They Still Don’t Get It — Robo-crimes are not victimless!

The main problem with resolving the mortgage and housing crisis has emerged as flat-out ignorance and indifference even on the part of the Washington Post which referred to Robo-signing as a “victimless” crime.

This ignorance stems from a rancid combination of laziness and persistent ideology that disregards both known facts and the need to ascertain “unknown facts.”

The conclusion reached by most people is that the banks were wrong in submitting false documents with false declarations of fact and then forging them with unauthorised signatures and then notarizing false signatures — but that doesn’t mean that a borrower should not be foreclosed. This feels like explaining high finance and legal doctrine to a three-year old — except the people receiving the explanation should know better and in fact do know better.

No property transaction can be accepted based upon falsified, forged, fraudulent documents — so it does mean that there cannot be a foreclosure unless true documents reciting true facts are used in a foreclosure. The community bank on the corner has nothing to fear from the fact that they must show ownership of the loan and be able to provide a full and complete accounting on the loan. They never had a problem.

The assumption behind the Washington Posts reckless characterisation of these victimless crimes is that when you boil these “securitized loans” down, they are really no different than the community bank loan, that the documents will be real, and that the accounting for the loan will be full and complete.

That assumption is plainly wrong. And the corollary assumption that the banks were just “cutting corners” is equally wrong. The failure to investigate what the banks are hiding is an egregious failure of responsibility for both the press and law enforcement.

We can all agree that a person who borrows money should pay it back. We should also agree that such a person should be obligated to pay it back once, not multiple times. And we should also agree that the lender should only be paid once, not multiple times. Because so many people wish to gloss over the niceties of proper documentation, the banks are being permitted to claim losses they never endured, claim ownership of loans they never funded or bought, claim lien foreclosure, evict millions from there homes, take title to property, create blighted cities that once thrived, abandon the property they foreclosed, and all without taking an ounce of responsibility for the effect on investors who advanced all the money, the homeowners who advanced their lives and all the property, the taxpayers who have paid the defaulted loans repeatedly to banks that did not own the loans, and the nation’s prospect as the leader of the free world.

If the net effect is that the homeowner is left with full liability to the real creditor, or that the homeowner pays twice on the same loan, or that the creditors received full or partial payment multiple times from multiple sources, and if that is what is being covered up by Robo-signed documents, then how can we assume that these crimes are victimless? the investors are being cheated out of the repayment of the loans they made because the banks took the money and ran. The homeowners are being foreclosed for a debt that has been repaid out of their tax dollars. the cities and counties and states are being deprived of tax revenue for expenses that in large part were the result of planning for services and infrastructure to accommodate the false real estate boom.

Robo-signing is only victimless if these were “White lies”. Without further investigation and discovery how does anyone know that Robo-signing was not as mean-spirited and pernicious as it sounds when put into solid language — the forged signing of fraudulent documents containing false declarations meant to deceive the reader, the public and the recording offices? Hint: Start with the amount of money that is claimed as defaulted from 2006 to the present and apply payments received from all parties, not just the borrower. And remember that if the payment came from the taxpayers, it came from the borrower who pays taxes just like everyone else. If the money came from insurers or counter parties to credit default swaps, and the creditors (investors who advanced the money) are satisfied, why should the borrower pay it again? — especially to banks that were never more than conduits, never had any loss, never funded the loan and never purchased the loan.

133 Responses

  1. @KATE

    Sorry—Im afraid that the state and local govt employees are going to be most adversely affected of all. The devaluation of investment securities due to statements such as the attached will undermine the ability of state/local govt to meet defined benefit obligations and then health coverage.

    Any investment manager for insurers etc or private investor that purchases tax-free minis may also be at risk–if this standard of fiduciary responsibility is ealso applicable to broad swaths of that investment group. I am not sure that this is so—but any fortress bank-trustee that makes the following disclaimer surely cannot remain a trust-worthy trustee claiming to have any fiduciary reponsibility.

    Frankly this item is the most chilling single paragrapoh posted in connection with investor data that I have seen in the past three years.

    I repeat for benefit of readers and past or potential future victims: of BANK OF POTTER

    “IN NO EVENT WILL WE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, LOSSES OR EXPENSES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH THIS WEBSITE, THE USE HEREOF OR RELIANCE ON ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, EVEN IF WE KNEW OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, LOSSES OR EXPENSES”

    I rally think that this statement should cause the AGs to carefully re-evaluate their releases–not sure that they know what they are releasing. What does the implicitly referenced obliquely in that investor information website refer to??

  2. Oh No DCB – my husband works for the town government and has money from each pay check put into their retirement fund. I’ll talk to him about it tonight. Most of our money though was in savings and our good friends BoA/BAC got all that while we played their game of “modification on a string”. I really wished we had just stopped paying before we exhausted everything.

  3. @ KATE

    If you were an employee of a state or local govt –or investor in muni bonds this likely affects you.

  4. @ dcb 2/14 10:14 p.m.

    I would be wanting a refund immediately

  5. If you were a pension trust investor that put your pensioners’ money into a fortress bank trustee’ managed MBS and went you went to that bank’s investor data site and saw the following changed discalimer what would you think?

    IN NO EVENT WILL WE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, LOSSES OR EXPENSES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH THIS WEBSITE, THE USE HEREOF OR RELIANCE ON ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, EVEN IF WE KNEW OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, LOSSES OR EXPENSES.”

  6. “ALL”

    The imminent settlement between the 5 largest U.S.Banks and State Attorneys General will make it more important than ever for homeowners in distress to be represented by competent counsel. A big part of the reason that the banks are signing onto this settlement, is that it will leverage the credibility of the Obama Administration and State Attorneys Generals to further their efforts to convince homeowners to sit on their legal rights related to legitimate claims they may have over lending and foreclosure practices.

    CERTAINLY TRUE AND DANN SHOULD KNOW—but the competent part needs to add also not with any conflicts of interest–ie not also mediators trying to make collectors “like” them —–

    and not attys reresenting hundreds of clients –and basically becoming the equivalent of foreclosure mills —only working to feed clients into those as settlement mills—sooner or later we are going to see a lot of charges against attys with bar associations for incompetent or collusive behavior.

    read your engagement letters carefully and make sure you reserve out any material decisions to be decided by you so you dont get traded away——-do not assume that every atty will be eithercompetent or safe—be wary of attys that are or were connected to title companies—they may have a conflict too—probably 1st thing in the interview is “mr atty have you got any conflicts; did you represent a bank recently–a collection agency–a local realtor or title insurance co??? —-problem is that by the time you go down the list–youv wiped out many small town attys——–there is room for new just for homeowners firms–like danns–

    beware

  7. @TP
    “You give up rights you inherently have when you let someone ‘represent’ you.”

    Carefully read any agreement you make with your atty–fee deal etc–it can be exactly as you stated–they might treat you as if you were their ward and take authority to make binding decisions for you—then off handed ly say –oh sure ill agree that you can have this clients house if you will agree to let me mediate all the cases that you are party to in my part of the state–of course you never know the 2nd part of the deal—you just get a motion to enforce this verbal agreement between your atty and the collection agency atty———-and you find out that YOU agree to something you never heard about—-your atty then is suboenaed to testify against you and to the agreement that HE MADE ON YOUR BEHALF; you must carefully limit the atty’s power to make significant decisions without your express written agreement.

    beware

  8. An attorney is an officer of the court. Their allegiance lies with the court who says their allegiance lies with the public.
    Opinion
    You give up rights you inherently have when you let someone ‘represent’ you.
    If all men are created equal, why is it only some men and speak in a place of business and other men are subject to them? Is that not slavery or some form of master and slave relationship? If two real parties are in a disagreement, why don’t both appear and let the judge referee the agreement that was broken? Why does one need to be represented and never appear?
    Who would suggest you be less than who you are, and have someone stand before you ‘as your God for a fee’ and speak for you.
    If your religious beliefs state ‘thou shalt have no other Gods before me.’ then does it go out the window when it comes to your someone stealing your house or is it really a foundation of your spiritual upbringing to not bargain with the Devil for anything including your Droit Droit (right to property and right to possession).

    Titles may be corrupted, but many will end up bargaining in the courts and it will clear certain titles for the banks based upon the judgment from the case before the court whether it is bankruptcy or a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure. When the dust settles, many my find that somewhere in the process they weren’t robbed because they hired an attorney and lost their rights to the property and to possession of the property by what they did to try to save themselves from being forced to flee the property.

    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, a free and independent state, (no one can represent me unless I agree to be represented, a free People, sovereign by divine right (jure divino), in one’s own right (in jure proprio)

  9. Please help, what really works in CA instead of giving up the homes to the servicer/debt collector? Is QT has a chance in state court? Thank you.

  10. And, according to Abigail Field, since it must be expected that the AGs have been lied to, they ought to walk. They still can…

    Let’s put pressure on them for as long as there is NO settlement.

    http://abigailcfield.com/?p=951

  11. From Marc Dann, former Ohio AG. Most of this also applies to other states. The crux of it is that we all will need counsel… So, for those who are still paying their mortgage, now may be the time to consider whether to keep paying, without any garantee whatsoever that it will serve any purpose or whether now is the time to stop and retain an attorney.

    “AG Settlement Makes it More Important to Seek Counsel When Facing Foreclosure

    In Forclosure, Uncategorized on February 9, 2012 at 9:09 am

    The imminent settlement between the 5 largest U.S.Banks and State Attorneys General will make it more important than ever for homeowners in distress to be represented by competent counsel.

    A big part of the reason that the banks are signing onto this settlement, is that it will leverage the credibility of the Obama Administration and State Attorneys Generals to further their efforts to convince homeowners to sit on their legal rights related to legitimate claims they may have over lending and foreclosure practices.

    Participating Banks are betting on the fact new modification promises may entice homeowners to walk away from real actionable claims against lenders, servicers and their vendors.

    The settlement itself amounts to little more than moving around the deck chairs on the Titanic. The math simply doesn’t work. The principal reductions promised will either be spread like peanut butter over millions of mortgages, too small to advantage either the homeowner (or the lender) in any significant way, or at the proposed dollar allocation announced today, will only benefit a fraction of the homeowners facing foreclosure.

    The proposed $2000 payment to families wrongly foreclosed upon is exactly the minimum that a husband and wife would be entitled to under a Fair Debt Collections Practice Claim. Those of us who represent homeowners know that there are state consumer protection claims and tort claims available that could provide wrongly displaced homeowners will tens of thousand of dollars more.

    The silver lining in the settlement is that it does not in any way limit homeowner defenses or counterclaims in the foreclosure process. It is more important than ever for homeowners to be represented by competent lawyers. For more information about representation in foreclosure in Ohio click here.”

  12. @DCB – I’ll take a general stab at it.

    Q: Just a thought but what if a homeowner was settled out by a settlement agreement and release of liability executed by a well-known robo-signer?
    A: The word settlement means they settled for something…settlement agreement means both parties came to the table, someone made an offer, someone accepted the offer and there was some consideration. If the homeowner was not under duress or coercion and did not reject the settlement within 3 days if that option is/was available to them, than even if I read it, I’d come to the conclusion that the homeowner wanted the settlement agreement just as much as whoever offered it up and wrote the contract.
    Q: But the house is now gone?
    A: If the return of the home was part of the settlement and the home has not been returned then the offer/acceptance/consideration aspect that makes the contract binding is no longer there. The contract is void. Imagine AGs making a settlement/ahem..and accord which is less than a settlement because they settled for less than they should have..but I digressed…if they made an accord and it included money paid to the state and the banks didn’t pay the accord is off…now do they go back and renegotiate or do they already have written in the accord whatever recourse or punishment or extra liability would be placed on whoever failed to perform their side of the bargain.

    Let’s hope the homeowner didn’t just sign one more document because they wanted a settlement and didn’t read what they signed, and they know who has to do what (performance) and what happens if someone doesn’t deliver their side of the bargain.

    Q: What would the effect of that be? A: included above.

    Q: Would the agreement be binding only on the homeowner who signed?
    A: The agreement is binding on all parties to the settlement, let’s just hope the homeowner has some recourse if the settlement is bogus just like modifications put a lot on homeowners and even had them sign away certain rights, and homeowners signed away and were the only one who had to perform and when the bank/servicer failed to perform by rejecting the modification and keeping the money as if the homeowner had been paying them for months for the mortgage but failed to perform, they took the home.
    In a legal sense without that modification in court, the accounting showing payment could have been the trick used to say, see they paid, then they stopped and then they paid again and then they stopped so we took the home.

    Q: would the release be binding on the collection agency–or voidable later if that was useful to the collection agency–is it caveat emptor so to speak for the homeowner?
    A: Not sure how to answer this…a collection agency is a debt collector, a third party intervenor who was not a signatory on the settlement. They can do all kinds of private detective work to call your friends and your job to collect the debt but they can’t take property or threaten to take property without a secured interest. They usually try to garnish wages and legally they can’t without a contract (they don’t have, they are contracted with someone else to collect the debt and not you, and if the someone they contracted with to collect the debt had the right or power to collect the debt why hire someone to collect it for them? Booyah!), they also cannot legally garnish without a court order. They like to point to statutes and say it gives them the right to collect and companies will roll over and give them your entire paycheck just to keep from being in the news for not collecting the debt under some statute, but bottom line, the statute is for persons…who are you or your homeowner friend? If you agree you are a person, then the debt is for you, but the statute is also for income, and businesses and corporations have income, the real people, the flesh and blood corporeal people usually are given a ‘salary’ and by legal definition a salary is ‘a reward or recompense for services provided’. If it were income it would not be defined as salary, the word salary would not exist, if it were wages, there would not be a definition for wages and for salary…the game is played because we hear what they want us to hear and see what they want us to see, and a person is defined as an association (is that you? No), a corporation (is that you? No.) a partnership (is that you? No) a conservatorship (You? No.) and a few other things that aren’t flesh and blood, and aren’t corporeal (something you can see and touch and feel)…buildings are bodies…but those bodies don’t have a soul…a person is a corporation, a body of a corporation, but it is not of the Creator, it is created by man. Man imitating Nature, but I digressed again.

    A: to 2nd half of the question –
    How should a homeowner assure that any deal with a collection agency was binding without a firm finding that the parties had standing in the 1st place.
    If the homeowner communicates with the collection agency and discusses the debt, they pretty much validate it. At most, they can send a letter telling them to not communicate with them ever, but that doesn’t mean they won’t push it. Things are in the wind to take away the powers they are exercising that they have no right to exercise. If they contact you, say, I don’t owe you. There is no contract, there is no obligation so there is no default…you are telling them the truth, they work for someone else, and whoever sold the right to collect to them gave up the right to collect. You don’t borrow from me and I send JG to collect where JG is saying, “hey! You owe Trespass so pay me what you owe!” Don’t that sound like extortion or something? We punish ourselves by what we believe is true, the word ‘lie’ is in believe and belief.

    Q: If a house was seized bssed on a rob-signed document, is the deed valid?If executed by the homeowner under the mistaken belief that the collection agency had a right?

    A: The robosigned document should have been read by the one who signed it, that’s the only fraud they committed. A promise to pay was made, but whoever is trying to collect needs to be the one you promised to pay and no one else, usually when you write a check you could pay someone and when they cashed the check the check would come back to you…but they don’t know where the check is, so how can you get a check that you will pay, lose the check and still want someone to give you the money from the check when even if they paid you can’t give them the check back. I’d rather they came back to me for another note than to steal the home to create an illusion they had the note.
    As for the second half of the question, how does the homeowner prove that they mistakenly believed that the collection agency had a right? There is a Maxim of Law : One should know with whom you deal.
    I think it means you don’t pay someone by mistake thinking you owe them something unless you thought you owed them something. If you find out you already paid them and paid them twice I guess that’s a mistake that can be recovered, but if you paid them thinking you owed them (not you…just stating you in the general sense in all of this), then you have established the obligation to owe them and they have accepted the right to collect from you. That’s one reason why I told people to stay away from modifications. People believe anything a government official tells them, but in a court, things have to be under penalty of perjury and no one ever speaks in public under penalty of perjury and when they have to speak under penalty of perjury its behind closed doors and within private committees.

    Q: What does one have to prove to overturn a deed procured using false documents?
    A: I don’t know how to answer that and the reason is, the deed created the obligation to get the home…deed (offer), promise to pay (acceptance), house (consideration), not in that order but pretty much because a DOT was generated it described a legal location on which a real asset (a physical home) sits, and the home is accessible because someone says you can go to that location and be there (as a tenant) according to the Deed. When you get rid of the deed, you potentially get rid of the purported right to be there. The county trustee (I mean county attorney) has an office in that county courthouse, there isn’t much that can get filed that they aren’t blocking (I call them the wizard behind the curtain), many have filed documents and had things just go wrong because of the county attorney. I once had a county come after me over a traffic issue in which I refused to negotiate, I asked why wouldn’t they just drop it and the answer was the county attorney wouldn’t let them…It’s not widely known, the role of the county attorney. The foreclosures could not occur without his allowing it to happen at the county level, as trustee for that estate, he knows exactly what’s going on and is probably deciding who wins and who loses based on the value of the estate and the signature behind the obligation. The county attorney will act like you are property in how they deal with things at the county level. it makes you have to let them know you know who you are and you have a God, you have a Creator, and it ain’t them!

    Q: This is a softball question for the well-versed but for those of us in the dark–thoughts please?
    I hope I could help point you somewhere. I recently read a document that explains the fraud the banks perpetrated, but their way of doing things is to put the truth out there and then surround it with deceit. The problem I have with the document is that it doesn’t hold them accountable and appears to be an effort to give them ‘clean hands’ after they operated with ‘unclean hands’. It wants to point at title companies and other businesses (which by the way, they own and operate), but it puts them at arm’s length of the situation so you point at the notary, or the robosigner, or the title company, or the insurer, or the foreclosure mill, or the judge, or their customer service, or their modification department, anyone on the bottom but the fraud occurred at the top. Nothing less that full removal and a punishment to fit the crime of trillions of dollars and millions of people. I don’t know how anyone can sign a get out of jail free card for that. There ain’t a Monopoly game created that will make them ‘Go to Jail, go Directly to Jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $200’. Their game, their rules, their punishment and removal from our society forever and ever and ever and our restitution is our remedy.
    Send them to another prison planet, and remove the invisible bars and release this planet from the bondage created by a few.
    I knew a lot of things before my home was stolen. I’ve learned a lot more since the theft. After the fact sometimes I think I would still have gone through the theft because it was the catalyst that gave me the desire to want to know how could I have contracted away my right to privacy and peaceful enjoyment of my property? I realized it wasn’t contracted away, that I suffered a constitutional trespass, a divine trespass, a spiritual trespass and my co-creation suffered the same. So now I wait for the day of judgment the Perpetrators are not our God nor our Creator and I don’t care what contract or treaty or accord they signed with anyone or any nation or any government, there isn’t a single document that exists or will ever exist as long as I’m the Creator within, gives them the right or the power to do what was done to me and mine.
    You know…not a single one has asked for forgiveness?
    That’s their bankruptcy, that’s their wipe the slate clean. They won’t do it so the Karma created by their deeds will be well worth their souls journey. If they find they are existing in a future life where there is scarcity of food or resources, where wars are rampant and the smell of blood reeks the soil and you can’t plant the fields where the dead have lain slayed by their rituals, where they have no shelter from the elements and the world they live in is dark and harsh and spiritually immature, and where when they die the reincarnate right back there over and over and have to wait for the planet to advance spiritually before the planet looks out for the inhabitants for which it is responsible for, well that is the life for them as that’s the life they created for many when they acted as Our God and were not spiritually advanced enough to care for the people they by their actions, created a responsibility for the well-being of the people they affected.

    I expect their removal from our existence to be occurring now as I have called Game Over and given orders in the authority of the sovereign People with the Creator within, for their prompt removal so we can move forward with our Life, Free Will and Good Conscience with each other and our Planet.

    Let’s call this the equivalent of kicking the moneychangers out of the temple.

    Trespass Unwanted, Corporeal, a life, a peaceful, free, and Independent State, a Conscience, by divine right (jure divino), in one’s own right (in jure proprio)

  13. http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/214015-jurists-scholars-meet-to-discuss-impartiality-of-california-courts

    this article – today – says there’s an upcoming public forum to discuss influences on the judiciary. So far, so good. But, there’s no stinking date for the forum!

  14. DCB- how would the average joe have any idea that they were dealing with a debt collector holding unsecured debt, rather than a bank, creditor, lender, or whoever they thought they were dealing with?
    If they were foreclosed, they (homeowner) knew that were behind in payments. Perfect for pretend lenders.

  15. Just a thought but what if a homeowner was settled out by a settlement agreement and release of liability executed by a well-known robo-signer? But the house is now gone?

    What would the effect of that be?

    Would the agreement be binding only on the homeowner who signed?
    would the release be binding on the collection agency–or voidable later if that was useful to the collection agency–is it caveat emptor so to speak for the homeowner?

    How should a homeowner assure that any deal with a collection agency was binding without a firm finding that the parties had standing in the 1st place.

    If a house was seized bssed on a rob-signed document, is the deed valid?If executed by the homeowner under the mistaken belief that the collection agency had a right?

    What does one have to prove to overturn a deed procured using false documents?

    This is a softball question for the well-versed but for those of us in the dark–thoughts please?

  16. johngault,

    In Florida halfway through the court mediation process i think they courts realized the problem and forced the banks to certify they were authorized to negotiate in mediation. But again its like the Obama mod or OCC etc. the banks just dont do it. So my attorney strongly suggested dont mediate especially early on. It seems counter to logic but I now am in agreement with him.

    Really the whole thing is a mess and I hope once I or my attorney is in front of a judge we will make clear that in my case I sent 3 certified QWR’s essentially ASKING to mediate by ASKING are you the servicer authorized to negotiate for some creditor/trust and who is it???? They said ofcourse go pound sand.

    Because I as homeowner cant HAMP/FL supreme court mediate/HARP or negotiate without that!!!!! I can’t talk with some 22 yr old uneducated Wells Fargo $9 an hour person about title chain/title insurance and deficiency waivers. Waste of time.

    It is disgusting bec courts want less cases but it is THEIR fault bec fake mediation is NOT the answer. FORCING the true creditor/true harmed party to sue or negotiate or whatever is the ANSWER. If they dont have their papers or are not the correct party then kick them to the curb. this is not that complicated.

    I THINK once the bank servicer has been beaten or stalled in court long enough then MAYBE my lawyer and their lawyer can talk or negotiate. I would gladly negotiate now and am only 6 months into process. But i am not giving them my info and financials sorry. They dont need them to negotiate in good faith.

    Good luck everybody!!!

  17. @Johngault,

    I suspect that many people ran themselves into the poor house by paying a mortgage they could no longer afford for want of a paying job (gone with the bailouts and the resulting economic crisis). If they payed late, they were assessed fees after fees after fees and ended up owing so much that they could no longer qualify for any modification and were bound to lose the house after losing everything else.

    Very few of us made a concerted decision to seek legal help before stopping all payments and to use mortgage money for legal representation. It’s not always the answer though, especially in non-judicial states, but it is one answer that may help. Unfortunately, for many, by the time they realized they absolutely needed an attorney, they no longer could afford one. Your friend in MO may very well be right.

  18. The attorneys are the crooks.

  19. I have a friend who is an attorney and I often urge him to get involved in his state, Missouri, with foreclosure defense. He says people behind on home payments don’t have any money to pay for that defense. Do you think that’s true mostly? Are there people here at LL from Missouri who would like to hire an attorney, but can’t find one?

    If these people actually have the funds to pay for defense, I wonder if it’s a common misperception among attorneys that they don’t,and that perception keeps more attorneys from ‘getting involved’? ( I’m obviously not talking about the attorneys who have been looking at us for years now like we have three eyes.)

  20. @krakajack@bellsouth.net ,

    Pretty close … The real cause was England strangling the colonies financially to be sure but the way they imposed it was with the stamp act … the stamp act required payment for the stamps in gold/sterling which was VERY hard to find. You could barter all day for molasses and tobacco but you had to come up with gold for the stamps and that supply of gold was constantly being reduced. Colonial script was a good currency because it was tightly controlled and not printed to excess.. it was issued free of debt creation.

  21. http://youtu.be/XfvE9yr8QO0

    This is my one minute video showing the explicit forgery of United States Consul “Jeremy Cornforth” on a Deed of Trust I have just discovered from 1999, in relation to the forgery of my case, PC048289.

    I DARE anyone to tell me that they do not think this is the FORGERY of the notary, Donna K. Escamillo.

    She has been forging documents for THIRTY YEARS I ALLEGE.
    VIEW THIS!

  22. @chas404 – Well, obviously I’m stunned at hearing what I take as a court, any court, legislating anything, no matter how well-intentioned. Nevada legislation was able to quickly enact mandatory mediation statutes. Those statutes calls for sanctions if no one with authority to
    agree for the bankster is present. Now is this still a toothless law?
    I need to look at those statutes more closely, but I’m gonna say yes because you can’t legislate a change to contractual rights. (The effort is commendable perhaps.) Well, shouldn’t, but actually states have done so while we were sleeping by legislation which has totally undermined the dot’s use as an instrument allowing the privilege of non-judicial foreclosure. And this I am mad as hell about.

  23. krakajak – and what do you expect the collapse to look like, may I ask?

  24. They used drones as robosigners to mask the outright theft of homes they didn’t own. This has been uncovered, but not fully acknowledged by the government. There are many victims of Grand Theft out there who the banks owe homes to, not just $2,000. I’m one of them.

  25. chas404:

    “they make homeowner show and give financial info and admit default etc while bank sends unauthorized attorney etc”

    Exactly. Time has come for no more mediation, modification, negotiation or settlement. Time for penalties, damages, rescission, restitution. Automate it. No more talking. The too big to fail are already bankrupt and have only themselves to blame. Face the music.

  26. john gault,

    Per Florida’s Supreme Court mediation program…. FL supreme court a few yrs ago mandated mediation. the mediation is run by private groups like the Collins Center. They send out info to homeowner before the bank sues for foreclosure. The idea was to cut down on foreclosures. Prob is they soon figured out the true creditor never shows. never authorized to negotiate. I can’t speak for Stopa but some FL attornies recommend NOT to mediate this way bec they make homeowner show and give financial info and admit default etc while bank sends unauthorized attorney etc. Also this mediation happens too early in process before bank feels any pain from not paying. If you don’t agree the Collins Center idiots send out some letter to the homeowner says “we are sending a certificate of noncompliance with mediation to the court and now the bank can pursue foreclosure” which pisses me off bec I was never in contract with some Collins Center and they have no business with me. Anyhow FL supreme court genius program was found to be 4% effective (aka Obama modifications) and shut down now 2012.

  27. Breuer did nothing but make one lousy assed excuse after another. Either he is not capable of doing the job or his hands are tied and he is stopped from doing the job. I would say it’s the latter of the two, therefore, he is being paid by us, the taxpayers, to look like an incapable idiot. Mary-Jo caught on a little later in life to where the “money” is. Who really knows what Spitzer’s angle is or if he is sincere. I believe nothing any of them say; I will only believe what I see in the way of actions.

  28. Just saying:

    I wish the AG’s in tandem with Congress and God would declare a full stop on all foreclosures until the true party who can satisfy a lien is identified beyond a shadow of a doubt and the true amount owed that “person” is verified beyond a shadow of a doubt. No modification, refinance, bankruptcy, or sale – short or otherwise until this is done. No more fraud paper or fraud transfers or fraud claims of “ownership” secured or otherwise. Just compel the documents and accounting needed to determine this without further delay. If there has been illegal taking of money and property make the crooks pay, not the victims. If someone who deserved to get paid did not get paid make the crooks pay him and only the crooks.. Anyone who gets in the way of this should be considered to be a suspect no matter who they are.

  29. If you read the true history of the American revolution,not the
    version given out as propaganda you will find:
    Taxes were not the cause.It was the imposition of debt based fiat
    money on the colonies,replacing their real money.
    Just as the Fedreserve(Banking cartel) is doing to us.
    The war in Iraq and the upcoming one in Iran were and are
    about US imposition of dollars ,debt fiat money ,only for the oil trade.
    The whole system is dead on its feet ,its truly a dead man walking.
    All the actions of the Fed and State are just trying to shore upthe corpse.
    Hang in there.Soon ,very soon ,its all going to collapse

  30. Watching this pannel discussion between Breuer, Barofsky, Some Mary-Jo person I’ve never heard of before and Spitzer. (Thank you to whoever posted it on a previous page).

    Breuer and Mary-Jo Somebody played both sides of the issue in their career. Interestingly, they seem to resist the most any idea of prosecution (“You must be extremely careful”, “Not every immoral or unethical conduct is criminal”, and a slew of platitudes.) Breuer ducks the question of statutes of limitations becoming very, very close for many of the potential criminal actions and our failure to act timely turning into a legal impossibility in a few months, etc.

    Enlightening and, once again… sobering. Spitzer compares how much was done in the Enron scandal and how little has been done to prosecute in the greatest manmade financial scandal of all times.

    Breuer, in a typical C&B fashion, drowns the fish. “We have our own people who are very smart. There are many, many issues, it’s too big, etc.” Mary-Jo somebody: “A lot more can be accomplished in civil courts. Look at big pharma. And you don’t have the threat of criminal action dragging down the big 5…”

    Anyway. No one has gone to jail. Guess what? No one will. End of discussion.

    And, as Spitzer said: “I saw a poster on OWS. It said: “We’ll believe corporations are people the day Texas puts one to death”.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/nyuschooloflaw#p/a/u/2/L_Mg6YOxjTg

    Video to watch. Just to give an idea of how much government and regulators DO NOT WANT to charge anyone and will do everything in their power to make people understand why it can’t be done and why it shouldn’t even be attempted… We knew it. Nothing new under the sun.

    The only one who said something smart is Spitzer: “As soon as we knew that ethical rules had been breached, over ten years ago, why didn’t we remove the CEOs at Goldman’s and elsewhere and forbid them from touching anything having to do with finances?” Why? Because, according to Mary-Jo Somebody, no one had the “expertise” at the time to discern if they were acting unethically.

    There. We have it once and for all: no one is going to jail. We’ll continue losing our houses. We’ll have to wait until more and more judges and attorneys lose theirs and decide that the ball is in their court.

  31. I’m afraid E. Tolle is right. It is hard to pin an infinitely moving target that also has the ability to morph whenever needed.

  32. Bless our hearts, each and every one of us. We’re all trying so hard to find an Achilles heel, a chink in the armor, or the perfect spot to aim a well-lobbed rock at Goliath. And the whole time THEY keep moving in stronger artillery, higher caliber weaponry, and seeing as how they hold the keys to the armory, is there anything that would make us believe that it will ever end well, when played by their rules of conflict?

    All of the well-intentioned folk on Neil’s blog, myself included, have for years been trying to make sense out of something that’s inconceivable, or at best implausible, and that’s the problem. It’s inconceivable in that the powers that be simply decide to change the natural order of things to suit them, leaving us in a quandary trying to re-arrange the mess left behind in order to rebuild a defense. It’s implausible because there’s no underlying truth that one can grab onto. It changes from moment to moment to suit their whims. It reminds me of when Lucy pulls the football away at Charlie’s every attempt to kick it, even though she leads him to believe all is well. Whenever we think we’re getting close, they rewrite the rules, or in the present case, the laws.

    How can any of us expect to function in society, or as it relates here, in a legal format, when THEY decide to just adjust the laws to suit their needs? MERS illegal? No problem, we’ll just stop foreclosing in its name. Linda Green? No problem, we’ll just elect to stage a moratorium which will make everyone believe that we’ve had time to adjust our practices so that those evil-deeds, literally and figuratively are behind us. And the unknowing masses are left thinking the fixes are in.

    How can we possibly expect to move towards any healing or repair on the underlying problems when the Commander in Chief himself goes out of his way to throw us all under the bus? His statements concerning no illegalities is, IMO, treasonous deception that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the capture is 100% complete to the highest office, and that there’s simply no hope in trying to work WITHIN the system. It’s wasted energy.

    The “fixes” coming from on high have nothing whatsoever to do with law and order. They are all about maintaining the system of pilferage that suits their lifestyle. It has absolutely nothing to do with you and I preserving our homesteads or workplaces or anything else remotely American in the values that we were taught in our youth, or that made this country great. Contrary to what they’re telling us daily from the highest positions of power and from campaign trails, THEY are the enemies of this once great nation….the culprits behind its downfall…..the destroyers of everything we hold dear.

    We can’t negotiate with them, they’re terrorists. We can’t meet them in court with quantifiable results. It’s not a level field. We need to make it clear to the judges, the AGs, the legislators, and anyone else that stands in the way that any attempt at negotiating away our rights to age old black letter law will be met with extreme pushback. Let them figure out what that loosely veiled but harsh wording means. There can be no settlements that give up our rights, period. Just remember, it’s our side that represents the American way, not them and their military-industrial-financial parasitic mechanism of greed and corruption that sucks the life force out of all it encounters. It truly is us or them.

  33. john
    you are right about certain issues re ucc.. but there are other ucc arguments that are more substantial that puts the pretenders to bed,
    its not good to post [a] strategy in public, so i’ll privately share info that cuts. freak 4 u comcast.
    BK chpter 7 and others,, yes there are some methods of working w the trustee but most of them are self-defeating 1st and most importantly, arguing something the court will not allow is moot, its well settled that its is against the legislative intent of ANY chpter of BK for a debtor to avoid the 1st or primary encumbrance of the debtors primary residence and discharge the debt thru bk because this debtor windfall abrogates the intent of the legistr and purpose of bk process . , other options are convoluted but may avail you with a buyout option if correctly maneuvered , butt the trustee can not be [hahaha] trusteEd nor relied on , neither can any other party be in bk as far as i’m concerned.
    “butt” the trustee is his title haha ; ]

  34. @johngalt
    thankyou very much- i sent my cease and desist for starters, might get them off my back re SOL- i believe time barred now- 3 yrs AZ but its a little confusing on this issue.

  35. Money as Debt
    http://www.notjustnotes.ws/howbanksrobyou.htm

    All of this is changing now..what you are witnessing in the financial world, now, is the unraveling of what has stood for a long time as Money but was really Debt. We were working for money but we received debt based instruments called Federal Reserve Notes. In essence, we’ve never been paid for the work we’ve done. Our future is now, and an interest in bankrupting people before that future arrives appears to be the ‘agenda within the agenda’.

    A blogger caseyresearch.com has an article about gold backwardation and said “Debt is backed with debt, based on debt, dependent on debt and leveraged with yet more debt. For example, today it is possible to buy a bond (i.e., lend money) on margin (i.e., with borrowed money).”

    Check

  36. @johngault

    I’m not trying to stop people who want to do it, but I disagree that “Bankruptcy is a privilege granted to people.”

    Unless someone states something as a fact, attorneys like to call it an opinion anyway….so I’ll start off with.
    Opinion,
    There are assets you know nothing about and they aren’t revealed in bankruptcy but when you clear the slate all of it is taken.

    I believe I won’t have to wait long to prove whether either of us know what we are talking about. In private chats and lectures there is always talk of accounts with our names on them. You have to wonder, someone who never worked a day in their life can get entitlements like Social Security Benefits and Medicare/Medicaid…usually they are people who come over here and are counted, but the people have always been the creditors….there’s no need to bankrupt when the money was created at the time and moment your signature was placed on a document. The bankers went further and created the interest. Interest is not created when you create the money with your signature. By creating interest, it is guaranteed people will go bankrupt because there is not enough money to pay the principal plus interest, only enough money to pay the principal.

    There is no privilege in a system that creates the problem that cleans you out.

    Still trying to find out how long someone is employed after going bankrupt..is it a year? 2 years? 6 months? The few I knew who used the privilege I saw them unemployed after a period of time.

    How many of the statistics of unemployed people used that privilege?
    I know at some point millions were declaring bankruptcy to keep their homes and millions of people are unemployed, and did they keep their homes after they were unemployed or did taxes or an HOA (Homeowners Association) take it from them?
    Can’t find out nothing if you don’t ask questions and that is one black hole where no one speaks but a lot of people went through it.

    Trespass Unwanted, Corporeal, a life, a peaceful, free, and Independent State, a Conscience, by divine right (jure divino), in one’s own right (in jure proprio)

  37. @cheryl – forgive my ignorance, but what servicer plan?

  38. Now wait a minute, guys. About bankruptcy. Think about what “bankrupt” means. It means generally you’re insolvent or unable to meet your obligations. Bankruptcy is a privilege granted to people
    who must shed debt to survive. Debtors are only allowed to leave bankruptcy with limited assets. You do forfeit some for the benefit of your creditors. It’s true that generally ‘whatever you got’ belongs to your “bankruptcy estate” and is administered by its trustee with some exceptions and exemptions. I’m no expert on any of them, but least on c-7.
    As to our homes, there is a huge distinction in bk between unsecured creditors and secured creditors. If you file a C-7, you get rid of all your unsecured debt (x IRS). Your home is the subject by and large of a secured obligation, and those don’t get shed like unsecured debt in bk. But I did articulate some ways they actually can be in C-11 and C-13 by stripping seconds and cramming down firsts. Owner occ’d 13’ers can at least strip the wholely unsecured second by a simple mtn which I have never seen contested, because it’s the law. It’s my understanding a c-7 trustee can defeat an unrecorded interest in your home for the benefit of the estate. A debtor in poss in C-11 can do this, also. If c-13 trustees are left out, I forget why. Why ignorant c-7 trustees don’t do this is beyond me. Lazy? Ignorant as I have suggested? The problem with bankruptcy and I’ll concede it is a problem, is that every single bk attorney I have run into (not in cases I’ve read, just ones I’ve met) is a lazy or unmotivated xxxxx. They run cattle companies, in and out, in and out. It’s fill-in- the-blanks-rote and that’s ‘where they live’. They don’t do controversy or litigate. They don’t even want to argue generally about lift-stay motions. Non-bk-practicing attorneys won’t have anything to do with adversary proceedings because they don’t know that procedure or those rules. In their (bk guys)only defense I’ll make, they don’t practice law as a hobby. The very worst is when they make one believe they will fight, take your money, and then they play dead.
    This is complicated, but in my lay opinion when people file c-13 and any foreclosure action has already occurred, they should list any claims against the bankster, dot trustee, MERS, whomever on the schedule as a potential asset so you can keep whatever you get when you nail them for filing a bogus proof of claim. Otherwise, if you fight and win, the trustee may stick his hand out. (a finding your bankster is not the creditor doesn’t get rid of SOMEbody’s secured interest, so what’s there for the trustee to get as to the property itself?) There’s a way to stop the trustee before it starts, I believe but it’s complicated. It might start with a request to the trustee to abandon your claim and or cut a deal with him that if you prevail, he (your estate) gets X. If he won’t abandon the claim, I think you can try to force him to or try to force him to join your action.
    Stinking mess and heck of a deal for homeowners when most bk attorneys will not fight.
    But bk can and does help. Just not everyone. And it takes planning and strategy. And speaking of bk trustees again, I read a kind of blog thing, forget as usual (2008), written by a bk trustee after his attendance at a bk trustee convention. He very clearly articulated the bk trustee’s obligation to make certain that only real creditors get anything. He might have even said the bk trustee has a fiduciary. I wish I could find that so I could send it to some bk trustees who clearly missed that day.
    Other than the info I’ve conveyed about stripping, avoiding, cramming down, the bk fight about homes is generally in the 1) proof of claim and its legitimacy and 2) fighting the motion for relief from stay, and using the rules which say only the real party in interest may be given that relief. Filing bk also gives one room to breathe when you’re suffocating.
    And here’s some sad news: if you pay your bills but are late, especially on your house payment, you will find you would get a new home loan faster if you had filed bk rather than have all those lates on your credit report. (obviously buying another home isn’t the consideration it used to be) if you pay, but keep being late, it will killl you as to a new home loan. Unless it’s changed, there is a prescribed time after discharge of bk wherein one qualifies for a new home loan, but if you have lates on your c.r. in recent history, forget it. It’s not really fair, but that’s the way it is (or was).

  39. Settlement missing final document – servicers are going to be allowed to develop their own plans after the settlement is approved and have 3 months to get their plans to the court. How corrupt is this? What is wrong with these AG’s? They are going to finalize the settlement whenever and then let the banks develop their own plans 3 months later which will never happen. Bill Black for President.

  40. @joann – you’z funny!
    Calvo sounds really interesting.

  41. are modifications as a matter of course recorded?

  42. @angry &nottaking it – okay, so let them identify under which if any of those it alleges authority to modify. If they don’t, the borrower certainly can’t ever even try to assert the allegation if it would do any good.

  43. yeah, but angry and not taking it, what if a promissory note really is subject to the provisions of an agreement not known to the borrower or the court? For instance, when a holder of 10,000 notes sells them by way of a contract in lieu of endorsement of all those notes? I think that’s actually done, right? Not under art 3 (if insist on UCC) – would be art 9 or other? Of course courts want to limit the paperwork they have to deal with. If they want to so badly, they should lobby themselves for changes to m.o’s. which truly require the production of tomes and tomes of documents to prove something. Don’t know what that’d be, but the judge should keep in mind that when that’s necessary, if he wants to be upset with anyone about it, it should be the party who necessitated the tomes, not the borrower.

  44. PS – what is needed, but I believe would or at least might be found with scrutiny of the ca code, is something which says the beneficiary may not ask the trustee to exercise the power of sale until the beneficiary’s status as accorded by assignment is acknowleded in public record. It isnt’ splitting hairs – the beneficiary is simply not granted the power of sale.
    It’s my opinion an assignment is a more or less inchoate instrument
    until it is noticed to third parties, including the borrower, by recordation. Literally, an assignment is effective between the assignor and assignee once executed (require delivery? I would think so), but I believe not to anyone else until Noticed.

  45. @joann – the link info suggests amendment to CA 2932.5, and here’s the statute:
    “Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure
    the payment of money, the power is part of the security and vests in
    any person who by assignment becomes entitled to payment of the
    money secured by the instrument. The power of sale may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded.”

    The author wants to add this language at the end:
    something like ‘when the assignment is recorded at the same time the note is transferred’.
    Before this may be added, one must ascertain if currently an assignment of a deed of trust requires a PRESENT interest in the note, or can it be a ‘past’ interest. I don’t know. If some law provides, as I believe it may, that someone who bought a note with the expressed agreement he was to get an assignment of the collateral instrument but didn’t, that party has a right to get an assignment of the dot, even if he must sue to get it. (Under the statutes of frauds, he doesn’t have it til he literally has it.) That proposed statement might abridge an existing right, but I like the intent of course. By the way, it is the dot trustee, not the ben or anyone else who has the power of sale. It’s in the deed of trust and the dot controls. So the power is never given to the mortgagee (the ‘where…” in that statute) for this statute to apply imo. To accomplish the goal here, a new statute would be required imo, bearing in mind it can’t truncate rights defined elsewhere as I’ve described, namely the right to get an assignment where one was omitted. ish. OR, none is necessary because the statute as written is being misapplied in that the ben, any ben, past present future, does NOT have the power of sale pursuant to the deed of trust as that right is accorded the trustee, who is not the agent of the beneficiary, I don’t care what anyone says. If not a fiduciary to the other two parties (ben and borrower), then the trusteee is a neutral party. Acting as agent for one of them would vitiate that neutrality, which is for the love of ivy why a trustee was put in the stinking dot in the first place. His fiduciary to the parties or at least neutrality is why non-judical f/c is allowed at all (and should now be banned). The author obviously wants the assignment of the deed of trust executed and recorded concurrently with the sale of the note, which is how it was done pre-securitization and MERS and which would be great if there were a return to that deal. Some other CA law may address recordation of an assignment. Be surprised if not. I think this statute is being broadly mis-applied.

  46. But let’s go back briefly. When MERS was foreclosing in its own name, it was premised on a couple things, and one of the avoidable
    ‘things’ was that MERS (thru its member!) alleged possession of the note by way of its straw officer at the servicer’s. (See MERS membership rules) MERS named as beneficiary in the dot and poss by straw officer = the unity they know enforcement requires. But what a joke. 1) servicer didn’t have note and NO one would know and 2) certifying officer who is a sham is not “MERS”; there really is NO
    MERS.
    “MERS” would never of course know if the servicer had the note to start with. This situation, this m.o. is part and parcel again of the reason the dot is unconscionable. It was premeditated, if you will, that this was to be the basis for foreclosure by “MERS” read here to mean just anybody at all who had paid the 20.00 straw-officer fee. For all we know, foreclosures were done by people who hadn’t even paid their 20. for Mr. Hultman’s bs,apparently unauthorized appointment.
    A sham, a pretense. A lie. A fraud. One big charade still going on, just a little different version.
    The holdup in the ‘settlement’ is probably due to the fact that “MERS” will not be offered any ‘forgiveness’. They damn well better not be because MERS was the ring-leader of what I see as RICO. Even if not ultimately found to be rico violations, still a sham, a lie, a ruse perp’d on anyone who signed a MERS dot.

  47. @joann – to the best of my knowledge, both dot’s and notes are dated by the borrower when he signs them. They might have changed that, but I would be surprised. Who knows. What is significant and I forget why is if the date on the docs, particularly the note, is not the date it’s actually signed by the borrower. To my knowledge, the payee on a note has never, ever signed it.
    I don’t know if in the history of dots the beneficiary ever signed them.
    Probably not. (I tell you, the dot is a strange instrument to start with). My argument was that because they don’t sign them, it’s impossible for them to have appointed anyone an agent pursuant to the statute of frauds, which requires the principal’s signature when granting an agency. It also requires the agent’s signature. Even had they appointed another party an agent in a separate document, I stand on my position that an unNoticed agency is as worthless as T on a bull. Many a realtor who thought he was a listing agent without a contract has found out over the years, for instance, that not in writing = no
    agreement, no agency. Does ‘nominee’ require the true beneficiary’s signature? I don’t really know. But I can say that the limited ‘nominee’ does not spill casually into an “agency” and agency is what it would take to execute an assignment of an interest in real property and likely to foreclose.

  48. @Trespass

    Indeed. When I was told by a BK attorney that if no creditor was proven on the “house debt”, and it was declared unsecured—I would then have a large “unencumbered asset”—and would have to either sell the house or take out a loan to pay the BK Trustee—to pay creditors!!! And THAT was for Chap 7!!! Chap 13 sounded like even MORE of a nightmare because then you REALLY have to shell out the big bucks…for a LONG time…it freaked me out…and there was no guaranty of keeping the house…

    Notice when you get your servicer statement, or correspondence from the foreclosure mill, it ALWAYS says the big statement about: “This is an attempt to collect a debt, etc.,…however, if you have filed bankruptcy and have an automatic stay, etc…”

    I really think they WANT you to file BK…not sure why, but I guess maybe they make money from it somehow…that’s always their motivation for everything…

  49. @carie,
    over the years I accumulate files containing different info.
    I had these couple of questions and answers regarding bankruptcy from one of those files that came my way.
    ———————————————————————————-
    Can you pay off creditors in a Chapter 11?
     
    It is according to who they are; not individuals.
     
    Can you pay off debts in a Chapter 13?

    Only the Trustee. When you go into bankruptcy, under the rules of court you give everything to the Trustee. It is at his discretion whether you get anything. There are certain rules in Chapter 7 that will allow you to keep your house and car lots of times. However, first rule of both Chapter 11 and 13 states everything you bring in now belongs to the Trustee and they can do anything they want with it, and they do. They steal it all. That is the reason they want you to come into bankruptcy court so they can take the rest of your assets.
    ———————————————————————————-
    That was about as real as it gets for me…the Trustee…in that section it said the first rule is that everything belongs to the trustee.

    I don’t know how old the information is, if it is still valid, or if it was ever true.

    Who would “knowingly, willingly, or intentionally” want to go and give everything they have to some lawyer under a contract where the lawyer can act as Trustee can do anything they want with it.

    This financial system is imploding, and when it does, there may be people who find out that they gave away everything they could have ever had when most won’t even gamble on a lottery ticket, or acquire a habit like drinking or smoking.

    Bankruptcy is pitched as a remedy and it seems to be a terrible gamble to pay someone to take over ‘everything’ One owns, and liquidate it. Especially when it’s by One’s own signature, that it is done.

    Trespass Unwanted, Corporeal, a life, a peaceful, free, and Independent State, a Conscience, by divine right (jure divino), in one’s own right (in jure proprio)

  50. re calvo –
    roger bernhart summed it up best in the last past of his statement, fwiw roger bernhart has a in depth understand of convoluted real property issues. But alas does no litigation as I asked him for those services.

    Here, CC §2932.5 did not apply because foreclosure proceedings were begun under the authority granted in the deed of trust, not under a mortgage (which merely creates a lien, but does not transfer title, as does a deed of trust). Borrower simply “alleged no legal basis for setting aside the sale in this case.”

    Borrower simply “alleged no legal basis for setting aside the sale in this case.”
    lesson here MAKE SURE YOUR COA STICKS!!!!

    http://www.rogerbernhardt.com/index.php/ceb-columns/318-recording-dot-assignments-calvo-v-hsbc

  51. johngault
    “but I think now after looking at the UCC yet again, the holder may only ENFORCE to the degree of its payment for the note, basically. The distinction is one of inertia, sort of. Anyone?”

    § 3-301. PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE INSTRUMENT.

    “Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section 3-309 or 3-418(d). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.

    the servicer will claim (d)

  52. Found this post and thought it was brilliant and do not know proper protocol for copying someone’s post as in not ok?…..hope Phred does not mind…..he sometimes posts here too….

    Phred on February 5, 2012 at 8:43 am (not this site – different site http://theinvisibleveil.com/?page_id=340#comment-3)

    “Calvo v. HSBC was affirmed by Ca. Supremes on 1/4/12. It seems to sound the death knell on 2932.5.

    “But as Sun Tsu observed “… your enemies will bring weapons to you”. Citing Calvo, a borrower may be able to raise the argument that any RJN (request for judicial notice) for recorded assigned documents is moot because the Calvo ruling determines that not all possible transfers of the beneficiary interest are available to the court as a result. Therefore, lender can no longer rely solely on recorded assignments as evidence of possession of beneficiary interest, and standing of lender is automatically questioned unless lender is the same entity shown on the promissory note.

    “With an automatic question of standing of Lender as a party of interest, certainly the question of tender to a party over which the court may have no jurisdiction is no longer required.

    “The opinion above is from a person who is not an attorney, and should not be construed as legal advice. Pay a bunch of money to consult a REAL attorney, then ask why they didn’t post this comment.

    “Posted with the hopes it will fry some judges’ reputations who are obviously on the take by the banksters.”

  53. http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/177_29/mortgage-servicers-settlement-1046574-1.html

    By Jeff Horwitz and Kate Davidson
    FEB 10, 2012 1:07pm ET

    Missing Settlement Document Raises Doubts on $25B Deal

    More than a day after the announcement of a mammoth national mortgage servicing settlement, the actual terms of the deal still aren’t public. The website created for the national settlement lists the document as “coming soon.”

  54. CA 2922:

    “A mortgage can be created, renewed, or extended, only by
    writing, executed with the formalities required in the case of a
    grant of real property.”

  55. John Gault
    “UCC is merely “default” law, to be used in the absence of contractual agreements. Don’t know if that’s true.”

    FWIW- the judiciary looks to the UCC for guidance -AFTER or for lack of clarity of the contract itself then 1st codified state law or statute , 2nd controlling president case law of the same district , other case law from same fed jurisdiction , THEN UCC..for uniform guidance among diff STATES, as much of the convoluted nature of commerce “ie merchant law” is outside the purview or intent of state legislative intent “[ my take on WHY this legislative intent ]” is because the majority of state law looks to the necessity of codified rules to administer guidance for ” everyday & working necessity of the state judiciary ,just look how HUGE the laws of cal are,to cover every issue of commerce it would be 3 to 4 x the overgrown size it is already and hence truly untenable .

  56. @ Bijaya Kumara das Brian D Grover

    You said:

    “The judge refused to quite the title as required by Ca CC 764.010 and said he was accepting presumptive evidence from the bank instead of the factual evidence before him and thanks for coming and good luck.”

    In California especially, that’s what we are up against…I guess the judges are afraid of losing their pensions or something…they definitely aren’t interested in real justice and following laws.

    The craziest part is—they aren’t even “banks” who “own” a “loan”. Who was the “bank” in your case? It was most likely a servicer/debt collector…NOT a bank…NOT a “creditor”…NOBODY OWNS ANY REAL MORTGAGE LOANS…
    DBNTC is the TRUSTEE of a CLOSED AND EMPTY SECURITIZED TRUST…which never had or owned ANY loans…then they say some “investor” owns your loan…ANOTHER BLATANT LIE…”investors” don’t own ANY loans…

    A Trustee (only) of an empty MBS trust, a servicer (debt collector), and a foreclosure mill (another debt collector)—these are the entities in the foreclosure machine—NONE of which are the LENDER, CREDITOR, BENEFICIARY, OR OWNER OF A PROMISSORY NOTE.

    @Trespass

    You said:

    “…a Bankruptcy is someone contacting a lawyer and saying, clean me out so the creditors will go away…oh and if you can wing it, I want to keep my home…”

    Exactly why I didn’t do BK at the last minute…seemed like a nightmare—and no guaranty of keeping the house…the creditors “go away” eventually (keep sending cease and desist letters), without BK, and now I don’t have a BK on my “record”…and I didn’t pay thousands to a BK attorney who may or may not have helped me keep my house. My husband and I are still the sole owners on our Grant Deed—maybe that will do something for me someday—when the courts go back to following the law…but who knows when that will be.

    God help us.

  57. Time for legislators to do a few simple things. Found this suggestion for CA. Makes infinite sense. Just add a few words to California Civil Code Section 2932.5:

    “concurrent with the sale of the note.”

    http://theinvisibleveil.com/?p=334

  58. johngault

    Thank you for your posts last few days and prior. I also read the articles at your site. Keep at it. Following closely with interest your posts and everyone’s. I am having to attend to survival right now – no time for posting – no time for crafting complaint…..still reading and keeping notes though. Then again here I go again…

    Just some observations (as usual learning that “dumb” questions are not always so “dumb”)… anyway – my docs and others –recorded deed of trust is not signed by the “lender” (none of them are I don’t think)….recorded deed of trust is dated in the printed language before the signing as per notary date (and I think this is common also) and there is no date next to homeowner signature (never is on any I don’t think)

    ….copy of copy of original note from servicer and title co also is not signed by the “lender” (don’t think any are)….note is also dated in the printed language before the signing as per notary date and there is no date next to homeowner signature (never is on any of them).

    What kind of contract or agreement is that? How is that saleable or negotiable by anyone? No proof on the docs (no authorized rep of “lender” under penalty and perjury ect or notarized) that “lender” was actually party to the agreement at all. Anyone could print up a set of docs – fund or not fund as in fake refi ect. or fund from whatever source and prior date (no true sale – or arms- length sale or just a book entry or line of credit or warehouse ect) and say they were the “lender” on the docs with no disclosure or liability (obviously why to some of us)….. It may be common practice but it is time all concerned including ag’s and legislators started questioning common practices.

  59. @johngault the settlement is legit for those that buy into it.
    They have planned this takeover a long time ago, but when they robbed the people in the 1930’s there was no way for the people to communicate and learn quickly.

    If one does not accept their check and doesn’t cash it, then there is no settlement. AG cannot agree to something unconscionable you, but you can accept an unconscionable offer of your free wil.

    In the world of contracts, there is offer, acceptance and consideration..so if they offer $1500 for your home and immunity from prosecution and someone accepts it, then consideration is the amount that they receive from cashing that check.

    That Massachusetts case where the fraud foreclosure took place and the guy being robbed of their home did not go to court to challenge the eviction, but the new home owner tried to quiet the title and a judge would not allow it because the home should never have been taken; is how I know they know they are in deep …dump stuff.

    I saw how they stopped foreclosures around Christmas 2011 , talking about holiday – whatever – they don’t care about us. Something else halted it for them.

    The rumors of the settlement spanning fraudulent foreclosures between 2008 – 2011, leaves me to believing, they know that even now a valid foreclosure cannot happen.

    It’s public knowledge the bank owners want immunity.

    That means a settlement can’t be reached as that’s like paying/accepting bribe/hush money. ‘Let me go free officer and I’ll give you this much money in return.’ ‘Turn a blind eye to the crimes I committed in your State and you can have this much of the profits’.

    Too much of this is wrong for anything about this to be right.

    Trespass Unwanted, Corporeal, a life, a peaceful, free, and Independent State, a Conscience, by divine right (jure divino), in one’s own right (in jure proprio)

  60. @chris – I remember todd hess. He was really, really angry. Hope he didn’t ‘check out’. If he did, rest in peace.

  61. Stopa said:

    “….If it’s from the servicer, as I’d think it must since the servicer is the only one who knows about the case, then doesn’t that show the servicer was in possession, not the Plaintiff? And that the servicer was the “holder,” not the Plaintiff? Actually, no – where the Note is specifically indorsed to the plaintiff, the servicer isn’t the holder, either. In that situation, the servicer has possession, but the plaintiff has the endorsement, so neither one is a holder.”

    That’s the entire game of the blank endorsement, why none of them were endorsed to the trust: so they could play musical chairs with a bearer note. Never minding stopa’s valid “you’re not the named plaintiff argument” , the problem is the UCC does provide that one in possession of a bearer note has the right to payment, but I think now after looking at the UCC yet again, the holder may only ENFORCE to the degree of its payment for the note, basically. The distinction is one of inertia, sort of. Anyone?

  62. Does anyone have a link to the ‘Florida Supreme Court’s mediation
    program’ referenced by Stopa? Is it a statutory mandate, like Nevada?

    He raises some really interesting stuff. Too bad it’s taken so long to get to a lot of it.

  63. Trespass unwanted: re the 1500 or 2000. What you describe is sort of like what is generally or at least sometimes called a Mexican-standoff. You said if you can give me 2k , then I should be able to give you 2k and get my house back. The MSO is used in situations where, for instance, there is 50/50 ownership of a business, which dynamic does not provide an answer for resolution. I got 50, you got 50. Stalemate.
    So the Mexican standoff provisions is used in buy-sell agreements for the business. If I offer you 25k first, you either have to take it and run along, or give me 25k and I have to run along. Neither of us can say no I want more. It would be interesting to try to apply it to wrongful foreclosure (altho we had no buy-sell agreement) as an equitaable proposition. The gist of your argument is that 2k is an insult and a joke compared to what was lost and no one could argue. If a home were in fact stolen, 2k is an unconscionable amt as a remedy, so on that basis alone, I don’t think it can be held to limit other recovery / remedy. Either that, or it’s just so unconscionable period that the settlement can’t be legitimate?

  64. @Chris, @Bijaya Kumara das Brian D Grover,
    The situation seems very complicated, but I only offer this opinion.
    Seems @Bijaya, has signed a lot of documents. In doing so they could have created the obligation to pay the debt and created the right of title to some of those entities.
    I’ve said over and over that modifications are nothing but new contracts, and they use them to establish a relationship with the borrower. As soon as you start making regular payments, they establish a debt (even if none existed between parties)..the fact that one party agrees they owe the other and willingly pay without indicating the payment is under duress or coercion, then the right to something is established.
    The again all opinions, they go to bankruptcy and offer up the names of who they say are the creditors in this situation, which includes who they say is the creditor for the home, and then whatever that ruling is, and it appears it’s final, it seems to have conveyed clear title to someone and not @Bijaya.

    @Bijaya states “9-13-2011 advisory ruling BK7 that we did not have standing and the Trustee failed to protect our property rights”

    Appealing a bankruptcy decision, I don’t know any legal advice on because personally I tell anyone I know to stay away from bankruptcy. Of all contracts to enter, most require full disclosure, but a Bankruptcy is someone contacting a lawyer and saying, clean me out so the creditors will go away…oh and if you can wing it, I want to keep my home.

    Even if they keep their home, they have no idea how easy it is to lose it again. I heard stories of attorneys going after the homes after bankruptcy, placing liens and foreclosing…can you really go through bankruptcy again to stop that?

    If the courts system and the judges in charge, don’t operate property for all foreclosures, it sure won’t work for some foreclosures.

    Depending on what that attorney acting as Trustee in the bankruptcy does “for the estate you are clearing out”, would determine if you are immediately happy with what you have left, and then later on you find out what a bankruptcy really involved.

    See if you still have a job after a period of time after a bankruptcy.
    Better yet how long do you keep your employment after filing for bankruptcy. If you clean out everything are you on entitlements? food stamps, unemployment insurance?
    Something doesn’t feel right about bankruptcy and I can’t find anyone who discusses what happened to them after this great and powerful solution is used.

    These are only opinions because I don’t know anything. I admit I know nothing…nothing. But it appears to me a lot was signed and agreed to and there is enough for the banks to feel like they had a right to take the home.

    People think giving them what they want gets them a chance to keep their home and that’s never been true. If someone has no right to your property, you never negotiate for it even if they have to steal it.

    Pride has caused a lot of people to do things that soon enough they will see why the last is first and the first is last.

    There is something about this bankruptcy that people don’t know and many push it as a solution but many who have gone through it sure don’t talk about it after going through it – for it to be the ‘all out solution for every fraud-closure problem.’

    Bankruptcy is one less claim the banks have to make for a home that doesn’t belong to them because the homeowner will list them as the creditor even if they are holding a bunch of paperwork stating they are not the lender, creditor, nor had anything to do with the purchase or security interest in the home.

    I apologize if I seem preachy, but there are some coming here looking for answers and I’m just giving another thought for them to consider.

    When you put your name on a piece of paper, it’s a contract. They can call it a receipt, a bill, a notice, a modification, an application…it’s a contract.

    Keep that in mind, because as we move forward, people may find they have access to money, and just as quick as they get this money, their lack of knowledge about contracts will have them broke within 2 years and they will have the decisions they made and the contracts they agreed to, to thank for the outcome they experience.

    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, sovereign, a free and independent state, a peaceful people; a state of Conscience, allodial, in jure proprio, jure divino

  65. The A man – take a gander at this from the UCC:

    Ҥ 3-117. OTHER AGREEMENTS AFFECTING INSTRUMENT.

    Subject to applicable law regarding exclusion of proof of contemporaneous or previous agreements, the obligation of a party to an instrument to pay the instrument may be modified, supplemented, or nullified by a separate agreement of the obligor and a person entitled to enforce the instrument, if the instrument is issued or the obligation is incurred in reliance on the agreement or as part of the same transaction giving rise to the agreement. To the extent an obligation is modified, supplemented, or nullified by an agreement under this section, the agreement is a defense to the obligation.”

    This says the agreement must be made by the obligor and “a person entitled to enforce the instrument.” When making a ‘modification’, then, the bankster is tacitly alleging that it is the person entitled to enforce the instrument (note). And if the UCC speaks to any right to modify pursuant to any agency or poa, I didn’t see it. At any rate, I would surmise that if the modifier is not the party entitled to enforce the note, the safe harbor-ish language in this law does not provide a defense against the obligation (note). How can it be said, then, that a party purporting to modify must not evidence its right to enforce?

    Someone told me fwiw that the UCC is merely “default” law, to be used in the absence of contractual agreements. Don’t know if that’s true.

  66. @ Bijaya Kumara das Brian D Grover

    That’s bull shit, presumptive evidence instead of proof, actual evidence.

    I have New Century/Ocwen too. I am not an attorney, but can tell you my experience. I don’t know if you have a lawyer, if so, I would…fire him/her or light a fire under their arse. Tell them what you want, knowledge is power.

    District courts for Quiet title are difficult. Federal court may work better for Fraudulent Conveyance and Cloud on Title. The Federal Court changes the burden of proof much like a judicial foreclosure.

    Neither New Century (originator) or Ocwen have authority either to assign or foreclose.

    TRS, Holdings/New Century is in BK in DE. Transfers should not be made while under BK protection, assets belong to the trustee, court. BK filing 04/02/2007, still going.

    File an appeal…now! See if you can get the judge recused/removed, he/she is full of crappy-doo. Not legal advice, just educational material.

    My $.02

  67. Dear Niel:

    You got it right. We would have loved to have paid back the loan but when I found out January of 2008 that since 1867 Carpenter vs Logan once the mortgage was paid the loan became a nullity and the debt became unsecured I was in Heaven, but then found out that we are all just here in the prison house of Hell. I tried to follow HAMP and got 2 modifications that we took, but well outside the guidelines of HAMP and when going for the 3rd modification (all required by declining income of about $40,000 per year for 3 year) and their offer still well out side of the guide lines, we asked for title guarantee and we would accept it and on 9-13-2011 advisory ruling BK7 that we did not have standing and the Trustee failed to protect our property rights along with those of the 2nd and 3rd lenders OCWEN-Duetsche Bank National Trust Company pooling and service agreement April 1 2007 Lawyer said the documents (robosigned Assignment of Deed of Trust 2-10-2011, false NOD, wrongful substitution of trustee, etcetra) they have guarantee clear title.

    We presented all the documents to the court in our eviction: (Ameripath 11-22-06 signing date different then the 11-06 (RESPA & TILA violations) offer sold to New Century Mortgage Company, the only transfer document we were given received in December effective 1-1-2007 sold to Sutton Funding LLC 3-31-07 HOMEQ Servicing then a Debt validation of April 8, 2008 saying our new creditor was or may be Duetsche Bank later incourt when we filed suit 9-8-11 for our rights to the property found out that it was DBNTC but New Century Mortgage Co on 09-26-2011 state that they sold it to Barcalys bank in January of 2007 and should be barred from suit

    The judge refused to quite the title as required by CaCC 764.010 and said he was accepting presumptive evidence from the bank instead of the factual evidence before him and thanks for coming and good luck.

  68. From this website:

    http://www.pstcc.edu/departments/lat/classes/2300/notes/chap23.htm

    Real Defenses
    Real or universal defenses are valid against all holders, including HDCs. Universal defenses include the following: (1) Forgery, (2)
    Fraud in the execution, (3) Material alteration (complete defense against a holder, partial defense against an HDC), (4) Discharge in bankruptcy, (5) Minority, (6) Illegality (when statute makes it void), (7) Adjudicated Mental Incapacity, and (8) Extreme Duress. Each of these is pretty much self-explanatory except number two, fraud in the execution.

    Fraud in the execution occurs when a person is deceived into signing a negotiable instrument believing that he is signing something other than a negotiable instrument. This defense cannot be raised, however if a reasonable inquiry would have revealed the nature and terms of the instrument. Thus, the signer’s age, experience, and intelligence are relevant.

    Personal Defenses

    Personal defenses are used to avoid payment to an ordinary holder of a negotiable instrument. Personal defenses are: (1) Breach of contract or breach of warranty, (2) Lack or failure of consideration, (3) Fraud in the inducement, (4) Illegality (when statute makes it voidable), (5) Unadjudicated mental incapacity, (6) Other defenses.

    Imo, there are two very important things we need to fully understand to defend our homes: the UCC and the laws of evidence. The UCC may provide avenues of discovery, as well as reasonable argument that without that discovery, adjudication just can’t be made. The laws of evidence will help us get meaningful discovery, and not allow the use of bs declarations / affidavits. To date, none or most of us have availed ourselves of these avenues I would call bright. There is something about ‘assumed risk’ as an affirmative defense which I can’t find right now, so the ones listed above must not be inclusive and most of them don’t seem to apply, anyway, except maybe nos. 2 and 4 and whatever 6 is under personal defenses.

    More of the UCC at

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm

    The UCC cited is under article 3 and is relevant to negotiable instruments. But I can’t help remembering those 2 cases I have somewhere wherein the banksters claimed these notes are not negotiable instruments. Fwiw, I’ll link them when I find them.

    The UCC imo provides defenses to foreclosure and to my knowledge, no one, including attorneys, is ‘going there’.
    If you find a link to better defenses to notes, I would appreciate it since mine are whoknowswhere.

    Part of what I’m trying to say is that there are defenses available against a holder v a hidc (I thought there were none available against a hidc, but apparently that’s not true, altho there are many more available against a ‘mere’ holder. In order for a homeowner to properly allege those defenses, one has to know if they’re available and therefore we have a need to know clearance on if the bankster is a holder or a holder in due course. Unfortunately, the UCC has some complicated tenets and one has to keep them all in mind. And btw, I have NO doubt changes to the UCC have been made in recent years which benefit the banksters. No surprise there, right?
    Also, it appears to me and I’ve said before that enforcement of a note is either 1) unavailable to one who has paid nothing for it or 2) unavailable except to the extent (dollar amt) one has already paid for it (promise to pay does not cut it for ENFORCEMENT). This is grand, but it’s also a really bum steer if not true, so if anyone knows otherwise, please weigh in. It does seem to conflict with other UCC
    rules, so it’s complicated. I’ll bet there’s reconciliation; I just don’t know it. I’m just saying as emphatically as I can it’s past time to quit ignoring what could be fully dispositive issues.

  69. IMPORTANT RALLY INFORMATION- RALLY FEBRUARY 16, 2012
    February 10th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    BRADENTON — The Mortgage Justice Group, ForeclosureHamlet and 4closurefraud join Awake the State, the
    Coalition of Occupy Foreclosure Working Groups movement, and other groups across the nation
    to rally at the capital in Tallahassee for the annual FORECLOSURE AWARENESS DAY RALLY
    on Feb. 16, 2012. The rally is to bring awareness about illegal foreclosures and to stop the
    Florida legislature from making Florida a non-judicial state, thus denying citizens “due process” in
    court.

    THE BRADENTON TIMES
    http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2012/02/10/state_government/citizens_rally_in_tally_against_foreclosure_fraud/

  70. The Wizard Behind the Curtain
    http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/2012/02/the-wizard-behind-the-curtain/

    Posted on February 10th, 2012 by Mark Stopa

    Through my experience litigating foreclosure cases, I’ve become convinced that the plaintiffs prosecuting foreclosure lawsuits often don’t even realize those lawsuits are pending. Let’s say that again:

    The Plaintiffs who have filed suit don’t even realize a lawsuit is pending.

    How can that be? Simple. Third-party servicers retain a foreclosure mill, a.k.a. a plaintiff’s lawyer, and, without actually appearing as a party in their own names, direct the foreclosure mill to file suit on behalf of the plaintiff, i.e. the owner of the Note and Mortgage. Does the servicer actually have authority to do so? Honestly, who the heck knows. This strange phenomenon is something I’ve started to call the “Wizard Behind the Curtain.” The servicer isn’t named in the lawsuit, but it’s the one behind the scenes, calling all the shots, directing the foreclosure of thousands of homes throughout America.

    I see a myriad of problems with this. In fact, just last month, I expressed my concerns when I saw a foreclosure mill’s written admission that it had no relationship whatsoever with the plaintiff it was purporting to represent. Think about that for a second:

    The lawyer had no relationship whatsoever with the plaintiff it purported to represent.

    Instead, the firm’s alleged authority to file the foreclosure lawsuit came from, you guessed it, the “servicer.”

    I recently came across a document filed in a court case that sheds more light on this troubling phenomenon, and this document will provide a useful example to illustrate the problem.

    Take a look for yourself … what do you see?

    Obviously this document, which Shapiro & Fishman calls a “Non-Title Document Review,” is a checklist used prior to filing a foreclosure complaint. What really strikes me about this document (which Shapiro filed with the Complaint in this case and is a matter of public record) is that it has one box for the “Plaintiff” and the heading/style of the case, and an entirely separate box for the “Client.” Here, for instance, the “Plaintiff” is U.S. Bank, National Association, but the “client” is “Bank of America, N.A.”

    Call me crazy, but shouldn’t the “client” and the “plaintiff” be the same? How can Shapiro & Fishman be filing a lawsuit on behalf of U.S. Bank when its “client” is Bank of America?

    This may sound technical, and perhaps it is. But think about how this “wizard behind the curtain” phenomenon will play out in a foreclosure case. I see four huge problems.

    First, the Florida Supreme Court requires via Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(b) that the Plaintiff verify its Complaint in all residential foreclosure cases. Given the relationship between the foreclosure mills and the servicers, it seems clear the required verifications aren’t being done by the plaintiffs, but by the servicers. Many learned judges in Florida before whom I appear have made it clear that verification by a servicer is insufficient – the complaints are supposed to be verified by the “plaintiff.” Remember, the Rule doesn’t permit verification by a third party, but by “the plaintiff.” In fact, Shapiro & Fishman moved for rehearing of the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling on this precise issue, and the Court rejected its motion.

    This prompts a significant question – if verification is required by the plaintiff, and the attorneys representing the plaintiff have no relationship with the plaintiff, how on earth can they get the required verification? Undoubtedly, this is why the mills ask for 90 days or 120 days to get the requisite verification (when complaints are dismissed with leave to amend), as they often don’t even represent the plaintiff prosecuting the foreclosure case! Literally, the mills are in the position of calling up an entity who they don’t represent and saying “You don’t know me, but I’m representing you in this foreclosure case, and I need you to verify under penalty of perjury that the allegations we’ve raised are correct.”

    A bit awkward, eh? Yet that’s the position in which the mills have put themselves (in a large percentage of foreclosure cases in Florida).

    Second, I struggle to see how the mills can prosecute lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs without the plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent in a manner consistent with The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. I’ve spoken with the Bar on this, and given our conversation, I’m not prepared to say it’s impossible, but I will say this. Personally, I couldn’t imagine appearing as counsel for a party in any lawsuit without that party’s knowledge or consent, much less doing so on a widespread, systematic basis.

    Think about it this way. An attorney is able to act on behalf of a client because the attorney’s actions bind the client. Stipulations, representations, court filings, etc. … we as attorneys are, quite literally, agents for our clients. If a client is going to be bound in this manner, the attorney’s authority to represent/bind the client must be clearly established. This is why, for example, there are strict rules about how an attorney may appear as counsel, failing which the attorney’s actions don’t bind the client. See Pasco County v. Quail Hollow Props., Inc., 693 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

    If these foreclosure attorneys don’t have an attorney-client relationship with the plaintiff, it seems to me they cannot represent the plaintiff at all and should be disqualified from doing so. After all, how can an attorney bind the plaintiff when the attorney has no relationship with the plaintiff? Why should any court accept the representations or stipulations of a plaintiff’s attorney when that attorney has no relationship with the plaintiff?

    There must be a better answer than “there are lots of foreclosure cases in Florida, and this is just how it’s done.”

    Third, you want to know why the Florida Supreme Court’s mediation program failed? How can anyone expect to get a binding agreement with U.S. Bank when the attorneys prosecuting this foreclosure case don’t even represent U.S. Bank? Remember, Shapiro & Fishman’s client is Bank of America, so the contact person for Shapiro & Fishman on this file is undoubtedly an agent of Bank of America, not U.S. Bank. Again, how can anyone expect to get a loan modification under these circumstances, i.e. the appropriate parties aren’t even at the bargaining table.

    Fourth, when the plaintiff alleges in the complaint that it is the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage, what exactly does that mean? Taking plaintiff’s allegations literally, the plaintiff is the owner/holder. But in all of these cases where the entity driving the suit is actually the servicer, it seems that the servicer is the “holder” of the Note, not the Plaintiff. Remember, to be the holder, the “plaintiff” must be in “possession” of the Note. See Fla. Stat. 671.201(21). However, are these plaintiffs really in possession when they don’t even know a case has been filed? I suppose it’s possible, but when the Note is subsequently put into the court file, how did it get there? If it’s from the servicer, as I’d think it must since the servicer is the only one who knows about the case, then doesn’t that show the servicer was in possession, not the Plaintiff? And that the servicer was the “holder,” not the Plaintiff? Actually, no – where the Note is specifically indorsed to the plaintiff, the servicer isn’t the holder, either. In that situation, the servicer has possession, but the plaintiff has the indorsement, so neither one is the “holder.”

    So what’s the solution to all of this madness? It’s two-fold: (1) Require verifications by the plaintiff (not the servicer, the plaintiff) and dismiss all cases without it; and (2) Require the foreclosure mills to have attorney-client relationships with the plaintiff (not the servicer, the plaintiff prosecuting the case) and disqualify all attorneys who lack such a relationship. That sounds harsh, but it’s ridiculous to inundate our courts with garbage pleadings that languish for years without a resolution when the parties prosecuting them don’t even know they’ve been filed.
    Mark Stopa Esq.

  71. The Nation’s Attorney Generals: All Victims of The Bank “Trial Settlement Scheme”
    http://www.mattweidnerlaw.com/blog

    February 11th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    Remember the headlines last week? All the breathless headlines about the “Historic $25 Billion Settlement With The Banks”? Well, have a seat folks. This one is going to knock you on your collective arses….

    THERE IS NO SETTLEMENT WITH THE BANKS!

    YOU’VE ALL BEEN LIED TO. SUCKERED, TRICKED!

    (again)

    We all knew that something was coming between the banks and the government leaders from both parties at the state and federal levels on this deal. They’d all been marching and arm twisting for so many months and it was damn apparent that all of them were conspiring against all of us to shove some great big piece of stinking garbage of a deal down our throats…and that’s exactly what they did. And by “they”, I mean the banks and our government, all meeting together in secret with teams of lobbyists, attorneys, press hacks and internet folks conspiring against us all along with the same teams from the attorney general’s offices.

    They were meeting for months, drafting out the terms of a very bad deal. Draft after draft, detail after detail, conspiring together against every American taxpayer and importantly, against the investors in mortgage backed securities (that’s virtually everyone who has any retirement or investment). Although how much meeting was actualy going on is not at all clear? How many physical meetings? What kind of arm twisting? Where are the evolution of all the draft agreements? Right. We don’t know and apparently, they don’t think the serfs in this kingdom are entitled to know.

    They emerged last week from some lair, then issued bank-sponsored public relations statements that the gullible media all picked up and ran without much critical analysis. Why, they even released a glossy, fluffy website that had all sorts of pretty pictures and graphics to sucker you into believing something happened. But importantly, the website contains no deal terms. Oh and here’s the part I love. The website ownership and control is secret. Check this find out from a friend:

    There’s also something peculiar about the Federal Department of Justice and 49 states setting up an informational web site that ends in .com instead of .gov. Register.com shows the web site has used a privacy shield to block the name of the owner of the site.

    Why the secret website? Why the lack of transparency? Who really owns this thing?

    Why even the exciting headlines and press releases and charts and graphs were public relations, hacked, fill in the blank propaganda. I’m betting it was all produced by the banks themselves. Check out the hacked press releases that were found by Naked Capitalism here. I mean seriously, look carefully at these slick graphic intensive documents with perfect bullet point statements and fill in the blank numbers. Suitable for the attorney general press people to just cut and paste and add their official logo (Insert State Logo Here) on then distribute to the media who likewise can just cut and paste themselves and drop into their stories and headlines. THE MEDIA WAS SUCKERED INTO TALKING ABOUT A DEAL WITH THIS ABSURD PROPAGANDA!

    But then, right after the headlines, real reporters started doing their job…..digging beneath all the press hacks and looking for real deals…..

    Reporter: “Um, excuse me Attorney General, you said $X Billion for the State of X, I’d like to see the terms of the deal in writing.”

    Attorney General Press: “Don’t you worry, we’re committed to the people of the state of X, and we’re gonna get that to you.”

    Reporter: “But you said it was a done deal, show me the deal”

    Attorney General Press: “Trust Us, the deal is on the way.”

    Reporter: “You mean there is no deal?”

    Attorney General Press: “Don’t worry, we’ve got an agreement in principle, just waiting to get it back from the banks and then well sign and release it!”

    WHOA….it just hit me. You know what these con artists at the banks of done to millions of consumers?

    You know what this sounds an awful lot like?

    Send us your three trial payments and we’ll give you a modification.

    Honest we will. Just send them in. We’ll get your deal done. Trust us.

    It is just utterly absurd for parties in a legal negotiation to go out broadcasting a settlement, when there are no signatures on any bottom line. That’s just crazy. That’s like legal malpractice. As one commentator noted,

    “They put the settlement press release cart before the signed agreement horse.”

    And with they’ve done it while dealing with the most untrustworthy and deceptive opponents in the world…the banks. I mean, how many millions of homeowners were suckered into the whole three payment rope a dope scam. Even if they really did hammer out most of the details (it doesn’t look like they got all the big pieces) to announce a settlement is just crazy because now the banks have boxed the AGs into a political corner. They’ve told their people there’s a deal….so there’s got to be a deal…..right?

    Oh and here’s the other thing….

    YOU WERE INVESTIGATING THE BANKS FOR FALSE AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES!

    Wasn’t that some kind of a tip off that the parties you’re negotiating with aren’t exactly the kind of people that you can trust to deal with in good faith?

    Two more big points here….First, where are the legislators in all 49 istates with respect to this fictional deal? The AGs are talking about bajillions of dollars in Monopoly money and it goes where? Pursuant to what authority? Right, another pecky detail. I don’t want one state official with all the power to negotiate billion dollar deals. Isn’t that what legislators are for? Where is the legislative input, consent, oversight on this HISTORIC BILLION DOLLAR DEAL?

    And now here’s a biggie. Sort of the bottom line. How many states or private investor analysts did the number crunching on the deal to figure out just how much of this was going to be paid for from the state’s retirement funds? Proportionally it may not be huge from each state, but the proportion of what’s being paid by the banks versus what’s being paid by the investors is way, way, way out of whack. Here’s my favorite part from the website:

    Q: Will investors in mortgage-backed securities ultimately pay for part of this settlement?

    A: Participating banks own the vast majority of the mortgage loans that this settlement is expected to affect. The settlement could affect some investor-owned loans, depending on existing agreements servicers have with those investors.

    In other words, this settlement will not force investors to incur losses. (LIE!) That’s because any loan modification tied to this settlement will result in more of a financial return for an investor than a foreclosure would. (HERE’S WHERE IT IS….WE’VE MADE THE DECISION THAT THIS GOVERNMENT-FORCED TAKEDOWN IS BETTER FOR YOU IN THE LONG RUN.)

  72. @deborah wynn – that is part and parcel of why the MERS dot and m.o. is unconscionable. To defend your property, your home, you literally needed a law degree and a securities license or background and then MAYBE you could have mounted a defense.
    I’ve mentioned the diff between a holder and a holder in due course before. It isn’t insignificant. A holder in due course is not subject to the defenses a ‘mere’ holder is. One of the bars to being a hidc is if the note were taken (transferred) and the transferee is aware the note has been dishonored, that is, in default. That’s why we have a right to know if the alleged holder is a holder or a hidc. This would entail knowing the exact date of any alleged endorsement(s) and imo should provide grounds for discovery and on that note, a reminder we need to fully understand the laws of evidence, including how to use them to undermine bs declarations / affidavits and other hearsay that a note were transferred on such and such a date. No thanks. We want records, including what you paid, Mr. Bankster, and NOT your (alleged promise of payment . Here is some UCC info on hidc (v. holder):

    § 3-302. HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.

    (a) Subject to subsection (c) and Section 3-106(d), “holder in due course” means the holder of an instrument if:

    (1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and

    LOOK HERE!!
    (2) the holder took the instrument (i) for value, (ii) in good faith, (iii) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, (iv) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v) without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Section 3-306, and (vi) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 3-305(a).

    (b) Notice of discharge of a party, other than discharge in an insolvency proceeding, is not notice of a defense under subsection (a), but discharge is effective against a person who became a holder in due course with notice of the discharge. Public filing or recording of a document does not of itself constitute notice of a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument.

    (c) Except to the extent a transferor or predecessor in interest has rights as a holder in due course, a person does not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument taken (i) by legal process or by purchase in an execution, bankruptcy, or creditor’s sale or similar proceeding, (ii) by purchase as part of a bulk transaction not in ordinary course of business of the transferor, or (iii) as the successor in interest to an estate or other organization.

    (d) If, under Section 3-303(a)(1), the promise of performance that is the consideration for an instrument has been partially performed, the holder may assert rights as a holder in due course of the instrument only to the fraction of the amount payable under the instrument equal to the value of the partial performance divided by the value of the promised performance.

    (e) If (i) the person entitled to enforce an instrument has only a security interest in the instrument and (ii) the person obliged to pay the instrument has a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument that may be asserted against the person who granted the security interest, the person entitled to enforce the instrument may assert rights as a holder in due course only to an amount payable under the instrument which, at the time of enforcement of the instrument, does not exceed the amount of the unpaid obligation secured.

    (f) To be effective, notice must be received at a time and in a manner that gives a reasonable opportunity to act on it.

    (g) This section is subject to any law limiting status as a holder in due course in particular classes of transactions.

    § 3-303. VALUE AND CONSIDERATION.

    (a) An instrument is issued or transferred for value if:

    LOOK HERE!
    (1) the instrument is issued or transferred for a promise of performance,

    ** to the extent the promise has been performed;**

    (2) the transferee acquires a security interest or other lien in the instrument other than a lien obtained by judicial proceeding;

    (3) the instrument is issued or transferred as payment of, or as security for, an antecedent claim against any person, whether or not the claim is due;

    (4) the instrument is issued or transferred in exchange for a negotiable instrument; or

    (5) the instrument is issued or transferred in exchange for the incurring of an irrevocable obligation to a third party by the person taking the instrument.

    (b) “Consideration” means any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract.

    LOOK HERE!
    The drawer or maker of an instrument has a defense if the instrument is issued without consideration. If an instrument is issued for a promise of performance, the issuer has a defense to the extent performance of the promise is due and the promise has not been performed. If an instrument is issued for value as stated in subsection (a), the instrument is also issued for consideration.

  73. @Chris,

    I called Alabama and left a message asking him to post something if he is our Todd Hess and telling him not to do anything unless he wants the banks to win again. I tend to believe he is our Todd Hess. We’ll see.

  74. Chris,

    Carie and I found his name either in Alabama as a realtor of some sort, or as an attorney in Virrginia. I’m tempted to think he is the realtor in Alabama or something. Google “Todd Hess” and he should be the first one to pop up. Then, try to see if you can contact him directly. I’ll try the same thing.

  75. The part that talks about having to pay the banks monthly payments while they are foreclosing is really a bad idea…for us…when they have not yet proven ownership of the note or mortgage….

    Where can I find cases of Quiet Title in Florida or other related states? Or legal info on quiet title? have reason to believe that there are notes floating out there making tons of money for banksters for homes that were already paid off but the owners never received back those notes with the satisfaction notice. Your thoughts…

  76. oops – for those who didn’t go read the petition, it calls for possession of the original note and dot to foreclose.

  77. I can’t sign that petition.
    Because of the way this securitization deal works and the statute of frauds, possession of the collateral instrument means nothing. Under the UCC, it may be that production of an original note with an endorsement either in blank or to the party in possession accords that party enforcement rights. But the collateral instrument is not regulated by the UCC. It’s regulated by the statute of frauds and the sof demands that all assignments of that collateral instrument first of all be in writing. Possession, production of the original dot does not for enforcement-rights make. It’s not a negotiable instrument subject to holder provisions, like a note. As I’ve said, I think that’s why when the dot was legislated,including a new form of foreclosure, non-judicial foreclosure, the dot was formulated to include a title-transfer that it would in fact be regulated by the statute of frauds since the sof says those must be evidenced by a writing. This was to avoid fraudulent claims to real property. This title-transfer is the big thing which distinguishes a dot from a ‘mortgage’. I’m thinking the non-judicial foreclosure is itself a quiet title action. The trustee already has one form of title and the sale and trustee’s deed extinguish the borrower’s form of title and the two are then unified in one party, the successful bidder at sale.

    The ‘securitization deal’ resulted in those assignments not being
    executed in route to the pools and they certainly weren’t recorded. MERS nominee status for public record didn’t change the sof’ requirements, though that was the effort. Effort or not (alternative: didn’t get around to it), that didn’t change the law. In order to subscribe to this argument, it’s necessary to believe as I do that MERS nominee status for public record did not make MERS the beneficiary. Or as I always say, if it were the beneficiary in anything other than a nominee capacity, note and dot bifurcated.

    The notes if not just plain fabricated are missing essential endorsements, and just now, I dont know the barrier to shutting down enforcement of those “defective” notes. Can’t be done without discovery, I would think. But without ALL the assignments of the collateral instruments , the noteholder has at best a right to enforce payment on an unsecured debt. Possession of the original dot doesn’t mean anything since it is not a negotiable instrument with a right to enforce found by mere possession and that’s why I don’t like that petition from I don’t know who. .

  78. @ All

    Off the subject, sort of

    But does anyone remember Todd Hess? He sent me an email at 2:00am signed The Late Todd Hess, stating he was checking out of this F’d up world.

    Is this another casualty of this crap, or is he nuts? Anyone know? If so, does anyone know where is he residing?

    It makes me very uneasy, someone on the site here, would email me, his last intent…gives me the creeps. Geez!

  79. The debt collector/servicers are the ones calling all the shots because there is no real mortgage or promissory note…right?

  80. DO YOU KNOW WHO IS SUING YOU?

    The Wizard Behind the Curtain
    Posted on February 10th, 2012 by Mark Stopa

    Through my experience litigating foreclosure cases, I’ve become convinced that the plaintiffs prosecuting foreclosure lawsuits often don’t even realize those lawsuits are pending. Let’s say that again:

    The Plaintiffs who have filed suit don’t even realize a lawsuit is pending.

    How can that be? Simple. Third-party servicers retain a foreclosure mill, a.k.a. a plaintiff’s lawyer, and, without actually appearing as a party in their own names, direct the foreclosure mill to file suit on behalf of the plaintiff, i.e. the owner of the Note and Mortgage. Does the servicer actually have authority to do so? Honestly, who the heck knows. This strange phenomenon is something I’ve started to call the “Wizard Behind the Curtain.” The servicer isn’t named in the lawsuit, but it’s the one behind the scenes, calling all the shots, directing the foreclosure of thousands of homes throughout America.

    I see a myriad of problems with this. In fact, just last month, I expressed my concerns when I saw a foreclosure mill’s written admission that it had no relationship whatsoever with the plaintiff it was purporting to represent. Think about that for a second:

    The lawyer had no relationship whatsoever with the plaintiff it purported to represent.

    Instead, the firm’s alleged authority to file the foreclosure lawsuit came from, you guessed it, the “servicer.”

    I recently came across a document filed in a court case that sheds more light on this troubling phenomenon, and this document will provide a useful example to illustrate the problem.

    Take a look for yourself … what do you see?

    Obviously this document, which Shapiro & Fishman calls a “Non-Title Document Review,” is a checklist used prior to filing a foreclosure complaint. What really strikes me about this document (which Shapiro filed with the Complaint in this case and is a matter of public record) is that it has one box for the “Plaintiff” and the heading/style of the case, and an entirely separate box for the “Client.” Here, for instance, the “Plaintiff” is U.S. Bank, National Association, but the “client” is “Bank of America, N.A.”

    Call me crazy, but shouldn’t the “client” and the “plaintiff” be the same? How can Shapiro & Fishman be filing a lawsuit on behalf of U.S. Bank when its “client” is Bank of America?

    This may sound technical, and perhaps it is. But think about how this “wizard behind the curtain” phenomenon will play out in a foreclosure case. I see four huge problems.

    First, the Florida Supreme Court requires via Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(b) that the Plaintiff verify its Complaint in all residential foreclosure cases. Given the relationship between the foreclosure mills and the servicers, it seems clear the required verifications aren’t being done by the plaintiffs, but by the servicers. Many learned judges in Florida before whom I appear have made it clear that verification by a servicer is insufficient – the complaints are supposed to be verified by the “plaintiff.” Remember, the Rule doesn’t permit verification by a third party, but by “the plaintiff.” In fact, Shapiro & Fishman moved for rehearing of the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling on this precise issue, and the Court rejected its motion.

    This prompts a significant question – if verification is required by the plaintiff, and the attorneys representing the plaintiff have no relationship with the plaintiff, how on earth can they get the required verification? Undoubtedly, this is why the mills ask for 90 days or 120 days to get the requisite verification (when complaints are dismissed with leave to amend), as they often don’t even represent the plaintiff prosecuting the foreclosure case! Literally, the mills are in the position of calling up an entity who they don’t represent and saying “You don’t know me, but I’m representing you in this foreclosure case, and I need you to verify under penalty of perjury that the allegations we’ve raised are correct.”

    A bit awkward, eh? Yet that’s the position in which the mills have put themselves (in a large percentage of foreclosure cases in Florida).

    Second, I struggle to see how the mills can prosecute lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs without the plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent in a manner consistent with The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. I’ve spoken with the Bar on this, and given our conversation, I’m not prepared to say it’s impossible, but I will say this. Personally, I couldn’t imagine appearing as counsel for a party in any lawsuit without that party’s knowledge or consent, much less doing so on a widespread, systematic basis.

    Think about it this way. An attorney is able to act on behalf of a client because the attorney’s actions bind the client. Stipulations, representations, court filings, etc. … we as attorneys are, quite literally, agents for our clients. If a client is going to be bound in this manner, the attorney’s authority to represent/bind the client must be clearly established. This is why, for example, there are strict rules about how an attorney may appear as counsel, failing which the attorney’s actions don’t bind the client. See Pasco County v. Quail Hollow Props., Inc., 693 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

    If these foreclosure attorneys don’t have an attorney-client relationship with the plaintiff, it seems to me they cannot represent the plaintiff at all and should be disqualified from doing so. After all, how can an attorney bind the plaintiff when the attorney has no relationship with the plaintiff? Why should any court accept the representations or stipulations of a plaintiff’s attorney when that attorney has no relationship with the plaintiff?

    There must be a better answer than “there are lots of foreclosure cases in Florida, and this is just how it’s done.”

    Third, you want to know why the Florida Supreme Court’s mediation program failed? How can anyone expect to get a binding agreement with U.S. Bank when the attorneys prosecuting this foreclosure case don’t even represent U.S. Bank? Remember, Shapiro & Fishman’s client is Bank of America, so the contact person for Shapiro & Fishman on this file is undoubtedly an agent of Bank of America, not U.S. Bank. Again, how can anyone expect to get a loan modification under these circumstances, i.e. the appropriate parties aren’t even at the bargaining table.

    Fourth, when the plaintiff alleges in the complaint that it is the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage, what exactly does that mean? Taking plaintiff’s allegations literally, the plaintiff is the owner/holder. But in all of these cases where the entity driving the suit is actually the servicer, it seems that the servicer is the “holder” of the Note, not the Plaintiff. Remember, to be the holder, the “plaintiff” must be in “possession” of the Note. See Fla. Stat. 671.201(21). However, are these plaintiffs really in possession when they don’t even know a case has been filed? I suppose it’s possible, but when the Note is subsequently put into the court file, how did it get there? If it’s from the servicer, as I’d think it must since the servicer is the only one who knows about the case, then doesn’t that show the servicer was in possession, not the Plaintiff? And that the servicer was the “holder,” not the Plaintiff? Actually, no – where the Note is specifically indorsed to the plaintiff, the servicer isn’t the holder, either. In that situation, the servicer has possession, but the plaintiff has the indorsement, so neither one is the “holder.”

    So what’s the solution to all of this madness? It’s two-fold: (1) Require verifications by the plaintiff (not the servicer, the plaintiff) and dismiss all cases without it; and (2) Require the foreclosure mills to have attorney-client relationships with the plaintiff (not the servicer, the plaintiff prosecuting the case) and disqualify all attorneys who lack such a relationship. That sounds harsh, but it’s ridiculous to inundate our courts with garbage pleadings that languish for years without a resolution when the parties prosecuting them don’t even know they’ve been filed.

    Mark Stopa

  81. The Nation’s Attorney Generals: All Victims of The Bank “Trial Settlement Scheme”
    February 11th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    Remember the headlines last week? All the breathless headlines about the “Historic $25 Billion Settlement With The Banks”? Well, have a seat folks. This one is going to knock you on your collective arses….

    THERE IS NO SETTLEMENT WITH THE BANKS!

    YOU’VE ALL BEEN LIED TO. SUCKERED, TRICKED!

    (again)

    We all knew that something was coming between the banks and the government leaders from both parties at the state and federal levels on this deal. They’d all been marching and arm twisting for so many months and it was damn apparent that all of them were conspiring against all of us to shove some great big piece of stinking garbage of a deal down our throats…and that’s exactly what they did. And by “they”, I mean the banks and our government, all meeting together in secret with teams of lobbyists, attorneys, press hacks and internet folks conspiring against us all along with the same teams from the attorney general’s offices.

    They were meeting for months, drafting out the terms of a very bad deal. Draft after draft, detail after detail, conspiring together against every American taxpayer and importantly, against the investors in mortgage backed securities (that’s virtually everyone who has any retirement or investment). Although how much meeting was actualy going on is not at all clear? How many physical meetings? What kind of arm twisting? Where are the evolution of all the draft agreements? Right. We don’t know and apparently, they don’t think the serfs in this kingdom are entitled to know.

    They emerged last week from some lair, then issued bank-sponsored public relations statements that the gullible media all picked up and ran without much critical analysis. Why, they even released a glossy, fluffy website that had all sorts of pretty pictures and graphics to sucker you into believing something happened. But importantly, the website contains no deal terms. Oh and here’s the part I love. The website ownership and control is secret. Check this find out from a friend:

    There’s also something peculiar about the Federal Department of Justice and 49 states setting up an informational web site that ends in .com instead of .gov. Register.com shows the web site has used a privacy shield to block the name of the owner of the site.

    Why the secret website? Why the lack of transparency? Who really owns this thing?

    Why even the exciting headlines and press releases and charts and graphs were public relations, hacked, fill in the blank propaganda. I’m betting it was all produced by the banks themselves. Check out the hacked press releases that were found by Naked Capitalism here. I mean seriously, look carefully at these slick graphic intensive documents with perfect bullet point statements and fill in the blank numbers. Suitable for the attorney general press people to just cut and paste and add their official logo (Insert State Logo Here) on then distribute to the media who likewise can just cut and paste themselves and drop into their stories and headlines. THE MEDIA WAS SUCKERED INTO TALKING ABOUT A DEAL WITH THIS ABSURD PROPAGANDA!

    But then, right after the headlines, real reporters started doing their job…..digging beneath all the press hacks and looking for real deals…..

    Reporter: “Um, excuse me Attorney General, you said $X Billion for the State of X, I’d like to see the terms of the deal in writing.”

    Attorney General Press: “Don’t you worry, we’re committed to the people of the state of X, and we’re gonna get that to you.”

    Reporter: “But you said it was a done deal, show me the deal”

    Attorney General Press: “Trust Us, the deal is on the way.”

    Reporter: “You mean there is no deal?”

    Attorney General Press: “Don’t worry, we’ve got an agreement in principle, just waiting to get it back from the banks and then well sign and release it!”

    WHOA….it just hit me. You know what these con artists at the banks of done to millions of consumers?

    You know what this sounds an awful lot like?

    Send us your three trial payments and we’ll give you a modification.

    Honest we will. Just send them in. We’ll get your deal done. Trust us.

    It is just utterly absurd for parties in a legal negotiation to go out broadcasting a settlement, when there are no signatures on any bottom line. That’s just crazy. That’s like legal malpractice. As one commentator noted,

    “They put the settlement press release cart before the signed agreement horse.”

    And with they’ve done it while dealing with the most untrustworthy and deceptive opponents in the world…the banks. I mean, how many millions of homeowners were suckered into the whole three payment rope a dope scam. Even if they really did hammer out most of the details (it doesn’t look like they got all the big pieces) to announce a settlement is just crazy because now the banks have boxed the AGs into a political corner. They’ve told their people there’s a deal….so there’s got to be a deal…..right?

    Oh and here’s the other thing….

    YOU WERE INVESTIGATING THE BANKS FOR FALSE AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES!

    Wasn’t that some kind of a tip off that the parties you’re negotiating with aren’t exactly the kind of people that you can trust to deal with in good faith?

    Two more big points here….First, where are the legislators in all 49 istates with respect to this fictional deal? The AGs are talking about bajillions of dollars in Monopoly money and it goes where? Pursuant to what authority? Right, another pecky detail. I don’t want one state official with all the power to negotiate billion dollar deals. Isn’t that what legislators are for? Where is the legislative input, consent, oversight on this HISTORIC BILLION DOLLAR DEAL?

    And now here’s a biggie. Sort of the bottom line. How many states or private investor analysts did the number crunching on the deal to figure out just how much of this was going to be paid for from the state’s retirement funds? Proportionally it may not be huge from each state, but the proportion of what’s being paid by the banks versus what’s being paid by the investors is way, way, way out of whack. Here’s my favorite part from the website:

    Q: Will investors in mortgage-backed securities ultimately pay for part of this settlement?

    A: Participating banks own the vast majority of the mortgage loans that this settlement is expected to affect. The settlement could affect some investor-owned loans, depending on existing agreements servicers have with those investors.

    In other words, this settlement will not force investors to incur losses. (LIE!) That’s because any loan modification tied to this settlement will result in more of a financial return for an investor than a foreclosure would. (HERE’S WHERE IT IS….WE’VE MADE THE DECISION THAT THIS GOVERNMENT-FORCED TAKEDOWN IS BETTER FOR YOU IN THE LONG RUN.)

  82. @Trespass Unwanted ,

    I like the idea of offering the identical deal in reverse… I am currently in litigation and the plaintiff (WF) did not produce the assigned original note they claimed to have in their possession (they could only produce an unassigned , non-certified copy) and they are now stalling bigtime .. (settlement coming soon?) … I’m not going to speculate here but I like the court of equity talk and would like commentary by genuine attorneys.

  83. have you all heard the term DEBT IS FOREVER
    im getting claims from junk debt buyers..ofcourse gotta fight them too…get this nat city to PNC- wikki that- bought out with TARP money

  84. Someone elsewhere suggested playing the banks game by incorporating yourself and transferring the title to the corporation; then just play the same corporate veil game they play. I also like the $2,000 purchase idea. They have, by their own statements, given the homes a value. Maybe we should all pick a day and everyone send their pretenders a check in the amount of $2,000 with a note that we will expect to receive our original blue ink note returned to us with “paid in full” marked in big bold letters.

  85. Trespass Unwanted- I like your comeback to the settlement, offering the 5 banks $2000 for the house you are living in, if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander, as they used to say.
    Taking this a step further, I had thought along the lines of every homeowner with a securitized loan putting a lis pendens in the name of a (ficticious) trust, where each homeowner would be an investor. We could do a reverse merger into an existing corp. shell, give it a name like ” CASH2012-1Q MortgageBackedReceivables Trust, Hometown BANK, as Trustee”. File this in every courthouse in the US, hire a couple of lackeys to field phone calls, mail out form letters, return faxes as undeliverable, line up robosigners, etc. It could stall the whole process nationwide for years to come.

  86. my former home was sold by slick real estate marketing who work with the developer and the “community” association…a whole other story… ,
    an Indian couple bought it, its a mers deed of trust. i hope they love the home as i did but those poor unsuspecting borrowers, title is A MESS. NOW WHAT. NOTHING CHANGED, THEY ARE NOT FEARFUL BECAUSE THERES NO PUNISHMENT. i was punished for my ignorance, what a crime that is.

  87. @ enraged Long term: did my life serve for nothing except to breed? Will this planet look as bad after i die as it did before I came to be?

    Wow, that is pretty deep! I have come to hope that the provisions I have been gifted help to make change. I also hope that what is bred out of my provisions see the change I have tried to make, and carry on those ideals. My labors on this planet may not change much of anything before i am called home, but if I can leave knowing I have left better people (children) as my legacy, it provides a little self-serving substance to my entire existence.

  88. […] Filed under: foreclosure Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  89. Why this settlement is illegal and cannot stand.
    The United States government has a policy to not negotiate with ‘terrorists’. The United States government has a new bill called the NDAA that is supposed to detain US citizens guilty of terrorist acts indefinitely without trial (bankers have unlimited money and would drag a trial out for EVER and EVER at our expense and the bankers would stay out of jail as long as the trial was dragging on)

    Now..who is a terrorist?

    Terroristic threats. A person is guilty of a felony if he threatens to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize another or to cause evacuation of a building,

    Who caused many of us to evacuate a building under the threat that a man with a gun could put his hands on us and our possessions?

    Those responsible for the performance of banks, attorneys who represented their interests and judges who issued the orders that caused the mass evacuation of buildings by their writ of possession or unlawful detainers that said we could be removed by force (against our Free Will) if we didn’t leave on our own (still against our Free Will).

    AGs cannot negotiate a settlement with terrorists.
    Misprision and
    Misprision of felony.

    Trespass Unwanted, Corporeal, a life, a peaceful, free, and Independent State, sovereign, Conscience, by divine right (jure divino), in one’s own right (in jure proprio)

  90. I’VE REACHED THE BREAKING POINT.THERE IS NO TURNING BACK NOW.This should be good I don’t even know what I will become.What happens when a caring loving person .stops caring about others ?That’s what this fraud did to my wife she doesn’t care about anybody any more.Life is getting cheep in the USA.This third world country is not even worth saving.WE will never change,wake up were all slaves.don’t think so? prove me wrong.

  91. The substitute trustee never created the right of possession .

    In my case the Substitute trustee was appointed by one who was not the mortgagee on the Deed of Trust, AND the incorrectly appointed Substitute Trustee started the acceleration sale days before the appointment to Substitute Trustee was filed.

    The initiated an action prior to having the power or standing to do so, and while being appointed by someone who did not have power nor standing to appoint them.

    This settlement is an illusion. It’s meant to convince us we are a party to it and we are not. Our signatures are not on the documents, but the offers to join will appear later in the offers to get mortgage writedowns, or to accept pittance of checks for the theft of our homes.

    Don’t fall for the illusion any more.
    They lost.
    They know it.
    They know we don’t know it….but more of us will know it as we reject their offers to contract.

    Do not see them, ignore them.
    =================================================
    Forcible entry and detainer action is a summary statutory remedy for obtaining possession of premises by one entitled to actual possession. Gangadean vs. Erickson, 495 P.2d 1338, 17 Ariz. App. 131 (1972)

    Forcible detainer is summary statutory remedy in which only material issue is right of possession; merits of title may not be considered. Fenter vs. Homestead Development and Trust Co., 413 P.2d 579, 3 Ariz. App. 248. (1966)
    =========================================

    Forcible Entry action can only decide if Plaintiff (you in this case) has no defects in the process used to create the right of possess. If you want to try title or ownership, it has to be done in an Action for Quiet Title or similar action.

    Apparently a foreclosure action in court is not a title action so the court has no jurisdiction to hear your arguments over title when someone is trying to establish a right to possession.

    Keep that in mind as you deal with this.

    Trespass Unwanted, Corporeal, a life, a peaceful, free, and Independent State, a Conscience, by divine right (jure divino), in one’s own right (in jure proprio)

  92. The AG settlement should work both ways for the People they represent in the State and the Corporation that is allowed to do business in the State.

    If the 5 banks can offer $1500 to $2000 to the people who’s homes were stolen and not be liable for the theft, the People can offer $1500 to $2000 to the 5 banks for the homes they are living in with full immunity from civil or criminal prosecution.

    By offering to pay $1500 to $2000, if the banks refused to accept the settlement from the people, they repudiate their claim of a right to the property. It is known they did not loan the money so there is no need to create an inequitable settlement forcing people to sign new contracts agreeing to give the banks a reduced mortgage for the home.

    The new contract is like a modification, the banks never had the original contracts…what they did with it, we don’t know, but there is no way they can hand over the original contract in exchange for a new one, so how can a settlement between two parties where only they agree to the terms, be extended to the People who do not agree to the terms.

    It can’t.

    You can’t represent us and give us a settlement that does not benefit us.

    The AG agreed to an accord, that benefited them.

    I’m telling you. There is no way they can make us agree to it. When a final transaction is made, where we cash a pittance of a check, we will have accepted the agreement.

    That check is a hot potato. Our property is ours.
    Right now to foreclose, any foreclosure action is theft without a valid contract or agreement between the parties.

    If nothing else, this settlement proves it.

    It’s their attempt to establish an agreement between the parties in the form of a mortgage writedown. Once you agree, you will owe them.

    And many think that if they agree then the banks will leave them alone and let them keep the home. But the titles are corrupted. One false move, one late payment and they can start a foreclosure process to start trying to clear the title for their ownership.

    The people in their homes should offer $1500 to $2000 for their home and prove this is an inequitable agreement.

    What’s good for one party of any settlement is good for the remaining parties of the same settlement.

    Those that have eyes, let them see.

    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, a free and independent state, (no one can represent me unless I agree to be represented, I am not a citizen of your system, so you will need my signature to claim a right to anything you’ve stolen from me.), a free People, sovereign by divine right (jure divino), in one’s own right (in jure proprio)

  93. davies910, on February 10, 2012 at 12:46 pm said:
    There is hope the new consumer financial protection task force will take complaints immediately on line and allow you to upload documents to support your contention.
    It is amazing and the best, as I have filed with the SEC, IRS DOJ, State of California Insurance Dept, Real Estate Dept, AG of several States.

    davies910, please let us know!
    And I need copies for my project for anyone who will give them to me!
    The “MERS M.O.” has willfully made our homes, the single largest asset most of us will ever have and our biggest source of well-being, all-but, if not entirely, indefensible.

  94. @JeninGA,

    You better. We don’t even know who you smiley-faced to!

  95. In the absence of that rule (726 CA thing) being valid as to voluntary liens and or confessed judgments (as opposed to judgment against you in a court leading to a lien), I think maybe next have to look at the race-notice situation in your state. I can’t rattle off the provisions of race-notice. Tooooo long ago. But I think it’s important enough to find out about. Even as to any application or relevance of race-notice, the IRS may, such as in JeninGA’s case, take priority. The race-notice provisions of your state may mean a voluntary lien is senior to an unrecorded interest.

  96. Thank you!!!
    I will keep you posted! 🙂

  97. @JeninGA,

    And, darn it! Those writings on the walls… they need so much interpreting!

    Just trying to prioritize. Short term (My house! The banks! My retirement!). Longer term: (My kids’ education! My grandkids’ well-being. I want to die in good surroundings and without undue pain)

    Long term: did my life serve for nothing except to breed? Will this planet look as bad after i die as it did before I came to be?

  98. @jeninGA – joann cited something like 726 in CA. Maybe she will remember more? I don’t know the answers to your questions, but I would guess it is why the bankster has cooled its jets. Now, they may be trying to cut a deal with the IRS, altho the irs may be able to tell them to eat a rock. You probably have a right to know.
    Let’s say bankster had recorded the assignment and THEN the IRS had filed a lien. The IRS can even take priority then, but in that case, the IRS has to DO something within a prescribed time, is my understanding. Now in your deal when the IRS got there first, this might be good news for you. Maybe you could get a generic answer from an irs person? Or ask a tax attorney? Bankster will probably try to argue, but I don’t think they’re gonna win that one IF I got this right. You need strategy if this is correct because of course, you don’t want to lose your home to the IRS. Payment plan? Loooong payment plan?
    It looks like joann posted that originally on Jan 24th, but under what, I don’t know. If you find the statute in CA and then try to find a mirror statute in your state, I’d like to hear about it please. Altho, as I said, you may not need it. See if your state is a race-notice one for one thing and look into the definition of that. I hope like h I got this right and the IRS is ahead of those guys.

  99. @JeninGA,

    Don’t worry about the IRS. Apparently, Schneiderman got that covered, according to that interview with Rachel Maddow.

    Don’t know about that China thing, though… Tell me again: why do we need to have a military base in Australia that we never needed to have, even during WWII when we were fighting the Japanese? You know, the one we heard about, right from Obama’s mouth, in August or September?

    Nope. I’m not paranoid. I’m just reading those writings on the walls…

  100. @ johngault
    Great ideas – do you remember where you saw the link posted by joann you mentioned IRS liens?
    The IRS filed a lien on my property 2 months before Litton filed the fraudulent one they made to intentionally deceive the courts in my state.
    Would that be why they stop the foreclosure before the sale? It takes 2nd place to the IRS?

  101. *Extraction Capitalism* for the .01% is nearly complete.

    Final stages….

  102. http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/81053939?access_key=key-lewkgqckyymtjaleqy5

    This link is to what I allege is the forgery of a US diplomat on a grant deed of 1999 in relation to property.

    Forgery is NOT VICTIMLESS. I never acquired valid title to the property if the Grant Deeds were forged.

    view this yourself

  103. YOU CAN LEAVE COMMENTS FOR SCHNEIDERMAN HERE AND WATCH THE SHORT INTERVIEW OF HIM BY RACHEL MADDOW

    http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/survey_foreclosure_schneiderman_note/?source=link-typ&referring_akid=.1199884.bxxm9I

  104. Adam Levitin chimes in:

    “But at worst, it lets the banks off the hook for the largest financial crime in history.”

    http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2012/02/the-servicing-settlement-banks-1-public-0.html#more

  105. well now…isn’t THIS a surprise?

    “Well, that was fast.

    Two states have already announced that they won’t be using all of their share of the $25 billion allocated in Thursday’s historic foreclosure settlement to pay its intended recepients — the homeowners and borrowers who saw the housing market collapse beneath their feet.

    Instead, in some areas, a share of those dollars is likely to be diverted to state budgets, in a bid to offset some of the massive deficits that states have been struggling with since the economic downturn, according to reports.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/national-mortgage-settlement_n_1269560.html?ref=business#comments

  106. John: I didn’t care for the crack about the 2000 and the “squatters” either – but I always take things with a grain of salt and look at the whole article. Frightening to think that this whole thing is not even committed to paper yet – what other “get out of jail free” clauses will the banksters throw into that farce of a “settlement” without our knowledge? Oh well, they have trampled the rule of law anyway. Even if something in the final agreement forbids them to do something, they will run roughshod over it.

  107. Leapfrog – my concern is the banksters are holding out for immunity from any kind of prosecution, from anyone. If so, Sch’s interview was a ‘tad’ premature. Maybe it was premature, anyway. I thought the article’s writer (at your link) was drinking a lot of funny kool-aid, esp that crack about giving homeowner’s 2k so they could contribute to
    Obama’s re-election campaign.
    At any rate, I really hope the agreement is well-written, that we don’t have to argue about it for the next 20 years. I’ve always thought it well, stupid, when laws for instance are written in such a manner that they are subject to any manner of interpretations. I just think they could do better.

  108. sorry, my response was in regards to Tresspss’ post.

  109. You Bet! Amen.

  110. @eule – thanks for the link. He (S) was very interesting. I hope it plays out like he said, starting with the settlement providing funds for homeowners to fight wrongful foreclosure. Wouldn’t that be grand?
    I think he is after MERS substantively, don’t think it’s a hustle.
    Because everyone knows now MERS HAS TO GO.

  111. Neil, they get it. The people with the money own the media. Now they have to do their propaganda pushing to get folks to ‘believe’ in what they decided to do.

    It doesn’t work until you have a collective percentage of us believe it, and believe in it. Our thoughts is what supports their agenda.

    They’ve always needed us, our thought energy to support their agenda.

    So they created the settlement then use the media and talking heads to sell it to us as a solution.

    They are gauging our response to see if we agree to it.

    That’s the purpose of the media…to teach us what to think about any subject. We agree with them for every perceived enemy, we talk us and them all the time. They can make us hate a race or a religion or a politician or any number of things by talking about it over and over and giving you the information they want you to have to agree with them on any subject.

    Now if the discussions the mortgage payers who haven’t missed a payment would change to ‘there are no victims’ or they are a victim for doing things as it should be; then they can get their ‘majority conscious” to work in their favor.

    Anytime we don’t agree to something they create; no matter what is is, if we don’t like, we NEVER have to accept it. It’s by our acceptance that it becomes the remedy for all.

    Someone spoke of jury nullification, where jurors can nullify a law by saying it was stupid or they won’t find someone guilty under it. But jurors and people in general are group minded. If the group agrees, then they agree. No one wants to be the odd man out.

    When my home was stolen, no one believe me when I said it was stolen. Now this information is widely known. Neil said some things and people didn’t believe it and now it’s widely known.

    Their media works the same way, they put it out there over and over and over until that thought or idea is widely known and accepted as the ‘right thing to do’ or the ‘right way to go’.

    AGs do not have the power nor authority to decide that the title systems of the state can remain corrupted for a fee.

    AGs do not have the power nor authority to allow anyone to violate a Constitutional protection with impunity nor immunity.

    AGs do not have the right to allow someone to do business in the territorial boundaries of the state, and corrupt the statutes, codes, provisions, laws, ordinances, and trespass against the free and independent People living within the territorial boundaries, for a fee.

    AGs cannot provide immunity to one set of people and make another set subject to them.

    AGs cannot support a debtor’s prison of the people who use their property (their wealth) to obtain property, only to have that property stolen and the wealth that was behind the purchase stolen with it.

    AGs cannot violate Lieber Code and allow someone to wage war against the women and children and peaceful inhabitants of the state.

    Anyone who has taken an oath to protect, needs to step forward and be the ‘oath keeper’ you are, and remove these criminals from our midst.

    Their allegiance lies elsewhere in the private and their allegiance affects the people who are sovereign and do not want to be judged in the public as anything less than who we are.

    What right does one group of men have to judge another group unjustly with their unjust ways and inequitable actions?

    The judge who will look over this agreement took an oath.

    If that judge violates that oath, the judgment for violating that oath should be swift and immediate.

    The people are sovereign. We are peaceful. All People are created equal.

    All People have Free Will and a Conscience, by Divine Right.

    Violators of our Free Will and Good Conscience must be removed from our midst immediately.

    You will know them by their deeds.
    You will know them by their warrants, their settlements, their judgments, their agreements.

    They have placed their mark upon the documents that reveal who they are.

    You have your orders. Remove them from our midst. Now!

    Trespass Unwanted, Corporeal, a life, a peaceful, free, and Independent State, a Conscience, by divine right (jure divino), in one’s own right (in jure proprio)

  112. This is my opinion. The banksters cannot do principal reductions Because they are not authorized to do them, THEY NEED STANDING to be able to do Principal reductions. The Banksters still have the incentive to do the fraudcosure (because it does not expose their fraud).

    This deal will expose the above.

    NEVER AGAIN
    BE STRONG AND COURAGEOUS

  113. -OR- you could borrow money from Aunt Tilly and record her lien against your home, and if I got it right, not an attorney, don’t swear I do, the forecloser will have to pay Aunt Tilly before he gets his. For that matter, Aunt Tilly might have to foreclose if you don’t pay her, and she might be able to avoid the pretender altogether if the pretender chooses not to cure her first to get to his, which I believe he can only even assert after he records an assignment, and when he does that, he is still in second. Under my interpretation of ‘joann’s statute’, Aunt Tilly may avoid the old first altogether where no assignment has been recorded (if it’s been assigned but kept secret – no safety against original lender) or when pretender records, if such recordation is timely, the pretender will have to pay off Aunt Tilly, and my guess is, he WON’T. Aunt Tilly could force a shown down when an assignment gets recorded by way of her superior lien by initiating foreclosure.

    Nevada, for instance, has a never or seldom used statute which I as a lay person interpret to mean that a junior lienholder has 35 days from the notice of default by a senior lienor to cure the senior lien or bye-bye, junior lien. Well, it’s actually used, we just don’t know it because the junior lienholder does not cure the first and just shuffles off to buffalo generally. If your state has a mirror statute, then in the Aunt Tilly situation, the pretender would only have as a matter of law 35 days to cure the default on Aunt Tilly’s senior lien, and I think that’s only if an assignment had been recorded timely relevant to Aunt Tilly’s action. Phew! I’m not suggesting any fraudulent activity, of course, but there’s no reason aunt tilly can’t loan you money and in my non-lawyer, lay person opionion, this is how it would play out. Don’t pretend to get a loan if for no other reason than you might be put to your proof.

  114. And then there’s that deal with confessing judgment or giving debt-reducing voluntary liens to unsecured creditors whose liens will be ahead of a pretender’s who has not recorded an assignment. This might be particularly helpful to those who owe the IRS a lot of money or a big chunk of change to one entity / party. Get a person – not sure who does these – accountants? tax attorneys? – to do an offer in compromise with the IRS first to reduce that debt first. I gathered this info about the lien priority strictly from that statute joann posted a week or so ago. Have to find mirror statute in your state.
    Probably best to have an attorney either represent you on these judgments or vol liens than to go it alone and to make sure you got it right that the plan does what you want: put other judgments or voluntary liens ahead of pretender.
    Attorneys who find this has merit can start a new area of practice by cutting these deals with a client’s numerous creditors and maybe packaging the reduced debt into one lien with a prescribed monthly pay out to each creditor. The value to the creditor is they’re now secured and 1) you won’t file bk and dump them because of the debt relief afforded you by the reduction in principle. If the creditors get the same understanding of the law which I interpretted from joann’s statute, 2) they will know that if there if foreclosure later, the foreclosing party (who has not recorded an assignment) will have to pay them off because they are senior.

  115. More ways to fight back: if you qualify for a chapter 11, file it and avoid the unrecorded interest of the pretender (no assignment) in its entirety. If your state homestead, which you need to file, is not adequate to save your new equity from the trustee / bk creditors, make a deal with the trustee. Do some research and planning in that regard. Can you afford pacer to review c-11 cases or a research
    engine you have to pay for if it gets rid of the debt on your home?
    Spend some time at free sites?
    Need a good lawyer who does C-11’s unless you feel strong enough to take it on yourself. Not recommended! A case which comes to mind
    which discusses the avoidance issue in C-11 is In re Zitta, AZ, and it’s posted at scribd here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79044012/Avoidance-of-Unrecorded-Assignments-of-Deeds-of-Trust

    Chapter 13 debtors may strip wholely unsecured seconds and cram down the first to market value. Problem: must be a wage – earner for chapter 13. So far, this has only been available on non-owner occupied properties, i.,e., properties that will generate rental income (doesn’t have to cover the new payment I think, not sure, but nice if it does). So move the h out and rent the house as best you can to cover what will be the payment on the only obligation left on the house – the crammed down 1st. Need 1) a good bk attorney and 2) to help yourself doing research. When your bk is over, you can go home. Better to do this than let a pretender take your home, is it not? Keep in mind that you will be conceding the debt (the first) to a likely pretender in doing the cram down. Still better than giving them your property if it’s at risk. I’m getting rusty, but I think on owner-occupied homes in chapter 13, you can strip the wholey unsecured second, but are stuck with the first: no cram down. You may be confirming the debt to a pretender on the first. Not sure, but think that might be a bottom line. Getting rid of a second which probably has a sucky variable rate is a good thing.
    This might be a plan for those who can swing the payments on the first, but are getting killed by the payments on the second. Plus get rid of unsecured debt by way of the reduced payments thru the chapter 13 plan.

  116. All
    Chill!
    IT’s “…’coming soon.’ That’s because a fully authorized, legally binding deal has not been inked yet.…”
    SEE
    ‘Missing Settlement Document Raises Doubts on $25B Deal’ 2 10 2011, 1:07 PM EST
    at
    http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/177_29/mortgage-servicers-settlement-1046574-1.html
    Bill

  117. I’m afraid we are going to lose more than monetary things; they are also robbing our constitutional rights; changing laws to suit their misdeeds and the list goes on and on.

  118. HMM..We use our income to pay for years of litigation. They use our tax money to defend themselves. And they use our retirement funds to cover it up! All the while they get richer and richer.

    Now just may be the time to make a “Run on the Banks” and salvage what is left …. This is no Longer the America I once Loved. I will NO Longer fund these Crimes against Humanity in any form! I want my Country Back! I want to be able to say ..” I am proud to be an American” once again. Sorry…old duct tape.

  119. Yes the CFPB offers a very streamlined online complaint filing process. You get to attach documents as do the banks, agencies, etc. The turnaround time is fairly quick. One bank had responded within two days of my complaint. You can also retain electronic copies of their responses which makes life a whole lot simpler.

    I really enjoyed the ability to immediately dispute the bogus hogwash the bank tried to offer. Try for yourself http://www.consumerfinance.gov

  120. Please, the Washington Post is nothing more than a propaganda machine for Big Government, Big Business and Wall Street. They know damn well what is going on and choose to print more propaganda to brain wash the brain dead!

  121. There is hope the new consumer financial protection task force will take complaints immediately on line and allow you to upload documents to support your contention.
    It is amazing and the best, as I have filed with the SEC, IRS DOJ, State of California Insurance Dept, Real Estate Dept, AG of several States.

    See the copy and spread the word.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/81217805/Consumer-Fianancial-Protection-Complaint-With-Ex-02102012

    Also yesterday the SEC stated they were reviewing my claims and said I should also send the information to the Department of Justice.

    Maybe its starting to happen in a positive way.

    Brian

  122. They turned our Retirement into a pile of poo poo, they liquidated our equity in our homes, they give us dirty paper (corrupt titles) to clean up their mess. Now that the taxpayers (us) have paid them for their fine service building the ceast pool … we get to pay them to cover it up. And to top it all off … they are going to use what they have not stolen yet.. my retirement to pay the fine for their Crimes. Hogwash! All Hogwash!! My head is spinning .. my retirement, my taxes, my equity, my title~~~~~ maybe it will make good fertilizer for my garden? Just sayin ….. I’ll put my duct tape back on now.

  123. What make the most sense in terms of the pursuit of justice if:
    You are currently underwater, are current with your payments, your paperwork has robosigned signatures (Linda Green), you reside in a nonjudicial state, your mortage is “owned” now by Freddie MAC but it originated with Wells Fargo and is being serviced currently by US Bank?

    QWRs, OCC and CFPB complaints are all on file.

  124. LOL… I mean we have not refinaced or never applied for a LOAN mod. Althou… I believe this is truly a LOAD of something….. I’ll be quiet now.

  125. I absolutely can’t get my head around the fact that anyone could think that forgery, contract misfeasence, falsified apprasials and income, and the list goes on, could in anyway shape or form be OK??????? Forgery is a crime with or without intentional harm.

    Are these people to shallow to understand that not only did they crash our housing market they have devalued our whole real estate industry. It will be interesting to see if some of these same “responsible” people jump on the bandwagon to get a low refi as well as a principal reduction. If they are stating that no harm came to many of us then so be it, they should not get any benefits of anything either because they were not harmed. Watch how fast their tune changes then.

  126. The 1st and 3rd lien holders are both still in business. We only had the Origional Mortgage .. no refinance and no load mod. How can this happen?

  127. Well… I hadn’t listened to Schneiderman being interviewed by Rachel Maddow but, apparently, criminal investigations into:
    1) Security fraud;
    2) Bank fraud,
    3) Tax fraud
    4) Insurance fraud
    5) Criminal fraud,

    are still “on the table”. I want to believe that. I really, really want to believe that. But there is still that little thing about China that bothers me…

  128. So true Neil. How can they say we were not victimized. Because of their Robo Signing, We are left with 3 liens on our title. If they legalized the fraud .. does this mean we have to pay .. another 3x in order to clear our “Chain of Title”? Not that we plan to sell anytime soon … but if we do decide to sell later down the line .. we would not be able to do it, because we can not pass on what was once a “Good Title” because all these .”. I’m your Creditors” who jumped out from behind MERS and corrupted our title.

    Deeply Confused ..

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: