Mandelman: Calling All Lawyers to The Biggest Opportunity in History

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

There should be no question in anyone’s mind… there are only two paths ahead from which to choose.  Both involve fighting a war… but on one path the battle is fought by lawyers in our courts… on the other, by citizens in our streets.

Make no mistake about it… if we are to mitigate any of the  damage being caused, uphold the rule of law, and protect the rights of millions of homeowners… it should be obvious to anyone that WE NEED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LAWYERS trained in foreclosure defense, loss mitigation and bankruptcy.  And yet, more than four years into the FRAUDclosure crisis, we don’t have anywhere near the number of trained, ethical attorneys required to meet the demand.

We’re all adults here, so let’s not kid ourselves about why that’s the case.  

We all know why we don’t have the lawyers we need to marshall a more effective defense of homeowners engulfed by the FRAUDclosure crisis… it’s because THERE’S NO MONEY IN IT.  Or, at least that’s what lawyers have been told they are supposed to believe.  Not only that, but the message has been that there  shouldn’t be any money in representing homeowners at risk of FRAUDclosure. It’s as if attorneys profiting from representing homeowners at risk of FRAUDclosure is somehow a bad thing.

AND THAT’S JUST 100% BANKER-INSPIRED B.S.

Don’t you see what’s happened here?  We’ve allowed the banks, and the government that’s been bailing them out, to essentially criminalize the profit potential in representing homeowners at risk of foreclosure… and wonder of wonders, miracles of miracles… here we sit with what appears to be an unsolvable problem.

Consider this… bankers say that they’ve been overwhelmed by the millions of homeowners unexpectedly seeking loan modifications and that’s why applying for a loan modification has been such a nightmare.  But, what about the number of foreclosures occurring in the same time frame?  Haven’t there been an unprecedented and unexpected number of foreclosures too?  So,why is it that the banks have no problems accommodating the millions of unexpected foreclosures, but the millions of unexpected loan modifications represent an unsolvable problem?

It’s simple… because on the foreclosure side of the equation, banks allow lawyers to be profitably compensated for handling foreclosures, and sure enough those law firms have figured out how to handle any number of foreclosures that come down the pike… in fact, the more the merrier, as they say.  On the loan modification side of the house, however, profits are a dirty word… and wouldn’t you know it, the problem is unsolvable.  Why am I not surprised?

Over the TWO YEARS following the Deepwater Horizon disaster, BP spent $21 billion to clean up the Gulf of Mexico.  In the FOUR YEARS since the tsunami of foreclosures began, we’ve spent roughly ten percent of what BP spent cleaning up the Gulf… $2.4 billion… and the vast majority of that amount paid to mortgage servicers… and we’re wondering why the problem can’t be solved?

 A MESSAGE TO OUR NATION’S LAWYERS…

It’s the biggest financial opportunity for the legal profession

SINCE THE REAR END COLLISION. 

The fact is… there is a HUGE OPPORTUNITY today to build a very profitable legal practice based on the ethical and effective representation of homeowners caught in the FRAUDclosure crisis.

From the very beginning of the mortgage meltdown, banks have tried to make sure that homeowners were not represented by attorneys when trying to save their homes from FRAUDclosure.   The reason is now apparent: Banks knew it was a FRAUDclosure crisis before the rest of us did because they’re the ones who put the FRAUD into FRAUDclosure.  From the earliest days of the crisis, the banks and the Obama Administration have been reinforcing TWO LIES:

  1. Homeowners at risk of foreclosure don’t need lawyers… they can just call their bank directly.  That’s like the police telling someone under arrest that he or she doesn’t need a lawyer because any questions can be answered by the District Attorney.  It’s a damn lie… homeowners DO NEED LAWYERS to help them save their homes because it’s not just a foreclosure crisis, it’s a FRAUDclosure crisis.
  2. A lawyer who charges a homeowner at risk of foreclosure up front… is a “SCAMMER.”  That is not only a LIE, but it’s a lie to achieve two key bank objectives.  One – It stopped many homeowners from seeking legal representation, thus allowing the banks to do whatever they wanted as related to foreclosing on their homes.  Two – It stopped countless attorneys from building a profitable practice based on representing homeowners at risk of foreclosure.

The California Example…

In California, the efforts to stop lawyers from representing homeowners have been more extreme than in any other state.  Here the campaign to malign the legal profession has been driven by legislative committees and supported by the California State Bar Association.  In October 2009, California’s SB 94 created a law that has effectively prevented lawyers from offering to represent homeowners who are seeking to avoid foreclosure through modification of their loans.  Under the guise of “charging up front makes you a scammer,” SB 94 has made it illegal for a lawyer to charge a homeowner an upfront retainer for legal fees.

Quite predictably, the law has made it difficult or even impossible for California homeowners to find quality legal representation related to seeking loan modifications, forcing those at risk of foreclosure who want to be represented by an attorney into either litigation or bankruptcy.  Writing for The New York Times in December 2010, David Streitfeld’s article titled, “Homes at Risk, and No Help from Lawyers,” described the situation in California related to SB 94.

See Full Article on Mandelman Blog

 

37 Responses

  1. Courts are denying amendment of complaints when amendment is available as a matter of law.
    Leave to amend is at will prior to an answer being filed, and the banksters’ standard, rote mtn to dismiss / a mtn for sj is not an answer. Period. Last I knew, in the mdl in AZ regarding MERS, for instance – the court denied the plaintiffs’ right to amend when an answer hadn’t been filed. Courts not allowing amendment when an answer hasn’t been filed is absolutely bench law, and even if one is filed, leave to amend should be given freely. The court improperly ruling against amendment in the MDL (MERS), had a huge and major consequence to the ultimate ruling in that litigation, which I believe was that the note and dot are not bifurcated (the main thrust of the litigation). IMO if the right to amend were impropely withheld, and that’s the case as I recall, the court’s ultimate ruling does not deserve any consideration or respect at all.
    Just came accross this case in another one:

    Crum v Circus Circus, 231 F. 3d 1129 (9th)

    This case will support a right to amend at will prior to an answer being filed in my lay opinion. And because it’s at will, you shouldn’t have to submit your proposed amended complaint for any kind of review.

    And as far as whether or not the notes and deeds of trust are actually bifurcated by naming MERS in the dot’s, I would rather argue if I had the money and energy that the dot is unenforceable because in a nut shell, 1) it is not clear who is the true beneficiary and 2) the statute of frauds will not support a conclusion MERS is an agent. The bifurcation would be an alternative. I’m just trying to cite a case for reliance on the right to amend, but I guess I can’t do that without recalling the bull in the MDL (which horns now reach wide) because it really torked me at the time. Homeowners who were wrongfully denied the right to amend might bone-up on Rule 60 (FRCP 60) if the case is still open. Grrrr….

  2. Hey nabdulla: enraged is a female, I think?

    “what happens then to the official land records in disarray”?

    They are on a CD floating around in cyber-space…

    My attorney told me MERS is a private club. It circumvents the state laws, as it does not have jurisdiction. There function, as I understand it, is to only hold the note and deed on CD, not paper, for tracking, to its paid membership. The CD is also an issue, as the paper documents are supposed to be in files and held in a trust/safe, together.

    As far as I know, MERS has no authority to assign, as they only have mortgage information to keep track of sales, assignments and such. At least this is what they were supposed to be doing. Now, what they are doing is quite another thing.

    I know MERS has been assigning things, but I wonder about this trust business. If I were an attorney and was overseeing a trust, I cannot assign another to administer anything, unless there were a court order, specifying authority. Aren’t trust laws similar in all cases or again, is the servicer, originator or bankster allowed special treatment from these rules? How are they different?

    I have been at the areas that are front and center, but really need to dig around more with these trusts, I guess. Just in case. Anyone?

  3. @Cheryl,

    Most professional liability insurance policies are “claims made”, as opposed to “occurrence date”, meaning that, in addition to the occurrence having taken place during the policy period, the actual claim has to be asserted during the policy period in order to be covered. It’s a nice little trick that allows insurance companies to legally disclaim coverage, walk scot-free and make a bundle in premiums.

    If the brokers are out of business, the policy was, in all probability, cancelled. People can file claims until the cows come home: they will be disclaimed. And since the broker is chut down, there is no money to be had by people like you and me.

    That, of course, stands if i am right. Somehow, I have that sneaky suspicion I am… Doctors have claims made policies, lawyers have claims made policies and many industrial complexes such as pharmaceutical and checmical plants have claims made policies. It prevent people from being held responsible for actions they committed 10 or 20 years ago and which have just only been discovered.

  4. @Johngault,

    You’ve put your finger on one of my biggest questions. I keep harping on it and no one appears to have the answer.

    Regarding MERS:

    1) It has no employees, no money and no headquarters per se. It is a computer system containing data and land records and whose purpose appears to be the transfer and assignment of existing mortgage loans between its members, so as to skip recordation.

    2) Yet, suits have been filed against it. Who pays for MERS defense costs and under what kind of set up? Why hasn’t this question been yet answered?

    3) Assuming that MERS were to be found liable and ordered to pay mucho damages and restitution, where would that money come from? Historically, has MERS yet been ordered to pay anything to amyone? Where did that settlement come from?

    4) What is the exact role of MERS officers? Under the circumstances, shouldn’t they be personally named as defendants in each and every suit?

    5) Does anyone know where to find the standard contract existing between MERS and its members? What are the provisions with respect to the above?

    6) Assuming that MERS were to be ordered shut down (and it should have been the minute we realized what had transpired with land records…), what happens then to the official land records in disarray?

    Occasionally, face by this ongoing lack of transparency, when I have a serious paranoia attack a la DCB, I wonder if all those lawsuits have any real purpose other than blow smoke in our eyes and shut us up… Not a pleasant state of mind. So far, I’ve been able to brush it off quickly as a figment of my imagination but too many question remain unanswered and, worse yet, unasked. it bothers me a great deal!

  5. @ enraged

    Exactly, go after everything that moves and if it has stopped moving, see what it is and get it.

    My approach: assignments, title, insurance, servicers, originators, etc…the entire clan. Under one rock is all you need to peek. They are all slithering creatures, that crawl in the dark (not meant to insult viable life forms), unlike productive life forms, these predators deserve no sustinence to remain enabled.

    My $.02

  6. I’m confused. I’ll state this as calmly and rationally as possible for me:

    MERS has no employees. Litigation done historically in MERS’ name has been carried out by attorneys hired and paid for by members. MERS’ four corporate officers execute nothing in regard to our homes. MERS (Wm Hultman, read real corp officer) appoints employees of its members and non-members as officers of MERS upon request for a fee (around 25, 000 of them). These individuals then execute documents in their new capacities as vice presidents and or secretaries of MERS (and with no oversight). These documents include NOD’s, substitutions of trustees, and assignments. These member or non-member employees execute declarations in MERS’ name alleging facts about which they haven’t got an iota. MERS doesn’t know when this is done nor does it have copies of any of these documents. The assignments of the deeds of trust signed by these people also purport to assign the note to the new MERS officer’s real employer, be it B of A, WF, Aurora, U S Bank, etc. Some are being assigned these days to trustees of securtized trusts which were closed years ago. Disregarding the ‘questionable’ validity of these deed of trust assignments on numerous counts for the moment, even the horse itself has made it clear it has no interest in the notes, yet the assignments allege to also transfer the notes. This is not forgery, this is not notary fraud, this is not robo-signing (well, I suppose it’s that, too). An assignment of a note by MERS even if it were by Mr. Hultman himself is an impossibility. It’s a crime to present a false instrument or to record one.
    Even if one is in possession of a bearer note and some provision of the UCC says that party may enforce it, I don’t believe the party who is merely in possession but is not the owner obtains the benefit of the collateral (and if he gives himself an assignment of the dot nonetheless, has he in fact bifurcated the note and deed of trust?) Disregarding the collateral issue, one in possession of a bearer note who does not own it, even if he has a right to enforce the note, similarly has no right to endorse or pretend to assign that note, and certainly not to himself.

    Something or someone has managed to cow homeowner attorneys? Maybe this IS the twilight zone.

  7. CA, State Dept. ? Do you mean district attorney. I couldn’t get them to move on anything. They said they don’t have the funds for a subpoena.

  8. Even though broker and company are gone, they still have insurance to cover fraud during certain periods.

    The Broker would not give me files so the State Dept. went after the broker. Atty General would not help. I asked the servicer mortgage dept. for documents and they sent them to me. I had documents executed at closing that were FM, but found out later I never had a FM loan.

    I am not pro se but I found 2 attorneys (contingent).

  9. I may have a case against defunct title agency and then title insurance company and then WFargo via the QWR $2000 penalty.

    Basically it looks like title agency took $1500 and never funded the lender title policy. In Florida the title ins company is responsible for their independent agents for defalcation (new fancy word i discovered means STEALING).

    I wrote 3 QWRs they never timely responded. Finally they responded but stated that the title policy is in place (it is not).

    If I can prove that title agency walked off with $1500 plus interest $2200 total I then have proof that WFargo did not respond timely to real damages another $2000.

    $4200 chicken feed.

    I am pursuing title insurance fraud issue with the state.

    I guess I could demand title insurance company and WF place lender title policy then try to jam them up via MERS and no recordations.

    We will see. Any comments appreciated.

    BTW i have foreclosure attorney but he is more set up for defensive issues and my bet is he doesnt want to wake the tiger so to speak. I want to attack ofcourse.

  10. My loan….

    Loan broker gone. Loan broker business gone. Title agency gone. Originator gone swallowed by DBank. Fannie Mae insolvent.

    Hmmm.

  11. @ Cheryl,

    Glad you won.That’s probably the first time I’ve read someone saying they won. In Calif. I was told by a predatory attorney that you must have equitable damages to sue. Don’t have that. But did you go Pro Per?

    With the bait and switch (signing in blank) on the loan apps. I’ll I can think of for the broker is how would you prove it without access to the brokers computer file to view the date he created the loan vs. borrowers signature date. Can’t contact bankrupt loan originator they’re gone and already settled out of court with the SEC for accounting and stated-income fraud. I got copies of note and DOT from Title and servicer and yes questionable notary and signatures don’t match up. And there’s no allonges or endorsements. Just six pages of Borrowers promise to pay with last page signing me and the notary. So does that mean I don’t even have the true note?

  12. @Evoldog,

    How can that be? No rear end collision there. Just a very, very good job on the banks’ part (Allied among them…) of doing more than just standing behind us. Much, much more… (It is their moto: “We do more than just stand behind you”. 😀

    E. Toile pointed it out a while back. Still chuckling every time I hear the word “banks”.

  13. Whattaya mean, SINCE the rear end collision?

    This IS a “rear end” collision – we’re ALL taking it in the rear!! If anything, it’s the biggest rear end collision in history!! OW!! 😎

  14. THANK YOU Mandelman! AMEN!

  15. Steve –

    I sued the broker for fraud and won. There is a 10 year statute of limitations for fraud in my state if you can prove it. I am and was always after the servicer though. Brokers cannot execute a loan without servicer’s underwriting, closing instructions and approval. Keep on them.

  16. @ Cheryl

    I know. I’m told you can sue the broker for errors and omissions but one lawyer said, “A 2006 mortgage? That’s just too old. Not interested.”

    In 09 I remember the DRE had a recovery program for victims on their website I tried but that’s no longer there that I’ve seen. I had gone to the RE- commissioner and they responded saying, “Nope. We found no fraud.” But they don’t connect the brokers to the title to the lenders.

    But like enraged said, “if it moves I’m going after it.” Long foreclosed and I’m sure these departments are sick of me writing letters.

  17. We were ripped off by two attorneys in Los Angeles, one of them the brother of the city attorney. We wrote to him about it thinking he would make right on it and he did not even bother to respond. If we want our money back we have to sue. What’s new?

    BUT…good news is that attorney Jeff Barnes and others give seminars for attorneys on a regular basis now. I don’t recall his web site. National Foreclosure Defense??

  18. Speaking about Mandelman…

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2012/01/credit-suisse-tells-bloomberg-mortgage-principal-cuts-dont-help-homeowners/

    Credit Suisse analyst, Dale Westhoff, (previously an aerospace engineer who headed some division of JP Morgan Chase and, later on, some bonds division of Bear Sterns… obviously very successfully, judging by what happened to his employer… Why couldn’t he stick with aerospace?) told Bloomberg that PRINCIPAL REDUCTIONS DON’T HELP HOMEOWNERS!!!

    Dale Westhoff is a moron. One more in a very long list. Come to realize, many of those obscenely well paid, obscenely incompetent morons have absolutely no qualification whatsoever to run any kind of finance department anywhere. Imagine! An aerospace engineer!

    I have no qualification whatsoever either. Can I become one of those morons? I need the dough… Where do I sign up?

  19. Steve –

    The Dept. of Real Estate does not want you to know you can sue the broker but you can.

    Enraged –

    I heard on I believe it was Inside Job that Goldman saw BOA playing the horse racing bets and they were doing good so Goldman decided to play the game too.

  20. @Steve,

    Answer: go after everything that moves. And if it’s stopped moving, go after it anyway.

  21. @Trespass,

    I got two more for you: It’s from the new and improved federal laws, reviewed and amended by our friends from Goldman Sachs.

    “Possession is 9 tenth of the law. We put you in, stay put.”

    And the one I absolutely love and keep repeating: “Stealing from a thief is taking back what’s yours…” :0

  22. neidermeyer, you can no longer justify bogus mortgages, most properties are already under acceptable LTC levels FHA would insure or Freddie / Fannie / taxpayer will purchase.

    Stating the minimizes the relevance of why you are doing it. they are never short on cash because they are a reserve system bank. They are short on tier one reserves, which would be required to underwrite and portfolio HIGH LTV Loans that have c-o restrictions, and thus could not be sold along to the taxpayers. Cash Out is a term of old, kinda like stated income,unless of course it is the HARP Program which will be used in the future to circumvent your original mortgage rights. Close MERS tomorrow and make them record, if they think they can.

  23. Legal maxims on possession
    ————————————

    What is mine cannot be taken away without my consent.

    Things taken or captured by pirates and robbers do not change their ownership.

    —-
    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free and independent state, in jure proprio, jure divino.

  24. Who are you going after. The broker? The Dept.of Real Estate says we can only take the license so it’s not worth the pursuit. We say we found no fraud so sorry there’s no money to be had.

    The mortgage private lender originator ? Sorry they’re bankrupt, sold your loan. There’s no one there to contact. Who you going call.

    And the loan servicer? Sorry they had nothing to do with the loan origination.

    Agreed, the SB 94 was poorly written wrong against lawyers but on the other hand I did go through two experiences in 09 dealing with one person acting as a fake mortgage rescue co. and another group acting as a lawyer referral group. Not only did the fraudsters have fake advertisements all over the internet but you could also receive an advertisement in the mail (because because your NOD is public) or you’d find an advertisement in the “Easy Ads’ if not see one on every telephone poll around town. They all knew this was coming and background checks from the ones I dealt with showed they all worked at lending offices before the crash. But what could you do? It’s true. You were darn lucky if you found a lawyer.

  25. @ joann,
    At the issuance of the Unlawful detainer or writ of possession specifying a date to ‘remove you from the property’.

    In my opinion, that’s the contract, signed by the judge that robs you of the property and conveys it to another who is not the owner.

    Until that time, a lot of paperwork is filed, but they carry no power except for what they ‘claim’, but the judgment is the enforceable contract.

    That judgment is when you’ve been robbed.
    When I went to court, I told them they were suing the wrong party while there and also stated it in the answer and by the exhibits that were accepted that were part of the answer, but the judge did not accept them as exhibits until the other side saw them.

    That judged used that as an opportunity to have jurisdiction over me (in personam) and over the subject matter, but the judgment was based on fraud so they could not convey what the Plaintiff did not own when they ‘sued’ in court for receivership of the property.

    It’s stolen when they can take possession of it from you, that late. When you have to ‘get out your own car and let a thief drive off with it is when your car is stolen.’

    Prior to that, they are trying to steal and you are trying to prevent a theft.

    Hope that makes sense.

    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free and independent state, in jure proprio, jure divino

  26. After two years of this court battle, I am educated. Before this I was so very gullible, and will probably be again at some point, somewhere.

    We had another house, rented out the past few years, and we just “gave up” on it, as our signatures were forged on that too. They just send a notary to your house, then forge your name to whatever fraudulent documents they wanted. Cannot sue, as its impossible to allege fraud in the specificity.

    Guess what though, This other house, in default now about 9 months. with a NOD. I dug up the old documents from 1999 when we “bought.”

    WOW!!!! Were we stupid!

    Now that I am educated I saw it right away!

    I found a letter from the escrow company “an amendment to escrow instructions”

    It said, ” We are in Need of the Grant Deed from one of the sellers…. Do you still want us to fund the loan? If so please sign this liability release, and we will close escrow” We were so dumb!

    There is NO valid Grant Deed that conveyed it to us!!!

    we never LEGALLY owned it! Ten years of payments, and it was not even ours, and we released liability on it.
    ———————
    Dear Aurora,

    You claim you can sell this house at auction? Fine, but your foreclosure though should name the correct parties that own it, because according to a title report from 1999, it’s NOT US!

    it’s been occupied by adverse possession for ten years.

    Have a Damm nice day!

    Mrs. Nali

  27. Tresspass Unwanted:

    “Once your property is illegally in the hands of someone who is ‘not’ the owner…then you’ve been robbed”

    In fraudclosure land when does that occur? Trustee sale by non- owner? Assignment to non-owner? – NOD by non owner? – Payments to non owner? Signed a deed and note to non-owner?

  28. @ Enraged

    You know dude….you’re just to much 🙂

  29. https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B19JlgKm8KKNZGU5NWE0Y2MtYWI3NS00YzllLWExYjgtOTRkODI5MWM0NTZh
    my revised Proposed fourth amended complaint.

    I cant find a lawyer still, so I guess I will have to take it to appellate court myself.

  30. Same firm that handled the 8.5 investor settlement with BofA”:

    “Institutional Bondholders Issue Instructions to Five Trustees to Open Investigations of Ineligible Mortgages in Over $95 Billion of JPMorgan-Issued”: 243 trusts are listed.

    “Institutional Bondholders Issue Instructions to Two Trustees to Open Investigations of Ineligible Mortgages in Over $19 Billion of Wells Fargo-Issued RMBS”: 48 trusts are listed

    Just wondering if this mean anything to mortgages in these trusts?

    Why can’t the AG’s or enterprising big law firm do this too only match the servicer/sub servicer/debt collector/master servicer/records and ledgers from the homeowner to the trust? Wouldn’t investors like to see those figures too? I know some “ineligible” mortgages that are still paying on time. Others only recently stopped (servicers thinking thank you – what took you so long?).

  31. You have not been robbed until someone has actually stolen something from you. Once your property is illegally in the hands of someone who is ‘not’ the owner…then you’ve been robbed.

    The last shall be first, the first shall be last.

    Think of the one trying to steal the radio out of the car…if he leaves with the radio, he’s a thief, if he’s stopped by the owner; he hasn’t stolen a thing, so he’s probably charged with criminal mischief or some other petty offense, like destruction of private property.

    The penalty for these fraudclosures come from every successful theft that has occurred. All these bankruptcies that leave the homeowner without the home provides no future settlement because that case was ‘settled’ in bankruptcy.

    Does anyone realize that when you file for bankruptcy you name the creditors? You don’t name the ‘purported’ creditors. You name everyone you are ‘of your free will’ telling the court ‘that you owe’.

    Has anyone done as much research into bankruptcy as they’ve done into these fraudclosures?

    Black’s law 5th edition

    Bankrupt. The state or condition of one who is unable to pay his debts as they are, or become, due. Amenability to the bankruptcy laws. The condition of one who (under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898) has committed an “act of bankruptcy” (q.v.) and is liable to be proceeded against by his creditors therefor, or of one whose circumstances are such that he is entitled, on his voluntary application, to take the benefit of the bankruptcy laws. The term includes a person against whom an involuntary petition has been filed, or who has filed a voluntary petition, or who has been adjudged a bankrupt. Person or municipality referred to as a “debtor” under Bankruptcy Act (section) 101(12)

    Can you imagine being
    ‘one who has committed and ‘act of bankruptcy’?

    When you judge someone who ‘commit an act of’ (anything)?
    How do you judge them? How many people really win their homes in bankruptcy. I hear more who have lost their home in bankruptcy than I do of those who do…and then there are those that say they are under some non-disclosure agreement. Did they lose and don’t want to tell someone they lost?

    “to commit and act of” rarely accompany something positive.

    I like Mandelman but I don’t agree in the incentive of the money to be made on either side of the track for the lawyers. We already have jokes of blood suckers and vampires and sharks, etc…associated with them…the ambulance chaser, the opportunist at the least opportune time for the one feeling like a victim.

    Maybe people need to ‘stop’ and see what role they play in this game created by the banks. Are you playing ‘the hand they dealt you? Are you playing your own hand? Have you stopped playing? If they steal from you, it doesn’t mean you gave them a free house, it means they stole from you. They are moving slower on their fraudclosures for a reason..maybe they want the fight so a judge can decide and ‘all rulings are final’ unless appealed now that people have full disclosure that whoever is robbing them (foreclosing on them) may not be the proper party who can do so. If you fight the case in a cookie cutter way, they have a court procedure to shut down your defense and hand the home to the pretender by judgment, until appeal.

    They don’t mind losing homes back to the owner on appeal, because most can’t afford to appeal, and most don’t know how to file as an indigent (can’t remember the term) on appeal.

    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free and independent people, in jure proprio, jure divino.

  32. OBAMA PUTTING PRESSURE ON AG’S TO SETTLE===
    CALL TO ACTION FOR MONDAY JAN. 23 2012

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79039854/CALL-TO-ACTION-JANUARY-23-2012-OBAMA-PUTTING-PRESSURE-ON-Attorney-General-Kamala-Harris-TO-SETTLE

  33. @Eugene,

    You either know something and you ought to tell or you’re playing with our nerves and it’s despicable.

    So, come clean, shall you? What do you “know” or “guess” Obama wants to announce and qualify it as such please? That he is running for President? (I don’t believe he has yet announced it…) That he is NOT running? That he just came up with the new and improved Hamp/harp/hump/whatever half-assed program to sorta, kinda make believe he is looking for solutions? That homeowners are on their own (we already knew that…) and it’s up to us to fight?

    Is he going to tell us Goldman Sachs is bankrupt? Please, please, please, pretty please?

  34. Obama is eager to announce something on Tuesday’s state of the dis-union at the expense of homeowners.

  35. There will be no war. The slate is being wiped clean in favor of the fraudsters. The fact that Gingrich won in SC should tell you something mr Garfield. Lots of sheeple voted for him and then went home to their tents

  36. Here’s an interesting tidbit … Bank of America is no longer writing cash out refi’s … since we are all in agreement here that refi’s were nothing more than a transfer of collection rights with the only finance portion being if there was a cashout .. does this indicate that BAC is short on cash? Are they getting ready for a significant payout regarding the settlement? Just speculation but I think that the overhang of 10M defaulted but not foreclosed homes has been noted and BAC doesn’t want to cash someone out and have them underwater again real soon…

    http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/dailybriefing/2010_520/b-of-a-no-cash-out-refis-1028420-1.html

  37. Interesting, there could be announcement of a settlement with the banks as early as Monday 1/23:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/shaking-their-windows-and_b_1219948.html

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: