In the course of litigation, homeowners often acquire documents through internet searches, discovery and other means that might help others. Servicing manuals, scripts, proprietary system information, and other documents can prove invaluable in fighting foreclosure fraud.
We encourage people with inside knowledge or in possession of evidence that might help others to send documentation anonymously to our email address at info@lendinglies.com.
LivingLies is in the process of creating an interactive website that will allow consumers to share evidence, documents, pleadings, motions and other resources with other homeowners fighting foreclosure. All submissions will remain confidential.
Filed under: foreclosure |
Sending Info
If you have an alleged mortgage with Argent and they said that AVA GAITIAZ from COOK County, IL signed it, then I have a letter from Secretary of State showing her real notary stamp.
Got a letter from the Ameriquest MDL that stated that Argent originated loans were not eligible for the settlement, when i have Argent’s name on the phony mortgage. Gave it to the judge at trial and he looked to the attorney for the plaintiff and asked for his take and he could not say anything except, “I am holding an Argent Note with her name on it”. Judge ordered them to get more solid proof. Fingers Crossed
tried to send doc to lending lies and it was rejected?????should it be sent to living lies
I hear you Kali.. It’s because 99.9% of the population doesn’t understand what happened. You have an opinion on my original question ? I don’t see how the same case ( Mine) can have 2 completely different Plantiff’s.. The one that brought the case has already been substituted a few years ago.
Bill Paatalo says:
“Having investigated the WaMu/FDIC/Chase fact pattern for nearly seven-years now, and having investigated hundreds of foreclosure cases where JPMorgan Chase claims sole ownership of specific Washington Mutual Bank loans by virtue of the “Purchase & Assumption Agreement” (PAA) with the FDIC, one fact is now well established – no schedule or inventory of assets listing any specific WMB mortgage loan acquired by JPMC exists, or has ever been produced or disclosed. The reason for this fact is that the vast majority of residential mortgage loans were securitized through WaMu’s “Off-Balance Sheet Activities,” meaning WMB sold their loans prior to the FDIC Receivership. Many of these prior sales transactions by WMB to private investors went undocumented, and were kept outside the prevue of regulators, the borrowers, and the general public. For roughly the past 8-years, Chase has been foreclosing on thousands of these previously sold WMB loans in its own name as mortgagee and beneficiary of the security instruments, when by Chase’s own admissions to numerous borrowers, the loans were sold to private investors.”
READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE:
http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/washington-mutual-bank-sold-these-67529-toxic-loans-and-not-one-single-foreclosure-by-the-investors/
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2008jan/2300223752006101sciv.pdf
A “security” is a “financial asset,” but so is a certificate of deposit or a negotiable instrument, which are not securities. The broader definition is necessary to govern all contingencies. The definitions of “security” and “financial asset” iron out the questions about the various assets subject to Article 8
Article 3: Negotiable instruments: UCC Article 3 applies to negotiable instruments. It does not apply to money, to payment orders governed by Article 4A, or to securities governed by Article 8. If there is conflict or to securities governed by Article 8. If there is conflict between this Article and Article 4 or 9, Articles 4 and 9 govern. Regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and operating circulars of the Federal Reserve Banks supersede any
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/8
Question.. If GS is reportedly BUYING ( Not servicing rights) to pools of mortgages from Fannie and you’re currently in a foreclosure fight with ABC123 bank and you find out that GS has been Assigned the mortgage ( Via purchase).. How can the original Plantiff still be active in the case ?
http://www.housingwire.com/articles/36252-goldman-sachs-subsidiary-buys-massive-npl-portfolio-from-fannie-mae
Of course anonymously, the foreclosure machine watch dogs have been, without warrants up front, raiding the offices and individuals that have actively been saving individuals, families and homes from their ambush, cause that is what they are up to, and as stated in the Osceola Forensic Examination, (on site), state agencies (someone inadvertently let out about the white collar-Rico crime), with organized street crime and gangs sanctioned by them to burglarize homes while the owners and families are away at the prime times of when those homes could be vacant, They are clearly Owner Occupied, but walking down the street, these Organizations are setup, stationed, lurking, to ambush and use what is NOT abandonment as their excuse to seize the property, people who are actually in foreclosure process know have the right and must remain living in their home a process engages. These entities are diabolical. Don’t assume or presume that they are about what they say, its what they are already set-up for in the AM, like 5 Am, and all 24/7, that they don’t say, and they are using forms of technology that make them not visible to the eyeball, only under a camera lens, it picks up the friction, and their violation and trespassing on peoples property. Be Aware. We must listen to our inner senses, not what is visible or not to the eyes. But of course they wipe out police reports, and in so doing also don’t take reports, and should there be security camera set up, and the notifications come from a central monitoring location, this becomes the evidence, not the alleged police appearance as a response to a dispatch from camera, they don’t report, cause they are in on it, it goes in their system as an “Event”, then eventually the false alarm reduction dept sends out a letter, noting that the alleged “event” was documented to them as a false alarm, now have to , or pay fees (increase) for, that is the diabolical operations of police involvement. They are not the friend of any homeowner..
This info website needs to be searchable by state….as from all the research I’ve done each state has different laws. What applies in one state is likely irrelevant in another. Virginia has a fragmented code with very few statutes applying to foreclosures. Had to go after the form of the documents and the felonious filings. Other states seems to have more clear statutes about foreclosure.
SEC filings on CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2007-4
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=&match=&filenum=333-135846-21&State=&Country=&SIC=&myowner=exclude&action=getcompany
YOU MAY BE ABLE TO FIND OUT THE CLOSING DATE OF THE TRUST ETC.
We contacted the FBI and they wrote to us that they lack evidence to conclude that there is Federal Crime involved in the improper assignment of mortgage. We sent a copy of the defective and backdated assignment of mortgage. What else do we need to send to the FBI to show that the assignment of mortgage to a REMIC trust created fraudulent mortgage backed securities?
reported to security and exchange commission, it does say DELAWARE. BUT THE DELWARE SECRETARY OF STATE SAID THAT IS A LIE, THAT THIS FRAUD TRUST HAS NEVER BEEN REGISTED. AND HE CERTIFIED IT IN WRITTING.
GMACM Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-J1
SIC: 6189 – ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES
State location: MN | State of Inc.: DE | Fiscal Year End: 1231
(Assistant Director Office: 5)
The ABSFA first provides that “[a]ny property, assets or rights purported to be transferred, in whole or in part, in the securitization transaction shall be deemed to no longer be the property, assets or rights of the transferor
.”[1] Given the foregoing provision, to the extent Delaware law applies, the traditional legal criteria used in determining what constitutes a true sale in the context of a securitisation is intended to be irrelevant.
The ABSFA further states that “[a] transferor in the securitization transaction … to the extent the issue is governed by Delaware law, shall have no rights, legal or equitable, whatsoever to reacquire, reclaim, recover, repudiate, disaffirm, redeem or recharacterize as property of the transferor any property, assets or rights purported to be transferred, in whole or in part, by the transferor.”[
The ABSFA first provides that “[a]ny property, assets or rights purported to be transferred, in whole or in part, in the securitization transaction shall be deemed to no longer be the property, assets or rights of the transferor.”[1] Given the foregoing provision, to the extent Delaware law applies, the traditional legal criteria used in determining what constitutes a true sale in the context of a securitisation is intended to be irrelevant.The ABSFA further states that “[a] transferor in the securitization transaction … to the extent the issue is governed by Delaware law, shall have no rights, legal or equitable, whatsoever to reacquire, reclaim, recover, repudiate, disaffirm, redeem or recharacterize as property of the transferor any property, assets or rights purported to be transferred, in whole or in part, by the transferor.”[2] The ABSFA also provides that “[i]n the event of a bankruptcy, receivership or other insolvency proceeding with respect to the transferor or the transferor’s property, to the extent the issue is governed by Delaware law, such property, assets and rights shall not be deemed part of the transferor’s property, assets, rights or estate.”[3] The foregoing provisions facilitate reaching the conclusion that a true sale exists in the context of a securitisation transaction where Delaware law applies
C.Delaware Statutory Trusts
Business trusts have been recognised by the Delaware common law for many decades. Prior to the passage of the Delaware Business Trust Act in 1988, which is now known as the Delaware Statutory Trust Act, 12 Del. C. §§ 3801, et seq. (the “Trust Act”), however, there was no express statutory recognition of a business trust in Delaware. The Trust Act was drafted to increase the utility of the business trust in modern financing transactions by overruling those principles of the common law of trusts that were deemed undesirable and by including provisions to authorise a high degree of contractual freedom between the trustor and the trustee in determining their respective liabilities and the manner in which the trust could be administered.
A Delaware statutory trust may be formed by one or more trustees for the benefit of one or more beneficiaries. To form a Delaware statutory trust, a Certificate of Trust must be filed with the Delaware Secretary of State setting forth the name of the statutory trust and certain other information. At the time of the filing of the Certificate of Trust, a written trust agreement (also called a governing instrument) must exist. Further, a statutory trust must have at least one trustee which, in the case of a natural person, must be a person who is a resident of the State of Delaware or which, in all other cases, has its principal place of business in the State of Delaware, unless the statutory trust is or will become a registered investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940 within a certain time period, in which case only a registered agent in the State of Delaware is required in lieu of a resident trustee.
Under traditional common law principles, the administration of a trust is vested in a trustee who is charged with broad fiduciary obligations to the trust and its beneficiaries. Such obligations not only generally prevent the trustee from delegating any of its discretion and authority with respect to the management of the trust, but also impose a strict standard of care on, and limit the indemnity available to, the trustee in fulfilling such obligations. The administration of many modern statutory trusts, however, requires specialised knowledge often outside the scope of expertise of corporate fiduciaries. Under common law theories, allowing anyone other than the trustee to control the business decisions of a trust could lead to the trust being deemed to constitute an agency instead of (or in addition to) a trust. Classification as an agency relationship can lead to undesirable results including, without limitation, that a trust beneficiary may become liable for the obligations of the trust and/or that a creditor of a beneficiary may be able to disregard the trust and reach its assets to satisfy related or unrelated obligations of the beneficiary. In addition, a trustee of a common law trust who improperly delegates its discretion may become personally liable for any resulting losses and may not be able to be held harmless against, or indemnified for, such losses.
Under the Trust Act, however, to the extent provided in the governing instrument, a beneficiary is entitled to direct the trustee of a Delaware statutory trust without the risk of personal liability for the debts of the trust or the risk that the creditors of the beneficiary could reach the assets of the trust itself. Specifically, the Trust Act provides that a beneficiary of a Delaware statutory trust shall be entitled to the same limitation of personal liability extended to a stockholder of a private corporation for profit organised under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. Further, under the Trust Act, a statutory trust has express authority to indemnify and hold harmless the trustee, beneficiary or any other person from and against any and all claims whatsoever, subject only to such restrictions that are set forth in the trust’s governing instrument and by public policy generally.
As with LLCs, many financing transactions involving a statutory trust require that the statutory trust be deemed a bankruptcy remote entity vis-Ã -vis the beneficiaries thereof. Apart from the trustee control problems noted above, under the common law, a sole beneficiary of a trust generally has the power to terminate the trust at will, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary set forth in the trust’s governing instrument. Such a power prevents the creation of a bankruptcy remote entity because under bankruptcy and insolvency principles, a trustee in bankruptcy stands in the shoes of the debtor, and if a debtor has the power to terminate a trust and reach the trust’s assets, then a bankruptcy trustee of such debtor also has such power. Under the Trust Act, however, except to the extent provided in its governing instrument, a statutory trust has perpetual existence and may not be terminated or revoked by a beneficiary or any other person, or otherwise terminated by the death, incapacity, dissolution, termination or bankruptcy of its beneficiary. Furthermore, no creditor of a beneficiary has any right to obtain possession of, or otherwise exercise legal or equitable remedies with respect to, the property of a statutory trust.
As with an LP Agreement and LLC Agreement, the trust’s governing instrument may establish different classes or series of beneficial interests which may have separate and distinct rights and duties.
As a result of the certainty with respect to the limited liability of beneficiaries and trustees and the protection of trust assets from creditors, as well as the inherent flexibility with respect to the manner of administration of a statutory trust formed under the Trust Act, Delaware statutory trusts are often used not only in place of common law trusts but also as alternatives to other business entities in securitisation and other transactions
– See more at: http://corporate.findlaw.com/corporate-governance/delaware-the-jurisdiction-of-choice-in-securitisation.html#sthash.XACmJik7.dpuf
Dirt Lawyers and Dirty REMICs
Volume 27 No. 3
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/probate_property_magazine_2012/2013/may_june
C.Delaware Statutory Trusts
Business trusts have been recognised by the Delaware common law for many decades. Prior to the passage of the Delaware Business Trust Act in 1988, which is now known as the Delaware Statutory Trust Act, 12 Del. C. §§ 3801, et seq. (the “Trust Act”), however, there was no express statutory recognition of a business trust in Delaware. The Trust Act was drafted to increase the utility of the business trust in modern financing transactions by overruling those principles of the common law of trusts that were deemed undesirable and by including provisions to authorise a high degree of contractual freedom between the trustor and the trustee in determining their respective liabilities and the manner in which the trust could be administered.
A Delaware statutory trust may be formed by one or more trustees for the benefit of one or more beneficiaries. To form a Delaware statutory trust, a Certificate of Trust must be filed with the Delaware Secretary of State setting forth the name of the statutory trust and certain other information. At the time of the filing of the Certificate of Trust, a written trust agreement (also called a governing instrument) must exist. Further, a statutory trust must have at least one trustee which, in the case of a natural person, must be a person who is a resident of the State of Delaware or which, in all other cases, has its principal place of business in the State of Delaware, unless the statutory trust is or will become a registered investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940 within a certain time period, in which case only a registered agent in the State of Delaware is required in lieu of a resident trustee.
Under traditional common law principles, the administration of a trust is vested in a trustee who is charged with broad fiduciary obligations to the trust and its beneficiaries. Such obligations not only generally prevent the trustee from delegating any of its discretion and authority with respect to the management of the trust, but also impose a strict standard of care on, and limit the indemnity available to, the trustee in fulfilling such obligations. The administration of many modern statutory trusts, however, requires specialised knowledge often outside the scope of expertise of corporate fiduciaries. Under common law theories, allowing anyone other than the trustee to control the business decisions of a trust could lead to the trust being deemed to constitute an agency instead of (or in addition to) a trust. Classification as an agency relationship can lead to undesirable results including, without limitation, that a trust beneficiary may become liable for the obligations of the trust and/or that a creditor of a beneficiary may be able to disregard the trust and reach its assets to satisfy related or unrelated obligations of the beneficiary. In addition, a trustee of a common law trust who improperly delegates its discretion may become personally liable for any resulting losses and may not be able to be held harmless against, or indemnified for, such losses.
Under the Trust Act, however, to the extent provided in the governing instrument, a beneficiary is entitled to direct the trustee of a Delaware statutory trust without the risk of personal liability for the debts of the trust or the risk that the creditors of the beneficiary could reach the assets of the trust itself. Specifically, the Trust Act provides that a beneficiary of a Delaware statutory trust shall be entitled to the same limitation of personal liability extended to a stockholder of a private corporation for profit organised under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. Further, under the Trust Act, a statutory trust has express authority to indemnify and hold harmless the trustee, beneficiary or any other person from and against any and all claims whatsoever, subject only to such restrictions that are set forth in the trust’s governing instrument and by public policy generally.
As with LLCs, many financing transactions involving a statutory trust require that the statutory trust be deemed a bankruptcy remote entity vis-Ã -vis the beneficiaries thereof. Apart from the trustee control problems noted above, under the common law, a sole beneficiary of a trust generally has the power to terminate the trust at will, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary set forth in the trust’s governing instrument. Such a power prevents the creation of a bankruptcy remote entity because under bankruptcy and insolvency principles, a trustee in bankruptcy stands in the shoes of the debtor, and if a debtor has the power to terminate a trust and reach the trust’s assets, then a bankruptcy trustee of such debtor also has such power. Under the Trust Act, however, except to the extent provided in its governing instrument, a statutory trust has perpetual existence and may not be terminated or revoked by a beneficiary or any other person, or otherwise terminated by the death, incapacity, dissolution, termination or bankruptcy of its beneficiary. Furthermore, no creditor of a beneficiary has any right to obtain possession of, or otherwise exercise legal or equitable remedies with respect to, the property of a statutory trust.
As with an LP Agreement and LLC Agreement, the trust’s governing instrument may establish different classes or series of beneficial interests which may have separate and distinct rights and duties.
As a result of the certainty with respect to the limited liability of beneficiaries and trustees and the protection of trust assets from creditors, as well as the inherent flexibility with respect to the manner of administration of a statutory trust formed under the Trust Act, Delaware statutory trusts are often used not only in place of common law trusts but also as alternatives to other business entities in securitisation and other transactions
– See more at: http://corporate.findlaw.com/corporate-governance/delaware-the-jurisdiction-of-choice-in-securitisation.html#sthash.XACmJik7.dpuf
Dirt Lawyers and Dirty REMICs
Volume 27 No. 3
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/probate_property_magazine_2012/2013/may_june_2013/article_borden_reiss_dirt_lawyers_and_dirty_remics.html
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c027a/index.shtml
YOU ALL NEED TO GO AND LISTEN TO THIS. GO TO THE FORECLOSUREOUR.COM.
LOOK UNDER PAST , Past Broadcasts, WILL BE FIRST SHOW ON LIST.
August 21, 2016 – Gary Dubin
Co-Host: John Waihee
Foreclosure Workshop #19:
Bank of America v. Reyes-Toledo, A Case Study on How To Get Appellate
Courts To Ask the Correct Questions
(The entire oral argument before the Hawaii Supreme Court continues at the end of the
recording below. Please therefore continue to listen to recording after Gary and John sign off.)
(click here to listen)
Description of August 18, 2016 Oral Argument Details
Bank of America v. Reyes-Toledo Intermediate Court of Appeals Decision
What a great idea
[…] Source: Call for Evidence. Do you have information or documentation that might help others fight Foreclosure… […]