A reader asked me to post this: (It’s worth your time)
see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBSXNI0g-Kc
As I have stated for 14 years, they can’t get anywhere if they don’t have the note unless they prove a lost note. They don’t prove a lost note because the elements of a prima facie case for lost note are that the claimant was given possession of the original note by specified person in a specified transaction.. The banks can’t prove that case because there is original note. it was destroyed contemporaneously with origination of the homeowner transaction that is mistakenly referred to as a loan.
And they have another problem” they can’t get the note into evidence as evidence of the underlying obligation unless they have proper foundation testimony from someone with personal knowledge about the original transaction or, as in this case, by getting the homeowner to admit that the fabricated note she is being shown is the original, that she signed it and that she owes the money.
The homeowner in this video, Renee, refused to admit anything and the lawyers responded with all sorts of tricks to get her to acknowledge her signature on the fabricated note that they were trying to get into evidence. But Renee stayed simple and smart. She said I didn’t sign that document.
The plain truth is that if the foreclosure mill had a case they could win without legal presumptions then they would have gone to court saying it doesn’t matter if that is the original note or not — we have the right to enforce granted to us by the owner of the underlying obligation. But they can’t do that because it isn’t true. And they get away with it because the overuse of litigation immunity.
Renee should not be required to pay on any claim unless it is a valid legal claim. But more than that she should not be subject to claims for enforcement of her alleged obligation when the investment banks are not subject to enforcement of their obligation to compensate her for her absolutely required assistance in launching a concealed securitization scheme. A scheme that did NOT securitize her transaction, debt, note or mortgage. So sale occurred.
She appears to be correct in saying that Wells Fargo, a repeat offender for fraudulent accounts and documentation, was doing it again.
Bottom line: Admit nothing make them prove everything — whether alleged or asserted.
Filed under: foreclosure |
Brian, you’re regurgitating scammer rhetoric.The courts have been quite clear; they DO NOT have to hold the “actual” note.
@LEGISMAN ,,
“We hold a party satisfies the proof of beneficiary provisions RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) and RCW 61.24.163(5)(c) when it submits an undisputed declaration under penalty of perjury that it is the actual holder of the promissory note. ”
You are wrong …. if the pltf is challenged and cannot prove holding the ACTUAL note (not a printout) they are screwed…. They need to meet the definition of beneficiary …
Brian, you need to read the case I posted for Ian, which you obviously haven’t done. Because, if you had you wouldn’t have made such a factually and legally incorrect statement
Once again, you DO NOT have to own the note to foreclose. How many dozens of other cases would you like me to post? Stop drinking the scammer Kool-Aid, before you lose you home.
@LEGISMAN , I will go out on a limb and assume you are a legislator by your name and the unwarranted trust you place in the scruples of actors like WF , BofA , Chase and others. Nobody here is illiterate but some of us choose to take the red pill and see the failures in the banks arguments and connect the dots rather than take your blue pill and choose to believe their provable lies… The pltf must have an interest and a cause of action , actual harm, merely possessing a printed .pdf with no ownership is less than nothing.
Ian, this Washington State Sup. Ct. case does a wonderful job of explaining how things actually work, which is the opposite of what these legally illiterate lawyers and securitization/chain-of-title/forensic audit scammers are claiming.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8819694548615941931&q=Brown+v+Washington+state+department&hl=en&as_sdt=10006
Read COMMENTS to this video, particularly Reggie Jones
Wells Fargo has in house written computer software that aggregates loans based on a complex set of criteria to form a pool.
I know this because I helped write the software.
Once assigned to the pool, they are then sold as a MBS (Mortgage Backed Sercurity) They don’t own these loans. The notes are intentionally electronically copied and originals destroyed. They are responsible for a guaranteed percentage of the payments on the MBS, so they recreate the notes as needed. If a certain amount of loans fail then they can also collect insurance on the MBS. It is in their best interest 10x fold to have the foreclosure of loans in MBS.
Legisman, that is your address?
I can order a stamp based on your signature on publicly recorded mortgage, print 184 copies (as Goldman Sachs does) of your Note; sell them to Pension Funds as backed by your mortgage; forge the Note and claim that you me owe money.
And based on your rationale, your home and all 184-times profits are now all mine.
And if were Goldman Sachs, the Cartel will pretend that they “claw” a particle of stolen money, like they just did in GS looting of Malaysia from about $16 Billion.
$3 billion fine, plus some laughable “claw back” bonuses from the thieves.
I doubt if these money will actually leave Goldman Sachs accounts.
This is all a trick for idiots while private corporation who lend us money
, unregulated Federal Reserve and owners will do anything they want.
BTW, Clinton repelled Glass Steagal act under Goldman Sachs (one of co-owners of Federal REserve influence ), and sure not for free
The judge states the court is not allowed to weigh evidence submitted for the first time during an SMJ is what I get out of this oral arugment in Washington Appeals court and Washington trial courts have accepted fake notes waived in the air as having possession of the note over an over during an oral argument at a Motion for SMJ.
https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/OralArgAudio/a02/20201015/537478%20-%20Citibank%20v.%20Peterson.mp3
Hey, legisman,
I thought only the injured party could bring a claim for nonpayment in a foreclosure. If the injured party isn’t in the courtroom, then what gives?
If their agents or representatives or awfirm or whomever can’t prove up even the most tenuous relationship to the injured party, if that party can even be located, or if there is a party, then what the hells going on here? A clear and concise explanation ( which can be understood by a non attorney) would be greatly appreciated in order to clear the fog produced by diametrically opposes posts-
Thanks!
legisman- You are not understanding charged-off “debt” – which is the heart of foreclosures, and likely began before claimed origination!!
.
Charge-off negates the note. It is done — gone – poof!!! Goodbye. Like the movie “Gone Girl.” GONE.
But that is what occurred. That is the way it is. Collection rights are only transferred by assignment – not the note. Accounting 101. . Collection rights on what? Go back to the “transaction.” Find the balance sheet. You will not. Therefore, those collection “rights” are highly in question as to what even occurred from the “transaction” that was never recorded on any balance sheet!! Whoops. They forgot to record? That is the way it is. Sorry. .
The problem with your premise is that it does not go into any of this. Lets get down to the nitty gritty of a “charge-off.” Deutsche not involved – perhaps never involved, but charge-off – makes GONE. MISSING. GONE GONE – with the wind. .
This is accounting my friend. Accounting. You know — financial statements — balance sheets. Never there to begin with. Whoops – forgot to record on balance sheet. WHOOPS. Can’t have charge-off if never on a balance sheet. Big blunder.
But appreciate all input here, despite lack of addressing of accounting. Is the way it is. Thanks!!!
Javagold, I’ve explained this a million times; “A party does not need the original note bearing the wet- ink signature to foreclose.” See Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 722 F.3d 249, 253–256 (5th Cir. 2013) (“The party to foreclose need not possess the note itself.”).
Furthermore, “Because of the nature of a note endorsed in blank, precisely how Deutsche Bank came into physical possession of the Note is not relevant.”
You and others, need to stop listening to legal illiterates, who claim otherwise.
Defending against my 4th different debt collector Plaintiff now. And It’s always just a COPY of the Note. With a Blank stamped signed endorsement. Never a wet ink of Note or The Mortgage.
FWIW Neil , you are missing a “no” in Para #1
Excellent point made in this post… now only if judges applied the law.