sitting here looking at the GA Land and Criminal codes, I’d like to EVER-SO-SLIGHTLY look back at the mandamus/prohibition/AG scenario for a moment, considering statutes such as relate to forgery, and relative to the AG’s discretion.

    I think being in possession of irrefutable, prima facie evidence of a crime or crimes, that the AG may not HAVE any discretion to NOT prosecute – otherwise, it would be analogous to stabbing someone to death on the field at halftime during the superbowl, and having the judge cut a deal instead of prosecutting to the “fullest extent of the law”, and that he would be derelict in his duties to NOT prosecute. At least I think it’s be close enough to warrant filing the writs.

    I’m thinking that under at least those strict circumstances, that mandamus/prohibition would be effective, as the AG would have to offer evidence WHY prosecuting is NOT proper, no?


  56. Carie,

    I got a copy of the notary’s certificate of authenticity. As the notary clerk was printing it out, both she and another lady that works the adjoining RE filing counter started jumping up and down like little girls shouting “It’s a forgery! It’s a forgery!”

    What more do you need? 😎

    Seriously, whoever signed it, left off the middle initial, and the law reads that it has to be exactly as on the certificate; it’s apparantly the first and best way to determine authenticity – if it’s not the same, it’s legally a forgery.

    They also noted the handwriting itself did not match, and need be I would have gotten an affidavit from a handwriting expert attesting so.

    I also figure that if in court with it, that need be, all I’d have to do is ask the judge to call across the street and have the notary clerk or her boss, the superior court clerk (who is an attorney) pop in to testify on the applicable law.


  57. Nora C,

    Not sure how to set it up, but I’d like to compare notes with you privately on quiet title, as well as whatever other things, such as the follow up to the qualified request, etc. that you know of that are working here, if you don’t mind. I’m in Smyrna, by the way, what part of the state are you in?


  58. Enraged,

    THANK-YOU VERY MUCH for the thorough and SIMPLE explanation.

    I’ll certainly bat it around a little, as it sounds like it may turn on the same points concerning standing that are being ruled on both ways in whether the homeowner has standing to raise issues applicable to the securitization pools, but as far as clarification goes, that was great, thanks again!

    As I mentioned earlier, I do a lot of my own civil stuff, but don’t know dick about the elements that separate civil from criminal; that was very helpful.

    As far as “leaving it to the AG” goes, I had no intention of taking that on myself; mandamus would be me trying to force the AG to act by investigating the alleged crimes, and prohibition would be to block him from cutting a deal without a proper investigation first.

    I get the “broad discretion” aspect, but would only say that it is not carte blanche, and I would guess is similar to a judge’s discretion – it may be broad, but is often reversed and limited, on appeal. Meaning, and as we’ve all discussed, if these crimes the banks are and have been committing rise to a particular level, the AG could be legally shirking its duty to not at least investigate, and filing the writs would in effect, force a “mini trial” where evidence would be entered, maybe even essentially performing that investigation, and a jury would decide whether or not the AG had a duty to prosecute.

    I have no problem with the AG using it’s discretion, as I also don’t want him to pour taxpayer money down a hole, but I also do not want the AG to not prosecute for political/campaign contribution reasons – and I believe that these writs may be the only leverage we have to pervent that from happening.

    SOOOOO, having said THAT, I would appreciate some legal opinion on the application of mandamus/prohibition applied as I show herein, and I think it will require some working knowledge of mandamus/prohibition; an AG’s basic responsibilities/duties, not unlike a judge’s oath of office that sets levels of performance that he cannot go below; compared to the limits of his discretion; and if there is any, established case law on same.

    I’d also like to add, that I have great respect for our AG here in GA, Sam Olens – he is a republicunt (sorry – couldn’t resist that, being a progressive liberal!).

    He has a reputation “on both sides of the aisle”, not unlike the late apellate court judge Debra Bernes, of being intelligent, fair-minded, strong in character and has an execellent professional reputation. He’s newly elected AG, he was my county commission chairman, so i am familiar with him. He’s one of those rare people that you don’t really hear anyone ever badmouthing.

    But having said that, when politics and money are brought to bear, things get muddled, not unlike a good cop covering for a bad cop because they’re both cops.

    Thanks again for the explanation, and thanks in advance to anyone that can address the prohibition/mandamus option with authority.


  59. @evoldog—how did you prove that your assignment was a forgery?

    I agree that since we are literally in the wild west with foreclosure fraud— that we can do whatever it takes—like you threatening them—it’s quite ridiculous, but they have left us no choice…and the fact that it worked is very telling…of course, at your own risk—but what have we got to lose??? We are surrounded by liars and thieves…

  60. Nora,

    I love the idea of foreclosures being overturned but, just so that i can keep some perspective, how many such cases are there really in GA (in terms of percentage)?

    I still think that most states will shy away from it if it means opening a new can of worms, i.e. having to evict new owners, reimbursing their downpayment, paying for their legal expenses, etc. Title companies have much to lose if that happens and, as we have seen, quite a few of them have already refused to insure foreclosed homes. What do you think would happen if, all of a sudden, they all refused it?

    I really believe it won’t happen on a national level. There may be a few cases here and there where a judge reversed a foreclosure but I can’t see it becoming the norm.

    Then again, I have been known to be wrong at times… So, hold on to that hope if it helps you get through and gives you wings to fight.

  61. Cubed

    That’s hilarious. Me a shill? Just to be clear. No no a thousand times no. I have suffered as much as anyone putting in their two cents on this site

    I no longer wish to name names because I’ve already had a taste of bank intimidation. Think what you like….

  62. Cubed2k,

    Marie and I sound like shills?

    Why? Because we are educated, we use our brains, we analyze and we don’t “cut-and-paste” stuff we don’t understand?

    A shill is someone who connives in order to sell you something. When did we ever try to sell you anything? Either you get it and you do what you need to do to get out from under or you don’t and all you’ll be doing is ruminate empty thoughts that lead nowhere and call people names. There’s a lot of that here. The weapon of the weak.

    Nothing “shilling” about what Marie and I write. She’s trying to get back something she lost. I’m trying not to lose it in the first place.

    What’s up with the attitude?


    Kenneth S. Taylor
    8610 Hadden Road
    Twinsburg Ohio 44087

    Federal Bureau of Investigation
    121 S Main St, Akron Ohio 44308 -1415

    Dear Honorable F.B.I. Agents, Intake Officers and Staff,

    I implore you open and investigate the following criminal acts and other matters stated below supported by proof and evidence enclosed:
    The criminal acts are so malicious and deplorable that the damage done to victims the homeowners can never be repaired we ask for nothing less than criminal prosecutions this agency must check the licensing boards of all notaries that appear in any and all documents for all the fraudulent attestation to all these phony fake documents.

    Judge Tom Parker is so corrupt he has defied the Ninth District Court of Appeals Order in which they agreed Judge lied about hearing Defendants counterclaimed they reverse and remanded case back to trial court and has thus far Tom Parker refused to follow mandate and wont set a trial date, he issued a summary judgment without a single witness , and without a signed affidavit with no affiants name on it that has to be a criminal act as he never look at the final decree order ,it against the law to sign without knowing the information your signing the affidavit had no name on it.
    Judge Tom Parker , Attorney Kevin L. Williams and Robin Wilson have given false and material declarations to the trial court violating federal laws under 18 U.S.C.1623 which is a both a criminal and civil act of conspiracy and a crime which carries fines of 100 thousand dollars and or 5 years in prison , they have lied to courts and use the same lies against defendants( Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia A. Taylor Driggins) in an attempt to take their real property ,without perfecting a lien, selling and transferring, assigning property of Option One the original lenders years later after they were out of business and company was defunct, and did use identity theft, and stole homeowners identity as parties are guilty of transferring homeowners private information by United States Postal service , U.S. Mail via Electronic Mail creating False data and accounting, and payment receipts by use of computer via internet and are guilty of Mail and Wire fraud by forwarding private information to other parties without their permission such as their social security numbers names addresses, work history, credit reports, bank statements ect. but not limited to such, trying to evict them unlawfully from a home which they have owned and resided for 23 years by using forgery of Kevin L. Williams name and signature on order of sale as someone tried to force sheriffs sale by signing order with initial only ( K W) using pretender lenders, robo signers, strawman , foreclosure mills , defunct trust, and trustees, fraudulent appraisal , and 14 forgeries of attorney Kevin L. Williams name, fabrication, of surrogate signings , misreprentation, fake and counterfeit Allonge Notes and negotiable instrumentalities. [Whoever, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, or alters any obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (18USC 471)] and fake notaries, fake affidavits, fake title insurance written by Manley Deas Kochaski LLC on national known Chicago Title Papers without their knowledge , using their in house title company Allondian Title located in the same office in Columbus Ohio, 18 U.S.C. § 514 : US Code – Section 514: Fictitious obligations, this has to be one of the worst cases of fraud before the FBI in its long distinguished history.

    Currently there is a fraudulent lawsuit and judgment against them, (Kenneth S. Taylor Alycia A. Taylor), filed by Plaintiffs attorney (Kevin L. Williams of Manley Deas Kochalski LLC. Located in Columbus Ohio, P. O. Box 165028, 43216-5028 for DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-OPT2 ASSETS-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006- OPT2 , who have never proved they had standing to file the lawsuit and has told courts the note is lost missing or stolen and assignment was submitted to court after lawsuit was filed , and produced after allege transfer of property , a fake assignment fraudulent sham , defective, false , and misleading , document which was deemed as such by the United States District Court Judge Sara Lioi on November 8, 2007 See Exhibit ( D) enclosed , that assignment was robo signed and fake and forgery provided to courts used as evidence in courts by and though Kevin L. Williams and Manley Deas Kochalski LLC. As is every document before the court in this case. The fake, forgery, robo, signed , documents have been used to commit civil and criminal conspiracy , mail fraud, forgery, identity thief, nothing is original or authentic its all falsely made by crime lab LPS. And was not produced until the courts needed it to foreclose, the attorney just orders any documents the court needed from the crime lab LPS, Docx, this is a nationally well known fact , the attorney’s just order fake documents from this crime lab and did not get the phony documents and affidavits unless the court required them and the documents don’t reflect the actual transactions that occurred the attorney Kevin L. Williams willingly and knowingly produced and provided Ohio courts both Federal and state with fraudulent documents , which are more fully describe in documents enclosed in this package. Moreover Kevin L. Williams and his law firm has conspired and filed 14 variations of his signatures on sworn legal important documents with state and federal courts in a elaborate scheme to unlawfully take the Taylor’s real property, the signatures contain no power of attorney , the law firm is a national known Foreclosure Mill, That uses robo signatures from foreclosure Counsel of Manley Deas Kochalski and Kevin L. Williams , Thompson Hine and Robin Wilson who violated the following rules regulations statues, an treaties of OHIO and U.S.FEDERAL LAW TITLE 18, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 CHAPTER 6 WIRE FRAUD, MAIL FRAUD; Regulation Z Sec. 226.1 Authority, purpose, coverage, organization, enforcement and liability. Complaints to Akron Bar Associations, Cleveland Bar Associations , Columbus ,Bar Association , and The Supreme Court of Ohio Disciplinary Counsel all yieldeied the same results an occasional admittance of unlawfully practice, but the Bar Associations all stated it was a widely accepted practice for attorney’s to forge, use forge signatures , allow others in office to forge their names, allow some unknown people in there office to sign someone else name to a legal court document especially given the fact this attorney has never made a single appearance to court in 4 years, and has not been able to be reached by phone in 4 years the Akron Bar Association attorneys says Kevin L. Williams does not have to answer my phone call, and can allow other to try to mimic his signatures as long as he has given them permission to do so , this is violation of federal laws that govern forgery , for some one to forge attorney Kevin L. Williams signature on documents to sale the Taylors home in a sheriffs sale is illegal, corruption, criminal conspiracy, and the Bar Associations said this was legal and found no wrongdoing , See Exhibit (H) correspondence from various Bar Associations in Akron, Cleveland, and Columbus who and said attorney’s can break the law and forge each other signatures. For the sake of convenience, Essential saying Kevin L. Williams is above the law. We believe these are jail able offenses crimes of forgery and violates the law and treaties of the United States and carry prison sentences the absolute proof is included the records and complete letters are available in Bar Association files the foreclosure Counsel of Manley Deas Kochalski and Kevin L. Williams , Thompson Hine and Robin Wilson violated the following rules regulations statues, an treaties of OHIO and U.S.FEDERAL LAW TITLE 18, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 CHAPTER 6 WIRE FRAUD, MAIL FRAUD; Regulation Z Sec. 226.1 Authority, purpose, coverage, organization, enforcement and liability.

    The judge Tom Parker while case was in state court conspired with the plaintiff’s attorney Robin Wilson of Thompson Hine LLP in a joint effort to destroy defendants counterclaim. The judge directed her to draft a false and misleading statement in a previous Final decree of foreclosure. Robin Wilson did so knowingly and willingly by inserting false claims of judge that he had considered defendants counterclaim is his motion granting plaintiff summary judgment which is void because of fraud of the courts and judge a lying officer of the court… Robin Wilson drafted and sent a letter dated September 28,2009 to Judge confirming the act of conspiracy and her participation as such. The letter states per verbatim “Enclosed, in response to your telephone request, is a revised Judgment Entry and Decree in Foreclosure so as to include Defendants’ Counterclaim and Plaintiffs’ Reply to Counterclaim”. Signed by Robin Wilson. See Exhibit (A). These representations were false and defendants knew the falsity of these statements at the time they were made. The judge never once mentioned defendants counterclaim, prior to this directive, nor is there any evidence the judge has reviewed the counterclaim. This was a wicked scheme perpetrated against defendants specifically, strategically and systematically, the judge lied in effort to deprive defendants of their rights to homeownership. Judge and Robin Wilson have given false and material declarations to the trial court violating federal laws under 18 U.S.C.1623 which is a both a criminal and civil act of conspiracy against defendants. Moreover COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT C. A. NO. 25281 agreed with the plaintiffs that judge erred essentially confirmed he lied and reversed and remanded case back to trial court. Judge Tom Parker is an Officer of the court THIS VOIDS STATE COURT FINDING OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ITS NULL AND VOID FOREVER.

    We now and at last pray by the grace and mercy of almighty God, and ask that this High Federal Bureau of Investigations intervene and look into these matters asap.

    Respectfully, Submitted By,
    Kenneth S. Taylor


    Ps. Exhibit (H) is page (2) two of a two page letter by Heather M. Zirke the Assistance Counsel of Akron Bar Association who says forgery of another signature 14 times is legal and accepted practice in law. Page one is missing just ask her to send you copy of the original letter in which she defended and justified these forgeries of Kevin L. Williams signature.

    Also a letter from Cleveland Bar Association that says other lawyer’s in his office may forge legal documents by signing Kevin L. Williams name as though they are him to unlawful order of sale.

    All other documents are self explanatory , and are excerpts from trial documents from United States Sixth Circuit Appeals Court and the original Complaint filed against these parties in federal District Court the evidence is overwhelming and compelling in which judges had a sworn duty to report under 18USC (4) and have themselves committed Felonies for not reporting to F.B. I.

  64. Here in Georgia, foreclosures are being overturned and the property is returned to the rightful owners through Quiet Title.

    Our state laws may be different from your state’s, but here we are winning with the simple “ultra vires” concept.

    The banks didn’t lend any money, so no consideration was given, the contract is null and void, ab initio.

  65. Cops in Cambridge MA take the time to explain, many of them have a law degree and I pestered until I understood why i couldn’t file a criminal complaint for a check I knew was not signed by the proper party. I will say that the words might have been different (it was a while ago, something like 6 or 7 years, before I moved out of MA and realized that MA cops are remarkably well-educated) and he may not have used “standing”. The idea he tried to make me understand was that forgery in itself means nothing unless the proper party claims it.

    That was the point of my message to evol who didn’t seem to understand that having mortgage docs with forged signatures doesn’t give him any authority to file a criminal complaint… which, by the way, can only be filed by an entity such as a town, a city, a state, on behalf of a victim. the prosecutor doesn’t prosecute for the individual but for the city, the county or the state. Same for the AG.

    That was the point of my post.

  66. @marie

    you said

    I’ve got the worlds most famous robos forged on my paperwork and a bogus transfer from the servicer to the trust. But Virginia is nonjudicial and thoroughly reactionary: I found a recent case that says the assignment is basically irrelevant and when the note is endorsed in blank even a thief can enforce it. What good is proof against such crazy logic. So…… Here I sit with my hopeless case.


    alright. can you be more specific?

    Most famous robos forged?

    bogus transfer?

    from servicer to trust? What trust trust?

    reactionary? what does that mean?


    to be quite honest, you and enraged sound like shills on this site?

  67. Yes, if loan was written off — any party (servicer/servicer acting on behalf of) who now holds collection rights – those rights are for an unsecured written-off debt. IRS will not let them collect twice. And, everything must be properly transferred. See Footnote 35 by TARP Oversight panel – below —

    I just wanted to know if a balloon payment which was due march 09 and was written off on 10/10 is unsecured even if the new owner has note and mortgage. He did somehting stupid too – he split the mortgage in two. How can two parties be holding a 7 year old defaulted note with a balloon payment? The new investor didnt disclose that he split the mortgage in two. I went to the county clerk and discovered this. What does eveyone think?

  68. @enraged

    you said

    The cop looked at me and said: “You can’t. You don’t have standing and you don’t have a loss. There are only 2 people who can file a criminal complaint for forgery on that specific check: the owner of the check (my ex) if he chooses to do so and the bank that should honor it. If the bank pays, you have no problem, no damage, no claim, civil or otherwise.


    I find this hard to believe. Why would a cop state what you said?


    Your whole story seems not quite right?

  69. Chase is global, BANK OF AMERICA is global, CITIbank is global, Cap one Is global.

    They are not USA American Companies.

    Today I walked into my local Lucky Store to buy some food,

    out front was the new Chase branch office with a sign stating Chase is here, and they had an American Flag on a pole. Can you believe it? What BS?

    Chase does not give a flying hoot it is American.

    I gave the teller some hell telling him I can’t believe Lucky allowed Chase to rent space from them. I told him Chase is as American as the Nazi’s were.

  70. And Marie,

    I didn’t realized that you had already lost your house. I am terribly sorry about it. I hope things will move so much that, ultimately, you are able to go after the bank for your loss. I doubt that any court will reverse a foreclosure and even more so if the house was lost in a BK. I realize that one judge in MA did it but I really doubt that it will be common practice in this country. Once the house is gone, there is a good chance it was sold and reversing such a decision opens the door to a whole new set of problems we don’t want to see take place: what to do with the new owners if they purchased in good faith?

    I suspect that not too many people would want to move back into a house they lost. On the other hand, if you had put a down payment and paid a lot into it, I would want to see you get every penny back, especially if the wrong bank foreclosed.

    I do hope is that you’ll find a competent attorney willing to look into it for you and to help you get back what is yours and that you would never have lost, had banks not caused this economic collapse. So, going after your money to put everything behind you and settle elsewhere would only be fair.

  71. so let’s consider Wall Street’s influence on the American People and the greater good. And if you trade stocks or you are invested in IRA’s or 401k”s or Pension funds.

    Let’s consider what is going on.

    As a consumer, a person who needs to buy corn, buy gas, buy copper, buy any commodity directly or indirectly related to the economy———-why the cheaper the price for such things, like cotton in clothes——–that is good for you as a consumer, the cheaper the better.

    But if you bought such things – cotton via clothes, gas to power your car, corn for eating—-and you bought such thing by buying a stock in a company directly or buying it thru your IRA, stock trading account, pension fund (anything offered by Wall Street)———–why you wish prices to increase to increase the value of your stock holdings or IRA acct or Pension acct.

    This is a dilemma.

    If you use this stuff but yet invest in the same stuff. What does that mean really?

    Oh it’s so confusing, a problem. Something you think with everyday and yet maybe you do not think with it.


    What is underneath it all. Wall St and banks control the game, the rules and laws, and THEY get a commission or fees for every transaction on this game. And the 5 cent fee or 1 dollar fee gets multiplied by millions and now globally by billions for the banks and Wall Street.


    Is this free enterprise and free markets?.

  72. Evoldog1234,

    A while back, my ex (who was out of town) had his girlfriend fill out and sign one of his checks to reimburse me for 1/2 our kid’s braces. I saw the signature and right away, I said: “It’s a forgery. I’m going to get him for that (long lasting bad blood and unresolved issues but that’s not the point)”. I take the check, go to the cops (I pay their salary: I go see them whenever I have a question) and I say: “I want to report a forgery. (As I said, bad blood… and half a brain on my part)”. The cop looked at me and said: “You can’t. You don’t have standing and you don’t have a loss. There are only 2 people who can file a criminal complaint for forgery on that specific check: the owner of the check (my ex) if he chooses to do so and the bank that should honor it. If the bank pays, you have no problem, no damage, no claim, civil or otherwise.

    If the bank refuses to pay because the signature is not the one on file, then you can file a civil complaint for bad check on the part of the ex. You probably can even ask for treble damages. You cannot file a criminal complaint because, as far as you are concerned, you are not the victim of a crime and it’s only a civil matter. You can go to probate court and have a divorce judge fine your ex. You can go to small claims court for the amount you’re out of. But you cannot file a criminal complaint.”

    Not the answer i wanted but I got the point.

    We, as homeowners, don’t have any standing to file a criminal complaint for forged signatures on mortgage assignments, transfers, satisfactions, etc. We simply don’t. No if, no buts, we don’t. The mortgage lender or servicer could (but won’t since the forgery was instigated by him). All we have are civil complaints, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE SUFFERED DAMAGES (i.e. a loss). So long as we still have the house, we don’t have a loss. We can argue a loss in case of Tila/respa violations and conversion subsequent to the improper assignment but that’s about it. We can raise the issue of forgery in BK court to turn a secured debt into an undecured one. All that robo-signing does is give us amunitions to stand firm on our “The bank doesn’t have standing as the transfer/assignment was not properly effected. Therefore, the bank cannot take the house.” On the other hand, the AG does have the authority to file criminal charges based on certain powers he holds by virtue of his office.

    Does that answer your question to tnharry? Quite frankly, I would leave that job to the AG any day of the week: prosecuting crime is much, much harder than prevailing in civil matters (Remember? The burden of proof is lower in civil matters…)

  73. ok, so here I post totally unrelated but maybe related, you decide.

    Neil posted this back in Jan 5, 2009 – – – two years ago.


    Here is what I wish to point out from above link:

    “You can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip,” said Don Siler, the chief marketing officer at MRS Associates, a big collection company that works with seven of the 10 largest credit card companies. “The big settlements just aren’t there anymore.”

    and this:

    Banks and card companies are bracing for a wave of defaults on credit card debt in early 2009, and they are vying with each other to get paid first. Besides, the sooner people get their financial houses in order, the sooner they can start borrowing again.


    and this:

    the sooner people get their financial houses in order, the sooner they can start borrowing again.

    This statement above is pure proof we live in a debt based money system–the Federal Reserve System, Central Banks, as enacted in 1913 here in the USA and other Countries.

    Money is created from book keeping entry.

    The beauty of the system, since money is created at the bank level and from nothing but book keeping entry, why we have bankruptcy laws, every seven years.


    per Dylan Ratigan show today, 23% of homeowbers are underwater.

    Per above, the “sooner people get their financial houses in order, the sooner they can start borrowing again…………………………


    How to reset the system of banking, the federal reserve system.

    File bankruptcy. That clears the books of the banks double entry system.


    And my message is this—–

    once filed and cleared for forgiveness of debt – discharge per the law.

    Why do not borrow again from banks.

    Bankruptcy will clear the books, but then you must not fall back into the borrowing game. If the American people do not use credit nor take out loans from Banks, that will kill them and Wall Street in their Ponzi game. And that includes all Loans securitized which are cars, computers, credit cards, and so on.

    remember from above:

    the sooner people get their financial houses in order, the sooner they can start borrowing again.


    long live your FICO Score.

  74. @evol – i think perhaps you are confusing a lack of response with a lack of response that you want to hear….mandamus the AG or don’t i don’t really care. i think you’ll find that he’s not in dereliction of his duty per mandamus since his duty includes broad discretion and he’s exercised it apparently. as to the criminal issue – unless YOUR signature has been forged, you lack standing to swear out the complaint/warrant. i’m not going to give you specific citations. send me a retainer to do your legal research and i’ll send you a brief on the issues. and by the way, ANON answered your question hours ago so i didn’t see any need to repeat…i am, i practice in TN

  75. I’ve been asking these Q’s for weeks…and yes, I do get upset when I ask a specific question, repeatedly, and get what amounts to “because it says so in the bible” answers…I asked you a number of times to simply support your position, but it was like pulling teeth.

    You’ve still not really addressed teh mandamus/prohibitin Q…you keep relating it back to standing, relative to any cases I may have not being connected to the state’s claims…but AGAIN, that is not the basis of mandamus/prohibition…from what i gather from your resoponses, is that you are not knowledgabble about mand/pro., whcih is FINE, but you shouldn’t try to answer Q’s you don’t know about by simply applying the nearest legal reference you have…this is not horse shoes.

    As far as the forgery/arresting attys issue – you haven’t really answered that, either…it’s not a Q of it being my sig or not, or trying to get a judgment saying it’s a forgery – it was a simple question relative to criminal law, and again, it seems you aren’t real well versed in that area, and that’s FINE – but you do no one any good trying to “get close” – again, this is not horse shoes, so if you don’t know, don’t answer, PLEASE…and if I’m an ass for insisting you support what you say, and for getting pissed when you don’t…what does that make you for pretending you are versed on a topic when you obviously are not?

    AND you have not answered if you are an attorney or not…pretty important, esp. concerning the AG issue, as that’s a rarely used area of law, and many lawyers are not real familiar with it. If you are NOT an attorney, you have absolutely no biz answering either of my questions.

    So, ARE you?


  76. @evoldog – good luck. you’re a bigger ass than i’ve ever been on this blog. as to your demanding answers on the site and not getting them, i’ve only seen you appear in the last couple of days. now you are abusive, rude, and demanding that the resident “experts” answer your question. i’m not sure what your background is, but acting like a petulant child throwing a tantrum is probably not the best way to solicit professional advice. godspeed to you

  77. OK, I found an exchange on another thread, adn as you can see, you did not adequately address either issue, so I still await your 2 arguments and legal authority:

    tnharry, on September 28, 2011 at 2:23 pm said:
    here’s another problem – usually it’s not difficult to get a warrant when it’s YOUR signature you are alleging to have been forged. the person whose signature you are alleging to have been forged would be the party to swear a warrant, not you. admittedly this is only my opinion, but i think this isn’t a strategy that has real legs

    evoldog1234, on September 28, 2011 at 2:13 pm said:
    @tnharry-but I’m not talking about filing a complaint, I’m talking about having someone arrested for a crime. Splitting hairs comment meant that I don’t know what the level proof is that’s necessary (which is what I’m waiting for), and what that proof is, doesn’t matter to my question, which was if you DO have whatever proof is acceptable, can’t you have them arrested.

    tnharry, on September 28, 2011 at 1:49 pm said:
    @evoldog – i’m not so sure it is splitting hairs. absent a court finding of forgery or misdeeds, i don’t think you will get anyone to accept a complaint for forgery if it’s not your signature you are complaining of. they’ll tell you it’s a civil matter. at this point, it’s a “he said/she said” situation, and there are no damages to complain of.

    evoldog1234, on September 28, 2011 at 12:45 pm said:
    tnharry: While there is no need to split that hair to get my question answered, first, all you need is proof to either get the police, or for yourself to swear out an arrest warrant (is my understanding), the court order comes last, and as a result of the arrest (I am, of course patiently awaiting advice on this, to be certain).

    Also, there are a variety of ways, I expect, for something to be proved a forgery, as necessary to make an arrest. For example, the notary sig on an assignment in my chain of title does not match the signature on the certificate of application – and not the just handwriting, but the actual signature, which in Ga, has to match exactly, or it is a forgery; after a short conversation and emailing the certificate of authority for th enotary to McCalla Raymer, they quickly cancelled the sale. I would have rather had teh S.O.B. arrested on th esteps, but can’t get this question answered, to be certain – but it sure did make McCalla slam on the brakes when I threatened criminal charges…you could also get an affidavit from a handwriting expert, etc.

    While I suppose you could file for a declaratory judgment on the forged doc, and that order would be prima facie evidence of teh “dirty deed”, I don’t think that is necessary in obtaining an arrest warrant.

    But again, I’m still KINDA SORTA patiently awaiting the local experts, who have no compunction against opining on all other legal aspects, to come forth on this topic.


    tnharry, on September 28, 2011 at 12:26 pm said:
    @evoldog – you say “forged documents” but they’re not really forged unless you have a finding from the court saying so are they? it’s one thing to swear a warrant that the signature on a stolen check isn’t yours since you have first-hand knowledge. it’s quite another to say that an assignment by someone who you have never met is forged. it’s a question of proof. and i think you would find if you tried this course of action that you would be told it is a civil matter. no real harm in trying it though i suppose

  78. thanks anon for the great advice. i’ll change our business model immediately.

    @evol – AGs have broad discretion to investigate or not and prosecute or not. your recourse against them is to speak in the voting booth. i still disagree as to the AG issue. you lack standing – they are settling claims that don’t impact you or your ability to maintain separate actions against the bank

  79. tnharry: Refresh my memory, please…for some strange reason, the only response of yours to me is the one saying “no I don’t think you can” to the forgery issue, and that I don’t have standing” on teh AG issue.

    I do recall that whatever you said earlier (that has mysteriously disappeared from the blog) did NOT come anywhere NEAR addressing my questions.

    Your last missive also says nothing – I said nothing of “equivocation” – I simply stated that your only support was “I don’t think you can”, so I asked “WHY” don’t you think so, and what your legal authority is – you either could not or would not answer, and still have not – you have not stated “it” a few times already…and if you HAVE, since it ever-so-conveniently disappeared from the thread, PLEASE, repeat it…I'[m sure we’d ALL like to hear it.

    Everything you suggested (in teh posts that have disappeared) I explained how your answers did not apply – adn those answers of mine are still here to be seen.

    I asked, very simply, what is your argument and legal authority in support of your vague position that you “don’t think so” relative to arresting the atty’s, adn you have nothing to offer but the following:

    “when i say “i don’t think you can”, it’s not a statement of equivocation – it’s my opinion that you can not. and as to why, i’ve stated it a few times already”

    Sorry, but that is not an argumetn supported by legal authority, adn NO you have not stated it a few times already, adn if your posts had not “disappeared” that would be easy to see.

    You also have not offered any support for why you insist I have no standing in the AG issue that counters my position, considering I said I DO have standing as a GA citizen.

    You also would not answer if you are an atty adn in what state.


    Either give your argument adn supporting legal authority for why my theory of arresting the attys is baseless, or admit you have none.

    Either give your argument and supporting legal authority for why I don’t have standing in the mandamus/prohibition – AG issues, or admit you have none.

    Look here, pal…everyone is free to give their opinion on a topic, but when I reference looking for advice from the resident expert LAWYERS, and you pretend you are such an “expert” when you are not, you do a grave disservice to all that come here in search of knowledge…not to mention those disappearing posts…how lame is THAT?

    My two Q’s are directly above…put up or shut up, please, but stop barking B.S. at me…I’m not in the mood, I’m trying to avoid living under a dumpster lid drinking green lizard aftershave for teh rest of my life.


  80. Anonymous

    How can I acknowledge the debt buyer When I don’t even know who is the “theoretical” lender

    Also how do the banks react when sued? They don’t respond that a debt buyer stole their identity. No they claim the debt is owed to the trust

  81. Thank you — Abby.

    Tn– — no — buy collection rights dirt cheap — then fabricate docs — then make profit on fraudulent foreclosure. Cousins??? Not necessary.

  82. Enraged:

    What I meant by original financing is the it wasn’t a refi.  It was a “new” mortgage, not refinance of an existing mortgage 

    Re your advice.  Thank you.   Unfortunately the banksters “foreclosed” on me in 2 wks.  it was over before i got the “first class mail” notifying me of their foreclosure and attaching the robosigned Deed of Appointment

    I’ve got the worlds most famous robos forged on my paperwork and a bogus transfer from the servicer to the trust.   But Virginia is nonjudicial and thoroughly reactionary:  I found a recent case that says the assignment is basically irrelevant and when the note is endorsed in blank even a thief can enforce it.  What good is proof against such crazy logic.   So…… Here I sit with my hopeless case.

    get well!!

    Happy Rosh HaShana.

  84. @anon – first we find a house we really, really want, then we forge a bunch of documents, record them, stick letters to the homeowner in our file instead of mailing them, advertise a sale, and credit bid $4 for the property right before executing a deed to our cousin. does that match up with what you think?

  85. @anon – what would you like to know?

  86. @evoldog – when i say “i don’t think you can”, it’s not a statement of equivocation – it’s my opinion that you can not. and as to why, i’ve stated it a few times already

  87. Evoldog,

    I heard tell of a similar strategy involving grand juries and having judges arrested on authority of the grand jury–anybody know anything about that? Not asking for legal advice, just curious about that strategy
    . I like evoldog’s line of thinking.

    It is way past time for us to stop giving our power away and to not using all non-violent remedies at our disposal.

  88. @enraged—you said:

    “Remember: the investors are, allegedly, the deciding party as to modifications (or at least, that’s what servicers have been claiming to justify their refusal to modify).”

    “alledgedly” is RIGHT. The servicers are lying…PRETENDING like some “investor” has a say…they don’t…

  89. evoldog1234,

    Tnharry — in “business” — Tn — just tell us how your business operates.


  90. The A MAN Ditto — to everyone ——- Happy Rosh HaShana.

    I am not Jewish — but have celebrated the New Year with my Jewish friends for 25 years — never missed — until tonight — am sick. Home on internet – rest of my family there. So sorry to my friends.

  91. @tnharry – Sorry, but “I don’t think you can” doesn’t say anything – tell me why not, and what your legal authority is.

    As far as the AG goes, it does not matter that it’s not my claim – I’m a citizen of the state of GA and have standing to force my public officials to perform their jobs as required by law – see my new post on “fleshing out mandamus/prohibition”..hmm…that may be on another thread, if so, I’ll copy it here.

    To be clear, are you an atty, adn if so, what state, please?

  92. @evol – as to your forgery questions, no I don’t think you can. As to the AG, you don’t have standing. The AG isn’t settling your claims, he’s settling state claims.

  93. @The A man…”May G-d erase their names and memories from the face of the Earth” is a GOOD start, but I think you left out Anal Gang Rape…certainly we can incorporate and devote a few YEARS of anal gang rape into their punishment…8-)


  94. The Protests are starting to hit the mainstream media




  95. To flesh out writs of mandamus and prohibition a bit, each of which I’ve had success in using, let me say that they are generally used to force public officials to perform their required ministerial duties.

    They are remedies reserved for “special” cases, and cannot be used in place of, or where there are other legal remedies available. i.e., you cannot use it if you have the avenue to appeal something.

    I’ve used it to force a judge to rule on motions he refused to rule on – oh, by the way, the punishment is IMPEACHMENT when taken against a judge for that or similar.

    It can be used, and the threat of it has been used to force court clerks to provide certified copies of notary certificates or authentification, as it’s a job requirement – the statutes say it’s public info.

    If the A.G.’s “job description” requires him/her to investigate purported criminal conduct adn they do not, I believe this is teh proper remedy to force them to do so – mandamus forces action to be taken.

    If the A.G.’s “job description” requires him/her to investigate purported criminal conduct PRIOR to “cutting a deal”, adn they do not, prohibition restricts them taking that action, and is also used to reverse and set aside actions teh public official had no right to do, meaning that even after the fact, you can file a writ of prohibition to set aside any deal cut by proving the A.G. had no right to do so.

    Again, this is REAL simple law, albiet not used that often, and I should have gotten an answer in a dy or two at most, adn to get NO answer, is “interesting”

    HEY, if it’s a bullshit theory, why haven’t all the resident experts said so? I don’t know for sure…that’s why Ilm asking…


  96. To Neil Garfield Family and Friends

    Have a Happy Rosh HaShana (Jewish New Year)

    May G-d Give you health Prosperity and Happiness to you and your Family.

    May G-d also bless everybody on this Blog. Except for the Banksters and their friends May G-d erase their names and memories from the face of the Earth.

    Be Strong and Courageous.

  97. Marie

    If you fail to acknowledge that debt buyers are the culprits — you lose from onset.

  98. @tnharry – no disrespect intended, but as I explained in follow up posts, what you offered does not apply/answer my
    Q’s – I’m not talking/asking about fodder for filing a complaint, adn am not concerned with what is or is not “proof” of a forgery, I’m only concerned with if you DO have “proof (what is proof is only relevant if my basic premise is correct, adn can be hashed out later).

    I asked:

    1) Is it viable to file writ of mandamus to force my state AG to “do his duty” and properly investigate and if warranted, file criminal charges against the banksters;

    2) Is it viable to file a writ of prohibition to force my AG to not “cut a deal” letting the banksters off teh hook without having done teh proper criminal investigation first;

    3) Is it viable to, upon presentation of proper proof of a crime, (I used as example what is common, and was applicable to me – the forgery of a doc in the chain of title), force the police to arrest the attorney selling a property on the steps, and if the cops won’t do it on their own, swear out a warrant yourself (my understanding is that doing so, you inherit the “false arrest” liability, so make sure you’re golden if you do);

    4) Is it similarly viable to, after having given the lender and FC atty same proof, have those within the firm “legally capable of being culpable”, arrested for criminal intent after they refuse to cancel the sale, and before the sale even takes place.

    These should be VERY simple criminal law issues (all I’ve ever done is civil) – all day today, we’re seeing a state AG is filing criminal charges against banksters for EXACTLY this – only exception, I think, is that they’ll just get a summons and have to show up in court at a hearing, but what I’m suggesting is having the FC attorneys arrested on the steps and in their offices for criminal intent and criminal theft.

    If, AS I HAVE ASKED HERE, AD NAUSEA, this is a viable legal tactic, it would effectively shut down every foreclosure firm in the country, as the shoe would now be on teh other foot – instead of thinking tehy have carte blanche to flaunt teh law, they would know that if there’s ANY hint of illegality to the chain of title, that they would go to jail…wanna see how quickly all the FC law firm’s employees all QUIT?!?!?

    Again, it’s probably a REAL simple legal question, and for it not to be answered by teh lawyers here, especially Neil, who continually espouse varying “legal angles to pursue (and BUY)”, really raises some flags…

    Hey – all they have to do is tell me it’s not viable and WHY – but all I get is dead air.


  99. @enraged – i think she meant as opposed to refi, i.e. purchase money

  100. Thank you Marie. That’s exactly my gripe as well. Cut-and-paste rantings nearly impossible to read with no practical application, no personal thought process, hardly any substance usuable in court and a nasty attitude to boots.

    Someone else was doing that too, a few weeks ago (Nancy Drewe): rehashing the same overdone theories and refusing to answer any direct question. She was called on it so much and by so many people that she hasn’t written a darn thing in a couple of weeks.

    That being said, it is incredible how much has happened in the past couple of months. The way things are moving, I expect drastic changes before the end of the year. If you are not in foreclosure, I would simply sit tight for right now. That’s what I’m doing: I built my case, I got the docs I needed, I quit paying, got an attorney (who is costing me less than my overpriced mortgage), went on the attack and now, I’m sitting tight. If you’re in foreclosure and haven’t found an attorney yet, I would expect more defense lawyers to jump on the bandwagon really fast, now that most issues have already been raised and governmental agencies are taking action. So, now would be the time to contact them every day, until you find one worthy of that name and seriously knowlegeable.

    Of course, if you are already represented, you know what to do…

    What I don’t understand, though, is what you mean by your loan being an original financing. Are you saying that your loan was never transferred nor assigned to anyone by your lender and that you have been paying the same entity from day one? It still doesn’t tell you where your money is going though. I am one of those people who believe in tracking down the money. Especially if, at any point in time, your payment was misapplied or late and fees were added to your monthly payment. The other thing is: your servicer/lender may very well be the same but where did the money from your loan actually come from? Who fronted it? Those are questions you may want to ask, especially if you are looking to stay in the house but with a loan modification. Remember: the investors are, allegedly, the deciding party as to modifications (or at least, that’s what servicers have been claiming to justify their refusal to modify). So, there still are questions a QWR might answer.

    That was my thought…

  101. @evol – this is the first time i’ve seen the question of yours posted and I’ve given you my opinion. what are you looking for exactly?

  102. @marie – it’s all standing. if you go all the way down the securitization road or stop with the immediate entity’s lack of assignments and/or endorsements, it all comes back to standing. with few exceptions, this is the theory that has been the common theme of the victories that have been discussed on this site or others.

    the scary problem though is that to argue that US Bank lacks standing to foreclose because there’s no endorsement from Bank of America on the note pretty much admits that somebody out there (most likely Bank of America in that situation) DOES have standing, and makes no defense or excuse for the monetary default, hence all the theories to explain away why there is no monetary default because there is no money owed.

    and therein lies the problem – trying to divert the attention from the monetary default requires using all of these theories such as the unconstitutional banking, ultra vires contract, not legal money, unsecured, debt disputes, etc. and that’s where the courts start to not take you seriously.

    if you can go into court and say “i don’t think this bank has the authority to foreclose on me” and tender mortgage payments into the court clerk’s office to maintain the status quo, then you will gain an audience with the judge. but it’s way too easy for the judge to simply say that you’re trying to get something for nothing and delay the inevitable. that’s why we’re seeing so much of the progress made in BK courts – it’s not such a foreign concept to prove claims and to have no payments made on disputed debt.

    of course, this is just my opinion based on my experiences. let the floodgates of criticism begin….

  103. @Marie…I think most of what is brought up here is getting us nowhere – I’ve been getting FC’s put off by the seat of my pants (and sporadic BK filings) for 2-3 years on dif properties (I do a lot of my own legal work anyway, and am only HALF clueless), and NONE of them has come from the reports or anything else for sale, but rather from things I’ve thought of, and every time I have one pending, I step back adn think about all I’ve seen here, and realize that I can bring NONE of it to bear.

    Which is REALLY making me think the reason I can’t get any of these “experts” to answer my Q about having the FC attys arrested, is because it may be a simple and FREE way to nip this shit in teh bud – I emailed McCalla Raymer proof that an assignment was a forgery, threatened them with arrest, and they cancelled the sale.

    It may be that’s all it takes, just put together proof of forgeries have them arrested at/after teh sale for theft, or before the sale for criminal intent.

    Is it only ME that finds it odd that I’ve been asking this same, simple Q for weeks here, adn cannot get an answer?


  104. Tnharry

    Exactly my frustration with the endless discussion of refi/debt buyers on this site. Plenty of loans like mine were original financing. This debt buyer obsession is not getting us anywhere

    Even if this theory “has legs” how do you get discovery. Why aren’t we talking about practical
    or creative solutions to dealing with the bsnksters.

  105. but only subprime….we’ve discussed some good strategies before. why are you still clinging to this untested legal theory when you better bullets in your gun?

  106. and of course all the “false default”…

  107. re-finance AND jumbo new…

  108. @carie – that’s a non-response. IF it’s a refinance, and IF that refinance was subprime, then it’s not a “real” mortgage anyway, right? aren’t those the operative qualifiers from Anon’s theory?

  109. It’s not a “real” mortgage anyway…just unsecured debt attempting to be collected by third party debt collectors.

  110. Colorado public trustees pushed to make it easier to foreclose on homes

    Read more: Colorado public trustees pushed to make it easier to foreclose on homes – The Denver Post
    Read The Denver Post’s Terms of Use of its content:

  111. Olivia Todd is affiliated with National Default Servicing Corporation and Great American Title Company, all affiliated with Tiffany & Bosco, who just opened a financial services division in Vegas.

  112. @carie – i found it myself finally. FN 35 is nothing – just background information as to how secured transactions work. have you looked at this yourself before posting it 258 times on the site? i would agree wholeheartedly with the idea embodied within it, but it alone doesn’t prove or disprove anything. could you really imagine yourself standing in front of a judge or jury and stating that your case lives or dies on a footnote in the November Oversight Report for the Congressional Oversight Panel? that’s not precedent. it’s really nothing at all. in fact, if you’ve looked at it yourself, you’d realize that all of footnote 35 is in fact attributed to a Pepperdine Law Review article

  113. @carie – i’m trying to track down this footnote 35 myself. do you have a cite or url? it really looks like it’s explanatory in nature and not anything more, but i want to see the full context myself.

  114. Carie

    Tarp fn 35 is so much meaningless noise in a state like Virginia per Va case law

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

  116. from ANONYMOUS:

    “Servicer never divulges as to whether they are the current creditor to whom any payments will forwarded and not transferred to any other party, or whether servicer is acting on behalf of another party. If acting on behalf of another party — that party must sign the modification – servicer must disclose this.
    Yes, if loan was written off — any party (servicer/servicer acting on behalf of) who now holds collection rights – those rights are for an unsecured written-off debt. IRS will not let them collect twice. And, everything must be properly transferred. See Footnote 35 by TARP Oversight panel – below —

    35–“There are two documents that need to be transferred as part of the securitization process – a promissory note and the security instrument (the mortgage or deed of trust). The promissory note embodies the debt obligation, while the security instrument provides that if the debt is not repaid, the creditor may sell the designated collateral (the house). Both the note and the mortgage need to be properly transferred. Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt. See FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3.”

    “…In order for modification contract to be validly executed in the name of servicer — need proper transfer of note and mortgage to servicer. Not enough to just hold the note for someone else. This is a contract. Bankruptcy reform bill was voted down twice by Congress – why? afraid Americans would understand what was really going on. Better for them to con homeowners further by luring into false mod contract…

    The servicer/debt collector (current creditor) do not care about who OWNED the written off debt — WE CARE — if they can get away with non-disclosure — they will — and deregulation says — they can. Debt buyers love to state the past creditor as the current creditor — but, legally, this is not the case — and it is fraud and in violation of federal law. Courts accept that past (possible) creditor is still current creditor because that is how attorneys present it– but , this is fraud and a big problem — and it is not being investigated as it should be.
    Consumer protection laws say no. Though not as strong as we would like — consumer protection laws do exist — have to use them to the fullest. Including any sale of loan to any party — as outlined by the TILA — (and FDCPA for that matter). Tired of looking at this whole mess from “investor” prospective — there are “security investors” and “distressed debt investors” — need to distinguish — and need to focus on consumer law and protection.
    Everyone has a right to know their current creditor. If that right is violated — so is federal law. If you do not know your current creditor — you will be affected for the rest of your life. Any modification you sign will be false. It is time to stop focusing on investors (who have been paid back – except they may not have earned the usury interest rate they thought they would) and start focusing on consumer fraud — and violation of our rights. Investors have gotten help — they were bailed out — WE NEED THE HELP NOW.
    It does not matter that security investors may have helped fund the banks — they were not then — and are not now — our creditor. What a bank does with receivables is their business — we have no contract with security investors — or servicers unless the servicer acquired legal title –and if so — say so — and say when and how (as required by law) — and for what price. And, say this before a modification is negotiated — it is ammunition. Any concealment is — simply fraud upon fraud.”

  117. Here we go…looks like I’m right, but STILL sure could use a little advice…

    I’m still waiting for at least ONE of you law-doGs (NEIL!!!), preferably ALL of you, to opine one way OR THE OTHER, on filing writs of mandamus/prohibition against the AG’s to force them to perform their duties by thoroughly investigating and prosecuting crimes perpetrated by the banks, and preventing them from cutting deals without thorough investigation – my understanding is that these are administrative functions and fall under the purvue of such writs.

    And same for mandamus against the official, in GA I believe it’s the Superior Court Clerk of each county, responsible for collecting the fees MERS has dodged, forcing them to file suit to collect.

    And same for having the attorney (non-judicial) on the steps that sells or even starts to cry out the sale, arrested for applicable theft and criminal intent charges after you have put the attorneys/lender on notice of PROVED forged docs (such as assignment) in the chain of title. Also, by same logic, can’t you have everyone in the attorney’s office that is legally capable of being culpable, that you can prove “touched it”, arrested for criminal intent when they tell you in writing (or a recorded phone call) that they are not cancelling the sale, even considering the forged docs.

    You guys bark it up ten different ways to Sunday about various legal aspects of all this, from one extrme to the other; why won’t you come down on these issues?

    I’ll be in court and swearing out criminal warrants within the WEEK if viable.

    HOW ABOUT IT?!?!?


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: