A NEW FACE in Government Activism in Securitization Scam

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

——–>SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS: WHOSE LIEN IS IT ANYWAY TOC

LivingLies Membership – If you are not already a member, this is the time to do it, when things are changing.

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:

Anyone who wants the job of being the county recorder takes a risk of being blamed for all the warts and defects that come out after they take office. So when somebody runs for public office without prior real estate experience like a Nurse, you know that community activism is on the rise and we all know why. The shell game and run-around that the banks and servicers are playing can only work so long.

The facts remain that the county recorders across the country fully understand that title is corrupted but they are mostly elected officials, a member of  a major political party and thus follow orders when told to do the Texas 2-step when it comes to removing illegal documents from the recording system or requiring proof of the authenticity of the documents and declarations in the documents.

We need many more people to run for office where it counts — the county level, get rid of the hacks who refuse to sue the banks for screwing up title, refuse to collect fees that are owed and would help the county budget, and refuse to hold those who submitted false filings accountable. THAT is where the banks have little influence. That is where they are weak politically. The lower the political office the less influence the bank has in preventing actions that would embarrass the mega banks.

Eventually the truth will all come out. It is seeping in through all the windows and doors. The logjam will break and we’ll know everything. And what we are going to find is that most mortgages were recorded without any transaction commenced between the the parties recited on the documents. We’ll find that the record is devoid of any real documentation between the real lenders (who might be impossible to determine with certainty because of commingling of funds in escrow accounts that ignored the existence of the REMICs). All that means is that the mortgages were fraudulently filed and therefore the foreclosures are invalid. There lies the path to salvation to our economy. Instead of the big boys getting a handout, the little people who were scrunched into the dirt by the boots of Wall Street titans are going to get a break.

Support with your money , effort and contacts and networking every candidate on the local level who runs for office on the platform of rejecting these illegal documents and throwing out the deeds of foreclosure based upon illegal mortgages and illegal, fabricated, forged and unauthorized documents.

Foreclosure Fraud Combatant Eyes Clerk of Court Role in Florida

By Jon Prior

Florida has been ground zero for foreclosure fraud, but even with multibillion-dollar settlements and federal consent orders, the state’s financial services industry may face new scrutiny from a community activist who’s taken a critical look at the industry and its practices.

Lisa Epstein, who’s running for clerk of court in Palm Beach County, was once an oncology nurse. For most of her career she saw her patients strike deals with their banks when they ran into debt problems, particularly with mortgage payments, once they became ill.

But when the housing crisis struck and foreclosures mounted, that changed. Banks and mortgage servicers overloaded with delinquent loans struggled with the paperwork and the complexity of linking struggling borrowers with decision-makers. To speed up the foreclosure process, reams of documentation was mishandled, signed improperly and filed at county courthouses.

In 2007, Epstein noticed her patients were no longer being helped. They were being rushed through the foreclosure system.

“That was my first hint that there was something very different,” Epstein said during a HousingWire interview.

So began her advocacy work in Florida fighting against banks and third-party firms handling the foreclosure process. In June, she was placed on the ballot for clerk of court of Palm Beach County, the third largest clerk office in the state.

If elected in August, she will be in charge of many things, including managing an overloaded docket, acting as treasurer and chief financial officer of the county’s funds, and most importantly, serving as the keeper of public record.

Her major focus will be on what she claims is a broken system, surrounding the cloudy chain of title flaws filed with the counties to this day. If state funding allows, she said she will perform wide-scale audits of the entire county database and develop reforms — even if that means shutting down the process entirely.

“I don’t know if it is fixable,” Epstein said. “But these are not truly legal instruments that convey proper property ownership. Conducting any sort of real estate transaction or sorting who really owns the loans in many cases will become an enormous legal burden because of the morass of documentation fraud.”

The Florida system remains a nightmare after the collapse of the Law Offices of David J. Stern in March 2011. Several other firms came under investigation and some settled claims before being shut down. The $25 billion foreclosure settlement involving 49 states (Oklahoma didn’t participate) includes language that will hold servicers accountable for any third-party firms that handle any aspect of a foreclosure filing.

Consent orders with the Office of the Comptroller and the Federal Reserve will also force servicers to monitor these firms, specifically Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems and Lender Processing Services ($23.87 1.23%).

New foreclosure filings in Palm Beach County increased in May by 3.6% from the previous month as servicers are looking to restart the process. The 1,356 new filings was 61% above levels seen in the year-ago period.

Both Epstein and incumbent Sharon Bock, who’s held the office since 2003 and is running for re-election, are concerned with keeping up because of pending budget cuts.

“We expect that our foreclosure division is one that will be heavily affected by these budget cuts,” Bock said in a statement accompanying the numbers last week. “My fear is if the trend of increased filings continues as it has in recent months, we will not have the ability to keep up with the volume. We will do our best, but it will be a challenge.”

Mortgage servicers have stated they’ve ended past robo-signing practices and are installing new policies to reduce risk in the system. Few, if any, borrowers, they claim, were foreclosed on improperly because of past flawed practices.

But the financial industry is watching this election closely. Should Epstein prevail, her appetite for audits and new investigations could wipe out any restart to an already backlogged foreclosure process.

Some county record keepers in other states already launched investigations of their own, some founded on faulty claims, but some may have real consequences. A report in one Massachusetts county claimed 75% of mortgage assignments were invalid. Another in San Francisco attempted to show similar results through an audit but shrivels under scrutiny through California case law.

The treasurer for the clerk of courts in two Michigan counties filed lawsuits against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to get fees levied during the recording of foreclosure property transfers. The GSEs used a government tax status to escape the fees, an exemption now being challenged.

Epstein said she would be on board with taking all of these actions and suggested the federal government go even further with a wide-scale probe. For this, Epstein is running into a lot of pushback. Her race against Bock has become one of the most heated in the local Florida elections.

“We have to solve a fraudulent process that is hurting our property value taxes, hurting our ability to do a short sale, hurting our ability to work with lenders,” she said. “It’s hurting the faith that there would be some protection. It’s damaging our court systems and yet our court systems are allowing this go on and on.”

BUY THE BOOK! CLICK HERE!

BUY WORKSHOP COMPANION WORKBOOK AND 2D EDITION PRACTICE MANUAL

GET TWO HOURS OF CONSULTATION WITH NEIL DIRECTLY, USE AS NEEDED

COME TO THE 1/2 DAY PHOENIX WORKSHOP: CLICK HERE FOR PRE-REGISTRATION DISCOUNTS

Another Ruse: Realtors Gleeful over Equator Short Sale Platform

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $150 discount
LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample

Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon!

Editor’s Comment:

Banks have adopted a technology platform to process short sale applications. It is called Equator, presumably to imply that it equates one thing with another, and produces a result that either gives a pass or fail to the application. In theory it is a good thing for those people who want to save their homes, save their credit (up to a point) and move on. In practice it essentially licenses the real estate broker to take control over the negotiations and police the transactions so that the new “network” rules are not violated. This reminds me of VISA and MasterCard who control the payment processing business with the illusion of being a quasi governmental agency. Nothing could be further from the truth, but bankers react to net work threats as though the IRS was after them.

Equator is meant as another layer of illusion to the title problem that realtors and title companies are trying to cover up. The short sale is getting be the most popular form of real estate sale because it is a form of principal reduction where there is some face-saving by the banks and the borrowers. The problem is that while short sales are a legitimate form of workout,  they leave the elephant in the living room undisturbed — short sales approved by banks and servicers who have neither the authority nor the interest in the loan to even be involved except as an agent of Equator but NOT as an agent of the lenders,  if they even exist anymore.

So using the shortsale they get the signature of the borrower as seller which gives them a layer of protection if they are the bank or servicer approving the short-sale. But it fails to cure the title defect, especially in millions of transactions in which Nominees (like MERS and dummy originators) are in the chain of title. 

The true owner of the obligation is a group of investor lenders who appear to have only one thing in common— they all gave money to an investment bank or an affiliate of an investment bank, where it was divided up and put into various accounts, some of which were used to fund mortgages and others were used to pay fees and profits to the investment bank on the closing of the “deal” with the investor lenders. As far as the county recorder is concerned, those deposits and splits are nonexistent. 

The investor lenders were then told that their money was pooled in a “Trust” when no such entity ever existed or was registered to do business and no attempt was made to fund the trust. An unfunded trust is not a trust. This, the investor lenders were told was a REMIC entity.  While a REMIC could have been established it never happened  in the the real world because the only communications between participants in the securitization chain consisted of a spreadsheet describing “closed loans.” Such communications did not include transfer, assignment or even transmittal or delivery of the closing papers with the borrower. Thus as far as the county recorder’s office is concerned, they still knew nothing. Now in the shortsales, they want a stranger the transaction to take the money and run — with no requirement that they establish themselves as creditors and no credible documentation that they are the owner of the loan.

This is another end run around the requirements of basic law in property transactions. They are doing it because our government officials are letting them do it, thus implicitly ratifying the right to foreclose and submit a credit bid without any requirement of proof or even offer of proof.

It gets worse. So we have BOA agreeing to accept dollars in satisfaction of a loan that they have no record of owning. The shortsale seller might still be liable to someone if the banks and servicers continue to have their way with creating false chains of ownership. But the real tragedy is that the shortsale seller is probably getting the shaft on a false premise — I.e, that the mortgage or deed of trust had any validity to begin with. 

The shortsale Buyer is most probably buying a lawsuit along with the house. At some point, the huge gaps in the chain of title are going to cause lawyers in increasing numbers to object to title and demand that it be fixed or that the client be adequately covered by insurance arising from securitizatioin claims. Thus when the shortsale Buyer becomes a seller, that is when the problems will first start to surface.

Realtors understand this analysis whereas buyers from Canada and other places do not understand it. But realtors see shortsales as the salvation to their diminished incomes. Thus most realtors are incentivized to misrepresent the risk factors and the title issues in favor of controlling the buyer and the seller into accepting pre-established criteria published by the members of Equator. It is securitization all over again, it is MERS all over again, it is a further corruption of our title system and it is avoiding the main issue — making the victims of this fraud whole even if it takes every penny the banks have. Realtors who ignore this can expect that they and their insurance carriers will be part of the gang of targeted deep pockets when lawyers smell the blood on the floor and go after the perpetrators.

Latest Changes to The Bank of America Short Sale Process

by Melissa Zavala

When processing short sales, it’s important to know about how each of the lending institutions handles loss mitigation and paperwork processing. If you have done a few short sales in Equator with different lenders, you may see what while your same Equator account is used for all your short sales at all the lending institutions, each of the servicers uses the platforms in a different manner.

Using the Equator system

When processing short sales, it’s important to know about how each of the lending institutions handles loss mitigation and paperwork processing. Many folks already know that Equator is the online platform used by 5 major lenders (Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Nationstar, GMAC, and Service One). If you have done a few short sales in Equator with different lenders, you may see what while your same Equator account is used for all your short sales at all the lending institutions, each of the servicers uses the platforms in a different manner.

And, my hat goes off to Bank of America for really raising the bar when it comes to short sale processing online. And, believe me, after processing short sales with Bank of America in 2007, this change is much appreciated.

New Bank of America Short Sale Process

Effective April 13, 2012, Bank of America made a few major changes that may make our short sale processing times more efficient.  The goal of these changes is to make short sale processing through Equator (the Internet-based platform) at Bank of America so efficient that short sale approval can be received in less than one month.

First off, Bank of America now requires their new third party authorization for all short sales being processed through the Equator system. Additionally, the folks at Bank of America will be working to improve task flow for short sales in Equator by making some minor changes to the process.

According to the Bank of America website,

Now you are required to upload five documents (which you can obtain at www.bankofamerica.com/realestateagent) for short sales initiated with an offer:

  • Purchase Contract including Buyer’s Acknowledgment and Disclosure
  • HUD-1
  • IRS Form 4506-T
  • Bank of America Short Sale Addendum
  • Bank of America Third-Party Authorization Form

And, now, you will have only 5 days to submit a backup offer if your buyer has flown the coop.

The last change is a curious one, especially for short sale listing agents, since it often takes awhile to find a new buyer after you learn that the current buyer has changed his or her mind.

Short sale listings agents should be familiar with these changes in order to assure that they are providing their client with the most efficient short sale experience possible.


COUNTY RECORDERS MULL MERS PLAN WITH LUMINAQ-LIVINGLIES TO RECOVER LOST REVENUE

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

COUNTY RECORDERS TO IMPOSE FEES AND FINES FOR FAILURE TO RECORD

AUTHORIZED COUNTY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS:

EMAIL YOUR NAME TO

LUMINAQ.COUNTYRECORDERS@GMAIL.COM

YOUR TITLE

YOUR TELEPHONE NUMBER

YOUR EMAIL TO WHICH YOU WANT THE TELECONFERENCE INVITATION SENT

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TARGET FOR RECOVERY TO COUNTY REVENUE: We have had several discussions with the County recorder in many states wherein a plan has emerged, with our help, to recover recording fees, documentary stamps, fines, penalties and damages from parties filing foreclosure actions under “cover” of supposed securitization.

The emerging plan takes each foreclosure action and computes the number of intermediaries that were the alleged recipients of an interest in the mortgage or deed of trust and than computes the recording fees and other costs that should have been paid in those transactions. The plan only applies to those cases where the property is in foreclosure proceedings, and is being examined by both judicial and non-judicial state recording offices.

LUMINAQ WWW.LUMINAQ.COM is the new site for the Livinglies store. ProTitleUSA, a partner in LUMINAQ, recently completed a massive project for the FDIC involving thousands of homes. LUMINAQ will provide a tailored COMBO title and securitization report that provides the necessary documentation to support the County Recorder’s claim. A tailored loan level accounting report will assess the fees, costs and penalties.

For those properties currently in foreclosure, clear title cannot be obtained by the bidder or any subsequent holder without proof of payment of the outstanding amounts due. While the foreclosing parties might resist the imposition of these costs, the resistance is likely to be tepid at best, because of the delays in completing the foreclosure and the ability to pass on the costs in the computing the bid for the property at sale. Local rules provide the enforcement mechanism.

For those properties which have already been subject to a foreclosure sale, clear title cannot be obtained by a subsequent buyer without payment of the outstanding amounts due.

LUMINAQ WILL PROCESS THE DATA, BUT ALL MONEY WILL BE PAID DIRECTLY TO THE COUNTY RECORDER’S OFFICE. THE AMOUNT TO BE RECOVERED IS ESTIMATED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $60 BILLION.

With Wisconsin and other states going  into gridlock and turmoil over budget disputes, it is projected that the recovery will significantly ease the budget short-falls on the local level. On State levels, Attorney Generals and Treasurers are taking a sharp look at their tax codes and considering similar plans for the recovery of even more money for unpaid income taxes, intangible taxes, registration fees, penalties, fines and other costs.

A SECURE CONFERENCE CALL WILL BE CONDUCTED IN WHICH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF COUNTY GOVERNMENTS WILL BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE WITHOUT COST TO GET DETAILS OF THE PLAN AND HOW TO PARTICIPANT.

AUTHORIZED COUNTY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (LIMIT 2 PER COUNTY)

EMAIL YOUR NAME TO

LUMINAQ.COUNTYRECORDERS@GMAIL.COM

YOUR TITLE

YOUR TELEPHONE NUMBER

YOUR EMAIL TO WHICH YOU WANT THE TELECONFERENCE INVITATION SENT

PACER CITED FOR ALLOWING IMPROPER DOCUMENTATION ON LINE

I MERELY REPORT THE FOLLOWING AS A POSSIBLE “HEADS UP”. I HAVE NOT HEARD OF THIS PROBLEM WITH PACER. IF ANY OF YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT, PLEASE POST YOUR COMMENTS.

Editor’s Note: Like MERS, garbage in, garbage out. Without a referee the players do whatever suits them. Here PACER enables litigants to submit questionable documents — i.e., where authentication is bypassed and foundation is absent.

In MERS, the participant members have constant access to change anything in those “data” records and then submit MIN reports (milestone) as though they were business records, even though they were probably changed to reflect the oral argument from the previous hearing.

The myth in MERS is that someone is submitting documents where they are reviewed for authenticity, proper execution and accuracy just like in the property appraiser’s office or the county recording office in which the property is located. The truth is the only employees at MERS (numbering under 20) are administrative and IT people to keep the technology platform running. MERS was never intended to be a system equal to the recording office. it was always intended to get around the recording requirements.

From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: [law-discuss] Richard Fine: Comprehensive Review of PACER & CM/ECF Practices Sought By Volunteers Across the US
To: “US agencies, law school faculty, NGOs, media, and others” <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010, 5:44 PM

Richard Fine: Comprehensive Review of PACER & CM/ECF Practices Sought By Volunteers Across the US
Los Angeles, March 18 – following his claims fraud in PACER and CM/ECF in the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine at the US District Court, Los Angeles and at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Dr Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, California, resident, published in various online outlets letters [1] seeking volunteers throughout the US to help in producing a comprehensive review of the practices and procedures of the United States courts and courts of appeals relative to their computerized systems:  PACER – the public access system, and CM/ECF – the case management/electron ic filing system.

Specific help was requested in a two-fold manner:

First – comprehensive examination of the local rules, general orders, and CM/ECF manuals of the district and appellate courts, to identify mention, if any of the practice of NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) bearing RSA- encrypted digital signatures as the replacement for the stamps and hand-signatures of the clerks of the courts in the former paper-based certification/ authentication;

Second – examples of alleged fraud by US District courts and US courts of appeals through the issuance of court orders and judgments with invalid NEFs – bearing no RSA-encrypted digital signatures, or no NEFs at all.

In his letters, Dr Zernik compared the practice to the signing of an instrument by an individual, and acknowledgment of such individual’s signature on the instrument by a notary public, based on the notary’s hand endorsement and stamp, which the notary was required to keep possession of at all times.  Furthermore, Dr Zernik stated: “In other words, the public access system (PACER) permitted the inspection and the copying of the instruments alone (and even then – not always the signatures on the instruments) , but the NEFs – the equivalent of notary public acknowledgements – were uniformly eliminated from the PACER records.  Therefore, there was no way that the public could distinguish through PACER between court records that were honest, valid, and effectual, and the multitude of false and deliberately misleading records that populated PACER through misconduct of the courts.”

Such requests were issued as part of an effort to solicit experts’ opinions from outside the US regarding integrity of operations of the US courts relative to the practice and procedures of PACER and CM/ECF.  Dr Zernik was confident that experts would confirm his claims that PACER and CM/ECF, as implemented by the Administrative Office of the US Courts,  were a large-scale Shell Game fraud.

LINKS/NOTES:
[1]
March 18, 2010 Letter by Dr Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles resident, soliciting volunteer reviews of Local Rules, General Orders, and local CM/ECF User’s manuals across the US.  The links at the end of the letter provided examples of both valid, and invalid NEFs.
———— ——

Hi [ ],

Thanks, since it appears that you know all the right people. Maybe you could help me in the most urgent task, relative to PACER in the US courts and US courts of appeals:

THE CLAIMS:
My basic claims relative to the recent implementation of the public access (PACER) and case management/ electronic filing (CM/ECF) systems at the United States courts is that it was the largest Shell Game fraud in the history of mankind, and that it was executed with no legal authority at all, since there was no way that the public could tell through PACER, which records were honest, valid, and effectual court records, and which were false and deliberately misleading court records.

Through many generations of paper-based administration of the courts, fundamental safeguards were established, which required that court orders and judgments be verified by the hand signature of the judge, and certified/authentic ated by the stamp/seal of the court and hand endorsement by the clerk of the court. Moreover, the clerk of the court was the only one authorized to hold the seals/stamps of the court.

Such basic procedures could be compared to the signing of an instrument by an individual, and acknowledgment of such individual’s signature on the instrument by a notary public, based on the notary’s hand endorsement and stamp, which the notary was required to keep possession of at all times.

The claim is that with the introduction of computer-based administration of the US courts, the certification/ authentication by the clerk was implemented as NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings). The hand endorsement of the clerk was replaced by an RSA-encrypted digital signature, which appeared at the bottom of the NEFs as a 3-5 line nonsensical alphanumeric string.

However, in coordinated fashion, such newly practiced court procedures were NEVER lawfully established through local rules of courts in any US court or court of appeals that I examined.

Furthermore, in devising its dual computerized case management (CM/ECF) and public access (PACER) systems, the US courts deliberately eliminated from public access, and were actively denying public access to the NEFs. The NEFs were simply excluded from PACER.

In other words, the public access system (PACER) permitted the inspection and the copying of the instruments alone (and even then – not always the signatures on the instruments) , but the NEFs – the equivalent of notary public acknowledgements – were uniformly eliminated from the PACER records.

Therefore, there was no way that the public could distinguish through PACER between court records that were honest, valid, and effectual, and the multitude of false and deliberately misleading records that populated PACER through misconduct of the courts.

Moreover, the claim is that there was no reasonable explanation for the design of such dual systems that was consistent with the furtherance of justice and honest administration of the courts.

CURRENT EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTAT ION:
Ample documentation of the claims above was accumulated from the US District Court in LA and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (in re: case of Richard Fine), and from the US District Court in Brattleboro, Vermont, and the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (case of Scott Huminski).

The alleged fraud in such cases was in the issuance by the US District Court of court orders and judgments with NEFs with no digital signatures, and the service of court orders by the US courts of appeals with no signatures by the judges, and no NEFs at all.

WHERE IT STANDS TODAY:
I am in the process of seeking prominent expert opinions on the matter from outside the US (no US expert that is prominent, whom I have approached, was willing to issue a written opinion on the matter). I do have non-formal opinion from a prominent US expert, and preliminary formal opinion from a prominent expert from outside he US.

REQUEST FOR HELP:
I am seeking:

A) COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LOCAL RULES OF COURTS/ GENERAL ORDERS/ USER MANUALS ACROSS THE US:
Review of as many US District Courts and Courts of Appeals, to establish whether they documented in their Local Rules of Courts the basis for operation of PACER and CM/ECF, the nature of certification/ authentication of records through RSA-encrypted digital signatures in NEFs. The only good reference that I found was often in informal “CM/ECF USER MANUALS”, which were not adequate court records at all.

What I would expect from those who were willing to help was a short declaration under penalty of perjury such as:

1) On this and that date I inspected the Local Rules of Court of this and that US District Court – as posted by the court at this and that URL, the Standing Orders – as posted by the court at this and that URL, and the local “CM/ECF User’s Manual” -as posted by the court at this and that URL. (I would appreciate also a time-date stamped PDF copies of the complete Local Rules of Court, General Orders, and CM/ECF Manuals of each court that was examined)

2) The only mention of PACER and CM/ECF was such and such.

3) The practice and procedure of NEFs and RSA-encrypted digital signatures in the NEFs, as the valid certification/ authentication of court records was/was not mentioned in such Local Rules of Court – Rule #xx; Was/was not mentioned in the local General Orders – General Order #xx-xx; Was/was not mentioned in informal “CM/ECF User’s Manual” of the court, pp xx-xx.

2) ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES OF FRAUD ON INDIVIDUALS AT THE US DISTRICT COURTS AND US COURTS OF APPEALS, PARTICULARLY IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO HABEAS CORPUS, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
I am seeking:
a) US District Court orders and judgments that were served with NEFs bearing no RSA-encrypted digital signatures, and/or
b) US Courts of Appeals orders that were served with no signatures of the judges and no NEFs at all.

Such fraud is typically perpetrated on litigants who are:
a) Prisoners filing habeas corpus petitions.
b) Individuals filing complaints pertaining to civil rights abuses.
c) Individuals filing complaints pertaining to complaints against members of the judiciary.
d) Individuals filing complaints pertaining to financial institutions – truth in lending, disability insurance, ERISA, benefits plans, etc.

My email for direct communications is:
jz12345@earthlink. net.

Truly,
[]
Joseph Zernik, PhD
http://inproperinla .blogspot. com/
http://www.scribd. com/Free_ the_Rampart_ FIPs
http://www.liveleak .com/user/ jz12345
http://www.examiner .com/x-38742- LA-Business- Headlines- Examiner
Please sign our petition – Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetit ionsite.com/ 1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce’ Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!

LINKS:
[1]
NEFs – a review with examples of honest and fraudulent NEFs:
http://www.scribd. com/doc/24732941 /10-01-03- Notice-of- Electronic- Filing-NEF- First-Amendment- CMSs-Review

[2] Large Scale Fraud Alleged in PACER
http://inproperinla .blogspot. com/2010/ 03/10-03- 17-large- scale-fraud- alleged-in. html

Signing New Docs Creates New Loan and Waives Prior Defenses

Question from blogger:

In an awkward position and can’t seem to get a straight answer.  We refinanced our property in 2006 and in 2009 received a letter from the title insurers requesting we re-sign all docs.  The note is lost and was never recorded with the county.  I can’t find precedent in such a case and am unsure if quiet title action is the course to pursue.

Any thoughts?

Sounds to me that there are obvious title defects, that the title agent is worried about liability and that the ability of ANY mortgagee to enforce the note and mortgage is in doubt or maybe impossible. Don’t give up your superior position until you speak to a lawyer who understands securitization and mortgages.

It is possible that you don’t have a note or mortgage but that doesn’t mean you have no obligation. If they want to re-establish the formal documentation the burden should be on them, not you. Press the point aggressively since you appear to be in position to demand a very favorable settlement.

%d bloggers like this: