FireDogLake: How the Corruption of the Land Title System is NOT Being Fixed


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


“You’re talking about massive, massive fraud. And this is what the state Attorneys General and the federal regulators gave up, in exchange for their non-investigatory investigation.”

The Real Foreclosure Fraud Story: Corruption of the Land Title System

By: David Dayen

George Zornick carries a rebuttal from Eric Schneiderman’s team on yesterday’s damaging expose of the securitization fraud working group. Here’s what it has to say:

• There are 50 staffers “across the country” working on the RMBS working group (the official title).
• DoJ has asked for $55 million for additional staffing.
• The five co-chairs of the working group meet formally weekly, and talk daily.
• There are no headquarters for the working group, but that’s because it’s spread across the country.
• There is no executive director.
• Activists still think the staffing level is too low.

If any of this looks familiar, it’s because it’s EXACTLY what Reuters and I reported a week ago. In other words, it was unnecessary. And it doesn’t contradict what the New York Daily News op-ed said yesterday, either. Like that op-ed, this confirms that there is no executive director and no headquarters for the working group, which sounds more like a central processing space for investigations that could have happened independently, at least at this point.

Meanwhile, if you want actual news, you can go to this very good story at MSNBC, revealing the truth that nobody wants to talk about: the inconvenient detail that the land title and property rights system that has served this country well for over 300 years has been irreparably broken by this gang of thieves at the leading banks.

In a quiet office in downtown Charlotte, N.C., dozens of Wells Fargo’s foreclosure foot soldiers sit in cubicles cranking out documents the bank relies on to seize its share of the thousands of homes lost to foreclosure every week […]

The Wells Fargo worker, who first contacted via email in late January, told of a wide range of concerns about the foreclosure documents she processes. Some families apparently were denied loan modifications after only cursory interviews, she said. Other borrowers applying for help sent comprehensive personal financial documents to a fax machine that she discovered had been unattended for weeks. Others landed in foreclosure after owing interest payments of as little as $1.18 a day, according to documents she said she reviewed.

“There was one file where they weren’t even past due and they were in foreclosure status,” the loan processor said. “They’re pushing these files and pushing these files….”

Five years into the worst housing collapse since the Great Depression, the foreclosure pipeline that is removing tens of thousands of families from their homes every month rests on a legal process that has been badly compromised by errors, misrepresentation and outright fraud, according to consumer attorneys, state attorneys general, federal investigators and state and federal judges.

I must confess that I don’t throw this in everyone’s face nearly enough. What is being described in this article is the product of a completely broken system. The low-level grunts are being forced to sign off on a quota of loan files every day, and push the paper through the pipeline. Veracity, or even knowledge of the underlying data in the files, is irrelevant. This is precisely what got us into this mess in the first place, and it’s still happening. And these grunts, making $30,000 a year, are given titles like “Vice President of Loan Documentation” to sign off on affidavits attesting to the loan files. That’s basically robo-signing. It’s still happening.

Check out this part about LPS:

Like many mortgage servicers, Wells Fargo relies on a company called Lender Processing Services to assemble some of the information used to foreclose on properties.

With each file they prepare, the bank’s document processors must swear “personal knowledge” the information in each affidavit was properly collected and is accurate and complete.

But they have no way of making good on that promise because they are not able to check whether LPS properly collected and processed the data, according to the document processor.

“We’re basically copying and pasting” information from the LPS system, she said. “It’s data entry. We just input (on the affidavit) what’s on that system. And that’s it. We don’t go back through system and look.”

You’re talking about massive, massive fraud. And this is what the state Attorneys General and the federal regulators gave up, in exchange for their non-investigatory investigation.

This story is familiar here, but not necessarily to the audience. I applaud them for putting this long piece together that synthesizes a lot of the information that’s been out there for years. This is the real scandal here, a corrupted residential housing market that actually cannot be put back together.


115 Responses

  1. What I have learned first hand. Due to the discovery that my former husband Mike Figat L.I.N.Y. has been a key player in the mortgage and foreclosure mess since the 80s.
    Fact Court employees are the beneficiaries of the fraud. Many more also, Making up phony paperwork. Not even going througha bank for processing. Using bank names..Yes. Ex is employed in a car dealership finance dept. He has bank access. Doing mortgage fraud.
    I can show you. Three fundings at one closing. Using different formats of mortgagors names and property discriptions. Post office allowing altering of official address. Ex. E. MAIN ST becomes Main St. E. I have seen it w my own home. Cops, dist. atty. clerks, judges lawyers, Come to him for fraud.

  2. Ian I already reported it to the attorney general the assistant AG and the FBI. If I need to add his name to the list for the prosecutors office I will happily do that. keeping to the lawsuits on our present lawyers and judges. Let me know the law when you find it and I will add that to the notice to the prosecutors office.

  3. Shelley A. Erickson- file a ‘misprision of felony’ suit. While a little foggy on the details, I know that, although not often enforced, if a US citizen knows of a crime and refuses to report it, they THEY (the citizen) is liable for criminal charges. I understand that they can be easily filed by pro se’s. (I know, I know, I haven’t filed one either- I will delve into it later)

  4. Ian, He is in my neck of woods so I am exposing him. I have to much going on with lawsuits and petitioning for charges against several attorneys and judges to start anything a new. So the exposure to many on the blogs and emails and face book is what I am doing. My realestate friends whom I have met through this injustice that are trying to save their homes and do not want someoneelse to go through what they are going through are doing the same. I have sent this onto the FBI and the AG office. HAH HAH that will do any good and to several senators.

  5. Shelley A. Erickson- is this Mcfadden guy in your neck of the woods? You have him and his modus operandi pegged. What are you waiting for? Go get him!

  6. EdMacFarren short sales had this comment when the real estate agents asked since this is MERS and clouded titles are an issue here, is this property sellable?

    Response” Regarding the unbroken chain of title, that is a matter that will remedied in negotiations. I am sending his listing to title and escrow now and the matter will be handled accordingly.

    Yeah he knows the title is broken. He knows the foreclosuer then is not lawful. He knows he has no right to be short selling it then? He knows the homeowner owns it by law outright and is being forced into a sell they have not been properly disclosed of their situation. So is he going to tell them during negotiations, or just get their signature releasing their rights without this disclosure? and drag this agent into a mess of unlawful disclosure? and the sale of a stolen house, embezzelment and unlawful forced property short sale?

  7. Here is the Tacoma law firms answer to my agent freinds question what about the clouded title on the mortgage?
    (with the names of the innocent cut out)
    EdMacFarren short sales had this comment when the real estate agents asked since this is MERS and clouded titles are an issue here, is this property sellable?

    Response” Regarding the unbroken chain of title, that is a matter that will remedied in negotiations. I am sending his listing to title and escrow now and the matter will be handled accordingly.

    Yeah he knows the title is broken. He knows the foreclosuer then is not lawful. He knows he has no right to be short selling it then? He knows the homeowner owns it by law outright and is being forced into a sell they have not been properly disclosed of their situation. So is he going to tell them during negotiations, or just get their signature releasing their rights without this disclosure? and drag this agent into a mess of unlawful disclosure? and the sale of a stolen house, embezzelment and unlawful forced property short sale?

  8. Carie

    The insurance company does not purchase the collection rights. Servicers hold default insurance (and we would not be able to find out with who), this is not the same as mortgage title insurance. Thus, once placed in default or deemed non-complaint, the servicer advances payment IN FULL to Freddie/Fannie, reports loan as in default or non-compliant to Freddie/Fannie, and then collects on the servicer default insurance. Collection rights are sold to servicer by F/F due to the servicer advance.

  9. What do you mean you have posts in your inbox? Do you actually get posts directly sent to your e-mail?

    yes ——i have ten automatically come in from several sites–i try to keep up with things because things are getting super-hot as we head into the silly season–ie election–and things like your post yesterday re pension fund trustee are very very important to me—so it leaves me susceptible to being snowed under by people–i dont mind sifting quicklty thru 100 -emails a day–quick look and move on—but when it feels like im being snowed by literally dozens per day saying basically the same thing–i get suspicious—

    maybe ill have to flip to doing it your way–but aggravates me that iv been doing it this way since early 2009—-and this one person is derailing me———im too damn lazy to go plow thru 100 or so so i tend to check couple hours —i like to keep my record within 48 hours on judicial notice—–of significant developments–its one way to maintain credibility with the court—be a resource rather than a pest

    it is the same strategy i used for years with congressional staff—–news is not news after a day or so–eg the piece you did yesterday i believe is the 7th ag to move–irs trial started a week ago—issue sham delaware trust used to avoid taxes–sound familiar—last tuesday fed reserve announced cease and desist and civil penalty for bad internal controls in seeking bail out loans —same party all——there is a lot of pressure building up-

    see 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e) —

    If you were familiar with my case–you would agree I am not simply paranoid.

    BTW—i enjoy your essays on the EU situation—–i just know that you are way over the heads of like 99.99% of the american poulation—the market shudders every time the CDS on Spanish sovereign debt nudges up a couple basis points——-they have no idea that the IMF and ECB just piled up $1.5 trillion firewall money–and worry its not enough–how close to collapse the whole system is–another reason im nervous today–french election –fall of dutch govt this evening

    every day–i wonder if tomorrow there will be a run on the banks that nobody saw coming—you have to have a european background to see the interconnection—–its the chinese muni defaults that i think will trigger the sunami—sad that a communist govt financial control sysem should be the lynchpin of global capitalism

  10. @Dcb,

    What do you mean you have posts in your inbox? Do you actually get posts directly sent to your e-mail? I didn’t know that could be done. I have to sign onto livinglies a few times a day to read the new posts.

    Darn I would hate to be sent posts directly into my e-mail. Can you deactivate that feature? Wouldn’t that make sense? Or is there a possibility to delete those you don’t expect anything meaningful from as they come in?

    Being unpleasant can really be hurtful and Shelly means well. I ignore a lot of posts from a lot of people (Nancy Drewe, for example: never knew what to do with those) but until she jumped all over me, it never occured to me to be nasty. Don’t do that DCB: it completely shoots your credibility and it hurts both the person you were rude to and yourself.

    Gotta go. Early job tomorrow.

  11. no i am not –im tired of having 50 or more sae useless crackpot posts on my inbox from her every day————iv now reached that 42 usc 1, 2, 4 treason thing about 100 times—enough is enough—go do some damn research sae and quite harassing everybody from wherever to wherever———

  12. enraged—this am i posted a question–a substantive question in relation to the editors post —–i do my reasearch for a few hours –come back and my inbox is jammed with 40 sae redundant remarks–if i let it go id have 100 lines in a day or 2—-it disables the monitoring of the site for useful comments—-3/4 of the comments–this happens day after day—-to the point i either can make no contributory post –ask no questions—-or i have to delete all other posts on the site—-she is cratering this site as a useful source

    so yes if the objective is to cause me to disconnect its working—so if shes working for them –put in for a bonus–what do they do pay by the line?

    if thats her objective shes very effective

  13. @dcb

    Just so you know—you have more posts the she does…let it go.

  14. @Shelly,

    Don’t take it personally. Untreated bipolars do that. Feel sorry and move on. I’ve been on the receiving end of that and it hurts only for a few minutes. Once you understand what’s going on, you avoid it more easily.

  15. i would but shes filling my inbox—count how many lines she puts up every damn day———-i have to wade through dozens of her osts in hope of locating one from enraged or anon or whomever—say may 6 posts per day that are interesting—and i dont read them all and i dont care if anybody reads mine–i dont get a thrill seeing my name there –i do it because its a sharing thing–if people share we all benefit–but overwhelming the site with 100-300 hits per day is just simply impolite and worse its interfering with the utility

  16. @dcb

    Are you kidding? No need to make it personal…just don’t read it for goodness sake—not everybody chooses to read what you post…let it go already, geez.

  17. Suspicious of What? Are you paranoid?

  18. Hopefully we all have an axe to grind! Seeking justice! And helping others seek justice.

  19. good for u—-i dont —-im tired of having 3/4 of the posts be her useless ramblings–it is suspicious

  20. Thanks Carie, was feeling a little oppressed!
    The greatest power that the Oppressor has is the mind of the oppressed. Steven Biko

    In a corrupt society, the truth can be found in what is forbidden to say.

    “This crisis of confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is real and growing.” “Left unaddressed, the perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that courts are supposed to uphold.”

    Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor – 2010

    I didnt understand all that dbc was trying to say, she lost me in some of it.

  21. @dcb

    Wow—“put up or shut up”??? That’s pretty harsh.

    Excuse me, but you don’t own this site. I enjoy Shelley’s postings…that is the beauty of this site–we can say whatever we feel like…and it all relates in some way to our collective fight for truth and justice.

  22. SAE—please—-we all know you have an ax to grind—or so you seem to appear—however can we stick to real material—-cases –rules—substantive and procedural material that is informative and lay off the soapbox stuff—–not intended to insult or be nasty—but please lets try to be relevant to law–if you rant –the court will have far less patience than i—-pay attention to some of the styles of the regulars like tolle and anonomous–etc——-i do not know these people–im not shilling for business for them–im not trying to curry favor–but really lets be constructive

    nobody wants an inbox full of meaningless ranting—-i try to be substantive–maybe not always on topic–but the editor posts the topic and there s nothing wrong with wandering off topic–if its in some way relevant

    i think its always constructive to see the responses of the old timers to new questioners–no matter how much any of us thinks we might know about this or that –different perspectives serve to enlighten—and may stimulate thinking —outside the box—–lord knows that lawyers and pro se need to get outside the box because the box was constructed by bank lawyers

    im still waiting for just one foreclosure-related case reference sae???

    put up or shut up

    as far as soliman goes—blatant self-promtion got tiring–and it was not very inspiring hearing the tirades from him and his partner jack daniels

  23. THE BIG MEDIA LIKE THE BIG BANKS ARE IN CONTROL OF THE BRAIN WASH AND THE CONCEALMENT OF THIS CRIME. Look at all the bank advertising credit cards checking accounts etc. However I have seen a change here lately. Some big media are announcing porttons of the crime. Here is a “[FEDERAL JUDGE”] that is honest, goes by the rule of law and judged by the 140 year old case law set in the U.S. Supreme Court(one of my email freinds told me well that is old law.) So is the U.S.Constitution and the Bill of Rights and a lot of case law we go by and a lot of statutes set in place that have made America. It is distinguished law. Supported by many judges along the past years. To protect our land rights. Good to see “[FEDERAL JUDGE]” judging by [THE RULE OF LAW].


    you said:

    “…Insurance company funded the purchase of collection rights. INSURANCE COMPANY. Security investors were NEVER entitled to pass-through of anything. Because the pass-through based upon fraud.— was never a mortgage…”

    How do we get these truths to the media?

  25. nice try enraged

  26. like a llaw school question—–property——-the mortgage typically states that the mortgage rums to fixtures–stuff attached to realty—–issue arises more than you might think–imagine how much manufactured housing there is —usually i could pull a manufactured house in a day or less –just sitting on a block foundation—people do it a lot—trick is local permits too

    there usually would be a prohibition on removing fixtures too—-so suit would not be foreclosure but soome sort of breach of contract –breach of the mortgage that accelerates the note–

    but all kinds of variation–interseting permit and zoning issue–gotta severe/ create the personalty —then relocate it and reattach it—-

  27. BSE,

    Happened to me with Fannie. Now you see it? Now, you don’t! See it again? Now you don’t.

    David Copperfield did it.

  28. Oops! Whatever happened to all that pension fund money entrusted by Florida to BNY Mellon…?

    Judges? Teachers? Cops? Firefighters? State employees? Hello, wake up!

  29. Thank you ANONYMOUS for all your help. I have been hear for a long tine and still in the battle

    But please try to explain this..I found that Freddie had my loan back in January 09.
    I sued liar lender and services in Oct 09. My loan disappears from Freddie’s website. Later, Servicer claims to be holder have the assignment and note…My loan is still invisible from Freddie’s website. I sue servicer again who still claims to be holder in due course plus note to mention they fabricate documents. Now I check Freddie’s website in Jan 2012..My loan re-appears.

  30. proper answer is escheat–to state then sell—

  31. most policies have exclusions now—or could be astronomically expensive—–if guy ran from country–hes not gonna file a quiet title —legislative prospective solution would work–they need to do a severable retro plus prospective

  32. retroactive—-the legislature cannot sieze property retroactively without compensating–it couldmake a law that says people have to file within 90 days of passage bu otherwise no notice—hey they might as well pass a law increasing the tax on last years income—or retroactively taking away a deduction and send everybody a bill for taxes the last three years–ex post facto

  33. If i remember correct the Bevilaqua case is an investor or investors that tried to prove a point and get quiet title on a stolen house, and they lost to themselves and they have not yet found the owner it was stolen from last I heard. Dont know if they even know about all this. They have a house they own outright and have not been found last I heard. Watch the government take it for back taxes after enabling the homewreckers to foreclose on them and they are long gone not even knowing they have the house back. The homeowner was not envolved in the case at all. We should be so lucky.

  34. I was just re-reading that piece about MA.

    “Unfortunately, the lawyer who handled the closing did not recommend they buy owner’s title insurance. They have been unable to track down the prior owner who went back to his home country of Brazil, and now they are stuck without many options, unable to refinance or sell their unit.”

    What kind of an A*H* would dissuade anyone to purchase title insurance nowadays??? A repo, mind you!

    So many disbarments waiting to happen!!!

    As it should be. I’m visualizing the landscape, pristine and clean and boy oh boy! do I like what I see!

  35. Hey guys,

    I think the foreclosures are part of the Romney approach to immigration. You know, his “self-deportation” idea. Goes something like that: we take away their houses. The owners go back to their country and… the state ends up with unsellable properties.

    I mean, seriously: didn’t that start during his stint as governor there…? And everyone knows that he tried everything in MA before pushing it for the rest of this country…

    Lawmakers To The Rescue? Legislation Filed To Fix “Ibanez” Foreclosure Title Defects
    by Rich Vetstein on February 28, 2012 · 8 comments

    in Foreclosure,Massachusetts Real Estate Law,Mortgage Crisis,Mortgages,Title Defects,Title Insurance

    Share16Massachusetts Senate Bill 830 Addresses Toxic Foreclosure Titles

    Finally, Massachusetts lawmakers have taken action to help innocent purchasers of foreclosed properties in the aftermath of the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez and Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez decisions, which resulted in widespread title defects for previously foreclosed properties. The legislation, Senate Bill 830, An Act Clearing Titles To Foreclosed Properties, is sponsored by Shrewsbury State Senator Michael Moore and the Massachusetts Land Title Association. Full text is embedded below.

    The bill, if approved, will amend the state foreclosure laws to validate a foreclosure, even if it’s technically deficient under the Ibanez ruling, so long as the previously foreclosed owner does not file a legal challenge to the validity of the foreclosure within 90 days of the foreclosure auction.

    The bill has support from both the community/housing sector and the real estate industry. Indeed, the left-leaning Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA), non-profit umbrella organization for affordable housing and community development activities in Massachusetts, has filed written testimony in support of the bill.

    Properties afflicted with Ibanez title defects, in worst cases, cannot be sold or refinanced. Homeowners without title insurance are compelled to spend thousands in legal fees to clear their titles. Allowing such foreclosed properties to sit and languish in title purgatory is a huge drain on individual, innocent home purchasers and the housing market itself.

    A recent case in point: I was recently contacted by a nice couple who bought a Metrowest condominium in 2008 after it had been foreclosed. Little did they know that the foreclosure suffered from an “Ibanez” title defect. Unfortunately, the lawyer who handled the closing did not recommend they buy owner’s title insurance. They have been unable to track down the prior owner who went back to his home country of Brazil, and now they are stuck without many options, unable to refinance or sell their unit. This bill will help people like this who have helped the housing market by purchasing foreclosed properties, and improving them.

    The bill is now before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. Please email them to show your support of Senate Bill 830.

  36. @Cheryl,

    Really??? Anonymous is a “she”?

    Writes like a man. All in morse code. I think I mentioned it once: I asked him “What’s with the morse? Can’t read that. Need real sentences, you know, foreigner and all… i got my limitations.” For a while there, it was getting better. I think we’re dealing with a relapse or something…

  37. E.Tolle- re: ‘mystify those of low mental capacity’. This is indeed a cryptic passage, and is absolutely of limited, yet opaque consequence. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

  38. E. Tolle-

    ANONYMOUS is the 1 person who has always helped this website out when she does not need to. I love to read what she has to say. Why not quit with the barbs. We have much more important work to do than that.

    Thank you ANONYMOUS for all your help.

  39. the unstated feature about ibanez that i have noticed is that the case was brought by an entity usbank “as trustee”——but everybody consistently refers to the ibanez loan as being in a “pool” —that is different from being ina trust———i believe that the option one origination securitization machine did not bother filing loan schedules with sec or the state ucc to perfect the interest in the loans—so we arent talking about trustees at all–its an FDCPA misrepresentation—the pools are actually unincorpoarted business associations without presence in the states they bring suit in–so a defense of lack of capacity as a registered entity should be raised—go see if you can find the ibanez trust at sec –a loan schedule–test me

  40. @ Ian, Mystify those of low mental capacity

    What mean by that?

  41. E.Tolle- why you pick on ANONYMOUS? You not able deal with sentence fragment? Keep mind sharp. Eliminate excess verbiage. Make point quick. Send smokescreen to bank moles, cover tracks.
    Mystify those of low mental capacity. Bark up wrong tree.

  42. Can someone verify my recollection of IBANEZ? I recall that after all the hoopla, the property went back to Fannie Mae for $1.00. I read the entire trancript, along with Marie McDonnell’s amicus brief. What puzzled me is that no one ever mentioned this. Is my memory eroding faster than I thought it was?
    I further recall, with certainty, that either IBANEZ or LARACE, the other appeal heard at the same time, the ‘lender’s’ attorneys whipped out a copy of the standard loan types identified in the PSA, with avg. loan amt., how many loans per state, amortization schedule, range of interest rates, months to reset date, etc. The judge noted that there was no proof that either party’s loan was in the pool, just broad generalizations.

  43. Anonymous, why you write like Injun? Trouble with whole sentence? Too much firewater? Not enough firewater? Many moons go by and I wonder. I smoke on it. Fill bong.

  44. Been here a long time. Never slam anyone. Even Soliman — although he often slammed me — called me “cowboy” — and much worse.

    Neil’s problem is that he refuses to expand his ideas and theories. Blocks all else out. Think is smart guy — too set in ways to really be open. Could do more here — or maybe before. But, Neil appears proud. This is not about pride — for anyone. This is about justice. Once you really understand that, people will open up, and realize what they have really been up against.

  45. As soon as in default, servicer sends to default servicer such as LPS. It is not the opposite. Entities such as Wells — send to LPS. LPS relies on Wells data (not that I condoning LPS – by far — NOT).

    But, author has it backwards. And, servicer will send even if not default — hey, what the heck??? Send them all — borrower will never know they were not in default — we will collect insurance — and we will own rights to property — not the GSEs. All without a penny paid by us. Oh yeah, then we will sell the cash flows to security investors. Tell them it is triple AAA by providing multiple layers of credit enhancement. Credit enhancement, meaning someone else picks up the tab for the bankers “fall.” This is actually what happened with subprime — and the bankers were the culprits. Instructed to what to do. Remember servicer is servicing for someone else. Security investors — not your creditor — not for subprime. They did not fund your loan. Insurance company funded the purchase of collection rights. INSURANCE COMPANY. Security investors were NEVER entitled to pass-through of anything. Because the pass-through based upon fraud.— was never a mortgage.

    Enraged is right. Comes from the bankers. Not the opposite way around.

    So task force not doing it’s job?? All political move to soften the blow of the settlement. So no one ever questions — what really happened.

    Romney no better than Obama. Obama no better than Romney. No one cares about the victims.

  46. As to sec experts, I read on msfraud’s forum where they’re claiming Soliman’s got a $1.5mm suit supposedly chasing after him. Don’t slam me, I have no idea about it…innocent until proven guilty and all that. I hesitated even mentioning it here. The folks on that site have nothing but loathing for him. They also slam Neil at every chance they get. A bit edgy over there for my tastes. I know….that coming from the guillotine erector himself. I wish nothing but the best for everyone….except….Death To Wall Street.

  47. @ENRAGED
    You did an excellent job of it. When was that argued? Do you have a site link or do i have to pay lexis?

  48. And a very, very positive news. When countries decide to forgive debts, we’ll finally be able to start from scratch and focus on what’s really important: restore humanity in a thriving position. Can’t happen as long as nations crumble under virtual paper debt and no longer have access to their own resources.

    Japan Forgives $3.7 Billion of Myanmar’s Debt
    Sunday, April 22, 2012
    Japan forgives $3.7 billion of Myanmar’s debt

    Japan said Saturday it will forgive about 300 billion yen ($3.7 billion) of Myanmar’s debt and resume development aid as a way to support the country’s democratic and economic reforms.

    The government made the announcement after a meeting between Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and Myanmar President Thein Sein following a summit with leaders from the five nations of the Mekong River region.

    More here:

  49. Directly from Kabuki. It doen’t appear that anyone else is looking into bankers’ arrests but him. Worth taking a peek at it. Note though that Asia seems much, much more likely to arrest bankers than… let’s say… the US?

    Updated 3/27/12

    This is a new list I’ve started on banker arrests. This is preliminary and not complete. This research in progress. If you know of any additional arrests please send use the URL to

  50. @DCB,

    I posted that Ohio Supreme Court because many people don’t seem to realize that most judges really, really ponder for days on end about what the right to do is. They have rules to follow, they try their darn best to do it but they also know that, whatever decision they make in this horrendous mess can open a new can of worms that was not considered and might even make the situation more difficult to clean up.

    The questions you came up with illustrates exactly that: as soon as you start looking into it, you can’t stop but come up with more and more questions. And speaking about Boyko, it took the guy an incredible amount of courage to make that decision. it takes Shack of NY an incredible amount of courage every single time he throws a bank out of his court room. Tough job. I wouldn’t want it.

    Yes people: this is such a mess that judges are literally torn trying to sort it out. And serious guys such as Weidner, Barnes, Stopa, Gardner, would never, ever, call judges “incompetent”, “corrupt” or anything like that: they know damn well how tough it is to make any kind of decision nowadays. Damn if you do. Damn if you don’t. We’re all in the same boat.

  51. is there some reson you do not want to reveal a casenumber sae?

  52. As usual, one of those “cut-and-paste jobs. The entire list is available on

    Below is their prose.

    I don’t mind if you re-blog this listing. Save yourself the wear and tear on your karma and do me the favor of including in your reposting. Thanks to all who have caught minor errors.

  53. thankyou re blogs–what i like to do with others is get auto comments from them but never post–i dnt want postings spread all over–i only use this one for reasons of my own–to raise questions etc–the others are not really good discussion blogs

  54. @ ENRAGED

    NO i was not on top of this but thankyou very much–this is IBANEZ —Boyco etc correct—and affects every situation whgere a corrective assignment was issued—so this is a big deal—–if the court rules that 17 was abused—-that it was jurisdictional –then te judgment is void ?

    the rescision right would be automatic?

    the foreclosed homeowner would have a right to file quiet title and trespass etc?

    but truly would one not think that 17 is to be used where there was an honest error in fact on the front end–and be corrective only–otherwise couldnt i just go into ct and do complaints in foreclosure by plaintiff JOHN DOE—and then if the defendant calls me on it –i search for a name to substitute?

    wouldnt extension of rule 17 invite outright fraud?

    please note people that in ohio if the up front filing was void for want of jurisdiction that all orders are void including orders enterind joint releases in settlement—–so one would have a choice in every instace to seek rescission–but rescision meeans putting everybody back where they started–so if a house was destroyed in th banks reo mismanagement the bank would have to pay resoration–or if the house was occupied by a new buyer–goodness–the buyer is out—the title insurance today exempts this sort of stuff–so the buyers inancer loses its mortgage—–the buyer i would think would have a claim against the falsely foreclosing bank—is this not the result in IBANEZ and in MISOURI now Enraged?

    This is really interesting–Enraged if Ohio rules for the homeowner–ill buy you a dinner at Mortons in Columbus

  55. @DCB,

    If you simply google “Matt weidner blog” you get him. Then, you simply click on it.

    If you want to actually post on his site, you have to click on the heading of the article you want to post something on and it’s at the bottom but… Weidner puts you through 24 to 48 hours of “monitoring” before anything you wrote actually shows up and by then, he’s already moved on. So it’s really not like here where you can go on and on and on for a few days.

    Do the same for anyone of those guys:
    Jeff barnes: google “foreclosuredefensenationwide”
    Mandelman: google “mandelman matters”
    Mark stopa: “Mark stopa blog”
    Marc Dann: “Dannslaw blog”
    Max gardner: “Max gardner blog”
    Yves Smith: “Naked capitalism blog”

    All the serious guys have a blog under their name.

    Does that help?

  56. I would like to get reactions, advice, possible legal ramifications, etc. to a scenario.
    Ok, so someone is really pissed off because they built a house from the ground up with their own cash. Then got a “mortgage” from one of the TBTFs to pay off some things, totally unaware of all the fraud because of MERS. Now his title is screwed and he can’t sell the house, etc. So this person owns the lot next door and the house can be moved very easy, being built on post and pier. What if this person moved the house on his other lot? This could really take place so let me hear your true opinions, ideas, etc.

  57. Dewey and LeBoeuf Law Firm Troubles
    Are there any lawyers that can explain what is going on the Wall Street Law firm Dewey and LeBouf? Dewey and LeBoeuf is a finance and energy law practice and it has lost 70 partners and there are rumors of an impending bankruptcy.


    “have very valuable information that can be useful to the homeowner….BUT THAT INFORMATION IS USELESS IF IT IS NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT!


    The above is per Weidner.
    Frankly I have always wondered how the securitization info makes it into the court record myself. My thought is that an expert report ataached to an answer if supported by a proper foundation of expertise —might save the defendant from dismissal on an MTD.

    It might save on a motion for summary judgment but the hurdle is going to be higher on the foundaton re expertise and futher what is the report actually asserting–that te claimant has not established the facts necessary to prove ownership—-iv sort of assumed this—but iv always wondered how the so called experts get the court to buy their expertise foundation–that there is such an expert–weidner seems to believe it is possible–so maybe its the foundation lacking

    those of you who are selling the service i think need to provide some description and response to these questions–because certainly weidners piece is putting the whole thing in question–

    btw enraged –how does one get on weidners posting system

  59. well you are not shy–and you dont hide your identity like most—and you seem to be dedicated–and certainly enthusiastic–so iv got two questions –are the civil cases in your jurisdiction online–and what is your case number–any one of them

  60. 4th amendment has a substantive due process element but is primarily used re procedural due process—-you need to carefully red the difference–subtle but important—–taking of property w/o due process as by no court action, fixed defense lawyers- fraud upon the ct is substantive due process—————denial of discovery, and such procedural defects i believe is procedural due process—-murky and overlap but as yo put it you must be specific

    whenever you plead “fraud” it is “pleading special matters” see your rules of civil procedure———-must plead with particularity–likre an indictment —cant be generalized–must state joe at 11:00 said this, did this particular thing—etc —nothing even vaguely conclusory

    fraud is the last thing you should plead but pro se tend to jump to it right off the bat–exactly the wrong thing to do —–fraud means you must plead bad intent—and the particular pleadings must demonstrate ii———–it is hard to prove intent w/o admissions–confessions –otherwise is very circumstantial–if prosecuters have a tough time –dont think you can

  61. I have a news letter from the Washington State Pool of insurance authorities that flat out threatens any public employee, that if they do anything to cause hardship against their litigation they will suffer sanctions. It was snuck out to me by one of the city employees.

  62. DCB, have you read that? I stumbled upon it a couple of days ago but i think it’s very important to see what goes into a supreme court hearing, for anyone anywhere who still doesn’t know. And it explain what i have said all along: judges cannot fathom what has been happening and the extent of the fraud. They are as much at a loss as we are. It still will take time for them to get what was done to this country.

    ← In Sharper Focus—No More “Zealous Representation” TalkRelying More on the Ohio Constitution →

    What’s On Their Minds? The Supreme Court Wades Into the Foreclosure Mess–Standing and Real Party in Interest. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Duane Schwartzwald et al.
    Posted on April 5, 2012 by MBettman

    On April 4, 2012, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in the case of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Duane Schwartzwald et al. The Court accepted the case on conflict certification, to resolve a split among the First, Second, and Eighth appellate districts. The issue in this case is whether, in a mortgage foreclosure action, a party must have standing at the time the suit is filed, or whether the lack of standing or can be cured by getting the proper paperwork in order prior to judgment.

    Legacy Mortgage was the original mortgage lender in this case. Legacy contracted with Wells Fargo to be the loan servicer, and later assigned the mortgage to Wells Fargo in November of 2006. In 2008, Mr. Schwartzwald lost his job, and he and his wife fell into default on their mortgage.

    Freddie Mac filed a foreclosure action against the Schwartzwalds in April of 2009. In the complaint, Freddie Mac stated that it held the note and mortgage, but at the time the suit was filed, there were no attachments to the complaint to support either contention. In their answer, the homeowners argued the case should be dismissed for lack of standing.

    The parties agreed that an assignment of the mortgage to Freddie Mac was executed a month after the suit was filed. According to the homeowners, Freddie Mac never established its possession of the note; according to Freddie Mac, it was entitled to enforce the note as a nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder.

    The homeowners in this case argue that a plaintiff must have standing at the time a case is filed in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the common pleas court, and Freddie Mac did not. Standing and real party in interest are different. Lack of standing at the time the complaint is filed cannot be cured, ratified, or waived. In order to have standing to prosecute a foreclosure claim, the foreclosing party must be entitled to enforce the note when the complaint is filed, and at that time there was no record evidence that Freddie Mac was in possession of the note.

    Freddie Mac argues that lack of standing at the time of filing is not jurisdictional, but can be cured by the real-party-in-interest provisions of Civil Rule 17, which allows for substitution of the proper party after a case is filed. Real party in interest and standing are analyzed side by side. Rule 17 allows for the post-filing curing of defects before judgment. It is undisputed that Freddie Mac became the assignee of the mortgage in May of 2009. And Freddie Mac was entitled to proceed with the foreclosure, as a nonholder in possession of the note with the rights of a holder. The Supreme Court has long held there is no obligation to record a mortgage to enforce it as between mortgagor and mortgagee, and there is also no need to file an assignment of the mortgage to begin a foreclosure—under the doctrine of lis pendens, the filing of the complaint is notice to the world that plaintiff claims to be the mortgagee.

    Oh So What. So the Case is Dismissed and Refiled a Month Later. What’s the Big Deal?

    Justice Stratton pressed this point. So the case gets dismissed for lack of standing, and refiled by the proper party when the paperwork is in order. What would the homeowners gain here except another 30 days in the house?

    Is Civil Rule 17 Meaningless?

    Justice Stratton asked that if a person who is not a real party in interest cannot have standing, why do the civil rules allow for substitution? Can’t matters be cured as a case moves forward, rather than being dismissed and refiled?

    Chief Justice O’Connor asked if defense counsel was adamant that standing had to be in place at the time of the filing, and could not be cured during the pendency of the proceedings? (yes, because it is jurisdictional). But didn’t the rule allow for substitution if the wrong defendant were named?

    The Complaint

    Justice O’Donnell asked a series of questions about the representations in the complaint. On the date it was filed, Freddie Mac alleged that it held the note and the mortgage, but it didn’t on that date? When did it come into possession of either? Why would Freddie Mac file the foreclosure action a month before it had standing to file? What was the lawyer who filed the case thinking? (he asked this question of the homeowners lawyer who speculated that it was because of the volume of foreclosures and the pressure to liquidate bad loans.—it would have been better to ask Freddie Mac’s lawyer)

    Justice Lanzinger asked wasn’t it true that the allegations in the complaint had to be factually correct?

    The Note

    Justice McGee Brown asked where in the record was any proof that the note became bearer paper? (Freddie Mac’s counsel conceded the record evidence was the note was not authenticated) Chief Justice O’Connor asked if that authorized Freddie Mac to proceed with the foreclosure?


    Justice O’Donnell asked if the assignment of the mortgage to Freddie Mac would have given it standing to file the foreclosure action?

    Several justices asked if standing and real party and interest are the same thing. Counsel for the homeowners unequivocally answered they are not. Freddie Mac’s lawyer gave a more nuanced answer—“the courts always analyze them side by side as if the same”.

    Justice Cupp asked if the homeowners had filed a motion to dismiss at the outset (lack of standing was asserted in the answer, but a separate dismissal motion wasn’t filed), would it have to have been granted? (yes, said the homeowners) How would the defense have responded to such a motion? (by invoking the substitution provisions of civil rule 17).

    Those Troublesome Dates

    Justice McGee Brown noted that even though an assignment of the mortgage to Freddie Mac was executed May 15, 2009, the filing of that assignment didn’t take place until Dec 14 2009—six months after the case was filed.

    Chief Justice O’Connor asked why the lag time?

    Sloppy, Sloppy, Sloppy, and the Irony of it All

    The most interesting exchange in the argument came between Justice McGee Brown and Freddie Mac’s lawyer. She noted, and cited a federal case from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, that financial institutions are sticklers for the strictest compliance on paperwork from their customers, but are now asking the court to relax its standards-why should the Court “find a more relaxed rule for Freddie Mac than Freddie Mac would otherwise give to its customers?” Why didn’t Freddie Mac just wait until it had the note and mortgage—what was the big hurry—the house wasn’t going anywhere? She looked quite steely as she asked this.

    Clearly Conflicting Interests

    Justice Cupp, who was generally quiet during most of the argument, mused that the case “vividly demonstrates the opposing interests of the parties in this case and not just the financial concerns because the note and mortgage holder’s interest is to speed things up to dispose of property, and the interest of property owner is to slow things down.”

    Now What?

    At the very end of the argument, during the homeowners’ rebuttal, it seemed that the justices began to think about the consequences here.

    Justice Lanzinger asked that if the court ruled in the homeowners’ favor, what was the next step? Justice O’Donnell asked about the status of the property—were the Schwartzwalds still living in the house (no—it had been sold sheriff’s sale.) What would the remedy be? What would restitution look like? Loss of use for a month? Longer? Transfer the property back to the Schwartzwalds?

    How it Looks from the Bleachers

    No matter how the Court rules—and a majority may well agree with the Second District that lack of standing can be cured prior to judgment– Freddie Mac is likely to be blasted for the way this particular foreclosure case was handled, and as a symbol of the societal disquietude over the mortgage foreclosure crisis. As Justice McGee Brown put it, what was the big rush here? Lawyers know perfectly well that the proper paperwork is to be attached to a complaint when it is filed. It wasn’t in this case, and in how many other foreclosure cases did this happen as well?

  63. In the state of Washington all the judges and government officials are under one insurance company. So if I win the case against the mayor and his crooked lawyers the Washington state Insurance pool of Authorities would have to pay. They insure all the government officials, the mayor the planners, the judges and the lawyers for the city. What does that tell ya. My case is a twentyfive million dollar case. Most attorneys in this state have done work for the government. All courts ran in the state of Washington are in conflict of interest in my case.

  64. The rubber has finally met the road. I tried to post Matt Weidner’s last column, about mortgage audits and how much a crime they are and… guess what? This site won’t let me.

    Well guys, it is true, many attorneys keep saying it and people keep getting conned. This is serious read. Protect yourself and fight intelligently. Or… don’t fight. But to lose it after having already spent hand over fist for something completely useless?

    And make mno mistakes: people like Nancy Drewe are NOT out for you. They’re out for themselves. Call them on it and they simply vanish with your hard earned dollars and not one leg to stand on… after calling you all kinds of names but who cares!

  65. You dont want me to get into the crime I have met in the courts by the judges protecting the mayor and the lawyers. It would take hours away from the mortgage crime. I definately more experienced with the courts and the crimes against us than I would like to be. I dont give up easy and I am determined to make them pay for what I have gone through and what they are doing to all Americans across the U.S. I am driven by anger for them, doing this and getting away with it. If I was a lay down and let the bus run over me person, the mayor would have my property and I would have been run out of my business in 2003. Then I hired an attorney to help me that must have gotten paid big money to litteally undo my case and throw me under the bus. I have him in the Appeals court and the city right now. Waiting for my oral audio to be put on to material paper to send in to the prosecutor right now.

  66. I run this business thirteen hours a day and inbetween have a lot of time to investigate and the most of my investigation was done while I was fighting the city crime against me from about 2006 on. I have had a lot of years to investigate. I was also laid up with a broken foot in several areas, and a shattered leg bone, that gave me hours, sometimes twenty hours and some nights no sleep to dig up this crime and the statutes against it. I was already onto the city crime, that is pretty much the similar crimes of the mortgage criminals. It is no red herring. Way to much experience with crime and being the victime.

  67. 42USC1983 protects our substantive due process, and it does not include the gaming of discover and smj out of court. I beleive their should be a federal question brought to the US Supreme Court, is SMJ without discovery unconstitutional? I believe it is absolutley unconstitutional. Put in place to hide discovery and due process that wins your case. This unconstitutional rule takes away our right to a jury trial by our peers and discovery. A case is won in discovery. This law is not to help exspedite due process, it is warring against the U.S. Constitution and our substantive due process and our bill of rights to protect our properties and liberties and our rights by law. If you have not read the 42 USC 1983 statutes you all need to. I finally had discovered you need to object to every one of the lies they claim or it is taken as agreed they are telling the truth. I had believed telling them your claims and allegations was the objection. NOT, you have to object to each and every fraud claim. Flat out object to it. Another gaming of the courts. Another gaming of the courts is to allow the lawyers for the defense to make claim they are witness with affidavits of personal knowledge The attorneys have come into play after the fact and have no personal knowledge and there is case law for this. They are not allowed to by law to make claims for their clients they have personal knowledge. Also doing a declaration after at the end of every brief by notary claiming you have personal knowledge and am testifing to the claims above being true is important. You are your own witness, and they dont count the brief as your testimony and claims being true without the declaration. Dont trust me on this always ask legal advice. I am a pro se in the learning process myself. And can and have made mistakes. I am not giving legal advice.

  68. @SAE
    I cannot understand how you have so much time to spend on this stuff–with all your business stuff etc–its as if this is a full time job to you

    and the continuous beating the drum on criminal stuff –i dont get it–if you were really preparing a case and learning procedure and operating a business etc–you simply would not be able to do this–and its a red herring anyway—-

    if you actually reported real crimes to a federal,authority and suffered retailiation –you could bring a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e) (e) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

    If you know somebody that is assisting the perpetrator to abuse, mislead, etc the victim under (e); then the accomplice–co-conspirator is herself subject to prosecution under (f) as follows;
    (f) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

    If there are repeated efforts to interfere with (e) and (f)
    or to abuse people under the OCC process then there are charges under 42 USC 891-894 (relating to extortionate
    credit transactions)
    then there are 42 USC section 1341 (relating to mail fraud),
    section 1343 (relating to wire fraud),
    –which kick in in connection with those items noted above; then there are 42 USC section 1503 (relating to
    obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of
    criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the
    obstruction of State or local law enforcement), See RICO 42 USC 1961(1) —if they do these things repeatedly its RICO

    I think if there are people placed on websites to deter somebody in retaliation subject to 1531(e) –then those are co-consprirators under (f) —-and if its a pattern of coordinated conduct–say there are several moles paid to do this tageted at interference with an informant–or targeted at obstruction –or targeted at retaliation, then the group and pattern triggers RICO—and the bank-paid mole-shills become co-conspirators that are as bad as the collection agency arranger.

    The thing about federal investigators is that they just lay there for as much as 3 years–racking up incidences to plead RICO—then boom –out of nowhere –you find that they just gave enough rope to hang yourself. Typically a criminal gets bolder over time–on the erroneous assumption that they are either undetected or beyond reach–while in fact the facts are piling up to convict–and the full extent of the RICO group and pattern are being set up with link analysis. I would think that the indictments should start within a month before election. What I am really interested in is the way in which DOJ deals with the new situation of internet moles, of hackers–of electronic interference when the informant’s computer gets knocked down etc–and how far the DOF reaches into the lawyers involved—-a t what point does a super-aggressive lawyer cease being an advocate and start becoming an obstructor–as eg where they put gag orders on —impose secrecy etc

  69. @ carie
    If you have a legitiamate gripe about a judge –then file a 42 USC 1983 against them–file a complaint with state judicial bd—–forget the wild eyed treason stuff–forget the criminal stuff—-the record tat somebody read re the fla judge coaching the bank lawyer looks like 42 usc 1983–it looks like he/she created the appearance of impropriety—but there are proper forums for that—there is no reason for wholesale character assasination of an entire layer of our system of tens of thousands of people because foreclosure is not the top of their priorities–if you walked into the clerk of courts office and saw the stacks of paperwork filed with these judges every day for all sorts of things –you would have a sense of the dilemma they face—but the fla coach-lawyer went too far in my view–i dont believe thats typical–nor do i think that judges take joy tossing peple from their homes —–all you dowith these wild statements is make yourself and the website seem extremist and scare people from seeking redress –you are flat wrong—you are in effect know it or not shilling for banks

  70. Carie, All lot of judges have blood on their hands , homeless men women and children on their hands. They are part of the worst enablers in this crimes. Causing complete lawlessness, embezzlement and siezer of stolen property by fraud upon the court and concealment and violation of the 18USC2,3, &4 and a share of the balance of the 18 USC laws. Massive law suits should be placed against the corrupt judges warring on the US. Constitution which is treason.

    Providing Education, Research & Litigation Support for Attorneys, HomeOwners, & Pro-Se Litigants.

    Study says MERS has destroyed the chain of title, hurt housing

    April 22, 2012

    MERS under scrutiny The recently disbanded 15 year old company, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is the subject of a new study by Harbinger Analytics Group Real Estate Fraud Experts, authored by David Woolley.

    Here is a link to the article and study.

  71. The WHOLE SYSTEM is comprised of fraud enablers…including the judges.

  72. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: 60 minutes, AHMSI, appraisal fraud, attorney general, auction fraud, Chris Koster, credit bids, DocX Indictment, foreclosure fraud, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, foreclosures, forgery, housing market, housing prices, investors, linda green, LPS, Missouri, mortgage fruad, mortgages, Robo-Signing, settlement, strategic default, Wells Fargo Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  73. @LDean

    you said

    “Seriously, does our government really care or is this just too big of a monster for them to get a hold of…”

    No and yes.

  74. Hello,

    I know what trust my loan was put in. Where do you go to verify if your trust is still active? I don’t know how a “trustee” can explain trying to foreclose on a trust that has been closed.I can’t find anything on EDGAR after a year after the trust closed.

    If anyone knows where to go to get this info please share.

  75. @all—does anybody have log in caoability to access

    us bank national association, as trustee for the structured assets securities corporation mortgage pass-though certificates, series 2006-z
    to look for the high cost 900k loan

  76. Well, I have already made my response to this issue back in February under my comment Judges need to listen. I did my own investigation in the Texas Land and County records I only paid to look at Harris County. What I found did not even include other Texas Counties. I will say this, if my vote counted at all, I would get rid of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot. The emails I received from him are very unconcerned responses and his actions prove to be the same unconcerned. Some of these guys need to work for their salary.
    If I can find the fraud so can these AG’s. Not just in my Countrywide Loan alone did I find errors such as escalated salary in my Truth in Lending Statement, my loan under Pool CWABS 2007-2, under the Security Exchange commission which I have received a Certified Copy, I got a Certified Copy of my Deed of Trust in December of 2011, and I just took another look in Texas Land and Country records for March and still more robo-signing. Seriously, does our government really care or is this just too big of a monster for them to get a hold of.
    I even wrote Eric Schniederman and told him of the problem. Good luck to everybody who is going through this.

  77. .On April 20, 2012, in Information, News, Securitization, by Dan Edstrom ….U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez 458 Mass. 637 (2011) – The High Cost of Litigation

    Another loan in this same pool had a cumulative loss of $770,630.99 and a loss severity of 86.41%. The loan amount was $900,000.

  78. This is not a record high for the amount or the loss severity percentage. But for a boarded up house that is probably not worth $100,000.00 it sure is quite a hit. Good thing there are still 440 or so loans in this trust with a current balance of over $88 million. That makes this small amount easy to swallow. In reality the loss amount is very low because the loan amount is low. Another loan in this same pool had a cumulative loss of $770,630.99 and a loss severity of 86.41%. The loan amount was $900,000.

    By Daniel Edstrom
    DTC Systems, Inc.

    this one is the one i need the zip on–can anybody help me

  79. @ENRAGED–thanks –you gave me the IBANEZ address –im after the other mentioned in this article –the 900K loan

    DTC Systems, Inc.

    This case is a fiasco beyond imagination. This boarded up house was the subject of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision where US Bank as Trustee of a securitized trust lost in an attempt to obtain a judicial declaration of clear title. The investors now have an accounting that they can review. The losses keep coming month after month and may not be finalized for many more years. Here is what is being reported to the investors and ratings agencies as of February 2012:

    Current Amt: $0.00

    Paidoff: 9/2008

    Last Report Date: 2/2012

    Liquidation: $102,077

    Curr Loss (as of 2/2012): $29,832.56

    Cumulative loss: $274,340.89

    Loss Severity (%): 268.76%

    Original Amount: $103,500

    The cumulative loss and loss severity are extremely high. This is not a record high for the amount or the loss severity percentage. But for a boarded up house that is probably not worth $100,000.00 it sure is quite a hit. Good thing there are still 440 or so loans in this trust with a current balance of over $88 million. That makes this small amount easy to swallow. In reality the loss amount is very low because the loan amount is low. Another loan in this same pool had a cumulative loss of $770,630.99 and a loss severity of 86.41%. The loan amount was $900,000.

  80. #20 —bevilacqua——–is this the ibanez house–im after the one referenced at 900k——it could be anywhere inthe us—somebody put up a fight that cost the banks 770k —3 times what ibanez cost

  81. 20 Crosby StSpringfield, MA 01105Estimated Value $78,739
    3 Bed, 3 Bath 1,352 Sq Ft 4,326 Sq Ft Lot
    Single Family Home
    this is not the 900k loan enraged—–is this the ibanez house

  82. this is for the 900 k loan?

  83. DCB,

    I already posted the address and the zip: 20 crosby – Springfield, MA 01105

  84. 42 USC 1983

  85. The statutes I quoted make it a RICO predicate act to section 1503 (relating to
    obstruction of justice),
    ), or
    section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim,
    or an informant)
    see also 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e) e) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both

  86. For all the Pro Se, something from Mark Stopa that can make or break your case. To view the transcript he refers to, here is the link:

    Judges Helping Bank Lawyers at Foreclosure Trials
    Posted on April 21st, 2012 by Mark Stopa

    A prospective client just sent me this transcript from a trial she handled herself. Although she lost, this homeowner did a decent job. She didn’t assert any objections, some of which certainly would have been appropriate, and I think she’d be the first to admit it would have been much better if she had a lawyer. We all know lawyers can do better than pro se homeowners, though, so I don’t want to harp on that.

    Instead, I want to discuss something that really jumped out at me as I read the transcript. Unfortunately, I fear this will be a significant issue in many foreclosure cases as more trials take place, and it’s something about which everyone should be aware.

    Read the transcript. Do you notice how the judge was helping the bank’s lawyer?

    You might think it was subtle, but, as I see it, the judge’s “help” absolutely jumped off the page.

    Look at page 8. The bank’s lawyer made it clear he had “no further questions” (for the only witness he brought to trial), and it was clear to me that he was done presenting evidence. However, the bank’s counsel had not asked his (only) witness any questions or introduced any evidence to prove the bank’s claim to re-establish the lost note, as would be required for the bank to prevail and foreclose. Clearly, the judge realized counsel was not introducing evidence of an essential part of his case. But instead of allowing him to screw up (and, potentially, enter judgment for the homeowner), the judge interjected:

    “[Counsel], this is a lost note?”

    If you’re a nonlawyer, this might seem subtle, but as a lawyer, I assure you – this was an obvious reminder by the judge that the bank’s attorney needed to submit additional evidence. Of course, right on cue, the lawyer responded by asking more questions, with an eye towards proving what a bank needs to prove to re-establish a lost note under Florida Statute 673.3091.

    Tellingly, at the bottom of page 8 and continuing at the top of page 9, the bank’s lawyer actually asked the judge if she “required anything else.” This was not innocuous, either; this was the lawyer’s way of asking the judge, on the record, if he was missing any other evidence necessary to prove his case (and for the bank to prevail). In response, the judge told him precisely what to ask:

    “no explanation as to how [the note] got lost?”

    Again, right on cue, the bank’s attorney responded by asking the question the judge told him to ask, i.e. how the note was lost.

    Later (on pages 44-45), after all the evidence was admitted and the bank’s lawyer and this homeowner were making closing arguments, the homeowner argued the case should be dismissed given the bank’s failure to give her the required 30-day notice and opportunity to cure. The bank’s lawyer didn’t think this letter was necessary, but the judge prompted him to re-open his case to introduce the letter into evidence, asking him

    “Do you wish to re-open the case to admit the letter?”

    Notably, the bank’s attorney had not asked to re-open the case; the judge suggested, all on her own, that he do so.

    That’s three instances where this judge prompted the bank’s lawyer to do something to prove his case. The judge prompted counsel to ask questions about a lost note, directed him to ask for an explanation of how the note was lost, and encouraged him to re-open the evidence to introduce the lost note.

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is completely, undoubtedly, 100% wrong. And that’s not just my opinion – that’s what many, many Florida appellate decisions have held. Judges cannot help bank lawyers prove their cases at foreclosure trials. This judge did, three times, in fact, but that conduct never should have happened.

    I hate to compare foreclosure trials to criminal case, but, frankly, criminal cases is where this type of fact-pattern often arises. Sometimes, when a prosecutor forgets to ask an important question or introduce a key piece of evidence, the judge (wanting to see the criminal defendant get convicted) will feel compelled to suggest a question or remind the prosecutor to introduce certain evidence. This is plainly not permitted. Quite simply, a judge is not allowed to give “tips” or “hints” to a plaintiff’s attorney, at trial, to help the attorney prove the plaintiff’s case. In fact, a judge’s conduct in this regard requires that a motion to disqualify the judge be granted. See Evans v. State, 831 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Lee v. State, 789 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), Asbury v. State, 765 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Chastine v. Broome, 629 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (“When the judge enters into the proceedings and becomes a participant, a shadow is cast upon judicial neutrality so that disqualification is required.”) .

    In Lee, for instance, the judge suggested to the prosecutor that he have a witness identify the defendant’s tattoos. In Evans, the judge suggested that the prosecutor inquire about the defendant’s immigration status after she testified she was a law-abiding citizen. In both cases, the appellate court reversed criminal convictions, concluding the judge should not have “helped” the prosecution.

    Unfortunately, some judges view foreclosure cases in much the same way as criminal trials. Many such judges want to see foreclosure judgments entered, so they feel compelled to give “hints” or “suggestions” to bank attorneys on how to proceed (rather than letting those lawyers screw up and cause a favorable result for a homeowner). In my view, that’s exactly what we saw in this transcript, above. The judge wanted the bank to prevail, so she was giving hints to counsel on how to proceed.

    If it sounds like I’m being critical, I’m not trying to be. It’s human nature to “help” someone who is struggling or forgetful. In a sense, I can understand how judges would feel a natural instinct to give suggestions to counsel on what to do – it’s human nature to help people.

    That said, judges must resist this urge. Giving advice like this during a trial is not appropriate. For anyone defending a foreclosure trial, it is very important not to allow a judge to do this (and to point it out to the judge if he/she does so). I realize you can’t control what the judge says or does, but if this happens … OBJECT!!! Tell the judge:

    “Respectfully, Judge, I don’t think it is fair or appropriate for you to be suggesting to plaintiff’s counsel what questions or ask or what evidence to present.”

    Likewise, if a bank’s attorney asks a judge, during trial, ”do you need anything else,” the appropriate response from the judge is “counselor, it’s not my role to tell you if you’ve submitted sufficient evidence to prove your case.”

    I encountered this very dynamic in my foreclosure trial last week. At various points, the bank’s attorney wasn’t sure how to proceed, and the judge started giving him hints, suggesting areas of inquiry and giving advice on how to proceed. The first two times, I interjected, forcefully but respectfully, telling the judge it was inappropriate for him to be giving advice to plaintiff’s counsel. The third time, I was more aggressive, moving to disqualify the judge. Although the judge denied that motion, he did not give any more hints to plaintiff’s counsel, and without the judge helping him, the bank’s attorney wasn’t sure how to proceed. Ultimately, this uncertainty left counsel unable to prove his case, forcing him to dismiss it.

    After the trial, the judge joked with me that I was a “pain in the ass,” but told me I was right by asserting these objections. In his words, the judge knew he couldn’t ”carry” the bank’s lawyer any more. I’m not saying the judge liked it (hence the “pain in the ass” comment), but when push came to shove, and when I called him out on it, the judge realized he couldn’t help the bank’s attorney.

    Everyone needs to be aware of this issue. Judges can’t give hints to counsel, and if they do, then we all need to, respectfully but forcefully, make it clear that we are objecting to any and all such “hints.”

    Why is this so important? Well, bear in mind … a huge aspect of foreclosure defense is forcing plaintiffs’ attorneys to prove their case. It’s the responsibility of the bank’s attorney to prove that case (not the judge), both by asking the right questions and introducing all of the required evidence. Then, at the end of trial, it’s the judge’s job to evaluate whether the evidence is sufficient for the bank to foreclose, and, if it’s not, to rule in the homeowner’s case. In other words, the judge is there to evaluate the evidence, not to make sure the bank submits evidence.

    By the way, I’m inclined to take an appeal on behalf of the homeowner who handled that trial herself, for two reasons. One is a pretty glaring hole in the evidence (which I’ll keep to myself to avoid helping any nosy bank lawyers who may be reading this) and the second is, yes, how inappropriate it was for the judge to keep helping the bank’s attorney.

    Mark Stopa

  87. Help me find what the zip code is for the home with the $900,000 loan that racked up $770,000——mentioned in the article i posted–partof the Ibanez trust us bank national association, as trustee for the structured assets securities corporation mortgage pass-though certificates, series 2006-z——

    by By Daniel Edstrom
    DTC Systems, Inc.

  88. Yup as I have been saying the rule of law is in place to send all of them to jail including the judges and the fraud lawyers. I have this law on my case. Is this not a wonderful law. All officers of the court are mandated by the 18USC2,3 &4 statutes to report fraud not to enable it.

  89. Ibanez – 20 crosby st., springfield, MA 01105

  90. As used in this chapter –
    (1) “racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat
    involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery,
    extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled
    substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the
    Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law
    and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any
    act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of
    title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery),
    section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and
    473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft
    from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659
    is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension
    and welfare funds), sections 891-894 (relating to extortionate
    credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related
    activity in connection with identification documents), section
    1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with
    access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of
    gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud),
    section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to
    financial institution fraud), section 1425 (relating to the
    procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully),
    section 1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or
    citizenship papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of
    naturalization or citizenship papers), sections 1461-1465
    (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to
    obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of
    criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the
    obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512
    (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant),
    section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim,
    or an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement in
    application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to
    forgery or false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to
    misuse of passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse
    of visas, permits, and other documents), sections 1581-1592
    (relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons).,(!1)
    section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or
    extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1953
    (relating to interstate transportation of wagering
    paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund
    payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of illegal
    gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of
    monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in
    monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful
    activity), section 1958 (relating to use of interstate commerce
    facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire), sections 2251,
    2251A, 2252, and 2260 (relating to sexual exploitation of
    children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate
    transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315
    (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property),
    section 2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for
    phonorecords, computer programs or computer program documentation
    or packaging and copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual
    works), section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a
    copyright), section 2319A (relating to unauthorized fixation of
    and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live
    musical performances), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in
    goods or services bearing counterfeit marks), section 2321
    (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor
    vehicle parts), sections 2341-2346 (relating to trafficking in
    contraband cigarettes), sections 2421-24 (relating to white slave
    traffic), sections 175-178 (relating to biological weapons),
    sections 229-229F (relating to chemical weapons), section 831
    (relating to nuclear materials), (C) any act which is indictable
    under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with
    restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or
    section 501(c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds), (D)
    any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11
    (except a case under section 157 of this title), fraud in the
    sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation,
    receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in
    a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section
    102 of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law
    of the United States, (E) any act which is indictable under the
    Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, (F) any act
    which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act,
    section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain
    aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain
    aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to
    importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable
    under such section of such Act was committed for the purpose of
    financial gain, or (G) any act that is indictable under any
    provision listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B);

  91. 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e)
    (e) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
    (f) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

  92. @DCB,

    That’s the Jan Van Eck’s article. She doesn’t give the zip.

    What we should also remember is that some guy, Bevilacqua (I believe) purchased the house and that the sale was reversed by the judge after the guy had already invested quite a bit remodeling it.

    I can’t be completely sure but Iif i recall, by the time the judge’s decision was rendered, Bevilacqua was out something like $300K. And he doesn’t own the house!

  93. You can usually get the zip code from the U.S. mail or mail it, if you have the address. Also you might look that info un on the web. If you have troubles let me know the address. My brother in law was a the head of the UPS division here in Washington, quit at the wrong time and is working for FED EX he would know how to get it.

  94. @DCB, That Ibanez property is in Springfield, MA, if I recall (and I believe Jan Van Eck is the one who wrote about it), in one of the poorest hispanic parts of the city. I think i posted it yesterday or the day before.

  95. i believe i know who the homeowner is/was———–just need to verify with the zip–all i need —he knows the data–i just need the zip on that $900k loan withh $770k litigation costs

    how can i get onfirmation????/

    surely all the brainpower here and contacts can put me in touch with this person for that simple 5 digit number–then we go from there —and people go to jail

  96. hes already identified the loan–all i need is the zip code–then ill know if its relevant–if it is then it will significant

  97. If you have the zip code and the ammount of the deed of trust and the name of the homeowner and the date of the loan, you can look up the trust or have someone with access to the info look up the trust. If you look up all the case law on scribe you might find this mentioned in the case briefs.

  98. Not sure, but if you look at the city and find the county it is in and then look up the records by the name of the homeowner, and type in a guess of between 2000 and 2012 you might find out info on the county records taht will help you.

  99. OK SAE—thanks –now heres why im asking; there was a posting as follows on another site re cost of litigation of IBANEZ–which if i read your piece correctly was originated by option one—so now serviced by AHMSI?
    “Paidoff: 9/2008;
    Last Report Date: 2/2012
    Liquidation: $102,077
    Curr Loss (as of 2/2012): $29,832.56
    Cumulative loss: $274,340.89
    Loss Severity (%): 268.76%
    Original Amount: $103,500
    The cumulative loss and loss severity are extremely high. This is not a record high for the amount or the loss severity percentage. But for a boarded up house that is probably not worth $100,000.00 it sure is quite a hit. Good thing there are still 440 or so loans in this trust with a current balance of over $88 million. That makes this small amount easy to swallow. In reality the loss amount is very low because the loan amount is low. Another loan in this same pool had a cumulative loss of $770,630.99 and a loss severity of 86.41%. The loan amount was $900,000.
    By Daniel Edstrom
    DTC Systems, Inc.

    Now the point of the question is to figure out who is the litigation crazy pro se that caused the servicer to runup $770,630.99—on a $900,000 mortgage loan serviced by AHMSI?

    How would we find out what the zip code is on that crazy litigant’s house? ANYBODY GOT ANY IDEAS–ITS IN THE SAME TRUST AS IBANEZ per Daniel Adstrom–anybody know how to reach Edstrom?

  100. dcbreidenbach, Ibanez V US bank as trustee.

  101. Does anyone know the name of the trustee bank, the rust or the servicer in the IBANEZ case?

  102. If anyone should have the records to prove broken chain of title, it should be the department of records in your county. I am sending a demand to the county records now to have all the fraud assignments removed. My sons mortgage already has had the fraud assignments and fraud foreclosure and fraud notices of sale removed FROM COUNTY RECORDS by he fraud debt collector RECONTRUST AND BOA AND US BANK., without the request from him, due to the paperwork he filed in his Appeal in the Appeals court. With a letter asking permission to change the name of the party on the face of the complaint to Countrywide. Of course he refused. He has them in the Appeals court for fraud upon the court and lack of standing. The fraud lawyers misrepresenting the frauds in court, are in deep du du up to their ears! Lane Powell attorneys firm in Seattle. Abraham Lorber attorney working for Lane Powell whom claims to fight mortgage fraud. He keeps wondering what is next. No letters or notices. However they did try to add another fraud assignment from RECONTRUST to BAC which he objected to and is watching to be removed from county records.

  103. JThat is exactly what I and my family and friends have done. Is record Cease and Desist Orders and exhibits of proof why and challenged the fraud assignments. That can not but help block the fraud. As long as you are recording the truth and not fraud alike the crooked fruad assignments by the fruad debt collectors. Contract states like Washington state that are non judicial are register states, records in the department of records. It is unlawful to file fraud affidavits. HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha. Unless you are a debt collector????? But not unlawful to file the truth.

  104. They need to allow challenges at the registry levels across the country, this alone would stop 90 percent of the fraud being manufactured.



  106. So much for stopping the fraud… That piece reads like something out of last year’s fraudclosures. Not one bit has changed. Yepee!!!

  107. Wall street & Government Gone Wild”

    The over 228 trillion dollars heist!

  108. Wells Fargo is robosigning not “basically robosigning.” the documents most recently filed in land records for Haywood County, NC and Potttawattamie County, IA are signed by a machine. These documents are also notarized by machine signatures. I know that laws allow electronic recordation of documents but, I think they might want to re-think this in light of the problems. Still looking for other counties. Not all are online.

  109. If there was any meaningful material in the daily discussions it should be set out in minutes which should be available by FOIA. I spent engaging in multi-state discussions like this—and interdeptmental discussions : heres how it goes:on monthly formal conferences:
    1st item: notes of last meeting; joe agreed to do this n that; norma also agreed to do this n that; steve agreed to locate the best place for the 6 month get-together

    2nd item: joes report of what the outcome of his last mtg undertaking was : per Joe” we just never had time to look into it—let me get back next myg

    3rd item: norma’s report; per Norma” geez i was sick and then my cat got sick and i had to go to the vet 6 times last month so i never did anything–and by the wat we are waiting for the funding

    4th item; Steves’ report [on best place for mtg] per Steve;” weve narrowed it down to Sands las vegas or hawaii—but there are a lot of attendees that cant get the budget money to travel so were thinking maybe someplace more central like st louis —except there no good shoppinfg there so maybe the Indianapolis mall but were working on getting the govt discount at 3 hotels but its real busy that week –so maybe we need to push the meeting back a month or two to get the lowest hotel rate–and maybe the budget money will be here then too so we can all go–otherwise we have to negotiate a special vconference call tie in which costs an extra $213,67 and one hotel the cheapest doesnt offer that –so maybe if indiana would let us have a govt conference room we could have a free link up–but they are budget short so we cant have anything more than coffee in the morning–so need to push back the meeting to 10: 00 so we can have breakfast before going there —–but the good news is that the Indiana guys say there is a great steakhouse only 3 blocks from the hotel called St Elmos—with great jumbo shrimp cocktail –its pricey but idf we all just have bagels for bfas and go out for lunch to mcdonalds right across the street from the govt center then we can squeez into st elmos on our per diem

    Charman speaks: Ok thanks to you all for your hard work—is there any more business?

    Oh —steve had to drop off the line for an important meetg—who else is on the line??? anybody???

    ok meeting adjounned–ill send out minutes


    1. Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank Re Motion For Reconsideration of Order Sustaining Defendant Wells Fargo Bank’s Demurrer Without Leave to Amend Memorandum of Points & Authorities


    Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Re: Reply to Wells Fargo’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Motion to Compel WITH EXHIBITS A, B, C, D, E, F & G

    Also, here is an article that just came out today and it clearly discusses that Banks are misrepresenting themselves as owners of the loan and fabricating evidence of this Banks Slammed for Misrepresenting Themselves as Owners of the Loan.

    “A legal compendium of cases published by the American Bankruptcy Institute establishes a pattern of conduct by Ameriquest, Wells Fargo and Chase dating back before 2008 in which these and other banks have intentionally misrepresented themselves to the court as owners of the note, entitled to foreclose.”

    They cannot explain the altered documents, and attempt to rely on the fact that their name appears on the 2007 Deed of Trust, but have had to alter that document in order to conceal that an assignment has been made.

    They cannot provide loan level accounting because they do not own the loan. They have manipulated their evidence in order to conceal their perjury and simply asking them straight questions will only lead to manipulative responses.


Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: