It is axiomatic that if you borrow money, you must pay it back, which is why most borrowers don’t fight foreclosures and most judges consider the defenses of borrowers a waste of time. The people who think that are half right. Foreclosures are a colossal waste of time – but for the opposite reason that is thought to be axiomatically true — there was a legitimate loan, properly documented, sold and then foreclosed by the owner of the loan. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The logjam in the Court is self-imposed by a judiciary that refuses to follow its own rules — especially requirements of pleading that the loan was made by the originator and proving that the actual sales of the loan occurred as set forth in the PSA. In most cases the loan was NOT made by the originator, which is why dubbed them pretender lenders 6 years ago. No loan? Then the note and mortgage mean nothing. No injury? Then the foreclosure is void from the outset because the court lacked jurisdiction.

Mark Stopa, Esq., an innovative litigator in foreclosure defense, has expressed here (see link below) the frustration and disgust and yes, contempt for the Courts that has been expressed in private by attorneys on both sides. Judges are irritable because of the backlog of cases. But instead of looking at the root cause of the problems — namely bad rulings — the legislature and the Bench are essentially blaming the victims of the greatest economic crime in human history.
The Judges are irritable because they have married themselves to a failed group of assumptions and continue to issue rulings inconsistent with due process and the realities of loans subject to claims of securitization. This is turning into a body of law that will allow a convicted felon for economic crimes to commit a variety of acts for which he can argue are not punishable.
Using the assumptions of many judges on the bench, anyone can initiate a foreclosure on a home claiming to be the Servicer and claiming some vague authority to represent the lender. You don’t need to allege that you loaned any money. You don’t need to allege that you bought the loan. You just need a copy of the recorded mortgage and allege a lost note. Fabricating the lost note for copying is easy using photoshop. You allege a date when the borrower stopped paying, demand judgment and poof, it is awarded and a sale date is set.
At the auction, as the party to whom judgment was awarded, you submit a credit bid (no cash) and a deed is issued to you on foreclosure that is hard to attack. If history is any example, most of your cases will be entered by default, because the homeowner knows they stopped paying, but didn’t know he was paying the wrong party and didn’t know that his identity was stolen when the loan was originated.
The result is a free house for anyone who wants one.
If the Bench wants to be less irritable, and far less back logged, then all they need todo is to establish a threshold that eliminates the cries of foul from the homeowners. Foreclosure defense was never a specialty before. The reason it is now is that there are real defenses, including third party payment, that never existed before.
If the Bench was to require the forecloser to produce an affidavit and copies of the money trail, and if the Bench were to follow the most commonplace rules of pleading, there would be no backlog because there would be no Foreclosures.
How did pleading requirements evolve such that no loan need be alleged? Really? You can sue to collect on the note without pleading that the loan (i.e. actual advance of money from THAT lender) stated in the note actually happened? How did pleading evolve such that the foreclosing party does not have to plead and prove economic injury? Really? Hasn’t it been well settled for centuries that the court has no advisory role? Isn’t it true that no court has jurisdiction over a controversy in which neither party alleges injury or financial damage?
The entire foreclosure season, extending over 7 years and expected to last another 7 years, was manufactured by lies, fraud upon the court by foreclosers. The Banks relied on the fact that the Bench would react by grouping all the foreclosure victims as deadbeats “You didn’t make the payments. What do you expect? A free house?”
Instead of taking each case and requiring compliance with standard rules of pleading and proof, the Courts allow deviant legal practices that have clogged the courts with hundreds of thousands of homeowners who correctly proclaimed they were being victimized but who were blocked by the Judge from obtaining discovery that would have proven their case.

I intend to do something about that. And I must say that my experience so far is that Judges will listen if you are not shy. They may not agree with me yet, but they are allowing me to proceed to show the failure of consideration, the defects in the chain, and the absence of injury. And let’s face it, part of the problem is poor preparation that produces timid argument from attorneys. Lawyers would do well to follow the examples set by Weidner and Stopa.

Foreclosure Court: The Erosion of the Judiciary by Mark Stopa, Esq.

Yang vs. Sebastion Lakes 4th DCA Florida

Requirement of Pleading Injury

15 Responses

  1. It’s provable Raw, but most homeowners don’t know how to do it themselves, and most attorneys either don’t know how to do it as well, or refuse to do it! These judges know it, but do not want to step out of line and refuse to hand over the property of the American People to the banksters for fear of retaliation. Follow the money!

  2. Issues of standing and holder in due course has been litigated for the past 7 years…did we make a dent?? No sir..We all been coming here and applauding on few cases that are won here and there without making a dent in the overall fraud as we claim happened. How about trying something else? How about going after Contract Law..The paper we all signed seem to be universal…Is there any breach of contract we can discuss and go after…We all know the fraud happened but we can’t prove it in Court…What’s up with that??

  3. Charles Reed,

    You’re looking at it from the wrong angle. A very limiting, narrow angle of American laws applying to the American people, in a very insular and isolated geography. Expand and learn what has been going on worldwide since WWII. Don’t even go back that far: NAFTA. If you were human, that NAFTA thing poked you in the pit of your guts. Your mother’s teaching told you, silently: I don’t feel comfortable with it. NAFTA was halfway through today’s state of affairs.

    Ginnie, Freddie, Fannie, FDIC, the whole shebang means nothing in itself. MERS means nothing. Do you remember when people used to say: “You can’t fight City Hall”? Today’s City Hall goes far beyond your town or your country. Judges are torn between City Hall and a big picture they can’t comprehend but are damn sure their career and retirement depend on. It’s big. It’s huge. All you can do is buy enough time to own your frickin’ house and retire peacefully. The new system will NOT allow you to ever hand it down to your kids. Different paradigm.

    What do you want? Peace until you die or a lifelong fight you can’t win? Nobody is going to tell you what’s in store. Make your store and decide for yourself. I, for one, don’t give a shit about the house. I sure want enough money to realize what I always wanted to. Different paradigm. The past is gone for good. It ain’t coming back.

  4. Maybe I am missing as these a felonies committed so why cannot the case be brought into the Federal System as a forgery and stolen property at a value of what the house value was.

    Look I am telling you that any and every FHA. VA or USDA loan foreclosed falls into what Neil is saying because they all go in one way and come out the same way.

    Ginnie Mae calling the shot when these loans were to be modified but because as the are in physical possession of the Notes that have been signed endorsed in blank (all the exact same manner), but best to expose the flaw in the transactions is Washington Mutual Bank, IndyMac & Countrywide FHA, VA or USDA loans because these loans could not have been sold as they were in the pools and shut down of the banks or the shady deal with BOA with Countrywide.

    Understand that once that Note in blank form is relinquish to Ginnie Mae it going to be recorded in Ginnie Mae and there inquiry pool/LPN and MERS Milestones report sheet as they tell the date the security instruments are transferred to Ginnie Mae showing the relinquish date that is initiated through ginnieNET by Ginnie Mae informing the lenders to transfer ownership as they see it. The lender then input Ginnie Mae into the investor position in MERS with the Transfer Beneficial Rights-Option 1.

    I am not a lawyer as you can tell but I know Ginnie Mae system of pooling as far as entering and existing the pools better than anybody in the world because no one else outside of Ginnie Mae but me knows anything about what they think is a program that can do anything it wants.

    Just s Neil is saying that the judges were allow foreclosures because they knew a loan was made, and borrowers knew they were behind on payments and the rest just did not matter. Well on a VA or FHA it just assumed that the Federal Government owns the loan even with no recording of a lien.

    Szymoniak was awarded her money quickly because it exposes a great fraud, so stop the complaint they agreed to only 92,735 loans but even with DocX there is a million forged assignment and other mortgage documents. So what program been establish that return all the Linda Green forged assignment or the greater forgeries in MERS related cases.

    The FHA alone had $70 billion in loan losses, so you do the math. Sen Warren ask Holder to answer her by the end of Sept, but you don’t ask a public question too someone if you don’t already know the answer. That she put the liability that the bank owe the Federal Government at $37 billion from 2008-2010 is addressing the FHA losses!

    The money is in the government insured loans right now because there is no hiding how the singular system works and your not tracking through 5-10 other lenders but only one that place the loan into the system!

  5. “…Agents were generally arrangers and underwriting banks. Structured finance issuers are legal fictions that exist solely for purposes of registration in domiciles such as the Cayman Islands. With respect to structured finance, the “issuer-pay” model is more properly termed the “arranger-pays-with-issuer-money” model….

    Anyone here able to explain the “arranger-pays-with-issuer-money-model”?

    This is from a letter from a guy whom as I get it was looking at how the rating agency’s came up with their ratings, for one. He opines they did so using an antiquated system. But even an antiquated system doesn’t account for writing the letter “A” when knowing one should be writing “C” or “F”. And no one wearing orange – again!

    Here’s the letter:

  6. @swarnthebanks All notes/mortgages have a clause wherein you agree that the note/mortgage may be sold or transferred at any time. The real issue is the manner in which notes were sold into securitization. Still, almost all judges are willing to accept a simple statement by the foreclosing party that they lawfully “own or hold” the note. They are apparently not required to prove it.

  7. Different courts act in different ways regarding foreclosures. My judge does not even think I should have a clear title to my own property.

  8. made a grammatical error….How the powers that be strayed from the tenet that the loan originator would desire to NOT get out of the loan should be investigated and exposed.

  9. What didn’t get mentioned is if the homeowner kept making payments, even to the wrong entity, there would probably be no foreclosure and the judge would most likely consider those payments as valid since they show honest intent.

    What also didn’t get mentioned is “change in terms”. My non professional opinion is that any change in terms from the original mortgage agreement is probably the best defense for anyone who got behind in their payments or is facing a false or real foreclosure, because the homeowner facing the loss of their home probably did not agree to a change in terms/ownership of the loan.

    And in theory and perhaps fact, the originator of the original loan probably has the best motivation to keep the homeowner in the home, or should, and therefore be the most flexible in helping the homeowner stay in the home.

    How the powers that be strayed from the tenet that the loan originator would desire to get out of the loan should be investigated and exposed.

    Flipping mortgages should be illegal, plain and simple.

  10. No harm works in a judicial state, but how can this be pled in a non-judicial state where one is trying to stop a sale with the causes available in a non-judicial foreclosure state?

  11. It’s all irrelevant if judges across the country are willing to accept the blanket assertion that “the holder in due course of the note” has legal standing to foreclose – even or especially if the note is endorsed in black without recourse.

  12. “The entire foreclosure season, extending over 7 years and expected to last another 7 years [sic]”

    Do you know something we don’t? What is that affirmation based upon?

  13. I agree with it all …… but the credit bid farce is what I am most interested in right now.

  14. GREAT and so nice to see this explained so well Neil! Thanks Neil!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: