You Know You are Losing When


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


Taking a line from Jeff Foxworthy, I have compiled the following guidelines of how to know when you are going to lose against the thieving bank seeking to steal your property. You might call it, “You know your screwed when…”

Note: The premise of this article is taken from various points made on this blog and others. The main point is that the obligation to repay the loan arose when the money transaction took place. When money exchanged hands it is presumed that the expectation was that it would be repaid. So the only defenses that exist and the only two defenses that will get the judge’s attention are PAYMENT and WAIVER. Failing to address these issues head on right at the beginning of the first pleading and the first hearing, will most likely lead to failure in the case. Read the appellate decisions that are in favor of the banks and servicers; they all start with a recitation of “facts” that are not true but which nonetheless are taken as true because the borrower failed to put them in issue as contested facts.

Start with the origination documents. If you don’t know whether they have merely reproduced the note and mortgage, then deny it and make them prove it. They could be fabricated from whole cloth.

And the note and mortgage probably contain declarations of fact that are not true — like the fact that any of the parties shown as payee on the note or as secured parties are in fact not the lenders, creditors or have any relationship to your loan transaction other than that their names were used. The fact that you know you have signed documents doesn’t mean that the papers proffered by the banks are the same papers. The fact that you know you took a loan doesn’t mean there is any balance due or that you owe it to the party seeking to enforce the debt.

So one of the key questions to ask an attorney or other professional you seek to hire to represent you in mortgage foreclosure, collection of a debt or to provide you with services to challenge title or enforcement is an easy one: “what issues are you prepared to concede at the start of these proceedings?” If they are willing to concede the debt, the default, and other basic elements of enforcements, you have pretty much lost before you began.

Watch out for those who talk a good game and tell you what you want to hear. I have seen many attorneys fold like a house a cards once they get into court. They must be willing to be aggressive in their objections and in demanding a level playing field —  neither the proffers of counsel for the bank nor the proffers of the borrower should be taken as true without an evidentiary hearing. When hiring professionals to help you, ask for references and proof where they achieved the objectives in a hearing that was argued before a state, federal or bankruptcy judge. There is a lot of bad law and poor strategy floating around in the name of marketing for clients and getting fees either upfront, monthly or both.

Without repeating all the other points raised on this blog, let’s start cataloging those strategies and events and virtually assure the loss of the case to a bank that was and remains a stranger to the transaction, who never funded or purchased the loan.

  1. You have already conceded or alleged that there is a debt outstanding. (what if the debt was paid off?). If the bank’s lawyer speaks first, the proper objection should be raised and very aggressively. It must be made clear that the borrower denies the debt, denies the debt was ever owed to the party now seeking to enforce it, denies that perfection of the lien, denies the default because the creditor has been paid and corroborates the objection with independent third party reports that raise issues of fact that (a) put the main issues in dispute requiring a hearing on the merits and (b) getting to discovery where the bank is ordered to stop stonewalling and is required to answer the properly formed questions and demands for discovery including, most especially, a full accounting from the creditor down to the borrower and NOT just from the servicer down to the borrower.
  2. You have already conceded or alleged that you are in default. (what if someone, like the servicer, continued making payments to the creditor?)
  3. You have already conceded or alleged that you failed to make a payment. This one is tricky. You know the borrower stopped making payments so how can you deny it. easy. If the payments was made by someone else or was prepaid, then the scheduled payment may have been “missed” but it wasn’t due either.
  4. You have failed to object to the the proffer of the opposing attorney relating to (a) whom he represents, (b) the status of his client in the transaction, (c) the status of the loan, (d) a default and (e) the statement that the borrower has not made any payments in X months. These are facts not in evidence and you deny each and every one of them.
  5. You have failed to obtain a true report on the chain of title relating to the specific loan.
  6. You have failed to obtain a true report of the chain or obligations set forth in the securitization documents.
  7. Watch the demeanor of the Judge. He or she has already decided that the borrower is not going to get a free house just because some paperwork was wrong. If the obligation exists and the borrower is not paying it, the Judge is looking for ways to avoid the legal technicalities and allow enforcement of the debt and to allow the foreclosure to proceed. But if you raise the issues of payment and waiver, then the Judge doesn’t really have that option. For the sake of credibility you must make clear that you understand that an obligation arose when the money transaction was completed and that paperwork glitches don’t allow a debtor to escape payment on an otherwise legitimate debt. But then turn that on its head — just because the paperwork refers to a monetary transaction (assignment, etc.) doesn’t mean the transaction actually took place. In the absence of a real transaction where real money exchanged hands, the paperwork can’t save it. 
  8. You failed to file the right papers at the right time. A common mistake, the judges jump on this as an excuse to dismiss the claims of the borrower.
  9. Claiming due process without specifically identifying how the borrower is actually injured. You are going to lose unless you have laid the proper groundwork in which to put the issues of current status of the debt, the existence of an uncured default and the the existence of a real creditor who has not already received payment in part or in full through insurance, credit default swaps, credit enhancements and federal bailouts. Adding that the securitization documents specifically provide for payment without right of subrogation raises the issue of  waiver by the creditor — the real creditor — in the borrower’s loan transaction. Thread the needle here. If the payment has been paid and the real creditor is now identified and has received a settlement satisfactory to the investor, then the failure of the creditor to seek additional enforcement from the borrower is not a license for any stranger to the transaction to make claims on behalf of a creditor that has waived further claims or on behalf of third parties who have similar waived the rights of enforcement.
  10. Your lawyer is too timid to confront the Judge and interrupt the proceedings with appropriate objections and argument. The key here is understanding the difference between evidence, proffers of evidence, data and information. For laymen they are all the same. A lawyer who does not fully understand the differences and is not armed with case law and statutory law to corroborate his position is headed for failure regardless of how good the facts look on paper. 

A coordinated, well conceived strategy to defeat the lies being perpetrated by the banks and their attorneys in court will turn the tide. But expecting the Judge to find in favor of the borrower just because you found a forged document is pure fantasy. On the other hand, the huge volume of information in the public domain constituting an admission of material defects in the foreclosures and the originating documents with the borrowers and the investors leaves a wide open path to attack the title issues a regain title, possession and damages relating to the loss of a house that was subject to one of the millions of illegal foreclosures.

179 Responses

  1. You can definitely see your skills in the work you write.
    The sector hopes for even more passionate writers like
    you who aren’t afraid to say how they believe. Always follow your heart.

  2. The judge is not suppose to be partial and make their decision by partiality that they are not going to let the homeowner get a free house, so this allows the judge to ignore the rule of law? Therefore the judge is justified to make their unconstitutional law, to forget the rule of law, to give a free house to the theif, by hearsay evidence cause they call themselves bankers. Perhaps we should do what the banks do and incorporate ourselves as corporations that own our houses and we are the Erickson Banker corporation. Perhaps we will have more clout by calling ourselves bankers. This is no different than the so called banks. They do not lend they steal money, weatlh and free houses times thousands.

  3. It is a win win for the banks for each and every homeowner that gives up and lets the bank have their way. Slavery stil exhist and is dangerously increasing daily. The government whould not own the peoples property the people should not be renting from the government. Theives should not be allowed to own what they steal. Perhaps we should just stand aside when a robber enters our home and say this is just mateiral objects help your self because the judge will help you keep it anyway. I cant take it with me. The court rooms are crimes scenes.

  4. nabdulla, it is also fighting for our American rights to be judged by the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution. We are loosing America by just walking away. If more people stood their grounds and fought in the courts these banks would not have the funds to fight back. They get to many free houses they flip and gain money to fight the ones fighting back. Their profits are up by stealling houses people just handed in the keys to. No one should walk away. I am not their judge that is just my opionion. Some just can not take the stress. Some have no idea where to begin to fight and no money. They need to stay until the police remove them in my book. Dont fight the sheriff, but dont just walk away and make it easy for them. My opionion. It is not just a house with a lot of memories, and roots under our feet. You can not take it with you. You also dont leave any chance for the younger generation to have any hope of rule of law and justice in their lives. You loose hope for the future generations to live in a world of servatude. When their is hope for all if we fight with every breath we take and overtake these crooks. The less that fight make it harder for those of us willing to battle.

  5. @ Enraged….again

    “Until people learn to detach themselves from the damn house, they are in no position to win because the stakes are too high and they have too much to lose (in their mind).”

    Just read your following post. Sorry for my last. You got it :-).

    Here….take a hit….

  6. @ Enraged….

    “It may very well be that Pro Se would simply be better off walking away from it all and relocating. You both need to look at everything with a cold, calculating and businesslike eye. That’s what banks do. Play their game.”

    I agree with you 100%. BUT, hard to do for the average person, especially a Woman. To THEM (the banks), the wood, sheetrock and brick is a THING (a HOUSE). To people, it’s a HOME.

    I used to live in a HOME. No more!! After all the blood, sweat, tears and money spent trying to hold on to the HOME, I woke-up in the middle of one night and reality hit me like a ton of bricks – I ain’t taking NONE of this shit with me. Couldn’t even relax in the damn thing and enjoy my Family.

    Now, I’m still living in the same pile of wood, sheetrock and brick. Had the foreclosure dismissed “with prejudice” because of the MERS defects and other frauds – now, it’s just A HOUSE, a THING. Title corrupted to high heaven – so what – ain’t taking it with me. All I’m paying is the City’s taxes and the utilities. The kicker, went to Court and picked up six other properties. All titles are corrupted – so what – don’t pay me my rent and see how quick your ass will be sitting on the curb.

    “Play their game” – sorry dude, disagree with you – like you yourself have said many times – they’re losing, it’s just a matter of time.

    Pass the blunt and Jack Daniels….

  7. @Anonymous,
    Please don’t sign off. I look for your responses on all threads first, and you’ve been hugely helpful to me, and I’m sure, many others.

    Was focused on the assignment, now will focus on the satisfaction- glad to have a direction to go- thank you.

  8. Shelley A. Erickson,

    Not implying you are out for money, just stating if someone gets act together, there could be a nice lawsuit. I am not here for money either, I have no business, and get nothing out of posting here. But, I will tell you, many approaches, or defenses, are simply not working. While you may have one court, here and there, open to foreclosure victims, this is rare. Simply need more challenge to get point across, and if you (and I mean in general) keep singing the same old song in court — it becomes old and stale. This should not be up to homeowners to prove the fraud, it should be up to the government. It is extremely difficult for homeowners to get the evidence they need. But, the government stopped short of investigation, and settled with the big ones.

    laurie, — as I write above — it is not easy. Need to start with all your documents, check credit reports diligently, find out what prior trust you were in (and if you were a refinance — you were also likely in a prior bogus trust) — call SEC make sure payoff is reported as paid to the trust. Check all disbursements — call for record of.
    Go back to original purchase of your home. Check all satisfactions, research the company and status back then.

    It is hard work. But, and I am signing off, again, for awhile. Many hear — who have ignored — will be shocked at what they will find.

  9. @Anonymous-

    How does one go about determining, as you suggest, that the “satisfaction of mortgage” (in my case, Indymac) was not paid off?
    No idea where to begin with that, because the focus has been on Wamu/WF presenting a false assignment .
    I’ve always wondered about the robo signed satisfaction at the time that the mortgage was refied through wamu.

  10. Dont know why you are impling I am out for money. I ask no for no money from anyone. But the SOB city mayor and his croanies and to save my home. I am tired of being screwed by bad guys and want to stop Americans from being screwed.

  11. I am digging up the money trail now. I had the title and PSA analysis already. I have a private party in Delaware with the access to the money trail that is doing that part of my proof for me. He is looking up the possilbility of loan being in multiple trust and the credit swap default paying it off in full for myself and a friend. Luminique proved my PSA was in blank and void and the title is clouded. I have my mortgage case in the Appeals court. I began it about November of 2010.

  12. Annonymous, the point I am trying to get across is very few are using the argument the foreclosing company is unlawfully foreclosing due to non compliance with state law. Just as important as non conpliance with FDCPA law. All foreclosed homes can be vacated when this is proven. The banks cliam they are not subject to being registered under state law and they are. The foreclosures have attempted to argue this but this Occ letter may be old so is the U.S. Constitution and the Carpenter V Longan 1873 U.S. Supreme court case, but newbees dont know it and a lot of these people on the blog are new. The non compliance to state law is an important part of our arugment. At least I see it that way. No personal interest. I have filed this a long time ago on my mortgage case.

  13. And, oh yeah, Shelley — you could make a bundle. But, not on what you are professing here.

  14. Shelley A. Erickson,

    Old letter you cite. Federal law always preempts state law when there is a conflict. That’s the law, Shelley.

    Shelley, know that you are trying to help, but you are running around in circles. Nothing accomplished. Need to dig a whole lot deeper. Do not see this digging here — by you. Suspect, personal interest.


    Most insurance processed the same way. Does not matter WHO is providing. IF FHA, then you may have a false claims act, as government sponsored. Of course, the AG settlement did not include FHA loans. Not sure if yours is one or not. Not the point. The point is, insurance covered for whomever was guaranteeing the loan — as to a default — whether or not you actually defaulted. But, then again, borrower never had opportunity to respond as to the false default/insurance coverage.

    FHA, and all insurance providers, covered by servicer agreement. Ninety days is standard. Ninety days is all it takes for ANY loan to be reported in default. In fact, GSEs consider 1 month as in default. They use false due dates to accomplished. These false due dates have been reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, whether or not the loan is in actual default is a huge question. That is why servicers want you to default before they consider you for mod, so they can collect insurance — and present your “mod” to extended default debt buyer. All about debt buying. Biggest business across the globe. HUGE — and hugely leveraged. Massive collapse if truly exposed. MASSIVE COLLAPSE.

    So then, who the heck are they considering a mod with???? Removed from any so called trust. All up to the servicer. All up to the servicer to continue to conceal the “creditor” debt buyer. That is their job. But, TILA AMendment, and Fed Res Opinion says NO — NO MORE. Cannot conceal.

    As to Judges — defense attorneys just not presenting the law. Need a real “working” seminar. .

  15. You know they know the statutes of limitations is expiring. The corruption is endless. They are dragging their feet to allow it to expire. It will be unexcusable just like the rediculous settlements and fake HAMP mod help and TARP help if the government does nothing and allows the SOL to expire. Ihave claimed every crime and violation I could find and prove the elements to. I had to ask for an oversized brief. And was approved for it. I added them in my declaration and supplemental pleading as well. Takes a lot of pages for so many crimes and violations and proving the elements are met in everyone.

  16. enclavedebacle, from Neils post above, the insurance was paid before the mortgage was even signed. The servicers use the mod and the HAMP program to steal servicing fees and HAMP money and to trick homeowners into defaulting that were not in default, just having a struggle to keep up, and to drag out the foreclosure to keep people paying on the house until they stole it and to steal servicing funds. HAMP FRAUD. The servicer also recieved a thousand dollars everytime they claimed the paper work did not come complete. So they had incentive to say this and ask for it again and again. On my mod I figure they made around four thousand just to review it and on some of my customers and freinds they made twice to three times that just reviewing the loan, then starting all over again. I can not help but think the government help set us up for this also to trick us into believeing we were being helped just to pay out tax dollars to these crooks to lead us into alleged default and scam everyone they could. The trust were tricked also that there was going to be a cure and help in the market place, so the trust did not catch on until later on due to this tricker. Well established orchestrated tricker across the entire US. by every bankster BOA, Chase, RECONTRUST, allegedly MERS. You name it. Wells Fargo, AMHIS all of them. How is it every single bank did the same crime? Smells of “RICO”. WHich I have claimed also.

  17. enclavedebacle, It is certainly true they tell thousands to be at least three months behind to qualify. I have several customers that gave me declarations they were told this and you see it constantly on the complaint cases. one in Georgia I just read said this very same thing. I was told by three different servicers to fall behind before I would qualify. I decided after the third servicer telling me this, it was the bank telling me to fall behind so I only allowed thirty days. Then the servicer approved my modification, told me to immediately start paying the modification payments, not to wait for paperwork to come and infact to ignor any regular billing statements. Then after five months I recieved a letter disqualifing me and over the phone I was told due to the Obama changes my mod was unapprove now, therefore they were crediting my mod payments as partial payments therefore I was in foreclosure. They did this to a client of mine the exact same thing after nine payments. I can not help you with the rest of the request. One of my customers mod payments was only six dollars reduction, she told them she might as well keep making the regular payment until they would give her a better mod. She was told the servicer would only accept the payment they had approved. Nine months later she got the same letter I did. Tried to catch up the 9x six dollar payments they refused and she and her husband and familly can not take the stress anymore after two years of paying attorneys to help her. and getting nothing for their money.

    This is a well established crime the banks have pulled to steal homes and litterally lead people into foreclosure, and or if they defaulted to drag them along and parallell foreclosure while adding up t;he servicing fees. These crooks have left no rock unturned and have stolen at every peel of the onion. This has also been to steal HAMP money and defraud the HAMP funds. That crime is listed on the USA Complaint by the 50 AG’s. The banks claimed the people dropped out of the plan when they disqualified them after approving them. I and others were not told we were on a temp triial plan. We were told we were approved to pay the three payments on time and we would qualify for the final mod. And we not only paid three I paid five and some of my friends paid nine or more months.

  18. @ ANON…I do appreciate the information that you posted. But…that did not answer my questions about FHA mortgage insurance.

  19. enclavedebacle,

    Servicers tell you to be in default so that they have time to remove your “collection rights” cash pass-through from any bogus mortgage-backed trust they claim you were in. Again, these subprime trusts were not valid mortgage backed securities trusts. Securitization did NOT come from balance sheet receivables. There were no receivables, as these subprime trusts were simply cash pass-through of collection rights INCOME to already classified default debt.

    Three months gives them the opportunity to “SWAP OUT” the bogus pass-through — from the bogus trust.

    NO FINANCIAL STATEMENT accounting for receivables supports the subprime trusts. NONE. WHY? There were no receivables on any entities balance sheet because they were only debt collection rights — whose cash flows are reported on INCOME STATEMENTS — not balance sheets.

    Securitization of receivables??? NO — Bogus. Securitization of ASSIGNMENT of default debt cash flows??? YES. ALL supported by enhanced credit enhancement to generate higher ratings by rating agencies. Security investors know they were duped. But, security investors are NOT, and never were, your creditor.

    When will the homeowner get the same attention in court as the security investors??? The homeowners were the target — far worse than security investors fraud, who are sophisticated investors. Security investors should have know better, the Prospectus outlines the type of investment they were investing in. Not the same case for homeowners, they are considered not sophisticated. And, why is this not addressed? Because the government knows the price tag is too large. Would put banks out of commission.

    The subprime “MORTGAGE” (NOT mortgages) is the biggest sink-hole. Nothing in the AG settlement addresses these “loans.” NOTHING.


    Wasted time. SOL expiring. And, I still hear —- oh — those poor investors put up the money — and lost. NO NO NO.

    I have asked — multiple times —- distinguish between “security investors” and “investors.” NO ANSWER.

    And, we wonder why we are not winning. .

  20. @ALL…questions for the intelligent army…is it true that servicers tell you to be in default for at least 3 months before you qualify for a loan mod…TO GIVE THEM THE TIME TO COLLECT THEIR FHA MORTGAGE INSURANCE???

    Does the FHA have a 90 day payout?? I’ve been trying to get a citation on it and can’t find one. Does anyone have a reference for it??

  21. To All , I went to my bank to talk to a long time customer and friend whom was the manager at WAMU then CHASE and told her of my mod fraud and brought her proof of all the payments and coupons and the very scarce little paperwork that came with the mod coupons. I told her there had to be somekind of mistake. She personally called the servicer for me and talked to them, then she set the phone down with her mouth dropped open wide and said Oh my God, Shelley look at the mountain of keys piled up on my desk. I am leaving them there to show me and eveyone how many people are coming into the bank and handing in their keys with no fight left in them at all. Then she said find an attorney and save your house. So I did try to and continued to try to until my case got so far I was on my own. People loose their will and strength to fight the big banks. We beg them to fight the banks and do everything to save their homes. . .

  22. Chris, I agree non judicial foreclosure is a crime in itself. It is a set up to steal property the easiest way with the least resistance. The banksters love it. The judges enable it in all states. Once you go to court the judges throw you out on your heads in the lower courts. The higher courts are the courts that reverse the wrongs done. I wonder if they crooks exspect the homeowner to give up by then so they didnt place crooked judges in the higher courts. A large ammount of people just hand over their keys and walk away, then the few that try to get help in the lower courts give up then, very few take it farther and they need to.

  23. @ All

    I want to make sure we all see this:

    These are only pieces of this Act…there is a brief description which I’ll share: PUBLIC LAW 107-296-116 STAT. 2141 (15) NOV. 25, 2002

    (A) involves an act that; (i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructures or key resources; and (ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the USA or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and
    (B) appears to be intended- (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass

    This “excerpt” is a partial description of a “terrorist” act…read it carefully. It applies to everything we are living right now and “in my humble opinion” should be included in every complaint.

  24. @ All

    My personal thoughts…we should all be lobbying to cease non-judicial foreclosures. They are far too easy and the rule of law is broken every day, due to the lax and non-existent criteria used to enable them. We need to start somewhere. Again, for me, this is a beginning. The rules of the game, MUST change.


    What is the main objective in the game ‘Monopoly’? (Keep that in mind).

    As for convincing those in Government to act on justice, let me give one example.

    Now, we’ve all been given good advice from people in one way or another, that we knew in the back of our minds rang true, but chose to ignore it. That is, until what had been warned of had finaly directly affected us, and we were ultimately left with no choice but to face these problems.

    When people saw it happen to others, all they could think was “thank God I’m not them” and/or “that’ll never happen to me”. Now this is the current mentality of our ‘Public Officials’, and while they remain selfish the only logical way to force them to see things from our perspective, is to force them to undergo the same oppressive mistreatment that we have been subjected to. If we have no protections, then niether do they (Non-judicial Foreclosures are very popular throughout the country). And we should seek to do it pre-emptively, because it will in fact happen inevitably as it happened to us (when it will be too late). But prematurely, it could change the course in the right direction.

  27. Send in your whistleblowing complaints to the federal investigators and whiste blow on these foreclosure mills.

  28. It is amazing all the billions and trillions made on thin air and the trust me I am a banker law. Hearsay loans! NO MONEY EXCHANGE! NO MONEY EXCHANGE DURING THE STEATH OF THE HOMES EITHER.

  29. @ Anonymous

    You bet. Everyone who has touched my paperwork I either have complaint against or a claim. Even after the title company for my “unmarketable title”. Like you said, Federal Court, Fraudulent Conveyance and Cloud on Title, which makes your home, unsellable or transferable…who the hell would, in their right mind, want to buy it? District Court cannot hear that, no jurisdiction…at least not in NC.

    Like you I am sick of this crap, the lies, cheating, double dealing, etc…it’s all shit, frankly.

  30. chris,

    Not getting discovery in courts as we should. Courts are reluctant to hear anything. It was up to the US Government to investigate. Instead, they gave us a pansy AG settlement, which did nothing to investigate. NOTHING. Nevertheless, we must continue.

    You have good proof to start. What you need to do, is convince those at this site — to hear you. They have been denying the truth for quite some time — and that has affected the direction that foreclosure defense attorneys have taken. .

    Not sure if the reason for denial of the truth is pride, or just because they still do not get it here.

    Need to follow up with as much proof as you can — that court cannot deny. Need to file with every government agency you can think of, every document, everything you have. And, when they deny, need to refile again and again and again – over and over again.

    It take endless dedication to expose. ENDLESS dedication. And, I do not appreciate bogus “ideas” — from some here — that negate the real fraud that is going on. Such theories have made it all the more difficult to present the real fraud in courts of law.

    Time to end it.

  31. @ Anonymous

    On my “wire funding paperwork” I have notations from December 21, 2006 for a closing on February 27, 2007…this is what really stood out for me. I thought, how can that be? It is a copy, so it could not have been altered after the fact.

    I have been harping on the insurance for some time, no one will hear it…these unfunded loans were defaulted for insurance proceeds, long before the closing papers were signed.

    One more thing: the HUD says RBC was the lender…we asked for any documentation of the loan or funding. Received a letter 2 weeks ago, they know nothing of the loan.

    It all keeps coming back to the same place, like you said!

    Footnote: you cannot service something that does not exist, nor for money never lent.

  32. chris,

    Thanks. I have lived it.

    And, let me tell you, as soon as you walked in to refinance — wind spread like a wild fire. They knew — and they knew what they had to do.

    And, fraud continues to date.

    As I have said, insurance fraud to the hilt. But, what insurance fraud is part of the AG settlement??? If any at all???

    Whistle blower? For FHA insurance fraud? FHA insurance fraud not part of the settlement. So……??? What gives???

    WHAT IN THE HECK GIVES???????????????

    My point here — get your head out of the investor funding — BOGUS — BOGUS — BOGUS.

  33. enclavedebacle

    Means the loan was a default debt, before you refinanced. Thus, refinance only a modification of a (false) default debt.

    Security investors funded??? NO. Nothing was funded for this false subprime refinance/purchase. Insurance collected — thank you.

    In a trust? No. Only the receivables to default collection rights in those subprime trusts.

    Are these subprime trusts part of the settlement??? NO.

  34. @ Anonymous

    I GET IT!

    My stuff is all in Federal Court…trumps State. I have said repeatedly, there was no funding for my loan (most others too)…it was set up for default 2 months before I closed. Never could figure out why it took so long.

    Application in blank…abso”f”nlutely…default insurance. I gave them my assets, financials and tax returns…I was not sub-prime on paper…when you can fill in the blanks, you can make it anything you want to.

    We are chasing our tails here and it is right in your face and just my opinion…stay out of District Court.

    There was no loan…ever. That’s what all this posturing is all about. Hiding the dirty deeds and secrets.

    I AGREE WITH YOU…for what it’s worth.


  36. chris,

    Until there is a grip on fraudulent transfer and securitization of loans, we will not get anywhere.

    And, as long as the premise that “investors” put up the money is continued, we will lose, lose, lose.

    The subprime is DEFAULT DEBT — before borrowers signed on the bottom line. GET IT??? It is why the interest rate was so much higher, and why foreign countries wanted a piece of the “action.” And, US pension funds, and US governments. HIGHER FRAUDULENT INTEREST RATES ON ALREADY CLASSIFIED DEFAULT DEBT. That, my friend, is WHY they got the higher interest rates. Higher interest rate come with increased risk. Granted, rating agencies blew over, but, nevertheless, the risk remained. THIS WAS DEFAULT DEBT — collection rights —- to which the cash flows were fraudulently being securitized.

    THESE WERE NOT VALID MORTGAGES — and, were not mortgages supported by “investor” funding. Collection rights DO NOT require funding.

    Need for Neil to get over this. GET OVER IT. Perhaps, then, Neil and his groups can proceed with federal law that demands identification of the creditor to the collection rights. We have lost it here. Lost it.

    Time to regroup. STOP being proud. It is over without a “regrouping.”

  37. @ALL…just got the Title Insurance policy and the only entities on it are pro se and the original Lender. This Lender and its successor and assigns relinquished in a Stipulation Order…the order was signed by the judge. On the cover sheet of the policy there is NO Reissue or Substitution Information that is all blank.

    QUESTIONS: The mortgage was insured in Fee Simple. What are the implications of that? Yup I looked up and read the vague definitions…I still don’t understand.

    What are the ramifications of this? Does it mean that pro se holds the title??????

    @Shelly…thanks for your last post to me. Please keep the advise coming.

  38. And, I will go further, here, as I am furious as to the wasted time that has elapsed regarding challenge of bogus foreclosures.

    Federal law preempts state law. Federal law has stated that the creditor is NOT the trust, not security investors, and not the servicer. Nevertheless, we have seen continued effort, here, to promote “security investors” as the creditor. Thus, we are left with courts that are in the dark, have no idea as to federal law itself, and continue to abuse foreclosure defense attorneys who focus on one avenue.

    The creditor IS NOT the trust — or security investors. Producing the NOTE is meaningless — even if the NOTE was validly conveyed to the trust, which it was not.

    I have walked away from this site because the bogus theories that have gotten victims nowhere — continue here. But, when I see a case like this, and, the inability of attorneys to rightfully — and correctly — challenge — I am infuriated.

    NO SECURITY INVESTORS OWN YOUR LOAN. PRODUCTION OF THE NOTE is irrelevant. The only relevance is identification of the actual creditor by FEDERAL LAW.

    So frustrating to see this site go on and on — with nothing as to the real truth divulged.

    Need some major changes here. It is not for me — I have no personal interest. It is for you.

    Number One — get rid of the false notion that “security investors” funded your loan. Until you get rid of that notion — -you will continue to lose and lose and lose.

    IT is OVER — by that theory. .

  39. @ ian

    Subtitle B: Bank Secrecy Act Amendments and Related Improvements –

    (Sec. 352) Authorizes the Secretary to exempt from minimum standards for anti-money laundering programs any financial institution not subject to certain regulations governing financial record keeping and reporting of currency and foreign transactions.

    (Sec. 353) Establishes civil penalties for violations of geographic targeting orders and structuring transactions to evade certain record keeping requirements. Lengthens the effective period of geographic targeting orders from 60 to 180 days.

    (Sec. 355) Amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to permit written employment references to contain suspicions of involvement in illegal activity.

    (Sec. 356) Instructs the Secretary to: (1) promulgate regulations requiring registered securities brokers and dealers, futures commission merchants, commodity trading advisers, and commodity pool operators, to file reports of suspicious financial transactions; (2) report to Congress on the role of the Internal Revenue Service in the administration of the Bank Secrecy Act; and (3) share monetary instruments transactions records upon request of a U.S. intelligence agency for use in the conduct of intelligence or counterintelligence activities, including analysis, to protect against international terrorism.

    (Sec. 358) Amends the Right to Financial Privacy Act to permit the transfer of financial records to other agencies or departments upon certification that the records are relevant to intelligence or counterintelligence activities related to international terrorism.

    Amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require a consumer reporting agency to furnish all information in a consumer’s file to a government agency upon certification that the records are relevant to intelligence or counterintelligence activities related to international terrorism.

    (Sec. 359) Subjects to mandatory records and reports on monetary instruments transactions any licensed sender of money or any other person who engages as a business in the transmission of funds, including through an informal value transfer banking system or network (e.g., hawala) of people facilitating the transfer of money domestically or internationally outside of the conventional financial institutions system.

    (Sec. 360) Authorizes the Secretary to instruct the United States Executive Director of each international financial institution to use his or her voice and vote to: (1) support the use of funds for a country (and its institutions) which contributes to U.S. efforts against international terrorism; and (2) require an auditing of disbursements to ensure that no funds are paid to persons who commit or support terrorism.

    (Sec. 361) Makes the existing Financial Crimes Enforcement Network a bureau in the Department of the Treasury.

    (Sec. 362) Directs the Secretary to establish a highly secure network in the Network that allows financial institutions to file certain reports and receive alerts and other information regarding suspicious activities warranting immediate and enhanced scrutiny.

    (Sec. 363) Increases to $1 million the maximum civil penalties (currently $10,000) and criminal fines (currently $250,000) for money laundering. Sets a minimum civil penalty and criminal fine of double the amount of the illegal transaction.

    (Sec. 365) Amends Federal law to require reports relating to coins and currency of more than $10,000 received in a nonfinancial trade or business.

    (Sec. 366) Directs the Secretary to study and report to Congress on: (1) the possible expansion of the currency transaction reporting requirements exemption system; and (2) methods for improving financial institution utilization of the system as a way of reducing the submission of currency transaction reports that have little or no value for law enforcement purposes.

    Subtitle C: Currency Crimes – Establishes as a bulk cash smuggling felony the knowing concealment and attempted transport (or transfer) across U.S. borders of currency and monetary instruments in excess of $10,000, with intent to evade specified currency reporting requirements.

    (Sec. 372) Changes from discretionary to mandatory a court’s authority to order, as part of a criminal sentence, forfeiture of all property involved in certain currency reporting offenses. Leaves a court discretion to order civil forfeitures in money laundering cases.

    (Sec. 373) Amends the Federal criminal code to revise the prohibition of unlicensed (currently, illegal) money transmitting businesses.

    (Sec. 374) Increases the criminal penalties for counterfeiting domestic and foreign currency and obligations.

    (Sec. 376) Amends the Federal criminal code to extend the prohibition against the laundering of money instruments to specified proceeds of terrorism.

    (Sec. 377) Grants the United States extraterritorial jurisdiction where: (1) an offense committed outside the United States involves an access device issued, owned, managed, or controlled by a financial institution, account issuer, credit card system member, or other entity within U.S. jurisdiction; and (2) the person committing the offense transports, delivers, conveys, transfers to or through, or otherwise stores, secrets, or holds within U.S. jurisdiction any article used to assist in the commission of the offense or the proceeds of such offense or property derived from it.

    These are only pieces of this Act…there is a brief description which I’ll share: PUBLIC LAW 107-296-116 STAT. 2141 (15) NOV. 25, 2002

    (A) involves an act that; (i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructures or key resources; and (ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the USA or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and
    (B) appears to be intended- (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass

    Just a blip, but I see it…very clear this IS what is going on here!

  40. Mind you — I NEVER advocated the “show me the note” strategy.

    But, what comes next??

    Get on the right track.

  41. Well — new Minnesota case just came down. Sanctions against foreclosure defense attorney — for “frivolous litigation” —- “SHOW ME THE NOTE.” See below.

    No one knows where any money is going. Government does not care. All anyone cares about is —- I WANT YOUR MONEY/HOME. Where is this money going??? What can we do actually get a government investigation??? Each and every piece of the American homeowner is being torn away, by concealment and fraud.

    What do we have left? To claim investors put up the money?? — and investors should be compensated.? WHAT investors??? WHO AND WHAT, AND WHERE, AND HOW. NO Investors put up a dime for your subprime loan. NO INVESTORS. But, suddenly, there are “investors” that claim a right to your home.

    Frightening — each and every piece of you — silenced away.




    Bank of New York,

    Case No. 11-CV-2676 (PJS/JJK)

  42. Dont exspect the new owners to be friends. They are going to take the defense against you. This is their home now in their minds and they are not going to be any happier than we are to have to defend it.

  43. I have claimed economic terrorism in my brief. I loaded it with everything but the kitchen sink. The litigator attorney I took it to told me I had loaded it with everything but the kitchen sink and he could add no more, so file it I may win. So I did! I have some terminology on this. This is also covered in the US Consittution somewhere I believe. I have not had to bring it up for a while. When I pulled up the FBI sights on the web to report ecnomic fraud, it stated economic crime is considered to be an act of terrorism. My complaint is we are told the FBI is in charge of terrorism, and does not have enough agents to fight mortgage fraud. Well according to their own sight this is terrorism. Scratch your head on that one. Our government at work for us, but not hard at work, but hardly at work. There is a portion of the partriot act that states filing false affidaitts on public record for the purpose to steal property is an act of terrorism. Another item to dig up for you, when I have a moment.

  44. Dying Truth, you are dead right on!

  45. chris- you just mentioned terrorism, I understand that ‘economic terrorism’ is covered under the Homeland Security Act. And if what we are all following, studying,and living here on this site isn’t economic terrorism, I don’t know what is.
    Can you post the relevant portion(s) of the Homeland Security Act here? I am running out the door, just wanted to check the comments and mull any new developments over.
    A lawsuit/qui tam/ whistleblower suit alleging economic terrorism would be the way to go, I believe. I will have some time the next couple of days and will dig into it as well.

  46. Fascism is exactly what we have for government. I agree.

    We have corporate “terrorists” read the definition of terrorism/terrorists in the Homeland Security Act.

    We have treason…that is very well defined also.

    Corporate entities have stolen our resources, homes, livelihoods, pensions, 401k’s, social security and our credit worthiness, marketability, reputations, health (genetically altered food?) and the very future of our off-springs solvency and freedooms.

    This government is no joke…if their lips are moving they are lying, all of them. People really need to understand what is going on in our country…it does not belong to us any longer. I know this sounds paranoid, but everything we knew to be true is a lie. Criminal behavior is now the norm and far to many of us are blinded, by the very idea that they are okay…yes, right now many are, but it will not stay that way. These problems will affect all of us, at some point in the future.

    My $.02 This corporate behavior is very, very scarey…


  48. shelley- the new owners were given clouded title
    they should joinder
    not legal advice just putting it out there
    dwell in possibility : ))

  49. When you sue the new owners that will start an awakening of the problem and help stop the sales by the crooks. People will be aware of the conflict and court cases against the new homeowners, that have purchased stolen property and it will bite the foreclosures in the butt..

  50. You would all do well to read up on what exactly “Fascism” is, and then see if it fits in with all of the ‘Public(Government)-Private(Corporate)’ Partnerships that seem to be everywhere you look. Then realize that Regime Change is not needed abroad, it’s needed at Home.


  52. Enclavedebackle, pro ses have won mortgage cases. Being intimidated not to even try is part of the crime against us and the U.S. Constitution. We have that right by the rule of law to seek justice. Most of us can not find nor afford an attorney and that is another injustice. The banks are broke, they have ran their businesses in the dirt. They are supported by our tax dollars to fight against us and we are left in the dust as dead beats when the banks are dead beats to pay for our justice or fight hand to hand combat in court ourselves. Dont be intimidated by anyone to seek justice. If a pro se screws up the judges can see the case was a pro se case. We have the constitutional right to seek justice. The banks want us to run the other way and walk out on our homes. A lot of us have tried to find and pay attorneys and gotten nowhere, even screwed. We are happy to pay attorneys if we can even find them. If you find a good one , the good attorneys have been threatened in Washington State (rumored by the bar). We are left to fight for our selves. A man I know in Delaware paid over 100,000.00 for an attorney that left him foreclosed on and he is starting to win his own case, just having a big win recently against a notary that has been decommissioned for life. I was told never to open a business of my own it had a big chance to fail, the satistics were against me. I am in that same business thirty one years later. This has set me back but I am gaining once again. Since I recieved the letter of disqualification after making five mod payments on time, and being approved I have increased my income dramatically again, taking other avenues to make money and am adding more. I was at over an $800,000.00 gross profit income and a 155,000.00 net income a year before this ecnomic disaster. I am finding ways to regain my income back despite this catastropy. I started my business during the 1980’s economic crises caused by the Savings and Loans, which is why MERS was invented to skirt around the legal system and county records to move unmovable loans. I have had my battles. I dont let people discourage me. We will survive this battle. .


  54. Does anyone have any pleadings in an Orange Co., CA Probate case involving Deutsche as Petitioner? Case no. 30-2009-00300317

  55. Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Re: County of Los Angeles Department of Consumer Affairs Complaint

    Complaint Summary: Wells Fargo Bank has fraudulently altered Barry Fagan’s Deed of Trust. Barry Fagan has recorded all 3 versions of the same deed of trust with the Los Angeles Registrar Recorders Office on November 29, 2011 as instrument no. 2011-1608398. The recorded Notice of Pendency of Action showing three different versions of that same July 9, 2007 Deed of Trust as originally recorded under instrument no. 2007-1622100. Judge Tarle, of The Superior Court of California, West District has taken Judicial Notice of that Recorded Document. Barry Fagan has submitted credible evidence from a forensic document examiner with over 20 years of experience that multiple fraudulent alterations have occurred on the “Handwritten Number page 4” which is located on page 3/4 of the Deed of Trust. All of the Deeds of Trust now reflect an entirely different handwritten NUMBER 4, and one of the exhibits also has a snake like line drawn on it, which is not present on the other two exhibits. C.P.A. Shawn P. Adamo stated: “It is my professional opinion that the altered deed of trust is concealing an irrevocable assignment, and explains why Wells Fargo is unable to produce loan level accounting concerning Mr. Fagan’s loan. Wells Fargo claims that any level of detail relating to Mr. Fagan’s mortgage is non- existent. As a result, C.P.A. Shawn Adamo provided two expert opinions, one an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury dated January 24, 2012 and the other is a Feb. 6, 2012 complaint letter sent to various regulatory agencies explaining that Wells Fargo Bank has failed to provide a loan level balance sheet accounting and is concealing the fact that they do not own Barry Fagan’s loan. Wells Fargo is a criminal enterprise that is attempting to assert rights over Barry Fagan’s primary residence by way of fraudulently altered documents, and Barry Fagan’s recorded documents needs to be investigated at the highest level within your organization to see that a crime has actually occurred!
    Involves Real Estate Fraud?: Yes
    Recorded Document #: 2011-1608398

  56. Virginia AG will allow an unethical dead beat bank to get a free house though, after wind fall securities fraud and money out of thin air. Our AG’s are on the wrong side of the isle. Their pay that pays their house payments are for a position to protect the consumer not the consumee, parasite , sucking our blood and collecting free houses. Only the strong shall survive attitude.

  57. enclavedebackle, that was a good move. The lender can not change hands as you obviously know after the default, and they all have as far as I have witnessed and then a third time for some. My sons changed hands while in the Appeals court. And after foreclosure. I checked the county records for him several weeks ago to make sure no one was pulling anything and behold!!! RECONTRUST foreclosing company, had taken all the fraud MERS docs with robo signer G. Hernandez and Chrystl Moore, and posted a withdrawl of foreclosure. Then assigned the fraud assignment to BAC. Which he iimmediately objected to and sent a letter to remove BAC. Then my son recieved a letter asking him to sign for approval to change the party the attorney firm represented to Countrywide. Like he would do that! He is in Appeal for fraud upon the court, misrepresentation and lack of standing ammong other claims. We are awaiting the judgment and get this letter. Whoa! My son feels good about this and so do I. Hope we are not disappointed. A copy of the letter and response was sent to the Appeals court. Wonder what the judges think of this.

  58. If you have a trust and trustee named in foreclosure, you are not included in the Attorney General settlement. AG settlement is only for bank owned loans that also service the loan.

    What you have is a “private investor” loan. That private investor securitized the receivables to already classified non-compliant/default loan. Those securitized receivables “securities” are largely with the U.S. Government as toxic assets – with collection rights being disposed of to non-identified distressed debt buyers. The collection rights are disposed of via default swaps to the trusts that are no longer performing.

    Biggest obstacle is the statute of limitations. Governments has failed to investigate and negotiate a deal with the “investors” that purchased collection rights to the non-compliant/default loans, whereby receivables were falsely securitized into toxic (false) mortgage backed securities. These so called “investors” to so called trusts, collected insurance on default debt — whether or not there was an actual default. They falsely present to borrower as a refinance, and then they later collect the proceeds to the home via false foreclosure.

    When you got your subprime “private investor” refinance/jumbo purchase, no investors financed your loan. This is contrary to the myth that is often perpetrated here. Your loan was “paid out” by default/non-compliant insurance, with collection rights assigned to your new private “investor.” Only the servicer, hired by the private investor, is visible to the borrower. The private investor acquired collection rights to your refinance/purchase without ever putting up a dime. These private investors (debt buyers) were largely the banks, but these bogus “deals” are not part of the AG settlement.

    Then the ‘private investor’ securitized the receivables to your false mortgage loan. Security investors to the fake MBS, only purchased the right to pass-through of your payments to a false mortgage — which is nothing more than collection rights. with those collection rights paid out by insurance. Your refinance was a “modification” of the collection rights.

    When you signed for the refinance, you thought your prior loan was paid off by you. Nope. Nothing paid off by you— did not not need to be, insurance already paid out.

    So, let’s get off the kick of “investors” funding the loans. Nothing was funded by subprime “lending”, there was no reason for funding.

    Will victims ever get an investigation?? Do not think so. SOL is gone. But, of course, equitable tolling applies.

    And, as to the judges, all they care about is you owe the money. Do not care to who, and do not care if the debt is unsecured (which it is).

    What you need is proof — prior mortgage not paid off — by you. Start at the beginning.


  59. @Shelley…I would really like that prose article you were trying to find if you do find it…thanks for another telling post..

    Safety is in numbers…yes? I agree with the media thing. Maybe someone should start by writing an article? Call CNN? Just guessing.

    Virginia’s AG gave his opinion to the recent bank deal I can’t quote him because it made me sick but this is an approx: I will not support any deals or regulations that would allow a deadbeat to get a free house.

  60. Debora Wynn, I agree, this has been a well organized betrayal at all peels of the onion, by all peels of the layers of government, a well orchestrated crime. I do believe the cloaks are coming off and the perpetrators are being unveiled and are becoming naked like the king who had no clothes. We are seeing the bailing out of rats off their ships like no other time, and I believe the crooks have come to the end of their rope and they are becoming “stark naked”, the crime transparent and they are ratting on each other. The end of their reign is near. The bought judges are looking stupid and are afraid to make decissions, that will put egg on their honorable I mean horriable faces and the truth shall set us free. I am getting carried away! But it feels good.

  61. Let us in on the idea? Perhaps we can all look for the right media. ten heads are better than one in most cases, not always.

  62. I was trying to find a PRO SE article I found a while back, however could not find it. It went like this ” It used to be only a fool represents himself, no it goes only a fool hires a fool for an attorney. No offense to good attorneys. I know there are great attorneys. I know there are great judges, but there are far more bad judges and attorneys than good. One good attorney in our area started off to fight the world and was threatened not to even show up at a meeting in Tukwilla on clouded titles. He didnt and he has backed off for now. I pray he gets the anger and strength to battle this corruption. I was at that meeting and purchased a book from Dave Krieger and have his auto graph on it. He is a talented man with an out of the box way of thinking and is very intellligent. I knew the entire meeting was being watched and Dave had to be careful of what he said and how it came across. I would have loved to be at a meeting where he knew he was not being monitored. I am sure the meeting would have gone differently. The one thing he could not resist while trying to pat the AG on the back for doing nothing for Washington, he said the AG had the most outrageous ridiculous statement on his web site. it says if you are having toubles with your mortgage call your bank. That is like calling in the devil to turn off the heat! Bloody stupid statement. However that is just how much help our AG is. I will give him credit for an Amicus Curiea in support of Bains case and agianst MERS. Not sure what he is up to unless he knows it wont fly. Dont trust him at all. If you go onto the clouded titles web, you will find a post of the champaign donations to Rob McKenna from foreclosure mills. After Dave Kieger exposed this and I plastered it all over the web and on face book three days later Rob McKenna refunded the money and claims it was no coincidence, but was planned. UH HUH! Rob McKenna knows all the foreclosures are not in compliance with state laws and only filed a complaint against RECONTRUS, when it should have been all of them. RECONTRUST has been under the heat in several states including Utah. BAC was coming into the Washington area to take over for RECONTRUST, having been in the heat and Rob McKenna knew it and filed against one entity and we will wait and see if he wins or throws it under the table and if the homeowners that were unlawfully foreclosed on get their homes back or not. No trust what so ever in our AG. I have sent him proof of the crimes of the mayor in my city has committed and deposititions to prove it and nothing has happened to this mayor. I am probably on a hit list.

  63. @Shelley…I do agree with your last post. We all know it was dead wrong from the start. Getting a judge to listen is the problem. Pro se did a good job at his first hearing. He posed a question to the judge about the fraudulent date stated in a pleading about the assignment. the banksters stated that the assignment was executed on March 3, 2006…gee whiz…the deed was recorded on March 8th…and the assignment was dated July 18, 2011.

    Pro se on the stand scared out of his wits…respectfully asked the judge to help him understand how an assignment could be executed before the deed was recorded.

    Well…the banksters thought that pro se was not that smart. They began to lie through their teeth about everything. It was actually amusing to watch!

  64. @ Abby

    I think you have a good point. You know me well enough…if it moves and touched my paperwork, sue it or file a claim!

    My deceased father lost his beach home ’cause I did nothing…back then I was blind. He was a man of modest means and worked his entire life to die by the water, which he never really got to do, because he became paralyzed after a by-pass, which is another story.

    I have been pondering that for some time now, but am up to my neck in my own drama. The bank never gave notice, straw buyer, MERS, etc…you all know the drill. We never even knew the house was sold, until we drove by one day and someone was moving in.

    Definitely on my “bucket list”…for my dad.

  65. shelley, you gave me an idea. i just gotta find the right media,

  66. Enclavedebackle, I have news for you, this system has crashed and is broken! The rule of law does not stand in the lower courts. The Constitution has been road raged run over by a MAC truck and is road kill. We have been betrayed, therefore we are fighting for America not just a material house. We are fighting to get the American dream out of the worst nightmare we have ever had and can not wake up from., for now! I believe we will win this battle. And yes I agree ” give them enough rope and they will hang themselve”. They are at the end of their rope and we are pullling them over the cliff! We must keep a tight rope until they are hung high!

  67. you know not all lawyers are cold hearted or blind to whats happening
    they have been taught history and know god. deep down they know they are not in truth and i have seen the discomfort in their eyes. maybe more lawyers will rise to their highest calling. i hope so.

  68. @ALL…I think that one of the most important question for the banksters is: Who held the mortgage as an asset BEFORE the debtor went into default?

    I asked that in the Request for Admissions…one Defendant at a time. I will tell you how that question went when they answer to the Request.

    As a matter of fact…if we gain any ground or get a success story I will share my pleadings with anyone that needs them.

  69. Enclavedebackle! Everything from the starting gate is unlawful and unconscionable, and unconstitutional. The fact we have been abandoned by our regulators, our government represenatives, our judges, and many a poor lawyer, defenseless against this outrageous crime, is unconstitutional. For our government represenatives have taken the office to protect the consumers, the tax payers, and not allow this to happen to us. They should be amongst the top parties in the food chain to sue for breach of oath of office. The tax payers shoud be protected by them not forking out thousands for protection. However good attorneys have to be paid. Problem is they are hard to find and so many have paid thousands upon thousands for attorneys that were either incompetent, or unqulified or corrupt, or good and had no chance against the corrupt judges. This entire situation is unimaginable, unthinkable, a hell none of us thought would ever happen in America. I learned a long time ago I can trust me. So I am doing my best to figure this out and to help the next party that is new to this, with hope someone with more knowledge than myself will be there for me and in a holding pattern, hoping for justice from the Appeals court. With all the proof, evidence, reports, case law and my own material proof, I can not immagin a judge that knows any of this would throw me to the wolves. So I pray and hope and dig for more truth and hope I help others to dig ourselves out of this bottomless pit of hell nightmare.

    While at was at a Senate meeting attempting to support a bill that would make MERS transparent, the CEO of MERS sat infront of me Hullsman himself, declaring MERS had done the public a big favor, saving us 180.00 a closing we would have been charged for at closing to record our records. OH MY! OH MY! He should have said but it back fired and now they have to spend thousands upon thousands on litigation and loose their houses to thieves I am surprized the crowd did not lynch him.

  70. @all
    I have friends who are now suing the broker and realtor who listed house post foreclosure. Instead of writing them letters…sue.
    and along with new home owners!

  71. i still believe if you tread carefully and ask god to move the mountain,
    and be very brave….then the tide will turn
    as my dad used to say ” give em enough rope, theyll hang themselves”
    whats done is done, its on the record- create the record, get the transcripts and studty, buy west FRCP- half price on amazon used

  72. carie- it appears its all driven by computer,(by design- plausible deniability) lender processing services was on the letter head to move my things out.

  73. judges do not want a pro se er telloing them they are wrong
    sure, its error of law.

  74. @ALL…Pro se and I have been told at the outset of the QT. That we were crazy…the big banks have big lawyers and we didn’t have a chance. Well what I have learned is that the bigger the bank and the bigger the law firm the bigger their mistakes get.

    Their problem is…they count on us to be stupid. Stupid we are NOT! Ill informed and sometimes ill guided by counsel and the court.

    If we survive our mistakes…we may get a second chance. So…I feel strongly that it is as important to share our mistakes along with our victories.

    What do y’all think?

  75. @ALL…can we get a show of hands. How many here think that being forced to pay 35k to be heard in court is Unconstitutional?

  76. @ Shelly…walk softly but carry a big stick. The big stick being EVIDENCE of fraud.

    Judges don’t want to hear fraud…they prefer…misstatements of facts…yup…no matter how egregious or unconscionable…it was just a misstatement.

    I don’t want to crash the system…I just want to shake the tree gently until the apples fall.

  77. @ALL…in my experience hearing and not blocking out a controversial opinion is a great learning experience. Intellectual debates are great. Sometimes an opposing opinion sheds light on an angle that you have not yet, through personal experience, encountered.

    You can quote me on this I am quoted often in scientific articles: “Bias is the greatest block to wisdom.”

  78. I would like to do just the opposite and begin a drive with filed lawsuits against all the judges for using their power to make their own unconstitutional rules, Breaching their of oath of Office, instead of judging by the rule of law. For I “ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE” if the judges adjudicate by the rule of law, there would not be one foreclosure. The judges need to be held accountable. But then I am pretty determined to fight this crimes no matter how complex it is. I am pretty stubborn. Not afraid to step on the toes of judges in black robes whom are overstepping their powers. The judges are not suppose to make law they are suppose to uphold the law. Especially the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is road kill and these judges are responsible for the thousands of homeless, enablers of this crime. The judges are our biggest foe when they do not uphold the law. This is exactly why Melissa Huelsman asks the U.S. Supreme judges in Olympia, Washington, the biggest federal question is “does the rule of law still stand in Washington State?” for I believe if it does there should be no foreclosed and dismissed with prejudice SMJ out of court without discovery cases. Which is what happens every time. When I hired her (Melissa ) in December of 2009, she decided the judges would not adjudicate for the homeowner no matter what, they were siding with the banks no matter what, and she would not win my case so I should go bankrutcy chapter 13. I totally disagreed, and went Pro Se. She told me she could take my case and then must have woke up to the fruad upon the court by the judges themselve.

  79. Send them a email to Clouded titles.

  80. @Chris,

    We all know that fraud is endemic. Even the judges. No one wants to tackle it and judges will want to address it even less now that the AGs haven openly condoned it with their “settlement”.

    Even though it is an argument that has its weight, it is also an argument that will be more difficult to prevail on: in judges mind, since the AGs have decided not to prosecute, they will not want to touch it with a 20 foot pole. Too risky for their career. Another aspect of that “Me first” mentality that dominates this country.

    That’s why I advise pro se’s to downplay it. It really is the best way to piss off a judge and shed a bad light on the homeowner’s motives. But all the power to those who use it successfully. It’s like securitization or lack thereof: some attorneys have scored very big with it. It is not the majority, though. Better to remain down to earth. Keep in mind that Enclve’s pro se is in VA. The least homeowner friendly state of the Union and all the politicians live there. Quite a hurdle to overcome!

  81. To Everyone! Try this!

    Send a letter to the realtor and the vultures and let them know they are on notice that they are engaged in fraud, a felony, terrorisom and theft of property by false affidavits filed in the public for the purpose of stealing property . Give notice they are aware they are selling clouded titles and stolen homes and you will hold them liable for you intend to defend your now stolen property from such theives. You are on notice this is an act of terrorism for the taking of property. Then give notice to the new purchaser that they are on notice of purchasing stolen property and have a clouded title, that you will hold them liable for this stolen property and intend to defend your property rights. See how many houses sell after multiple people defend their homes with these letters. How many new homeowners are going to check into this and start a problem for the theive foreclosures? Just my two cents.

  82. @ carie

    I have several acquaintances in real estate…they are selling REO’s, short sales, etc…straw men, the whole nine yards. One of them keeps sending me emails about how great he’s doing and I need to see his inventory. I told him: please quit sending me these, as I cannot even look at the carnage anymore, I am living it. Consequently, he writes me back and says; all of our inventory is marketable, clean titled, etc…well, most of you here know me, so, I said Really…and you know that how? Oh, because we have lawyers, 3 lawyers and they say so. I said well okay then, please quit sending me this stuff, ’cause I’m not buying the “victimless” and “marketable title” thing. And for the record, when the dust settles, you may be the party whom gets sued for misrepresenting the home and title and all of your 3 lawyers for lying and fraudulent transfers. Needless to say, he is not happy with my response. Do I care; NO…it is my job to not be party to this. It is wrong and perpetuates the sin!

    That’s where the realtors stand! It is still about the money. They have forgotten about their neighbors, families and friends.

  83. @ Shelly

    I am certainly not offended when someone disagrees, in some instances they have a different point of view and am ALWAYS open the possibility of changing direction.

    If you read the post, it says “I respectfully disagree with Chris, we have fraud” Now, I am not upset…but I am painfully aware we have fraud. I am living the nightmare of it each and every day. Please keep my comments in context…Fraud is why we are all here at the basic level! How my comment got turned around…who knows. I’ll read it again, to make sure I didn’t say that. ‘Cause that’s surely not what I meant.

  84. @Deborah,

    Yes, they ARE vultures…oh, but they are just “doing their job”, right? I mean, SOMEBODY has to buy and sell houses…We are pitted against each other—no way around it. Anyone out there who is or knows a real estate agent/realtor needs to start having conversations with them—because if they aren’t being open about what’s really going on with these foreclosures, then they are also the enemy…

    When the foreclosure mill/debt collector sold my home at the trustee’s sale, I later got TWO—yes, TWO “Notice To Quit” letters in the mail—one was from Deutsche and the other from the real estate investor who bought at auction…this proves they were on “automatic” and the foreclosure mill just sent the letter from “Deutsche” without even knowing what was going on…disgusting.

  85. @Shelley,

    “Advisement”, careful consideration. True. As in “Jeez, this is a new one on me, I don’t know what to do and how to rule. I’ll put it on the side and chew on it for a while. If I’m lucky, some other judge will have a similar case and will issue a ruling. If it gets appealed, I’ll know what not to do. In the meantime, I won’t allow it to bother me… too much”

    “Careful” is the key word. Careful not to disrupt a judge’s career, not to make too many waves, not to compromise a good thing that pays well, that kind of careful.

    And judges know damn well that no one in his right mind will file anything to speed up a decision. That’s a killer for any case since it is a perceived slap in the judge’s face. Those little boys and girls in black robe have pride the size of Texas!

    its not a question of that, i dont need to be right, i need justice, but fighting for it sure as hell doesnt make me happy but, i am satisfied that i chose to fight anyway despite the 90 degree playing feild. fighting is my way of protecting myself from the depressingly oppressive court system we face, especially pro se. who can afford an attorney $450 bucks up.




  88. Chris don’t be offended if someown disagrees with you. I have thrown the book at my opposition. Does not mean it was a good thing to do, does not mean it was not. I will find out. Neil G. has said to keep it simple. I tend to make every thing complicated and harder. We need to see opinions on choices. Not everyone agrees on everything. And no ones going to hold anyone responsible for our two cents. If I am wrong I want to be constructively critized or corrected. Dont want any misinformantion to anyone. That only causes us harm. I am the first one to addmit a mistake if it is a mistake and no one has the same opinion or sees the same way, or takes it the same way. Neil has a lot of great advice on his articles. A lot of free help on his notices and letters and columns on the side of his blog. We are just trying to put a lot of heads together with input to help each other. If it helps someone we have gained a mile stone. A lot of new comers to this nightmare, that need help and to know what we have learned. They have a better chance than the ones of us whom were newbees two years ago. Judges are wakiing up or are not wanting to make a decision they will regret.

  89. Javagold, not sure why they are now calling themselves servicers. Unless they are trying to hide they are debt collectors. And debt collectors is out of the bag. Look at the info earlier on this post given to read the difference between a servicer and a debt collector. The FDCPA info. I believe they are just trying to hide they are the debt collector. Any one else have an input on this? This is not an easy hill to climb. Dont give up! We are way ahead of where we were just a year ago. Make sure you answer all letters and object to their false claims of having authourity to contact you or represent this alleged debt. Send the FDCPA letter if you have not.

  90. Tying an article on the Amicus from a different web site to !


  92. This is the seventh time I have tried to post this article I am now going to divide them into smaller posting and see if it works.

    Use the important list of case law and arguments from these articles and cases. I can not express enough, these (none of them) foreclosures are noin compliance with state CPA law nor State Deed of Trust law: This is a treble damages issue. Not just BOA and RECONTRUST & MERS, none of them! Check it out.

    OCC letter:

  93. Enclavedebacle, I looked up advisement and it says “Careful consideration, deliberation (quote as “the judge took the matter under advisement and promised a ruling the next day”.) Is what Blacks law dictionary states. Purchase a Blacks law dictionary you will need it.

  94. @ Enclave

    Ethical…hmmmm. I know they think so, for me…a RESOUNDING NO! Taking advantage of the disadvantaged, victims…wow!

    “just to hear your grievances”

    It is a lot bigger than that. We have Fraud, forgery, lack of authority, broken contracts of the PSA’s, cheating the IRS and local taxpayers out of revenue (MERS), fraud on the court, perjury, insurance fraud, grand theft, the list is long…and you should have to pay tens-of-thousands of dollars to defend yourself. When all you have done is fallen in a bad situation and got behind on your payments? Last time I checked that was not a crime, but the aforementioned list of the “parasites and thugs” behavior is. It is just my opinion, but paying to defend yourself against the perpetrator/ thief of your property/land is “unconscionable” in this country.

    My thoughts…try and negotiate a payment plan with an attorney. One thing about that is: if he or she is incompetent, fire them. If you put all that money up front, you are stuck. That kind of money should only be paid to someone who has a PROVEN track record. Don’t take the bait, ’cause your desperate. The lawyers can be parasites too.

    My $.02

  95. @Enclave,

    I can’t answer your question of ethics.

    On the basis of our constitution, no it isn’t ethical. Actually, I probably is unconstitutional but i haven’t seen it raised yet and if it does become raised, it will have to be by the many versus the very few. We are all owed due process and forcing anyone to shell out $35K in order to even be heard is a violation of our consitutional rights as i see it. Waiting for more people to unite over that issue.

    And yet… it is perfectly in line with what this country has become all about: money rules. Look at this monumental joke that the primaries have become. They all tally up how much money they can spend destroying their opponents. Not offering solutions, mind you. Simply destroying their opponents. In the big scheme of things, it is what it is, well aligned with everything else going on in the world.

    Doesn’t mean that it won’t be reversed. I truly believe this year will be all about that.

  96. @Enclave and Chris…I appreciate all of your unique insight and I thank you both for it.

  97. @ALL…I have an ethical question to pose.

    It seems to me that: the only way to get justice is to pay 35k to an att. for it. it also seems that a pro se will not get justice because they do not have the ability to pay all of the players in the system. The food chain, so to speak, in the legal system.

    Now the question:
    Is it ethical to impose a 35K charge on a human being…just to get your grievances heard in court? (35k is just an estimate I was quoted I am sure the price varies.)

    I know that this will spark some controversy here…and an intellectual debate is a good debate and NOT an argument.

    in science when you pose a new theory for pier review…it is not in the form of an argument it is in the form of a debate.

  98. @Shelley…thanks for the SJC video I did watch it. To a pro se the devil is in the detail. One of the most important details is how do you plead…more specifically how do you speak it. Pro se and I watch every video we can find.

  99. @Enclave,

    Appeals court decisions are what creates significant case law. That’s why, as much as possible, I always advise people to appeal what they believe is a bad judge decision. It can only yield one of two results: the case wins on appeal and the original judge gets red in the face or it loses on appeal and this is it. Either way, homeowners who appeals don’t have anything to lose by appealing (except legal costs but the stakes often are worth it).

    And next time around, judges will look twice at the original cases presented. If appeals were already won on something similar as what they’re ruling on, they’ll be very, very careful not to open themselves up for appeal.

    Banks hate to lose on appeal for the very same reasons: once a decision has been made in one case, it becomes more difficult for them to find a judge not aware of it and willing to rule on their favor if there exist grounds for a successful appeal.

    Learning to play the game is a real bitch. But it’s worth it in the end.

  100. @Enclave,

    And I did once have a BK 13 that was botched (a lot of those out there). It wasn’t confirmed by the trustee. Cost me $2,500 for nothing but I got all my payments back, minus the trustee’s fees. I bought me a year of peace. After discharge, all the JDBs woke up and started suing. They all act the same: no standing because they can’t prove how much they paid for that one specific debt they suing about. At first, I simply got them dismissed. After a while on this site and others, I realized there was money to be made by countersuing.

    In the meantime, I decided to sue the servicer of my first that I was still paying during BK and to stop paying on the same grounds: no standing to get one cent of my money. It’s in federal court. Not paying a damn cent to anyone except my attorney as we speak. It’s been going on for 3 years.

  101. @Chris,

    No offense meant. Sorry if you took it. I understand what you say but Enclave had very specific questions and I will consistently guard people against exotic defenses when a common-sense approach is always much better. Every case is different, every statt is different. Hence the “common-sense” thing: it is universal, knows no boundaries and transcends inadequate human laws… Common sense supposes that you ask the most basic questions. That’s all I do. Doesn’t take anything away from what you’ve accomplished, which i congratulate you for. Again, what works with one state and one case may not work for all of them. Except common sense.

    @Enclave: JDB: junk debt buyer. Collections agencies that purchase written-off debts for pennies to the dollar and sue the debitor for the whole amount. Most states have laws requiring a JDB to disclose the amount paid for the written off debt (for which the original creditor got a tax break upon write off and that he could report as a straight loss) and to produce the payment instrument. JDB never have it. They purchase “a lot” of 350 debts at a time for 5 or 10% of its entire value and try to collect the whole 100%. Actually, UCC also regulates those and require the same conditions as most states: disclosure of amount and production of the check or other instrument.

    About “advisement”, there are a few things people forget: judges are people. They do what we do. Eat, sleep, relieve themselves, have kids, have debts, pay bills, everything. Somehow, people get ver intimidated by them. There is one thing no judge wants, because it doesn’t reflect well on their ability to uphold the law: it is to be overturned on appeal. They hate it. They fear it. In the same tiame, they hate, I mean really, really hate to have to ask another judge’s opinion. It reflects poorly on their ability to understand the law (in their mind, even though is law is purposely nebulous and confusing). It’s a pride thing.

    When it takes them months or years to make a decision, it’s because they fear not to make the right one and to end up overturned on appeal. They’d rather pass the buck to the next judge than decide. It’s called “advisement”. As I said, they’re just like all of us…

  102. @Enraged…when you say you are not paying…does that mean you are not paying into your BK plan?

  103. for the newbees !Worth watching. Attorney Mellisa Huelsman asks the U.S.Supreme Court in Olympia, Does the rule of law still stand in Washington Courts. That is “A” loaded question in all states!. Also the attorney Pratt for MERS states MERS was created to move unmovable mortgages from the S&L (savings and loan ) cirsis, that caused a small recession and foreclosed homes in the 1980″s. And why were these homes not movable? For the same crimes of the present mortgages? I am sure. MERS was invented to get around the law and to move clouded titles. to move homes the banks no longer had control of the contracts? I think so. So MERS was soley invented to get around the law and the recording system to move stolen houses? I think so. Watch this video.

  104. @Chris…I value your opinion. Please do share it. Can we all just agree that all of our opinions here are based on our own unique experiences. Sharing our unique experiences are helping us all.

    @ Enraged…what is a JDB?

  105. @ Enraged

    Respectfully, when did I say Fraud did not exist? FYI: I have made very strong milestones, in both of my cases. No one piece of my filings has been questioned or returned and my “proof of my claim” as a creditor has not been kicked yet. And I have gotten a pre-trial conference, very quickly. This does not say I have a win, but I am making progress through the system. This has not been done by my attorney.

    Proof of claim must be addressed by the judge.

    I’m staying out of this now…as I have concerns about being misquoted and no more to offer.

    Good Luck, Enclave.

  106. @Enclave,

    Those as specific questions for an attorney, which i am not.

    “Under advisement” simply means that the judge will review the file in the light of existing case law and make a decision. I have a junk debt buyer case that was filed over 18 months ago. i filed a counterclaim for UCC, FDCPA and RICO violations that neither the JDB nor the judge ever expected (most people simply don’t fight those and they lose by default). The judge “took it under advisement” for a year. Didn’t know what to do with it. Had no clue how to handle it. “Advisement” means “back burner”. Those guys can be stumped and they can procrastinate like the best of us.

    The judge lost in the last elections and that thing’s been transferred to another one who is “taking it under advisement”. Doesn’t know what to do with it either! In the meantime, I’m not paying, I’m not losing sleep over it and I’m living life. Detached from the outcome. Position of strength. And… JDB’s spent a fortune filing motions after motions that I systematically countered. Even if JDB wins that case, two things happened:

    1) I don’t have any money. What are they gona do?
    2) I have a bigger thing going on with a Tila Respa Fdcpa federal lawsuit for the house. By the time it is resolved, I may have enough money to get rid of that debt and JDB as stupid enough not to ask for attorney’s fees.

    In the big scheme of things, it’s ludicrous. Only money.

  107. @Enraged…pro se has filed an objection to Proof of Claim. Does that halt the BK until the objection is heard and adjudged? Can the BK be dismissed before the OTPOC hearing? The Quiet title is running collaterally in the BK court per the suggestion of the Trustee and the judge’s permission as they share the same core issues…standing to foreclose.

    Now…if the OTPOC goes pro se’s way would it logically follow that the Quiet title may too? Or does logic not apply here?

    What does “under advisement” mean. the clerk told us that the judge has taken the QT under advisement.

    Prose’s BK att. said that his objection was excellent for a pro se

  108. @Enclave,

    One last point I want to make: what separates banks from homeowners? Just one little thing worth everything: banks don’t have any emotional involvement into the situation. Somehow, homeowners believe that they are the house. The house defines who they are. It reflects on their own worth as individuals. It is the symbol of what they can accomplish and what they will accomplish in life.

    This is the farthest from the truth. The house is only incidental. It is “stuff”. It can be replaced, it can be lost in a hurricane, a tornado or anything. No one takes it with him.

    What is really, really important? Pro Se and his kids’ physical, emotional and mental health. Until people learn to detach themselves from the damn house, they are in no position to win because the stakes are too high and they have too much to lose (in their mind).

    Remember Bob Dylan? “When you’ve got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose.” There is no stronger position than that.

  109. And sorry about the typos… just realizing that my keyboard is dying…

  110. @Enclave,

    I respectfully disagree with Chris. Fraud exists. We ll know about it, it’s staring us in the face. It doesn’t mean that it is where to start. Not as a Pro Se. That’s where most people have failed: they bit more than they could chew, they rendered their cases much more complicated that it ought to be and (the big, big problem for many) they have already pissed the judge so much with exotic defenses that they’ve have shot themselves in the foot.

    Where to start is much more simple.

    1) If I have filed chapter 13, what does it take to amend it into a chapter 7 in VA?
    2) Do I meet all the conditions?
    3) Am I too far into chapter 13 now to consider it?
    4) What are my debts that can be discharged in chapter 7 and is it worth it?
    5) What are my non-dischargeable debts? Do I have more of the former or of the latter?
    6) What do I want to accomplish by going in chapter7? Do I want to keep the house? What does it take?
    7) Will I be better off walking away from everything and starting anew or does it make sense to keep the house?
    8) Assuming that I have non-dischargeable debts, in what condition will I be after a chapter 7?
    9) How does that impact on my kids’ present and future condition?
    10) Since I am already in chapter 13, what will the outcome be when I am done with it? Am I going to be stranded with lingering debts?
    11) How much longer can i objectively keep on with the chapter 13 payments? How many months do I have to keep paying into it? Is it doable?

    1) What help exists in my state? As an example, some states have invested a lot of money in foreclosure prevention. Others… well… not so much. What’s available to me?
    2) Who are my state reps and have they helped homeowners so far? Who can I pester?
    3) Who are the big defense attorneys, what do I know about them and do they win more and more cases?
    4) Should I contact Obama directly? Would it help? I always advise people to do it regardless. It may yield absolutely nothing but one thing I’ve learned from doind it over and over is that there is always an answer. Might be some government agency sending you a letter telling you it’s been “escalated” to some other outfit you never considered and with solutions no one talked about.

    What Pro Se needs is to enlist as muc halp as possible.

    You need to keep it very down-to-earth and simple.

    It may very well be that Pro Se would simply be better off walking away from it all and relocating. You both need to look at everything with a cold, calculating and businesslike eye. That’s what banks do. Play their game.

  111. Throwing around case law n all is nice but … allow me to pose this question … If you are in a bankruptcy and your plan has not yet been confimed … how would you argue why the plan should NOT be confimed and why you should NOT be kicked out of the bankruptcy? Given the fact that you have already submitted evidence to a bankruptcy court in an advisary complaint that plainly shows the court that the pranksterzzz have no standing. Should staying in the bankruptcy even be an issue? At this point … is it prudent to ask the court to amend or modify the plan? I filed a chapter 13 … much to my shegrin as I read some of the posts here. Now I am worried that the monies already paid in will be lost.

  112. @ Enclaved

    Just my $.02

    Keep it simple. Go for what you know to be true and start there. i.e. the assignments, transfers, forgery, ownership or rights of the servicer…remember, the chances of dealing with the actual lender is very, very small, if at all possible. The banks are not in the lending business these days, they are servicers, much like a broker. When your loan has gone to the underwriter it is not so they can portfolio the loan (keep it in house), but to see if it will comply to sell, assign, or transfer servicing rights. Much of that activity is fatally flawed.

  113. @ALL…what I do in applied biophysics is try to save lives…what is so different here?? If I can use my brain to save prose’s life…I have fulfilled my ethical responsibility as a researcher. Ethics seems to be a very grey area in law??? I guess I am having a big problem with that.

  114. @ Enraged…what can you do to help…please continue to try to educate me so I can try to educate prose’s BK attorney. That is all that I can ask.

    As a researcher in applied biophysics what I do is prove that a new, yet to be FDA approved medical instrument, works with minimal to no side effects. I only consult on medical instruments that are proved over time to be safe. I have gotten one of these to be approved by the FDA already and am working on another one. The correlation here?? I can think logically. I have to find all of the possible variables that may disprove any claim of efficacy. But, I work in a field that if you know the science you don’t run into a mine field.

    I have the correct brain for the job as far as legal research…and I do see all of the ticking time bombs and the mine fields pro se can step in. I just need to educate my brain to handle the legal stuff that is NOT science as it does NOT follow the law of physics.

    I am trying to learn the rule of law and how to apply it here. If I have a passion for the subject I am an insatiable learner. Redundancy counts big time…SO PLEASE DO REPEAT…repeat…and repeat again until I CAN RETAIN.

  115. @ Enraged

    Here in NC if memory serves me…it is less than $50 to flip the Chapter 13 into a Seven…? Many of the attorneys don’t want that, nor do the trustees…’cause there is no stream of money from it. In In Chapter 13 the trustee gets 10% of the monthly payments and the lawyer gets his monthly payments over and above the initial down payment, over the same payback period. Try and get disclosure of what the amounts are and how they are dispensed…pulling teeth!

  116. @Enclave,

    Then you are way ahead of the game. What can we do to help Pro Se’s attorney “see the light”? There will come a time when they all do but we have to help it.

  117. @ All…this sums up S. W. Virginia’s opinion: “ People roun’ hea’ don’t keep up with awllla these kinna MEEERS situations where there is a whole lotta stuff goin’ on.” I almost fell off my chair and as grave as pro se’s situation is I laughed hysterically all the way home…smile with me y’all!

  118. Chris,

    I too was burnt in chapter 13 but it’s because we all got terribly BAD advice. Chapter 13 should never have been considered in most of homeowners BKs and I learned that the hard way and after the fact.

    What I would strongly advise Enclave to research is the conditions (if any) under which Pro Se may be able to file amend his case and turn it into a chapter 7. In many cases, homeowners are now able to keep the house while discharging everything else.

    Worth putting time and money into it.

  119. @ Enraged…again thanks for the solid advice. I have and pro se has called Max and Max has never returned a call. We understand that he is a very busy man. I did listen to the Max and Nye Mandleman…it was great. In fact I have been in touch with Nye and he has been very supportive. BUT, Nye can ONLY work with an attorney that gets it. He is a very busy man and does not have the time to TRAIN an attorney that will only disagree with him because Nye is not an attorney. That is what happened in pro se’s case. Nye was willing but pro se’s BK attorney does not get it and still thinks that both pro se and I are crazy. I have the greatest respect for Nye…y’all have NO IDEA! The BK attorney is the best BK attorney in this part of Virginia. He is a very busy man and can’t write or plead on something that he does not understand. He is VERY truthful and honest about that and we respect him for his honesty.

  120. @ ian

    No, I’ll take all information, even if it is redundant. Believe it or not, there are times I miss things And sometimes the case takes a turn and repeating things, I sometimes go back and recheck and bang…there it is. I passed right over the obvious. It happens when you are immersed in your own drama.

    Believe it or not, I can be reading a case, sometimes seemingly unrelated and my brain locks onto a legal precedent, that I might use. I look at everything, literally have read case after case and found some interesting and usable information.

  121. Throwing around case law n all is nice but … allow me to pose this question … If you are in a bankruptcy and your plan has not yet been confimed … how would you argue why the plan should NOT be confimed and why you should NOT be kicked out of the bankruptcy? Given the fact that you have already submitted evidence to a bankruptcy court in an advisary complaint that plainly shows the court that the pranksterzzz have no standing. Should staying in the bankruptcy even be an issue?

  122. @ Enclaved

    Your welcome, hope it helps…as always, my opinion only.

    I too, have some background experience as a paralegal, but my other credentials are business related, which are of little value here, while research is part of the paralegal occupation. But litigation, quite another story. I fall way short there. What I have done, if it helps…I have an attorney, he takes payments by the activity e.g. I file the complaints, do the research and verify all I can. I bring it to him, he may amend the complaint, let it fly or tell me, he needs to come to court @ “X” amount of dollars, ’cause he is after all, the legal eagle.

    I did do my own Chapter 13 and got to the meeting of the creditors and got burned when I was told to got an attorney (expensive attorney)…he had a staff of 10 and did not finish the schedules, hence the bk was dismissed. So, I have learned a thing or two about quality attorneys.

    Good Luck!

  123. @enclave,

    If Pro Se only has a case in BK (but I still don’t know why chapter 13 rather than chapter 7), Max Gardner should be the first attorney from whom you ask for a referal.

    His bootcamp is for bankruptcy defense attorneys, he’s been at it for years and he has a very good understanding of all the issues.

    Mandelman conducted the following interview with Max Gardner and Nye Lavalle. You may want to forward it to Pro Se.

    Lastly, and even though Pros Se already tried Gregory Bry and Chris Brown, you don’t say when. There may be a new set of circumstances that renders this case more attractive to either one or they may have advice for him. Never assume that one attorney’s failure to help at one time means that he never will. The field is constantly changing and they learn something new every single day. There are hurdles that homeowners Pro Se have been able to overcome against attorneys’ all hopes and that renders the case a “must defend” for them.

    Most serious wins are, indeed, in BK and/or federal court. And by the way, is there any class action pending in VA against any of the players of Pro Se’s case? If yes, might be worth looking into joining. it is usually free (it should be free. No one should have to pay to join a class action against banks. If it isn’t, beware. That’s the new scam in town).

  124. chris- over at DINSFLA (stopforeclosurefraud), there is a post on fraudsignment of Home123, and an NC2007 trust, and the court findings mention the fact that Home123 went under in 2007, the next one went under in 2008, etc etc. I know you had a NC loan, thought this might help. If you have already seen it, sorry for being redundant.

  125. @Chris…Thank you for your advice. I tend to agree with the federal court reasoning as it makes logical sense. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY I know what I do NOT know can hurt pro se’s case. Believe it or not the only thing that I am qualified to do is research. My field of research is biophysics…yup! I am pretty well published in that. I even have a co-authored text book on sale on the subject of photonics. I am helping pro se because I can, and ethically should search for the truth. Researchers do have a code of ethics. BUT that does not qualify me in knowing “you know what” from shinola in the field of law. I openly admit my ignorance in that field. So what I do is respectfully ask authorities for their opinion and that is what I am doing here.

  126. @ Enclaved

    I respectfully disagree about some of the comments regarding the Federal Court. The District cases I am privy to for Quiet Title have been lost. Quiet Title does not clear the title, it just removes the lien based on standing, but can be put back by the original lender or someone with authority. There are no damages with Quiet Title either. No legal advice, just what I have witnessed and been told from counsel.

    The bang for your buck is Federal Court. They have a large net and jurisdiction to hear TILA, RESPA, RICO, Fraud, Forgery, etc… (damages are also available) the avenues are much more vast, as many of the laws of these violations are Federal Rules and Statutes, District Courts do have authority in some of these platforms. I will say it is not for the faint of heart and Pro Se’s, which is what I am, need to be very, very informed and skilled. The flip side: you need to at least consult an attorney. Again it is my opinion, if a lawyer wants tens-of-thousands for a retainer…think about why. A skilled litigator in this venue should be less expensive and know where the smoking gun is. Of course having said that, as someone with little experience, it is hundreds of hours, for the person with minimal experience. The price should tell you right up, the lawyer is getting on the job training with your money.

    The federal Court, even the bankruptcy court, has taken the banksters to task and won. The trustees are not idiots, nor fools. With the right lawyer you can get a reduction in principle and clean the creditors (predators) clock.

    This is not legal advice, just an opinion from another victim…

  127. For the defeated even before you start homeowners of Virginia…

    In Brummel & Co. v. Enders, Sutton & Co. (18 GRATT.) at * 882, (1868): “…Assuming, then, the correctness of this analogy, and the pertinency of this authority, I am justified in treating these notes, while the blanks are not yet filled, as “incomplete instruments”, in the nature of conditional engagements to pay them, when filled up, to those who shall become bona fide holders of them, and so entitled to insert their names, but as of “no legal or binding effect” till consummated by the indication of a certain payee, and the completion thereby of the note itself. The filling the blanks is that “something further which must be
    done to give these notes validity.” But who now shall be regarded as authorized to fill these blanks with his name? No one but a bona fide holder; not a finder, who gives no consideration; at 883 *nor a thief, whose possession is felonious; nor, by parity of reasoning, a person whose mala fides consists in his violation of law.”

  128. @ Enraged…pro se is not in civil court the quiet title is in the BK court. The judge let it run collaterally with his BK case.

    A quote from Hovrath… “For several centuries, Virginia has attempted toenhance commerce within the State by ensuring that negotiable instruments ― broadly defined under Virginia Law as “unconditional promise[s] or order[s] to pay a fixed amount of money,” (Va. Code Ann. § 8.3A-104(a)) ― are freely transferable. Indeed
    the State’s policy dating back to at least 1827 has been to allow the bearer of a negotiable instrument (that is, the person to whom the funds are owed) to endorse the instrument in blank. Whitworth v. Adams, 26 Va. (5 Rand.) 333, 1827 WL 1200, at *45
    (1827) (Cabell, J.). Such an endorsement allows the bearer to transfer the instrument freely, insofar as it makes possession the sole precondition to enforcement of the instrument. Id. (“[H]aving been endorsed in blank, every bearer or holder, be he agent,
    trustee, finder or thief, has a right to sell [the instrument], and to transfer it, by

    Hovrath is the way Virginia rolls. You can’t steal a car but you can steal a house!

    What is the deal in being in a BK court and a state court at the same time…I plead ignorance on that issue!

  129. @enclave,

    O my God! Are you saying that pro se is in chapter 13? While fighting also in state court?

  130. @ Enraged…there is one case that Bryl won based on the lender defaulting on a motion. Look up Hovrath that is the governing case in Virginia right now…bad decision.

    I found Brummel & Co. v. Enders, Sutton & Co it refutes Hovrath. We also have Becker v. Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 222 Va. 716, 720, 284 S.E.2d 793, 795 (1981) and Bayview Loan Servicing v. Simmons, 275 Va. 114, 654 S.E.2d 898 (2008). Good Virginia cases are VERY hard to find. It is the fastest non-judicial foreclosure state. You can go from foreclosure notice to foreclosure in 7-14 days!

  131. CFPB Files Brief to Defend TILA Rights for Homeowners
    03/29/2012 By: Ryan Schuette

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) threw its weight into the courtroom recently by filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the tenth circuit.

    See the Brief at

    The issue at stake: Whether homeowners can cancel their loans within a three-year period stipulated under the Truth-in-Lending Act – and whether a plaintiff need sue within the same timeframe before the right of rescission expires.

    The case in Denver involves one Jean Rosenfield, who sued for an injunction against servicer HSBC in 2009 when an earlier
    notice of rescission went unnoticed.

    The bureau argued that Rosenfield had met the minimum standards for rescission by filing it and that she required adequate disclosure forms from her servicer before it moved forward with foreclosure for her property.

    The CFPB also charged that earlier courts have “erroneously” thrown out rescission lawsuits on the presumption that a homeowner needs to file notice of rescission within three years.

    “Many courts incorrectly restrict consumers’ rescission rights under TILA by concluding that consumers must both exercise their right of rescission – by providing notice to their lenders – within three years of the loan’s consummation, and sue their lenders within that same three-year period to resolve any disputes that arise regarding the rescission,” it said in the brief.

    The CFPB said that it plans to invoke the same legal authority by filing amicus briefs in appellate cases from three other circuits.

    “We are committed to making sure that borrowers can exercise their rights to the full extent allowed under this law,” CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in a statement. “The consumer’s right to cancel gives enders a powerful incentive to provide the disclosures that consumers need to make good financial choices.”

  132. @Enraged…a federal court is also a good point. he is in a Fed. bankruptcy Court…but that has its own limitations. Problem is…pro se spent too much money on a crappy securitization audit that looked like a cut and paste from every article on the web.
    It costs pro se too much per month to pay into the bankruptcy plan. He crunched some numbers and…gee it cost him more to stay in the plan than it would have to pay on a loan mod that he begged for.

    Work is scarce…he has 2 little kids and is a recent widower. The money is just not there right now. Some lawyers that did not get it called him crazy wanted a huge retainer and quoted him approx. $35,000.00 to give it a try.

    Looks like the ONLY people that have rights are the ones that can dish out 35 grand.

  133. @enclave,

    Another thing you can do is search the cases won by homeowners in VA. Then, find out who was representing them. Justia is a good place to start. County courts might also help if you have access to their records. In my state, I can consult any superior court and review pleadings. In some states, you have to pay for the info.

    What you will realize is that most homewoners win in BK court or in federal court. States are usually not as favorable as federal courts. Also, the most vigourous defenses are put up by attys willing and able to fight in federal court. No light weights there: most of them are quite heavy lifters.

    Does you friend have a pending BK case?

  134. @enclave,

    Sounds to me like your firend’s case should be fought in federal court. Not a place for a pro se.

    Good luck.

  135. @Enclave,

    One thing you can always do is listen to all the podcasts on Mandelman. The one below explains the part taken by government in destroying our country by “politicizing” mortgages, i.e., making it an election platform by allowing homeownership to anyone and everyone without the lightest safeguards in plce, such as: down payments, loans of 15 to 20 years max (instead of the current 30 or 40 years), life insurance to pay off the mortgage in case of premature demise of the borrower, serious lending regulations, etc.

    That’s what made our country great and that the only thing that can allow it to rebecome great. That and getting banks out of government and government out of mortgages.

  136. @Enraged…that is good sold advice. I will contact the attorneys that you mentioned. Pro se is desperately trying to find Virginia counsel. Hopefully one that gets it!

    This case is so fraudulent that it needs a good attorney to squeeze the blood out of the servicer for the amount of statutory and punitive damages they can. A pro se cannot do that on his own. The banksters will use smoke and mirrors and the average pro se can’t see through the fog!

  137. @enclave,

    Be very, very careful about what advice you follow. People who post here are either currently fighting the bank (that would be me) or already foreclosed upon. Neither group has really much credibility until the former win their cases or the latter overturn their foreclosure. So far, it hasn’t happened.

    So, whatever advice anyone is giving you here, alway, always consider the source.

    And be careful with bloggers ready to sell you their sureproof “forensic report for 57 easy monthly payments of $54.99 each”: serious attorneys such as Matt Weidner, Jeff Barnes, Mark Stoppa, Bruce Levitt, Max Gardner and many others caution homeowners about them. They are NOT admissible in court, regardless whether you got suckered out of $3,500 or $5,000.

    As for me, I try not to give advice unless I see that someone is taking a completely misguided course of action. And my advice is not listened to, the people end up losing it all (as I had warned them against), they quit writing here and we never hear from them again.

    If you’re looking for a good VA atty, the best way, in my opinion, is to contact the crackerjacks in every state and ask them for referals. They all know each other and they are always willing to give you pointers. For example, Thomas Cox in Maine is one of the good guys. Doesn’t hurt to contct him and ask if he knows someone in VA. Marc Dann in Ohio isn’t bad either. Max Gardner has is bootcamps attended by many, many attorneys nationwide and so does Jeff Barns. April Charney is a good source too. You need to be a squeeky wheel and pester everyone until you get what you want.

    But for Pro Se’s sake, go to the pros. Safer and smarter.

  138. @Enraged…the banks held the equity of our homes in what we thought was in good faith and trust. They stold our equity with their manipulation of the housing market. AND…they stold our tax dollars when we bailed them out! NOW they want another Bail Out after they skunked EVERY HOMEOWNER in the USA!

  139. @ Enraged…you really hit the nail on the head on that one! Thepro se that i am talking about HAS ALREADY LOST OVER $300,000.00 in equity alone! With fines and fees he is in-the-hole for over $800,000.00 because the sevicer would not modify his loan OR EVEN REINSTATE his loan. He has a reistatement clause in his deed!

    I am also enraged! I bought a house for $240,000.00 5 years ago. I was counting on its equity for my retirement…yuk, yuk what a fool! It is NOW only worth $130,000.00 and I PAID OFF THE MORTGAGE!!

    The banks did not STEAL ONLY from the innocent homeowner’s in default. They also STOLD MY RETIREMENT! I will be working overtime till I die of old age!

    This is EVERYONE”s issue not just the homeowner’s that are being foreclosed upon!

  140. @E. Toile,

    Itching to throw myself into the fight too. Can’t wait for it to blow up. That’s the only way. No amount of spoken truth has yet made a dent, on the contrary. It is as though the more is exposed and the more is forgiven to banks.

    Time to stop speaking and start acting. And it’s gona to be quick because BRICS is gaining a hell of a momentum. It started with 4 countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) representing one third of the world population. Since then, it has added South Africa and 134 other countries. The western world better clean up its acts very, very quickly.

  141. “This law would not do anything to shorten the foreclosure process in the state of Maine,” he wrote in his veto letter to the Legislature. “Instead, it would add a new burden on our lenders to produce original copies of documents or swear under penalty of perjury why they are not able to.

    “This will simply create more paperwork in the foreclosure process with little benefit for Maine people,” he added…

    True. Ohio did that in January 2011. And Ohio strongly (very strongly) recommends mediation. So much so that banks comply because they know what it will cost them idf they don’t… Since then, foreclosures have been down by over 16%.

    Let me guess: Paul LePage is a republican, right? Figures…

  142. I used to pay attention to this guy….now I’d just like to see his world ransacked – overturned….

  143. From the Bangor Daily News:

    AUGUSTA, Maine — Gov. Paul LePage on Friday vetoed a Democratic-backed bill that sought to give homeowners more protection in foreclosure proceedings.

    The bill received bipartisan support in both the Maine House (90-54) and Senate (32-2), but the governor said the title of the bill — “An Act to Clarify and Streamline Foreclosure Proceedings” — doesn’t match its substance.

    “This law would not do anything to shorten the foreclosure process in the state of Maine,” he wrote in his veto letter to the Legislature. “Instead, it would add a new burden on our lenders to produce original copies of documents or swear under penalty of perjury why they are not able to.

    “This will simply create more paperwork in the foreclosure process with little benefit for Maine people,” he added…
    …South Portland attorney Thomas Cox, who worked for the banking industry for 30 years, said the governor’s reasoning was flawed.
    “It doesn’t delay foreclosures at all. That’s just wrong and misleading,” said Cox.

    Cox was at the center of a landmark legal that uncovered a rash of mishandled foreclosures by some of the country’s biggest lenders. In several cases, flawed paperwork led to a pattern in which thousands of foreclosures were approved by bank employees who didn’t fully read the documents.

    The attorney also said he and Rep. Beavers requested a meeting with the governor a couple weeks ago after the bill passed through the Legislature but were denied.

    “It’s clear that he doesn’t even understand what he’s talking about, but he didn’t give us a chance to talk him,” Cox said.

    Lawmakers could overturn the veto with a two-thirds vote, but that hasn’t happened once since LePage took office.

  144. @Shelley,

    Word of advice: tread very, very carefully with yet another dangerous strategy that can only bring you one result and one result only: to get judges so pissed that you will lose your case long before you even have a chance to plead it.

    You can argue law and breach of law as long as you want and it is completely legitimate and smart. Start questioning people’s integrity and you’re in for a rude, very rude awakening.

    If anyone has the authority to question whether oaths have been appropriately taken, it is NOT a pro se homeowner. Unless, of course, his goal is to lose his case, the house and be assessed fines for contempt to boot!

    I’m all in favor of making waves and breaking new grounds but the last advice I will give to anyone is to be openly contemptuous of judges, regardless whether crooked or not. Attorneys know that. They don’t do it for a reason, regardless how committed to their clients they are. There is a reason for that.

    All for all those who advocate open rebellion in court, have you, at least, joined The 99 Declaration? Do you belong to one of the OWS chapters? Do you send support? You do realize that strength comes from number, right? There is strength in the 99. There is strength in OWS, even if their results right now are still lacking. There isn’t any in pro se homeowners appearing before judges without the slightest idea of how the systm works and starting openly questioning said judges’ legitimacy.

    CPLR 3212(b) mandates that “[a] motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings, and by other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions. The affidavit shall be by a person having knowledge of the facts [.]”
    The motion for summary judgment is based upon an attorney’s affirmation. The attorney does not have personal knowledge of the facts. The affirmation may not suffice as any evidence, much more proof, upon the lender’s motion because an attorney’s affirmation that is not based upon personal knowledge of the underlying facts or transactions is of no probative value for purposes of a summary judgment motion. Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services of NY v. Donegan, 26 Misc.3d 1227(A), 907 N.Y.S.2d 438 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2010); Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Martin, 11 Misc.3d 219, 807 N.Y.S.2d 284, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 25536 (Civ. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2005).
    Therefore the motion of summary judgment should have been denied because the defense has failed to meet its initial burden of established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law:
    Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment may be denied because the mortgagee has failed to meet its initial burden of establishing prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Emigrant Mortgage Company, Inc. v. Fitzpatrick, 29 Misc.3d 745, 906 N.Y.S.2d 874 (Sup. Ct. Suff. Co. 2010).

  146. @Shelley,

    Romney is a first class moron. I hope he gets elected so that we can revold without an iota of regret and really tear down this mess to start rebuilding on sane and solid bases.

    “It would be inappropriate to throw a huge loss to some party which had relied upon the existing practices of the marketplace.” Well, guess what, moron? Homeowners RELIED UPON THE EXISTING PRACTICES OF THE MARKETPLACE! They did everything by the book. Banks book. They even jumped through hoops to obey the bank. And they got dual-tracked before finally ending up foreclosed on. And they suffered (and continue suffering) HUGE LOSSES.

    How appropriate is that, moron? Are you studying that part? You are? Really? Good! What are you gona do about it, then?


  147. @ EVERYONE HERE!…this stuff is great! That article about Eaton reakky nails it on the head. Prose and I watched the Ibanez and Eaton arguments on video and learned so much! I will try to find the links for them.

    I want to share these links Report on Mortgage Notes Circulation_Draft.pdf and especially…which was published here. Pro se included the Ronal Ryan letter as an exhibit.

  148. Here is good case law to look at:
    See The Fla. Bar v. Miller, 863 So.2d 231 (Fla.2003) ordering one-year suspension of attorney who deliberately concealed his knowledge of client’s receipt of EEOC’s right –to-sue letter).; The Fla. Bar v. Rood, 569 So. 2d 750 (Fla.1990) (concealing expert’s memorandum and causing clients to sign false answers under oath warranted attorney’s one-year suspension); Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944,946 (Fla. 1983) (affirming sanctions of striking defendant’s answer and entering default judgment for discovery violation when defendant “knew what was going on “ and had “total disregard for the consequences “ of pending action); The integrity of the civil litigation process depends on the truthful disclosure of facts. A system that depends on an adversary’s ability to uncover falsehood s is doomed to failure, which is why this kind of conduct [fraudeulent concealments of facts] must be discouraged in the strongest possible way. See also Channel Components, Inc. v. America II Electronics, Inc. 915 So.2d 1278( Fla, 2d DCA 2005.) Trial courts have “the right and obligation to deter fraudulent claims from proceeding in court”. Savino v. Fla. Drive In Theatre Mgnt, 697 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA ( 1997). This is because “[o]our courts have often recognized and enforced the principle that a party who has been guilty of fraud or misconduct in the prosecution or defense of a civil proceeding should not be permitted to continue to employ the very institution it has subverted to achieve [its] ends.” Hanono v. MrMurphy, 723 So.2d 892 , 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Where a party perpetrates a fraud on the court which permeates the entire proceedings, dismissal of the entire case is proper. Desimone v. Old Dominion Ins. Co., 740 So.2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Plaintiff’s mislead the court and engaged in extensive discovery abuse to obstruct revelation of the known falsities in the complaint – a “flagrant abuse of the judicial process” worthy of severe sanctions. See Martin v. Automobili Lamborghini Exclusive, Inc., . 307 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2002). Dismissal for fraud is appropriate where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing part’s claim or defense.” Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

    The U.S. Supreme Court in Griffen emphasized 1985(3) legislative history was directed to the prevention of eprivations which shall attack the equality of rights of American citizens; that any violation of the right, the animus and effect of which is to strike down the citizen, to the end that he may not enjoy equality of rights as contrasted with his and other citizens’ rights, shall be within the scope of remedies… Id. at 100.

    Supreme Court has ruled that “private parties” may be held to the same standard of “state actors” in cases such as the instant cause where the final and decisive act was carried out in conspiracy with a state official. See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 101 S. Ct., 183 and Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S. Ct. 1598.
    See: Title 18 U.S.C. § 2. Principals. (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
    Note: The legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures” another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States. Case law decisions: Rothenburg v. United States, 1918, 38 S.Ct. 18, 245 U.S. 480, 62 L.Ed. 414, and United States v. Giles, 1937, 57 S.Ct. 340, 300 U.S. 41, 81 L.Ed. 493.
    Title 18 U.S.C. § 3; Title 18 U.S.C. § 3. Accessory after the fact. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States had been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
    This criminal act was repeatedly perpetrated by federal judges who not only refused to receive the information about federal crimesthat they must receive as part of their administrative duties under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 and by their acts that hindered the apprehension and trial of the people committing the offenses that Stich and his group of other former government agents had discovered and sought to report.
    Title 18 U.S.C. § 4; Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of felony). Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Federal judges repeatedly perpetrated this criminal act by blocking the reporting of the federal crimes and not making such information known to proper law enforcement personnel.
    Title 18 U.S.C. § 1505; Title 18 U.S.C. § 1505. Whoever corruptly … influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due the proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States … shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This criminal act occurred several times as federal judges retaliated against Stich for making the reports.
    Title 18 U.S.C. § 1510; Title 18 U.S.C. § 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigation.
    (a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This criminal statute occurred as federal judges refused to receive the evidence that Stich and his group of government insiders sought to report. Federal judges refused to receive the evidence, retaliated against Stich for seeking to make the reports, and then rendered orders barring Stich for the remainder of his life from court access. In this way, Stich was unable to report the federal crimes (and also unable to use federal defenses against the judicial violations of federally protected rights that were inflicting great harm upon Stich.
    Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512; Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant; (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to–; (1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; (2) cause or induce any person to–(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
    (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
    (c) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from–
    (1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding; (2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense … (3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
    (4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation preceding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. (e) For the purposes of this section– (1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and (2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.
    Federal judges, and directly Sacramento district judge Milton Schwartz and San Francisco district judge Marilyn Patel, aided by other judges, retaliated against Stich when he exercised the mandatory responsibilities under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4, to report federal crimes “to a federal judge.” In this manner they were guilty of criminal acts under several criminal statutes.
    Title 18 U.S.C. § 1513; Title 18 U.S.C. § 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant. (a) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate against any person for (1) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or (2) any information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense …”; Title 18 U.S.C. § 111; Title 18 U.S.C. § 111. Impeding certain officers or employees. Whoever … intimidates, or interferes with any person … while engaged in … the performance of his official duties shall be fined … or imprisoned …; This crime occurred as management personnel at United Airlines and within the FAA interfered with FAA inspectors attempts to report major air safety violations and criminal cover-ups of them by false statements to the inspectors and falsified air safety documents. Many fatal crashes occurred between 1958 and 1978 that were caused by or made possible by these criminal activities.
    Title 42 U.S.C. § 1961; Racketeering Enterprise Statutes and Criteria; Title 42 USC § 1961. Definition. As used in this chapter-(1) “racketeering activity” means: (A) any act or threat involving … relating to 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering, …
    Title 42 USC § 1962. Prohibited Activities; (b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern or racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsections (a), (b), or (c) of this section. …
    Title 42 U.S.C. § 1985; Hoard of lawyers filing sham lawsuits, from 1982 to 2005, against the former federal agent that repeatedly violated blocks of state and federal laws and constitutional protections.
    Actions by several dozen federal judges whose obstruction of justice tactics consisted of major violations of statute, controlling case law, and constitutional protections. Conduct between doze3ns of federal judges and dozens of lawyers jointly obstructing justice by
    Title 42 USC § 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights: (2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified−
    Or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the law, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986; It is a felony for anyone who knows of a violation of another person’s civil rights that fails to prevent the violations. This would include federal judges, California judges, Department of Justice employees, members of Congress, and others. Making those violations even more serious, the civil rights violations were involved in obstructing justice. And worse, the obstructing justice tactics enabled to continue the aviation disasters and the harm from other criminal activities that affected the American people and the United States’ security. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy; Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case;

  149. A repost, but easily the most fluent article on the entire decade of fraud, with the most concise explanations….a must read:

    We must keep at this…’s them or us, and I for one am itching for a fight….

  150. keep this inmind when you have a judge that rules by bank rule and not by constitutional rule.
    ) A judge does not validly hold office because of the absence of or a defect in one or more of the following: BREACH OF OATH OF OFFICE d. one or more loyalty oaths associated with qualification and service (a typical judge must swear the following loyalty oaths, evidenced by thesignature of a person duly authorized to take acknowledgements): ii. Bar member’s oath; v. Public Officer’s or Judge’s loyalty oath; vi. Public employee’s loyalty oath.
    About Loyalty Oaths and Appointments
    Many public employees have serious defects in their oath and appointment documents, and many do not have those documents on record as required by law. The wise litigant will obtain certified copies of all such documents for all officers of the court (judges, clerk, prosecutors or opposing counsel, and bailiffs), and move for the disqualification of any and all for whom valid oath and appointment documents do not exist.

    The judge validly holds office if and only if a copy of the judge’s oath of office exists, and you can rightly demand that the proper final oath sworn or affirmed upon taking office situates in the judge’s chambers. You can go to his office and demand to see a copy of his oath of office at any time.

    The federal laws covering judges and other public officials are to be found at 5 U.S.C. 3331, 28 U.S.C. 543, and 5 U.S.C. 1983. States typically have similar laws. A judge trespasses upon the court unless he complies with all of the provisions of relevant law. Once a proven trespasser upon the court (upon the law) not one of his judgments, pronouncements or orders have validity. All constitute nullities and have void status.

  151. Enclavedebackle, unless you are in the Appeals court you can always add to your complaint, a Motion for Supplemental Pleading. Always do a declaration of testimony that all you have claimed in the brief is true to the best of your knowledge and have it notarized. Then it is a testimony as you are witness to it. I am pro se so ask someone with legal knowledge if this is necessary or remcommended. Remember the lawyer for the otherside has no personal knowlegde and is filing a false affidavit of personal knowledge if they claim they are of personal knowledge. I am just giving my two cents. File as a propria persona, not a pro se and that is suppose to be telling the court you need extra consideraltion. Check out everything I have to say, cause I am only a pro se( propria persona) myself.

  152. Make sure everyone that you answer all letters and briefs that you object and deny everything. Especially letter to you from the servicier or debt collector. Object to their authority to represent and or collect this alleged uncollectable debt. And deny you owe it. And read thouroughly the new case from Hawaii and use the Carpenter V Longan 1873 case law. My state has corrupt judges in the district (federal courts and the superior courts) I see only hope in the appeals courts.

  153. Mit is out of touch wtih the American people. He should know by now the moral hazzard is the banks morals and not the peoples morals. Whom is he kidding? Not the people. He is a bankers buddy.

    PETHOKOUKIS: Richard Fisher, head of the Dallas Fed, recently called for the breakup of large banks. Should we break up the big banks to ensure financial stability in the future and avoid another “too big to fail” problem?

    ROMNEY: I’m not looking to break apart financial institutions. I think what caused the last collapse was a convergence, almost akin to a perfect storm, of many elements in our economy and regulatory structure. … And if we have in place modern regulation and regulators who are keeping their eye on the ball, there’s no reason to think we will go into another crisis of the kind we just endured as a result of the mortgage meltdown.

    PETHOKOUKIS: Speaking of housing, Glenn Hubbard has a plan to use [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] for a mass refinancing of GSE mortgages. Do you think there is any merit in that idea?

    ROMNEY: I am studying that. As you know, Glenn is an adviser of mine, and there are some elements, which I am forced to consider when I study a program like that. One is not to encourage moral hazard where we encourage people to believe they’re going to get bailed out. And secondly, not to break the contract which had existed with any party to the mortgage document. It would be inappropriate to throw a huge loss to some party which had relied upon the existing practices of the marketplace. That being said, I am always interested in new ideas and will give it a careful review but no conclusion at this stage.

  154. Depends on what state you are in…in California we haven’t got a prayer, no matter what we do…the judges are totally corrupt and against the homeowner…

  155. If pro se had it all to do over again he would have filed an FDCPA Complaint & Breach of Contract in civil court then gone for a Quiet Title. I am NOT an attorney believe me…but seems logical to me that if these 2 dominos fall on the servicer…the rest of them will come down and Quiet Title may be a bit easier??? What do you think??

  156. @ Shelley…State of Washington v. ReconTrust Company, N.A was great thanks it has pleadings that prose customize and make to fit! We don’t know how to thank you! Please keep the ideas coming.

  157. oh yes thats another thing you reminded me of Shelley, my letter just received all pages say BOA NA is the servicer of your loan……for the past 2 years they always ended each page that they are a debt collector trying to collect a debt

    something has changed, probably the fucked up settlement …

    and it has given me a feeling that i didnt have before as Neil has titled I FEEL LIKE I AM LOSING

  158. @ Shelley…Pro se has an Action to Quiet Title responses to Motions to Dismiss, a recent Response to Allegations of Fact, just filed an Objection to Proof of Claim and a Request for Admissions. Waiting for hearing or decision on Response to Allegations…Clerk says it is “under advisement”?? Hearing on Objection to proof of Claim on May 10. OTPOC had 10 causes of action including Breach of Contract… breached a notice obligation under §§ 15, 18, 19, 20 and 22, Violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., Lack of constitutional Standing etc, etc. Nearly took a brain hemorrhage to get all the research and writing done on time.

    What does “under advisement” mean? Pro se hopes to have a good day in hell on April 19th!

  159. Here is the link to the FDCPA letter of debt dispute.

    On the objection letter deny you owe them this alleged debt.

  160. Neil had a post a while back in regard to the notices. Immediatel send an objection letter to them. To object to their authority to represent, that you are aware they are an unlawful debt collector attempting to collect an alleged debt that is uncollectable and deny you owe this alleged debt to them. If you have not sent a FDCPA letter of debt dispute part of the CPA laws, you need to. Find this letter on Neils post on the left side column under letters and notices. I am not an attorney only giving my two cents.

  161. look up Washington State V RECONTRUST AND COMPARE YOUR state CPA laws and state DEED of TRUST laws with this case and file non compliance with these state laws. None of the foreclosures are in compliance with state law in any state as far I have seen. Treble damages for non compliance. Check this out and look at the cases I posted on Neils last post that are now case law for this very non compliance. Found on also. Here is a fraudster and robo signer list web site.

  162. “sure thing attorney”? That’s a good one!

  163. @ Pat1…Talked to Bryl he was great but too busy to take it on and it would be too far for him to drive for hearings. Talked to Brown…he was great too but too far and busy but he may consider. Pro se needs a sure thing attorney. Time and luck are running slim. Great suggestions thank you so much!

  164. HA ! I just got my 2nd NOI to foreclose, after 2 years of silence……The first NOI had my first account numbers and some Trust i never heard of……the one i just recieved has BOA NA as servicer, note holder and mortgage holder……the NA says it received this from BOA HOME SERVICING……

    I did get my mortgage from BOA (all done over the phone !!)…….Can anyone help me with what shell games they are playing and how i can catch them !…….any help is much appreciated

  165. @iwantmynpv…What is FHLB? I am a newbie trying to catch up here. Thanks for your help!

  166. Enclavedebacle,

    Try Gregory Bry or Chris Brown

  167. If your bank went out of business-seized by the OTS / OCC place in FDIC conservatorship – sue the FHLB that provided the Repo for the loans.

  168. enclavedebacle, What is the name of the robo signer on your docs. Many of us can send you copies of different signatures claiming to be the same party signing and prove multiple fruad signatures. Also read this case from Hawaii. Perfeclty clear and stands for most of our cases. Also is good case law for you.

    Read the Remicks have failed the Remicks have failed in the Hawaii case above and the Oppenheim Report within the Remicks have failed.
    Dont give up if the district (federal court) judge dismisses your case it is all to common. No proof of the rule of law in the lower courts in most all states. Melissa Huelsman has a MERS question in front of th U.S.Supreme court asking the US Supreme justices if the rule of law still stands in the state of Washington. It is pretty bad. The Appeals court and U.S. Supreme Court judges seem to be the judges that uphold the rule of law.

    The article 9 UCC law and the still standing law (distinguised,) Carpenter V. Longran 1874 U.S. Supreme Court case should do MERS in and the Article III of the US Constitution. Yes old case law but so is the U.S. Constitution old. Still good and still standing we hope! This Hawaii case is great and from a judges perspective.

    Also look on the web for Phil Ting Kings county assessors office and The register of deeds John O’Brien report by Marie McDonnell for Essex County. l the secretary of state in the state of the notary and ask for a copy of the signature on file of the notary. In most cases they do not match even close. Proof of additional fraud assignments. Use already won case law to guide you on your briefs. I am a pro se also not an attorney and this is just my .02 cents.

    Mers Bilaws do not allow MERS to hold the note nor be a beneficiary. MERS claims only to hold the Deed of Trust. So MERS has to separate the deed of trust from the note. Notice the assignments are after the default. That is unlawful also.

    The note has to stay in place when securitized and can not be transferred once the trust is closed. New York PSa law states the notes can not be transferred after 90 days. Or they are void. And I am sure they are all void and destroyed. See the Remicks have faile, to support that.

    Hultman and RK Arnold depositions are available on the web and they state MERS can not and is not a beneficiary., nor a lender.
    Also check your title for clouded title. and your PSA for being blank and how many times the loan number shows up in multiple trust.

    Good luck on your case.

    In my opinion the non compliance with state laws are being overlooked to much and are very important. Check not only your FDCPA law as you have check your State CPA laws and State Deed of Trust laws. I have seen several states Nebraska and Washington and others that the state requires the foreclosures to be registered in their state and they have not registered in any state and many more violations and this makes their foreclosures unlawful. Look up

  169. Why are all these guys resigning? Do they know something we do not!

  170. This must be, cause the PSA’s are empty! Written into blank like mine and never entered.

    If you have not read The Remicks have failed it is in this article and the Oppenheim report is inside the Remicks have failed. This judge is ontop of the issues. The void PSA’s are important to the homeowner cause it voids the debt owed against the home. Not allowing the proof of the securities pools into a homeowners defense is an injury to them. The void PSA effects the debt the homeowner owes. Faulty void PSA’s effect the homeowner directly. They also prove the fraud lender has no standing.

    This is a very important straight foreward case that proves the securities pools effect the case and is admissable.

  171. Thank you @enraged and Shelley. I appreciate the support! Pro se has a hearing on the 19th of April and is trying to get notes together for himself to plead at the hearing. Pro se sent his filed motions and objections to the AG and got them sent back with a love note saying that they can’t look at it because pro se is already in litigation. AG’s office is ONLY taking complaints from homeowners to forward to the banks!

  172. @enclave,

    Contact Mandelman Matters and tell him the story. He has an army of doers who immediately send e-mails to banks trying to foreclose and evict people. He is also very well connected with defense attorneys in almost every state and many of them do pro bono work. Martin Andelman writes about individual cases and gets results. He’s saved many homeowners.

    Research Mandelman Matters on google. He really helps the underdog.

  173. Searching In Shadow Inventory For A Solution To The Foreclosure Crisis

    WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — When Frank Verna pulls up to a battered, four-unit apartment building at lunch hour, he’s just over a mile as the seagull flies from the gated oceanfront palaces of South Florida’s wealthiest.

    But this stretch of 21st Street, pocked by homes with boarded-up windows and dead-ending at railroad tracks, is unlikely to make it to a tourism poster. Verna turns the car around in case he needs to make a quick exit and reaches into the center console for a Smith & Wesson M&P40. The real estate agent tucks the pistol into his jeans.

    “Just watch your step,” he says, pulling back the tangle of bushes grown across the building’s entry path. Beyond is the darkened doorway to Unit 1 – missing its door.

    “I think there’s a dead animal over there,” says Verna, traces of New York’s Queens still present in his accent despite two decades in the Sunshine State. He aims his flashlight at a mat of brown fur in the center of a living-room floor blanketed in garbage. The stench of whatever’s in there is already potent and the summer heat is still months away. Nobody is home.

    Verna is here because he specializes in distressed properties and Florida, thrashed by the mortgage and foreclosure disaster, has thousands of them. But figuring out just how many is not so simple.

    Each month, analysts issue reports detailing the number of homes nationwide in foreclosure or held by banks. The implication is that if we can just find a cure for these loans and homes – either by matching buyers with houses or helping the borrowers stay put – the economy will be able to heal at last.

    At ground level, though, it’s more complicated. The building on 21st Street is a good example.

    The last buyer paid $309,000 for this place six years ago. But today the county appraiser says it’s worth less than a quarter of that amount. A bank filed foreclosure papers against the owner in 2008, but a year later withdrew the case. Legally, it still belongs to the original owner, subject to fines and liens by the city. But the bank sold the underlying mortgage note to a hedge fund for pennies on the dollar. That company has hired Verna to check the condition and occupancy status of its investment, on the way to making it profitable (His research indicates the owner has left the country.)

    It’s one thing to take measure of the foreclosure crisis in the black and white of statistics. But here’s a reminder that reality also comes shaded in gray.

    People in the foreclosure trade have a name for buildings like the one on 21st Street: “shadow inventory.” Broadly speaking, it refers to all the homes in the foreclosure pipeline that will eventually flow in to the market but aren’t there yet. In practical terms, the definition of shadow inventory varies considerably depending on which analyst you ask, and there is truth to be gleaned from each of their carefully calculated studies.

    Numbers matter because figuring out how long the crisis will last requires knowing the extent of the damage. But if we’re going to take stock of the nation’s progress in working its way through the mortgage debacle, reading reports may not be enough.

    The only way to fully comprehend what’s going on out there is to wade into the wreckage.

    And to do that requires moving beyond the figures and the charts, and venturing into the shadows.


    All rise and come to order. Judge Diana Lewis’ court is now in session. On a Monday afternoon, the three rows of benches in Courtroom 4B are packed. Lawyers and home owners who weren’t early enough to snag a seat cluster around the doorway and stand along the walls.

    The lawyers are the ones in the suits who look like they belong. The borrowers are the ones in T-shirts and sneakers, clutching overnight-mail envelopes stuffed with fraying documents, looking around nervously like maybe they’ve already missed something. Taped to a white board in the lobby, 16 sheets of paper list the 136 foreclosure cases scheduled to be heard in Judge Lewis’ courtroom on this one afternoon.

    Too late for a seat, Leanna Lalla, a lawyer representing homeowners, leans over to explain that today’s crowd in 4A is merely the norm, reflecting all those houses piling up in the pipeline.

    “Do you see the shadow yet?” she whispers.

    Florida, home to a quarter of all the nation’s foreclosures, is one of 20 states that rely entirely on the courts to deal with the crisis and the system is overwhelmed. A big part of the reason cases drag on for an average of two years is that last year’s robo-signing scandal forced banks to put the brakes on many cases with suspect documents. A settlement with state and federal officials has allowed the process to get moving again.

    But the proceedings in Lewis’ courtroom hint at the confusion, as well as delaying tactics by both lenders and borrowers, leaving scores of homes stuck in the pipeline.

    One of the first cases Lewis calls is Wells Fargo v. Killgore. The lawyer for a condo association steps forward, pursuing $15,000 in unpaid dues and fines on a Boynton Beach apartment in foreclosure. But a woman named Sue Elmore objects. Elmore is the daughter of the man who lived in the condominium at the heart of this case. She tries explaining to the judge that her father has Alzheimer’s disease and now lives in a nursing home. Years ago, he took out a reverse mortgage on his home and when he got ill, the family agreed to surrender it to the bank, a deal they thought was long done.

    “In our minds, we didn’t own it any more. We gave it back,” Elmore says later. “We just did what they told us to do.”

    Maybe someone forgot to tell the bank. Because the condo that the family thought they no longer owned is still listed in their name on the tax rolls. It’s not clear exactly how a home like this one should be classified or what it will take to figure out a solution.

    Later, Lewis calls up the parties in another case, Nationstar Mortgage v. Sands. The homeowner tells the judge he thought a loan modification had been finalized, allowing him to keep the home, until a lawyer called to say it was back in foreclosure.

    “That’s ridiculous,” Lewis tells the lawyer for the bank. “I’m not doing this thing two or three times. You’re making my head spin.”


    From the courthouse, it’s a 15-minute drive to a neighborhood called Eden Place – a scene that is much more peaceful. On alphabetically named streets, well-tended, if modest homes built a half-century ago snuggle amid tropical foliage. But it’s not the same paradise it was 15 years ago when Jimella McKeag fled Pennsylvania winters for a pink stucco refuge on J Street.

    “That one on the corner, he didn’t pay his mortgage. He just moved out to Okeechobee and let it go,” McKeag says, surveying the block from a plastic Adirondack chair beside her front door. “This one here, he rented it a couple of times. … He let it go and it went back to the bank.”

    Of the 13 houses on McKeag’s block in Lake Worth, two are currently owned by banks after going through foreclosure. But neither is listed for sale. On this afternoon, a crew of three men is hauling mildewed mattresses and a sofa out of one of them; its living-room ceiling has caved in from leakage despite a blue tarp covering its roof. At the opposite end of the block sit two more homes that are clearly abandoned, but whose fate remains unclear. One was bought out of foreclosure by a local doctor last fall, but appears uninhabitable. The other, boarded up, still belongs to its original owner.

    At the peak of the market, houses on this block sold for $250,000 or more; they’ve lost at least half their value. One day, these vacant homes will come out of the shadows and on to the market, affecting the worth of neighboring houses. Analysts pore over data trying to figure out just how many homes like this are hidden from view. But it’s not easy.

    Economists at CoreLogic, a California company that analyzes mortgage data, weigh in at the low end, charting 1.6 million homes in shadow inventory nationwide. They count homes not listed for sale, with loans that are at least 90 days overdue, in foreclosure or bank-owned.

    Others say the shadow is much bigger. Laurie Goodman of Amherst Securities in New York says it covers from 8.3 million to 10.4 million homes. Goodman’s analysis includes homes with loans that are at least 60 days overdue, have been delinquent in the past and are likely to go into default again, and thousands of homes whose owners are making payments but are likely to give up because they are so far “underwater,” in homes worth less than they owe.

    “The question is `how long is the shadow?'” Goodman says. “I think some people are definitely underestimating the seriousness of the problem.”

    Mark Fleming, chief economist for CoreLogic, says his analysis is a snapshot of the problem at the moment, while Goodman’s is more of a forecast.

    “In many ways, we can both be right,” he says.

    The difficulty of trying to measure shadows becomes more obvious the further you go down J Street. A couple of blocks south of McKeag’s house, more homes are cut into rental units and there are fewer trees. More homes are empty here, some marked with “No Trespassing” signs posted by the sheriff’s office. But the houses that are occupied are the most difficult to figure.

    Take a two-family home with a carport in the 1400 block. According to county records, it has gone through foreclosure and is now owned by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. But tenants say they are still paying rent to the previous owner. There are scores of homes like this, experts say, owned by lenders who have yet to pursue an eviction of borrowers who are not making payments.

    Lenders have good reasons to delay. Empty homes require upkeep. Once banks claim a home, they are responsible for the taxes and fines from cities and homeowner’s associations. The loss on the loan goes on to their books. As long as a case in still in process, loan servicers continue to collect their fees.

    A recent check of records in this one county found more than 10,000 cases in which a bank secured a final judgment more than a year ago, yet there has still been no change in title, says Michael Olenick, a West Palm Beach computer programmer who tracks the system.

    Then there are houses like the white one in the 1300 block of J Street where Peter Gardner answers the door. Gardner, a former laser technician, bought this house for $44,000 in 1995. After a car accident left him disabled four years ago, he says he fell behind on his payments and tried repeatedly to work out a catch-up plan, borrowing enough money from his mother to cover the money owed, but not late fees. This is a variation of accounts often heard from borrowers and lawyers who represent them – for years, banks waited until people fell behind, then began imposing heavy late fees, while refusing to give ground.

    Gardner, who says he hasn’t made a payment on his loan in years, thought about selling. A real estate agent advised listing it for $275,000 to get a quick sale. But he resisted. The lender began foreclosure proceedings three years ago. Gardner asked for a loan modification, but every three months the bank told him he needed to reapply. Finally, last fall, the house went to auction. The lender claimed it for $500.

    The story doesn’t end there.

    The home is owned by a subsidiary of Bank of America. Gardner expects to be evicted one of these days. In the meantime, though, employees of the bank still call every few weeks to tell him he’s behind on his payments and responsible for the house. “They want me to live in the house, mow the lawn, keep the air conditioning on so the fungus doesn’t grow in it,” Gardner says. He keeps telling the bank employees that he no longer owns the place, but they don’t believe him.

    “Somebody went and sold my house and they’re telling me I’m not even in foreclosure,” Gardner says, standing in the driveway he no longer owns, but where he still parks. “I was mad crazy with it and every time you just have to laugh. Otherwise, you’d just kill yourself inside.”


    The housing market is working through a riddle, trying to determine what homes are worth given limited demand. But shadow inventory keeps part of the supply hidden.

    “It goes deep and you have no clue,” says Danielle Giunta, who checks up on distressed homes on behalf of lenders. Giunta sold real estate until the market tanked. But she’s repurposed herself for the times. Now, a few days a week, she drives a 120-mile route through six Palm Beach County zip codes, knocking on doors, noting broken windows or water damage and snapping pictures. She usually spends just a few minutes at each house and earns a few dollars per stop.

    “The first few weeks I worked, I was very depressed,” Giunta says. Part of it was all the vandalism and garbage she came across. Other times, it was the conversations with families certain they were about to evicted. But, as an agent who stills watches the listings, she was also bothered by the difference between the number of homes for sale and all the others she was seeing.

    “I go online and see what they’re reporting and it’s not the same,” she says. “It’s not going to be better for years …and the reason I say that is the truth is not out yet.”

    There is, however, substantial demand for foreclosures at the right price. Driving through inland neighborhoods, agent Sharon Restrepo slows to point out small houses and condominiums. In a development called The Forest, she stops in front of a condo she bought for $30,000 a few months ago and resold to an investor for $40,000. After the investor paid $1,600 to fix it up, the place now rents for $950 a month. Restrepo says she’s buying five to 10 homes like this a month, turning most around as profitable rentals. You can’t build these houses for what they cost, she and others say.

    But investors and those who represent them complain banks are not realistic about the prices they’ll accept. Verna, the real estate agent specializing in distressed properties, says that slowing the flow of homes into the market creates an artificially low inventory in some neighborhoods, which can temporarily lift prices. At the same time, lenders are increasingly selling homes or the underlying loans in bulk to hedge funds.

    That’s where Verna comes in, tracking down borrowers to convince them to trade deeds for cash, and turning around homes like the building on 21st Street for resale. This takes patience and a strong stomach. Abandoned homes are frequently trashed or occupied by squatters. Borrowers are difficult to track down and reluctant to talk.

    Verna has tracked one homeowner from address to address to address. Each time the real estate agent thinks he’s caught up, the man has moved again.

    At this rate, Verna figures it will be three to five years before lenders let all the homes go. The risk is that, by moving too slowly they could artificially raise prices in some areas, which might spur investors who bought homes as rentals to put them up for sale.

    “The truth of the matter is we would have already gotten over it if they just let the properties get out there and get sold,” Verna says. “So what are you doing? You’re not stabilizing the market. You’re creating more chaos.”


    When Lynn Szymoniak moved to South Florida three decades ago as a lawyer for migrant farm workers, the land stretching west along Lantana Road was planted with cash crops. Today, a Home Depot store has taken over a tomato field. And what was once a U-Pick farm is now a neighborhood of 262 homes called Strawberry Lakes.

    “Sometimes you can’t tell when a house is in foreclosure unless you go back two or three times, because the neighbors will do things like park their cars in the driveway, all in an effort to make things more secure,” Szymoniak says, driving slowly through the subdivision.

    She points out houses with waterlogged newspapers piled on front steps and fabric hung across windows. One of her “favorites” is a house whose shingled roof has worn a blue rain tarp so long it has disintegrated to fringe, hanging from the eves like a monk’s haircut.

    “But one of the things you may have noticed,” Szymoniak says, “is that with all these foreclosed homes we’ve come upon, we’ve come upon zero `For Sale’ signs.”

    Szymoniak hasn’t counseled farm workers since the 1980s. But she found her way to Strawberry Lakes after battling to keep her own house. In 2008, Deutsche Bank filed foreclosure papers against her. By then, Szymoniak had spent years representing insurance companies in fraud cases and she’d become expert in spotting deception. She took note of suspect signatures on loan documents. Her detective work was instrumental in exposing the robo-signing scandal, reflected in $18 million awarded Szymoniak as part of the recently announced settlement between major banks and government officials.

    Szymoniak’s frustration, though, extends well beyond what happened with her loan. She is convinced banks still are not doing enough to resolve the crisis. She points to Strawberry Lakes as Exhibit A.

    The two- and three-bedroom homes here now sell for just a third of the $275,000 or more they fetched at the top of the bubble.

    Few of the neighborhood’s homes are owned by lenders. But many bear stickers on doors and windows, posted by banks and loan servicers with a vested interest in their fate. “This property is managed by Chase,” reads one, at a home on Strawberry Lakes Circle. A look through the window reveals a dining room ceiling that is caving in.

    At least three dozen homes are currently in foreclosure, with many cases dating back three or four years. Of those, at least five are houses where lenders won final judgments years ago, but have not moved forward.

    In addition, at least 57 houses not in foreclosure are owned by people who paid far above what they’re now worth.

    Prudent Alcindor, who paid $253,000 for a house currently appraised at less than $112,000, says he thinks often about whether to give up.

    “I still pay, but I will never have the house. I pay to stay in it. But it will never be mine. It’s like I rent it,” says Alcindor, who works at a vitamin manufacturer. The financial pressure on his neighborhood is “getting worse and worse every day.”

    It’s hard to know how others are doing in paying their loans. But Jeremy Vassalotti, president of the homeowner’s association, points out that as his neighbors have fallen behind, more responsibility lands on everyone else. Vassalotti, who owns a masonry company, lives in one of the neighborhood’s most carefully tended homes, with cast iron dragonfly sculptures on the walls by the entryway and stone frogs set amid the cedar chips.

    But he spends substantial effort now trying to keep up with what’s going on at the houses around him. In Strawberry Lakes, 105 of the homeowners are behind on their payments to the HOA, a hint that more of them could be headed to foreclosure.

    That uncertainty makes it difficult to measure the reach or duration of the crisis. But Szymoniak cautions against assuming that, just because the streets here are peaceful and the grass in front of the empty homes kept trimmed, the problem is going away.

    “You know,” she says, pointing out yet another vacant house, “when anybody tells me we’re coming out of the foreclosure crisis, I always take them for a ride and let them see what’s happening” in neighborhoods like this one – bathed in South Florida sunshine, but set deep in the shadows.


  174. Judges are mandated to recognize fraud and to report this fraud. When the judge makes judgment without discovery and due process, which is viewing the paperwork and seeing fraud affidavits, they are mandated to turn this fraud in and report it to someone whom is not engaged in the fraud. Pro Se and obviously a lot of attorneys dont have the know how to fight this crime. the judges are in a position and or should be to recognize crime and are paid by the tax payers to protect them from this fraud, and to judge for justice within the rule of law. Therefore a judge should not be partial to a bank and disregard the homeowner because the judge feels and makes their own laws, not rule of law, to decide they are going to make this homeowner pay a bilto someone the homeowner does not owe, just to make sure he or she pays someone. The judge’s partiality to their blind trust in the banks has thrown thousands of homeowners out and given a free house to a fraud and made the homeowner homeless when the house by the rule of law is paid in full and the debt note is void, due to no fault of the homeowner just trying to save his/her house from crooks. How ethical is it that a judge gives the house to a fraud? Whom can not prove they own the note and deed of trust? None of them can prove it. Do to their own fault. So the Ameican jobless, incomeless, whom have lost their jobs and incomes and some their lives and the homes to these crooks suffer because judges are partial to the banks and have become their own rule makers disregarding he rule of law and the US Constitution. Breaching their oath of Office and committing treason on Americans, then claim they are clearing their cases in a timely manner and meeting their unconscionable quota.

  175. […] by Neil F. Garfield on on 3/31/2012 (  Study this until you have it committed items 1 through 10 to […]

  176. Thanks Neil! I am a new fan. I am researching pro se a case pro bono on the worst case of fraud that I have ever seen. Pro se has thus far survived the first hearing…an act of God! The problem we have is that pro se CANNOT FIND an attorney in VIRGINIA that is qualified to take over his case. Pro se has made at least 100 cold calls in the past 8 months to no avail. Any info that can be offered will be greatly appreciated. This pro se is a very sad case and a widower with 2 children.

    Pro se spent large sums of money to try to save his wife from cancer. He had ALWAYS been current on his mortgage until the unemployment fiasco. He did EVERYTHING TO FIND WORK including volunteering his services as a contractor just to get his foot in the door for any kind of future repair/remodel job.

    Pro se applied for refinance when he knew his savings were getting tight. The refinance came back at more than the original loan. Applied for loan modification with the servicer and 2 other HUD approved venders…none of them came through because the loan was already closed, accelerated and steamrolling to foreclosure.

    Pro se also applied for reinstatement to cure his default. The reinstatement information letter came 6 days before the Trustee Sale and 29 days AFTER pro se’s request. Pro se would NOT HAVE HAD THE TIME TO REINSTATE…the provisions for reinstatement could not be completed in time. Prose filed an emergency Chapter 13 just 4 hours before the Trustee Sale.
    FDCPA violations galore in dunning letters and pleadings. Breach of Contract of everything that could be breached including no notice of pre-acceleration and pro se’s right to reinstate after acceleration.

    Servicer did not hold the note and said so in a letter that had the Substitution of Trustee and the Trustee sale Notice in the same envelope. There was no assignment pre foreclosure not even on MERS pro se has the Milestones. An assignment came 8 months later in a Proof of claim. It came from Duval county and one of the Assistant Secretary’s of MERS signature was identical to one on a Bethany Hood signed Affidavit case. Someone signing for the Assistant Secretary was NOT the Assistant Secretary.

    And there is a counterfeit note…pro se has proof.

    Whatever anyone can advise or do here would be appreciated.



Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: