Summit County Ohio Prosecutor Using the F Word Against Freddie

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

Editor’s Comment:  

By now the law suits by counties against Wall Street mortgage madness to collect fees, fines, taxes, interest and assessments are becoming so commonplace, that we ALMOST are reluctant to report them. But we still will report especially when there is something noteworthy about counties and cities striking back at Wall Street. 

Back in 2007 when I started the blog and most people saw me not so much as a lone voice of truth in the wilderness as the loan popper on the fringe of legal “theories” I used the word FRAUD often but maybe not often enough. Now the very respectable count and city attorneys suing the giant Wall Street creations like Fannie and Freddie (who claim to be government agencies when it suits them, and private corporations when it suits them) are using the F word more than I did. FRAUD is not easily alleged or proven. Fraud requires intent to deceive and a host of other elements before it becomes actionable even in a civil court where it must be proven far beyond more likely than not (clear and convincing evidence standard). Yet here it is bandied about like apples at a supermarket. 

What is different is that the word fraud is being used against a lot of banks and financial entities that defy description like Fannie, Freddie and Ginny. And the people using F word are government lawyers and prosecutors in law enforcement. And the F word is being used across not just the country but the world. All that means right now, is that normally reticent lawyers are feeling bolder about their allegations and about their ability to prove those allegations. 

But remember you saw it here first, years ago. The mortgage meltdown was no mistake. It was intentional with complete knowledge as to the horrendous consequences the countries of the world and their states and provinces would suffer. And with the kind of indifference to humanity that was present when slave trading was allowed. And it was done for money and the PEOPLE who did it made more money than any person has a right to make on Wall Street, sucking the wealth out of the country to the detriment of their own companies (with 50% of profits attributed as bonuses over and above the ridiculously high salaries already paid) and the shareholders who are supposed to be the ones who get most of the profits — not employees even if they are officers.

The PEOPLE on Wall Street who used their companies as tools to gain personal wealth for themselves, the world be damned, they always made money. They always do make money when the Markets go up and when they go down, because they make it when money moves, so they made a lot of money look like it was moving many times. They called it leveraging and selling forward. I called it FRAUD and now I am somewhat encouraged that more and more people are seeing these actions not as excess but as fraud.

Summit County Ohio Prosecutor Files Fraud Lawsuit Against Freddie Mac for Failure to Pay Transfer Taxes and Fees

Mortgage corporation failed to pay taxes and fees to Summit County for six years

AKRON, OHIO – Summit County Prosecuting Attorney Sherri Bevan Walsh today filed a complaint in Summit County Court of Common Pleas against Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, widely known as “Freddie Mac,” on behalf of Russell M. Pry, executive of Summit County, and Kristen M. Scalise, fiscal officer of Summit County. The complaint requests that Freddie Mac be ordered to pay restitution to Summit County for neglecting to pay fees and taxes over a six-year period.

From 2002 through December 31, 2008, Freddie Mac failed to pay the fees or transfer taxes on more than 3,500 real estate transactions. Freddie Mac claimed to be exempt from those payments because it is a government entity.

Summit County contends that Freddie Mac was fraudulent in this claim, as Freddie Mac is not a government entity, but rather it is a federally-chartered private corporation. Furthermore, the fees and transfer taxes on real estate transactions are an excise tax, not a direct tax. Government entities are not exempt from excise taxes.

“Freddie Mac’s failure to pay fees and transfer taxes on these properties amounts to nothing less than fraud,” said Prosecutor Walsh. “That fraud came at significant expense to Summit County taxpayers, and I fully expect that the Court will order Freddie Mac to repay the money it owes to the citizens of Summit County.”

Summit County is asking the Court to find that Freddie Mac committed fraud when it claimed to be exempt from real estate transfer fees and transfer taxes. The County is seeking repayment of all unpaid fees and transfer taxes plus interest and penalties.

Full complaint below…

www.4closureFraud.org

STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF SUMMIT v FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION

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

35 Responses

  1. @ carie

    Fraud has 5 elements, they can be proven. Use the legal language.

    Sub-prime has many categories: Libor rate, no documentation, income, appraisals…they can be used to prove the fraud. Go back to your original documents and get the entire work product from the closing attorney, it is yours. Go after the behavior of the Originator, then get to the assignments, etc…many things have happened, lack of funding, intentional defaults for insurance, altering applications, fake appraisals, no trust for investors, copies of notes sold multiple times (making you subject to pay the loan more than once, where quiet title will not work).

    The other piece, contract law; originators like New century, Countrywide for example, borrowed lines of credit to fund loans. Having been in litigation; they cannot prove without strict trust adherence, which loans are which. Many of these guys defaulted on their lines of credit and your loan may have been seized or given as collateral for THEIR default, not yours. Remember, you did not sign a contract with an originator, they did! Then there is the “consideration” in a contract, did they fund the loan and how did they perfect the lien? There is no substitute for homework.

    Go back to the beginning, scour every detail (dates, times, fax numbers, tracking numbers, MIN numbers, loan numbers, etc…) You will find the truth!

    No legal advice here, just informational excerpts from numerous trials.

  2. […] Read more… Posted in Banks, MERS, News Around The Country, States « Simon Johnson on Business Model of Lie More Registers of Deeds in Five NC Counties Take Issue with Fannie and Freddie’s Tax Exempt Status » You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]

  3. @iwantmynpv

    Sorry, but I’m sticking with what I posted re. the GSE’s and unsecured debt. I know you can’t use that in court—but the truth is the truth…and that information is from someone who has worked in the securities industry and has been investigating the fraud for YEARS.

  4. Forgot to say on my previous post that Fannie/Freddie told him that his loan had NOT been paid off by him—but he had the cancelled check!! They were shocked.

  5. Carie is your new nickname wingnut?
    I know you are right about Anonymous. You could sense the frustration in his last few posts. It’s a fact that folks have a lot to say that’s just pure horseshit, based on their misinterpretation of what’s said, which is nothing more than weak powers of perception at work. The problem is, there is no finite statement of facts because the case hasn’t been properly made and only part of the facts have been discovered. Until we force the whole truth of out these criminal banks, we’re pretty much just speculating here. A LOT of m.soliman said was true, too. The bank’s books don’t conform to GAAP standards, and he pointed out important irregularities that were very complex and difficult to understand, (even with his extensive accounting background) a factor which I believe was deliberately woven into the matrix. The harder something is to understand, the less likely you’ll be caught doing it and convicted of it. The banks were the authors of all of this, only the handlers at the top know the whole truth, and we need to start working on a back up plan because the whole thing is gonna burn. The sooner we cut them down, the better. We don’t need banks, period. Micro-lending and community based capitalization through small local banks will suffice to get the economy going again which will result in JOBS. Small business is the engine which has always run America’s economy, not these megalithic corporations who value profit over human life. You are doing your part wingnut! Keep resisting and researching and complaining.

  6. Haha usedkar—I may be a “wingnut with an attention deficit disorder”—but at least I’m sincere!

    Seriously, ANONYMOUS left this site because he was tired of people not believing him.

    I’m not kidding, my friend has proof of this—he has the cancelled check of HIS payoff (from 10 years ago)—but he found out that Fannie/Freddie had put it into false default and collected insurance…but the proof that HE paid is his cancelled check!! When he spoke with them, they were stunned that he had the cancelled check—they were dumbfounded and didn’t know what to say…then on another phone call—after he explained the whole thing to someone at Freddie Mac—they told him: “Let it go.” They KNOW what was done—and are covering it up, obviously… “Let it go”… to someone who has physical proof of fraud? What do you think that means?

    All that had to be funded in subprime refinances was any “cash out” that borrower received by the subprime refinance. This is because the subprime refinances were a transfer of collection rights on already classified default/non-compliant debt by the GSEs. But, a subprime new purchase may have gone through the same GSE path. GSEs have mortgage limits on both new purchases and subprime refinances. Thus, a ‘money purchase” loan (subprime) would often be split into 2 loans — one loan that qualified for GSE approval — and another loan that was privately funded. The loan that passed through the GSE would be found as non-compliant and, therefore, rejected – often by also assessing a (false) early payment default against the borrower. Thus, the collection rights to the GSE loan would pass to the investor who was funding the second loan (and with insurance collected on the GSE loan.) Subprime new purchases that were structured to pass through the GSEs (by at least one loan), were not immune to the fraud.

  7. Have we had a case together Tony? I’m not sure what you refer to

  8. tnharry,

    Well long as you know you can’t beat this Perry Mason because we already went down that road.

  9. @tony – i didn’t say it was Perry Mason…

  10. @nora – that’s technically fraudulent inducement, but it’s close enough for horseshoes

  11. tnharry,

    if they fold on that, then there counsel is very weak case law can beat someone holding an original note, and has been done many times.

  12. I don’t know if it’s true in all states, but in GA you must cover five things to adequately plead the elements of fraud; the defendant must have misrepresented or concealed a material fact, it was made or omitted to induce the plaintiff to act upon it, the plaintiff entered into an agreement or contract based on the misrepresentation or omission, and the defendant must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have done so with knowledge of its falsity, and the plaintiff must have suffered concrete and particular damages as a result.

  13. “Actual money is flowing out to the seller in those cases.” I’d like to see proof of that. I’ve never heard of a seller being paid in cash. They are paid with a check drawn on the buyer’s transaction account which is established at the bank and therefore an electronic credit. We’re dealing with fiat currency created by banks and nothing more. It’s created when debt is created, and the borrower’s Note is used to capitalize the transaction account. The sleight of hand is the collection of the borrower’s actual cash payments of principle and interest for the debt which is created with keystrokes at the Federal Reserve. G Edward Griffin refers to this chicanery as “The Mandrake Method” in his book, The Creature From Jekyll Island. This isn’t speculation or a guess, it’s an established fact. The money for the borrower’s loan is created by using his Note as the source of funds. It’s an exchange of reciproal credit involving money of account and not money of exchange between a borrower and the issuing bank. Debt is money in the current monetary system, and the means with which the Federal Reserve expands the supply. Thats why there are 800 trillion dollars in derivative debt, and only 70 trillion in actual currency.

  14. @jeff – it’s not as hard to do as many people believe. I’ve produced original notes in court many times myself. it often shuts down the opposition surprisingly fast, particularly when they’ve painted themselves into a corner by arguing that we’re not the party entitled to enforce. whip out an original note either endorsed in blank or specifically endorsed and they fold

  15. I’m still stuck on Neil saying that you must deny the debt, and then he says you must admit to the obligation. When was the last time Neil was in Court arguing a case?

    On a side note, lately, I have also seen a surprising tactic used when a bank is challenged with a sophisticated argument in Court. The Servicer will actually take the time and go get the original note from the institutional custodian and present it in Court. There haven’t even been any produce the note nonsense arguments being raised, yet they have been producing the Note when faced with a stiff challenge.

  16. 19 comments and I’m the only one discussing the poorly drafted complaint. no discussion of how to plead fraud adequately. Neil, the readers are not being served by the commentary or the articles at this point. you’ve lost control. right the ship

  17. Carie, is so f’ing close, she can taste it (and yes i mean the other “F” word close – she can taste it. One problem Carie, you are wrong about who is collecting what, and when the debt is created. Banks cannot lend credit and do in fact sell the collection rights.

    They are not defaulted loans swapped to the pools and every purchase and refi has a balance sheet transaction extinguishing the prior lien held by the previous mortgagee (mortgagee).

    You have contractual and implicit guarantee on every loan ever created, the prior obviously providing the safety net investors sought.

    Now as far as WAMU, I can only assume you did not read the purchase and assumption agreement. You need to read the liability section and what they assume. Do you really think the other banks would absord the losses at the FHLB on the advances made to WAMU, so James could walk off with the portfolio loans?

    The prior note is always paid off by the new mortgagee, not the new note holder. Whether it is actual currency changing hands is irrelevant and the credit /debit transaction is what counts. While the note makes it to the threshold, they were not conveyed direct to the Trust because the pools are closed.

    Subprime loans have nothing to do with GSE’s, and is merely a term meaning “less than prime”. They are not GSE debt, and in fact most were funded using LIBOR warehouse index by private MBS and ABS SPE’s, which are indirectly owned by the N.A.s. Securitization does not care if the loan is subprime or conventional because there was no recourse. The only reason Fannie and Freddie got into the subprime game is because their pools (agency) are contingent on swapsand replacement loans at the corporate side of the transaction.

    Fannie and Freddie lacked the originating capacity the FSB’s had, and without the capacity to buy GSE tranches inside the private mortgage backed securities pools, they would have been shuttered back in 2004, versus 2008. They spent a ton of money lobbying to be able to reach deeper into the well, and since the both of them amount to a huge political slush fund, well… they er found the water they sought at the bottom, thanks to many politicians.

    So, to stop you from beating a dead horse, the loans are paid through the same balance sheet entry the banks use for all debt transactions, including the federal reserve notes in your pocket. As far as all sub-prime loans being unsecured debt, forget it. A court will not let a mortgagor plead the rights of a third party investor who owns cash-flow. As far as MSR’s, they are traded like paper and in many cases have more value than the underlying security, and they exist independant of the debt.

    I will end the who gets the notes until maturity mystery right here. The N.A.s, that is why they are shipping all the servicing rights from the subsidiary servicing back to the parent. They are no longer lying in Court because the NA services and owns the residual interest.

    The central bankers in Europe conquered multiple countries without firing a single shot. The same movie script is coming to an American theatre near you soon. While we look at banks as competing entities because that is what the illusion projects to us common-folk, the truth remains, they are all one huge lobby spun into well-cordinated single entities tied together through agencies, organizations, quasi’s and a common money supply.

    If we as homeowners and defense attorneys do not move to coordinate our efforts they will leave us fighting about something that has wound out the long tail,why they are wagging the short-end (that’s for the banking mutts who visit). We need a cooperative effort to manage resources at a national level, direct business to real attorney’s who have some courage and cannot be shut down by the Judge because they take the retainer and do not want to put the effort into understanding the mortgage cycle, because it is too complexand they are not being paid enough. Many of these guys have their clients sign a new note via HAMP/ HARP because they are done and have earned their fee.

    The banks play on the ignorance and greed of the common penny-pleader, looking to make off with a nickel, leaving the other 95% of the transaction proceeds (trillions) to be divided amongst an elite banking set and the governments who want the fines for allowing them to fleece.

    We can’t even get them to lock up Jon Corzine, you think the real players are going to jail? Think again!

    And tha tha tha tha that’s all folks…

    Oh yeah, if i forgot mention it – James Dimon sucks, and that’s my 23 cents on the matter.

  18. banks have filed four different motions to lift the stay, we go Friday to have the fourth one heard. These guys are going down. Filed a nice complaint with the Office of Lawyer Regulation for all the forgery and fraud. The guy from that office was somewhat curt; I don’t think these bar associations like to hear complaints against their fellow counsel. And carie, if harry does work for the banks (which he may at one time or another, who knows? HE’S AN ATTORNEY) YOU SHOULD THANK HIM FOR THE ASTUTE OBSERVATIONS HE PROVIDES IN THESE COMMENTARIES. Now go to bed!

  19. carie, you keep parroting the ANONYMOUS theory, but there are no teeth to the argument. drop all the “subprime refinance” shit. That doesn’t fly. And give up the forensic accountant persona; play one around the house, but not here. What will fly is standing, fraudulent assignments of mortgage, non recording, attorney misbehavior, false claims in bankruptcy, Unfair Debt Collection Practices, even fraud in the inducement (very hard to plead), lien avoidance in banbkruptcy. But, personally, I think you’re a wingnut with an attention deficit disorder.

    And this pleading is almost as bad as that yahoo in California Barry Fagan. This is no help.

    Harry, I think the carie argument is that even with a purchase money loan (like mine) the loan was rejected by the Trustee (never happens) and the rejected loan is re-booked as a defaulted or defective loan that is carried on the balance sheet as a default collection. Can’t prove that one. What you can prove (if you stopped typing and started digging, carie) is lack of consideration with all the late assignments of mortgage after default and funding checks from a party who is not the lender in the transaction.

    Harry, my case is going extremely well in BK. Thanks for that tip. You too, Maher.

  20. Nora—re. your question on the other post:

    You are subprime new purchase. WaMU was big purchaser of GSE (Fannie/Freddie) charged-off debt in bulk. Charge -off could be for any manufactured reason. It passed through the GSEs before it got to where is is now.

    Investors were “not paying Wamu for tranches and at the same time they were collecting my payments”…this is not the way it worked.

    All collection rights were sold to banks. Sometimes you see this in the trusts as disclosed, but, most often, you do not.

    Securitization means removal of receivables. There are no balance sheet receivables in collection rights. The banks simply purchased the debt, and passed through the income by off-balance sheet conduits to investors. All certificates (excepts residual tranches), tranches are sold to security underwriters. This is just a conversion of income from collection rights to securitization of cash pass-through. It does not matter how transfers of bankrupt companies occur. The distressed debt buyer IS THE INVESTOR, and he pay pass-through cash payments to security investors. But, the security investors are not your creditor — the INVESTOR is — that is, the parent of the security underwriters. Our payments are sent to security underwriter, who passes them on to the security investors in the pass-through tranches. When security investor purchases a security, they are only purchasing a right to current cash pass-through. Securities can only be for current cash pass-through…CURRENT. ONLY. So you do not have someone paying Wamu for tranches, and then collecting payments…it does not work this way. PASS-THROUGH is the key word. You pay one creditor, who has sold your stream of payments to security investors. You pay the servicer, the servicer pays the trustee, the trustee pays the security investor. But, none of them are your creditor. You creditor is the party (bank) that purchased the right to collect the debt from from the GSEs. There is not double collection going on.

    But, they cannot (legally) take possession of house with unsecured debt …laws are so old, they were never intended for application of fraud, collection rights, and invalid trusts. Remember, all these trusts are back on the balance sheet of the bank who purchased collection rights, by new accounting rules. Unless the bank has subsequently disposed of, which some have.

  21. …but why don’t the banks give up the information we request if their lien is valid? I waited a year–should have been plenty of time for them to respond–and yet they never validated the debt. They made conflicting statements. In one response they claimed they had the original Note, in another they claimed it was unavailable, in still another response they stated that all information I had requested was “proprietary and would not be furnished.” Now that I have filed suit against them, they are saying that they are the creditor, owner of the Note and Security Deed, and have a legal right to enforce a Note that’s payable to a defunct bank, on a loan listed in Fannie Mae’s database. That dog just doesn’t hunt. Even though I more than paid for the shitty house over the last seven years since it wasn’t worth half of what they appraised it for, I was still willing to honor the debt to whoever legally owned it, and I even sent them a modification proposal that would over pay them a hundred thousand dollars. Still wouldn’t play ball. It’s pretty obvious there is an agenda here under all this financial crime, and that agenda is takeing title to all real estate, illegally, as necessary, and without having invested one red cent of real money of exchange in it. If that isn’t fraud, then I don’t know how to define it.

  22. one more- VICTORIA CONCORDIA CRESCIT- victory comes from harmony (Arsenal FC)

  23. Fraud and its facets-
    ACCESSORY, after the fact- post facto – recieves relieves and assists a felon. MENS RAE- guilty mind- knows there are questions of fact but chooses to recieve relieve and assist, ACTUS REUS-guilty act- to recieve relieve and assist,
    VINCULUM JURIS-legally binding.

    video sed mon credo- i see it but dont believe it (my judge)
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit- a wise man does not urinate against the wind-( my new mantra : )) and via veritus vita- THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE , (jESUS- JOHN 14.6)

  24. And yes, you told me a while ago that you worked for a foreclosure mill.

  25. I already posted that a few days ago—as I said. If I re-post it you will pick on me for re-posting…since that’s what you like to do.

  26. @carie – i never said i work for a foreclosure mill, and i’m just not sure how to respond when you prefer to attack me personally rather than discuss the issues that I point out…do you think the complaint Neil refers to passes muster for pleading fraud adequately? i’d be more than happy to discuss that with you. or to hear your explanation as to how the “collection rights/not a loan” applies to a purchase.

  27. @tn—As far as a purchase situation—I posted the answer to that a few days ago—obviously you didn’t really read it. Which is a perfect example of why I keep posting this—because people don’t really take the time to read and understand it.

  28. tn, you know the system is set up against the homeowners and this fraud is unprecedented—your whining for the banks is getting really sickening…go crawl back under your rock unless you can sincerely help reveal the truth…my motivation is to get the truth out…not sure exactly what your motives are…but they are not pretty…proof of that is the fact that you work for foreclosure mills.

  29. @carie – even if we assumed for argument’s sake that you’re right on the money for refis, how does it make sense in a purchase situation? actual money is flowing out to the seller in those cases.

  30. …subprime refinances, and many subprime purchases.

  31. no Jim, it hasn’t….no one’s exactly sure what carie’s motivation is now, but the theory has saved no one’s home as far as I am aware. based upon how often she posts it, just imagine how often we’d see it if someone won a case or settlement with it.

  32. Carie

    I have no beef with your theory

    But I believe more than one FRAUDULENT strategy was employed to effect the banks’ thievery My loan for example was not a refi in the sense you use

    In any event has this theory ever been presented to a court and prevailed? Livinglies is just another tired blog…..signifying nothing.

  33. Fraud!!! You gotta be kidding!!

    We homeowners know what fraud is and making a claim to be exempt from whatever fee or tax ain’t it

    Please all you governments federal state and local, use some sense. Don’t waste even more taxpayer money on nonsense. There must be other ways to get at F and F without this……

  34. Here’s some more Fannie/Freddie (GSE’s) FRAUD (as in false default fraud and insurance fraud, etc.):

    “What many are not understanding is that the Note is invalid. There can be no valid Note on collection rights. Because the prior loan is not paid off and the prior Mortgage is not validly discharged, no new note can be validly executed at the time of the last refinance. What we have is described in the second half of Footnote 35 of the November 2010 TARP Inspector General Report —-“Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”

    If anyone has ever encountered credit card collection for default, they will understand what happens. With credit card default, the collection rights are sold to distressed debt buyers — at a discount. This is accomplished by either direct sale of the collection rights, or by a credit default swap derivative. The bank, who sells collection rights (cannot sell the account itself since the account is charged-off), considers the debt paid — just not paid by you. This is the same thing with the subprime refinances, and many subprime purchases. Subprime is simply charged off GSE debt, with collection rights passed to a third party — most often the bank who was borrowers prior mortgagee. Only servicing rights are sold/transferred in subprime refinance because the loan is already in default. Borrowers just never knew, and will likely never know, what was reported about them to the GSEs.

    What happened with the subprime trusts is that they did not have to be funded at all. No notes were actually conveyed because there was no valid Note. The refinance Note was invalid because the prior note is never paid off, and the mortgage is never validly cancelled/discharged. The banks, by the subprime refinance securitization were selling securities for pass-through of collection rights payments (cash) ONLY. Security investors thought that these were backed by valid mortgage but, they were not. The trusts themselves do not transfer collection rights to security investors. The collection rights belong to the bank who purchased them from the GSEs. Again, each subprime refinance transferred the right to service those collection rights — that is all. However, banks also dispose of collection rights, and collection rights could be sold again and again. The important thing to remember is that the trusts have nothing to do with the sale of collection rights. The trusts were set up to pass-through cash payments to those collection rights only —- nothing more.

    People have to stop thinking in terms of “getting paid” twice, or that the Note “has already been paid.” This thinking has led down a very wrong path. As with credit card debt, if you do not pay the debt — you still owe it — even though a distressed debt buyer has already “paid” the bank for the right to collect. The same with the subprime refinance — still owe it — even though someone else has paid for collection rights. However, in both cases, you have a right to know WHO you currently owe. A right to know your “CURRENT” creditor. A right to know how much the current creditor PAID for the debt. A right to know the complete chain of mortgage title from the purchase of your home to current date. A right to know if your loan was ever sold to a GSE, and when that GSE disposed of your loan along with collection rights, and what was reported to that GSE about you. A right to know your real and current creditor in bankruptcy. A right to know that your “debt” is unsecured.

    Stating that the NOTE was already paid is simply incorrect and wrong. And, it is this thinking that has prevented exposure of the truth. When you start saying “I owe nothing” — you have lost from the onset. You owe, but under fraud, and violation of the law. You owe — unsecured debt procured by fraud…”

  35. that’s unlikely to survive a motion to dismiss – one of the weakest complaints to allege fraud I’ve seen in a long time. so long as this is what’s coming out of the counties and states, Fannie and Freddie will be just fine. you must plead fraud with particularity and specificity. you should at a minimum, state the elements of a fraud claim in the complaint and relate it to the facts. this one will need serious amendment to work

    Neil – use this one as a teaching moment for your readers. Merely reciting facts and then using the word “fraud” doesn’t cut it.

    one other thing : the county atty tries to plead fraud but doesn’t do anything with it. why try to pull in fraud and not take the next step and ask for punitives?? and I don’t know Ohio procedure, but I suspect the prayer for declaratory judgment hasn’t been adequately pled either. it’s just one lone statement in the complaint. sloppy and bad…

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: