BEWARE OF SCAM SOLUTIONS — THEY ARE TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

ISSUE: IF THE BANKS CAN USE FALSE DOCUMENTS TO STEAL WHY CAN’T THE BORROWERS USE FALSE DOCUMENTS TO DEFEND?

EDITOR’S COMMENT: The original mission of LIVINGLIES was to disclose scams in which small investors were scammed out of their money on promises and testimonials relating to “odd” plans of wealth accumulation. There are two rules:

  1. If it looks confusing and too good to be true, then it is and you are going to eventually lose money, not make money. You will lose your house not save it.
  2. For investments, anything promising you, the little guy, a better return than the big guys are getting, is patently false, and presumptively fraudulent.

So whether the game is Iraq dinars or some other currency scam, or some out of the box plan to transfer your title, then watch out….. BUT on the other hand, there is a growing movement in the country to try these out of the box “solutions” and some of them are actually working, so get opinions from licensed professionals before you dismiss them altogether if they are aimed at saving your house.

You see the issue is whether there is anyone to call your bluff even if the documents you file (without breaking any criminal law, PLEASE!) are, to say the least, dubious. On the other side is a bunch of fakers who don’t have any right to be claiming, much less enforcing the debt arising from your loan.

That said, be ready to fight or have someone who is ready to fight and make certain that the deal you are trying is actually for your benefit, at least in part. The guy described in the article below was really doing nothing to save homes. He was creating a device by which the banks would need to pay him off because of defects he created in the title chain. That is a bad joke considering the fact that the very people claiming to be injured by this activity are themselves corruptors of the title chain.

In the end, most of the “solutions” offered by unlicensed professionals are at least suspicious enough to warrant getting professional advice from a lawyer licensed in the jurisdiction in which the property is located.

Jay MacDonald

 SEE WWW.BUSINESSINSIDER.COM

Jay MacDonald is a blogger at Bankrate.

Among the more bizarre bottom-feeders to profit from our foreclosuremess is Jacob Franz: Dyck (yep, he signs with a colon), a 72-year-old former Florida dentist and ex-con who figured out a clever way to drill for gold in the cavities of America’s broken dreams.Dyck considers himself a “sovereign citizen,” meaning he’s not bound by those troublesome federal and state laws that govern the rest of us.

His personal declaration of sovereignty came shortly after he lost his license and was sentenced to prison for bilking a couple out of their silver and gold collection.

Quick history lesson: According to the Anti-Defamation League, the Sovereign Citizens Movement cranked up about 40 years ago around the belief that the federal government had been infiltrated by shadowy forces that “tricked” Americans into citizenship by offering such privileges as driver’s licenses and Social Security. They apparently like to insert colons into their names to further stick it to the man.

But rather than exercise his sovereignty in benign ways, say by playing Guitar Hero cranked to 11, Dyck wiles away his golden years filing “wild deeds” on properties facing foreclosure, thereby scamming the homeowners and forcing the banks and title companies to pay him to go away.

According to a St. Petersburg Times investigation, Dyck convinced hundreds of homeowners facing foreclosure to pay him as much as $2,500 apiece to place their homes in “pure trusts,” which Dyck maintains cannot be seized or taxed because they fall under “common law.”

In at least one instance, Dyck even rented a foreclosed home back to the owners after they paid him $2,500 and signed over the deed. Dyck told police that since he had placed the home in a pure trust, the owners owed the bank nothing.

The Anti-Defamation League says pure trusts rank right up there with “Royal Hawaiian Treasury Bonds” and “land patents” as bogus ways to save a home from foreclosure.

According to an alert issued to title companies by David Heine of PCS Title in Orlando, Fla., here’s Dyck’s method of operation:

Within 90 days of a Certificate of Title being recorded, Mr. Dyck and his “army” of accomplices create a Warranty Deed transferring title to the property from himself to one of many trusts in which he is the trustee. Costs him 70 cents to record. He then waits (until) someone from a title company who is trying to close a sale on this same property and issue title insurance sends him a letter requesting he sign a quit claim deed to clear title. He agrees; however, it will cost the selling bank $1,500.00 to $2,000.00 even though he has no legal right to the property!

Naturally, those pesky revenuers have come sniffing around. The FBI questioned Dyck last year and the state is after him for nearly $13,000 in unpaid taxes. But the newspaper’s attempts to contact him at his last known address in Miami proved futile.

The kicker: Dyck has managed to avoid any criminal charges thus far for his “Free Willy” approach to mortgage mediation.

Wonder why there was so much uproar over the lax documentation practices surrounding the “robosigners” and “rocket dockets” last fall?

It’s to prevent the Dycks of the world from saying to Americans facing foreclosure, “Open wide.”
Read more:
http://www.bankrate.com/financing/mortgages/the-foreclosure-gold-digger/#ixzz1g3mzXBOp

 

7 Responses

  1. Let my attorney handle any dispute that may arise from the “banks”.

  2. hman—can you elaborate on what exactly you are doing—“the old fashioned way”? Thanks.

  3. When I was waying out the pros and cons of fighting a foreclosure I decided to fight. First I hired a company called Federal Trustee services to prevent foreclosure. They offerec “multiple” layers of protection. Everything would be done in 60-90 days. They would file the land patent, UCC-1 lien, also they would act as notary, and they even said they could ammend the DOT based on the wording.

    The DOT reads “BY SIGNING BELOW, Borrower accepts and agrees to the terms and covenants contained in this Security Instrument and in any Rider executed by Borrower and recorded with it.”

    The claimed they could “modifiy” the DOT based on this statment. They claimed they could file a rider with it and change all the parties involved and set the amount to $0 owed.

    Also they did a title search, a securitization analysis, and a Forensic audit to find Tila and Respa violations. They also would start a “trust” and transfer the title to the trust. Of course it was sometime of trust that was exempt from taxes.

    Seemed like a good deal and a lot less than hiring an attorney. However, after I learned the CEO was a convicted bank robber I ended the process with them. All I can say is that when you are desparate you will go to desparate measures to get the results you want. Since then I’ve hired a competent attorney and doing this thing the old fashion way.

    Good Luck everyone out there and happy holidays!

  4. If it looks confusing and too good to be true, then it is and you are going to eventually lose money, not make money. You will lose your house not save it.

    True – The PSA is so filled with distortion. That is why the client would hire an SEC ex con – five year sentence – to review what you can and cannot use for ambiguious and non dislcosed facts.

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  5. We need a new Volcker rule for banks

    December 9, 2011: 5:00 AM ET

    It’s time for our financial institutions to get back to basics: making money off good customer service – not wild speculation.

    By Sheila Bair, contributor

    FORTUNE — Financial reformers are pointing to the collapse of the $41 billion MF Global brokerage house as evidence of why we need Dodd-Frank’s “Volcker Rule” to prohibit FDIC-insured banks and their affiliates from making proprietary bets on the markets. Fortunately, MF Global was not a bank or bank affiliate, and its failure has not cost taxpayers a dime. And I, for one, am very happy to see a major, well-connected market player eat its losses (while being equally dismayed by the apparent regulatory lapses that have let hundreds of millions in customer money go missing).
    But what if MF Global had been an FDIC bank? Would the Volcker Rule have protected the government purse? Well, it’s not clear.
    MF Global took proprietary positions in European sovereign debt through what Wall Street calls “repo to maturity” transactions. It technically sold the European bonds to other firms, agreeing to repurchase them at a premium when they matured in 2012. MF hoped to make money by pocketing the difference in the rate it paid its trading partners and the higher rate paid on the bonds themselves. As market prices on the bonds fell, MF Global’s trading partners demanded more collateral. Given MF’s extreme leverage — about 40 to 1 — the collateral calls quickly brought it down.
    Note that MF Global apparently used repo financing to move those high-risk bonds off its balance sheet, making its capital position look better than it was. Hmm. Didn’t Lehman also use the artifice of repo financing to dress up its balance sheet? Why don’t accountants fix this stuff?
    But I digress.
    Under the 300-page Rube Goldberg contraption of a regulation recently proposed by federal agencies to implement the Volcker Rule, “repo” transactions like MF Global’s are not generally treated as verboten proprietary trades. Thus, even if MF Global had been a bank, it arguably could have used this exception to gamble away, putting the FDIC at risk. Indeed, the proposed rule has so many loopholes that seem to permit proprietary trading with government-insured deposits that former MF Global CEO Jon Corzine might consider commercial banking for his next career move.
    In fairness, regulators have a very difficult task. The basic intent of the Volcker Rule is to prohibit insured banks and their affiliates from making directional bets on the markets. But in 1999, Congress repealed Glass-Steagall, allowing common ownership of FDIC-insured banks and securities firms. And making (or losing) money on market movements is exactly the kind of thing securities firms do. To try to reconcile those conflicting policies, Congress granted exceptions from the Volcker Rule for traditional securities functions such as investment banking and market making. But where the exceptions end and banned proprietary trading begins is far from clear.
    So here is an idea. Regulators should scrap the mind-boggling complexity in the proposed rule and focus instead on the underlying economics of a transaction. If the transaction makes money the old-fashioned way — the customer paying the institution for a service through interest, fees, and commissions — then it passes the test. If profitability (or loss) is driven by the direction of markets, then it fails. Inevitable gray areas, such as marketmaking, need to be done outside of the insured bank and be supported by a truckload of capital. Securities firms should be allowed to maintain adequate inventory to make liquid markets.
    Most important, regulators should tell executives and boards that they will be held personally accountable for monitoring and compliance. Bank leadership must make clear to employees that they are supposed to make money by offering good customer service, not by speculating with the firm’s funds.
    Complex rules are easy to game and hard to enforce. If regulators can’t make this work, then maybe we should return to Glass-Steagall in all of its 32-page simplicity.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: