How To Tell The Judge “NO” and MAYBE Not Have Him/Her Get Pissed Off

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

——–>SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS: WHOSE LIEN IS IT ANYWAY TOC

LivingLies Membership – If you are not already a member, this is the time to do it, when things are changing.

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Did you take a loan?  Did you sign that note?

Editor’s Comment:  The question from the bench is always the same and either  pro se litigant or the attorney is too skittish to take a stand. The question is something like “Did you take a loan?” And the answer could be “Judge I have taken lots of loans,  but I never took any money from these people or any of the their predecessors. I deny the loan, I deny the debt, I deny the default. I deny the note, I deny the mortgage. I deny their right to collection or enforcement of the note or mortgage because I never did any business with them.” If they want to plead and prove otherwise, let them. [This of course ONLY applies to loans that are subject to claims of securitization, which we all know now were routinely ignored by the investment banker just as the assignments into the non-existent pools were routinely ignored, just as the attempt to get a foreclosure judge to rule that an investor without knowing anything about these proceedings is about to get stuck with a bad loan in which there is no value, improperly originated, and never properly assigned or delivered years after the 90 day cutoff period expired.]

The other questions is “Is that your signature on the note? Is that your signature on the mortgage (or Deed of Trust)?” And your answer could be “I don’t know which documents have my actual signature or which ones have been Photoshopped. Therefore I deny and demand they prove that this was my signature on that document. I do know that if they procured my signature on any document it was by trickery, deceit and fraud.” If they want to plead and prove otherwise, let them. But all you are going to see is paper. You will never see a financial transaction between me and them or any of their affiliates or predecessors because no such transaction ever took place.

If the Judge or anyone else asks you anymore questions, and frankly if you are bold enough, if you are asked any questions, your answer could be, “Judge, this is not an evidentiary hearing. If an allegation is being made against me I have a right to know who is making the allegation and what they are accusing me of doing.  Then you have a right to your answers once I have examined the books of records of all servicers — not just the ones that they want to show you, and all depositories wherein documents were supposedly stored. You will not find any record of any kind in which I entered into a financial transaction, loan or otherwise, with these people or any of their predecessors.

CONTRIBUTION: Many payments were made to the creditor that advanced you money. You must remember that they did not advance you money through the securitization chain but instead advanced you money directly from an escrow account, a Superfund, that commingled the money of all investors without regard to REMICS, trusts or any of those niceties and the people to whom the note was made payable and for which the mortgage secured an interest in your property never consummated any financial transaction with you. If they made a payment to the creditors (investors in parternship with each other at the time of the funding) THEN the money received by the agents of the those investors should have been credited against the money owed to those creditors. And part of that allocation should have been applied against the balance due on your loan, meaning your loan balance, unsecured, would be correspondingly reduced or eliminated. End of mortgage, no matter how you approach it. The obligation that originally gave rise to the supposedly secured debt has been satisfied either in part or more likely entirely. 

That leaves a new debt replacing the old debt, which is undocumented and unsecured — and a creditor with an action for contribution because they were obviously a co-obligor. If they say they are not the co-obligor then they are saying the PSA doesn’t apply. If the PSA doesn’t apply then they are not the authorized the servicer or whoever they are pretending to be because there was not actual securitization process.

I’ve been writing about this for years specifically in relation to payments by the servicer and assignments to the servicer or to the REMIC which would in fact extinguish the old debt and originate a new obligation that was neither memorialized by a promissory note from the borrower (because it had been extinguished) nor of course a mortgage or Deed of Trust that secured the extinguished note.

The new obligation may arise between the original borrower and the Assignee or between the original borrower and the payee (where the servicer continued to make payments) but only if the contributor could establish that portion of the claim to which they were entitled.  In other words, an assignment of the entire obligation to a co-obligor would extinguish the entire obligation.  The partial payment by a co-obligor would extinguish the old obligation only to the extent of the payment.  

The problem with getting traction on this is obvious.  It is a frontal assault on the obligation itself leaving the original creditor (if there ever was one) without a claim or with a partial claim, in the event of a partial payment giving rise to an action for contribution. This is only a problem though to the extent that you are asking the court to extinguish an existing obligation between you and the actual creditor — and the only way you can know that is by getting full and complete discovery from the Master Servicer and the Creditor. It’s only a problem if it looks like you are trying to  get out of the debt altogether instead of just attacking the the fact that the new debt could not possibly be recorded.

Complicating issues include establishment of a party as a co-obligor and perhaps even more so, the fact that the promissory note does not actually describe the financial transaction, as we have discussed.  Since the originator of the note did not actually consummate a financial transaction with the borrower, the note is either void or voidable for lack of consideration.  

Further complications arise when the borrower makes payment on the note thus “ratifying” the terms expressed in the note.  But this only occurs because the borrower was the only one at the closing table who did not know the payee, lender and beneficiary were all naked nominees who neither control nor their finances involved in the financial transaction between the borrower and the actual source of funds. 

If the would-be forecloser wants to rely on the PSA then they must accept the WHOLE PSA, which means that a loan in default does not qualify to be assigned, even if in proper form and the trustee or manager of the “pool” has no authority to accept it.  If the Judge in foreclosure court says the trustee or manager MUST accept it then he is adjudicating the rights of investors who explicitly agreed to advance money for performing loans that would be put in a  pool within 90 days to satisfy the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and the provisions of the PSA which merely recite the REMIC provisions of the IRC.  They can’t have it both ways. They can’t say that those provisions don’t apply to the assignment and say that the OTHER PSA provisions giving them the right to service the loans and manage the portfolio also apply.

The fact that the borrower made a payment to a servicer under directions from a representative within the false securitization scheme should not give rise to an obligation to continue such payments; this is because the obligation arose with the actual financial transaction that was consummated between the borrower and the source of funds.  The source of funds was a stranger to the documentation that the borrower signed.  Since the actual handling of the money involved an escrow Superfund (or at least it appears that this is the case) we do not know if the “lender” is or could be identified from the larger group of investors whose money was intermingled and combined into a single escrow account.

The problem with the relationship of loans in “the pool” is that there doesn’t appear to have been a pool in which such a relationship could exist.  The co-mingling of funds in the accounts held by the investment banker might make all of the investors general partners in a common law general partnership.  We have found NO EVIDENCE OF SEPARATE ACCOUNTS for the individual REMICS. And the investment banker, sub-servicer and  Master servicer are fighting us tooth and nail in discovery requests to get that information. IF they had a legitimate claim, they would have produced it as exhibits to their own pleading. Instead they are trying to hide those facts and including the flow of funds starting from before the actual origination of the loan. Too many cases, we see Ginny or Fannie report ownership of a loan that has not even closed in the false sense , much less in the true sense where the borrower and lender are properly disclosed and the terms of repayment are known by both sides of the transaction.

However, this wouldn’t be the first time that we were correct and the judge did not follow the law.  It is for that reason that I have largely abandoned the argument about contribution and I have now started writing about the fact that if the assignment of the note was in fact an assignment of the obligation, the assignment was merely one element out of three required for a valid contract (offer, acceptance, consideration).   And while many people have now picked up on the fact that the trustee of the pool did not have the right to accept a loan which has been declared in default years after the cut off period expired, I have been going a little further suggesting that the state and federal judges are making decisions adverse to the investors by forcing them to accept a loan that they obviously wanted to avoid, and the acceptance of which would violate the terms under which they loaned the money.  

This is a tricky area to navigate because on the one hand you’re saying that the loan never made it into the pool but on the other you’re saying maybe it did get into the pool but if the only vehicle by which it made entry into the pool was a judicial order declaring in effect that the loan became part of the pool and therefore the entity representing the pool had a right to foreclosure, that order would constitute a judicial determination of the rights of investors who did not receive any notice of the proceeding nor any opportunity to be represented or heard before such an order could be entered.  These are difficult waters to navigate.  

Considerable thought should be given as to which strategy will be used.  There is an old adage that basically says you have approximately 30 seconds to get the judge’s attention (at most) and perhaps 5 minutes to make your point (at most).  Thus if you’re going to proceed along any of the tracks stated or discussed in this email you must be prepared to be limited to a ruling on that track alone.  If you have 20 other tracks that you think have validity, then make sure they are in the record by way of pleadings, affidavits and a memorandum of law before the hearing in which you raise one of the above defenses.  It is a good idea to bring up defenses for which the other side is unprepared and which the judge has not yet heard.  It diminishes the appearance of making a decision that will affect 5 million other mortgages.  Ultimately though the decision is between you and your lawyer.

This article was prompted by a very reasoned argument presented by CA Attorney Dan Hanacek:

Even In the Event the Court Finds the “Assignment” Valid, the Assigning of the Note to a Co-Obligor Makes it Functus Officio

“It has long been established in California that the assignment of a joint and several debt to one of the co-obligors extinguishes that debt.” (Gordon v. Wansey (1862) 21 Cal. 77, 79.) “The assignment amounts to payment and consequently the evidence of that debt, i.e., the note or judgment, becomes functus officio (of no further effect)”-and precludes any further action on the note itself. Any action would not be on the note itself, but rather one for contribution. (Id.; Quality Wash Group V, Ltd. V. Hallak (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1687, 1700; Civ. Code §1432.) In the instant case, even if the alleged assignment is seen to be valid, then a co-obligor was assigned the note and the debt has been extinguished.

Note: the trustee of the securitized trust is a co-obligor.

Note: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae are co-obligors.

Note: the servicer is almost always a co-obligor.

Questions for Neil:

Have they extinguished this debt by endorsing it and/or assigning it to the transaction parties?

Does this only apply in CA?  I cannot believe that this would be the case.

BUY THE BOOK! CLICK HERE!

BUY WORKSHOP COMPANION WORKBOOK AND 2D EDITION PRACTICE MANUAL

GET TWO HOURS OF CONSULTATION WITH NEIL DIRECTLY, USE AS NEEDED

COME TO THE 1/2 DAY PHOENIX WORKSHOP: CLICK HERE FOR PRE-REGISTRATION DISCOUNTS

37 Responses

  1. Greetings from Idaho! I’m bored to tears at work so I decided to check out your blog on my
    iphone during lunch break. I really like the info you provide here
    and can’t wait to take a look when I get home.

    I’m surprised at how quick your blog loaded on my cell phone ..
    I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyhow, awesome
    blog!

  2. […] Read more… Posted in Banks, MERS, News Around The Country, States « California State Bar Court Lacks Fundamental Knowledge of Loan Modifications Don’t Believe Everything You Read Dept.: Foreclosure Case in Massachusetts Gives New Protections to Homeowners » You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]

  3. pissing off the judge doesnt come into it if its a foregone conclusion. if anyone with legal knowledge looks at my docket you get this response “who does that” with a few bad words in the middle.

  4. @jenn- i can’t answer that without a lot more background information. i just mean that a blank endorsement, by itself, is not something to get too excited about

  5. “well are you living in the house that the note purports to purchase or refinance?”

    This is an easy answer….. your honor purports is just hearsay, this hearing is based on rules of evidence, and it is for counsel to prove his claim not me prove it for him.

    This is why jurisdiction must be questioned 1st before so the judge can not even get this far. If all counsel can say is purports, then they have no case or real evidence and trying to win on pure skill in legalese.

    Judge is not suppose to ask you purported questions. This is why if that kind of speech comes up by counsel your should always object based on facts not in evidence. When you object to this next counsel will try to change his words to be like ” your honor I know he/her live at blah blah where she owes blah blah to xyz bank”. When they do this object based on counsel is testifying. This will get counsel and the judge heated, but it will stop counsel from trying that game again.

    Basically the judge is tricking you to answer so you can admit to default.

  6. @ Tn
    Thanks !
    Do you mean not a problem for their proof of claim that they never included it before?

  7. @jenninGA – you’ve described a blank endorsement. it’s a common practice and not a problem

  8. Neil—this guy mentions you—do you know him?

    In case anyone missed it:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-06-21/because-someone-had-say-it

  9. Can anyone find the contact info for the author of this article Dan Hanacek?

  10. […] following Must Read article is titled: “Did you take a loan? Did you sign that note?” The link is live, or, read it […]

  11. Bill blow to us today in the Ma. Eaton v. Fannie Mae case.

  12. @Martha Raysik
    It seems easy enough to show with documents that you were defrauded. Your answer should be that you are indeed living in the property, and that you would like the total sum of your payments, plus the down payment and closing costs, plus attorney’s fees, and any other costs associated with procuring a home for yourself from criminals, BACK. Add up your losses and make a demand. Any contract originated in fraud is null and void (ab initio) and you can demand your money back plus damages. You would never have knowingly agreed to do business with criminals, and would never have signed any documents you knew were fraudulent in substance since it would have resulted in the very thing that happened or is happening. Buy yourself a place with a clean title with the cash you win.

  13. “Computer glitch”, they said. Well, if we get that kind of “computer glitch here, I think this is it…! I mean, if I know my compatriotes (which, as of late, I really don’t understand anymore. All that stoicism is getting old… And it ain’t helping nobody.)

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/banking/9348598/NatWest-technical-problems-continue-to-hamper-millions-of-customers.html

    NatWest: technical problems continue to hamper millions of customers

    Up to 12 million NatWest and Royal Bank of Scotland customers are still unable to pay bills, move money or get their salaries after a computer glitch froze their bank accounts.

    Up to 12 million Natwest and Royal Bank of Scotland customers are still unable to pay bills or move money after a computer glitch froze their bank accounts. Photo: Bill Robinson 2009 By Paul Farrow
    9:29AM BST 22 Jun 2012
    106 Comments
    Natwest said that an “update was imminent” but that there was still problems with its system that has prevented customers from getting up-to-date balance and from making payments.

    Technical issues with its computers has now meant that payments in or out of accounts had not been made since Wednesday evening.

    In a statement it said: “We can assure our customers that this problem is strictly of a technical nature and will be fixed as soon as possible. We can also confirm that no customers will be permanently out of pocket as a result of this.”

    The glitch, which also affected online banking services, meant that workers were left without their wages.

    People also faced fines for late payment of bills because the computer meltdown left them with insufficient funds to honour direct debit arrangements or direct debits payments were not made.

    Related Articles
    NatWest: stranded customers vent their anger
    22 Jun 2012
    NatWest’s computer glitches: Q&A
    22 Jun 2012
    NatWest delays to continue over the weekend
    22 Jun 2012
    Last night consumer groups called for customers to be compensated.

    NatWest kept 1,000 branches open until 7pm yesterday and opened at 8am this morning to deal with customers’ complaints. The problem also affected over 100,000 customers at Northern Ireland’s Ulster Bank, which is also owned by RBS Group. In addition 223 RBS branches opened early today, the bank said.

    The banking group apologised for the “unacceptable inconvenience” it had caused to customers and said it was investigating the causes of the problems.

    Sarah Brooks, director of financial services at Consumer Focus, said: “We hope that the problem will be resolved quickly and doesn’t happen again. NatWest and Royal Bank of Scotland should also look at providing appropriate compensation to any customer who loses out because of this failure.”

    Problems with the group’s computers meant that people who were relying on money being paid into their accounts, such as wages, were unable to access this cash.

    The move left many customers helpless and angry.

    Peter Hurst, a NatWest customer who could not access his money, told The Daily Telegraph: “It’s all a bit Greek. What effect this will have on the economy, God only knows. You expect this in the Third World but not in London, the so-called business capital of the world.”

    Meanwhile a customer called Kora-Lee Holmes told Twitter: “Missed my flight home from Greece because NatWest’s server problems mean I can’t check out of my hotel. New flights (cost) £200.”

    Megan Batterbee, another customer, said: “Don’t worry, it’s not like I need to buy food anyway. I’ve got four pounds to last me as long as this stupid glitch does.”

    A saver called JustABC told the social networking site: “My balance is reading £0.00 available, so what have you done with my pay? Now your online service isn’t working. Unacceptable.”

    The technical fault did not affect people who had pre-existing sums of money in their accounts yesterday. The banks’ ATM machines are still working and branches remain open.

    The bank took to Twitter yesterday to apologise to its customers for the problem.

    “We recognise this has caused significant inconvenience for our customers and has impacted many of our services. This is an unacceptable inconvenience for our customers for which we apologise,” the bank Tweeted.

  14. Excellent post and spot on points, Carie. The laws are in place; demand that the judge adjudicate and apply them or recuse himself.

  15. Hey! Where are the 49ers going to practice…?

    Are we looking at the beginning of the end?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3053415/target=_blank

    Stockton bankruptcy likely to be costly mess
    California city would halt many debt payments immediately, cut wages, benefits

    -SAN FRANCISCO — A costly mess, including court battles with employees and lenders that could stretch over years, is likely to await Stockton, California, if it cannot reach a last-minute deal with creditors and becomes the largest U.S. city ever to file for bankruptcy.

    “A Chapter 9 bankruptcy proceeding is complicated, expensive, time-consuming and uncertain,” said James Spiotto, a lawyer and municipal bankruptcy specialist at the Chapman and Cutler law firm in Chicago. “More likely than not, you’re not going to get your desired result.”

    Stockton on Wednesday provided an initial outline of what a “bankruptcy budget” might look like for the city of 292,000 as a June 25 deadline for mediation talks with bond holders, employee unions and others approaches. The city proposes to stop payments on much of its debt and impose wage and benefit cuts including the elimination of all retiree healthcare benefits after a one-year transition period.

    Stockton has already slashed its workforce sharply in recent years, cutting the police force by 25 percent, the fire department by 30 percent, and all other departments by more than 40 percent.

    But it still must find a way to close a $26 million gap in its $162 million budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1 -and people involved in the mediation sessions consider a bankruptcy filing to be all but inevitable.

    Stockton appears to have already thrown in the towel on the mediation process by announcing its contingency plan, said Dwane Milnes, a former Stockton city manager who represents retired city employees in mediation with the city.

    “I hope that in five days they stick their heads up and say they’ve herded all the cats but every public action they’ve taken indicates that won’t be the case,” he said.

    The mediation, which includes 18 parties, was mandated by a state law passed the wake of the bankruptcy case of the San Francisco Bay area city of Vallejo.

    In Vallejo, which filed for bankruptcy protection in 2008, public employee unions, led by the police, fought a pitched legal battle against the type of cuts that Stockton is now proposing, but ultimately lost in court. Vallejo has emerged from bankruptcy, but crime has soared, businesses have fled and property values have plunged as the city struggles to maintain basic services.

    For Stockton’s city workers, the only silver lining in the Vallejo case is that Vallejo chose not to challenge payments to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Calpers), which handles employee pension plans for many cities and counties around the state.

    Advertise | AdChoicesCalpers has made it clear it believes pensions have iron-clad legal protection even in a bankruptcy. That belief has never been tested in court – but with the same bankruptcy lawyers who represented Vallejo now acting for Stockton, pensions may again be off the table.

    “It’s left off the table because they knew they would lose the fight,” said Mark McLaughlin, a Stockton detective and board member of the city’s police officers union.

    Milnes said a legal fight over pensions would prove costly for Stockton and complicate any bankruptcy case.

    “Do you want to be on the bleeding edge or on the cutting edge?,” he asked. “If you want to take this thing on you could stretch your bankruptcy on for years and take on more cost.”

    Stockton runs its own retiree medical program, making it a far easier to target for costs savings, McLaughlin noted.

    Stockton officials have repeatedly said the city faces a crushing liability of $417 million for its retiree medical expenses and that those costs must be reined in.

    In its statement Wednesday, the city also contended that altering pensions would make it “nearly impossible” to recruit and retain good employees, but that cutting healthcare benefits would not have such consequences.

    The extent to which government employers in California may alter pensions for current employees is the central issue in a lawsuit launched by police officers in San Jose this month following voter approval of a measure to overhaul the city’s pensions. San Jose’s firefighters also have launched a court challenge to the measure.

    Bonds in default
    The municipal bond market is all but resigned to a Stockton default – the city has already skipped some payments while it negotiates – and ratings agencies continue to downgrade various bond issues. Stockton has more than $700 million in debt across its various agencies.

    Moody’s since February has cut its issuer rating for Stockton to a junk level Ba2 from Baa1. Standard and Poor’s Ratings Service over the same period has dropped its issuer rating on the city from BB to SD, one notch above its D default rating.

    “Even if a bankruptcy filing is avoided through negotiation of a settlement with labor unions, bondholders, or a combination of the two, Stockton is likely to default on its unsecured debt, including pension and lease obligations,” Moody’s said in a recent note.

    Advertise | AdChoicesThe rating agency said it could drop its ratings on the pension obligation and lease bonds by several notches, possibly to the Caa category or lower, based on the experience of bondholders in Vallejo’s bankruptcy, who suffered losses of at least 25 percent on their principal.

    The defaults have already allowed the trustee for one of Stockton’s bond insurers to seize a building slated to be a future city hall, along with three parking garages.

    Still, much of Stockton’s debt is backed by user fees and other guaranteed revenues and thus would not be eliminated even in a bankruptcy. Standard and Poor’s sees just over $300 million of Stockton’s various bonds issued since 2003 at risk of default.

    Under Stockton’s plan for managing its finances in bankruptcy, the city would stop $10.2 million in payments owed on its debt.

    Costly process
    The Vallejo bankruptcy case dragged on for three years and cost the city about $10 million in legal fees – and Vallejo is a much smaller city than Stockton.

    Because municipal bankruptcies under Chapter 9 of the federal bankruptcy code are rare, especially for larger cities, a Stockton bankruptcy could set important precedents on how various different types of creditors are treated in such cases. That creates an added incentive for the parties to fight rather than settle – even though that could mean a bad outcome for everyone.

    Stockton’s predicament stems from years of fiscal mismanagement and the collapse of a once red-hot housing market. The city has already cut spending by more than $90 million annually, to $162 million in the current fiscal year. With the police department budget slashed by 25 percent, homicides have spiked, and the city has eliminated almost half of all jobs outside of police and fire.

    Sacramento-based lawyer Joseph Rose, who represents Stockton’s office worker employees in the mediation, said he believes Stockton will be unable to avoid bankruptcy: “I really genuinely hope to get a deal with the city by the end of this month if possible, but I maintain bankruptcy is inevitable.”

  16. Boy Oh Boy! Bank stealing something that never even belonged to the homeowner they foreclosed on… once again. What hasn’t it started to get really bloody yet? Why do we keep being civilized with beats with no conscience and no soul?

    http://www.telegram.com/article/20120621/NEWS/106219803/1116

    Worcester man battles bank after vintage muscle car hauled off
    Owner claims bank stonewalls on info

    Aaron Dahrooge stands next to his 1971 Dodge Charger, a car that is similar to his 1973 Dodge Challenger that was taken from this garage. (T&G Staff/STEVE LANAVA)

    By Thomas Caywood TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

    WORCESTER — As David vs. Goliath struggles go, they don’t get much more lopsided than a lone muscle-car enthusiast going up against a mega-bank with more than $2 trillion in assets.

    But that’s exactly what Aaron Dahrooge of Worcester has been doing for three months now in an effort to get back his beloved 1973 Dodge Challenger.

    The distinctive muscle car, which is painted “plum crazy” purple and has a burly V-8 engine with a chrome air scoop popping up through the hood, was taken from the garage of his deceased mother’s home in Burncoat in late March.

    Bank of America has vital information, but won’t tell him, Mr. Dahrooge claims.

    His mother, April Dahrooge, died last year. Her mortgage lender, Bank of America Corp., had an ongoing foreclosure proceeding against the house at the time of her death. The foreclosure proceeding has not been completed, according to city property tax and state land records.

    Mr. Dahrooge said he stored the Challenger in the garage of his mother’s house over the winter as he typically did because he was the executor of her estate.

    In late March, Mr. Dahrooge went to the house at 78 Uncatena Ave. with his teenage son to retrieve the purple Challenger, which he had found years before rusting in a field and fully restored into an attention-grabbing hot rod.

    When he pulled into the driveway, he immediately noticed the garage door had been padlocked from the outside.

    “I thought that was weird, so I went around to the back to look through the window and saw the car was gone. My heart just dropped,” Mr. Dahrooge recalled.

    A neighbor told Mr. Dahrooge that a work crew in a GMC Yukon had come to the house a few days before to winterize and secure it, a typical step banks take to protect their collateral in foreclosure proceedings on vacant houses.

    A sign posted in the window of the house reads: “Caution: this house has been winterized with anti-freeze in all drains and toilet bowls. Please run water through the drains before using.”

    The sign is dated March 19, 2012 — three days before Mr. Dahrooge came to get the car.

    The neighbor, who requested that he not be identified by name, said in an interview yesterday that he was outside playing basketball with his son in March when the same GMC Yukon pulled up to the house two days after the winterization work.

    “They unlocked the garage lock with their keys and towed the car out of there. The whole thing took five minutes,” the neighbor said.

    Mr. Dahrooge reported the car stolen, and the neighbor gave a statement to police about what he had seen.

    Mr. Dahrooge began frantically calling Bank of America to find out the name of the contractor the bank hired to secure and winterize the house.

    He called the bank numerous times, was transferred to different departments, left messages for various bank officials, he said, but never got anywhere.

    “I’ve called and called and called. Nobody will answer. When they do answer, they send you to some other department and things of that nature,” Mr. Dahrooge said.

    Spokespeople for the Worcester Police Department and Worcester District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr.’s office declined to comment on the case, saying the investigation into the missing car remains open.

    Bank of America spokeswoman Kelly E. Sapp said, “We continue to research the issue and are in full cooperation with law enforcement and legal authorities on this ongoing investigation. Should evidence be produced that shows wrongdoing by the vendor, we will act swiftly and take appropriate action.”

    Mr. Dahrooge scoffed at the bank’s claim that it is in full cooperation with the investigation.

    The detective assigned to the case told him that the bank did not respond to a mailed subpoena seeking the name of the winterization vendor, so the detective served it again, in person, on a bank manager at a branch on Main Street two weeks ago, according to Mr. Dahrooge.

    “I can’t tell you how many times I’ve called the bank. They’re stonewalling me,” Mr. Dahrooge said. “Every time I called Bank of America, it was the same. They’re the worst of the worst.”

    Mr. Dahrooge, who owns an automotive repair shop on Chandler Street and had used Bank of America for his business accounts, had gone to the same Main Street branch in March and demanded to know the name of the contractor that had done the winterization.

    He was thrown out of the bank, he said, after the exchange with the bank manager got testy. He returned a few days later and withdrew all his money and closed his business accounts.

    Bank of America made headlines in Pittsburgh last year, and ultimately apologized, when its contractor there broke into the home of a borrower, who hadn’t even defaulted on her mortgage, while she was away.

    The workers padlocked the doors, shut off utilities and took her pet parrot, Luke, according to an account published in the Wall Street Journal.

    The bank has been hit with lawsuits alleging similar incidents in California and Texas, the New York Times reported.

    Ms. Sapp, the Bank of America spokeswoman, declined to provide the name of the winterization contractor to the Telegram & Gazette. Mr. Dahrooge said he still doesn’t know the name of the contractor either, much to his annoyance.

    “They’re withholding information about the location of my property,” he said.

  17. @ Pat, hey….tnharry’s been looking for you. He has an extra magnifying glass and wants you to meet him over by the anthill for “fun and games”.

    To the rest of you….don’t give in to the criminal lunacy being ordained by pat and tnharry. The bottom line is that everyone is losing their home. OK, let me repeat that…

    EVERYONE IS LOSING THEIR HOME

    No matter how many ways they want to try and justify this act….deadbeat borrowers….MERS rights….banks need capitalizing….election year felatio….

    NONE OF IT MATTERS! IT’S ALL LIES AND IT HAS TO STOP NOW!

    There is simply no logical rationalization for the displacement of millions upon millions of earth’s inhabitants. Never mind that there are as many houses sitting empty….that’s simply a glaring example of the insanity behind their actions….

    NO CIVILIZED PEOPLE WOULD PURPOSELY CAUSE THE DISPLACEMENT OF A QUARTER OR SO OF THEIR INHABITANTS FROM SHELTER DUE TO CONTRACT GOTCHAS

    No matter how these perps want to set up their rationale for the theft of millions of homes, whether by adjustable rate resets, MERS, credit bids, AG settlement, or any number of other distractions, the truth is simply that our governments worldwide have been captured and the aim is to turn us all into renters. PERIOD. Can you say land grab?

    Anyone rationalizing such behavior should be singled out for reparations once the criminality is exposed for what it is….

    CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

    Anyone working on behalf of the foreclosure machine should be shunned as if they were SS post WWII. Enough is enough.

    Death To Wall Street!

  18. Again.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-19/fhfa-seeks-to-limit-buybacks-afflicting-bofa-to-pnc-mortgages.html

    I ask again how can Fannie Mae via its servicer go to court to seek 100% damages from homeowner when it may be seeking (or has the ability to seek) 50% to 100% from the originator.

    Its seem that the at the very least the originator should be jointly sued at the local level along with the homeowner borrower.

  19. Enraged,

    One has to look at the individual laws of the state to make a determination. Some states have specific requirements, and others do not related to who can foreclosure and the need for Assignments. In CA, only a mortgage must have a recorded Assignment. A Deed of Trust does not. And yes, there is a difference between the two.

    BTW, I have seen documents and MERS/Lender agreements in some cases that I have been involved in. These documents do establish an Agency relationship between the lender and MERS.

  20. @Usedkar,

    It really makes absolutely no sense when you look at all rulings nationwide that go all over the map. How can CA rule that way and, here in Ohio, have the court that ruled that “MERS not being the payee to the note, it cannot assign nor transfer it”.

    It just makes no frickin’ sense that the same people, reading the same documents, could take two diametrically opposed positions on the same subject. Mind boggling.

  21. Big losses for homeowners here:

    MERS Has Power To Assign Interest in Deed of Trust, California Appeals Court Rules

    The California Court of Appeal has ruled that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., or MERS, has the power, as nominee beneficiary, to assign its interest under a deed of trust.

    In its May 17, 2012, opinion in Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage Association, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, confirmed the universal view of California’s courts that a borrower’s signature on the deed of trust grants MERS such authority.

    The borrowers in Herrera defaulted on a home loan and Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) purchased the property at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. The borrowers filed suit against Fannie Mae to set aside the sale. The trial court dismissed the complaint.

    On appeal, the borrowers argued that they should be permitted to amend their complaint to allege that MERS, a nominee beneficiary, lacked authority to assign the note and deed of trust since MERS did not have an agency agreement with the original lender or with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) which obtained title to the loan after the original lender was placed in receivership. As a result, the borrowers asserted that the MERS assignment of the deed of trust and note to a subsequent lender was void.

    Upholding the trial court’s dismissal of the case, the appellate panel in Herrera relied on the fact that MERS, in the original deed of trust, was granted the right to exercise all interests and rights held by the lender and its successors and assigns, including the right to assign the DOT and to foreclose on borrowers’ property. The court’s rationale is consistent with two California appellate decisions handed down in 2011.

    The Herrera court further noted that even if borrowers could show that the MERS assignment of the deed of trust was somehow void, the borrowers could not show any prejudice that would justify invalidating the foreclosure sale. If MERS indeed lacked authority to make the assignment, the court reasoned, the true victims were not the borrowers in default, but the original lender that would have, under such circumstances, suffered the unauthorized loss of its promissory note.

    – Barbara S. Mishkin

    How Prepared Are You for AML Compliance?
    The deadline is fast approaching for every non-bank residential mortgage originator—mortgage lenders and mortgage brokers—to implement an AML (anti-money laundering) program. As of August 13, 2012, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is requiring such entities to:

    Develop internal policies, procedures, and controls
    Designate a compliance officer
    Institute an ongoing employee training program
    Employ an independent audit function to test programs
    As part of the AML program, non-bank residential mortgage lenders must also implement programs to report potential money laundering, fraud, and other criminal activity to the government in the form of a SAR (suspicious activity report). The penalties for non-compliance are severe, ranging from cease-and-desist orders and civil money penalties to stiff fines and other criminal penalties.

    Is your company ready?

    Our AML Compliance Questionnaire will help you assess whether your AML program will pass muster with the regulators.

    – Beth Moskow-Schnoll

    Arizona High Court Rejects ‘Show Me the Note’ Claim in Foreclosure Litigation
    Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statutes do not require the beneficiary to prove its authority or “show the note” before a trustee may commence a non-judicial foreclosure, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled.

    The May 18, 2012, decision in Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A. et. al should have a significant impact on pending and future mortgage foreclosure-related litigation in Arizona, as it flatly rejects a legal theory frequently advanced by borrowers in an attempt to avoid foreclosure.

    Sitting en banc, the court was asked to decide whether Arizona law permits a trustee to foreclose on a deed of trust without the beneficiary first having to show ownership of the note that the deed of trust secures. This legal theory, often referred to as the “show me the note” theory, is commonly employed by delinquent borrowers against both trustees and beneficiaries in an attempt to prevent trustee’s sales from moving forward.

    The Hogan case involved two parcels of property, each subject to a 2004 deed of trust. When the plaintiff went into default under those deeds of trust, separate notices of trustees’ sales were recorded, with Washington Mutual and Deutsche Bank named as the beneficiaries. Neither beneficiary was an original lender.

    The plaintiff filed suit seeking to enjoin the trustees’ sales unless the beneficiaries proved that they were entitled to collect on their respective notes. Both the trial court and the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff’s claims, holding that Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statute does not require presentation of the original note before commencing foreclosure proceedings.

    In a case of first impression, the Arizona Supreme Court also rejected the plaintiff’s “show me the note” claim, holding that nothing in Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statutes mandates that a beneficiary of the deed of trust must show possession of, or otherwise document its right to enforce, the underlying note prior to the trustee’s exercise of the power of sale.

    Instead, the court held that the “only proof of authority the trustee’s sale statutes require is a statement indicating the basis for the trustee’s authority.” The court noted that “[r]equiring the beneficiary to prove ownership of a note to defaulting trustors before instituting non-judicial foreclosure proceedings might again make the mortgage foreclosure process … time-consuming and expensive, and re-inject litigation, with its attendant cost and delay, into the process.”

    – Craig C. Hoffman and John G. Kerkorian

  22. If you still have a bank account, don’t complain when the bank screws you.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-banking-liability-20120621,0,3766672.story

    Some banks require customers to pay all costs in legal disputes

    Checking account disclosures at some banks make the customer liable for the bank’s losses, costs or expenses from any dispute over the account, regardless of who wins.

    Consumer law experts say the banks may have a simple goal: scaring customers away from going to court. (Mark Boster, Los Angeles Times / October 24, 2011)

    June 21, 2012
    WASHINGTON — Some consumers might be in for a surprise if they take their banks to court over checking or credit card disputes: A provision in account agreements says even if you win, you lose.

    Checking account disclosures at four large banks and one large credit union make the customer liable for the bank’s losses, costs or expenses — including attorney fees — from any dispute over the account, regardless of who wins.

    “If you win the lawsuit, you shouldn’t have to pay the other side’s costs and fees. It’s the other way around,” said William Shernoff, a Claremont lawyer who specializes in representing consumers against insurance companies.

    In more than 40 years of practice, he said he had never heard of a contract having such a provision.

    “It’s offensive to consumers, to the legal system, to a sense of fairness,” said Pamela Banks, senior policy counsel at Consumers Union. “It’s outrageous.”

    Researchers for the Safe Checking in the Electronic Age Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts discovered the provisions in checking account disclosures at HSBC Bank, TD Bank, PNC Bank, Branch Banking & Trust Co. and America First Credit Union as part of a review of fees and policies at large financial institutions.

    Consumer law experts said the provisions are on shaky legal ground. But including them in disclosures might have a simple goal: scaring customers away from going to court at all.

    “Does a consumer have a dispute with their bank and then they read this clause and say, ‘There’s no way I’m going to take this forward’?” said Susan Weinstock, the Pew project’s director.

    Consumer advocates said it’s another example of how some banks try to take advantage of their customers and called for regulators to look at the practice.

    Pew has called on the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to review so-called fee-shifting provisions as part of a study the agency launched in April of arbitration clauses in contracts for bank accounts and other financial products. The agency said it would review the Pew findings as part of the study, which will look at dispute resolution processes.

    The fee-shifting provision appears to be aimed at customers seeking to sue, Weinstock said. But the wording is very broad and could encompass any dispute.

    HSBC’s 36-page Rules for Deposit Accounts phrases its clause this way:

    “You agree to be liable to the bank for any losses, costs or expenses the bank incurs as a result of any dispute involving your account. You authorize the bank to deduct any such losses, costs or expenses from your account without prior notice to you.”

    Neil Brazil, an HSBC spokesman, said the bank’s provision was designed primarily to protect it from any losses it might incur from legal disputes between the primary account holder and other authorized users, such as a spouse.

    The other financial institutions cited by Pew include similar provisions, and specifically note that attorney fees are included in those costs.

    Merrie Betbeze Tolbert, vice president of corporate communications for Branch Banking & Trust, said BB&T’s provision was designed to cover customers’ disputes with others when bank personnel or records are needed to help settle the disputes. The clause allows the bank to recover costs for providing records or testimony, for example.

    “To date, the bank has never been criticized for this provision,” Tolbert said. She said it was “standard language in most commercial agreements that contain judicial dispute provisions.”

    Rebecca Acevedo, a spokeswoman for TD Bank, agreed that the language was “pretty typical” but would not comment further.

    A PNC spokeswoman confirmed that the provision was in the bank’s disclosures but declined to comment further. America First Credit Union in Utah did not respond to requests for comment.

    Pew said the policies were not typical.

    The Safe Checking Project first found the provisions in a 2011 report titled Hidden Risks: The Case for Safe and Transparent Checking Accounts. For that report, Pew looked at the policies at the 10 largest banks by deposits and found the fee-shifting provision at three of them — PNC, TD Bank and HSBC. The finding drew little attention, and the consumer protection bureau was not open for business at the time.

    Pew released an update of the report last week. The group expanded its research to the 12 largest consumer banks and 12 largest credit unions, and found that BB&T and America First Credit Union also had fee-shifting policies.

    Courts generally allow both sides in a legal dispute to decide who is responsible for the costs, said Stuart Rossman, director of litigation at the National Consumer Law Center. But a judge probably would not allow a bank to shift all the costs onto the customer, he said.

    “If it was business to business, I suspect that the courts would be willing to uphold it,” he said. “When it’s a consumer versus a bank … I think it would be looked upon with far more jaundice and might be construed to be unfair.”

    Banks, the Consumers Union counsel, said she hadn’t heard of such a provision until the recent Pew report and agreed it was probably designed to discourage customers from taking legal action.

    “Essentially this has a chilling effect,” she said. “Consumers who may have a legal right to pursue something will not be doing so because they may not be able to afford it.”

  23. Homeowners to receive up to $125,000 for foreclosure abuses
    By Les Christie @CNNMoney June 21, 2012: 6:24 PM ET

    http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/21/real_estate/foreclosure-review/index.htm

  24. @tnharry, said as a follow up question, the judge will say, “well, are you licing in the house, that the note allegedy is on?”

    I would live help on this one, as i had no idea what was happening on july 12th, 2007′ when donna demello (just got 18 months at Club Fed) had me sign deeds on lot 256, then the next day they conveyed lot 107 to. us, and forged our signatures to deeds of trust on that lot 107, hiding the identity theft of us on lot 256′ until of course i discovered it, remembered the LOT SWITH BY DEMELLO, and figured. out the scam.

    so, yes I am ( was-I moved out leaving family there) living in lot 107′ but i never, at any date point or posibility signed deeds of trust on that lot 107.

    i want to give it back, but how? what am i to do. i have gone through three years of hell, and now they took my TSC out of the court record and replaced it with a forged complaint.

    this is evil, and god… please send me an attorney!

  25. I hope that’s true. I hope investors are going to take out all their money overnight. I hope tomorrow, Jamie boy and his cuff links will be a thing of the past. And Gatch is wrong: bank have weathered a lot since 9/11 but… the country had money, then. Banks could be bailed out. Not quite as easy any longer…

    J.P. Morgan’s Gatch says investors panicking
    By Randy Diamond | June 21, 2012 3:32 pm
    Comments
    Doug Goodman

    George Gatch
    Elevated levels of volatility and uncertainty in the financial markets have caused investors to panic, George Gatch, CEO of the global funds management business of J.P. Morgan Asset Management (JPM), told the Morningstar investment conference Thursday.

    “Investing should not be gambling,” Mr. Gatch, the keynote speaker at the conference, told about 500 attendees. Mr. Gatch said that between 2006 and mid-March of 2012, unprecedented volatility in markets has spurred inflows of $1.1 trillion into fixed income. Equities and ETFs, on the other hand, have only had $221 billion in inflows during the same period.

    He said the result is that investors’ portfolios are unbalanced, and told his audience that investors need to diversify back into equities and alternatives.

    But Mr. Gatch said he saw no signs of volatility subsiding anytime soon. He cited a number of destabilizing crises over the past decade that caused the volatility, from the Sept. 11 attacks to the eurozone problems as well as two Middle East wars, the technology bubble and even Hurricane Katrina.

    “Quentin Tarantino couldn’t have written a more disturbing script,” he said.

  26. It’sd just too good when they start screwing each others. In fact, Carlin’s take on it was right on the money!

    21 Jun 2012 at 5:30 PMPosted in:
    M&A
    Goldman Surprised To Find Carl Icahn Being Kind Of A Dick
    By Matt Levine
    Sell-side M&A work is mostly a pretty good and lucrative business model but it has a few flaws. Try to spot a key one here:
    (1) you represent a target;
    (2) you spend your days fighting tooth and nail with the buyer to try to make them pay more and give up optionality, and generally to get more of the benefits of the deal for the target than for the buyer;
    (3) then the buyer acquires the target, fires all the directors and officers, changes the locks, and replaces the stationery;
    (4) then you get paid.

    Did you spot the problem? Carl Icahn did:
    Goldman Sachs Group Inc on Thursday sued CVR Energy Inc, an oil refiner controlled by Carl Icahn, contending that the billionaire investor will not let the company pay $18.5 million of fees and expenses it owes.

    In a complaint filed with a New York state court in Manhattan, Goldman said CVR in March hired it to provide financial advice on Icahn’s tender offer for its stock, and agreed to pay a fee based on the size of any transaction.

    CVR requested an invoice, which Goldman sent on May 3, but four days later advised the bank that “Icahn had instructed CVR not to pay the invoice,” according to the complaint.
    Hahahahahaha you just know he did, right? The complaint is here but there’s not much to it beyond Reuters’ report. GS sent CVR an invoice on May 3, Icahn acquired CVR on May 4, and CVR DK’ed that invoice on May 7. At a guess I’d say GS is likely to win this one: GS and CVR signed a contract, that contract seems pretty standard and valid, and CVR seems not to be following it. So bad work Icahn.

    Still it’s sort of interesting that you don’t see more of this.* The public company sell-side/raid-defense M&A fee is somewhat magical in that boards and directors want good advice (and to avoid selling cheaply or often at all), but they don’t exactly need to pay for it out of their or their shareholders’ pockets: the bulk of the fee is normally payable only if the deal closes, which means that it’s paid by the (possibly enraged) buyer. The target shareholders get their $X per share whether the M&A fee is 1 basis point or 100. This means that targets should be a little more cavalier with the buyer’s money than they would be with their own – and that buyers should be less enthused about paying for services that were used against them than they would be for services that they used themselves.

    Of course the buyer normally knows about the fee, particularly in a diligenced friendly deal, and so in economic theory should reduce the price it’s willing to pay by the amount of the fee. In practice, though, if the fee isn’t egregious it’s hard to negotiate down a price just because diligence reveals a bigger deal fee than you expected. And in a hostile deal the buyer may not even learn what the fee is until after closing.

    Goldman’s 52.5bps fee here doesn’t seem way out of line, but look at it from Icahn’s perspective. CVR retained Goldman on February 15, and signed the current engagement letter on March 21. It did this in response to Icahn’s January/February efforts to get it to sell itself, and Icahn announced his tender offer – at $30 per share plus a contingent cash payment right – on February 16. Goldman was presumably instrumental in negotiating some modifications, including a lengthening of the contingent cash payment period, but basically – Icahn ended up buying 80% of CVR’s shares for $30 plus a contingent cash payment.

    So you can sympathize a little with Icahn here. The CVR board hired Goldman basically to fend off Icahn or, failing that, to maximize value for shareholders. Icahn was not fended off, though he was presumably pissed off by the attempt. And Goldman’s value add for shareholders was, to a rough approximation, zero-ish: Icahn paid the same cash price as he offered before Goldman came along. So if shareholders got nothing, and Icahn got nothing but aggravation, why is he paying (80% of) $18mm for the privilege?

    That is I suppose an argument that a noted defender of shareholders like Icahn could mount. But a contract is a contract. And Icahn doesn’t look too good here, since he signed an agreement with CVR pretty much explicitly endorsing the GS engagement letter.** Pushing back on excessive fees would have made more sense if he’d done it before agreeing to let CVR pay them – though it’s probably more fun now.

  27. @ Tnharry –

    Ok – don’t want to play word games in BK court – but what about ridiculous claims being made by the mortgage servicer?

    A proof of claim that includes a copy of original note with an extra page (allonge) pay to the order of ______won’t the same logic apply to them?

    possible followup question if they submit the nonsense note w/ allonge mentioned above : well why did you not submit the additional page (allonge) in any of the earlier claims you submitted to the court – how if it was attached since 2005 did they miss submitting it in 2009 and 2010? (Could it be they had not made it yet??? Hummmm) would that undo the little bit of smoke and mirrors of the foreclosure mill law firms who are creating documents to support their claims?

    Maybe the borrower is living in the house that the note purports to purchase but the borrower is not creating fraudulent documents to deceive the court and if the borrower did notify the servicer the borrower believes they are incorrect about the beneficiary of the loan and the servicer is so dishonest they create phony documents to prove they are correct – why would any borrower give those crooks a payment?

  28. @ carie, right on….hits the spot.

  29. but like Harry said, once they come up with the docs, you’re cooked if that’s you’re only defense. you need BEEFY claims.

  30. Too Little Too Late

    By George Mantor

    Hello? Hello?

    Is anybody out there?

    Where did you go?

    The silence is deafening.

    Well, except for the sirens.

    Have you noticed that they are getting closer and closer?

    And the screams in the night.

    And, the gunshots during the day.

    With the economic collapse has come the inevitable misery. And, rather than helping, we are buying drones and trying in vain to prop up a global financial elite who thought that printing unlimited amounts of money with nothing backing it would be a good idea.

    But, I don’t hear anything back from you, our leaders. I write, I call, I send email.

    I get bupkes. I get less than bupkes.

    I ask about relief for victims of on-going bank fraud. No comment.

    I ask about due process. No comment.

    I ask when there will be a comment. No comment.

    At a meeting with the Arizona Attorney General, Tom Horne, lawyer Neil Garfield asked why the AG is “not prosecuting the banks and servicers for corruption and racketeering by submitting false credit bids from non-creditors at foreclosure auctions?”

    Horne responded that he would get back to Garfield on that question. That was 45 days ago.

    While Horne tries to figure out what to say that won’t make him look like an accessory, more of the people he gets paid to protect get screwed.

    This is very disturbing. For years, I have been a conduit of valuable information for those who face losing their homes without due process.

    And, all along, I have watched the various agencies responsible for protecting the American consumer pass the buck and ignore evidence of a massive and pernicious fraud because, as it turns out, they were working out their own schemes to profit from middle class misery.

    This is intended for every regulator or government official who has responsibility for over site of the financial services industry. You are beyond pathetic. Collectively, I could not possibly hold you in any greater contempt. You are worthless and weak. You are all show and no go. Talk the talk but won’t walk the walk. Too busy walking guns, I guess.

    It has been fifteen months since 14 large banks and services signed consent decrees promising to stop fraudulent foreclosures.

    It has been over three months since the Multi State Settlement which promised to stop fraudulent foreclosures and assist victims.

    We have had an “independent” foreclosure review reviewing, except for Litton which said it would but still hasn’t. Why?

    Litton was the servicer for all of the Goldman Sachs pools, and the single worst offender, and is stalling and no one is pushing.

    So after all that, what has changed?

    Nothing!

    Nada!

    Zippo! Zilch!

    Minimum wage workers still robo-sign forged documents about which they have no knowledge because there isn’t any knowledge to be had.

    Despite the obvious evidence on the face of the document that it is forged, most county recorder’s still accept and record them. Why? Because they are in on it.

    The modification dual track scam is still operating as are the forced place insurance scam, the property tax scam, and the lost payment scam.

    People are being shot and killed over houses that are then subsequently bulldozed.

    Where is the help for the victims who are being abused at this very moment?

    Who do they see about it?

    The courts? The courts won’t let these cases advance beyond a perjured demurrer from lying attorneys being accepted as witnesses without swearing an oath or cross examination. Send in the Kangaroos. Due process is a distant memory.

    Every lawyer who relies on obviously fabricated evidence to deprive another of due process will face a day of reckoning when the Bar can no longer look the other way.

    What about all of the money from the settlements? Well, that’s a funny thing. There won’t be any.

    After months of AG tough talk about putting people in jail and helping consumers, they all sold out for practically nothing. Judas Priest!

    The banks won’t be paying very much real money because they get credits against the settlement amount for ceasing all kinds of illegal activities that they agreed to stop as part of the settlement.

    Which, if history is any indication, I’d buy a credit default swap that they will simply ignore and march forward seizing homes to which they have no legal right and cannot prove that they do without forged documents.

    Any real moneys intended for victims are being snatched by state governments to offset budget deficits. The argument is that everyone benefits if the state has more money, even the poor homeless bastards living in the street.

    It isn’t even new-fangled fraud; it’s just old fashioned lying, cheating, stealing, forging, and faking. You don’t need any new laws; this stuff has been illegal for hundreds of years.

    You don’t need to coordinate with any bankers, just jail a few for filing phony documents at the county recorder and modifications will soar while foreclosures will cease.

    This is what happened in Nevada simply by requiring banks to show proof of their right to foreclose. Why is it working so well for consumers there? Because the foreclosing entities are not the creditors and cannot prove that they are.

    It is grand theft on a scale so massive that history will record this as the biggest unprosecuted crime wave in the history of the planet.

    The courts, law enforcement, the politicians, they are all in on it and don’t want to talk about it. So, we get silence.

    Most of the current foreclosures are not in compliance with California law and they all know it. How could they not?

    An audit of the San Francisco county recorder’s office states the following:

    “Overall, we identified one or more irregularities in 99% of the subject loans. In 84% of the loans, we identified what appear to be one or more clear violations of law.”

    If that is what they found in San Francisco, is there any reason to believe that any other county would find something different? Actually, this is absolutely consistent with other audits done all over the country.

    Most states have a law similar to the one below.

    California Penal Code 115.5. Filing false or forged documents relating to single-family residences; punishment; false statement to notary public

    (a) Every person who files any false or forged document or instrument with the county recorder which affects title to, places an encumbrance on, or places an interest secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on, real property consisting of a single-family residence containing not more than four dwelling units, with knowledge that the document is false or forged, is punishable, in addition to any other punishment, by a fine not exceeding seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000).

    Per occurrence. Do the math. Thousands of false recordings in every county times $75,000. There is the solution to the governmental budget problem right there. No new taxes needed, no austerity, and we restore the rule of law.

    That is a win for everyone except the criminals but, as it turns out, they are the ones with all of the money. Who agrees with me that we should pursue those easy revenues for our communities?

    And, these very documents could bring a windfall to the IRS, as well, because when assignments are done to a REMIC trust after the cut-off date, it triggers a major tax event. All of our country’s money woes would be solved if law enforcement would just enforce the law.

    But, the fraud doesn’t end with throwing out the homeowner. The foreclosing parties aren’t the creditors and can’t make credit bids.

    Here’s a little joke on you bureaucrats that you hadn’t considered—you are aiding these criminals in the destruction of your pension.

    Every time a judge or a county recorder accepts an ante-dated assignment back into a trust that closed years ago, two things occur:

    A defaulted asset is being forced back onto investors, pension funds in many cases and especially public pensions,
    It indicates that performing assets were never properly transferred in the first place.
    So get this, this is too funny, the only assets ever actually winding up owned by these pools are the non-performing ones.

    And, don’t you love the sound of the last laugh going down?

    I’ve had to endure a lot of BS about why we shouldn’t help people stay in their homes because of the so called ‘moral hazard.”

    What is the moral hazard of allowing fraud do go on unabated?

    What is the moral hazard of people coming to realize that their legal system has been completely corrupted?

    What is the moral hazard of having homeless children in a country where there are homes that no one lives in?

    If you aren’t part of the solution, which is real relief for victims of fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, then you are part of the problem.

    There will be consequences. Maybe no bankstas will go to jail and no lap-dawg government abettor will ever be held accountable, but this is like a nuclear radiation cloud, everything is becoming tainted. There’s your real moral hazard. Taint!

    Oh, yeah, and don’t forget, your pensions are toast.

    Edmond Burke said, “Evil can only exist when good men do nothing.”

    It’s on your watch, are you going to enforce the laws evenly as you have sworn to do or only against the small fish?

    Hello? Hello?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-06-21/because-someone-had-say-it

  31. thanks, Harry.
    Douglas, I know you are not in Cheeseland, but we have rules against “unauthenticated documents”. google “Kolodziej”
    PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
    v.
    ROBERT L. KOLODZIEJ AND DEBRA SNOBL, AS CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF MARCELLA L. KOLODZIEJ, DECEASED, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

    No. 2010AP60.
    Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District III.

    Opinion Filed: March 10, 2011.

  32. @neider – check local Rules of Evidence. Rule 1003 – a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original. so maybe, but the other side is usually going to have someone there in person say that it is a true and correct of the original that’s kept in the vault. and original’s aren’t unheard of. I’ve had to produce original notes many times in the last few years and never had a problem getting them from the clients when it really mattered.

  33. @tnharry ,

    As plaintiff never submits original docs would it be better just to say the document entered is not an original and therefore you cannot say if the photographic depiction is an accurate portrayal of the original document.

  34. congrats UKG. Wells is as bad or worse than BoA.

  35. “Is that your signature on the note? Is that your signature on the mortgage (or Deed of Trust)?” And your answer could be “I don’t know which documents have my actual signature or which ones have been Photoshopped. Therefore I deny and demand they prove that this was my signature on that document. I do know that if they procured my signature on any document it was by trickery, deceit and fraud.”” – good luck with that. giving these ridiculous answers will not endear you to the court. it’s either your signature or it’s not. playing word games might win a battle, but seldom the overall war.

    possible followup question if you give the nonsense answer suggested : “well are you living in the house that the note purports to purchase or refinance?” that certainly seems undo the little bit of smoke and mirrors the suggested response created.

  36. […] Read the article: How To Tell The Judge “NO” and MAYBE Not Have Him/Her Get Pissed Off […]

  37. Mr. P of on behalf of creditor represented “he has no reason to believe that the loan his client made to the Debtors is in any way the subject of the RESCAP bankruptcy. Based on this representation” ……..
    Motion to Extend Time to File Adversary Proceeding-GRANTED

    Banks 0, team UKG, 4

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: