I’m back. Read my last post and for that matter give a look at some of the other things Matt Weidner has written. Just me tonight. No Guest. But we are adding question and answer to the show, from now on.
Tonight we will discuss different strategies for confronting the lies and the incompetency (legally speaking as well as literally) of foreclosing parties and their witnesses (“Corporate Representatives”) at trial. I am told that some of my colleagues are giving up motion practice altogether and going straight for the jugular at trial with some success. I will tell you why that strategy is succeeding and how to undermine the credibility of the testimony and documents at trial with a great record on appeal. But I still believe that it will strengthen your case to aggressively pursue discovery.
Introducing the latest strategy: Call the bluff of the forecloser. This could be fun!
Tune in. I’ll be answering questions tonight. Remember this is not legal advice on any particular case and is NEVER to be taken as a substitute for advice from a lawyer licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located.
Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show
Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Thursdays
Filed under: foreclosure |
Max Gardner has a list of items that you should look for which would probably indicate fraud. One of them is “The assignment is executed by a party who claims to be an “attorney in fact” for the signor.” One of my recently created bogus assignments has the exact same thing. Can someone explain to me the significance of this and what would make this fraudulent? jsmith5915@msn.com or 443 677 2799.
PICK-A-PARTY — BOA – RED OAK – Countrywide Merger Revealed in all its “Glory”
Posted on March 3, 2014 by Neil Garfield
Maybe now I will get something other than a blank look when I referred to anomalies in what appears to be the merger of Bank of America with Countrywide. For about 18 months now I have been saying that there is something wrong with that report, because the documents in the public domain show two things, to wit: first, that BAC was merely a name change for Countrywide; and second, it appears to be a merger between Red Oak Merger Corp. and Countrywide. My conclusion was that Bank of America was claiming what it wanted depending upon the circumstances and disregarding the actual transactions. In fact, in various court actions ranging from foreclosures to investor and insurer lawsuits over bogus mortgage bonds, Bank of America was submitting documents referring to agreements that referred to fictional transactions.
This behavior should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the actions and statements of the major banks throughout the financial crisis. The various positions asserted by Bank of America in court actions around the country contradict each other and are obviously intended to mislead the court. It is for that reason that I have maintained the position that any benefit claimed by Bank of America by virtue of its alleged merger with Countrywide should be tested thoroughly in discovery. Lawyers, judges and borrowers should stop assuming that if the bank says something it must be true. My position is that if a bank says something it probably is not true or it is misleading or both.
This is not merely some technical objection. This issue runs to the heart of our title system. There are many of us who are sending up warning flares. Judges, attorneys, title agents, and other experts have examined this issue and concluded that we are headed for a crash of the recording system that will undermine the title and priority of owners and lenders.
Thanks to one of my readers, I obtained the following quote and link which requires substantial study and analysis to see how this will impact any case in which your opposition is Bank of America.
BAC is not just a “shareholder” of
Countrywide, as it argued to the Court at the outset of the case.
see MBIA Presentation on PowerPoint
Then from Charles Koppa on the idiotic practice of allowing a controlled company or subsidiary be substituted for the trustee on the deed of trust on record — namely in this case Bank of America (AGAIN) who owns and controls Recontrust. SO in this case, like nearly all of the non-judicial situations, pick-a-party: the beneficiary on the deed of trust vanishes and is replaced with a “new beneficiary” by fiat more than anything in fact. Then the new beneficiary effectively names itself as the new trustee on the deed of trust. THIS PRACTICE SHOULD BE CHALLENGED AND NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO DO IT. THE COURTS ARE GETTING WISE TO THESE ANTICS.
From Koppa:
ReconTrust is “owned” by Bank of America Corporation.
Bank National Associations are governed by The Office of Controller of The Currency.
Anything on ReconTrust, NA? It should be Governed by OCC, part of the US Treasury Dept (NOT the SEC)?
If ReconTrust is a subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation…. This is NOT Bank of America, “NA” … or “BANA”. So, which are THEY??
How can one “NA”= National Association, own a second “NA”. Looks like self-dealing to us whistleblowers!
Jes Thinkin: Who receives proceeds of lien foreclosure sales conducted by ReconTrust which become REO re-sales of Land Titles @ 100% profit??
Who receives proceeds from Trustee Sales to third parties where “bid purchase proceeds” are delivered to ReconTrust @ 100% profit (to WHO)???
OPINION 1: Add common ownership by BANA of LandSafe Title for “corrections” on all ReconTrust foreclosure land title transactions; means possible crimes of “Conversion”. Borrowers real property Trust Deed/Mortgage (a hard record asset) transfers via MERS/REMIC and off-balance sheet accounting into purported RMBS Products via Bank of America Securities, etc. as a non-transparent new soft asset class, which funds lien security investment credits without reference to the borrower.
Opinion 2: Countrywide/BAC converts “loan obligations debt” with homeowners… into pre-funded aggregated “securities credits” assigned to affiliated servicers by the Sponsor of the SEC Prospectus (Like BANA). Upon loan default servicer changes hats and squires foreclosure liquidation of the fabricated “lien security” (under SEC). This delivers “huge profits” beyond the REMIC Trust —- via BAC Home Loans and “controlled servicers” named by the Shadow Sponsor. Affiliated servicer names ReconTrust as a self-substituted Foreclosure Trustee which seems to be clear of all regulation and criminality!!
Opinion 3: Double income on a single transaction = “Embezzlement”. 20% Real Estate Equity is confiscated into the RBMS via “identity theft”of innocent homeowners using proceeds to the REMIC via the FED discount process!
Opinion 4: Vertical integration of all steps accomplishes “conversion for purposes of embezzlement”, which violates Anti-Trust Act, RICO, mail/wire fraud, etc. What part of organized crime might IRS, OCC and SEC regulators actually understand when the California18 brings legal action via the evidence against ReconTrust prepared in vain for CA-AG Harris a year ago?
What is your opinion?
Charles J. Koppa 760-787-9966, http://www.TitleTrail.com
Spread the word
Neil, I dropped in for the 1st time on your show tonight. I heard your advise to the last two callers.
You sounded a lot like Christine giving advise to the last caller. Don’t tell her I said that …. shhhh
With the second to last caller from Illinois,
I think you had wax in your ears …. No offense, but how many times did he tell you, he had an attorney? Silly Boy! Clean Your Ears!