Foreclosure Defense: Notes on Practice

I went to a hearing a few days ago and discovered to my surprise a Judge, in a remote section of Florida, who was fully conversant in the rules of procedure, due process and the laws of evidence. It would be improper for me to name him as I am currently counsel of record in an active case before him. The first thing that caught my attention was that in a case before me the Judge reserved ruling on an uncontested motion for summary judgment, to give himself time to review the paperwork and make sure that the paperwork was all in order. That is old style court practice.

In the 1970’s through the 1990’s that is what judges did to make sure the lawyer for the Bank had done his job properly — and that was before routine questions relating to who made the loan, whether the loan was properly originated, whether the loan was properly sold, whether the balance due was properly stated and whether there was an actual creditor who was present in court — someone who fulfilled Florida laws on the description of a creditor who could submit on credit bid at the auction.

The Judge also mentioned that he had presided over three bench trials the day before, two of which he had given judgment to the borrower because the Plaintiff had been unable to make its case. This bespeaks an understanding, knowledge, acceptance and execution of the procedural requirement of establishing a prima facie case thus shifting the burden of proof to the Defendant. And contrary to current practice in many courts, this Judge does not view his role as rubber stamping Foreclosures.

This Judge wants to see the things we have been pointing out on this blog: that if you are the Plaintiff you must prove your case according to the rules. First you must have a witness that actually knows something instead of merely reading off of a computer or a computer report. You must establish a proper foundation rather than an illusion by merely giving the appearance of proffering testimony from an incompetent witness with no knowledge of their own whose employment description consists of testifying in court. And your chain of evidence must be complete before you can be recognized as having established a prima facie case.

In the case in which I appeared the Plaintiff had filed a foreclosure against two homeowners, husband and wife, who then pro se fended off the Plaintiff with materials mostly from this blog and from other sources. But they were at the point where being a lawyer counts, knowing the content and timing of objections, filing motions to strike, motions in limine, responding to 11 th hour motions for protective order etc.

In this case their exists a legitimate question over whether the loan was subject to securitization. Originated in 1996 the loan date goes to the beginning of the era of securitization and this one didn’t have MERS, which I argue is evidence per se of securitization because there is no reason for MERS if your intent is not securitization. But 2 days after the alleged closing the loan was transferred to a player in the world of securitization. Thus the first argument is that this was obviously a table funded loan. Hence the question of where the money came from at the alleged closing table.

Adding to the above, the notice letter to the borrowers of default, acceleration and the right to reinstate suggests that the then “holder” was, in their own words “either a Servicer or lender.” So the very first piece of evidence in the file raises the issue of securitization since the party who sent the notice was not the transferee mentioned above two days after the alleged closing.

Thus questions about the origination and transfers of the loan were appropriately asked in discovery. The Judge was on the fence. Could one slip of the pen open up a whole area of discovery even with the table funded loan allegation?

But in the halls of the foreclosure mills, they had decided to file standardized pretrial statements disclosing witnesses and exhibits. So they filed a motion for protective order as to the discovery, refusing to answer the Discovery, and filed a statement that identified the witness they would use at trial 19 days later as “a corporate representative.” That is no disclosure of a witness and is subject to a motion in limine to block the introduction of any witness. The witness disclosure also attached a list of possible witnesses —37 of them, which I argued is worse than no disclosure and the Judge agreed.

Then in their list of exhibits that they will present at trial they refer to powers of attorney, pooling and servicing agreement, investors, servicer’s, sub-servicers, and all the other parties and documents used in creating the illusion of securitization.

I argued that if they filed a pretrial statement referring to all the parts of securitization of a mortgage loan, then the issues surrounding that are properly the subject of inquiry in discovery and that the 11 th hour filing of a sweeping motion for protective order and failure to respond to any discovery was in bad faith entitling us to sanctions and granting our two motions in limine. The judge agreed but removed the problem by setting the trial for February, and setting forth a schedule of deadlines and hearings a few days after the deadlines so both sides could develop their cases. The ruling was in my opinion entirely proper, even if it denied the motions in limine since he was giving both sides more time to develop their cases.

The moment the hearing ended, opposing counsel approached and was asking about settlement. I countered with a demand that his client immediately show us the chain of actual money starting with origination. He said that wouldn’t be a problem because this was definitely not a securitized loan. I told him I actually knew the parties involved and that most probably this was amongst the first group of securitized loans. I also told him that he would most likely fail in getting the proof of payment at closing, and proof of payment in each of the alleged transfers of the loan.

We’ll see what happens next but I would guess that there will be a lot of wrestling over discovery and more motions in limine. But this time I have a Judge who no matter his personal views that are most likely very conservative, will dispassionately call balls and strikes the way a judge is supposed to do it.

28 Responses

  1. JD (John in Rutland). Sorry, looks like i gave you the wrong email address a couple days ago. It included an “A” before the @ sign. correct email address is GRG2615@GMAIL.COM

  2. John…pls contact me via private email. I get to Rutland frequently and have relatives there. I’d like to discuss your case with you.

  3. john…email me privately

  4. In my case, the judge is interested in finding out more about MERS. He seems to “get it judging by his previous ruling (Johnston v. MERS). In the bank’s latest filing, they state my loan was never put into a REMIC trust. Does that mean it was never securitized? Of course, they claim to hold the note and mortgage (which was assigned form MERS, and the “investor” is Freddie Mac according to the SEC site). I’d like to hit them hard, but I need to know if my loan was securitized.

    Any “general” information would be greatly appreciated. My understanding is that Waiting for the ruling on the bank’s MSJ. We’ve already exchanges numerous responses back and forth.

    John (VT, judicial)

  5. @E ToLLe – thank you for that timeless practice tip in this topic. /sarc

  6. It all boils down to one simple fact:

    Those in power will not change their stance (and we give them that ability due to our obedience), whether that be administrations (dem or rep) DOJ, FBI, AG, or thousands of judges across the land….they will not cause the enforcement of age old black letter law, that of showing proper chain of title and holder status before foreclosure. Because to do so would destroy their heist. It’s pure Kabuki.

    Everything else is simply sleight of hand.

  7. Elex,

    Even if i don’t get all the technicalities, (and i don’t. If I had wanted to study murky money, I would have studied it. Not my passion) we’ve come a long way. Go back to 6 years and look at the situation today. 6 years ago, any bank could pretty much come after any homeowner by way of MERS. And the reaction was always the same: irresponsible homeowners bought too much house. And if flew in every court. No one had any idea about the incestuous relationships between all the parties involved.

    No longer the case. That was my point.

  8. I mean what large entities,succinctly, get charged by the fed is (or was) called prime. The determination of “par” starts at prime and then there’s a bunch of add ons, some of which is profit, which is normally to be expected.

  9. They have to fork over trial exhibits, not just a list of them, X days before trial. If they don’t, I doubt they’re admissable at trial. They won’t be able to produce anyone who can authenticate the note (betcha) or its endorsements (which is why if we don’t know the rules of evidence, esp business records exceptions to hearsay can and can’ts, we’re toast, and remember – those objections have to be made with stinking particularity), so what I’d do (lay person mind you) is know those rules and then list the borrowers as witnesses in my own trial statement and then don’t produce them at trial, and then I’d also be ready to argue against their verbal for continuance at trial.

    Me, too, Bob. I’d like to know how they moved money that fast for
    8,000 loans. What? They sold them each time at par and at the face amts of the notes? (even to just sell them at par, someone had to come up with an average note rate for those 8000 loans) No stinking way. Or maybe they did as to the part about selling them at the face amt and the banksters along the way just sorta’ kept the payment made during this time, which ultimately shorts the trust (and or the borrower) and is one more reason to suspect the default figures (besides the svcr advances / guarantee payments).

    For anyone interested, here is what “par” means:

    If I have a note for 100k (say no payments made yet, brand new – this morning) and I sell it to you for 100k, that is “par”, or 100%. If I sell it to you for $101,000, that is par + 1, or 101. If I sell it to you for 98k, that is par -2, or 98.

    If you want a loan for 5 1/2 when “par” is six, you have to pay points so the lender gets par. It’s all about par (100). Over par, under par, but par. (Par, to my understanding, is determined by the rate charged
    to lenders by the fed and it depends on how long the loan is. But par is not the same on the street – it’s higher than what lenders (or any entity which borrows from the fed) are charged or no one would make any money. I think what borrower’s get charged by the fed is called prime – I forget, and bad memory notwithstanding, I think adjustables loans used to be tied to prime, not libor – dang).

    5 1/2 % + (say) 2 pts = par (here six). If a borrower takes 6 when 6 is par, unless loan officer or company wants more dough, no points (just origination fee, etc). Competition used to keep a ceiling on points and rates on the street – that was before sub-prime when things got nuts, including ridiculous margins at 5 or more (!) over some index (like libor on teaser arms).

    Notes in trusts bear any number of interest rates, some fixed, some
    not. Every single day those notes accrue interest and on a billion dollar, say, collection of notes, that is a lot of money – a ton. When loans are sold, there has to be an accounting, a reckoning, of what is the earned interest outstanding on the notes, and that amt has to be accounted for in the sales-math.

    If payments have been made on the notes, the (any – every dime) amt of principle reduction has to be be applied, even if it’s five dollars. If it isn’t, not only is the first figure wrong, but every single entry on that loan is wrong after that. Now add to this that each of those tons of loans wasn’t made on the same day; the interest, at different rates, will accrue differently. So that is a S- load of reckoning to be done on these loans when they’re moved. Think there’s any chance those loans reflect correct numbers? I don’t. But more the point is, how’d they do it?

    Even if they said, okay, we’ll all say the average rate of this collection is 5.2% for the purpose of determining what is called a “strike price” (the sale price expressed relative to par generally), it first of all wouldn’t uncomplicate the accrued interest or paid in principle issues. A computer may only calculate what is entered and obviously, it can’t calculate what isn’t entered. Banksters can’t “average” note rates to calculate individual
    figures on notes. Just can’t. They maybe can to sell them, but NOT
    to make entries into the records on the borrower’s account.

    A strike price relates to par. It’s the yard stick which determines a sale price. I don’t know how they determine a strike price for a thousand or two loans, but I know it’s complicated when origination dates and interest rates the notes bear are widely variable, and I don’t believe notes which were allegedly transferred as fast as these had to could possibly reflect accurate figures (not to mention “bob’s 8000 x 3 endorsements”. Another fact in play is that the cost of money changes (or can change) by the minute. That means that once strike prices are determined, time becomes of the essence hugely in moving the loans. Once a strike price and delivery date are determined, there is generally a penalty for non-delivery by that date. That wouldn’t apply to the trusts, I’d say, because they have to have specific performance: delivery by the cut off date.

    I don’t know if I did such a good job, but I’m trying to explain the
    enormity of the issues in multiple transfers of large masses of loans in a short period of time.

  10. @Christine – WTFrack? The trustee for a deed of trust loan only gets reimbursed for the costs of the sale. They have to pass the bulk of the proceeds of a trustee sale to the beneficiary. Especially in CA, where trustees typically file a motion for non-monetary status if listed as a party to the action.

    Your entire post in response to mine is total gibberish.

  11. Dear Mr. Garfield,

    First of all, I’d like thank you for your effort to help expose the fraud and educating readers about banking, legal, and the financial industry.

    The reason I am writing, I have been following your blogspot for some time now, and thought I should contribute some of my experiences.

    I am a victim of banking fraud and intentional tort by parties who wish to extort money and property, from me, using deceptive and illegal tactics along with criminal acts on many levels.

    One of the many criminal acts the pretender lender has resorted to is attaching a fake copy of a note with signatures of my name and my initials. I know my signatures and initials are forged because my copy of the note and the note held by the title company, the signatures and initials are completely different on the note. I reported to the title company the fake documents, they instantly put a block on my file to prevent anyone from ordering a copy of the closing documents without a subpeona from the court.

    I am representing myself, pro se, in Cook County Illinois Court. I showed the main attorney (there are 3 now), in open court, my copy of the note signed that very day at closing. He says there is an issue but they continue to harass and pursue the lawsuit against me. It’s been 16 months. I have been working on discovery to corner the crooks. The 3 lawyers from different firms representing plaintiff, all are trying to intimidate me. No worries though, I have been holding up strong because I know the truth!

    Some of the obvious issues with the complaint:

    forged signatures and initials on note;
    interest rate cap on mortgage loan does not match the interest rate cap on note;
    certain information on both mortgage loan and note have been redacted;
    the endorcement on the note has been altered to reflect a different bank;
    the name by the signor on the endorcement, to transfer instrument, is unreadable;
    a correspondence between the purported servicer and me states, the note was sold to a securized trust — however— before the note was endorced by the successor-in-interest thru receivership of the failed bank;
    the corresponce stating the note was sold to a securitized trust states a different entity name than the plaintiff bringing the complaint to foreclose;
    No date when the proported trustee acquired the alleged loan;
    No assignment showing trustee is successor-in-interest of predessor trustee for the trust;
    The bank that originated my note and mortgage did not exist in legal name.
    Flagrant Tax Fraud.
    Lies, lies, and more lies.

    And that’s just the tip of the iceberg!!!

    Recently, I participated in a discovery conference with the main attorney. The documents plaintiff has attached in its responses are unredacted and supposedly copies of originals (true and correct). On that same day, after conference call, I served a Request to Admit Facts on plaintiff. I’ll soon have more solid evidence, exposing the attorneys representing plaintiff, too, lack credibility.

    Prior to the ‘RTAF’ on plaintiff, I filed a 23-page brief in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion to strike my affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The judge ordered it is taking the motion under advisement (stating the case was too complicated) and will get back to us in 30 days with a ruling.

    Neil, I don’t know if there is a case with more blantant fraudulent and criminal activity than my case.

    On behalf of everyone, thanks again for being so dedicated to the fight against the banksters and cronyism.

  12. Come to think of it, in that respect Garfield has served a hell of a purpose: he encouraged homeowners to bring all the issues to the forefront.

    The picture has been drawn about what had been planned and is collapsing, thanks to courageous homeowners who dared speak up. Individually, people may feel that they lost. Collectively, they’ve accomplished what government refused to address. That’s huge.

  13. elexquisitor,

    All the questions you ask suppose that there was a game plan based on the existing laws and banks tried to circumvent them but still considered them.

    Ask the question differently and see where we get…

    “Why are there so many cases where the trustee is assigned after the notice of default is filed?”

    1) Because, originally, the trustees were not supposed to be in the game. Homeowners started asking questions about trustees. Judges started asking the same questions (we can’t fault judges for lacking imagination but… they do. They took the system for granted and ruled on cased based on the assumption that banks were on the up and up).
    2) Because the original idea was to make a run for the money by taking the house to strictly allow banks to make a profit. Trustees were never, ever expected to recoup anything. Once homeowners and judges started to ask about the trustees, banks had to bring them in.
    3) Foreclosures were easy before 1) and 2). No one asked the right questions. Afterwards, banks still foreclosed and brought in the trustees by forging the docs (to quiet the inquisitive minds) but made absolutely sure that no money could ever go back to the trustees, by inflating the foreclosure costs as high as they could and underselling the houses. Banks never made a profit from the sale because they knew if they did, they had to repay someone (trustee). They never planned on that.

    It is high time people looked at the real picture. No one, except the banks, was ever supposed to be left with one cent. Investors were supposed to lose everything they had, trusts were supposed to be emptied of everything and homeowners were supposed to be squeezed out of everything they had ever earned.

    It almost worked…

  14. The lights went on for me yesterday as I considered my case.
    Ques: Why are there so many cases where the trustee is assigned after the notice of default is filed?

    Ans: to game the recorded title by placing an obvious cloud on the title before the trustee sale. This is meant to keep the bids at a minimum and increase chance ‘credit bid’ will take the property at auction at less than market price. Due to the courts legislating from the bench in CA, assignments of DOT loans don’t have to be recorded (as they are not even ‘other encumbrances’). This is not common knowledge to the public. Sure, TILA requires the banksters to notify borrower of change of beneficiary, but that does not get reflected in the publicly-accessible records (as if it ever occurs in the first place). It also is being used as an preemptive argument to nullify state consumer protections laws. And the effects are well-hidden by the number of homes that are ‘under water’.

    Now I understand why my intuition had me include the trustee in the case (and they are trying to squirm out of the appeal) – false filing is a felony in CA, with a $75k fine and 2 – years prison. A pattern of such acts ups the punitive damages, and the LPS connection allows a cause of action for conspiracy by all the parties involved. My burning question is whether a judge that hears such a case and rules against the borrower is an accessory after the fact of conspiracy to defraud, grand theft, and felony false filing. Good thing they have judicial immunity.

    Isn’t it about time to break out the heavy weapons?.After all, JP Morgan has net income of approx. $1B / month, so a $330m loss this past quarter means they have dumped up to $3.3B into the coffers of the BAR associations of the several states, on top of the $11B over the past decade or less..

  15. Bob G.,

    Do you see a paranoid schizophrenic pattern there?

  16. “But 2 days after the alleged closing the loan was transferred to a player in the world of securitization.”

    My alleged loan appears was ‘securitized’ 1-day prior to closing with a ‘ghost lender’ (found out 3 years after date of alleged loan refinance). The ‘Loan Approval Summary’, indicates a different lender than the lender on the loan, that very day at closing.

    Any thoughts on the matter?

    My case is still pending in the court.


    US banks no longer ‘too big to fail’, says Tucker
    America’s biggest banks are now in a position to go bust without state intervention, the Bank of England’s deputy governor declares

    The deputy governor of the Bank of England has declared an end to the era of taxpayer bail-outs for the world’s giant lenders.

    Almost five years to the day since the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggered the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, Paul Tucker claimed that America’s biggest banks are now in a position to go bust without state intervention.

    Britain and the rest of Europe are “not far behind” but draft laws still need to be ratified. In future, the cost of a bank bail out will be borne by its investors rather than nurses and teachers, Mr Tucker said.

    Five years ago this month, Britain rescued its biggest lenders with a series of cash injections and state guarantees worth a total of more than £1 trillion at the peak of the crisis.

    Some £65bn was ploughed directly into Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group to ensure Britain’s payment systems stayed open and the country’s vital financial infrastructure continued to work.

  18. I think it is realistic to say that it will get worse before it gets better. That’s the nature of the beast: as judges are slowly coming to their senses, so are the banks. They are realizing that their days running the world are counted. They’ll made a mad dash for it before being taken over. And i bet all the CEOs and such, who made enormous amounts of money preying on defenseless homeowners, will scramble to find a place where to take it somewhere where it can’t be confiscated. Except that they are running out of those somewhere…

    What, with ICIJ pocking their noses in all the offshore paradises.

    Now is the time to become extra, extra vigilant. Banks will get much worse. It is turning nastier than ever.

    Tuesday, Sep 24, 2013 10:45 AM EST

    Banks find appalling new way to cheat homeowners
    So much for the National Mortgage Settlement. Homeowners are now getting foreclosed on without their knowledge!

    By David Dayen

    A few months ago, Ceith and Louise Sinclair of Altadena, California, were told that their home had been sold. It was the first time they’d heard that it was for sale.

    Their mortgage servicer, Nationstar, foreclosed on them without their knowledge, and sold the house to an investment company. If it wasn’t for the Sinclairs going to a local ABC affiliate and describing their horror story, they would have been thrown out on the street, despite never missing a mortgage payment. It’s impossible to know how many homeowners who didn’t get the media to pick up their tale have dealt with a similar catastrophe, and eventually lost their home.

    As finance writer Barry Ritholtz has explained, home purchases involve a series of precise safeguards, designed to protect property rights and prevent situations where borrowers who are perfect on their payments get evicted. “In a nation of laws, contract and property rights, there is no room for errors,” Ritholtz writes. “The only way these errors could have occurred is if several people involved in the process committed criminal fraud.”

    Any observer of the mortgage industry since 2009 is no stranger to foreclosure fraud, and the fact that virtually nobody has paid the price for this crime. But the case of the Sinclairs involves a new player in that rotten game: Nationstar. Unheralded just a few years ago, the firm, owned by a private equity behemoth, has been buying up the rights to service mortgages, accepting monthly payments and distributing the proceeds to the owners of the loan, taking a little off the top for itself.

    Nationstar has racked up an impressively horrible customer service record in its short life, failing to honor prior agreements with borrowers and pursuing illegal foreclosures. The fact that Nationstar and other corrupt companies like it are beginning to corner the market for mortgage servicing should trouble not only homeowners, but the regulators tasked with looking out for them. It didn’t seem possible that a broken mortgage servicing industry could get worse, but it has.

  19. John Gault
    When I was in Federal Court I was very familiar with all the details of making and creating money. Much time has passed and i am wrapped up in a different aspect of why I am still fighting for possession of my two condos.

    It was while i was in Federal Court that a New york State Court judge signed two judgments of foreclosure without jurisdiction making those judgments void ab initio -a nullity as as if they never happened and without latches not toast like Christine says. Judge Schlesinger was brought into this case when i filed two orders to show cause why these two void ab initio judgments should not be marked vacated = however pursuant to the US Supreme Court case of Elliot v. Piersol even prior to Judge Schlesinger marking them void they are Void.

    More judges are starting to uphold the Constitution.

  20. I know… It’s only ME. But to read that Tom Cox got 3 out of 3 is heartwarming. And to read that it isn’t about securitization or lack thereof but something much, much more mundane, like… keeping good records of any interaction with the bank, tells me that common sense will prevail over “expertise”. Judges are common sense people. Bring the documentation of the ordeal you were put through. Talk in simple terms, about simple issues. Stick to the matter at hand.

    3 out of 3 Dismissed WITH Prejudice! Tom Cox for the Homeowner – A Mandelman Matters Podcast

    “I have never gotten, or come close to getting, a free house except in cases like these where we are encountering bad faith loan servicing antics by the servicers. We are educating our judges and they are getting tired of the servicers’ games.

    In all three of these cases, the homeowners kept excellent records of their dealings with the servicers and of the servicers’ abuses.”

  21. Your Right – ii all depends on the judge you get if i had had Judge Arthur Schack, i would have been in my condos years back Bob G said after speaking to judge Schlesingers’s law clerk, that Judge Schlesinger was calling me into her chambers again soon, maybe Bob G does.’t even know her. So I have to just continue on my way fighting for my two condos and the United States Constitution. .

  22. This is a very interesting read, especially if you want to know what servicers/sub-servicers/and special servicers are told to consider:

  23. Neil ,


    I would also like to help out with your :

    If you can give me an hour and a referral in the Orlando area I can come up with a good sum in a few quick months to jumpstart that…

    you know my e:mail…

  24. Did not know we had to the year 2030 to solve this crap, as one case at a time is one case at a time, and how much time after 5yrs and Florida fell into the black hole of foreclosures is it going to take to get 10% of the Judges to understand the law. Were else in life do the people who are the experts not know their craft. I am just saying that waiting for attorney and judges to understand what the Federal Government already paid out a $18 million to a whistleblower for should override any claims by the banks in those settlements of ownership of the debts!

  25. Glad to hear Neil is making progress, but I noticed what Trespass Unwanted noticed—THE JUDGE MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE. If you have a corrupt judge, you might as well not waste your time, as Neil has pointed out here. A lot of us (I dare say MOST of us) have encountered these corrupt judges and have been shut down, no matter the merits of our cases. In fact, most of the country has encountered these corrupt judges, otherwise this manufactured “foreclosure crisis” would have been nipped in the bud long, long ago. And to be fair to Neil, this article IS admitting that the judge in this case is the only reason any of Neil’s arguments are getting any traction. Hopefully that judge doesn’t…ahem…slip and fall or anything like that.

    And I totally agree with Bob G—the people that need to be deposed regarding the supposed endorsements on these notes are not the nominal endorsers (i.e., the people whose names are on the alleged rubber stamps they allegedly use when they allegedly endorse the alleged notes), but the low-level minions who are actually allegedly doing the alleged endorsements. The reason for that is because those minions are the ONLY people who would have actually have the legally-required “personal knowledge” of whether a particular note was endorsed or not. Excellent point, Bob G. Here’s an article along those same lines:

  26. I wish I had that judge.
    I pointed out so much wrong with the Plaintiff’s case which was began with no assignment, not named on the DOT, and moved to the DOT not giving powers to appoint a Substitute Trustee when the original trustee is still available to deal with the situation, I showed how the substitute filed an acceleration and then filed to become a substitute Trustee, (backwards on all accounts, which meant “if they had standing” they’d have had to refile the notice of acceleration because it specifically stated they were the substitute trustee and had the power to accelerate the note, when by their own filing they gave themselves he power over a week later). Not to mention the documents signed ‘to the best of my knowledge’ by any of the six assigned to steal. Each one didn’t file the entire paperwork, yet each one filed a piece of it stating ‘to the best of my knowledge’ on the piece that they filed, then there is the purported power of attorney that was from the pretender to them where no one signed it but it was notarized and put in the case as if the transfer had taken place. There was so much bad paperwork and bad claims it was pathetic. They took a computer printout of payments and showed payments to their entity from the beginning of the year, when by SEC filings they didn’t have access to the accounts until November of that year. They were on two of three credit reports using the same account number and the trustee didn’t claim them as the replacement lender. A letter from him stated he’d transfer the title to the entity that had both the note and an interest secured in the property, and then he put, you state it is PNC. I replied I didn’t state it was anyone, and do not give their substitute trustee my title to give to PNC, they do not have the note nor an interest secured in the property, they were not even appointed by the trustee as per the instructions on the DOT. I got a phone call from a woman in the office of the trustee and she said, ‘their client is our client too.”
    With no beneficiary, people ran roughshod over my DOT and took my property.

    Sure wish I had a judge like that, who knows better than to seal (by his signature) a bad case with an order to steal.

    Those bank attorneys would walk away grinning knowing they had given the judge the spiritual equivalent of a one way trip to hell for sealing an order to steal property with all the evidence filed by the attorney showing that’s they had no true claim, but were hired to file a lawsuit to steal, and they did as they were hired to do.

    There is an abundance of land and property. They didn’t need to take ours, but they got our sweat equity to build it, our sweat equity to keep it maintained and in good condition for living, and our labor to pay for it after it was paid for with our credit and insurance and a free home to sell again, and again, and again.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, People, State, in Jure Proprio, Jure Divino.

  27. An anonymous party for the moment:

    If you know of someone who has $250,000 to invest or just be able to show “proof of funds”, I know of a program where if someone deposits the $250,000 with JPMorgan Chase & Co. within about a month they can get a loan of $2,500,000 and invest in a program where the $2,500,000 will generate profits of 4-5 times their investment within about one year.

    I have just been introduced to a program where if someone comes up with $250,000 and deposits it in an escrow account with JPMorgan Chase & Co. they will be given a loan of $2,500,000 plus the return of their $250,000. They pay 5% interest on the loan and they have to pay it back over 5 years. (The way this program works is that the minimum they come up with has to be $250,000 but if they come up with any figure, they can get a loan for 10 times the amount they have so if they could come up with $1M, they could get a loan for $10M.) I can see someone starting out with $250,000 and ending up with $10,000,000 to $12,500,000 and then doing it all over again many times.

    They have to show a business plan or an executive summary of what they are going to do with the $2,500,000 to prove that they will have the ability to pay back the loan. Fortunately for me, I just happen to know of a program where if you invest $2,500,000 in a litigation funding program that revolves around buying debt or, in this case, pending lawsuits against appraisers who have done something wrong and their E&O insurance will pay anyone suing them money rather than go to court and there are enough of these cases so anyone who puts up $2,500,000 can expect to get back $10,000,000 to $12,500,000 in out of court settlements. I know about this program because I found someone who actually put up $2,500,000 and they are now in the process of getting back money from the settlements. This is an easy sell but it is going to be an easier sell for me to come up with now, not with someone who has $2,500,000 to get into the program but someone who has $250,000 to get into the program. If you check it out, the $250,000 is never ever really at risk and it is even returned to the investor from an escrow account when they get their loan for $2,500,000!

    Get back to me if you can introduce any likely candidates to me who may be interested in learning more about this program. I would work out a deal with them that when they end up putting $250,000 in a bank escrow account to get the loan of $2,500,000 and then invest the $2,500,000 in a program I would introduce them to where they would end up earning 4-5 times their investment, they would agree to pay me a small percent of what they get back from investing in my referral program. The fee would be, 2%, and if they earned $10M to $12,5M, they would pay me $200,000 to $250,000 every time the would earn money for investing $2,500,000 which could be done over and over again until the program ran out of pending lawsuits to purchase.

    Interesting stuff! And there’s more…but for the moment, until I validate this, all should know what’s going on.

  28. Here’s something to think about regarding discovery requests: Assume that you’re dealing with an RMBS trust with 8,000 loans allegedly in it at origination. The Originators (mortgage brokers) notes have to be negotiated to the Sponsor, and then the Sponsor must negotiate them to the Depositor, who then must negotiate them to the Trustee.

    Now think about this for a moment. Who is the guy at the Sponsor and who is the guy at the Depositor who has the authority and time to review 8,000 loan files, and then to sign his name 8,000 times on the mortgage notes so that they can be negotiated to the next player in the chain?

    I would like to depose that guy.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: