Appearance Counsel for Homeowners

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:

By Bruce M Broyles esq.

I am not suggesting that Attorneys start doing this.  Instead, I am just floating an idea for people to comment on and critique.  There are probably a number of ethical rules that would prevent someone from actually doing it.  But what would happen if attorneys who practiced foreclosure defense just showed up at the Courthouse.  These attorneys could sit in the Courtrooms from 9:00 to 11:00 and again at 1:00 to 2:00.  When a case was called the attorney would wait to make certain that the Defendant did not stand or that another attorney was not present to represent the Defendant.  When it was clear that no one was there on behalf of the Defendant, the Attorney would simply state that he was there on behalf of the Defendant; that he had not had an opportunity to speak with Defendant regarding the matter but that he would ask the Court for an additional 30 days within which to file an answer.  The Court rarely requires Civil Rule 6 “good cause” and the Court would likely grant an extension of time.

The Attorney would then have 30 days to contact the Defendant and see if the Defendant was interested in defending the foreclosure.  If the defendant was not interested, the attorney had obtained an additional 30 days for the Defendant to determine his next move.  No harm no foul.

If the Attorney was succesful in contacting the Defendant and the Defendant was interested in defending the foreclosure, then the Attorney could offer his services.  The attorney would not be causing delay merely for the sake of delay, as almost every foreclosure case that I have reviewed has some portion that has a defensible issue.  I am certain that the Supreme Court and Disciplinary Counsel would be concerned about the undue pressure that would result from this type of direct contact (soliciatation) by an attorney with a potential client. Maybe we should request an ehical opinion on the issue?

I do not see a great difference between the above and “appearance counsel” who have no authority and no contact with the client prior to walking into the Courtroom on behalf of the Plaintiff.  If the defendant does not appear, the appearance counsel is able to complete his task; hand the proposed entry to the court.  If the Defendant does appear, then appearance counsel stands there siliently while the Court resets the matter giving the Defendant time to either file an answer or retain an attorney.

If Attorneys could act as “appearance counsel”, then the biggest obstacle to defending the foreclosure complaint would be avoided; getting the Homeowner facing foreclosure to take some inital action.  Almost every Homeowner Facing Foreclosure wants to defend their home.  The Homeowners are simply too scared to take the initial step.  One or two “appearance counsel” could prevent foreclosures in an entire county.  A network of “appearance counsel” across the entire State could combine their efforts and a handful of Foreclosure Defense Attorneys could prevent foreclosures in the State of Ohio.  With foreclosures piling up in the Courts,  the Ohio Supreme Court would have to extend the time for the Courts to resolve a foreclosure case.  As prosecuting foreclosures to a conclusion became more time consuming fewer law firms would agree to handle foreclosures.  Finally, the banks would have to make legitimate business decisions on a case by case basis.  No more governmental programs.  Bankers simply deciding that some cash flow is better than no cash flow.

Again, this is only an idea that has been posted for suggestions, comments, and ethical reviews.  While we are waiting for a decision on the propriety of “appearance counsel” for Defendants facing foreclosure, maybe we can get Homeowners to start contacting an attorney for help

112 Responses

  1. @ tnharry and dcb (and Bob G, Pat Pulati, Brian Davies, and others in the know): I want to thank you again for the time you spend trying to enlighten those who “want to know” about the “legal” side of this battle. Misconceptions abound here on the blog (as well as a lot of esoteric psychobabble). In the beginning I also had delusions of what would and could happen inside the courtroom. The legal landscape is filled with potholes and landmines that NO PRO-SE could ever be aware of, much less successfully “litigate” against. Buying a copy of “How to Represent Yourself in Court” by NOLO is not only a waste of $12, it can be a detriment to your own psyche once you enter the real world of “the Court”.
    I am fortunate to have counsel at this time. The battle rages on in a Federal venue. Those who don’t remember the posting “USEDKARGUY GOES DOWN IN FLAMES” should take some advice: get an attorney!
    I know tnharry is hanging out here “pro-bono” for shits and grins, but he speaks the truth. He’s not being “a sarcastic jerk” Carie, he’s being honest. Accept the wisdom being dispensed. It’s free.


    I am Maxed out on hearing “You can’t…” What’s the worse that could happen if attorneys were present in these courts ? Or how many people could they help while ‘the powers that be’ try to figure which statute has been ‘disturbed’ ???

    More thinking outside the box, please !!!!!!

    Christy, I feel your pain and hope you are doing well in your post-foreclosure plans ! Go get ’em !

    I am also a POST and will be 71 tomorrow – and avoided Eviction yesterday. Exhausting stuff these battles are…

    How do we let others know that they should fight ? It’s one thing to get someone there in Court to help but for people already battered and bloodied (feels that way) to come to Court to begin with ???

  3. @carie – what’s that quote from?

  4. @tn

    What about this:

    “The nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings were marred by repeated statutory noncompliance. The financial institution acting as lender also appeared to be acting as the trustee under a different name…and the trustee conducted a sale without statutory authority. Equity cannot support waiver given these procedural defects and the purchaser’s status as a sophisticated real estate investor or buyer who had constructive knowledge of the defects in the sale…We conclude the trustee sale was invalid…”

  5. @carie – i know nothing about california FC statutes but i suspected they had some version of the following as most other states do : 2924.3(d) Any failure to comply with the provisions of this section
    shall not affect the validity of a sale in favor of a bona fide
    purchaser or the rights of an encumbrancer for value and without

    I’m afraid that noncompliance as grounds for setting aside sale is a little harder than you may suspect it is.

  6. there are a lot of statutes—–what statutory non-compliance?

    over the years i have shot off fireworks out of compliance—-iv rolled through stop signs –exceeded speed limits —-iv not committed RICO in so doing–point is that you need to be specific and objective—or are you just fishing? state your facts succinctly—lets hear it

  7. @ carie–hes telling you the reality—–for the attorneys it 9-5 business as usual–cold blooded—–thats why it tears up pro se—even an atty pro se has to stop and take a hold —processes and rules –originally designed to assure that laws areapplied uniformly—but the collection agecy attys have gone beyond –they have stepped over the line–when they do things with malice its not business as usual and that is what you must look for as facts to support intentional infliction etc

  8. I mean—what if they have repeated statutory non-compliance?

  9. “how you can frame the facts you’ve proven to tell a story…”

    THAT’S what I’m trying to do!!

  10. it’s litigation, not a quest for “truth”…wow.

  11. @carie – i love that when you don’t hear exactly what you want you become emotional and lash out. this quest for the “truth” will truly drive you insane. the goal is really what you can prove, and how you can frame the facts you’ve proven to tell a story in court that shows how you’ve been wronged and entitled to damages. i don’t know how much clearer i can be. this isn’t the X-files….it’s litigation, not a quest for “truth”

  12. maybe i missed something but it seemed to me he was stating a legal matter as accurately as he could——-those of us who provide input that are attorneys are not here to be cheerleaders for losing legal premises—i posed a question re use of judicial notice and some other items to get a sense if i was wrong in concluding that the opinion was not judicially noticeable—–i did not think it was –but it is the essence of the question you asked—-i do not think the opinion is of much use legally–its pr—or a legislative fact—without cross examination it could be chock full of misinformation—gotta leave the beliefs at church carie—must deal with legally defined facts —if you do not accept this simple truth—-you best find another interest

  13. an opinion is not necessarily truth——ie all too often an expert will alter the sample to cause the desired result——assumptions can skew results—-the sponsor may simply say im paying x for an opinion that says y—can you do it? the expert will do it by modifying his assumptions –by sampling data in a particuar manner—“truth” can be elusive—you must be objective—do not assume facts—unless you have a source that is unimpeachable

  14. you lost me

  15. @tnharry

    Why do you always have to be such a sarcastic jerk? You really don’t give a damn about any of us, do you? Sad that you don’t care about the truth…just what you can “get away with”…typical. That’s the reason we are in the situation we are in…that mentality.

  16. @ TNH yes—seems logical—however lets say federal reserve report/findings describe an industry practice then conclude that the practice is per se likely to cause injury—cannot the victim state the report as fact –then allege xyz company followed industry practice–eg docs prepared in same manner by same service providers—such that negligence is in effect presumed—-then sole fact that is not disposed by summary judgment would be amount of injury—-

    lets apply to the basic notary-defective assignment issues; so if the doc creator recites he failed to employ reasonable internal controls in a settlement —– at a particular office—–at a particular time window—-and then the victim here proves her assignment was prepared at that office at that time—does that not enable that victim to avoid proving that her particular doc was also prepared negligently—is she supposed to drag the signers in and depose them to restate what was already stated by the recital in the public settlement—–???

    now certainly the fact of negligence in doc prep is just one element of the tort——also that negligence caused some injury–eg she heard of multiple signatures etc and by due diligence needed to investigate —-that early on she did not know whether it was bigco with a sloppy office or a bunch of forgers in a basement—stealing claims from legitimate noteholders

    but the last piece would be the amount of damages? the investigation she was forced to make because of the sloppy practices cost her $2000 for background seraches –PI going to addresses etc?

    is there some way to explain the legal basis for the effect of the settlement on the occ review–i mean they didnt do it out of the kindness of their hearts–they must have faced a legal process that if followed would result in them being found liable?

    for those people who did not fit the occ review –servicers didnt agree—they must still go through this process —–they do not get the same treatment as those “lucky enough” to have been victimized by BAC etc–but seemingly the same office and practice used by service provider xyz co at 10:00 AM for BAC was fillowed at 10:30 for a non-signer?

  17. ?

  18. @carie – then i would suggest recording a copy of the 21 page report along with a new copy of your grant deed in your county register/recorder’s office. sounds like your task will be complete since you’ve found the “truth”.

  19. an “opinion” that speaks the truth…

  20. and on page 9:

    “Careful verification that the entity that executed the Substitution Of Trustee is the actual owner of the loan is critical to a determination of whether the Substitution Of Trustee is valid.”

    Who is the owner? Who is the beneficiary? Who is the real creditor? Those questions I posed to my servicer were never answered and do not appear on my recorded docs.

  21. @carie – what you’re unfortunately not getting is that the report is not law and it does not confer any obligations or benefits on you or your servicer. it’s one person’s opinion

  22. @dcb – i don’t see a judicial notice option. it’s a report conducted, prepared, and published by a third party for the register/recorder’s office if i understand it correctly. i don’t think it is entitled to presumptions that would give it judicial notice status. aside from foundation issues, i question to probative value and the relevance. yes, it’s their opinion that 90% of the 1600 specimen sample had errors, but how does that prove that carie’s situation shared the same errors? and that is part of the problem that is perpetuated through this site and others – only one side of the story is told. by sharing this report, others see it and believe that if only they can make it an exhibit to their complain they have the smoking gun. it’s just one small part of the story, and the mortgage company can submit their own report that says the exact opposite.

    litigation is less about damaging reports such as this or the essex county stuff and more about what happened in YOUR case and specifically how it led to YOUR damages. i’ve made the analogy before about connecting the dots. show that the servicer did something, that it was wrongful, that it affected you, and that its effect on you caused you damages. that’s the recipe for a successful suit. the next step (and hopefully one that you take before filing anything) is to plan and figure out exactly how to PROVE each of those with admissible evidence.

  23. I mean, to begin with—on page 7 of the report, it says “The original owner or a susequent owner of the loan must execute the Assignment of the Deed of trust.” That didn’t happen on my assignment…there is no owner stated anywhere…and after repeatedly asking the servicer who is the owner of the (alledged) loan—he would always say: “your loan was securitized”…but at one point he did say:”…the investor who owns your loan..” but—this is as we know—not true…the investors don’t “own” any alledged loans.

  24. @TN harry

    In your estimation is there a bar to bringing this report in by request for judicial notice–iv seen a couple writeups posted re that but no results—-otherwise if i understand the rules—-poorly at best—the author would have to lay foundation etc—–but is it not a free report if by judicoal notice—–so cost will be big but fall on the servicer???

  25. embezzlement? i followed the others although i dont see defense to note there anywhere—but embezzlement from whom?

    during vietnam war–people attempted to avoid income taxes on theory that the money was used to carry on an illegal war—and although everybody pretty much agreed on the illegal war part—-the law provides no standing for you as a private citizen to complain about the misuse of your money—-the illegal war issue was finaly resolved by the congress the way its supposed to be done—impeach nixon

    in this instance–nobody has gotten around to doing it the right way—but then nixon thought all he had to do was make it past the election and hed be home free too—–thats what the thought is here—–suffocate dissent till after election when all evils are forgiven because no more votes —except that 2014 midterm–which could be a real interesting event if europe implodes–chase begs for a 10 trillion bailout—to cover the money that sent out the day before–hey it worked for mf global?

  26. @carie and @dcb – and it’s not as if you can file a short complaint asking for damages, attach the report you cite as an exhibit, and then win. presuming you could get the report admitted as evidence, the other side could submit a competing report showing the exact opposite. it becomes an expensive battle of experts. and frankly that ignores the real issue – proving that all of this 1) involved you, and 2) how that resulted in damages. just because the report says 93% of their sample had “issues” doesn’t mean that yours did or that the “issues” meant anything in your situation.

    that said, stick it to them. i’m just getting confused by your goal since you seem to be a moving target between setting aside the sale, seeking damages because of the sale, and righting the overall wrong on society.

  27. I dont know enough about trusttee deeds—nothing actually –to hazard a guess–nor about state law limiting deficiencies to foreclosed home—if that had been my situation–id have done and moved on 4 years ago——in my state they are entitled to a pound of flesh and vigorously pursue it—–a deficiency gives a foreclosure victim more reason to resist—therefore it creates more fees —-much more profitable to be a bank atty in a deficiency state—-

    but are you not interested in the note? i always think of te mortgage–deed of trust as secondary items—i suppose if the state exempts tthe residence from estate assets in bankruptcy–it makes sense–but frankly w/o extinguishing the note what good is cutting off the dot or mortgage–you love your credit card issuers more than the home-loan holder? it may not be unreasonable—but smacks a bit of spurious litigation

  28. and unlawful sale, unlawful foreclosure, unlawful seizure of property and property embezzelment…

  29. @dcb

    How about trustee’s deed upon sale being rescinded due to repeated statutory non-compliance?

  30. sorry i looked at it too quickly–did not see the link——ok what this report does along with several other similar things like recitals in the several settlements constitute arguable “admissions” or agency findings as to which judicial notice might be taken of a generally accepted “industry practice” of negligent practices in respect of servicing and foreclosure —-this is implicitly what underlies the OCC fed “review” process—fundamentally the negligence side of the tort action is presumed——as if a motion for summary judgment on just this negligence issue had been handed down—–and then the only issue left is the amount of compensatory damages that you can prove that you have suffered as a direct result——atty fees i think is one–but you must show at least that your mortgage was one that was abused–not an exceptional case—–and that you suffered damages as result of it–eg you checked out your assignment or other documentation–found that notorious robosigner john doe was involved and therefore you had little choice in exercise of due diligence to research–hire atty make copies –etc etc—–presumably the fact that you found your robsigner was a convicted forger etc –or that after you cut through the muck—your accuser has been charged with theft offnses or subsequently signed onto the settlement—–now you just “discovered” that you were injured by their acts and omissions ———because the statute of limitations on torts is short depending on type—–so you can sue for compensatory damages –not unravel the foreclosure—–

    this is different claim than trying to get a house back—and the whole occ thing is designed to establish an adminstrative route to raise these claims–and i suppose if i were a bank lawyer–and my servicer client was covered by the process–ie had signed onto the settlement–made the admissions etc–id defend against your claim on basis that you failed to exhaust an administrative remedy that was created for your benefit–and ask dismissal on that basis–end of day the banks will use the settlement as a defense –you can be sure

    but if your bank not signed on then you have no choice but to use plain old court tort actions—probably a sew of em —-if your hubby is dying from the stress –you file the claim to preserve your tort claim of wrongful death–which can be tacked on as your damages mount up —-but if you walked away cleanly——and then decide to jump back in the wrongful death thing wont work as well—proximate cause question of fact creeps in——did their old negligence cause his death–albeit delayed

    but remember the Godfather saga when Michael Corleone said ” I was out and they dragged me back in” —now if that is the fact pattern –you can more easily establish the wrongful death—if lets say your husband is dying from constant stress intentionally infliced to break you–to make you drop your case—-or drop your defense–hes contracted cancer–high blood pressure–bleeding ulcers—become hypothyroid—–severe depression as a result of the abuse—documented by doctors or otherwise—–and they are made aware that they are killing him–and they just see it as an opportunity to punish him for something–like retaliation for filing complaints etc—then you have a strong case for wrongful death civilly and maybe homicide of one sort or another

    i think it will take a few $50 million civil damage awards in wrongful death actions to begin to phase the attorneys and servicers—some prosecutions–so if you have these sorts of facts you need an atty and preserve your claim—there are no silver bullets–you cant just toss up one report and expect its going to do more than open the door for you to plead your facts——-or go use the process they gave you and count yourself lucky–those that did not sign basically have decided its more economic to crush the life out of their victims than agree to pay a couple thousand each for wrongs—the bad part of this is that the non-signers are the worst–probably why they did not want to sign–for them its more than a couple thousand??

    what exactly are you trying to get—free of them –or damages for past abuses–or a free house?

  31. @dcb

    The link I posted—did you see it? That’s the report…

  32. what is aquiatis report?

  33. tn–I mean, can’t we in CA somehow use the Aequitas report in pursuing this—ie suing to overturn the foreclosure?

  34. @tn

    I guess I was coming from the angle of the “crime” has been committed—ie. the theft of my property…to get the trustee’s deed upon sale rescinded because of statutory non-compliance is my goal and I am formulating information to get me there—also sue them for the rent I’ve had to pay, etc…I’m not doing it without a lawyer, though.

  35. @carie – one thing to consider when asking the questions such as “did the money make it to the trustee from the servicer” and other “inside baseball” type inquiries is whether you would have standing to maintain those claims. if you sent payments to the servicer, you have fulfilled your contractual obligations. if they send it to an improper party, then the proper party may have an action against them, but you haven’t been damaged in that scenario. of course, if you could manage to show that you were accelerated and thrown into foreclosure based upon their failure to properly remit to the correct party, then you might have something. but so often the question is less a matter of “who received the funds” since a time came when no funds were sent at all. just trying to point out that issues behind the scenes regarding enforcement of the servicing agreement and similar may not be your claims to prosecute. for instance, you’re not a party to the servicing agreement. look into third party beneficiary cases to see if you can make anything stick.

    i would agree with enraged though – by starting post-foreclosure, you’re way behind already. there are things that can still be done, but some of them may be irreparably harmed by the early inaction.

  36. At least prior to close up of DOCX unit in 11/09—–LPS was apparently the “default contractor” for AHMSI——-it appeared that the LPS network attorneys that originally were pushing litigation in mid-2009 continued afterward -so although there is a claim that docx creative services onsight ceased–there is some reason to believe that LPS placed people in AHMSI offices–so they could be anything from trainers to leased employees–usinfg LPS software?

    this is something id really like to know more about–i have interviewd docx employees–before and after termination—but seemingly there is a wall of attys in between you and ahmsi—–but is ahmsi the general partner or operator of your pool–i doubt it——the original trustee remains the operator and ahmsi is a servi provider for the pool manager–but if they havent registered as a business entity this pool then there is a capacity issue—-its a riddle inside an enigma–requires questioning——i think that since ahmso took only collection rights in bankruptcy–and has no contractul duties directly to pool investors–it cannot be the oporator—which must be the trustee—who reports to moodys? trustee or ahmsi?

  37. Attorney’s ethics… oxymoron?

  38. I think it’s a capitol idea Niel.
    Brilliant and close to genius.
    Maybe some of Max Gardner’s trained attorneys could help a lot of people, and earn a good living, using this technique, that I do not see the court being able, or inclined to prevent this.
    As to it being unethical, I think any attorney, when a defendant is unrepresented in a civil or criminal case may act pro bono gaining time for consultation as a friend of the court and in the interest of justice.
    I am not a attorney. This is not legal advice.
    I do not and never have understood attorney ethics.

  39. @ dcbreidenbach,

    I have a case such as you mentioned ,, Option One , no valid trust , plaintiff is nominally WF although based on their actions and lack of knowledge it appears to be a servicer (AHMSI/LPS) that is ACTUALLY the plaintiff …


  40. I’m sure they would have murdered her if they could have…I don’t put ANYTHING past these “people”…

  41. Indeed they are beyond evil—look what Deutsche did to Lynn S.—just out of SPITE they went after her son…pure scum.

  42. yes so what they will do is try to describe you as insane in some way from the beginning–so that if you blow your brains out its not because you were subjected to unusually extreme abuse etc but because you were nuts to begin wirth–or as enraged likes to say “bipolar”

    nope—people get pushed over the edge —-but they will assert that they treat 100 people in an outageous manner and they dont drop dead of this or commit suicide ——–so just because 1 does is not their fault–i suppose the retort is that when you signed up for a mortgage you did not realize the mortgagee wasc going to do her best to induce you to kill yourself or drop dead of heart attack or bleed to death from bleeding ulcers etc

    cancer induced by stress

    if i were a prosecuter in one of these counties where these people did this i would be working nite and day on a homicide charge–at least involuntary manslaughter—and i would go after the attorneys—there is no justification for what these people are doing and until prosecutors put them on the same rack that they use on foreclosure victims they will keep doing it——so maybe your legal aid societies’ prosepctive prosecutors should be running on a platform of intent to prosecute these that are most abusive–that are killing people with intent or disregard—turn one of these foreclosure attys over to a jury on a homicide charge—-that would cause a chill to run through their ranks—and make sure that they are in general population at every opportunity—-

    maybe after election if the economy goes to hell in a handbasket—–get a prosecutor natl attention

  43. Eric Schneiderman: Mortgage Task Force Could Use ‘More Resources’
    The Huffington Post | By Alexander Eichler

    …Schneiderman’s group, which was formally announced in January, has touted itself as an ambitious effort to uncover the roots of the mortgage-backed securities crisis, which nearly tipped the U.S. economy into chaos four years ago.

    When the group made its debut, Schneiderman emphasized that it would strive to accomplish its goals quickly. “This is not something people are going to have to sit around for six months before they see results,” he told WNYC in January.

    But by April, the group was reportedly still securing office space and finalizing its staff, and it has faced political opposition from legislators who have refused to grant it funding. A spokesperson for Schneiderman told HuffPost in April that the group’s work “must proceed in a thorough and deliberate fashion.”

  44. @dcb

    Thanks for your input…I appreciate it.
    You said:

    “…it may end up being that the last amended complaint filed in the case is for wrongful death–when you die from the stress or ——–seriously…”

    That’s part of what I’m talking about—all the suicides and mental health issues as a result of the way people have been treated by the servicers—it IS extremely abusive to LIE to them over and over and over again that they “didn’t get the paperwork” and “oh, just ignore that letter that says your house is going to auction—we are working on your modification!”—and then they DO sell at auction…not to mention the contracts we signed say nothing about what really happened as far as a “mortgage”—how is THAT legal? The sad thing is here we are so many years later and there is absolutely NO let up with these illegal foreclosures…I mean, the Phil Ting report, Schniederman suing MERS, etc…and still no let up…it’s just so damn insane.

  45. ENRAGED—todays courts of general jursidiction are courts at law as well as equity——-the thing that tends to make em look like courts at law is their heavy reliance on statutes—legilatures have been busy trying legislate away the equity jurisdiction—but when you get into real estate law easements etc—injunctions–the court has a hat in equity

  46. i still deny responsibility—i havent voted for a long time because it has been fairly appararent that no matter who wins you get pretty much the same outcome—i look whistfully at the Europeans —-where there are enough parties that you can actually get one that alligns with your interst and where its not —-i vote to throw th current party in power out–to put back the one i voted against last election—–like voting for either cheech or chong—-your still onna get smoke in the face–case in point is anti-war obama—doing a bush surge in afghanistan

    geez these guys do not even have to write new speaches —they just white out vietnam and insert either iraq or afghanistan—and then there are the drafts with iran on them

  47. ok you know your trust———-so its either new york or delaware —-so you look up the rules of formation of trust—must be given assets—-or have assets identified to it –in either case the trust must have identifiable assets–then look at how you identify intangible assets–“schedule” of assets–the MLS is not a term unique to securitization –it is trust comon law——–also if you look at rules for remics they establish that the trust assets must be established –also common law notion for a closed trust–must be a closed trust to be an “eligible trust” –ie eligible for exempy trust treatment

    go check out the indenture and it will tell you what type trust–eg a delsware statutoty trust–etc—there are cases about trust formation

    in many states a trustee is not subject to liability–ergo you cant sue them –their promises are worthless–think about the implications–big difference between bank as trustee for a liquidating trust and a bank as a general partner for a jpint venture “pool”—–this stuff is complicated—–an estate lawyer or tax lawyer has best insight into trust stuff—-by observation the new york securitization guys dropped the ball—-the other verifier is t go to the sec state office of the domicile state–eg delaware—it would not be unusual for psa to require a financing statement which also requires the schedule—basically if there is no loan schedule filed anywhere –then its not a closed trust for sure—which means for irs purposes that its a business trust treated as a corporation——under state law it is quite likely a mere joint venture investment pool–with an operator–the law on this is most common in oil and gas pooling–thats where the term pool comes from—–just because these guys toss the term “trust” around does not make it so—did it get formed in a manner which conforms to a trust –remember the issues ate whether it has to regiser in your state as a business association —–if not a trust then should register as something——–and in end it should not be exempt as a trustee if its just a general partner—eg what if BP had just said its a trustee for an investment pool offshore gulf of mexico—-the status of trust is favored by fed and state law for a particular reason—if its not doing that –then it should not get the deference afforded the trust

    question everything–and you are right about uppending the judgments see CivR. 60(B)(3) and 5——even if there was a settlement agreement it can be uppended if there was fraud or other exigent crcumstanmces—or by collateral attack—–again these are not silver bullets—they have prepared–they will come up with cases to match yours—-best case closest to your home jurisdiction wins and unfortunately to uppend this suff fraud is often required—and it must be pleaded with particularity—ie the events establishing fraud laid out as if in an indictment —eg joe did x on 5/27/12——-here is a copy attached——usually must be 3 things pleadeed to be persuasive—one anomaly is a mistake—-two is a coincidence—3 is a pattern of fraud–its statistically driven–the inference of fraud rises geometrically with the number of anomalous events

    if you allege fraud successfully then you should claim punitive damages for outrageoues etc behavior–gotta se magic words–look it up—–also if you plead fraud look at intentional infliction of emotional distress–that cause extreme or serious mental stress etc—again magic words backed up by specific acts

    when you plead fraud it must be upon facts so strong that you better be thinking about explaining why you have not filed criminal charges–it is tricky–people want to toss the word fraud around but not state the specifics–so if you state the specifics and believe it youself then you best be looking at your accessory after the fact rules in your state to see if you are criminally liable for failure to report

    feds are more aggressive 18 USC 4 requires you to report felony actions —–think long and hard–if you plead be able to prove it–or you may face malicious prosecution claims—–nasty thing is they get paid to do this so the more you poke and prod the richer they get—the whole thing is set up to be no win—sorry—catch 22–this is why i think it was a huge mistake that they did not dedicate those settlement funds to public interst litigation—they could at least pick the cases where the victim had meticulously captured the evidence—-in the end i think almist all these cases have common facts –makes fraud harder–they start to plead ordinary business practice as a defense to ebven the nastiest frauds—–so you have to show its worse as to you—which may shove you into 18USC 1513(e) –rare—a few like Lynn Syzmoniak and Paula Rush can prove it–but if you attract their attention sufficiently to claim retaliation –as a practical matter —–you will be beaten to psychological pulp—if the damage is of that nature its 10 years –if you have a physical breakdown or are physically injured its 30 yrs——but obviously its true pain and suffering—beyond the normal–and as is frequently stated—the whole foreclosure process is xdestructive to the vctims–and ironically the nastier it is for all the safer it is for the perps because the standard is that its got to be unusual–ie every foreclosed party cant claim extraordinary abuse or intent

    everything above is entirely unique to every fact pattern and every jurisdiction and may nort be accurate anywhere–im shooting from the hip—-but look hard at the statutes of limitation too –if you wanna go to this level you need an atty because otherwise they will bury you—it may end up being that the last amended complaint filed in the case is for wrongful death–when you die from the stress or ——–seriously

  48. @enraged

    Well, I’m not doing anything pro se—but some people have had some bit of success doing it.
    I just think there has to be a way to help people (not talking about me!) AFTER the fact of their home being stolen…and if I sometimes chose to ask a question you don’t have to jump all over me about “moving on”…okay?

  49. That would be a dream come true. I happen to live in the State of North Carolina where Bank of America owns the politicians and the judges, and The Bar Association.

    Attorney’s in the State of North Carolina are forbidden to defend homeowner’s against Bank of America’s fraud . North Carolina is “sin city” , guess that’s why Obama chose Charlotte for his convention ………….. bankster owned government, bankster owned President.

  50. @Carie,

    I agree.

    And i do believe that the best way to help someone is by remaining down to earth and stressing out what works or doesn’t work. Not by advancing untried theories the SEC itself refuses to deal with. Filing suit to get to the court steps, preparing ahead of time, contacting so and so to get referals, inother words, practical thingts anyone can do and we know to be effective.

    I’ll tell you what the best help is: telling people, from experience, what doesn’t work. As an example, I know, from experience, that fighting JDB as a pro se is full of tricky crap thrown at you by attorneys representing them. They WILL file motions that they send to an address different from yours, knowing that you have only 14 or 28 days to answer them. So, check your courts’ records daily. They WILL not be subject to the same rules as you are. As an example, if you file a motion to strike because of service, the court simply rules that “Even though plaintiff’s counsel erred (I love the understatement. The guy did it on purpose: it was a motion for judgment on the pleadings, for Pete’s sake! He knew damn well what he was doing!!!) by serving defendant to an incorrect address, Defendant did not suffer any prejudice as she subsequently became aware of said filing and was, therefore, able to timely answer it. Motion to strike denied.”

    I know from experience that if JDB files requests for admission and that you object to them by using the same wording as plaintiff had used in order to duck yours, plaintiff will not be found in contemps when you file for sanctions whereas you will be in contemps and fined to the tune of $300″ (Just happened to me). Those are practical things and serious obstacles you deal with when you are pro se. That’s why I stress to anyone fighting foreclosure to get an attorney. Fighting alone a JDB is tricky enough. Foreclosure? Not something to try at home, without supervision (if at all possible, of course. Very, very few people succeed at it pro se).

  51. @enraged

    I still don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to help people after the fact—if that’s what someone wants to do…you should encourage it for people who have been kicked out illegally—I’m not talking about for ME—I’m talking about for all the millions who didn’t know what hit them…I don’t think we should just “give up” on them…

  52. I meant “we’re not dealling with courts of justice…”

  53. @Carie,

    You’re right: there are, indeed, millions who had no idea about the ongoing fraud. I’m concerned, however, that you not only knew about it but also put it in writing to your servicer and alleged trustee in numerous occasions, from what you said. Doing so without protecting yourself and your rights might very well have foreclosed once and for all on your ability to bring it up after the fact. Statutes of fraud have a nasty habit of limiting your right to assert it to a certain amount of time after you learn of said fraud. Inother words, you might very well have shot yourself in the foot so badly that you won’t recover. i think it is important that you be aware of it.

    I would hate for you to get all gung-ho and realize, after having believed in justice (and remember: we’re dealing with courts of justice but rather with courts of law) that you don’t have a prayer.

  54. @enraged

    I understand that. But that doesn’t mean we have to go give up on everything and crawl under a rock. There ARE things people can do post illegal foreclosure. There are millions of people who didn’t find out about the fraud until after they were evicted…which means AFTER the crime has been committed. There is nothing wrong with trying to figure out how to help them get some kind of justice.

  55. @Carie,

    Where did i speak about you? I have a slew of friends who lost everything by fear of taking a stand when they should have. Keep in mind that over 95% of homeowners did not fight when they could/should have.

  56. @DCB,

    When I say “we”, I simply mean that, collectively, we elected the goons who completely deregulated the market over 30 years, failed to act when it started to blow, obscenely enriched themselves in all impunity, decided that they were above FOIA (try to get any specifics on how much our “elected” make from lobbies; you cant: FOIA doesn’t apply to them. Isn’t that beautiful?), lied to us to drag this country into wars we didn’t need and couldn’t afford (and there is increasing evidence that 9/11 was orchestrated by the banks. 10 years ago, saying it was extremely suspect. today, credible people and credible economists advance that theory without creating a general hysteria. Why is that?)

    Sorry DCB but “We” abdicated our responsibilities as citizens when we gave our elected the keys to the vault. Do I blame anyone in particular? No. I’m one among the “we”. All the research I do now, I have to because i didn’t do it earlier. We’re all in the same boat.

  57. @dcb

    you said

    “…the single biggest item there of interest is whether there was a trust created at all–was the mortgage loan schedule filed? if not then there likely is no trust and the party filing a complaint as trustee for a nominal trust has no standing…”

    In my case there was no MLS filed…but how to prove there is no trust…?

    Just curious…

  58. You know what, enraged—I’m so sick and tired of you judging me and telling me to “move on”…you don’t even understand why I am asking questions here once in a while—it’s my business—and there are things I CAN do “after the fact”—you don’t know my life or whether or not I am speaking to an attorney or anything else I’m doing…I have all kinds of information about things which were perpetrated and will allow me to file a lawsuit (post illegal foreclosure)—can you please just kindly back off and stop harping on me every time I ask a question? Thank you.

  59. How did we bring it on ouselves? I did not ask Chase to go lay down $62 trillion in crazy bifecta and trifecta bets. or buy 48% of all MBS in UK. Or place $ 6 billions bets on succesful payoff of European sovereign debt as did Corzine. Each of these actions is inherently irrational. Every person who can read–who goes to work—has been getting feedback that things are shaky——so one would not logically place down $60 trillion bets–which must be triggered in some measure if any significant events occur. Chase has only $222 billion in papital so any significant loss on $60 trillion bets is gonna wipe em out.

    I will not take responsibility for this activity which is seemingly intentionall placing the entire global economic structure in jeapardy–almost guaranteeing its collapse. The activity here is on par with an addicted gambler who just spent the weekend burning through his bankroll–heavy drinking—and sunrise is in 30 minutes away—and its the last roll of the dice and hes “going for broke” —what happens when the sun comes up–will he have money left to call a cab to make to the airport? Who will clean up the mess from the 3-day spending and drinking spree? What was it like in the Soviet Union in the 2 years after the fall?

  60. DCB,

    There is a very interesting article written on the subject at

    Right now, we don’t have anyone in Congress or in our government capable of stopping what is going on. Why? Because those clowns are too busy deciding what I should do in my bedroom than what is going in the rest of the world.

    Hate to say but we brought it upon ourselves…

  61. “Chinese companies more than doubled their investment in European firms last year, according to a new study, a welcome development for Continental policy makers looking for new sources of capital and growth.

    China’s total overseas direct investment slipped in 2011 from a year earlier, and investment in the U.S. fell sharply, but investment in European firms surged to $10.4 billion, from $4.1 billion in 2010, according to estimates by A Capital, a private-equity firm based in China and Paris that takes stakes in European companies alongside Chinese investors.

    Europe became the leading destination for Chinese firms investing abroad in 2011, accounting for 34% of all outbound merger and acquisition activity, according to A Capital’s new Dragon Index, which was scheduled to be launched Tuesday and will track China’s overseas investment on a quarterly basis.”

  62. @DCB,

    Look at the big picture:

    Sino-African Trade
    While the majority of Africa’s exports to China are in oil, it also exports iron ore, metals, and other commodities, as well as a small amount of food and agricultural products. At the same time, China exports a range of machinery and transportation equipment, communications equipment, and electronics to African countries. In 2009, China surpassed the United States as Africa’s largest trade partner (WSJ). According to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, Sino-African trade reached $126.9 billion for 2010, while the trade volume between China and Africa rose 30 percent year-on-year during the first three quarters of 2011, signaling a new record high (ChinaDaily). China’s top five African trading partners (CapitalWeek) are Angola, South Africa, Sudan, Nigeria, and Egypt.

    Search in Google “China looking for English teachers”. You’ll find thousands of ads. my kid did it 3 years ago. She loved it. A whole year contract, very well paid, all expenses paid as well.

    China Turns Investment Eye to Europe
    Direct Investment in the Region Doubled Last Year; A Way to Move Up Value Chain. (I can’t put the link otherwise, Livinglies won’t let me post).

  63. @DCB,

    My take on it: we’re not looking at the collapse of civilization or the end of humanity. We’re looking at the slow take over of one collapsing economic power (by its own hands) by another, rising one.

    Could I be wrong? Absolutely! Am I? I really don’t think so… What I find fascinating is that it is being done slowly, we don’t learn of steps taken until after they have been implemented for quite some time, it is all done softly and foreclosures are not addressed because they keep 10 million American very, very busy fighting for survival and, therefore, completely unaware. Plus, American foreclosures, in the big G8 scheme of things, are completely insignificant.

    Brilliant. In a machiavelic way. Can’t say if it’s right or wrong. Can’t say if it’s going to help or hurt. All i can say is that is that we’re about to see change “you’ll believe in”. i can see why some people are scared. I’m too old to be scared. So, i observe and I share what I observe.

  64. seems like china is simply cutting out the middleman which any big player would want to–probably buffet could too if he wanted treasuries—the real question is why would they want to buy US bonds rather than debt and equity in corporations with control over resources they can use in future? What are the Chinese really buying?

    Did US agree to sell em the Pacific fleet for the money?

    Does the US get free fireworks for the 4th as part of the deal—they may not have to cut the show short this year at the natl mall–as they did last year–austerity.

    ok if china lends the money to Treasury–then Treasury can give it to IMF and IMF can give it to Greece—and the collapse of the banking system can be pushed back till ater election????

    it cost $1.3 trillion to hold EU together for te last 6 moths–ie giving money back to banks–replaced with public[US and EU debt]—So how much is China injecting-?

  65. OK I give up—what does the handwriting on the wall say–its pretty obscure from my angle? make it simple for my simple mind

  66. Phasing out slowly but surely those blood suckers. Europe’s countries will accomplish the same thing with Deutsche Bank, whether by staying within or by exiting the Erozone, makes no difference. DB is so involved in the mess JPMorgan/GS/AIG 2008 mess that it is corrupt to the core and must go.

    This is a game changer as the primary dealers will no longer be able to front run China and flip treasuries at virtually zero risk.
    China bidding directly on treasury auctions is a massive revenue loss for the primary dealers (See JP Morgan and Goldman) and a strong indication of the stranglehold the creditor (China) holds on the debtor (US) as China is clearly dictating the terms of its continuing support of US debt and deficits. Apparently the treasury does not wish to see the Fed purchasing 100% of its issuances in 2012-2013 as the Fed is already purchasing (monetizing) 62% of all treasury issuances.

  67. More Reuters Results for:”chinas is primary dealer of us bonds”

    Exclusive: U.S. lets China bypass Wall Street for Treasury orders

    By Emily Flitter

    NEW YORK | Mon May 21, 2012 3:35pm EDT

    NEW YORK (Reuters) – China can now bypass Wall Street when buying U.S. government debt and go straight to the U.S. Treasury, in what is the Treasury’s first-ever direct relationship with a foreign government, according to documents viewed by Reuters.

    China can now participate in auctions without placing bids through primary dealers. If it wants to sell, however, it still has to go through the market.

    The change was not announced publicly or in any message to primary dealers.

    “Direct bidding is open to a wide range of investors, but as a matter of general policy we do not comment on individual bidders,” said Matt Anderson, a Treasury Department spokesman.

    While there is been no prohibition on foreign government entities bidding directly, the Treasury’s accommodation of China is unique.

    Think about it this way: we know US banks are about to collapse. We also know that the SEC has given license to 3 Chinese banks to set up shop here. We know that Interpol has tripled its budget since 2008 and is at the forefront of all the money-laundering, white-collar crime investigations worldwide. We know that, since 6/2011, China has had direct access to our treasury. Lastly, we know that, since 9/2011, a slew of bankers, worldwide have suddenly resigned “to pursue other, personal interests” (where do I get the feeling that it has nothing to do with going on vacation…?)

    When all those fringe sites keep talking about redress being performed, as we speak from behind the scene, the writing on the walls are, indeed, getting clearer and clearer…

  68. Too funny!!! Sorry guys but that financial scandal couldn’t have happened without some serious suckers… as greedy as the bankers!!!

  69. Usedkarguy
    Awesome work may I have the bk filing number would love to see the course of pleadings

  70. “…and a fair hearing in OUR courts whereby their doors must be guarded with jealousy…”

    Absolutely! That’s why those who DON’T go to court by filing something and lose shouldn’t complain. I have been harping over and over about the necessity to GET INTO court by filing something, anything but something: Tila, respa, BK, something. Some people insulted me over it. They told me to “get a life”, that they knew what they were doing (Really? And how did that work out for you?) and what I said would happened happened. What Tnharry (an attorney) said would happen happened. That’s already 2 sources. DCB (another attorney) said the same thing at some point in time.

    The problem is that reversing the result of inaction is not possible. An attorney might have stepped in before foreclosure, had one been consulted (“all they want is your money. They don’t want to help you! And judges are sold out anyway. Waste of money.”). No one will afterwards, especially in a state so fiercely opposed to homeowners. In fact, there was no need for an attorney: many people file pro se. Even in those anti-homeowners states. There was no excuse for not filing anything at all.

    The only thing left to do is either find an ongoing class action and jump on it knowing that no one is made “whole” with a class action or go the OCC route. Or do both. Going back to “What if…?”, “Was the servicer wrong for doing this or that…?”, “Wasn’t it unlawful to have done this or that…?” is only perpetuating one’s own agony. Those are not “dumb” questions. But they’re not questions that can allow anyone to move forward either. Those are “Make feel-good for having blown it” questions. Everybody makes mistakes. There comes a point when we have to get over it and move on.

  71. @ carie and everyone
    No such thing as s dumb question period
    God knows over the years I’ve blogged here I’ve had my butt chewed for stating things I could not possibly have understood with my background my goal is to bring forth more questions and to pool knowledge and share
    I feel do alone with my lawsuit like many I need a good devoted attorney but since that’s not happening I do best I can with what I have and 3 years later carie I’m still in court
    I hate when people fight or ridicule on this it puts people off from sharing their experience I told Soliman once- this is not a competition Of who’s got it and who doesn’t it’s a fight for some very important things that our society is supposed to hold sacred – due process, right to own land with clear unimpeachable title and a fair hearing in OUR courts whereby their
    doors must be guarded with jealousy.
    Forget the free house.

  72. HA HA HA!!! What a laugh!!! As usual, Bill Black is harping and going at it against Geithner and the Feds on that $600 trillions of derivatives (something like ten times the entire economic worth of the planet). And JPMorgan being the biggest contributor to… the commission before which Jamie Boy will appear. And Chinese banks are actually dealing DIRECTLY with our government. They are not dealing AT ALL with the Feds.

    I read somewhere that the Feds are on their last leg. That sure would tend to confirm it.

    Anyway, great video.

  73. @ENRAGED: good posting—honest—not real comfy but true—and its not really comfy because it is true–tip of iceberg true

  74. @ carie—-keep your eye on the ball —–what are you trying to prove–are you a defendant facing a servicer claiming empowerment by a trusttee? if so what trust–is it a trust? if its not a trust because no loan schedule was filed –then improper use of terminolgy at least—who does the atty represent? servicer most likely–or a contractor of legal services——-even if its a real live trust—and many many are not—–eg lots of option one trusts had no loan schedules filed—-then trsutee is represented by a servicer under a psa —-and the servicer seems likely to have contracted out default litigation services to an outfit that advertises such stuff–there are a couple notorious outfits out there too

    press for who the atty represents—-some written authorization tying the atty to the actual bank trustee—–if that atty or servicer cant do that much–then how can they release you on a note?

    keep your eye on the ball —look at trail of reresentative capacity

  75. Look at the Indenture responsibilities of the trustee and the PSA —these describe the duties —–they describe the priority of payments of net receipts after the skim taken by the servicer—–the servicer reports the info on the assets side to the trustee which makes this info available to the MBS investors–who rely on that info to price the investment—Moody’s will also have the trust assets in its report on the value of the MBS—they will rateit and it costs about $500 to get the report

    no mystery–its all there

    to get a more detailed analysis look at some of these investor lawsuits–the issues raised here have not a thing to do with the maker of the promisrry note——-unless and until the property i to be transfered and the note returned to its maker——the question is who is the holder of the note–not what happens to the cash—–unless you are an investor—-there are some pretty descriptive fact patterns alleged about the conflicts of interest between investors and servicers–the servicer loves to trigger defaults because that event triggers a slew of fees which basically result in diversion of monies from investors

    yes there are MBS investors—get the code from moodys or edgar sec site ———and then you can often get material on who the investors are in the mbs series/class ——–that is where it gets interesting –if you take the time to actually read the psa and/or indenture you will generally see prohibitions on ownership of the MBS by foreignors—–because pamts of fixed and periodic payments of interest etc to foreign mbs owners are subject to 30% withholding tax—-unless modified by treaty bewtwwen US and the oinvestor host country–liability falls upon the trustee if it remits to a foreignor to determine the 30% or treaty reduced rate. Obviously these guys cant handle that—–it is difficult —so they put the prohibition on foreign ownership in their securitization docs—to give them a haphazard defense against IRS

    I have personally seen the codes turn up korean and chinese owners —the description of the owner of the mbs is in chinese characters not english—this is a fairly obvious violation of IRC 1441 1442 wihholding duties and if you discover it –you can seek a reward of 30% of the assessment from the IRS as a federal claim—–you also get whistleblower protection–theoretically

    the follow the cash stuff is more likely to generate fees for researchers than be of any use to a maker——a holder can appoint others to receive the money for him–thats what a psa is—–collection agents—so the question is not whether the collector diverted the funds in a fraud on the investors but whether the holder has a right to demand payment from you—–its irrelevant whether they rob the investors–except to the extent that you discover fraud and then you must report it under 18 USC 4 –or you go to jail for 3 years as a de facto accessory after the fact

    it puzzles me why these people beat that follow the cash stuff in respect of homeowner note makers———until they sue you and must demonstrate that they are representing the holder… there is a lot of self-interest involved when people are soliciting the sort of fees they ask to “follow the money”——-frankly if i were a judge and one of these characters came in with that–id be inclined to ask my prosecuter to investigate whether they are defrauding a poor homeowner–having said that i do believe it is relevant to establish evidence contradicting the claim of a trustee to represent the holder or be the holder of the note——the single biggest item there of interest is whether there was a trust created at all–was the mortgage loan schedule filed? if not then there likely is no trust and the party filing a complain as trustee for a nominal trust has no standing—i think these guys need to explain why it is of relevance to a homeowner as to how a holder’s representative disposes of cash–for one thing its fungible–once the proceeds are deposited in an account–they are no longer traceable–all you can do is follw a side record –not the cash—and its still really not your business if the holder trustee decides to burn the money in a pile

    this is sad but true —-it is what you as a pensioner–state/govt employee should be complaing about to your pension trust manager—most likely you are getting screwed on both ends—but until the courts or legislators grant standing to individual pensioners to prosecute claims on behalf of the tpension trust —as exists for shareholders under shareholder derivative actions—you have no complaint if they steal the money from the investors right before your eyes and admit it blatantly–most of the lawsuits will tell you this flatly—–work your pension trustee—–press them

  76. @Carie,

    One of your problems is that you did not have an attorney, you did not get to the court house and you, therefore, never got the benefit of the laws. How can you force anyone to produce anything? Through discovery. That’s the only way. Alone, you can’t get much of anything. Once you get to the discovery stage, that’s when you can actually compel the banks to produce what you need, and even then, most of the time, they’ll stall as long as they can and some judges won’t assess fines against them.

    That’s defense attorneys’ biggest gripe: they can’t get anywhere and their motions to compel production are either squashed or ignored. If they can’t get much of anything, how can you possibly, as a pro se, obtain anymore than that? Not having filed suit makes it nearly impossible. Servicers risk absolutely nothing, not even a slap on the wrist, from people who make phones calls and write letters on the corner of their kitchen table.

    As you keep saying, the game is still a tad… rigged against homeowners. But it doesn’t have to be. What each one of us needs to do is research our own individual state’s jurisprudence and case law (How are cases handled? What is the general climate? What did homeowners who won do and how? Where they represented? By whom?)

    Sites that tell you to go alone, file pro se, and sell you form letters and blanket motions are as much part of the problem as servicers and government. They qualify as predators as much as any servicer. I would trust someone who tells me: “Get all you papers, organize them, get all your recordations, your title insurance file, homeowner insurance file, every letter, notice, proof of payment, etc. then, spend houirs pouring over each paper. Reconcile all data, information, amopunt, date, jot down names, addresses, etc. Then, write a complete timeline from day on. Then, and only then, start making phone calls to defense attorneys and see what they can do for you.”

    Anyone who tells you: “Send me your paperwork. For 41 easy monthly payments of 114.99, I can give you a complete forensic analysis of you loan and give you all the areas where fraud was committed. And we accept credit cards or we have easy financing available” is only perpetuating your ordeal ad vitam.

  77. @usedkar

    good for you–good luck…wish I had a picture of their faces…

  78. quickly: Motion to lift stay denied.BK judge upheld our standing argument for the moment. In a 13 with the house listed unsecured. Listed the fraud suit for $1.279 Million (origination, servicing, fraudulent foreclosure and racketeering charges) as an asset of the Estate. Attorneys for bank stunned. 2nd round with the faux foreclosure-mill on June 5. Will update.

  79. and this from Deadly Clear:

    “If you have a mortgage or refinance AFTER the turn of the century (2000), it is more than likely problematic. The entity you send your payments to is not the bank… it is a servicer (a debt collector). And where your payments go is a mystery… and likely not directly – if ever, to the holder of your note…”

  80. @dcb

    Your answer for my question about where my money supposedly went is that the:

    “payments sprayed across the investor pool.”

    Sorry for my dumb question—but aren’t we legally somehow allowed to see those ledgers? Because I have demanded to see the ledgers and they either ignored the question or said they don’t have to because of “privacy laws”…what laws would those be???

    I know it’s all a big lie…but I am trying to figure out what to put in my lawsuit(s)…

  81. re caries question- has any one got that far please, did anyone get to discovery of “where the money went” precisely, wells fargo?? and furthermore how it was dispersed- my guess is if they did there was a settlement. and a gag clause.

  82. What happens in the family stays in the family. Or maybe not, in that cut throat environment…

    The Hunch, the Pounce and the KillHow Boaz Weinstein and Hedge Funds Outsmarted JPMorgan
    Mario Tama/Getty Images
    JPMorgan lost billions on a trade that was called a “terrible, egregious mistake” by Jamie Dimon, the C.E.O.
    Published: May 26, 2012

    BOAZ WEINSTEIN didn’t know it, but he had just hooked the London Whale.

    It was last November, and Mr. Weinstein, a wunderkind of the New York hedge fund world, had spied something strange across the Atlantic. In an obscure corner of the financial markets, prices seemed out of whack. It didn’t make sense.

    Mr. Weinstein pounced.

    As the financial world now knows, what was out of whack was JPMorgan Chase & Company. One its traders, Bruno Iksil, the man later nicknamed the London Whale for his outsize trades, was about to blow a multibillion-dollar hole in the mighty House of Morgan.

    But the resulting uproar, in Washington and on Wall Street, has largely obscured a simple truth of the marketplace. Yes, Morgan lost big — but, as Mitt Romney has pointed out, someone else won. And that someone or, rather, those someones, turn out to be Boaz Weinstein and a wolf pack of like-minded hedge fund managers.

    Click on the link for the rest of the story.

  83. You do not understand how the system works. The servicer gets cost plus recovery for litigation costs out of the total cash flows into a trust or non-trust pool. The servicer loves to see litigation—the more litigation the more fees to arttorneys and add on pass through for the servicer. The servicer deducts these charges from payments sprayed across the investor pool. As long as total incoming payments and liquidations exceed litigation fees its good for the servicer–which has an inherent conflict of ionterest with the investors. however when investors complain–the answer by servicers is that the investors waived the conflict when they signed onto the buy order because the fees were disclosed in the PSA——-the defect is that the predatory loans were not disclosed therefore although the technocal details may have been disclosed–the magnitude of the charges was not???

    thus if anybody wondered why there are rarely if ever economics based settlements as in every other business situation–they are rare in mortgage cases————the clien has no control over the attorneys writing checks on the client account–maybe there is an ethical breach here somewhere? otherwise its the plain vanillat investor gripe about lack of disclosure of defective loans

  84. regarding my previous question—-the “servicer” is:
    “…the company that would be responsible for collecting payments from homeowners and sending those payments out to those who had invested in the trust…”
    So—if they can’t provide a ledger and balance sheet, etc., then whatever they say with regards to where our money went is just hearsay…correct?

  85. For California homeowers dealing with RECONTRUST. ReconTrust not a legal business in California

    If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

    Page 1 of 3 123 Last

    Results 1 to 25 of 65

    Thread: ReconTrust not a legal business in California

    Thread Tools

    Search Thread

    07-14-2011 #1

    Senior Member
    Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,395

    ReconTrust not a legal business in California

    Recontrust is not registered to do business in the State of California as a corporation an LLC/LLP. ReconTrust is a corporation incorporated in Delaware (not a title company & not an attorney) – therefore, should be required to register with the State of Ca. as a foreign corporation doing businesss in the state. If the name used to foreclose is not exactly as registered with the State Department of Corporations a Ficticious Business Name is required to be filed in each and every county in which they foreclose. They must file a FBN with the exact name of the company foreclosing. I believe ReconTrust is a corporation licenced in Delaware – which makes sense as Delaware has the most corporation friendly tax laws and laws. Try researching ReconTrust in your state & see if they are registered to do business there.

    How does ReconTrust legally do business in California & most other states for that matter? Does this mean that every foreclosure they perform in Ca is essentially illegal?


  86. Can anyone answer this question:
    Are the (debt collector) servicers legally obligated to show us where our money went AFTER we sent it to them? Not that they are following any laws at this point, but…
    Like when I asked them—just to see what they would say—‘who owns the loan?” and then they say:”Your loan was pooled into (such and such) securitized trust, and we service it.” and I said show me the ledger that shows that any money went to the securitized trust…and they ignored that request…They gave me a full accounting of what I sent THEM, but nothing regarding what they did with the money after they—the debt collector—got it…ie. giving something to a Trustee…

  87. Look at the date of this article: 4/9/12. We, Americans, didn’t hear anything about it until early May. Yet, the players were already known from Interpol. Things are in the works and a lot of what is posted on internet reflects the truth. Facts are being uncovered daily.

    JP Morgan The Terrorist Bank
    Written by Tom Heneghan, International Intelligence Expert

    Monday, 09 April 2012 13:02

    UNITED STATES of America – It can now be reported that JPMorgan is involved in a $10 TRILLION derivatives ponzi scheme that is now corrupting the entire world financial system.

    We can now divulge that London-based credit default trader Bruno Michel Iksil (Jamie Dimon surrogate) is under European INTERPOL investigation for conspiring with Marc Rich’s Swiss-based Glencore Commodities company, along with UBS Switzerland in rigging interest rates and foreign currency futures transactions made on both the Chicago Mercantile and London LIFFE Exchanges.

    May 25th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

    The Florida Supreme Court, in it’s rules governing residential mortgage foreclosures demanded that PLAINITFFS VERIFY FORECLOSURE COMPLAINTS! The Supreme Court did not include slippery language that would allow agents, acting on behalf of undisclosed principals to come before the court and act on their behalf…specifically in the context of verifying complaints.

    I read the Supreme Court’s language, it is clear and so we moved to dismiss their complaint. The trial judge agreed and dismissed, the bank appealed and the Second DCA just issued a Per Curiam Dismissal of the bank’s absurd Appeal….and so,


    This is a HUGE step in holding the UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPALS in foreclosure actions accountable. All courts must start to carefully examine all principal/agency relationships in foreclosure cases and not allow undisclosed agents with no clearly defined authority to come into courts purporting to act!

    It’s absurd that trial courts have allowed plaintiff’s to come in court waving around original notes with no other proof of relationship, no servicing contracts, nothing that even comes close to showing they have any authority to throw our neighbors into the streets and seize American homes.



    See the legal pleadings at

    Order Granting MTD

    Response Brief



  89. According to Jim Willie, JPM and DB cannot hedge anything. The reason? They ARE the market and you can’t hedge it. Both are equally unsolvent, both are on the brinks of collapse and those endless talks about Greece and Europe are only meant as a diversion.

    Listen to it and draw your own conclusions. And by the way, that podcast explains also why, all of a sudden, the SEC gives its approval to three Chinese banks to set up shop here and why, although he had absolute latitude and power to sweep under the rug the last 2 bilion-disaster (officially 3 billions by now but the actual figure is grossly understated), Jamie Dimon fessed up to it. Who made him? Who forced him to make the announcement? And why?

    It’s all here and it’s enlightening.

  90. Enjoy your experience as the Matrix collapses.
    It’s happening at a fast pace but being shown in bits and pieces. Loses at banks, withdrawals at banks, losses at Wall Street, withdrawals at Wall Street, losses in businesses, offers to employees to leave, no confidence, you can’t throw more fire (money) at a fire (increasing debt) to put it out.

    If people aren’t working the ‘system’ can’t get it’s normal hit of taxes, so it either lays off more people and get less taxes or it adds more fake money to keep running which makes the problem worse.

    It is the dragon that swallows itself.

    That’s impossible. It can’t stay alive (and remain the same) and continue to eat it’s own tail. Something has to give, and in the end, something different is left.

    I have other areas of the Matrix to affect. The fraud had been exposed years ago, the system dragged its feet on a solution because people did a lot of analysis paralysis. They knew where the problem was and spend a lot of time analyzing ‘the past’ and stopped paying attention to ‘the future’.

    Judges signatures are on court judgments where in their court, their space, their sanctuary, they allowed the dark to overcome the light for worthless pieces of paper.

    That is justice to me, to know they served a dark Lord, had no allegiance to the Creator in all, and accepted something unreal, fake, and fantasy, in return for the conscience of their soul.

    Their only redemption is to go back and reverse what was done. Otherwise the energy of their signature seals their fate. Each document with their signature energy on it, judges them to a time and place where they can walk a mile in the shoes of the one affected times 10.

    We look at people suffering and have no idea their story. Did they create it or did someone create it for them?

    Homeless who were once productive people, had friends, neighbors, families and homes.

    Someone else wrote their story and we see them now and think that is who they are…the one we see today.

    Step out, greet the people who have been affected by those who thought they were rich and ‘more equal than the rest of us’, when it’s proven we are all equal. We all come from the same source.

    I can’t add more to the solution here. I will not accept a settlement. What belonged to me was mine. Unless and until I give it to someone it is mine. There was no encumbrance on my property. I was the first owner. There was no encumbrance on the land, it was owned free and clear when it was sold for development into a subdivision. I entered no agreements to modify, so my original contract still stands, I entered no agreements for a judge to decide whether I could keep my home or not. My answer stands in court, that they had no jurisdiction and that the Plaintiff was suing the wrong party. Whatever happened in the court room, unless they can rebut what was in writing in the answer, then they had no case, it was all ‘dog and pony’.

    I had no conflict. Someone created it.

    I called Game Over a long time ago, and I knew then that the violation of ‘thou shalt not steal’ would come to judgment on those that robbed us.

    Sure, in the past, the robbery was a ‘mutual agreement’, they knew they were robbing us, we didn’t so we didn’t object, and we were happy with the ‘programming’ they provided to our mind that everything was okay.

    We have American Idol, and Dancing with the Stars, and So you Think you can Dance, and a key sport every season and a major Winter Olympic every 4 years, and Summer Olympics.

    They think that was our consideration from them, they rob us but give us free t.v. to see the entertainment they bring us to keep us docile.

    Well some of us turned off the tube. Our brains recovered from the electronic waves emitted from those boxes we willingly put in our homes that emitted whether they were on or not, because they were always ‘plugged in’.

    Neo was always ‘plugged in’ the Matix until he woke up and removed the plug.

    Boy was he an independent thinker, after that.
    So much to see and know and do, and the deceptions are so easy to witness and the people who don’t know are so easy to locate.

    You can spot one awake in the Matrix. The look up.
    The rest of us go about our daily lives, not noticing the beautiful songs the birds give us every day (until a day comes where they stop singing and then you will wonder). We don’t notice the beautiful flowers the bees and butterflies have provided for our sights, against the various shades of green and brown, and the beautiful shades of gray in the shadows cast by the sun that graces us every day whether we see it or not.

    Some just care. Well is it going to rain or not?

    It’s more than that, and those dark forces knew you were asleep, they knew you didn’t know your neighbors and that we had all compartmentalized ourselve in our own coccoons and lived independent of each other, not knowing the neighbor next door needed something to eat, and some of us don’t care.

    I hear people who want to protect their ‘own family’, and watch others fail. But when theirs is failing there is no one to protect them. It happened to you so someone can watch you; like you watched it happen to someone else and did NOTHING about it.

    You watch them kill and slaughter but think, well I’m in a great country, glad I was born here. Well someone’s is in pain. They were not born here and they didn’t ask for conflict. They want to go about their lives without being homeless. Their homelessness comes from war.

    You voted for it. You supported it. You said if we weren’t with you we were against you, or if we weren’t on your side of the political isle we were against you.

    You let them teach you hate. You accepted it without question. You say, ‘well at least I’m not racist’. Hatred feeds all kinds of things. NO one sin is greater than any other.

    When we all ‘stop’. That’s when the beast can no longer eat, it loses it’s power. It dies.

    We follow the script. hmm. Someone sues you so what do you do? Well the legal televisons shows tell you want to do. That’s what they ‘programmed’ you to do. To go and fight. Their movies tell you that if there is a conflict, if they don’t look like you and are not from your neighborhood or state, or country to fight them. Their news pumps all that drama at you all the time and every once in a while will show a nice story about an adoptive dog, or a rescued kitten.

    Wheat has awaken. We watch the Chaff be separated.
    The system wants what it thinks belongs to it. It is doing it’s last grab. Many will be consumed by that fire and not know why.

    Messages had been provided over and over as to what you should do, but you were a house divided. You let the system consume you and entertain you at the same time. You didn’t hear the messages that came that ‘sounded different’. They didn’t make sense so you didn’t investigate it would have taken too much of your time away from your life.

    Well there are some that will be pulled and the rest harvested.

    Those harvested know…we see, we saw, and we didn’t keep it a secret. We were in the belly of the beast and we came out of her. We did not play her games. No UCCs, although there is truth in what they did to trick us. There is no away a paper is superior to a life. How is a life that has a Creator going to rely on a piece of paper and some unknown man (wizard behind the curtain) to free him.


    You are always free…Dorothy found out she could always go back to Kansas. It was all trickery and foolery to see what you believe or what you know.

    Are we from the same source? Then how can you say you will rise up against your brother? Why don’t you just not play your brother’s game?

    People don’t want to play with their money? Well what else is money? Huh? Have you figured that out?

    Oh, you need their ‘credit’ (their digits in a computer) so your car can look better than someone else’s. Okay well they know you are are. The ones who ‘need them’.

    Step back. Earth, our mother who feeds us from her essence, air, food, water, and allows the light of the sun to energize us. She’s tired of the conflict.

    Yeah we wanted to experience the dark side of existence. Now we have.

    Stop. Just stop.

    When they went to court and there was no one showing up to join in the fight they created, their courts will be useless.

    You go. You think you are different. That their judge – by the very nature of that word will show a lack of connection to you – will see favor in you as if you were at God’s alter begging for leiniency.

    They are NOT your God. They are NOT your Creator.

    Ask yourself. If Jesus rose, why do churches show him still crucified? Why are rosary beads showing him in a crucified position? Why the vulnerable and not the strength? Why always ‘bound’ (in bondage) to a cross. If that is one day of his life, why not show the free days? The last supper?

    You see what they want you to see.

    If they are your eyes and ears. You will see nothing. You will be blind.

    I once was blind but now I see.

    Imagine Mark 4-9 being about a speaker who spoke. The words were heard and forgotten as if they were carried away by the fowls in the air. Imagine some words being heard and do a little research and find that some of it is true, but they stop short of learning more. They didn’t want to put for the effort to ‘root the knowledge’ into their life. Imagine some if it being heard but the people around the listeners are believers of something else and all of this new info is not what they want to hear so they tease, and joke about what the listener heard until he gives up the ‘life journey’ to stay in graces with those surrounding him. Imagine the words being heard, and no matter how absurd it was, someone started to listen, and wonder about the world around them and the role they play ‘actively’ in co-creating that world. Imagine they realize that if they ignore someone’s plight, someone they know will be ignored, if they discriminate against someone without knowing a thing about them, they get discriminated against by someone not knowing a single them about them (people mostly recognize this experience when they are jilted by someone they like or love, or are kept from getting employment at a company they want to work for, or kept from obtaining something based on someone looking at a credit score). Needless to say, the words to reach some. It is those it was meant for.

    You can’t make anyone do anything ‘not in their heart’s desire’, including to stay in a situation that is not good for them. You can lead a thirsty mule to the water but you can’t make him drink. You can send a fool to college but you can’t make him think.

    When you awaken, you’ll see it was all a dog and pony show to see how many of us used the time to learn about the world you lived it, or was so caught up in your own existence you let the rest of the world pass you by without a care for what happened to your brothers and sisters (because you figured you didn’t know them).

    But you do. They are you. What you do to them affects what is done to you.

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    The world is changing quickly…t.v. is not going to show it to you. When it does, it’s message will be that you should panic and have fear and tell them to take whatever they want just as long as you can feel safe.
    (a sort of selling of the soul if you ask me).

    We are free. Their message is not ours. Enjoy this world. Look up. See the blue skies. Speak to someone you’ve never seen before and may never see again. Make it so that in their life; they experienced you…right then at that moment. You touching their life and being a part of their legacy and they being a part of yours.

    Do not go broke trying to keep something that a ‘beast’ with endless supply of money can outlast you and take.
    If the beast wants it. It will take it.

    Don’t lose yourself fighting that battle.

    Let the system consume itself. People are waking up. Countries are waking up.

    You can wake up when you are ready, but as we celebrate you may be at the party but feel you missed out on something because you’d have no clue what was really going on, so you can’t indulge in the celebration at the same level as the rest of us.

    2012 is not the end of anything.

    There are many years after this just like there were years after the Y2K thing.

    If every one was afraid this year…the dark would have clouded this Earth with more darkness.

    We were so tired of being afraid that we just ‘stopped’ playing in their ‘be afraid’ game.

    Stop playing the other games and they still loose, but may fall faster than they are now.

    Money, is paper, coins, metals, gems, anything of value. Some people will bake a pie in exchange for getting some yard work done. Barter and trade.

    If they want to claim the green paper with the number on it, it’s theirs. They printed it.

    Your country, your native country still deals in sustenance. It deals in physical.

    It doesn’t make paper currency.

    Your native country makes coins.

    You say you are a patriot and you don’t even use what your country provides for you. You use paper and credit.

    There’s years of knowledge waiting to be learned outside of their free system.

    If you are being squeezed, they are probably on their side of the fence.

    Just like I woke up. So can you. I’m no one’s God and I won’t act like it either.

    I’m moving to other parts of the matrix. This part has a great purpose for many. Like Job who had no choice in many things being removed from his life at once without even a chance to react. I will be made whole.
    Job was patient and did not play the game. He was made whole.

    Those that have ears let them hear.
    Mark 4-9

    Enjoy your journey. Eat something enjoyable, witness something beautiful, and share a bit of yourself with someone you’ve never met, (strike up a conversation while waiting in line, or waiting on your order, or while walking down an isle.)


    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free and independent state (in the Declaration of Independence), in Jure Proprio (the legal dictionary IS the system’s dictionary), Jure Divino

    KENNETH S. TAYLOR; ALYCIA TAYLOR DRIGGINS, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for Certificate Holders of Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006-Opt2, Asset Backed Certificates Series 2006-Opt2; AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.; ROBIN M. WILSON, both Official and Individual Capacity; THOMPSON HINE LLP; CYNTHIA STEVENS; SCOTT WALTER; SAND CANYON CORPORATION; JEANELLE GRAY; CHICAGO TITLE, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-3277.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

    May 23, 2012.

    Before: DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and COLE, Circuit Judges.


    Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor Driggins, Ohio residents proceeding pro se, challenge the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of their complaint alleging various federal and state claims related to the foreclosure on their property. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. We unanimously agree that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). For the reasons articulated below, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over the final judgment in this case and therefore cannot review the sua sponte dismissal of the Taylors’ complaint. However, we vacate the district court’s order that denied the Taylors’ motion for relief from the final judgment and remand this case for further proceedings.
    On December 6, 2010, the Taylors filed a complaint against 23 defendants and effectuated service on four: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., Thompson Hine LLP, and Robin M. Wilson — an attorney at Thompson Hine. Construed liberally, the complaint alleged violations of various federal statutes and Ohio laws for conduct that occurred during the execution of a mortgage and subsequent foreclosure proceeding on their property.
    On December 27, Thompson Hine and Robin Wilson (collectively Thompson Hine) moved to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: (1) they were not liable for actions taken in good faith during representation of a client1; (2) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because both diversity and a federal question were lacking; (3) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine2 barred the instant lawsuit; (4) the Taylors’ claims in the instant lawsuit were barred by issue preclusion; and (5) the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. To its motion, Thompson Hine attached several documents regarding the foreclosure case.
    On December 29, the district court issued an order sua sponte dismissing the Taylors’ case. The court concluded that the instant action was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because “[t]he Summit County Common Pleas Court Docket show[s] that foreclosure on [the Taylors’] property occurred on February 1, 2010.” The court also determined that res judicata barred the Taylors’ federal case because it raised claims that could have been raised in the state foreclosure case.
    On January 4, 2011, the Taylors filed an “opposition” to Thompson Hine’s motion to dismiss, an “opposition” to the district court’s December 29 order, and a motion for both “an order to show cause” and a temporary restraining order. The district court denied the motion in a marginal entry order on January 7. On January 10, the Taylors filed a motion for relief from judgment, which the district court denied on January 11. On January 14, the Taylors filed a motion in “opposition” to the district court’s December 29 order, requesting a default judgment and relief from the judgment. In a marginal entry order on January 19, the court denied this motion. On February 11, the Taylors filed another “opposition” to the district court’s December 29 order, requested a default judgment, and sought relief from the judgment. The court denied this motion in a marginal entry order on February 14. On February 22, the Taylors filed a motion to impose sanctions on Thompson Hine for contempt. On March 1, the district court denied this motion and directed its clerk “to no longer accept filings from [the Taylors] in this matter.” On March 9, the Taylors filed a notice of appeal.




    1. Documents submitted with the motion indicate that Thompson Hine represented Deutsche Bank in the foreclosure proceedings.
    Back to Reference
    2. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is derived from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine “prevents the lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by `state-court losers’ challenging `state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.'” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 460 (2006) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)).
    Back to Reference
    Click here for unpaginated view


    Hi all,
    Here is the complete filing for an Emergency Motion to Stay pending Appeal. The 9th Circuit GRANTED THE STAY.

    The process is somewhat complicated.
    1) Initial filing to the 9th circuit. Denied without prejudice. Asked to present first to the 9th Bankruptcy Appellate Court (“BAP”).
    2) Presented to BAP and it was denied. Not unusual since they would need to determine a likely probability of success. This goes to Neil’s statement that you should appeal to the district courts vs. the BAP.
    3) Renewed Motion to 9th Circuit.
    4) Deutsche Bank’s oppostion.
    5) Reply to Opposition with RJN of BK docket and 3rd belated filing of a Motion for Relief from Stay. 10 days before Opening Brief.
    6) Order by 9th Circuit GRANTING STAY WITHOUT ANY BOND.


  93. the litigation wil go on for decades- i hope. dont dwell on the cant, dwell on the can, the how will come, it will definitely come.

  94. I wish to emphasize that our govt has failed miserably in helping us victims.
    The huge “settlement” with the top 5 banks that was supposed to “trickle down” to us victims (where have we heard THAT term before?), is now being swallowed up by state govt entities for their own use, & we’re still left with nothing–including no money for attorneys. Nothing has changed for us who’ve lost everything.
    Attorneys need to be paid for their job requiring years of schooling, as anyone would.
    Those of us who were victims just can’t afford to hire them.
    Many of us would like to, despite Mr. Broyles implied opinion that we don’t seem to know we have a case & perhaps need that pointed out to us at the eleventh hour. (In addition, some of us never even GOT our day in court, as judges threw us aside, denying us that right).
    That, Mr. Broyles, is one victim’s critique & opinion…since you asked.

  95. As a single woman of 60 who lost her ranch of 20 years to a TBTF bank (along with $80,000 in equity?–NOT “underwater”), I can tell you the reason I didn’t hire an attorney is that I could not afford one! I contacted literally dozens. A surprising number of large firms were already hired by Chase Bank. Conflict of Interest. How “convenient” for Chase. Those that seemed they actually could help me said it would be 2 yrs of litigation & fees of $200,000 (the entire value of my humble ranch).
    I’ve confirmed I have a case–for damages, as well, yet lack the money needed to enforce the laws with aid of an attorney. My home was taken & I was evicted. I have nothing, after having been a homeowner since the age of 18.
    I began filing complaints with the OCC 1 1/2 yrs ago, & even THEY asked me if I’d “considered hiring an attorney”.
    Same with my AG’s ofc in Colorado, who spent many mths trying to obtain a complete statement from Chase Bank on my behalf (something I had requested for years from my “lender” & even their attorneys, to no avail).
    Chase finally admitted to my AG’s ofc they couldn’t even supply a complete statement, as they didn’t have it, but my AG’s ofc told me they lacked the resources for individual cases & “had I considered hiring an attorney?” Grrrrrrrr!
    I prefer Neil Garfield’s suggestion (if I understood correctly), of putting together a national law firm to help folks like me take on the big pretender lenders, going for punitive damages, as well. I KNOW I have a case, as does my AG’s ofc. I just don’t have the money, & find myself having lost everything I’d worked a lifetime for. I’m mad as hell my own govt would allow these illegalities to take place, & then suggest I “hire an attorney”!
    I’m now cleaning houses & such just to buy food for my dog & myself, gas for my 25 yr old vehicle, & to try to keep a (rented) roof over my head, & scared to death.
    All I’d wanted was a modification!
    How am I supposed to afford an attorney who actually knows their stuff? There’s many thousands of us. Very alone, disillusioned, now pennyless, & left wondering what the hell happened…..
    I don’t get it. If someone has $200,000 to spend on litigation, then why were they going for a modification in the first place? If I had that kind of money, I would’ve paid my place off!
    While Mr. Broyles idea is entertaining, even IF legal & ethical, I must agree it would also bring out the ‘ambulance chasers’. I already spent $1,400 for a forensic auditing firm that assured me they would save my home, yet failed to do so.
    I can confirm what both neidermeyer & Joy have stated.
    I lost everything without a day in court (denied a hearing in my Ruling 120 response), because I COULD NOT AFFORD AN ATTORNEY. I was evicted & couldn’t even afford to take or store all my lifetime of belongings & had to leave many behind. I’d even lost my job.
    Let’s get back to basics & bottom lines:
    It apparently takes MONEY to enforce the laws, as the OCC & AG’s ofc. have said, which those of us who needed it the most & thus entered the (laughable) HAMP program, lack.
    There it is, straight from a “victims” mouth. Doesn’t really matter whether the idea is legal or ethical.
    We still can’t AFFORD a lawyer.

  96. Police Retreat From Foreclosed Home In Minneapolis After Standoff With Occupy Protestors

    On Friday morning, police from the Hennepin Country Sheriff’s Office abandoned an attempt to evict protesters from a foreclosed home in south Minneapolis after a tense standoff.

    By the protestors’ account, the standoff began at 4 a.m., when about 20 to 30 police arrived at the home with a battering ram, bashed in the front door, surrounded the home and blocked traffic so that no one could approach it. A spokesman for the sheriff’s department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    For the past month, activists with the Occupy movement in Minneapolis have been using the home as a sort of fortress and command center, and the raid was the second on the home this week. On Wednesday, the police called off their first attempt to evict the protestors after about 100 people rallied at the house…

  97. @ all: White-house always fully committed:

  98. Ally Financial: Newly Released Letter Show Scope Of Possible Mortgage Screwups

    “…It’s not clear when the reviews by GMAC and the 13 other servicers will wrap up, or whether they will finally answer some basic questions about the extent of the foreclosure crisis. One of the great mysteries of the five-year ordeal is that no one really knows how often banks or other mortgage servicers screwed up a loan modification, made a costly accounting mistake, or illegally foreclosed on a homeowner. Anecdotal evidence from thousands of homeowners, and information from a few limited audits, suggest widespread misconduct, but the financial institutions that service mortgages have fought a true accounting…”

  99. @DCB,

    I posted something a couple of days ago from Huffington, I believe. Apparently, big law firms are having a harder and harder time surviving. We saw Dewey go down, expect a lot more.

    Divine justice…

  100. Govt guys —need to string up a few lawyers —some really bad ones working on behaof of some really nasty non-bank servicer–will be worth a million votes—people hate lawyers anyway—go after the lawyers –forget the bankers for time being—get the lawyers

  101. “…lack of commitment from the White House”

    Because they don’t want to admit that there is 17 trillion dollars in fake mortgages…no “m” in the mbs…Schniederman knows it—the White House knows it…so—“no commitment”.

  102. Good idea Mr. Broyles: but see “American Bar Association” masters @ blocking lawyers do service

  103. TN HARRY—-it seemed a bit on the wild side–i would think that in order to get by the 2 points you raise—#1 you would have to tell the court up front that you are willing to offer your services pro bono to the poor schmuck – and #2 offer the pro bono—-the issue i have seen is that there are already so many guys out there who are “working” the victims——that they are leary —and tend to want to believe the crooked servicers who are so very clever at misleading–so much practice—i really would like to hear the perspective of the individual that posted–is this an inactive atty–retired? are you willing to do pro bono—i have talked to quite a few not to solicit work but to solicit strories about abuses to discern patterns—–that may be the angle to use—-building a class?????

  104. test

  105. Ouch! What was it I said (quoting someone whose name I don’t recall…)? Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer… We have to hand it out to Obama. He’s smarter than most of them… Might even be stumpful and dimonish, somewhere…

    Friday, May 25, 2012
    Is Schneiderman Already Starting the Blame Game Over the Mortgage Fraud Task Force Failure?

    In an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Investigators Seek More Firepower”, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is quoted pleading for more resources from the administration.

    New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, one of the five officials in charge of the group, said it is making impressive progress but could accelerate those efforts with more investigators.

    “Do I want more resources, want things to go faster? Yes,” he said in an interview. “Am I asking for more? Yes. Do I believe we’ll get that? Yes.” A spokesman for the attorney general declined to specify how many extra people are needed.

    That’s a public quote, so Schneiderman is necessarily being passive aggressive about it. This anonymous quote from a Politico story a few days ago is more brazen.

    A government source working on housing issues said the unit is struggling in part because of a lack of commitment from the White House since its roll out in the State of the Union, citing a leadership vacuum since DOJ Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli left the Obama administration in February.

    “It’s not happening at the level that it should be happening,” the source said. “There’s no person with juice at the federal level that is banging heads and making sure things are happening the way they should.”

    Just what’s going on? Who is unhappy with the deal cut at the State of the Union? All the issued subpoenas by this task force have been civil, and bank attorneys are gearing up for monetary penalties. So this isn’t a task force that’s going to put handcuffs on anyone significant, it’s a task force designed for public relations purposes. Someone working on ‘housing issues’ is publicly praising Tom Perrelli, who structured the task force so it would be focused on civil rather than criminal penalties. This person is also blaming the existing White House staff for not knocking heads, meaning that there is frustration that the PR campaign isn’t working as it should. Whose ass is on the line here? Certainly not Obama’s, who is going to do just fine, whether he goes on the speaker circuit and becomes immensely wealthy by taking financial services industry cash or gets reelected and then goes on the speaker circuit. So who is trying to shift blame, anonymously?

    My guess is that it’s coming from Schneiderman’s office, not because Obama isn’t living up to his promises, but because Obama’s broken promises mean that Schneiderman is slowly becoming an embarrassment and a laughing stock, seen both as a light-weight when it comes to legal work and a pushover in politics.

    Schneiderman still has a few years left as AG, so he could turn it around, but these first couple of years have been remarkable. Have you ever seen someone’s political reputation collapse this quickly without a sex or corruption scandal?

  106. Drea-ea-ea-ea-eam. Dream, dream, dream, dream. Drea-ea-ea-eam, dream,dream,dream,dream…

  107. You know what! That sounds like a good idea. Since the homeowner(s) across America are outgunned and out numbered, one of the best ways a smaller prey can fight back is guerrilla warfare. If more homeowners were represented by these kinds of lawyers the long drawn out process could make these Wall Street bankers and big banks alike frustrated enough to force their hands in assisting homeowners with the needed principal write-downs and or significant modifications. If there’s one or two things the bankers like it’s an “EASY PREY and FAST MONEY”. More LAWYERS should at least consider the idea. Who knows maybe these kinds of lawyers can help change the minds of the public that a most lawyers are scumbags and are only interested in collecting a fee. I know when you work you should be paid. I’m only talking to the lawyers that can afford to on a pro bono case here and there or take a reduced fee.

  108. i find it odd that the original poster has placed an “esq” after his name but doesn’t seem remotely familiar with why such behavior would not be permitted under the ethical rules. (or why Neil would post something like this, himself being an attorney and should know better).

    just one of the reasons why this is a terrible idea:

    ABA Model Rule 7.3 Direct Contact With Prospective Clients
    (a) A lawyer shall not by in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact solicit professional employment from a prospective client when a significant motive for the lawyer’s doing so is the lawyer’s pecuniary gain, unless the person contacted:
    (1) is a lawyer; or
    (2) has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer.

    Also – ABA Model Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
    (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
    (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.

    How would stating that you had been retained by a client that you know you haven’t not be a false statement?

  109. I think it is a great idea….but…. we’ve already seen homeowners employ an attorney and he/she doesn’t know anything about securitization, PSA’s, UCC 3, 8 or 9, “follow the money” defense and the homeowner is ripped off and lose their case anyway after paying thousands. Why? Because the homeowner doesn’t know the right questions to ask. Now it would be even easier to take advantage of homeowners. I see the potential of this being a playground for vultures, like ambulance chasing. Don’t get me wrong. I think it is a great idea IF everyone were ethical. Unfortunately, the homeowner could be victimized again. With that said, I think it would at least give the homeowner a chance to have his day in court after a short delay. I’m not saying all attorneys are disreputable. However, in this foreclosure arena, many attorneys are jumping on the bandwagon with little knowledge on how to present an adequate defense. I’ve seen homeowners devastated by false hope and an attorney with $10k more in his pocket before the homeowner wises up.

  110. I’m pretty sure the bar , as they are in favor of the rocket docket , would come down on any attorney attempting this… most people are hit with a barrage of solicitation mail when the NOD is filed… by then most of them have spent themselves down to a point where they can barely afford gas to get to work much less hire a defense team.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: