Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm
|
|
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688
|
NEW! 
Phoenix, May 23, 2012: Last night we had the pleasure of meeting with Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder, after having met with Tom Horne, AZ Attorney General and Ken Bennett, the AZ Secretary of State on issues relating to mortgages, robo-signing, notary fraud, etc. Many thanks again to Darrell Blomberg whose persistence and gentle demeanor produced these people at a meeting downtown. See upcoming events for Darrell on the Events tab above.
The meeting was video recorded and plenty of people were taking notes. Purcell described the administrative process of challenging documents. By submitting a complaint apparently in any form, if you identify the offending document with particularity and state your grounds, again with particularity, the Recorder’s office is duty bound to review it and make a determination as to whether the document should be “corrected” by an instrument prepared by her office that is attached to the document.
If your complaint refers to deficiencies on the face of the document, the recorder’s office ought to take action. One of the problems here is that the office handles electronic recording via contracts who sign a Memorandum of Understanding with her office and become “trusted submitters.” Title companies, law offices, and banks are among the trusted sources. It appears to me that the mere submission of these documents in electronic form gives rise to the presumption that they are valid even if the notarization is plainly wrong and defective.
If the recording office refuses to review the document, a lawsuit in mandamus would apply to force the recorder to do their job. If they refer matters to the County Attorney’s office, the County Attorney should NOT be permitted to claim attorney client privilege to block the right of the person submitting the document or objection from know the basis of the denial. You have 10 years to challenge a document in terms of notary acknowledgement which means that you can go back to May 24, 2002, as of today.
One thing that readers should keep in mind is that invalidating the notarization does not, in itself, invalidate the documents. Arizona is a race-notice state though which means the first one to the courthouse wins the race. So if you successfully invalidate the notarization then that effectively removes the offending document as a recorded document to be considered in the chain of title. Any OTHER document recorded that was based upon the recording of the offending document would therefore NOT be appropriately received and recorded by the recording office.
So a Substitution of Trustee that was both robo-signed and improperly notarized could theoretically be corrected and then recorded. But between the time that the recorder’s correction is filed (indicating that the document did not meet the standards for recording) and the time of the new amended or corrected document, properly signed and notarized is recorded, there could be OTHER instruments recorded that would make things difficult for a would-be foreclosure by a pretender lender.
The interesting “ringer” here is that the person who signed the original document may no longer be able to sign it because they are unavailable, unemployed, or unwilling to again participate in robosigning. And the notary is going to be very careful about the attestation, making sure they are only attesting to the validity of the signature and not to the power of the person signing it.
It seems that there is an unwritten policy (we are trying to get the Manual through Darrell’s efforts) whereby filings from homeowners who can never file electronically, are reviewed for content. If they in any way interfere with the ability of the pretender lender to foreclose they are sent up to the the County Attorney’s office who invariably states that this is a non-consensual lien even if the word lien doesn’t appear on the document. I asked Ms. Purcell how many documents were rejected if they were filed by trusted submitters. I stated that I doubted if even one in the last month could be cited and that the same answer would apply going back years.
So the county recorder’s office is rejecting submissions by homeowners but not rejecting submissions from banks and certain large law firms and title companies (which she said reduced in number from hundreds to a handful).
What the pretenders are worried about of course, is that anything in the title chain that impairs the quality of title conveyed or to be covered by title insurance would be severely compromised by anything that appears in the title record BEFORE they took any action.
If a document upon which they were relying, through lying, is then discounted by the recording office to be NOT regarded as recorded then any correction after the document filed by the homeowner or anyone else might force them into court to get rid of the impediment. That would essentially convert the non-judicial foreclosure to a judicial foreclosure in which the pretenders would need to plead and prove facts that they neither know or have any evidence to support, most witnesses now being long since fired in downsizing.
The other major thing that Ms Purcell stated was that as to MERS, she was against it from the beginning, she thought there was no need for it, and that it would lead to breaks in the chain of title which in her opinion did happen. When asked she said she had no idea how these breaks could be corrected. She did state that she thought that many “mistakes” occurred in the MERS system, implying that such mistakes would not have occurred if the parties had used the normal public recording system for assignments etc.
And of course you know that this piece of video, while it supports the position taken on this blog for the last 5 years, avoids the subject of why the MERS system was created in the first place. We don’t need to speculate on that anymore.
We know that the MERS system was used as a cloak for multiple sales and assignments of the same loan. The party picked as a “designated hitter” was inserted by persons with access to the system through a virtually non-existence security system in which an individual appointed themselves as the authorized signor for MERS or some member of MERS. We know that these people had no authorized written instructions from any person in MERS nor in the members organization to execute documents and that if they wanted to, they could just as easily designated any member or any person or any business entity to be the “holder” or “investor.”
The purpose of MERS was to put a grand glaze over the fact that the monetary transactions were actually off the grid of the claimed securitization. The single transaction was between the investor lenders whose money was kept in a trust-like account and then sued to fund mortgages with the homeowner borrower. At not time was that money ever in the chain of securitization.
The monetary transaction is both undocumented and unsecured. At no time was any transaction, including the original note and mortgage (or deed of trust) reciting true facts relating to the loan by the payee of the note or the secured party under the mortgage or deed of trust. And at no time was the payee or secured holder under the mortgage or deed of trust ever expecting to receive any money (other than fees for pretending to be the “bank”) nor did they ever receive any money. At no time did MERS or any of its members handle, disburse or otherwise act even as a conduit for the funding of the loan.
Hence the mortgage or deed of trust secured an obligation to the payee on the note who was not expecting to receive any money nor did they receive any money. The immediate substitution of servicer for the originator to receive money shows that in nearly every securitization case. Any checks or money accidentally sent to the originator under the borrower’s mistaken impression that the originator was the lender (because of fraudulent misrepresentations) were immediately turned over to another party.
The actual party who made the loan was a large group of institutional investors (pension funds etc.) whose money had been illegally pooled into a PONZI scheme and covered over by an entirely fake and fraudulent securitization chain. In my opinion putting the burden of proof on the borrower to defend against a case that has not been alleged, but which should be (or dismissed) is unfair and a denial of due process.
In my opinion you stand a much greater chance of attacking the mortgage rather than the obligation, whether or not it is stated on the note. Admitting the liability is not the same as admitting the note represents the deal that the borrower agreed to. Counsel should object immediately, when the pretender lender through counsel states that the note is or contains a representation of the deal reached by the borrower and the lender. Counsel should state that borrower denies the recitations in the note but admits the existence of an obligation to a lender whose identity was and remains concealed by the pretender in the foreclosure action. The matter is and should be put at issue. If the Judge rules against you, after you deny the validity of the note and the enforceability and validity of the note and mortgage, then he or she is committing reversible error even if the borrower would or probably would lose in the end as the Judge would seem to predict.
Trial is the only way to find out. If the pretenders really can prove the money is owed to them, let them prove it. If that money is theirs, let them prove it. If there is nobody else who would receive that money as the real creditor, let the pretender be subject to discovery. And they MUST prove it because the statute ONLY allows the actual creditor to submit a “credit bid” at auction in lieu of cash. Any auction in which both the identity of the creditor and the amount due was not established was and remains in my opinion subject to attack with a motion to strike the deed on foreclosure (probably on many grounds) based upon failure of consideration, and anyone who bids on the property with actual cash, should be considered the winner of the auction.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: administrative procedures, administrative process, administrative review process, auctioneer, Bank of America, Citibank, County Attorney, credit bid, creditor, debt, foreclosure process, foreclosure reviews, fraudulent paperwork, Helen Purcell, homeowners, judicial, Maricopa County Recorder, memorandum of understanding, MERS, Mortgage, non-consensual lien, non-creditors, NONJUDICIAL, possession, pretender lender, procedural technicality, Robo-Signing, secured debt, securitization chain, substituted trustee, Substitution of Trustee, tile companies, title, unsecured debt, Wells Fargo, wrongful auction, wrongful foreclosure |
@Peter: Good luck…
@guest
Thank you so very much! Trying to find a knowledgeable BK attorney and then to litigation.
@Carie: yes, but the lowly county official ain’t supposed to know that….
They tell you to “pound sand” because they want to continue to cover up the fact that there is 17 trillion in FAKE, FRAUDULENT, FALSE “mortgage debt”…
@td: procedure to remove, or correct, fraudulent, or forged, recorded instruments should be same everywhere, just that each state has own statutes. County mob, such as DA, County Counsel, County Recorder, Sheriff, etc… are all parts of this criminal robo-forgery network, otherwise it can’t be done, because each one of these can prevent these crimes, but don’t & won’t, that’s why they tell you to pound sand….
Anyone have WI Statutes on County Register of Deeds removal of fraudulent documents upon written notice. I now filed written complaint re: the forgery on Note & Mortgage, and was told Register had never encountered it before (1+yr new hire), and it would be forwarded to the County Attorney. I was asked “what are you seeking as outcome?”
and thought this a legal question, so I replied that her suggestion of a corrective filing is groundless from my position & that the Duty and Statute require ALL fraudulent recordings to be investigated and if found as such to be removed from the Public Record. I got a real cold, terse reply of “oh, i understand” a few times then said Thank You and left. We’ll see how it pans out!
http://www.cpacaid.org/images/REOReversal.pdf
R.E.O (POST TRUSTEE SALE)
Real Estate Owned by the Bank
Post Trustee Sale Reversal
What is a R.E.O Reversal?
• The legal rescission of the trustee sale of any property either voluntary by a mutual agreement between the bank
and the homeowner.
• The legal rescission of the trustee sale of any property either voluntarily by a mutual agreement between the
Banks Attorney and the Consumer’s Attorney.
• The Court imposed rescission of the trustee sale based on Legal technicality or violation to state specific
foreclosure laws, contractual misrepresentation or fraud.
http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/1058.5.html
California Civil Code Section 1058.5
Legal Research Home > California Laws > Civil Code > California Civil Code Section 1058.5
(a) A notice of nonacceptance of a recorded deed executed
by a holder of a security interest, which notice identifies the
security interest, contains a legal description of the property,
properly identifies the parties to the deed, the date of recordation
of the deed, the county in which the project is located, and the
county assessor’s parcel number of the real property referenced in
the deed, may be recorded in the office of the county recorder where
the real property is located.
(b) Where a trustee’s deed is invalidated by a pending bankruptcy
or otherwise, recordation of a notice of rescission of the trustee’s
deed, which notice properly identifies the deed of trust, the
identification numbers used by the recorder or the books and pages at
which the trustee’s deed and deed of trust are recorded, the names
of all trustors and beneficiaries, the location of the property
subject to the deed of trust, and the reason for rescission, shall
restore the condition of record title to the real property described
in the trustee’s deed and the existence and priority of all
lienholders to the status quo prior to the recordation of the trustee’
s deed upon sale. Only the trustee or beneficiary who caused the
trustee’s deed to be recorded, or his or her successor in interest,
may record a notice of rescission.
@Peter: as you can see Ca. county recorders are the ultimate crooks. The only way to undo a robo-signed, or forged recorded document is by asking any court to order the recorder to EXPUNGE the fraudulent document. That request can usually be made only with a motion in any court where you already have a lawsuit, or with a new lawsuit which you may bring to expunge the recorded instrument. Ca. Civil Code 3412 must usually be cited in the motion for expungement. The Salessi website also has some actual court documents with laws. One catch is if you file a new lawsuit to do this by yourself without a a lawyer most probably it won’t be looked at, because of the lawyer club-system (ABA), as others have provided links to. You must provide proof, and allow defendant forgers to respond to forgery charges, etc. If judge is bribed you won’t get your order unless he is scared of your lawyer……Judges don’t give a damn about forgeries, since most of them are done it many times…..Good luck.
When are we going to stop referring to FRAUD as Robo-Signing? This rhetoric can only hurt homeowners in their fight against this FRAUD.
@carie
I had just read the PDF file from “guest'” and I’m wondering if anyone has had success holding the County Recorder’s to their duties with respect to fraudulent documents being recorded and having them voided. Sorry about the confusion!
@Peter
That’s where my stuff is…exactly what do you mean by “success”?
Great information! Anyone have any success with the LA County Recorder?
@Carie,
You need to ask those questions from an attorney. An attorney from CA. Versed in all-things-CA-foreclosures. Only way.
California is a race-notice state…I re-recorded my Grant Deed (as a name correction) with acknowledgement before AND after the (fraudulently obtained) trustee’s deed upon sale was recorded—but I recorded it BEFORE they informed me of their bogus trustee’s deed recording…doesn’t that give me an edge on ownership rights? Especially since the docs leading up to the sale were also fraudulent. The house isn’t selling…not sure why…
“the County Attorney should NOT be permitted to claim attorney client privilege to block the right of the person submitting the document or objection from know the basis of the denial. ”
The county attorney is the wizard behind the curtains of counties.
In the redemption circles people have filed documents of record for court cases only to have that documentation interfered with and inquiry reveals the county attorney rejected it, or caused it to be pulled, or sent back to the sender.
These clerk offices can take the effort the California clerk’s office did and see the broken chain.
They can review their contracts and identify the breach and the penalty to enforce for breach of fudiciary duty, or undue influence, or abuse of power, or any number of things that violate the ‘public’ with their ‘private dealings of corruption to support the greed of the fraudsters’.
If for no other reason, start with the banks that settled with AG and listed as Grantors at some point in time in their recordation(s) just prior to the height of the fraud.
Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free and independent state, allodial, in Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
1st off thanks to Darrel, Neil, and all who participated in coordinating the foreclosure prevention meetings.
Here’s the statute
47-9528. Nonconsensual lien
A. A nonconsensual lien, other than a lien filed by a governmental entity or political subdivision or agency, a validly licensed utility or water delivery company, a mechanics’ lien claimant an entity created under covenants, conditions, restrictions or declarations affecting real property, is not valid unless the lien is accompanied by an order or judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction authorizing the filing of the lien and does not have the force or effect of law.
B. If a nonconsensual lien is accepted for filing as described in subsection A, the recording officer shall accept for filing a notice of invalid lien that is signed and submitted by the attorney general or county attorney. The attorney general or county attorney shall mail a copy of the notice of invalid lien to the person who is designated as creditor and to the person who filed the nonconsensual lien at the address of each as stated on the filed document. The purported lien is conclusively presumed to be invalid on the filing of the invalid lien.
C. The secretary of state, a recording officer or a county is not liable for accepting a nonconsensual lien for filing pursuant to subsection A or a notice of invalid lien pursuant to subsection B.
I read so many blogs,sites and I truly enjoy yours. Thank you for the time given, you have helped me by reading your works. Be well.
See P. 12-end of this to compare California’s fraud recording system: http://kareemsalessi.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/file0004.pdf
And the most colorful too… 🙂
“If a document upon which they were relying, through lying, is then discounted by the recording office to be NOT regarded as recorded then any correction after the document filed by the homeowner or anyone else might force them into court to get rid of the impediment. That would essentially convert the non-judicial foreclosure to a judicial foreclosure in which the pretenders would need to plead and prove facts that they neither know or have any evidence to support, most witnesses now being long since fired in downsizing.”
Now that’s what tnharry and others have kept on telling everyone and anyone trying to fight in non-judicial states: render your case judicial by filing something in court, be it BK, lawsuit or any procedural action to correct the records. What Neil calls the race-to-court. For many, it is the only way.
Every little how-to helps.
this may be Neils best post yet !!!
First-to-the-courthouse, as in many other states, is loaded DYNAMITE,
in our favor. Great report, Neil.