For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688
================================
see Robot Can Write Your Letter and Signature
In a typical day in Court, the “borrower” is asked by the lawyer for the “lender” whether THAT is his or her signature on the note and the mortgage. The initial response is yes. By admitting that signature you have validated the note and mortgage and that you signed it and that the foreclosing party has it. That is a lot of admitting based upon a single “yes” answer.
My question to you is whether you have answered truthfully. Do you really remember what you signed, what was written on the documents and exactly how you signed each document? In most cases it is years before. The homeowner answers “yes’ because he or she knows they went to a closing and signed a bunch of papers.
It frequently does not occur to either foreclosure defense counsel nor his client that someone would have the brass to come into court with an entirely fabricated document that is signed by a robot in a fabrication of the closing documents that occurs long after the alleged loan closing but before trial of the case in which a complete stranger is foreclosing on the property as though it was the creditor.
The stranger gets away with it because the stranger is lying to the only party that has any claim —equitable or legal — to get payment from the loan “closing” in which the wrong creditor was put on the note and mortgage just so the Wall Street banks could play with the mortgage documents and bet on them as though they had an insurable interest.
Public figures have long used mechanical writing to replace their own hand in writing letters and signing documents and even checks. For some reason, few people have actually brought up the issue in court and most simply go along with the farce without realizing they are contributing to the fraudulent scheme of the banks.
At trial the banks have a problem. They can’t bring in a real witness to verify the closing documents on the loan because they destroyed the original documents in most cases. So they use the homeowner to authenticate fabricated documents created through automation.
In my opinion, for most people, the true answer is “I don’t know.” Or possibly “I don’t remember.” Unless you are positive that the document is the same note or mortgage you were shown at closing — not a copy of it made to look an original — then you should not telling lies in court. If you have no recall about what was signed at the alleged “closing”my opinion is you should not pretend otherwise. Unless you have had an expert forensic document examiner authenticate the “original” documentation relied upon by the bank, then you don’t actually know if you put that signature on the page instead of a robot. The fact that you know you signed something like it doesn’t mean THAT document is real. The fact that the robot did a good job doesn’t mean it is your signature.
Once the borrower has resisted the temptation to validate a fabricated document, the lawyer for the bank will probably try to get the documents in by “Self-Authentication.” Those are legal arguments we can talk about later. The last thing they are going to do is bring a witness who really knows — because that means either perjury or Pandora’s box unleashed.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: authentication of documents, fabricated mortgage, fabricated note, robotic signatures, self-authenticating documents, witness memory |
What does the note you signed say? Not what the mortgage says. What document is your contract if they don’t mesh? Come on … you know the answer.
In a 2010 ASF white paper, the asf claimed that the PSA’s called for the notes to be transferred to the trusts both by 1) endorsement and transfer of possession (Art 3) and 2) by an “outright sale and assignment of the notes and the mortgages (Art 9 ). “Don’t believe me, just read” the material at the link below (don’t mind saying I really like Uptown Funk).
Sort of overkill, isn’t it? Why both? The only legitimate reason I can think to also call for endorsement is to provide the trust with some form of evidence of the chain to the trust of the notes ( not to use those endorsements as the actual mechanics of the transfers which would have been accomplished by an article 9 “outright sale and assignment”. I believe the real reason was to allow someone else to try to enforce the notes against their makers.
If you look at the language in the notes, a note holder is one who has taken the note by transfer and who has the right to payment. What right is that when it comes to derivatives? Imo there isn’t one because the trust’s rights are limited to payments by others on their certificates and as Ive said imo, one promise (the borrower’s) may not form the basis for two separate and distinct obligations. And there was no choice to make – that the investors would only have rights as to payment on the derivatives was a done deal. Stated another way, I
don’t believe the investors could have rights under the notes AND rights to third party payments by way of their certificates. Could the
notes be collateral for the third party payments on the certs? No, because they had to be true sales, right? Something which you don’t own isn’t collateral for you paying me.
http://www.americansecuritization.com/uploadedFiles/ASF_White_Paper_11_16_10.pdf
I think that anything which legitimately evidences an “outright sale and assignment” to the trust would have, in fact, transferred the loans to the trust, for whatever that was worth, and in my opinion, all it was worth was to evidence which loans supported the derivatives and the trust’s rights to payments thereon. While I know zip about “tranches”, it still feels like, from what I’ve gotten here, that they appear to cushion the banksters’ payment obligations on the certs.
Seriously, if anyone has to learn all this jazz to try to defend his home,
they can take the alleged ‘lower cost to homeowners’ and put it where the sun don’t shine. I’m aware that it defies belief that these loans could’ve become unenforceable, but I didn’t sculpt this business plan nor tweek it with bs so that they would be – by people who had no interest. And if it weren’t all just bs, as people here have said time and again, they wouldn’t have needed to forge all those documents.
This is Awesome. So elixiquitor I think you need to contact these people
http://msfraud.org/STOP-JUDICIAL-CORRUPTION-AND-SAVE-OUR-HOMES_2-15.html
NEVER AGAIN
fwiw – the veracity of some of what I said below may ride on a few things:
1) these particular notes, secured by real property, l & s, are in fact, to the extent they are regulated by or need refer to the UCC, regulated by article 9, not 3. Is this factual?
2) If the default law UCC defines the manner of transfer or is needed to be looked at, and if it would be article 9, may two parties yet contract to agree that article 3 will be operative?
3) If so, DID they agree article 3 will be operative? (this would likely be the banksters claim, altho as I’ve said, I’ve got at least mers on record as saying it’s 9) The PSA’s say the notes will be endorsed, but IS that an agreement that article 3 will be operative?
4) May a note be ‘moved’ by article 9 assignment as well (alternatively) as mechanisms of article 3?
But, regardless of the answers, I believe the psa’s called for endorsements to implicate 3 so the banksters could try to enforce notes
they didn’t own.
One of the reasons, fwiw, I’m back on 9 just now is because in the tila case I linked (1995), that appeared to be the mode of movement of the notes at issue.
Further, to the best of my recollection (only), years ago I saw one or more documents at the county recorder’s office wherein hundreds of loans were assigned in one instrument (blanket assignments).These blanket assignments were done when company A sold a chunk of its loan portfolio to company B. I’m still of a mind that the PSA’s or addendums to, to the extent they identify loans with the requisite specificity, transfer the loans from the depositor to the trusts (an article 9 transfer).
As to the recordation of blanket assignments used to move portfolios around, I can’t speak to how that would give notice of each transfer in the document. Guess that might depend on how the recorder
indexes them. If one couldn’t find the assignment, say, under the
parcel number, imo there would be no notice of the assignment. So I guess in regard to the PSA’s being a vehicle which transfers interests in loans from one party to another, that issue would be present there, too. But wait. The PSA’s called for the (individual) assignments, as well, in recordable form, so that says to me that in addition to reference to a particular loan in the PSA or an addendum, individual assgts were also to be done and those would impart notice in public record when recorded. The lack of recordation of the PSA would get the transfer done between the parties, but as to notice, would be insignificant, since notice would be imparted at the recordation of the individual assignments called for (“in recordable” form). Since unrecorded interests may be avoided by bk trustees and others, seems to me that the lack of recordation (but for ‘mers’) would seriously jeopardize the interests of the trusts. BUT then again, if trusts couldn’t enforce the notes because the trusts’ rights and interests were factually limited to someone else’s payment on the certs, why bother recording an assignment? Plus, if one promise (that of the borrower’s) may not, as I’ve suggested, be the source of more than one separate and distinct obligation *(here the obligation of third parties on the certs v the notemaker’s under the note), recording the assignments would give the false impression the trusts had rights under those docs.
Though it makes sense to me, I can’t readily ‘prove’ what I’m saying, but I hope it’s enough to cause those who can to put their thinking caps on and go for it. If doing so only dispelled the belief that these loans are regulated by article 3, that might be a lot. Or, if it lead to a finding that the assgts being done now which include the assgt of the notes are bogus and intended to say something which isn’t true, that would be good, too.
As further support that the former is going on, I note that each and every recorded assignment contains language which in sum says the assgt is being made for good and valuable consideration. That alleged consideration can only be for the note. If the dot is the only thing being assigned in the assgt, it’s because the guy who now owns the note has generally already paid his consideration and there would be no recitation for that in the assgt of the note’s collateral instrument. (And many of those assgts aver the consideration was paid to MERS, who one way or another was not the party to sell / transfer the note, but that’s another story). If, on the other hand, the assignment is not the vehicle which moves the note from one party to another, the assgt of the note shouldn’t be purported in the assgt of the collateral instrument,
but is yet contained therein for false impression and likely false reliance by the general public, the homeowner, and the judiciary.
*If this is true, it’s not new. It’s just more of that ‘business’ law.
A couple days ago when discussing whether or not a non-delivering
bankster would have an insurable intererst, I said:
“Another is that the insurer waived subrogation so he has no claim for
recovery under the note (hard to have subrogation rights under party A
if party B already has a secured interest. Party B’s secured interest is
superior to anyone else’s subsequent claim) “.
Why did AIG waive subrogation to the detriment of its shareholders?
If your neighbor burns your house down and your insurance company has to pay, your insurance company has a right to mol stand in your shoes and go after your neighbor for its payment to you. That’s its right of subrogation. Imo, if AIG insured banksters and yet waived subrogation (the right to go after the defaulting party, here the borrower,* for its payouts to its insured) as I’ve read, there was a reason. The only reason I can think of is that it was because someone else already had
security interests (the trust investors), so waiving subrogation is an
acknowledgement of that. That or a regulated insurance company, AIG,
illegally insured events for people with no interest to insure, i.e.,
took bets. Either one of these can’t be sanctioned by regulation and is
also a breach of fiduciary to its shareholders, and yet, not one
prosecution by anyone, not even the insurance commission.
*An alternative is that what was insured by AIG wasn’t the homeowner /
borrower’s default, but the indentured party’s payment to the secured
party (the trust investors) which AIG insured. But still, in doing so,
there was acknowledgment that the notes hadn’t been delivered. Had they been, there would be no indentured party and no secured party and no payments to the investors to insure.** If so, AIG breached its fiduciary to its shareholders and by urging the insurance, the banksters are guilty of third party breach of that fiduciary.
But that doesn’t end the querry. Why get insurance and why not deliver
the loans? I think the answer must be that because the trust investors
weren’t aware of the non-delivery, they wouldn’t have known they had a
right to the AIG payouts themselves as secured parties or if that’s not
actually so (that they had that right by way of the UCC – I don’t know),
they didn’t know of the insurance to make any issue of it under any
lawful or equitable scenario.
**Fnma and fhlmc guaranteed payments on the certificates they sold.
They did this in the prospectus. Sub-prime and jumbo loans don’t go
thru the agencies. It may be that as sale enhancement on pools of
subprime and jumbo loans, the banksters sold their certificates with a
similar guarantee (so what was insured wasn’t the borrower’s default per se; it was payments on the certs, though that might have been triggered by borrower default). If so, to make the guaranteed payments on the certs, banksters took insurance thru AIG insurance. But, unlike the agencies which may end their guarantees by repurchasing particular loans in default, AIG could only pay with no way of recovering those payouts,
something I can’t believe is proper for a regulated insurer.
Would this appropriately be called insurance on derivatives and if so,
was the regulated AIG insurance company an entity which could
make such insurance (and with no expectation of recovery and
significantly imo, from whom could they have hoped to recover?)
And if the insurance were on the certificates, how does this impact the
underlying loans which were the basis for the certificates when AIG had to payout? I’ve opined that the payments made by the agencies should be
applied to the loans. Actually, I say this because the agencies may
repurchase particular loans (in borrower default) to end that guarantee.
So it stands to reason, to me anyway, that the agencies are paying not
so much aggregately on the certs, but on particular
defaults. This is really a cluster, I think, because it seems the
borrower’s payment may only be relevant to the trusts when they’re being made by the borrower, if that. If they’re not being made and credited to the particular loans as made by the borrower (if they ever are), then something else makes up the aggregate payment to the trust, but which payment has nothing to do with any particular loan.
I think it’s like this assuming all to be done got done:
The investors money is pooled. In exchange for their money, they get
1) notes and dots assigned to them as a) evidence of the basis for the
certificates they get and b) to preclude enforcement of those loans by
anyone else (good housekeeping / business) or otherwise asserting an interest against their own interests
2) certificates evidencing an interest in and their rights to payments
from anyone who had promised payment on the certificates (v their right to payment under the notes). It’s the issuer (or like that) of the certs who owes the trusts money and that’s why those guys took insurance (and did stuff like create the tranches I can’t discuss myself) – it was on their OWN payments on the certs
3) preferential tax treatment
This plan, securitization and enforcement by the banksters, **which only works with a “mers” **, was sold on several assertions in their collective advertizing campaign: that 1) it would provide new capital in the market for home loans resulting in 2) the benefit to the borrower of better rates for home loans 3) tax shelter, and 4) 86 the cost of recordation of multiple assignments. No.4 is definitely double-speak because okay, I lost my train, but it is.
OMG! Glad we had this chat : the language in the PSA’s regarding endorsements on the notes is nothing more than a RED-HERRING RACKET (emphasis) for the sole purpose of allowing the bankster to enforce the notes which don’t belong to them
(and that’s why they didn’t deliver and or call for article 9 assgt of the notes, and further called only for the assignments to be in recordable form, but not recorded. Show me the recorded assgt of one loan to a trust prior to the cut-off date and I may have to eat it).
This red-herring was solely to inappropriately allow for enforcement of the notes by banksters by way of the holder provisions of article 3 in case the borrower defaults and they are compelled to perform under their guarantees on the certificates (when in fact, these particular notes are to be moved from one to another by way of article 9 assignments). Right this minute I absolutely believe this. NONE of us thought to question calling for endorsements on the notes in the PSA’s. Sneaky, very sneaky. And imo also evidence of intent.
Were these loans, including the notes, appropriately ASSIGNED to the trusts, the banksters could never even pretend to stand on article 3 holder provisions and accordingly, they would have NO
recourse when the borrower didn’t pay. AIG didn’t so much waive
subrogation, then, as it COULDN’T HAVE IT -or – if it could,
it wouldn’t do them any good since their insurance was on the banksters’ payments on the certs, not on the borrower’s payments on his loan. They had zero path to the loans in the trusts.
Every single assignment of a dot purports to include an assignment of
the note and THAT is the reliance being made / used , always was,, but now certainly in the latest m.o., (late) assgts to trusts, not the endorsement on the note, though they claim otherwise against the homeowner and to dufus (only mean this where deserved) courts. Make them identify their reliance – the assgt or the endorsement. It’s at least a start.
Because I believe what I’ve said here is true, to me, that means
others may find this also and therefore, it’ll be asserted in some case
sooner or later. We have an opp to get in front of the train on this one
and anticipate the banksters’ move to “handle” this.
If the notes and dots had been assigned to the trusts as they should’ve
been, whom, if anyone, had a right to enforce them? It doesn’t seem
to me that the trusts could have even the choice of remedy (1) against the party obligated on certs v against the note maker) because one promise (here the borrowers to pay) can’t be the source of separate and distinct obligations, I can almost swear. I think the only obligation to which the trust could lay claim is that of the party who said it’d pay on the certs. I know it’s fantastic to think it could be no one, but….
Courts don’t get to frown on the borrower, if so. WE didn’t come up with
such an absurd business plan.
lay opinions
My last comment is state of AZ. Not sure about other states
Only recently are table lenders obligated to give you a cooy of the appraisal report, in 07 you had to ask for it.
Also from the tila case (below)
“As part of this transaction, Resource executed and delivered an assignment of Notes and Mortgages to Freddie Mac.”
Hmmmm…this doesn’t say the note was transferred to fhlmc. It says it was assigned in the same instrument assigning the mortgage, which in my opinion, would be an act pursuant to article 9, not 3.
MERS attempted to assign notes (v them being endorsed) in every single assignment of the dot I have ever seen, which to me also suggests article 9. Only problem, of course, is mers had no interest in a note to assign, so also imo each of those recordations is a false one.
johngault, no longer hollering. As far statues or investigations go the bubble has long been over. I simply disagree to mass paper work confusion explanations. It was all a scam to me from the origination that can’t be proven by the borrower.
No, I didn’t receive any loan app copies and to satisfy my own investigating curiosity back in 2010 I had a foreclosed friend who happen to have the same lender and title. She allowed me to look through her closing docs. and wouldn’t you know, NO loan app.
I believe the new rules now is the notary has to sign the app. pages.
Steve, of course the loan application must be signed and dated by the borrower. In fact, technically that’s to be done PRIOR to underwriting.
In reality, though, some underwriters underwrote the loan without
that being done, and called for it as a “condition” of closing. So the borrower was often allowed to sign it at closing and should’ve been given a copy (along with copies of every single doc he signed at closing). If he signed it ahead of closing, he should’ve been given a copy at that time.
Both parties to an agreement must have at least copies or there can be trouble enforcing the agreement. For how long a borrower could holler about having no copies and it doing any good, I don’t know. Except where subject to specific law, like tila, not getting copies might be a part of ‘general’ business law.
lay opinions
From the tila case I linked:
“Citicorp has contended that the reason for this procedure is so that Citicorp appears as record owner of the mortgage and therefore receives notice of subsequent activity, such as liens.”
Citicorp doesn’t have to appear as the record owner of jack when it’s the servicer. There’s a doc one can file at the recorder’s office. I think it’s called “request for notice” and once filed, I believe it compels notice to that party. If the requestor doesn’t get notice, that oversight is at the peril of the party obligated to provide notice. It may be limited to a request for notice of default which might be filed by the holder of a first or junior loan so it gets notice of default of the other. As far as I’m
concerned, if the assignment to citi didn’t actually assign anything
(and I note “for value”), imo it’s a false recording. “Notice” isn’t a reason to record a bogus instrument.
I’ve seen this kind of hogwash in other cases, also. In at least one other case I have, I think it was Aurora which claimed that transfers of servicing is always recorded. It’s NEVER recorded. As I recall, it was in another tila case and als was back pedaling furiously to avoid liability.
There doesn’t seem to be any lie those guys won’t tell.
But, what I found most interesting about that case was the unrecorded
assignments to fhlmc. Freddie (I think), like fnma, has to repurchase to
end its guarantee and I haven’t seen any assgts to them or f/c’s
brought in their names (generally), so I think some smack is still going on. In the situation, for instance, where Resource were still the lender of record (because its assgt to fhlmc was unrecorded) and the borrower had defaulted, gee, I wonder who the claimant would’ve been. It would’ve been Resource who would’ve sworn it was the rpii and violated a ton of rules, including I think it’s frcp 26, which compels disclosure of ‘unsolicited’ (without discovery request) info / facts in the knowledge of any party to the action.
Resource would’ve been falsely invoking jurisidiction, also, since it wasn’t in fact the party who would suffer by the note’s non-payment.
I disagree with the rushing of paper work. How can you know what you were signing when a copy wasn’t given to you at closing.
——————————————————————————–
FNMA Selling Guide, Part B, Origination Through Closing, Subpart 1, Loan Application Package; Chapter 1, page 145 – “A complete, signed, and dated version of the original and final form 1003 or Form 1003(s) MUST BE INCLUDED in the mortgage file.”
———————————————————————————-
Anyone tell this to the borrower?
Real estate closings during the boom period were fast and furious. Mounds of paperwork were placed in front of the borrowers who did not know what they were signing. Usually, the closing agents themselves did not know what the paperwork was for. Closing agents were discouraged from explaining any of the paperwork as that would be the unauthorized practice of law.
Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
Most people were rushed through the process and have no idea what they have signed. I read transcripts where a judge kept asking, “is that your signature?” – made me want to take one of his orders and SnagIt with one of his signatures and swap it out on the note – and ask him the same question…”is that your signature, your honor?”
Basically the United States of America has been hijacked by the same Banksters that hijacked the Germans in World War 2.
If forgery is allowed ind America then Heil Obama.
NEVER AGAIN
As for mechanical signatures i have an apparent signature of a state court judge who signed a default judgement prepared by a foreclosure mill attorney whereby the case docket history shows no service of the summons and complaint and the address is wrong so to cover that base the ” judge” hand wrote the house number on the document.
Good old rocket docket again, how many others did this happen to. These are things that are sacred aka due process, shortcuts are very dangerous and if there is a automatic signing pen, then it gives the foreclosure mill attorney a huge advantage which should never happen, its a line that should never be crossed, and yet it was. Case is on appeal, forcible detainer/ unlawful detainer.
Off topic but a must post
Panarama is very long standing and reliable research
http://m.bbc.com/news/business-31248913
Honestly, i still cant believe this chit
The page with my signature or rather a copy of what might be my signature is on a loose page with date matching my date of signing the deed of trust and note and it can be used and abused for anything, clearly.
The assignment is not dated its stamped to say ” for value received “and ” without recourse” and there are TWO, different but passed off as same – undated
Elex i feel your pain, fwiw i had released my expert witness because after firing prior useless council i lost the expert support, being he was now ” reluctant to testify” being im pro se, the judge did not rule on my request for time to find a new expert but denied me going forward without one.
Its in the appeal and ofcourse theres more to it all.
https://artofevidence.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/hearsay–the-business-records-exception/
Well, heck. Anyone know why links to docs at scribd now cause the whole doc to load when you paste the link?! The doc doesn’t show up until after you hit “post comment” here. wth?
Step one in a tila violation case: determining that the current bankster is an “assignee of the creditor aka original lender”.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/255262722/TILA-VIOLATIONS-IS-YOUR-CLAIMANT-AN-ASSIGNEE-OF-THE-CREDITOR
It’s MYERS v. CITICORP MORTG., INC., (M.D.Ala. 1995)
878 F. Supp. 1553
James Scott MYERS, et al., Plaintiff, v. CITICORP MORTGAGE, INC., ResourceBancshares Mortgage Group, Inc., and Madison Equity Mortgage Company, Defendants.
I found this case buried in my files. It seems to have a lot of good info.
Actual experience in Contra Costa County court in CA., judge Laurel Brady. I objected to the judge ruling I ‘admitted’ signing the ‘note’ presented at my deposition by ‘cherry-picking’ some of my words out of context – “… that appears to be my signature …” (an honest answer) followed by the objection that I was not a forensic document analyst. This, on a motion for summary judgment brought by JP Morgan and Fannie Mae. I also commented on the irregularity of the signature. So I guess I’m glad I didn’t pay the $1500 for a forensic expert to examine and testify in what would be an obvious waste of financial resources the judge was determined to extract from me. And I can’t really blame her, because the appellate court backed her up. This is not denial of due process in California.
Quiet Title
NEVER AGAIN
Any winner yet? Nope? I didn’t think so.
can anyone point me (so I don’t have to spend all day or week) to the NY trust law which some say means, long and short, that late assgts to a trust are void? I’d like to read the actual language.
Jan… my husband received a request to fill out a W-8 BEN as a foreign account holder with tax exempt status and a W-9. We did not recieve a 1098 this year. Can you explain this to me? Thank You!
He is not self employed. Worked for the same company over 20 years and prior that another company for 14 years.
@ Bob Hurt
The argument challenging the validity of the loan is the 3 year SOL or 1 year upon discovery SOL has passed (Calif.). Apart from the borrower having no knowledge of these errors at the origination the governments involvement with modifications further allowed the statues to become expired.
Agree with challenging the validity but the response is the SOL expired and the parties involved are no longer around.
Many folks who got roped in had excellent credit as I did,and could afford that as long as you could get out before most of those loans adjusted and thats how they will fuck you and did fuck people.WF basically refused to renegotiate so they suggest modifying and to be considered you must be at least 3 months behind so thats also what they do knowing once you have made a late payment you are doomed as far as going outside of that bank for a loan.Now you are their bitch and they love that.
The banks have no problem,they have the money and the government and the judges and when you boil it down you get Greed,People dont care if you have a life threatening illness and three kids and you lost your job and even though that loan originated with fraud and deception that is your problem.Theres another asshole waiting to buy that house and flip it and the city,state,county, are going to re assess that and the tax liability will increase 10 fold so what incentive do any of them have,ZERO,ZERO,ZERO.
bob hunt dearest, ” Why didn’t the borrower demand his own copy of the wet ink documents he signed at closing? ”
I’m sorry, dude, but are you drinking a lot of kool aid these days, the Ken Kesey kind?! Borrowers are supposed to get copies of every single doc they sign (and by the way, woe to the claimant if anyone successfully makes a case within a reasonable time he didn’t get those copies) But so what? What good would that do? How does having a copy of doc “A” tell one that what one is looking at is the original and not another copy of doc “A”? Copies would match, would they not? Now, I know a case where the borrower had either the original (lender blunder) or a copy of his note which for some reason was signed (found that way in his file). Whatever was in his file, copy or original note, was signed. This note was created on letter size paper. The note the pretender came up with was created (not just copied) on legal size paper. So even if the note in the borrower’s file were just a copy given to him at closing with the rest of his docs, it was a copy of a doc created on letter size paper. The lender had the forgery, the one created on legal size paper, and has managed to get away with it (unbelievably) so far. PS – the title co’s (alleged) copy of the note matched the borrower’s paper size (letter).
They’re lying-a$$-liars and cheating-a$$-cheaters, criminals, rat-b’s who willfully made loans to people who didn’t qualify. They knew good Americans would lose their homes, for pete’s sake, and they carried on carrying on without batting an eye. They’re entitled to zero consideration, no good faith, no bona fides. Borrowers owe these people no honor – none, zero. The truth if they can appropriately get it out of anyone who KNOWS it, okay, but honor or guilt? Not in this lifetime. ,
I haven’t read any more of your comment. Hope I can make more sense of the rest.
My broker did prob 15-20 loans for me and we had a nice relationship,I left her office with no closing docs and she said she would get them to me so.2010 I request them from WF and when I see the HUD-1 It says that they paid chase 134k for my second.I had paid it 2 months before and have the cancelled checks and statement showing a zero balance,they have nothing as far as records and the judge could care less so you can pick this shit apart for the next hundred years it aint going to get spit.Now if you can ralley a million human beings in one place to insist on ethical business practices and fair judicial systems you will accomplish what you want.
NONE OF IT MATTERS IF THE JUDGE IS NOT HAVING IT.They know by ruling for anyone but the lender or their assigns,they are taking from their pension holdings.Kiss that ish off.
jve: “….they went to the Diebold Corp. in Ohio and commissioned the construction of a special machine that re-creates Notes and includes an actual signature made by analog inputs.”
good to know. I thought it was part of what Genpact is doing over there in India pursuant to their 7 year contract with MERSCorp. Still hoping someone will get the scuttlebutt on that one. Maybe it’ll be you….?
Neil, why do you suggest challenging the wet ink original signature when you know that the borrower signed the original documents in order to get the loan, and then the borrower breached the note, which is the reason the note has become an issue. Why didn’t the borrower complain about it from the beginning? Why didn’t the borrower demand his own copy of the wet ink documents he signed at closing?
You know what I think, Neil? Borrowers who breached the note ought to forfeit the house in accordance with the note and its security instrument. But before they do they ought to examine all of the mortgage related documents for evidence that:
1. The seller misrepresented the property 2. The appraiser lied about the value of the house and OVER-valued it to please the realtor 3. The mortgage broker falsified the loan application to make the borrower seem better than actually qualified for the loan 4. The loan officer claimed to have lost the original loan application documents, came to the borrower at the eleventh hour (to lock in the rates) and got the borrower to sign another set of papers with a different deal from the original (bait and switch) 5. The mortgage broker charged excessive fees 6. The lender charged excessive interest because the borrower is a woman or a person of color or a foreigner who speaks with a noticeable accent 7. The loan was unconscionable because the lender’s address wasn’t registered with the Secretary of State of that state. 8. The title company failed to give all the TILA disclosures or calculated the HUD1 statement incorrectly
or any one of a dozen or more OTHER ways of cheating the borrower.
You see, if the lender or the lender’s associates or agents or some other third party injured the borrower from the get-go, that gives the borrower causes of action that justifies suing one or more of them and demanding a settlement in or out of court.
Your comments indicate disregard for the fact that the PETE can enforce the note even if it isn’t an original and the original got lost or destroyed, and even if the borrower does whine about a forgery or remanufactured original note, that doesn’t change the fact that the lender made the loan, the borrower took the loan, the borrower breached the note, and the borrower must ultimately renegotiate the deal or lose the house. It’s that simple.
And the ONLY RELIABLE WAY to change that is to challenge the validity of the loan by attacking the lender, mortgage broker, realtor, servicer, appraiser, loan officer, seller, or some other parties for injuring the borrower at the inception of the loan. IF the loan lacks validity in some way, the court has replete justification for ordering setoffs from the amount owed OR compensatory and punitive damages for fraud and contract breaches.
In other words, the best defense is a good offense. That’s why I recommend MORTGAGE ATTACK at every opportunity
Bob Hurt 727 669 5511 I don’t sell anything and I am not a lawyer.
In this excellent discussion, Neil touches on an aspect that gets overlooked. When the banks realized that the previous modality of shredding the original Notes after reduction to electronic scan and electronic distribution was going to be a huge problem, they went to the Diebold Corp. in Ohio and commissioned the construction of a special machine that re-creates Notes and includes an actual signature made by analog inputs. the problem with a digital signature is that it will show up under a microscope as a series of little dots – the nature of digital reproduction. But an analog signature, one that is made by a pen driven by servomotors, will be a flowing script – an exact, uncanny duplicate of your original signature.
This surfaced in two cases in Florida where the accompanying Notary at closing used only a special pen, which was in black ink. She insisted that all clients use her black-ink pen, as it duplicated better. Lo and behold, the reconstructed Notes offered as the originals were in blue ink! Oops.
Other ways to check if the offered Note is an original or not is to look closely at staple holes in the sheets; lots of ties the sheets will have different staple holes, or the holes are in different angles, or do not line up. There is one notorious case involving Bank of America out in California where someone (presumably the servicer or banker) simply removed the first three sheets of the Note, and substituted fresh sheets, changing the interest rates to an astronomical amount. the fresh sheets had no staple holes. Oops. Nor initials on the pages. More oops. Nor those little check marks that back-office personnel routinely put on those old Notes. Even more oops.
In reply to the last of Neil’s observations, unfortunately what will happen is that the servicer (who is the actual party doing the litigating in court, flying under the banner of some bank) will indeed bring in someone who will flat-out lie. these are the professional witnesses, who travel from court to court around the country, claiming to have personal knowledge of the file and testify to the truth of everything the servicer is claiming. They are notorious liars. It is impressive that there are people out there that can so rationalize their criminal behavior that they can do that with a straight face. Well, practice makes perfect, I suppose.
You trap those people by getting them to admit that the first time they saw the file was three weeks before trial. they have no knowledge of anything in that file. It is all fantasy testimony.
Unfortunately, lots of judges simply go along with it. And therein lies the great disgrace upon the American judiciary. Shame.
Thats why all of these bunk loans have a notary date thats dif than the signing date and the cunts that do escrow and title and prob your broker all say oh sure it was drawn up on that day but you signed a few days later so it goes against every thing we know is correct and backed by the full faith of the American scumbags.When one looks at whats been allowed to go down it makes one understand why there are groups that want to bring bad to our country,it saddens me.
The part about all of this that is so hard to deal with and makes one want to do very bad things to people that came up with this sham.My lawyer says to me that this is all part of the scam and if you look at the way things have gone down and the way it has started from the very top with our president and trickled down to every fiber of our beings.Many folks will say its just that good versus evil scenario and one should not get to attached to material things.Socialist overtones and my mother was way right about the phony in the oval office If we do a pole of what people do for a living and what group or area of them fell prey to the this sham and then those meant to enforce it have gotten greedy,ok back on track how many lawyers,police officers,escrow officers,judges etc have lost their homes?It cant just be a scenario of dangling the carrot and the dumb ones go for it now we have our way with them.I think it is that lame and it goes hand in hand with all the lame things going on in our country at present so until we stop the lameness were f…ed.
I think the federal rules of evidence stink to learn. (I only have an inkling) But I know he who doesn’t know them is in for it, and I will
say that I learned this the hard way. I was once in a situation which was mine to win, but my shortcomings on those rules did me in. In a nutshell, a federal rule of evidence must be stated with particularity. You can’t just say it doesn’t meet an evidentiary standard or any such generic stuff. You have to cite the particular FRE which makes the thing being offered as evidence not evidence, the testimony offered inadmissable pursuant to rule XX(1)(c) and so on. Much of what
will be advanced by the banksters will be by way of business record exceptions mol, but they won’t say that nor would they be able to defend it if called on it. The challenge is to know when it’s being done to you and how to shut it down and in my very expensive experience,
that can only be done with cite to a specific rule or rules as the issue comes up. If you get to trial, this will be particularly applicable, as to win, they MUST rely on business records exceptions. Many if not all the exceptions they try to get by with don’t exist / are unfounded. if I had to go to trial pro se, I would go so far as to hold mock trial with any friends I could solicit to help out.
lay opinions
NG: “At trial the banks have a problem. They can’t bring in a real witness to verify the closing documents on the loan because they destroyed the original documents in most cases. So they use the homeowner to authenticate fabricated documents created through automation.”
Isn’t another problem that even if the originals hadn’t been destroyed, the bankster has no way to authenticate the original endorsement on the note? Maybe you will spend some time addressing how they might authenticate the orig endorsement (since I think they must…?) Hint to everyone else: it’s in the FRE’s if it’s anywhere (if so, prob business records exceptions). I can’t rattle that stuff off, but maybe you can and will as it pertains to endorsements.
And are you saying one might honestly state ‘that looks like my signature but I can’t say that’s an actual doc I signed, or that it’s my original signature because I’m not qualified to know a (good) copy of my signature from an original of my signature? Or object to the question
as to “original signature” determination by the borrower since she’s not qualified to make that determination or no because that could lead to???