WHY WE ARE PLANNING 2-3 DAY BOOT-CAMPS AND MANUALS FOR LAWYERS, BOOT-CAMPS FOR FORENSIC ANALYSTS, AND BOOT-CAMPS FOR LAYMEN. IT’S JUST NOT AS SIMPLE AS YOU MAY WANT IT TO BE.
NOT EVERYTHING ENDS WELL. THE BATTLE IS ON. THIS JUDGE SAID THE ASSIGNMENT DOESN’T NEED TO BE RECORDED TO PROVE OWNERSHIP. HE’S TECHNICALLY RIGHT, BUT HIS CONCLUSION WAS WRONG. THIS IS WHY I KEEP SAYING THERE IS NO SILVER BULLET. The fact that an assignment is not recorded does not mean that it can’t be recorded — unless it is not executed in recordable form. If it isn’t executed in recordable form and it isn’t recorded then it violates the terms of the pooling and service agreement and the prospectus/indentures for the mortgage backed bond sold investors.
If the purported document violates the enabling documents then the assignment has not been accepted. If the assignment has not been accepted then there is no assignment. At best there is a conditional assignment which is clearly in violation of the the express terms of the enabling documents. The existence of the condition creates an issue of fact as to who really has the right to own, enforce and collect on the obligation, note and mortgage.
If there was no consideration for the “transfer? then there isn’t even an equitable argument for why the pretender lender should be allowed to foreclose. They have nothing to lose by the alleged default and obviously don’t even know if there is a default in the OBLIGATION that was FUNDED with ADVANCED MONEY by INVESTORS.
But you see, this Judge was already predisposed to not giving the “borrower” a free house. He/She needs to be coddled and led along the path of education so he/she understands that the “borrower” is actually an investor who purchased a financial loan product subject to terms and duties which were breached by all the people in the securitization chain. The “lender” is the investor who advanced the money and is not in court.
The pretender lender is using bluff and fraud to get their share of the great American pie at the homeowner’s expense, depriving the homeowner of the knowledge of the identity of the true lender, the ability to settle out of court with the true lender, the ability to comply with federal law in seeking modification, short-sale, refinance or even payoff because the pretender lender in Court in Florida doesn’t even have the right, power, authority or justification to execute a satisfaction of mortgage.
If they don’t have the power to execute a satisfaction of mortgage then how could they have the power to foreclose?
The problem with this case is that the homeowners should be aggressive but not to try to convince the Judge why he/she should get a free house. You must align yourself with the Judge’s basic sense of fairness and basic mistrust of legal maneuvering to get out of a legally owed debt. By focusing your aggression on discovery, enforcement of the QWR and/or DVL, asking for the name of the true lender and the production of documents and names, addresses and phone numbers of people who can testify under oath, you present the Judge with something he cannot or should not refuse and that any appellate court would reverse him on. You are asking for discovery to test the merits of the pretender lender’s allegation or position that they have the right to enforce the note, that they are the party to whom the obligation is owed, that they are a creditor in the sense that they advanced money which they will lose if they don’t get to enforce the note and obligation, and that therefore they are the beneficiary of the terms of the the mortgage that secures the alleged debt.
If you go into court spouting securitization theories it is very easy to say you haven’t convinced the Judge. If you go in demanding an evidentiary hearing based upon the rules of evidence and founded on common discovery and enforcement in obtaining relevant information about your loan, and seeking an accounting from those people, entities or parties that were participants in the securitization chain, then you are only asking for a COMPLETE accounting so that you discover what undisclosed fees were paid under TILA and RESPA, and the true identities of the people involved in your table-funded loan.
I’m sorry for your result Mr Fitzgerald, but perhaps with the aid of competent, licensed, local counsel you can move for rehearing, file a bankruptcy that will stay the proceedings, and/or appeal.
Author : L.Fitzgerald
” Happy Thanksgiving …give thanks to all the Blessings you have……he said,
and don’t complaint of the things you don’t have..”
“I’ll be eating turkey with my ” kids ” tomorrow “…he happily remarked .
With a smile on his face ..this Orlando 9 th Judicial Circuit
Court .. Judge…denied my motion to vacate judgment , and
allowed my house to be sold on Jan. 2010.
We became a ” potential homelessness couple.”… .the day
He was very kind to a Wall Street Bankster [ plaintiff ]..he gave away my only home ….
During this hearing ..one of my main arguments ..
was the Plaintiff’s lack of recorded Assignments ..and chain of
Title .. [ The Bankster is not my original lender..].
The smiling Judge made this comment ..that shocked us …
” Florida law does not require Assignments to be recorded…
…to prove the Plaintiff’s ownership…!!.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: | advanced money, authority, discovery, DVL, enforcement of mortgage, enforcement of note, enforcement of obligation, fairness, Fitzgerald, Florida, investors, legal maneuvering, ownership, pretender lender, QWR, recording in Florida, RESPA, satisfaction of mortgage, securitization chain, TILA, true lender