LivingLies Announces Columbus Ohio Law Office

If you are looking for legal representation in Ohio, please call our customer service line at 520-405-1688. You will either be interviewed or directed to a form on line to fill out as to the status of your case and various other matters. Or you can call the Columbus office direct. Client intake has already begun under this arrangement.

Editor’s Comment: I am thrilled announce this association with lawyers in Columbus, Ohio who not only understand the intricacies of securitization and not only represent homeowners fighting the banks, but whose mission is to WIN not just buy time. NO guarantees of course, but these guys are the real deal.

They are scholars, writers, creative and innovative as well as knowledgeable in trial practice, bankruptcy and property law. I have associated with them directly as being of counsel, which is not something I ordinarily do, as most of you know.

Please allow us to introduce Wittenberg Law Group, a Columbus, Ohio-based law firm that helps to defend homeowners against foreclosures. The professionals of Wittenberg Law Group stand ready to help you.
Eric J. Wittenberg is the founder and manager of the firm. Mr. Wittenberg is in his 26th year in the practice of law. He is involved in a great deal of litigation with lenders trying to wrongfully foreclose upon homeowners. Mr. Wittenberg shares something important with Neil Garfield–like Mr. Garfield, Mr. Wittenberg is an alumnus of Dickinson College. He has a master’s degree in public and international affairs from the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, and his law degree from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, where he was the Head Notes and Comments Editor for the Journal of Law and Commerce. For 25 years, he has worked to protect the rights of individuals and small businesses.
He is also an award-winning Civil War historian and author, with 17 books on the subject in print. Mr. Wittenberg regularly lectures and leads tours of Civil War battlefields and is in great demand. He is also an ardent baseball fan and the co-author of You Stink! Major League Baseball’s Terrible Teams and Pathetic Players.
Jennifer L. Routte is a Columbus native who comes from a background of a successful family business. She worked in the family business for going to law school and understands the challenges faced by small businesses. She is an graduate of The Ohio State University and the Capital University School of Law.
Treisa L. Fox is an associate attorney who works almost exclusively on defending foreclosures. Ms. Fox, a native of West Virginia, is a graduate of Marshall University and of the Capital University School of Law. She has a great deal of experience with challenging the validity of loan documents and of the claims of lenders, and she stands prepared to assist you.
The professionals of Wittenberg Law Group stand prepared to assist you with your efforts to defend your homes.
Eric J. Wittenberg
Attorney and Counselor at Law
6895 East Main Street
Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068
Fax: 614.328.0576

25 Responses

  1. Id like to drop by and talk with these folks and see what the operation looks like etc——its got to be tough —im not sure how they can manage a statewide practice—probably on the road a lot–people need to cut em a bit of slack for awhile anway

  2. @Insolvent… Answers to your Questions from Previous Stream Feed. YES… I pay my property taxes, Why?….. Because that money goes to our schools, libraries, fire protection, police protection, parks …etc..etc… Your an Idiot! It was Mr Bankster who stopped paying …. If I did the same as they did …. I would be Harming Myself, my Family and my Community my Children and my Grandchildren! Your an Idiot! Why do You think I am Yanking Mr Banksters Chains ….. I want his tax money … he has harmed my Community by not paying it!

  3. re: DCB …. Yes….. Its coming, its been in the works awhile. That last Bite is really a Bitch! Yep!

  4. You gotta Love Kingcast …. It puts a Good Spin on Arrogance!

  5. DCB….. shoot me an Email.

  6. Im not sure about all tax liens priority–at some level they must compete against each other—eg typically the bank names the proprty tax tresurer—–i suppose it puts the parties on notice that you as a jr or sr party are having the nature of your security altered. Any lienor would want to know if a servicer is selling a property to an affiliate for example. A suspect sale controlled in any way by the servicer could be revoked by the lienor —set aside. does this make sens?

    Iv been thinking a lot lately–and looking into the state law about the right of the state and local income tax collectors to be notified of the disposition of property by a person–say a failed trust or servicer—who has not filed income tax returns. an entity which does not register by filing articles of incorporation etc does not have standing under state statute–separate from con-law.

    The question is whether a failed trust can maintain a suit —does the court have jurisdiction to enter judgment granting rights to the party that has not met state qualification rules–if the forclosed homeowner has raised the capacity argument in his answer? If so the court seemingly is on notice that the trust is not qualified–is not paying taxes—The issue it seems to me is whether the judge and/or the defendant homewner by settlement agreement even–can waive the state-law protective provision. Seems like a business operating in the state w/o paying taxes or filing fees must be waived if at all by the AG. I do not think that the AG is allowed to waive a statutory filing and tax-paying obligation. My thought is that the judgment is void against the state—ie if state had a lien—-at least—perhaps void ab inition–as where court did not acquire subject matter jurisdiction because the guy waiving the note was a thief waiving a forgery. judgment is void unless there has been detrimental reliance

  7. @KING
    As a civil rights lawyer, perhaps you have an opinion as to the impact on a person of being subjected to exposure to double claims under UCC 3-301 309 —–What is the constitutional impact upon a person if the state judicial system deprives a person of freedom from double recovery–from peace of mind ? does it rise to a deprivation of a fererally protected constitutional right? Substantive Due process right? Is a roof over the family’s head mere property?

  8. Wow, good for you. I was Assistant AG there then Civil Rights lawyer, boy they needed it…… I know Eric Wittenberg, good people. Enjoy the latest on Judge Schack and Fein, Such…. there is a prequel to IndyMac:

  9. “Why are all the N.A.s merging the collection divisions from loan serivicing division to the actual N.A> as the servicer / collection ( except Wells Fargo) since last January. The reason will shock you! ”

    hmmm—–Not sure of answer—wish you hd stated it w/o the suspense. Just a couple thoughts though. Iv encountered some difficulty with service on NA —–not required to have a person in the state–ie not subject to state qualification to do business because a federally chartered entity. Thus –if you have trouble getting service ie state jurisdiction over them—then a complaint against them for servicing problems –eg failure to HAMP –or contract violations—seems to push you the complaining homeowner toward federal court—with venue in the home district of the NA——–if this is an accurate guess, then it essentially bars any pro se as a practical matter —-and it makes it tough even for local counsel—-gotta walk into a fed courthouse in NY or NC etc

    as well—–it may bar the state in which the property is located from imposing state income tax on the NA income—which may well be deemed generated at the head office –commercial domicile of the NA

    as well, the NA scheme is aimed at reducing state regulatory authority over activities–ie no state consumer protection acts applicable?

    i think that there could be several implications–but basically the common thread is to set up barriers to state jurisdiction over everything the entity does—so long as all acts at state/local level are carried out by bona fide contractors rather than employees. “agents” seems to create a grey area–does agent put the NA in the jurisdiction?

    I may be totally wrong on everything iv said but offhand these thoughts come to mind—-im anxiously awaiting the answer NPV—if it involves the foregoing its extremely important—-question would be is the NA going to have to bring the action on the note in fed ct in the borrower’s federal district–in order to keep the case out of the problematic state courts–so that the case counterclaims cannot be raised in a state venue

    this may be the most significant set of issues that has come down the pike –if im anywhere near correct—only federal practictioners?

  10. @DCB, I’m not an expert in Tax Liens … but it is to my understanding all tax liens take priority position. Could be wrong thou … Criminal Slander to Title is Easy to Prove … there is where your recoupment hides. @ iwantmynpv, …… You’ve Been Quiet Lately. Taking Good Notes and Asking Good Questions. Its the Quiet ones that Surprise You! Excellent!

  11. Respectfully, DCB—you should know by now we aren’t dealing with “common sense”. We are dealing with massive fraud on many levels. The truth has to be dealt with.
    Funny you mention the explosives thing—I immediately thought of 9/11. That was another set up—the truth of which has been and continues to be covered up…which exactly what is being done to the truth of the MBS fraud..interesting how it all happened at the same time…fishy, fishy.
    We are only told what the “big boys” want us to know and believe (they own all the media) which is usually not the whole truth—and most of the time outright lies.
    These bastards don’t deal in “common sense”…they do whatever it takes to propel their agenda—and we are just the “little people” who don’t really matter—except when they want to use us.

  12. @CARIE

    All respects but if somebody presents a note—it defies common sense to say it is not effective……the theory would undo all debts—-

    the investor suits are for securitizing crappy loans—–the travesty is that there is no recognition that homeowners were set up with unrealistic predatory loans intentionally so the trusts would implode on a predictable time schedule—like rigging the bottom story of a building with explosives

  13. @SC
    If there was a tax lien then US would be on notice –maybe other reasons

  14. Carie, now I finally understand what you are trying to say. When you use terms like; “They sold us junk bonds”… You are talking about the folks who purchased certificates.

    OK, from that perspective – you are correct. They are not GSE rejects though. i.e. HARP, HAMP is to get the borrower to actually sign a new note because the previous note’s are moot, and the GSE bonds, Obligation Bonds, are secured by the cash flow from the loans in the corporate fannie and freddie, not the trust side.

    What you need to understand is Fannie & Freddie are merely socialization entities and a giant slush fund for DC politicians. They are as equally guilty as the banks and hae been masking their fraud since the 90’s with some help from Goldman Sachs.

    Now back to PLRMBS. There were loans (prior to actual originator) caught by fetch banks (glorified mortgage brokers or correspondent lenders), wholesale banks and mortgage brokers who helped close a transaction. The “corridor / aggregators bought all these loans with varying credit grades, and they were mentioned as the Originator, not the low level guys, because the low level guys did not have the capital or the “balance sheet” to sign “recourse agreements” or implicit recourse agreements. That meant we could not pool the crap with the the premium paper and still receive Triple AAA on the tranches.

    Anyway, the yield was not as relevant as the volume, whch was handled through over-collat and residual tranche. Most loans were never heading to the GSE Tranche from inception – so they could not have been rejects – they failed DO / DU and the fetch lenders put them in the corridor as yield premium loans.

    That is why all the banks came out with pricing engines, DO / DU/ ALT-A, Sub-Prime. These guys were paid a premium for hitting their quota. i.e. I have filed XYZ Trust shelf registration – I go to thousands of correpondent lenders and give them warehouse funding in exchange for “loan purchase agreements”, which gets the loans into the corridor. These sub-prime banks would be guarantee 100M in loans within 60 days. They all used technology (pricing engines) to observe their actual pipeline and future pipeline by what was being priced. I you priced a loan with me (sub-prime bank) I sent me wholesale agent to your office to see what I could grab. If I needed loans fast I offered more premium to broker to get the loans.

    Again,it was volume drien to close the pool. If correspondent lender X guaranteed me 100 M in loans and only had 90 M in loans he would be paid (example: instead of receiving 109 – X would receive 107) on the UPB of the entire bundled package.

    Most loans went sub-prime simply because the bottom of the food chain was makiing more money by steering them in that direction. The GSE only bought vanilla tranches (alleged) in the PLRMBS because they too had their own little ponzie going for 30 years and could not compete with the deal flow the private guys were getting (think LIBOR) and were theoretically insolvent back in 2005. That is why guys like Newt Gingrich lobbyed hard to lower the GSE standards, so they could buy crap and underwrite crap too.

    To your answer, aside from a few tranches most bought an indenture (could be junk) and several were top tier, which in many cases still function today (thank you US taxpayer via FRC), but hat is not where the real money is being made, read carefully and see what are inside about 15% of the tranches.

    P.S. Servicing rights are added to the premium paid for loan and trade seperate from origination, and yes they are all run by collection companies or collection divisions inside the N.A. or another entity of the parent.

    Now Carie, to see how smart your friend is, ask him / her this question direct – Why are all the N.A.s merging the collection divisions from loan serivicing division to the actual N.A> as the servicer / collection ( except Wells Fargo) since last January. The reason will shock you!

    Gotta run – busy day.

  15. @dcbreidenbach

    Here is your answer:

    “Reader is mistaken on several points. First, servicer only acquires collection rights on behalf of the investor/current creditor – servicer is not the creditor. A servicer cannot acquire any interest when they are acting as a servicer for another. Second, any refinance that was conducted under the guise of a mortgage refinance when, in fact, in was just a modification of a (false) prior default, with the prior mortgage never validly discharged, is not a mortgage refinance at all. And, therefore, the note fails to fall under the UCC as no negotiable note actually exists. This was the root cause that exploded the financial crisis. Notes were not notes at all — and foreign investors knew it — but, US has refused to investigate. It is why investor lawsuits are settling, but homeowners got nothing more than a bogus 49 state Attorney General settlement — all without investigation. (Settlements do not divulge the fraud).

    Yes, correct, the role that servicers actually occupy is — concealed. Servicers will not disclose WHO they are actually servicing for and this is from the onset of the fictitious refinance to the fraudulent foreclosure in question. Deregulation has allowed servicers to publicly withhold any information that discloses the actual creditor. In fact, disclosure would disclose that the note in question is not a valid UCC instrument but, actually, a modification of the PRIOR mortgage/note. Courts run scared. All they need to hear is the name of bank and they accept this falsity. It does not matter what false capacity that bank is appearing in — including as trustee to a fraudulent trust that holds false and invalid mortgage loans, notes (and UCC instruments). . The Court hears “bank” in name, especially with “NA” attached, and they believe it is valid. This is simply not so. Court does not given the opportunity to hear the evidence that the subprime refinance was orchestrated under fraud, and that no valid UCC instrument exists, and that the “Bank”, “NA”, and/or servicer, is NOT the creditor. Further, under federal law, which preempts state law when there is conflict, the CURRENT creditor must be identified. Servicers are not the creditor if assignment is executed for the ministerial purpose of administering a foreclosure action. No legal rights transferred under this scenario.

    Time for attorneys to wake up. Start digging at records, and pursue records disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act as to the GSEs. This may take a federal action to enforce. But, would clearly win on this as it involves the borrowers’ right to the those records.

    When Neil finally understands that this is about homeowner victims, and not “investors”, we may finally get somewhere.

    Until Neil realizes this, we will remain without media help. Neil’s allegiance is not on the same page.

    And, any help to homeowners is bogus — unless the truth is told. Help without the truth is simply a continuation of the fraud. Modify??? Not without disclosure of ALL records. To do so without disclosure – is to continue the fraud.

    Fraud upon the court. No Statute of Limitations…”

  16. I have a Question? Why is Citimortgage Inc naming the United States of America as a defendent in a fc. They got FC against the homeowners, 2 other NAs and the United States of America? This is Crazy! What the Fudge is Going On Here?

  17. Dear Carie, I like your writing on sub-prime remic. pls. send me your e-mail address to I am ill w/ lung cancer and fighting foreclosure in Fed court and in submission and I hope to remand to superior court. I believe you are right and now I need to prove to Judge, can you direct me? Pls. reply. mk

  18. It Looks Like things are Turning Around in Ohio! Way to Go!

  19. Is their a law firm in Colorado Springs that gets it

    Pat Balan

  20. @CARIE
    I know you continue to refer to the “collection rights” –and these were what was acquired by so called “servicers” such as AHMSI–NKA Homeward—now succeded by OCWEN, maybe. The servicers [actually collection agencies] acquired these interests out of the many bankrupt originator-securitization operations,

    The big banks may state that in essence, these outfits basically obtain the entire right to the home—albeit circuitously—-they accumulate large buildups of claims that basically enable them to retain the homes once seized—w/o an acctg to the bank trustee which may seem to have no more interest in the property or note than MERS.

    However, the collction rights are apparently inclusive of the right under UCC to enforce the notes–including deficiencies. there does seem to be a certain ambiguity as to what role these srvicers actually occupy.

  21. good move

  22. Scot, can you contact me?


  23. I have been an avid reader of this blog for about 3 years and was never disappointed. That is until you posted your phone number 520-405-1688. I always reach a voice message that states this is a high volume number please leave your name, phone number and a message of your situation and someone will call you in 24 hours. Well it has been 3 weeks and no call back. I gave you the benefit of the doubt so I called the number every other day for 2 weeks. I am starting to wonder if this number is just to get unsuspecting homeowners name and phone numbers for the banks. So the banks can do a skip trace and find out which homeowners do not have legal representation and use this information to determine their next move.

    Above you state “please call our customer service line at 520-405-1688. You will either be interviewed or directed to a form on line to fill out as to the status of your case and various other matters” This is not the case. I just called the number again and left my information again. There is no information regarding an online form. I never thought I would say this but you are starting to sound like all the others. All talk but no show. I hope I am not wrong. I have done my homework and I can show most anyone that their alleged lender does not own their note and tell them why.

  24. @Neil G.—I hope your buddies at that law office REALLY understand the “intricacies of securitization”—-namely this:

    Question from @iwantmynvp:

    “…Carie, please explain how I the borrower bought a junk bond? How did they sell me anything and how did I pay? If I did buy a junk bond, as the borrower, please tell me where my quarterly dividend is, and how much cash I provided. Is the GSE defaulted loan paying me the dividend?”


    “…First, borrowers did not buy junk bonds. The bonds are junk because they were derived from JUNK loans. That is, loans already charged-off by the GSEs. (there is concrete proof of this).
    Subprime refinances were not valid mortgages – they were mods of classified default/non-compliant debt, which is why the subprime “bonds” were junk.

    Borrowers are only considered as in default with GSEs, not the servicer and/or “investor,” because the servicer advanced payment to GSE and refinanced the GSE default loan (the JUNK).

    Agree that hedge funds were not duped. Anyone who actually read the prospectus to the subprime REMICs would understand that the “loans” being securitized were high risk with highly questionable compliance. Hedge funds are considered sophisticated investors – it is not good enough to say you did not read the prospectus.

    Further, the mezzanine tranches to the subprime trusts were sold FIRST to the hedge funds. These mezzanine tranches provided the credit enhancement to the higher tranches, which the banks retained themselves.

    By the nature of the structure of the REMIC itself, the mezzanine tranches were considered high risk.

    It is through these tranches that the collection rights are swapped out of the trusts.

    Thus, since the mezzanine tranches required little capital for investment, these tranches provided the hedge funds, and other distressed debt buyers, to make a nice profit by acquiring collection rights, dirt cheap, for a property they counted on eventually acquiring.

    Hedge funds are not stupid, they know a bargain when they see one. ..”

    Neil—do your lawyer friends understand that what they are dealing with is COLLECTION RIGHTS ONLY?

    If not—then they are continuing the fraud and deception.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: