Tiffany and Bosco Can be Sued as Debt Collector

“This case has appropriate and serious repercussions to foreclosure mills. It is common for the substitute trustee (frequently Tiffany and Bosco) or the attorney to send out a Notice of Default and Notice of Sale PLUS a Debt Collection Letter. Now they might be liable for sending out false and misleading information.” Neil F Garfield, livinglies.me

This case stands for the proposition that the note is evidence of a debt and can be used to collect on a debt. The Mortgage or deed of trust is all about an interest in real property and is an entirely different instrument —- and the debt collector cannot say that the debt collection letter was sent to enforce the mortgage because that is NOT what it says or what they can do.

The repercussions and ripples from this decision are far-reaching. Can the trustee be operating as both the seller of the property AND as a debt collector. Either way, this decision says they can be sued for misrepresenting the truth and guiding the borrower into foreclosure — a practice sometimes refereed to as dual tracking, but in this case they had the borrower “opt-out” of Hamp under false pretenses so they could foreclose.

You might ask why T&B have so much power? You could also ask why there is a rush to a fire sale on property where the majority could be worked out in payments affordable to the homeowner. The answer is that the pile of paperwork relied on by the foreclosers is just that — a pile of papers that have no value or legal validity. The failure of the closing agent to place the name of the REMIC on the note and mortgage (deed of trust) together with the fact that the named payee was merely a placeholder (sham) just like MERS, PLUS the fact that the terms of repayment on the note differed from the agreement of the actual source of funding from the investors on the bond, all undermine the validity of the obligation, note and mortgage more than questionable.

Discovery will reveal exactly this pattern. AND this pattern means that the note is not evidence of the debt because the payee or lender named did not live up to its part of the bargain — it didn’t fund the loan. Thus the separate contract providing a contingent interest in the property is a nullity because it is predicated upon the enforcement of an unenforceable note and obligation.

Lawyers take note! The tide is turning. Those in front of it will benefit greatly. Those who join later may receive some benefit but nothing like the early adopters. These transactions are all sham transactions giving rise to repossession by the disposed homeowner and damages for wrongful foreclosure including, in California, damages for emotional distress.

If the investors wanted to enforce the note or mortgage they could not do it as they have stated in their own pleadings. This was a PONZI scheme of the highest order and it is still unraveling.

O’Quin Final Order Silver Omitted Harsh TB Lang

61 Responses

  1. @dcb – to the best of my working knowledge, ends on notes have never been dated. With today’s complexities, if the UCC doesn’t mandate a date, it probably should – at least on notes secured by real property. And they’ll get all over that.* If one successfully argues that a court action by a homeowner after receiving any doc relevant to a f/c makes the homeowner the defendant (despite the court posture of “plaintiff”), that would be more likely to put the bankster, as the true plaintiff, to its proof, as opposed to having the onus on the homeowner. 1) There is case law in support of the prop that the h.o. is the defendant. 2)
    My other suggestion has been the req for a more definitive stmt re the bankster’s claim: holder v hidc – in an effort to put the bankster to its
    proof of that status, which would encompass dates. This may not be helpful to you personally* if you are wandering in the desert with no claimant this minute, which as I get it, is where you are: waiting for the other, or some other, shoe to drop. I don’t know how one in that position would shake the trees advantageously, other than to go after the old claimant and Does 1 – 100 with some type of damage suit (but there you may be deemed the plaintiff (?) and lose any advantage of being the defendant).
    And you want to try for escheat, right?
    * I did point to some info which says one, such as an agent or poa, who endorses a note for another without disclosure of that status at the endorsement becomes liable on the note, for what that might be worth. What does that mean? I really don’t know. If it’s true, and the party who endorsed the note for another without revealing in what
    capacity has become liable on the note, does that mean when that party (the endorsor) is after you in the name of the endorsee, it’s actually suing for its own obligation, an obligation it took on as a voluntary assumption of risk? And what if it is the endorsee after you in this scenario? Must he also name the party who executed the assgt without disclosure of his status and thus has become liable on the note? Why not? When the end is done after a note is in default and done by a poa or agent without disc of its status, the new noteowner, for whose (alleged) benefit it’s endorsed, is not a hdc (so subject to any number of aff defenses).
    Like I said, I don’t know these answers, but the questions can’t be overlooked imo because it’s being done routinely. They are hiding these acts (and thus the liability) by pretending that the person executing the end is the such and such officer of the endorsing entities. (I remember, for instance, seeing a note which was endorsed for two entities by the same woman alleging to be an officer of each entity.)

  2. r there 2 of you

  3. Sorry Ill try again – –

    Grantee Paid the amount of $ xx.xx
    Grantee herein is/ was the foreclosing beneficiary

    Grantee paid that amount permitted under short title whereby an “in the money” PUT is written 12 months out. The short sale is an option that shorts the mortgages conversion price that is held in the trusts as an asset – corpus or paid in capital.
    The estates equity is converted into equitable shares transferred from the household into trust. The foreclosure is symbolic of the debtor side of the gamble and the securities side is under 1122AB and GAAP for G/L accounting requirement to close positions.
    This is something that is held under a secured sales contract versus the mortgages Trust deed. The security is the neg pledge used to underwrite a 40 long term bond.
    The security is in fact a depositors account while the deed “Deed of Trust “(much more severe b operations of law) is capitalized into collateral for the bonds registration.
    The tax payer corporation is publically traded entity that formed the REIT year I -purposes of formation of the tax shelter and qualifying the earnings distributed annually. The TRS is the Sponsors, transferee and Seller and this is the subsidiary of the carnation ripe to bring claims – few seldom do.
    As for the fiduciary relationship with the equitable shareholders. —Look it’s a trust no different than a mutual insurance trust entity and – I just don’t know that much about the trust article and exception as a fiduciary.
    None the less you have to accept that the financing scheme is here to stay and has little to resemble a mortgage.
    The deed or mortgages as you refer to is arguable something that is not what it appears to be in count records and is held to a national use or jurisdiction and authority versus SEC or HUD (in m opinion)
    Under the Department of Treasury I believe the UCC means and methods for securing assets is binding and under IRS rules is problematic. The market has deteriorated to 2008 levels in spite of the Treasuries support for short term rates or hoarding of short term commercial paper. There is the liquidity and yet the value of the principal assets, the trust preferred debt, is trading at a fraction of the conversion value or homes market value.
    The real property equity is no doubt converted to equitable shares valued at $250.000 PPS and that is the basis in assets used to secure the transactions – not a home. This Techno clinical trial for repairing , restoring manipulating value to control damage is obviously flawed and rifted with procedural errors and accounting standards violations. This is not exactly good for a fraud claim brought into a sympathetic court. I opine less fraud and hefty negligence under a veiled workout.
    Big time claims still to be brought against FA appointed agents and contractors under E&O claims for failing to fulfill the law under the 2008 Act .
    You have administrative defeasances mass joinder issues with no redress and willful circumvention of the prohibitions on controlling extinguished liabilities and enforcing rights over off balance sheet assets, etc. Indeed a mass joinder for manipulating prices and restoring values – a cluster funk sorting out conversion values and for recognition purposes under the demands to reconfigure GAAP.
    The deals aspects and overall integrity suffer from broad scale perspective due to all the loving pieces, linked or unlinked and with no accountability for the NA role in causing it. It’s now nothing but ledgering back and restoring to market the combined capital arrangement –
    I believe this platform is for sure here to stay. It’s been talked about since ….ahhh, 1963. The format is none the less flawed and the downfall here is market to market pricing and valuations. This is a huge dilemma that will emerge the focal point for claims of an oppressive and unjust recovery done hatefully against homeowners to avoid greater tax payer burden component for claims brought now or at later date.
    registerclaims@live.com
    Affidavit & Testimony
    Not an attorney and for informational purposes with no representations made as for accuracy. Nothing read is to be construed as legal advice or represented as a licensed BAR member. Call your state Bar for more information.

  4. In over 100 post sale deed I have seen I witnessed the following:

    Grantee Paid the amount of $ xx.xx
    Grantee herein is/ was the foreclosing beneficiary

    Grantee paid that amount permitted under short title whereby an “in the money” PUT is written 12 months out. The short sale is an option that shorts the mortgages conversion price that is held in teh trusts as an asset – corpus or paid in capital.

    The esates equity is converted into equitable shares transferred from the household into trust. The foreclosure is symbolic of the debotr side of the gamble and the ecurties side is under 1122AB and GAAP for G/L accounting requirment to close positions.

    This is something that is held under an secured sales contract versus the mortgages Trust deed. The securtiy is teh neg pledge used to underwrite a 40 long term bond.

    The security is in fact a depsositors acount while the deed “Deed of Trust “(much more severe b operations of law) is capitalized into collateral for the bonds registration.

    The tax payer copration is apublically traded entity that formed the REIT year I -purposes of formation of the tax shelter and qualifying the earnings distributed anually. The TRS is the Sponsors , transferee and Seller and this is the subsidiary of the corpation ripe to bring claims – few seldom do.

    As for the fiduciary relationship with the equitable shareholders. —Look its a trust no different than a mutual insurance trust entitity and – I just dont know that much about the trust artilce and execption as a fiduciary .

    None the less you have to accept that the financing scheme is here to stay and has little to resemble a mortgage.

    The deed or mortages as you refer to is arguable somthing that is not what it appears to be in count records and is held to a national use or jurisdiction and authority versus SEC or HUD (in m opinion)

    Under the Department of Treasury I beleive the UCC means and methods for securing assets is binding and under IRS rules is problematic. The market market has deterioted to 2008 levels in spite of the Treasurys support for short term rates or hoarding of short term commerical paper . There is teh liquidity and yet the value of the princpal assets, the trust preferred debt, is trading at a fractin of the conversion value or homes market value.

    The real property equity is no doubt converted to equitable shares valued at $250.000 PPS and that is the basis in assets used to secure the transactions – not a home. This Techno clinical trial for repairing , restoring manipulating value to control damage is obviously flawed and rifted with procedural errors and accounting standards violatons. This is not exactly good for a fraud claim brought into a sympathetic court . I opine less fraud and hefty neglegence under a veild workout.

    Big time claims still to be brought against FA appointed agents and contractors under E&O claims for failing to fulfill the law under the 2008 Act .

    You have adminstrative defeasances mass joinder issues with no redress and willfull circumvention of the prohibitions on controlling extinguished libailties and enforcing rights over off balance sheet assetss, etc. Indeed a mass joinder for manipulating prices and restoring values – a cluster funk sorting out conversion values and for recognition purposes under the demands to reconfigure GAAP .

    The deals aspects and overall integrity suffer from broad scale perspective due to all the oving pieces, linked or unlinked and with no accountabiltiy for the NA role in causing it. Its now nothing but ledgering back and rstoring to market the combined capital arrangement –

    I beleive this platform is for sure here to stay. It’s been talked about since ….ahhh, 1963. The format is none the less flawed and the downfall here is market to market pricing and valuations. This is a huge dilema that will emerge the focal point for claims of an oppresive and unjust recovery done hastfully against homeowers to avoid greater tax payer burden componant for claims brought now or at later date.

    registerclaims@live.com
    Affidavit & Testimony

    Not an attorney and for informational purposes with no rerpesentations made as for accuracy. Nothing read is to be construed as legal advice or represented as a licensed BAR member. Call your state Bar for more information.

  5. why?

  6. Every document signed by a servicer employee in the name of MERS is a robosigned document (and they’re all done that way). I know of no legal justification for inducing a borrower to agree that Party X may perform acts which Party X knows it will never perform and when in fact those acts will be performed as rote by non-parties, at will, for the payment of 20.00 to Party X. When the borrower signs the dot, party X has already given any rights to act it claims under the dot to others, or will with certainty.
    That wouldn’t be legally abhorrent if party X had made some other
    entity its agent to perform these acts (making that agent the sub-agent of the principal) , as might be the case in legitimate business arrangements . But that’s not the case here.
    MERS hold itself out these days (post-consent order) as the mutual agent of its members (with no evidence of that alleged agency ever tendered to boot – any party to be bound by agency must sign the document creating the agency). MERS cannot make its principals its agents. They cannot be their own sub-agents.
    Even if MERS, or anyone, could make its (alleged) principal its own sub-agent, the “signing agreement” doesn’t rise to agency. If it does, than the principal is in fact its own sub-agent, which is not a legally
    cognizable relationship; it’s legal fiction. Which brings us back to robosigning in MERS’ name for a 20.00 fee. That has become the
    sad, sorry, and sick ‘industry standard’: robosigning. To add insult to injury, in my opinion, since this was a topic leading to MERS’ Consent Order, every time a document is robo-signed in MERS’ name, the Consent Order is being vioilated. MERS didn’t want the job it made the homeowner believe it took on. MERS didn’t want the responsibility or the liability. Too bad, they’ve got it, and sooner or later the
    judiciary is going to get it, especially if “facts” are put in their faces routinely. Hopefully, other law won’t be far behind.

  7. http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/09/19/spring-hill-man-pleads-guilty-to-fabricating-thousands-of-foreclosure-inspection-reports/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ForeclosureFraudByDinsfla+%28FORECLOSURE+FRAUD+%7C+by+DinSFLA%29

    describes the forgery of property investigation reports. this tends to point to a pattern of falsification of documentation with robosigning of title documents w/o notary—and of unauthenticated delivery of purported “original” note w/o POA, or trail of custody, unsupported undated swirls for indorsements of bankrupt entities [robosigners?]

    Is there any justification today of the conformity with ordinary business practices of any part of mortgage servicing?

    This piece is evidence–need to come up with bignewspaper story and judicial notice of industry poor practices–pervasive, touching anybody that is exposed to real estate value or debt.

    The troubling aspect to me–or perhaps to the point of industry expectation–is that anyone can with a straight face that there could be a reasonable bid at $6.50 per review. Maybe if the whole condo was in default. Drive around –kids locating the place–correct place–pics—write up report. The overseeing bank internal audit of suspiciously low bids for work should have discovered this–therefore the banks are most likely complicit.

  8. @ carie

    Here is another link you (and others) will want to check out on the FDCPA:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1200.pdf

    Supreme Court Decides Bona Fide Error Defense Not Applicable to FDCPA

    On April 21, 2010, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, et al., holding that the bona fide error defense provided by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) does not apply to mistaken interpretations of the legal requirements of the FDCPA. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Stevens, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Justice Breyer wrote a separate concurrence, as did Justice Scalia who concurred in part and in the judgment.

  9. Thanks, @guest

    I mean, isn’t the bottom line the fact that a SECURED CREDITOR is NOT the entity selling these homes? UNSECURED DEBT COLLECTORS are the entities foreclosing and selling these homes…based on fraudulent, fabricated, and forged documents. And the title companies know it—I guess they are criminals too.

  10. @ Carie

    About the FDCPA, I am not sure about CA decisions, but I found this information:

    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
    THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 08–1200. Argued January 13, 2010—Decided April 21, 2010

    The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U. S. C. §1692
    et seq., imposes civil liability on “debt collector[s]” for certain prohibited
    debt collection practices. A debt collector who “fails to comply with
    any [FDCPA] provision . . . with respect to any person is liable to
    such person” for “actual damage[s],” costs, “a reasonable attorney’s
    fee as determined by the court,” and statutory “additional damages.”
    §1692k(a). In addition, violations of the FDCPA are deemed unfair or
    deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act
    (FTC Act), §41et seq which is enforced by the Federal Trade Com-
    mission (FTC). See §1692

    You might want to check this out for more about damages, which might also apply to inflicting emotional distress:

    http://www.acainternational.org/files.aspx?p=/images/21673/3078fdcpaliability.pdf

  11. This FNMA instruction on indorsement method of authentication is straight UCC 3-301 501 602 stuff. This is very helpful to provide a blue print that every note should meet before possession of a home changes hands. Without this there is no lawful negotiation–clamant cant demonstrate authority–even if signatures presumed –under these conditions which focus on authority–sorely lacking most times.

  12. Remember those undated double-stamp indorsements for Countrywide? Many were sold to FNMA.

    Sjolander (pronounced show-lan-der) and Meder signatures were combined on the same stamp, and in most cases the original lender’s signature was stamped as well. But FNMA had a problem with that. Read its requirements below:

    https://www.efanniemae.com/is/doccustodians/pdf/doccustjobaid.pdf

    Document Custodian Certification Job Aids – September 2008

    PAGE 16

    “The signature on the Endorsement must be an original signature. The only exception to an original signature that Fannie Mae permits is a facsimile signature on the last Endorsement (to blank) when the endorsing entity provides a corporate resolution authorizing use of facsimile signatures and identifies the individuals and/or titles that are authorized to use facsimile signatures.

    “The Document Custodian must obtain a copy of the required resolution from endorsing entity….”

    Page 19

    “SIgnature on last Endorsement to the Note is facsimile signature:

    “Fail Loan – May Certify if Custodian obtains a facsimile signature corporate resolution(s) from Endorsing Entity specifying names/titles of those whose facsimile signature is valid and the person whose
    is used is an authorized signer. Contact Seller to correct.”

  13. Is this the letter you were thinking of? The schools hand them out here. Special Classes with Police officers to discuss home problems.

    DEAR KID
    IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU TURN YOUR PARENTS IN TO THE PLOICE DEPARTMENT IF THEY ACT BADLY—SAY BAD THINGS ABOUT THE POLICE OR GOVT, HAVE GUNS IN THE HOUSE OR EAT PILLS—–CALL 911-SANTA TO REPORT THEM AND ILL REMEMBER YOU AT CHRISTMAS

  14. That is an easy statement to make about an unnamed judge and accuser obviously the judge would in so doing suggest an unreasonable bias on his bench against facts generally

    I would think every judgment he has ever made on the issue would be capable of reopener with this judge obviously conflicted. See what happens—-2 or 3 cases??? it has political significance—im not sure the judge’ lack of judicial decorum–ie keeping it to himself-

    everything gets appealed in future—everything done in past re-open–thats what has to occur—-its not unconstitutional treason for a judge to follow his own mind—which is supposed to promote equity as an overlay—-but he could be up for censure–theyv got a code–it sure dosnt sound like avoiding appearance of impropriety—–thats the catch-all.

    But what evidence is there hat it happened–any lawyer should have an ethical duty to report the misconduct–in addition to filing for reddeterminations. And conflicts of interest.

    It should be made public or its noise.

  15. @carie you SAID;
    “…why is it so hard to find an attorney who will really go for this?”

    How does a private counsel get paid? People dont typically have either the money or time or will-power needed to plumb these facts. If they enlist too much non-attorney assistance the bar might jump on em.
    People are financially exhausted as well. 1st the health or job disaster–these are middle aged middle class families–and most of them are or were paying income taxes levied under a particular section of the code—doesnt reflect excise taxes payroll taxes, employee getting creit for employer contributions –starting at 15%—–a little more than Mitt, if you worked for min wage—-The new criterion for voters by mits reckoning is paying at least token taxes under the income tax code. But does that mean that if he takes a loss deduction and pays noting–he loses his vote? Or carryover credit?

    The sad part is these guys deliberately timed and executed a sentence of poverty on the entire baby boomer generation and rendered crippling uncertainty for those say 25-35 years. Commercials now blithely have 30 somethings as they purchase goods stating they know they will have to work to 81 to offset miserly retirement funding now. But who would want to put their money in a pension fund now for distant use? Whats chances of it disappearing like MF Globals’

    A natural crisis is most often the catalyst for major organizational change. Possible the adverse effects of global warming are at once mankind’s burden and salvation from topheavy and grossly inefficient financial structures

  16. Just received this message:

    “A Washington State judge just told an attorney the Bains V MERS case has no significance in his court room…That is treason.”

  17. Neil G. said:

    “These transactions are all sham transactions giving rise to repossession by the disposed homeowner and damages for wrongful foreclosure including, in California, damages for emotional distress.

    If the investors wanted to enforce the note or mortgage they could not do it as they have stated in their own pleadings.”

    @guest said:

    “The time limit for FDCPA violations is one year, so be sure not to miss that if you decide to sue. Also, a violation of FDCPA for unfair and deceptive practices and acts constitutes a violation of the FTCA and warrants treble damages.”

    Are there ANY successful cases with this is CA? If so—how—and if not—why?

    I read the case that Neil posted…

    All of the foreclosures by OneWest with Deutsche as the “Trustee” of the MBS are “sham” transactions…what I don’t understand is WHO are they saying has the “secured interest” in these—with regards to the Deed Of Trust? Isn’t it the named “beneficiary”?

    “A secured creditor takes a security interest to enforce its rights against collateral in case the debtor defaults on the obligation.”

    BUT THERE IS NO “SECURED CREDITOR”.

    The foreclosure mill/debt collector lied to me in writing and said (exact words):

    “MERS was your original creditor/lender, and Deutsche (DBNTC) is your current creditor/lender”…

    Can’t I use that paper (full of total BS) to sue them for consumer fraud and FDCPA violations?

    And—how can Californians use the WA Supreme Court decision here—or can we?

    (Bain (Kristin), et al. v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., et al., Washington Supreme Court, No. 86206-1.)

    I don’t understand why there aren’t more attorneys all over this…why is it so hard to find an attorney who will really go for this?

  18. From todays American Banker—i dont know what world they live on

    “Want the ‘Underserved’ to Borrow More? Really? Here’s How: Kahr
    Fanatical insistence on lending to risky borrowers to get them to buy more houses destroyed trillions of dollars, writes Andrew Kahr. Now there’s pressure to make even riskier, unsecured loans to these consumers, but, if the industry is to avoid repeating past mistakes, we need a freer, fairer market, he adds.”

    What are some ways, if any, to increase nonprime lending that aren’t likely to lead to another financial crisis? Leave a comment on BankThink.

    Will they never learn? Will they never have enough? Who are they really?.

  19. The real reason “why” T&B has power. They are buddies with McCain and the other thieves that hang out Congress. McCain has done nothing to help AZ home owners. Remember he escaped jail time when he was part of the Keating Five. Money buys freedom. There is no freedom for honest home owners in this country. and no such free market when manipulated by Wall Street and the banks. Further allowed by the thieves that were voted into office.Never forget !
    The last 3 presidnets and there adminstrations kicked families to the curb, fleeced your savings account, molested your finances and destoyed 10s of thousands of neighborhoods. The average person would be in jail. But these crooks still walk the streets. Fear for your family and children. It is not going to get better.

    Go Green – Clean up Clean up Congress !. Make you vote count.

  20. Good morning master servicer like your post
    To all I’m reding a paper written by a cert public accountant an abstract talks about securitization is illegal because it’s fraudulent causes specific violations of Rico usury and antitrust laws
    The author is michael Nwogugu
    Just think its worth a read folks

  21. There are not enough money-good, credible assets in existence, even if there are more than enough ‘secured’ liabilities that claim said assets as collateral.
    DC I’m not on here to argue so – nothing personal. But it’s called economic goodwill. People they can sell the notes yield over and over again. So what. It legal. See GAAP under booking economic goodwill. It’s a function of what investors will accept and what the market of hardheaded convetional argument homeowners will accept.

    No insensitivity here, but come on. Think. Get off these bull sheet discussions and come back to earth

    Pre 1996
    Home = Collateral
    Collateral =
    1st Mortgage

    Post 1996
    Home = Collateral
    Collateral =
    1st Mortgage
    + 2nd Mortgage
    + Mortgage Backed Security
    + Discounted Bond
    + Asset Backed Security

    Again it’s called economic goodwill. Yes they can sell the notes yield over and over again and it is legal under GAAP.

    But it is not acceptable to leverage the title of another to the brink of destruction. No regard is given for the notion it is a function of what investors will accept.

    Once informed of the breach and concealment of the real deal used against you, you realize the market of distresses homeowners are not in foreclosure, but are the buffoons parties in possession that are current on their loans – – – parties left only possession of the fee simple estate lost at the time of the loans origination.

    Defaulted borrowers are fighting at least. It’s the ones not in default that is really going to wig out when they find out.

    registerclaims@live.com
    (I was there in 1996 and I know what went down)

  22. Now once you’ve been TNBed you will get a little piece of paper called a 1099a or c
    I understand ax is non deficiency state but does that make the tax exemption legal
    It’s impossible to keep focused on a fdcpa without seeing the Rico and we have a judas in the house no indictments not one.

  23. i agree Louise
    T&B retained by wells Fargo/fannie, its all of them, you sue for FDCPA you still face all of them , its like Bill black says you can cover the rotten meat with beure sauce making it more harmful but its still quite probaly going to poison you in the end.
    ive been T&B,ed, and wells are trying to come after me or rather a distressed debt buyer purportedly i do not owe a dime, they try it on and on and on. the property was “SOLD BACK TO FANNIE” for a lot more than its market value “AT PUBLIC AUCTION” say no more.

  24. If Hogan is the bomb in AZ, I wonder how banksters are filling out the
    proof of claim in bk cases. That form asks for the date the DEBT was incurred. And as a reminder that MERS’ members have carte blanche to assert whatever they want, in case no. 07-10546, NV,
    Aurora Loan Services, when filing a poc, asserted it is the agent of MERS.
    @enraged – been busy, but I saw that thing you posted regarding
    the use of AG letterhead by collection agencies and I am still reeling.
    It’s unconscionable – period. What’s next? ‘Behave’ letters to kids from Santa?

  25. yeah scwartzwald–in limbo?

  26. DCB,

    Are you alluding to Federal Home v. Duane Schwarzwald?
    Still no decision. You’ll be the first one I e-mail when it comes out.

  27. NG,
    I beleive you and @Frank (Moore who attended your recent SF gathering) know what Sec’Y Paulson intended to convey regarding “whole loans” in his MEET THE PRESS interview with Tom Brokaw…coincidentally …at the same time the buildings of the WALL STREET TITANS (too big to fail) were falling in the STREET.
    I think such goes directly to all the confusion regarding securitization rhetoric.
    Maybe you and @Frank should converse in detail.

  28. Legal maxims in their own books that if they followed these basic principals, all would be fair in Love and (financial illusion) War.

    o A concealed fault is equal to a deceit.

    o Out of fraud no action arises.

    o It is a fraud to conceal a fraud.

    o Once a fraud, always a fraud.

    o What otherwise is good and just, if it be sought by force and fraud, becomes bad and unjust.

    o He who does not repel a wrong when he can, induces it.

    o A forestaller is an oppressor of the poor, and a public enemy to the whole community and the country.

    Definition of Forestaller –
    In Old English law, obstruction, hindrance; the offense of stopping the highway; the hindering a tenant from coming to his land; intercepting a deer before it can regain the forest. Also one who forestalls, one who commits the offense of forestalling. 3 Bl.Comm. 170.

    All of these fraud offenses; all of these actions are written in their books, their laws, their dictionaries, and they cannot even abide by their own works, rules, and covenants.

    My opinion,
    Abominations…all of it.

    We were in possession of freehold estates and the court system, the judges, and the illegal players in that setting filed paperwork to force the estates into Abeyance, and sent hired guns out to make us leave so they could declare the estates abandoned.

    IT’S all FRAUD.

    The entire system did not work like it should and as such it has harmed those it was put into place to help.

    All involved in this ‘theft by conversion ‘ (of assets) need to be fired, retired, and/or expired.

    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, The Creator within, Conscience of the Creator, free and independent, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  29. UK
    and then the second copy of the note bearing the endorsement in blank by Joan M. Mills’ rubber stamp.

    What good is copy of note ????

  30. @ER you said no asset in the financial system is “as is”, and instead is merely a copy of a copy of a copy- rehypothecated up to an infinite number of times (if domiciled in the UK) for one simple reason: there are not enough money-good, credible assets in existence, even if there are more than enough ‘secured’ liabilities that claim said assets as collateral.

    well its called churnig—-people do it in intercompany transfers–lots of offsetting assets and liabilities in inventory—-so they get a percentage of the assets under management as well as the income–albeit pyramid—the managers get paid more for hurning and creating new derivatives to layer on as additional psuedo assets—–assets and psuedo assets—no defensible business purpose except investor abuses–again

  31. @Masterservicer…..SHORT SALES DO NOT AFFORD THE NEW PURCHASER OF THE REAL PROPERTY ASSURANCE OF A CLEAN TITLE, THEREATER VALIDLY TRANSFERABLE

  32. @ER re the criminal mortgagor—-

    I can imagine situations where you have groups of people that did generate fake sales–have a few names of investors who skinned the money off to caymans–ie from the exagerated financed sales

    now they are coming back with even more money and buying batches—doing it again–i think things are siding for the worse–and this would be a scheme that we should all want to see prevented—they will come out of the woodwork now to sell the loan paper the fed wants

  33. Why is that key case languishing–i cant keep name in mind but it was significant–i thought it was imminent??? and there was boyco —–then nosedive—you are right about availability of defense—so many have conflicts in real estate practices–then alls left is bk forms—

    i think the hardest challenge is most ohio attys have not serious exposure to organized crime—or call it syndicated [integrated] criminal enterprises–its not the norm in midwest–between penna and chicago they dont see it—so they cant fathom real organized activity with illegal purposes on the scale that is occurring –particularly non-bank servicers

    they use the Indian short-vesrion of our Constitutional protections—they dont understand that concept, good faith, fair dealing, equity, and are short on desire to negotiate problem solutions.

    I know that they must rove up the note under UCC to be a matter of finding of facts–reasonable proof of authority. Yet this comes up only at the end –if at all–as for short sale, modification, any rights changes is a new contract—-the old note has to be proven before they can mandate a new one—-but its a struggle just to get a look at it before the deal is closed from the borrowers perspective. they cant release mortgages unless they are demonstrated note claimants–at least persons entitled to enforce 3-301—-if its original it must run the 301/601 standards–othwise 309 affidavit –if its a copy–affidavit of trail–

  34. @Masterservicer….”in those days” …(RTC)..we had whole loans…inter alia (a/k/a) gov’t insurance…like FSLIC…now only the FDIC…but now without any real property to make a claim for benefit of the taxpayers….thus Paulson’s alleged “shock and awe”

  35. Tom Brokaw interviewed Henry Paulson, Secretary of the
    Treasury for the United States on Meet the Press. Secretary
    Paulson….

    My God read, his book – Its one big Mea Culpa. Prep walk coming for this gangster for sure. My God …he tells all ….and does not even know it. (That is how convoluted this crap really is) .

    I’ll start publishing (translating) excerpts.

    foreclosurealternatives.wordpress.com

  36. Lawyers take note! The tide is turning. Those in front of it will benefit greatly. Those who join later may receive some benefit but nothing like the early adopters.

    Wow you never stop ….

    T&B are covered under agreements made under TARP and the Economic Stabilitzation Act acting as government agents .

    They operate in a manner arguably held to authority of color and badge and yes can be sued . . . for engorgment of the US tax payer . . which is the alternative to defeating a foreclosure .

    Your asking attorneys to go after government agents to circumvent the short title inititives passed under the October 2008 act. You seem to be alleging fraud against governement contractors appointed by the Department of Treasury as empowered financial agents held under similar authority found in IRC Code …

    and for claims filed by the Secretary of the Treasury. This is in reference to civil procedures under title 18 USC 2254 – Sec. 2254. Civil forfeiture (3) Any property, real or personal, constituting or traceable to gross profits or other proceeds obtained from a violation of this chapter involving a visual depiction described in section 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, or 2260 of this chapter, or obtained from a violation of section 2421, 2422, or 2423 of chapter 117. (b) Seizure Pursuant to Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. –

    I note here where any property subject to forfeiture to the United States under this section may be seized by the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the United States Postal Service and no less , upon process issued pursuant to the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims by any district court of the United States having jurisdiction over the property . . .

    NG . . to add insult to injury your attorneys need to know the forclosure is about the depositors account and not the home brothter. The secretarys right to claims for administrative civil forfieture of the amount held therein …

    I mean …no attorney is going to do this.

    They need to know this Garfield (its late – late in the game and QWR and Robo arguments are not cutting it brother ….)

    email : registerclaims@live.com

    Not an attorney and this is only for informational purposes. Consult your local Bar for the name of an attorney that expain to you your legal rights and requirments to being action in a court of law.

  37. hey Dave. It’s not the note, it’s the three assignments of mortgage and then the second copy of the note bearing the endorsement in blank by Joan M. Mills’ rubber stamp. We have the burden on the defendant attorney who drafted and caused to be filed the FIRSTassignment fourteen months after the foreclosure was started.

    Hi Louise! How are you? Still in the fight here.

  38. i needed this today, good news , like. i have so many proof of cease n desist and signed for. what a run around they gave me.

  39. OOOPPPSS, Sorry Bravo to Mandelman.

  40. Bravo, to Matt.

  41. Sorry guys… When it’s really, good, I have to share. When it’s really, really good and I chuckle, I really have to share. When I laugh so hard as to fall off my chair, it would be cruel not to post it.

    Not one of us bears any responsibility for that chaos. No siree! Not one of us, here on this site, would ever have been smart enough to come up with such a way to enrich ourselves. We just couldn’t: we didn’t have it in ourselves. Something to do with combined moral sense and brain. Well, those Yale and Harvard guys destroyed the world. The whole world! Just a few guys did all of that!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/

    China’s Rehypothecated “Ghost” Steel Just Vaporized, And What This Means For The World Economy

    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/17/2012 – 17:20

    One of the key stories of 2011 was the revelation, courtesy of MF Global, that no asset in the financial system is “as is”, and instead is merely a copy of a copy of a copy- rehypothecated up to an infinite number of times (if domiciled in the UK) for one simple reason: there are not enough money-good, credible assets in existence, even if there are more than enough ‘secured’ liabilities that claim said assets as collateral.

    And while the status quo is marching on, the Ponzi is rising, and new liabilities are created, all is well; however, the second the system experiences a violent deleveraging and the liabilities have to be matched to their respective assets as they are unwound, all hell breaks loose once the reality sets in that each asset has been diluted exponentially. Naturally, among such assets are not only paper representations of securities, mostly stock and bond certificates held by the DTC’s Cede & Co., but physical assets, such as bars of gold held by paper ETFs such as GLD and SLV. In fact, the speculation that the physical precious metals in circulation have been massively diluted has been a major topic of debate among the precious metal communities, and is the reason for the success of such physical-based gold and silver investment vehicles as those of Eric Sprott.

    Of course, the “other side” has been quite adamant that this is in no way realistic and every ounce of precious metals is accounted for. While that remains to be disproven in the next, and final, central-planner driven market crash, we now know that it is not only precious metals that are on the vaporization chopping block: when it comes to China, such simple assets as simple steel held in inventories, apparently do not exist.

  42. Tom Brokaw interviewed Henry Paulson, Secretary of the
    Treasury for the United States on Meet the Press. Secretary
    Paulson compared the current financial crisis with the Resolution
    Trust Corporation.
    Sunday, September 21, 2008 BY SEC’Y PAULSON: “…First
    of all, a lot of people talk about the RTC…in those days, there
    were whole loans, and the government owned the real
    estate…Here, the financial institutions are clogged with illiquid
    loans…[that] won’t be giving us control of real estate, … and that,
    that is what we have in front of us today.” “If it doesn’t pass,
    then heaven help us all,
    Bloomberg
    From The Sunday Times
    9/21/2008
    “ Henry Paulson buries US toxic debt”

  43. You’ve got to love Mandelman! Can’t hide too well when he doesn’t care for someone…

    FHFA Looking to Jail Strategic Defaulters

    The Federal Housing Finance Administration (“FHFA”), which is the agency created to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac… the one run by perhaps the least popular man in America for his refusal to allow Freddie or Fannie to grant principal reductions… Ed “It’s a Matter of Principal” De Marco… is back in the news.

    Nothing to do with principal reductions on GSE loans (those owned by Fannie or Freddie), this time it’s even more offensive, if you can imagine that.

    A reader brought the story to my attention (Hat tip to Deontos) and if it hadn’t appeared in the Chicago Tribune, I’m not sure I would have believed it.

    Apparently, the Feds have announced that they are coming after “strategic defaulters,” who they define as people who’ve decided to walk away from mortgages even though they could afford to continue paying their payments.

    The federal agency taking on this imaginary foe is the “Office of the Inspector General,” a separate statutory agency within the FHFA that answers only to Congress, according to the story in the Tribune. Its mission is to root out fraud, waste and abuse within the FHFA. The agency has a staff of 130 investigators, auditors, attorneys and prosecutors that it describes as “extremely talented and seasoned.”

    It seems that Fannie and Freddie “are on the hook for the $187 billion in taxpayer money that the Treasury has invested so far to keep them afloat — by some estimates, the tab eventually could reach more than $360 billion — the OIG is on the prowl for people who owe it money.”

    The Tribune story went on to say…

    “Investigators are searching not only for lenders who have sold materially deficient loans to Fannie and Freddie, but also individuals, including those who reneged on their promises to repay their mortgages. So if you are a “strategic defaulter” who decided it was better to walk away from your obligation than to keep paying for a house that was worth substantially less than you owed, it’s time to start looking over your shoulder.”

    It’s not a joke. The OIG has the powers to search, seize and arrest, and special OIG agents are even authorized to carry firearms. Its mission is to seek administrative sanctions, civil recoveries and criminal prosecutions against anyone who abuses the FHFA’s programs. This covet of clowns has a 45-person staff… “all experienced people with 15 to 20 years as investigators and prosecutors.”

    A 45-person staff… nationwide? Wooooo… that’s some scary stuff there. See you in 3016 fellas.

    The writer of the Trib’s article admits…

    “No one knows for certain how many borrowers fit the rather amorphous strategic defaulter mold. But credit repository Experian estimates that 20 percent of all foreclosures are the result of walkaways, people who could afford to make their payments but who decided not to.”

    Is that what Experian “estimates?” That 20 percent of foreclosures are strategic defaults? Well, I estimate that 90 percent of the executives at Experian are morons, and the other 10 percent have special needs requiring corrective shoes and the wearing of adult diapers over their clothing.

    The idiot at FHFA in charge of this oxygen depleated plan is Heath Wolfe, and he’s the assistant inspector general for audits at the OIG. According to Heath, some types mortgage scofflaws owe Fannie and Freddie more than $1 billion… and wouldn’t I love to see his cyphering on that calculation.

    A whole BILLION? Fannie and Freddie are into us taxpayers for $187 BILLION… sure to top $300 BILLION and then some… if it doesn’t reach a trillion, I’ll make you a watch out of wood… so Heath is out to harass taxpayers hoping to recover some portion of one billion that he figures the agency has coming based on figures he pulled out of his hind quarters.

    From the Tribune’s story…

    “We are working with Fannie and Freddie to build a mechanism” to identify strategic defaulters, Wolfe said at a recent mortgage industry conference. So if you walked away from one property and bought another, chances are fairly good that the OIG is going to find you.

    Yeah, I can see that happening. A staff of 45 going after some 75 million borrowers attempting to prove that they could have afforded their mortgage payments when they stopped paying them. That’s going to be a tough road to hoe because I plan to develop a drug-alcohol-gambling problem at the very same time I default so even though it appeared that I could have paid… I was an addict at the time… and that a disease… not my fault.

    One way the mortgage police can find defaulters is to forage Fannie and Freddie’s records for borrowers who failed to mention on their loan applications that they had previous mortgages they did not pay.

    If you conveniently left off the fact that you have an outstanding mortgage you failed to pay, or that you have a deficiency judgment against you for the difference between what you owe and what the house sold for at foreclosure, you’ve committed mortgage fraud.”

    What are you in jail for?

    Memory lapse. Forgot to list something on a loan app.

    The Trib’s article says that we’re not just talking about borrowers deciding not to pay.

    “In some cases, they remained in their houses for months or even years, living free on the government’s dime — and yours and mine — before moving on. In other instances, they profited handsomely by renting their properties to unsuspecting tenants, collecting rent for many months but never paying lenders.”

    If your bank takes three years to foreclose on your home, and you live there until they do, how is that living on the government’s dime or anyone else’s dime for that matter? Foreclose faster and people will move faster, how’s that? And why should they pay rents to lenders? They’re being foreclosed on, so just foreclose and evict in under three years and problem solved.

    And get this…

    If there is any indication that you falsified information on your new loan application, the OIG is “absolutely” going to refer you for criminal prosecution, Wolfe said. “We’re not just going to demand repayment,” he said. “We’re going to lock (people) up.”

    Oh really? Lock up some father of three or single mom because you claim he or she could have paid… but didn’t? Do it betch… I want to watch… and write about it so your mom and her friends can follow along with what a dick you are too.

    Oh, and this should do wonders for that first time buyers market, wouldn’t you say? Buy a home… end up in prison for failing to write something down on your loan app. Sign me up.

    You know… De Marco and everyone else at FHFA who is desperately trying to do something to take the attention off the fact that Fannie and Freddie are corrupt and bankrupt and need to be closed for good… go to hell. You and your 45 investigators go ahead… I’m setting up a news alert for you today, so when you embarrass yourselves, which you unquestionably will, I’ll be right there writing about your incomprehensible ineptitude.

    There’s no such thing as people who can pay their mortgages no problem but just feel like cleaning out their garage, ruining their credit, and then living in an apartment where the kitchen smells like ass for the next five years all because they couldn’t stand the idea of being underwater. Maybe someday there will be a group that fits that description, but not today.

    So, happy hunting Heath… and to everyone else, just ignore this scary bedtime story.

    Mandelman out.

  44. DCB,

    Many reasons. Ohioans didn’t fight originally. And when Cordray was AG, he moved hell and earth to force banks to negotiate, modify and what not. He did not encourage lawsuits, preferring instead to file them himself. Lastly, OH has that (almost compulsory) program whereby the parties must mediate.

    New Yorkers are savvier and they don’t have that patience. They go on the attack more easily. Look at the places here where people lost their homes: the poor areas of Cleveland, Chilicothee, Columbus, Dayton, Akron. People couldn’t find pro bono representation after having lost their manufacturing or DHL jobs. They simply walked away. And look who they’re up against: we must have 5 or 6 major foreclosure mills right here.

    One more thing: very few attorneys in Ohio are interested in doing foreclosure defense. Right away, they tell you to file for BK. Until guys like Dann (who’s fighting his own demons and, if i recall, was just disbarred on that alleged sex scandal thing) and Doucet tackled those foreclosures, there really wasn’t anyone to help homeowners…

    We’re dealing with church-going people who believe that they committed a serious breach when not paying, even if it wasn’t their fault.

  45. why so many in new york so few in ohio

  46. @UK

    You have one of these “mystery notes” here——-like the Kennedy Mystery Bullet that just turns up out of nowhere at the time of death?

    Sounds like it—–only problem with this layout is that you bear the burden of proof on a lot of stuff

    For a determination that the image of the mortgage note produced in these proceedings was fabricated by employees of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in an effort to defraud this Court into believing that the mortgage note was endorsed in blank at any time, including, but not limited to: (a) the time during which it would have been required to be delivered under the Pooling & Servicing Agreement (PSA) of the Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) Trust of which HSBC Bank USA, N.A. was the purported trustee; (b) any time prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action filed as HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. the BK King, et al in the Kenosha County Circuit Court as Case No. 09-CV-353; ( c) any time prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case in which this Amended Complaint is filed as an adversary proceeding; (d) at any time before November 4, 2011 when it suddenly appeared in the form of a copy; and (e) at any time whatsoever.

  47. These are the select few
    Sure residential rental is same risk as commercial—-how far do you have to go to finf the moron to state that? It is the essence of how to design a failed structure—-an investor has to be dummer than this govt moron to buy into this–it is an evolving investor fraud—- OCC | Investor Owned One to Four Family Residential Properties – Supervisory Guidance on Risk Management and Reporting Requirements
    Posted by 4closureFraud on September 17, 2012 · Leave a Comment

    Subject: Investor-Owned One- to Four-Family Residential Properties
    Date: September 17, 2012

    http://mail.aol.com/36962-112/aol-6/en-us/mail/DisplayMessage.aspx?ws_popup=true

    Makes me want to throwup—-hell no the fraud is not over–just retooling to use that which was stolen—i guess there will be batch title insurance guarantees this way or better yet CDS?

    This bulletin provides national banks and federal savings associations (collectively, banks) with guidance on appropriate credit risk management practices for investor-owned, one- to four-family residential real estate (IORR) lending where the primary repayment source for the loan is rental income. This type of lending has increased because of a variety of economic factors. This bulletin is intended to promote consistent risk management practices for IORR lending and to summarize the applicable requirements for regulatory capital and call reports for IORR lending.

    Some banks manage IORR loans in a similar manner to owner-occupied one- to four-family residential loans. The credit risk presented by IORR lending, however, is similar to that associated with loans for income-producing commercial real estate (CRE). Because of this similarity, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) expects banks to use the same types of credit risk management practices for IORR lending that are used for CRE lending. This expectation does not change the regulatory capital, regulatory reporting, and Home Owners’ Loan Act (HOLA) requirements for IORR.1

  48. Carie,

    The time limit for FDCPA violations is one year, so be sure not to miss that if you decide to sue. Also, a violation of FDCPA for unfair and deceptive practices and acts constitutes a violation of the FTCA and warrants treble damages.

    DCB,

    The UCC states that indorsements need not be dated.

    Isn’t that just a perfect indication of the bank influence on the revisions of the UCC over the years. They don’t want that date thing to throw tacks in the road. After all, they might have to produce delivery receipts, and if they keep the dates off all the indorsements, no sweat about manufacturing and matching a few million delivery receipts.

  49. Virginia Nat’l Bank v. Holt, p. 420

    (a) VNB had a note in its possession. Holts were the makers. Mrs. Holt claims she didn’t sign it. But procedurally she didn’t meet the burden of proof. She did deny it but she didn’t put on any proof to overcome the presumption of proof.

    (b) §3-308 creates a presumption that a signature is genuine.

    (c) The code determines not only substantive rights but also procedural rights.

    (d) §3-308—proof of signature.

    OK LETS SAY THAT THERE IS THIS PRESUMTION BUT THEY ALREADY THREW A ROBOSIGNER ASSIGNMENT AT YOU

    AND THERE IS QUESTION ABOUT THE POSTDATE YOU REFERE TO
    AND THERE IS AN ISSUE OTHER ROBOSIGNING OF NOTES AT THE SPECIFIC COMPANY

    AND YOU HAVE CONTRADICTORY INFO ABOUT WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN PHYSICAL POSSESSION–JUDICIAL NOTICE

    NOW SHOULD NOT THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFT BACK TO THE PERSON CLAIIMING AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE NOTE_–INCLUDING THE AUTHORITY AND AUTHENTICTY OF THE INDORSER???/ The question of my day

    and gotta asume get stuff into evidence

  50. Can I sue the debt collector/foreclosure mill—-because when I asked them about FDCPA, they sent me a letter saying that my “ORIGINAL creditor/lender was MERS and my CURRENT creditor/lender was Deutsche Bank”—THOSE ARE BLATANT LIES…and I have it in writing from them.

    Also, the servicer/debt collector IN WRITING said that my “loan” was SECURITIZED and they were foreclosing ON BEHALF OF THE SECURITIZATION. Another blatant LIE…no securitization. (among other things.

    They BOTH (the FC mill AND the servicer are simply debt collectors), used these lies to foreclose and take the money from the sale.

    I need an attorney in the LA area to help me with this…anyone?

  51. A Most Bizarre Foreclosure Motion….Plaintiff Does Not Want Witnesses Coming To Court To Testify….

    September 17th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

    One of the most important questions we still do not have the answer to even after years and years of foreclosure….

    Who Is The Real Party in Interest?

    Who Takes Responsibility For Foreclosures?

    Who Is Responsible For Throwing Americans Out In The Street Through Foreclosure?

    These questions MUST be resolved….otherwise, let’s just throw the rule of law completely out the window….

    Motion To Quash

    http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Motion-To-Quash.pdf

  52. DCB,

    Speaking about which…

    That was posted on today’s Msfraud.org

    EMC Mortgage v. Toussaint – Foreclosure Sale Vacated
    In order to commence a foreclosure action, plaintiff must have a legal and equitable interest in the subject mortgage. Here, the subject mortgage was not assigned until October 2, 2007, which was after the action was commenced on October 1, 2007. A retroactive assignment to September 25, 2007 cannot be used to confer standing upon the foreclosure action commenced prior to the execution of the assignment.

    http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/EMC-v-Toussaint_no-standing_1-11.pdf

  53. DCB,

    I would say “no” but, when talking about endorsements, I am always a little shaky and there are some loose ends.

    Suppose you gave me a check, dated of 9/01/12 (original contract). In turn, I endorsed it to my husband last week who went to cash it to the bank today. My endorsement does not have to be dated. Only two dates will exist: the original one when you signed and today’s when my husband cashes it. The bank couldn’t care less when I endorsed it and passed it on.

    Now, the reason i use the check analogy is that defense attorneys have used it over and over in foreclosure cases to fight the identity of the person having signed the alleged endorsement. The date has only been argued to the extent that:
    1) foreclosure had been filed before the effective date of the endorsement; or
    2) the notarization was done in one state, on the exact day the endorsement had been signed in a completely different state 2,000 miles away.

    Makes sense?

  54. Beg to differ

    The tide is NOT turning. See yesterday’s Foreclosure Fraud publicizing a Sept 12(?) Chicago Tribune article stating the fed “housing police” will be searching for and criminally charging “strategic defaulters,” especially those who go on to purchase other property.

    Amazing how much money the govt is willing to spend prosecuting the low hanging fruit And dont comprehend how they can find a crime in a dynamic situation caused initially by the banks But no doubt they will

  55. This is a core proceeding in an action brought by the BK King
    (1) To determine the validity and enforceability of the mortgage note which fails for want of consideration and
    (2) For a determination that two mortgage assignments (Exhibits C and E)recorded in the Kenosha County Register of Deeds affecting Plaintiffs’ homestead are null and void;
    (3) For a determination that the mortgage assignment attached as Exhibit D and upon which the false Claimant relies is a forgery;
    (4) For a determination that Exhibit D, if not a forgery, has never been recorded, was not recorded prior to the filing of the bankruptcy and is not an enforceable lien against Plaintiffs’ homestead by operation of law because the lien was not
    perfected prior to the bankruptcy filing and the recordation of the lien is an attempt to perfect a security interest as a preferential transfer;
    (5) For a determination that HSBC Bank USA, N.A. neither owns nor holds the mortgage note;
    (6) For a determination that the image of the mortgage note produced in these proceedings was fabricated by employees of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in an effort to defraud this Court into believing that the mortgage note was endorsed in blank at any time, including, but not limited to:
    (a) the time during which it would have been required to be delivered under the Pooling & Servicing Agreement (PSA) of the Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) Trust of which HSBC Bank USA, N.A. was the purported trustee;
    (b) any time prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action filed as HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. the BK King, et al in the Kenosha County Circuit Court as Case No. 09-CV-353;
    ( c) any time prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case in which this
    Amended Complaint is filed as an adversary proceeding;
    (d) at any time before November 4, 2011 when it suddenly appeared
    in the form of a copy; and
    (e) at any time whatsoever.
    b. For a determination that Plaintiffs’ homestead is free and clear of all liens;
    c. For a determination that none of the Defendant financial institutions have standing or the status of a real party in interest in this bankruptcy to maintain a claim or for any relief from
    stay.
    d. For a determination that the sworn proof of claim on file as Claim # 6 is false, fraudulent, and otherwise unlawful.
    e. For a determination that the sworn proof of claim attempts to unlawfully secure property of the estate in violation of sec. 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code by asserting invalid lien rights against property of the estate and of the Debtors.
    f. For a determination that the sworn proof of claim asserts invalid lien rights against property of the estate and against the debtor in violation of secs. 362(a)(4) and 362(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code.
    g. That the Court disallow and expunge the sworn proof of Claim # 6.
    h. That the Chapter 13 Trustee be granted lien rights on the real property in order to preserve the rights of the estate and said collateral subject to the exemption of the Plaintiffs in said real estate (as amended.)
    i. That the debtor have and recover reasonable legal fees in an amount to be determined by this Court.
    j. In addition and in the alternative, for a determination that the Defendant banks have unclean hands and are not entitled to any relief in this Court;
    k. For sanctions against the parties responsible for filing a false claim in these proceedings.

  56. @ ENRAGED–NOT ARGUING THAT THEY CANT GET EXTREME____but somehow i think some get more thoughtful teatment than others.

    question what is tyour reaction to this question: Is an indorsement signature complete if it is undated?

  57. Now that the really, really rich feel some pain, maybe something’s gona be done against the bankers?

    Candler Family, Heirs To Coca-Cola Founder, Lose $37.5 Million To Foreclosure Crisis

    The Huffington Post | By Harry Bradford Posted: 09/17/2012 2:27 pm

    “…Another testament to the far-reaching effects of the Great Recession is the story of real estate developer David Siegel, who, along with his yet uncompleted 90,000-square-foot Florida mansion, is the subject of a new documentary. Siegel’s house is now listed for $65 million after once being on the market for $75 million.

    As for the Candlers, Asa blames his family’s misfortunes on what he calls America’s “ruthless” economy, one that has ignored “man-on-the-street” developers while bailing out Wall Street and the largest automakers.”

    @DCB,

    When you life is rendered impossible by what banks put you through (and yours was as much as ours), it is a tad extreme, wouldn’t you say?

    For me anyway, it was. I’ll keep asking for a lot. To get some of it.

  58. @ ER RE emotional distress —I believe with about 60% confidence that you must plead extreme emotional distress in ohio and some others–or something to separate it from a stubbed toe

  59. “These transactions are all sham transactions giving rise to repossession by the disposed homeowner and damages for wrongful foreclosure including, in California, damages for emotional distress.”

    Not just in California. It is one of the elements of many counterclaims in many states. Whether it flies everywhere, i don’t know. I do know, however, that it is used in addition to the statutory damage claims (which, let’s face it, can’t make anyone “whole”. Takes a lot more than $1,000 per breach to make up for a ruined life!)

    The way I’ve calculated it is simple: count the number of days banks stole from you from the onset (lost payment and the subsequent ordeal) all the way to resolution, be it foreclosure or trial win. Took years. Multiply that by 365 days/year, on a 24-hour basis (yep: even when we sleep, it haunts us!). So multiply the days by 24 hours, times whatever hourly rate you think you’re worth. Pretty soon, we’re talking a few millions…

    Jamie boy gets $23 millions for a performance that’s “not necessarily good”. Imagine how much our performance, all the way to hell and back, is worth!!!

    I’d rather ask for a lot and get half of it than ask for nothing and get all of it.

  60. SO I SIGNED A NOTE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION BUT OWE NOBODY? I need to have ownership default to the state because nobody can prove ownership—at present—but the note can turn up again if not surrendered here. This does not buy certainty but for non-recourse states. Even there i dont think the rule on either intangibles [as in promissory notes] or real estate as in mortgages-is finders keepers losers weepers. Has the law fallen that low—thieves pick up notes off the sidewalk—mortgages evaporate over technical transfer issues—i need escheat to have this make sense—no way that the mortgage and note can be disregarded witout govt indorsement at both judicial and administrative –the govt is the only allowable “finder”

    if not–whats to keep the guy with a bigger gun from taking the house–might is right in losers weepers

  61. The Ponzi scheme is still going on. More clouded titles.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: