New services coming on Livinglies

I am recovering just fine and writing as I was before open heart surgery. I had some help while I was down but now we are back to our ordinary business except as you will see soon, we are adding and changing some services to be more relevant. We of course will continue our policy of having other writers from the blogosphere contribute articles. The purpose of this blog has been to provide the public with as many resources as possible to challenge the pretender lenders. When we are lucky enough to find someone who knows their stuff we encourage them to submit articles with links back to their own blogs.

The TILA Forensic Analysis has been expanded far beyond TILA and will include my expert declaration which I can easily defend in court. People who order the Forensic Analysis now will get the benefit of a huge price advantage, but the waiting period for delivery has been expanded to 14 days after delivery of the documents is complete.

The combined Forensic Analysis and Expert Declaration will be priced at $1,895. It contains most of the elements that attorneys have been asking for.

Also volume II of the Attorneys Workbook will probably be released this coming week. The revisions and sources are much more clearly presented than the original workbook now on sale.

For five years the banks have had their way with us. Now it’s our turn.

32 Responses

  1. Fate of LPS Nevada Robo-signer: http://nevadajournal.com/2012/04/16/coroner-reports-cause-death-notary/

  2. HEY–heres more political noise—-why are there never contacts?
    please somebody lests get a clue where these guys are hiding between press interviews

    By Aruna Viswanatha

    WASHINGTON | Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:12pm EDT

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – An Obama administration task force probing misconduct that fueled the financial crisis is increasing its ranks, adding five financial analysts and 10 new federal prosecutors spread across the country, according to a senior Justice Department official.

    The increased staffing reflects a new push by the administration to aggressively pursue cases against firms and individuals who contributed to the 2007-2009 financial crisis, especially ahead of the November election.

    The U.S. Justice Department has so far brought few cases against high-profile targets since the crash.

    The department closed criminal investigations without bringing charges against firms whose names are closely tied to the 2008 crash, including AIG and Countrywide.

    Individual Wall Street players have largely escaped prosecution, after the Justice Department lost its first criminal case against two former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers in 2009.

    U.S. enforcement authorities have asked for patience, saying financial crisis cases are complex and though the behavior may look bad, it doesn’t always amount to outright fraud.

    The task force formed earlier this year represents a more coordinated effort than prior investigations, the Justice Department official said in an interview on Thursday. Prosecutors are reviewing documents for both federal and state law violations.

    In addition to the 50 positions the department previously announced, the DOJ is hiring 10 new assistant U.S. attorneys in districts that include Massachusetts and Colorado, according to job listings on the agency’s website.

    The department is also hiring five financial analysts and auditors to help understand and identify evidence, the official, who declined to be named, said.

    It is also focused on civil laws, including a little-used federal statute called FIRREA, which may make such cases easier to bring.

    President Barack Obama announced the creation of the task force during his State of the Union address in January. He said it would “help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.”

    Questions remain whether the cases that come out of these investigations involve lower-ranking people or whether they are able to bring larger, systematic cases.

    The task force to date has received around two terabytes of data from at least 16 subpoenas sent to financial firms, and is interviewing witnesses, the official said.

    For comparison, the Library of Congress web archive, which archives websites, collects around 5 terabytes per month.

    According to one of the job postings, the department is looking for attorneys to help investigate “and pursue those responsible for misconduct in the packaging, selling, and valuing of residential mortgage-backed securities and similar financial instruments.”

    In another sign the department is looking to pursue these cases through courtroom litigation, it said it is looking for someone who can “handle matters in court persuasively on behalf of the United States.”

    (Reporting By Aruna Viswanatha; Editing by Andrew Hay)

  3. @dcb: thanks please copy paste your links. These are same LPS/DOCX: http://ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2012/AG_Koster_announces_136_criminal_indictments/

  4. @ g
    there is a lot more cuurent stuff out there guest—–run indictments robosigning missouri etc——i do not think there is any current activity in nevada–someoe tell me if im wrong—–

  5. Thinking other non-judicial and deed of trust states must have things similar to California Civil Code Section 2941…..

    Also it isn’t only when you pay your mortgage in full that this matters. There is a reconveyance when you refinance and the old mortgage is paid in full when the new mortgage originates…. (supposedly – ask Anonymous- and I wonder how many people were loyal to a single lender with the “power of yes” and refinanced over and over again as rates (or payments as in toxic options….) dropped for instance or for any reason – maybe the lender sent them a card or phoned and said they had a good deal on a better product for a good customer – did they just take money for the whole amount from investors and points and fees from the homeowner for the full amount and just do a book entry or shuffle off the old loan to Buffalo without even closing it or maybe put in false default as Anon has said?)

    I wonder how many refinances have a reconveyance issued by a substitute trustee and why? Raise the hands. Neil has addressed this. Now I will have to go back and read what he said. Nice that he keeps those ariticles available and searchable.

    Just thinking maybe everyone who is not in foreclosure (in addition to those in foreclosure) should demand their note showing paid in full for all the reconveyances recorded or otherwise. Someone said when you do this for reconveyances over five years ago or so – or maybe less… the (substitute) trustee (if they are still in business even) says we only keep documents for five years or I wonder if they just say they never had them because they are a substitute….. So what then? Can the title company play God and say this is all good as gold to the current owner and a new buyer? No debts outstanding for the current or past owner? How would you prove it was paid in full if it wasn’t even though you paid “somebody” or someone just decides one day to say it wasn’t paid and you still owe? Aren’t laws meant to prevent or protect from the unforeseen possibilities that could arise?

    Now I am wondering something else about the Bevilacqua ruling. Can he sue the title company in addition to the bank who sold him nothing because they had nothing to sell?

  6. @Joann, D.C. : YES, but title companies are robo-singers, not in business of clearing anyone’s title (ownership), but work to steal properties as insiders of title plants and county recorders!!! they don’t work for you, and their bogus title policies insure theft, not ownership, of realty… OK? check the links I provided earlier, plus this massive Nevada AG robo-complaint: http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/2011/12/16/lps12152011.pdf and fate of its whistle-blower: http://www.examiner.com/article/whistleblower-dead-another-hiding-related-to-bank-fraud-lawsuit

  7. @guest
    “Joann: CC2941 allows title companies to clear title chains of any realty by first demanding an alleged creditor to record a full re-conveyance”

    California Civil Code Section 2941

    Paragraph 5 – below – (re beneficiary and title company) refers back to 1 (request of trustor for note), 2 (request of trustor for reconveyance) and 3/4 (title company release). Paragraph 6 (title co liability).

    Paragraph (1) C says:

    “(C) Following execution and recordation of the full reconveyance,
    upon receipt of a written request by the trustor or the trustor’s
    heirs, successors, or assignees, the trustee shall then deliver, or
    caused to be delivered, the original note and deed of trust to the
    person making that request.”…

    “(2) If the trustee has failed to execute and record, or cause to
    be recorded, the full reconveyance within 60 calendar days of
    satisfaction of the obligation, the beneficiary, upon receipt of a
    written request by the trustor or trustor’s heirs, successor in
    interest, agent, or assignee, shall execute and acknowledge a
    document pursuant to Section 2934a substituting itself or another as
    trustee and issue a full reconveyance.”

    RE TITLE COMPANY:

    (3) If a full reconveyance has not been executed and recorded
    pursuant to either paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) within 75 calendar
    days of satisfaction of the obligation, then a title insurance
    company may prepare and record a release of the obligation. However,
    at least 10 days prior to the issuance and recording of a full
    release pursuant to this paragraph, the title insurance company shall
    mail by first-class mail with postage prepaid, the intention to
    release the obligation to the trustee, trustor, and beneficiary of
    record, or their successor in interest of record, at the last known
    address………
    (4) Where an obligation secured by a deed of trust was paid in
    full prior to July 1, 1989, and no reconveyance has been issued and
    recorded by October 1, 1989, then a release of obligation as provided
    for in paragraph (3) may be issued.”

    NOTE PARAGRAPH 5 and 6:

    (5) PARAGRAPHS (2) AND (3) DO NOT EXCUSE THE BENEFICIARY OR THE
    TRUSTEE FROM COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (1). PARAGRAPH (3) DOES NOT
    EXCUSE THE BENEFICIARY FROM COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (2).

    (6) IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER REMEDY PROVIDED BY LAW, A TITLE
    INSURANCE COMPANY PREPARING OR RECORDING THE RELEASE OF THE
    OBLIGATION SHALL BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING
    ATTORNEY’S FEES, WHICH ANY PERSON MAY SUSTAIN BY REASON OF THE
    ISSUANCE AND RECORDING OF THE RELEASE, PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPHS (3) AND
    (4).

    (7) A beneficiary may, at its discretion, in accordance with the
    requirements and procedures of Section 2934a, substitute the title
    company conducting the escrow through which the obligation is
    satisfied for the trustee of record, in which case the title company
    assumes the obligation of a trustee under this subdivision,

  8. @Joann: CC2941 allows title companies to clear title chains of any realty by first demanding an alleged creditor to record a full re-conveyance, upon borrower/owner’s demand from any title company. Upon creditor’s failure to record full re-conveyance page, title company can prepare and record one, and clear title as to that particular loan. But because title companies are the founders of robo-signing, clearing title is against their robo-singing practices. see proof: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fidelity-national-financial-inc-announces-the-acquisition-of-docx-llc-54648682.html

  9. i dont know what “CC2941” is——would you pls indicate what this is if its an immense tool

  10. dcbreidenbach, on April 29, 2012 at 12:56 pm said:

    “california appears to have added some consumer protections that codify the very issue I was raising. This is not common–other states simply do not provide that enhancement—but as I read the statute quickly and without context, my impression is that the California rule is that the note is supposed to be made available upon request and a minimum liquidated damages provision set up. i cannot see how the rules address the situation where a lost note affidavit is used in lieu of the acual note–maybe another section on that specifically mandating the manner of the surety bond–which is a complex thing”.

    Laws and recording statutes ect. are supposed to be more strict in deed of trust and non-judicial states to protect the trustor equally with the beneficiary because foreclosure proceeds automaticially without judicial review. But this is not what is happening. Hearsay of bankers is taken as the rule of law. Either the protections exist in the law and are unknown, unused and unenforeced or the protections do not exist meaning there is no due process of law which is unconstitutional. One thing is for sure – both homeowners who do not know their rights and those who do know them but cannot afford money or time to be a plaintiff against sophisticated big banks plural (you cannot defend a foreclosure in CA you must sue and the burden of proof is on you) does not have them.

  11. @dcbreidenbach:

    “the implication of doubled up debt to a consumer who has no reason to know hes on thin ice”

    In the oral arguments for Eaton (MA Supreme Court pending) the attorney tells the judge there has been no instance of two entites claiming they are owed on the same mortgage and that it is a moot point and irrelevant (paraphrased shamelessly from memory – don’t want to have to watch the whole thing to get back to it – the video was posted by the court online). I think one of the judges doing the questioning also remarks at that time or another time essentially – “Why? Because you say so?”

    Anyway – it is widely thought the big investor lawsuits have nothing to do with homeowners. However judges are not buying the investor arguments for shoddy underwriting as in sophisticated investors should know better and throwing out the cases lleft and right.

    How long will it take investors to use other tactics and discovery in their own interest which they invariably will? A few have pointed to no m in the mbs and or no way to enforce the m because trust laws not followed as per warranted and represented. How long until they figure out they were used in a money laundering scheme or that they paid multiple times for nothing and who will they go after then? And who will those parties go after? Who will make the final determination who the homeowner owes and who had a right to be paid by the homeowner and who is owed more than once by the homeowner. If you paid the wrong guy you still owe the “right” guy and have to sue the wrong guy.

    Just because a hidden real or unreal creditor doesn’t care about being paid (because he got paid a trillion times over already on the signature or he got a tax write off or got insurance or any other or is covering up fradulent gains) doesn’t mean he can’t one day decide to stand up and demand payment from the “maker” one day – just because he can.

    Laws are supposed to be on the books already to prevent interlopers and thieves. It is why there are real property laws and contract laws. Either they aren’t adequate and have to be legislated (recent case in CA appeal court judges admit controversy in federal rulings nationwide and recommend legislation (passing the buck and it opens up the further degradation of transparency and disclosure to the influence of JD and friends) or the laws do exist and are being ignored or misinterpreted in favor of banksters against the “deadbeats” who can’t afford the mortgage anyway or who just don’t want to pay who are holding up recovery and at fault for crisis. That the homeowner has invested more than the forecloser and is harmed more than the forecloser is ignored.

  12. A question about indorsements. They tend to be undated and unveried. When you are delivered an indorsed note, often the indorsement is made in the name of a person long since bankrrupt–even wound up.

    The typical explanation of business process is that the note is indorsed upon return to the originator–the securitization documents often state that. However upon that event–the document becames bearer paper. A warehouse of loan files would contain $200 billion in bearer bonds. Security would have to rival Fort Knox to keep control of that much–it is hard to imagine an audit firm approving of such liability risk.

    Am i missing someting or does this suggest that any indorsement of an original note must have been made very recently–and if the lender that made the indorsement was one of the many bankrupts circa 2007-8, then the note was not in possession at the time the complaint was filed? Or must it have been cobstructive possession without indosement??? What UCC section could this constructive ownership fall under?

  13. @JOANN

    I could not agree more—the implication of doubled up debt to a consumer who has no reason to know hes on thin ice—in the context of faling govt oversight and increasingly predatory bank conduct mean that the delivery of satisfaction demand should be as manadatory as the TLA disclosures–maybe more important in the scheme—should be top of list item for the consumer protection rule-making process———–i shudder to think whats going to happen in about 3 years

  14. @ Stanley Putra, on April 27, 2012 at 5:58 pm said:
    Neil
    I am both excited and disappointed in your new services. The new work sounds great! As I am sure it is. I am disappointed because there will not be any Attorneys jumping at the chance. Attorney’s egos are something. One can go to law school for 3 years, then one gets admitted to the Bar or THE CLUB. As long as you keep in the status quo, the Club will keep up your membership. What do they teach in Law School? 3 years of EGO training?
    Stan

    You wacked out attorneys as a group pretty harshly. Im not necessarily agreeing nor disagreeing with the hypothesis about the marketing piece—-as far as ego is concerned–maybe its more to do with a layman dealing with any specialist in a field——-i always feel like drs are pretty arrogant when you try to discuss stuff with them in respect of technical issues—-even if for example you might have a degree in biochemistry and physiology that you know far exceeds what they require the typical dr to know–since drs avoid the hardest levels of physical science to keep their GPAs up—-but talk to an engineer about physics—–or a finance guy about OID

    I am an atty——-a specialist in a niche–fuel taxes and renewable subsidies—and administrative law——-completely different slant from the typical county courthouse lawyer——-and there are specialists even there that put things off a level playing field—-litigators know chapter and verse on civil procedure and the civil rules of evidence–which from my background are pretty stilted and seem deliberately intended to cause forfeitues—but there are reasons why they do things because they have massive numbers of cases and the objective is to quicjkly separate real issues from spurious bitching

    thus the civil litigator will look at a complaint that i might assemble an snort –too long—while that guy will be thrown out of the administrative process for exactly the opposite reason—too short–too superficial–not enough notice—no exhaustion of administrative remedies.

    If you are an auto mechanic and i want to escort you into your reapir room —hell say i dont have time to explain this stuff to you—i dont know what your area of expertise is but id carefully consider whether you are free of arrogance in that application from an ousiders perspective–it is a tad on the arrogant side to predict the behavior of an entire profession —or lable it either—the key always is to try to walk a bit in the other guys shoes—as such frankly as an old fart myself–i tend to think the arrogance is a little more driven by impatience than a sense of im better than you—older people as a rule are crotchity–especially old men–i can say it because i am one–impatient and often rude——-think about from my view—-one day is maybe 2-3% of the rest of my life–whereas for a youndster its not even worth thinking about—my time is far morevakuable to me than a young persons is to her–simply because i have so much less of it left to spend–none to squander

    having squandered this much time–i have one last point—i have bought an entire table full of horn-books which lie before me for $2000—–to update me from when i took the bar 35 years ago—i know whats in these books generally—-i know who Corbin is etc etc

    I have no idea what the stuff is that is being offered for sale—-im not saying its not worth it –im saying i just dont know–its pricey for a “pig in a poke” ——if i want to return my set on torts –west will happily refund—i cant get a thing back from lexis–and dislike it –its overpriced–but in the hands of proficient user its probably way mre cost effective than my law library–and desk editions for quick reference—i would suggest that i would be very happy to try out the material that is being sold here–put it online and charge an access fee perhaps–the issue is upfrom money–a lot of it on an unknown quantity—-i have not seen any natl reviewers say this is good bad or indifferent–id love to look at it on a trial basis and report back

  15. dcbreidenbach, on April 29, 2012 at 9:57 am

    “but it was lost or destroyed, that claimant once he has proven something about his claim, MUST put up a SURETY BOND under the UCC if you the maker demand it.”

    Most “makers’ do not know they can demand anything or what demands to make.

    Perhaps AG’s, regulators, lawmakers ect need a suggestion this should be made law and automatic (as in no “demand” for the bond even necessary) retroactively for all mortgages originated in the last 15 years give or take (60 or 80 million plus securitized mortgages) or for all since the beginning of time.

    Thinking the same should occurr for “enforced” lost notes. § 3-309. ENFORCEMENT OF LOST, DESTROYED, OR STOLEN INSTRUMENT. (last line is “Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.” Is hearsay and opinion of enforcing “lender” enough or is Surety Bond needed? In Bevilacqua does Pablo Rodriquez still owe “someone”?

    •(a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if (i) the person was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred, (ii) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure, and (iii) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.

    •(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

  16. @JOANN
    Thankyou —–this is the sort of feedback im looking for. I know nothing about California law—UCC is a basic set of rights and duties that are pretty much generally adopted. I this case california appearsto have added some consumer protections that codify the very issue I was raising. This is not common–other states simply do not provide that enhancement—but as I read the statute quickly and without context, my impression is that the California rule is that the note is supposed to be made available upon request and a minimum liquidated damages provision set up. i cannot see how the rules address the situation where a lost note affidavit is used in lieu of the acual note–maybe another section on that specifically mandating the manner of the surety bond–which is a complex thing–

    would the california statute basically require the filing of a document that might be a “satisfaction of note and cancellation of deed of trust??

    But if i understand–if i were a california homeowner and i simply paid off my mortage debt–i have a right to demand the original note return to me–but if they dont return it they are liable for the amount of damage with minimum $500???
    “The violation of this section shall make the violator liable to the person affected by the violation for all damages which that person may sustain by reason of the violation, and shall require that the violator forfeit to that person the sum of five hundred dollars ($500).”

    This goes to the heart of my question: if I make the request under the right granted by California —but the collection agency does not records the document but sends me that document marked COPY— stamped “paid in full”—-the UCC still alows the true holder to come along and demand paid again

    so when the collection agency fails to meet the cal rule by sending me a copy—-i suppose the statute itself gives me a claim for $500 plus if somebody has made me pay a loan again–then iv got damages for the double recovery–but geez—is this really helping me by itself–? what if the 2nd claimant comes along after the 1st files for bankruptcy?

    Is it really the recordation of a satisfaction of note that is cutting off claimants from being holders in due course ? -Is that where the protection comes from–is there anything that forces the lender to make that filing that says the note is paid–in other states they could just file a satisfaction of mortgage—that would give a clean title to the property–even if the note was still out there, say i substituted property or had multiple properties with one note–but i paid off one property and sold it and applied proceeds to the note without cancelling the note?

    I guess it really boils down to what is the practice in califrnia re recordation of satisfaction of note? Does that happen?

    If it does not the protection is weak—????? i dont know how this works if the debt is limited to the value of the home? are you proected from double claims by that provision maybe–so only a problem if its investment property???

  17. CC2941= an immense tool of title insurers to neutralize lender frauds which don’t turn in ORIGINAL NOTE as PAID, but 2941 is never utilized because title co.’s, such as Fidelity=LPS=DOCX are wholesale robo-signers themselves…http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=gLEFTxSi84k http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=gLEFTxSi84k
    http://kareemsalessi.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/4-27-2006-fidelity-corporate-disclosure-statement-in-ohio-class-action.pdf

  18. dcbreidenbach, on April 29, 2012 at 9:57 am

    Wow. Very clear explanation. Thanks for taking the time to educate us about that. This relates (and I doubt that many if any homeowners know about (C) below or ever do it) and I admidt I am confused about when of if state codes follow ucc to the letter or not and which takes precedent:

    California Civil Code Section 2941

    Excerpts:

    b) (1) Within 30 calendar days after the obligation secured by
    any deed of trust has been satisfied, the beneficiary or the assignee
    of the beneficiary shall execute and deliver to the trustee the
    original note, deed of trust, request for a full reconveyance, and
    other documents as may be necessary to reconvey, or cause to be
    reconveyed, the deed of trust.

    (A) The trustee shall execute the full reconveyance and shall
    record or cause it to be recorded in the office of the county
    recorder in which the deed of trust is recorded

    (ii) That the recorder shall deliver the recorded instrument to
    the trustee’s address. If the trustee’s address is specified for
    delivery, the trustee shall mail the recorded instrument to the
    trustor or the successor in interest to the last known address for
    that party.

    (C) Following execution and recordation of the full reconveyance,
    upon receipt of a written request by the trustor or the trustor’s
    heirs, successors, or assignees, the trustee shall then deliver, or
    caused to be delivered, the original note and deed of trust to the
    person making that request.

    (D) If the note or deed of trust, or any copy of the note or deed
    of trust, is electronic, upon satisfaction of an obligation secured
    by a deed of trust, any electronic original, or electronic copy which
    has not been previously marked solely for use as a copy, of the note
    and deed of trust, shall be altered to indicate that the obligation
    is paid in full.

    (8) In lieu of delivering the original note and deed of trust to
    the trustee within 30 days of loan satisfaction, as required by
    paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), a beneficiary who executes and
    delivers to the trustee a request for a full reconveyance within 30
    days of loan satisfaction may, within 120 days of loan satisfaction,
    deliver the original note and deed of trust to either the trustee or
    trustor. If the note and deed of trust are delivered as provided in
    this paragraph, upon satisfaction of the note and deed of trust, the
    note and deed of trust shall be altered to indicate that the
    obligation is paid in full. Nothing in this paragraph alters the
    requirements and obligations set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3).

    d) The violation of this section shall make the violator liable
    to the person affected by the violation for all damages which that
    person may sustain by reason of the violation, and shall require that
    the violator forfeit to that person the sum of five hundred dollars
    ($500).

    (2) The optical image storage media used to store the document
    shall be nonerasable write once, read many (WORM) optical image media
    that does not allow changes to the stored document.

    (3) The optical image reproduction shall be made consistent with
    the minimum standards of quality approved by either the National
    Institute of Standards and Technology or the Association for
    Information and Image Management.

    (4) Written authentication identifying the optical image
    reproduction as an unaltered copy of the note, deed of trust, or
    mortgage shall be stamped or printed on the optical image
    reproduction.

  19. Cancellation of Debt 101
    Im requesting those of you who are scholars to think about the legal question presented and if you are inclined make offer your thoughts. If you are a lay person trying to learn put it down to a warning of thin ice ahead.
    Here is an important issue for ALL debtors. The UCC in effect in all states has a doctrine of merger of a legal obligation with the evidence thereof a “promissory note”. The note is a negotiable instrument under UCC article 3. The basic rule is that when you satisfy the note, you [maker] MUST get “THE ORIGINAL NOTE” returned to you marked “PAID IN FULL” in order for the legal obligation to be extinguished against the world—meaning against holders in due course. If the later “holder” of the note says to you I own the note –the right to collect on the obligation—per my books and records—but it was lost or destroyed, that claimant once he has proven something about his claim, MUST put up a SURETY BOND under the UCC if you the maker demand it.

    If you run into a frauder that either makes a fraudulent affidavit of lost note—or a good forger that presents you with a high quality forged note stamped paid in full, then 5 years later a holder in due course turns up with the true ORIGINAL NOTE—then you must pay that later claimant and attempt to recover from the frauder. This is why UCC has the surety rule for lost notes. Unfortunately the UCC did not contemplate really good forgeries—which are readily available today. This is the law undisputed under UCC 3-601, 3-602, 3-301.
    Today the banks have trained people to forget about the satisfaction of note rules. People typically do Not get their original notes returned. Debt collectors are buying these notes in bales for 5% —because they include a lot of uncollectible notes—discharged in bky—-etc. these bulk buyers are se arguendo holders in due course searching thru the pile to look for “leads”-ie suckers. Now if you paid off your loan—there is a release of mortgage filed—but no release on note filed—and you did not get your note returned—you should shiver every time the doorbell rings. If you refinanced with a new lender a year or two after the payoff—and you do not disclose the contingent liability on the unrecovered note—technically you have failed to fully disclose your financial situation to the new lender—and you cannot escape that 2nd debt in bankruptcy—because you are a frauder by non-disclosure.

    Now lets assume that you have encountered the situation where the collection agency returned a beautiful copy of the original note—four color beauty and obtained possession of a house. But based on a post-seizure investigation by the homeowner, the collector admits the document was a forgery and knew it from the beginning because of the circumstances by which it magically appeared. This inquiry and disclosure occurred after the seizure of the realty. In a suit against the debt collector for damages on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation of the note, the debt collector asserts that you the homeowner have stated no claim upon which relief can be granted because the prospective holder in due course has not yet showed up to claim the 2nd recovery. The evidence indicates that a truckload of files was picked up of the warehouse floor and sold in bulk. The only legal question in front of the court is whether you have damages from the breach or from the tortious mirespresentation. What is your response—? What is your damage proximately caused by the admitted fraudulent misrepresentation? Is the case thrown out until the knock occurs? Do you just sit and wait and wonder WHEN the knock will occur?

  20. @S. Putra: bar# is a ticket to %1 club as long as they protect interests of 0.1%

  21. Indeed…we are living in “the Day of mutual deceit…” (from bahai.org)

  22. It’s about time SOMEONE who has the expertise to step forward for us. We have been scrambling for competent representation. They don’t teach anything in Law schools these days. They only teach ‘crime and how to get away with it 101’

  23. Definately not fluff. Big clients including corporations and regulatory agencies and FDIC.

    http://spirelawgroupllp.com/

  24. Didn’t know where to post this today so put it up front. Sorry if off topic but it is timely. Thinking we should contact our favorite talking heads and politicians (not that they would like to report it and would rather ignore it and discount it as fluff). Nice that we are all included in this class action even those who discount it.

    Already noted in the comments on this site but nothing in the news.

    This needs to get into the mainstream media:

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/04/28/home-owners-across-the-nation-sue-all-bank-servicers-and-their-offshore-havens-spire-law-officially-announces-filing-of-landmark-lawsuit/

    In timely contrast and silmultaneously from Huffington Post:

    Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase and the industry’s regulation-basher in chief, has called for a sit-down next week between the heads of four of the nation’s biggest banks — JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley — and Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo, the Wall Street Journal is reporting.

    The purpose of this friendly get-together will be to express the banks’ displeasure about financial regulation, particularly a Fed plan to limit the banks’ exposure to derivatives tied to the credit of foreign governments and other banks.

    According to the WSJ:

    bankers will tell regulators that the rule is based on “unrealistic” standards and could foster “potentially destabilizing” market shifts, according to two draft letters reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

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

  26. […] Taken from: New services coming on Livinglies […]

  27. Neil. I’m a pro se litigant and have purchased both the attorney workbook (Original) and the Tila Audit 8 months ago. What can I get the second workbook (update) and Expert Declaration for??

  28. Neil
    I am both excited and disappointed in your new services. The new work sounds great! As I am sure it is. I am disappointed because there will not be any Attorneys jumping at the chance. Attorney’s egos are something. One can go to law school for 3 years, then one gets admitted to the Bar or THE CLUB. As long as you keep in the status quo, the Club will keep up your membership. What do they teach in Law School? 3 years of EGO training?
    Stan
    Racine, WI

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: