MANDELMAN MATTERS: DEADBEAT BORROWERS AND THIEVES WHO CALL THEM THAT

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

If you’re allowed to foreclose and kick someone out of his or her home without being the party that either owns the loan or represents the person who owns the loan… if you can ignore those laws, why can’t you ignore other laws too?  Which laws apply, when one of the parties didn’t make his or her payments?”

Home  »  Today’s New… “But, You Didn’t Make Your Payment” Exemption to the Law

Today’s New… “But, You Didn’t Make Your Payment” Exemption to the Law

I’m not a lawyer, so let’s be very clear about that, but I’m about to tell you how the law has always worked in this country, as far as I have understood it.

If you came to repossess my car, then you were required to be the person or entity that held the pink slip to my car, or you had to be working for the person or entity that held the pink slip to my car.  If you were not the person or entity holding my pink slip, then you couldn’t come repossess my car.

In fact, if you came and repossessed my car but were NOT the person or entity holding my pink slip, then we had a phrase to describe that occurrence as well … you were STEALING MY CAR.

Pretty straightforward, right?  I don’t even think you need to finish law school if that’s the extent to which you want to understand the law.  And don’t let any of the attorneys that may be reading this around you try to make it more complicated, because it’s not.  It is that simple… you can’t repossess someone’s car unless you’re the person or entity that holds the pink slip, or title, to that car… or are working for that person or entity, of course.

That’s the same way it’s supposed to work where houses are concerned.  If you don’t make your mortgage payments, that doesn’t mean that everyone in the country is allowed to throw you out of your home… only the person or entity that holds your mortgage is supposed to be able to do that, right?  Of course that’s right, silly.  And don’t play semantics with me, that’s the deal.

But in this country today, there appears to be a new exemption to quite a few laws… it’s called the “But you didn’t make your mortgage payments” exemption, and when it comes into play, nothing else seems to much matter… you just lose.

Like, what if you don’t make your mortgage payments and the entity that comes to evict you from your home is one that you’ve never heard of before.  And they have no proof whatsoever that they own your loan or represent the entity that owns your loan.  Well, in general it’s tough cheese.  The judge just says, “But you didn’t make your mortgage payments,” and that’s the end of that.  And most everyone seems to be in agreement with this line of thinking.

You say, “But, your Honor… they’ve broken a dozen laws here… important laws… laws governing the transfer of property rights upon which the country has been built.”  And the judge just gets annoyed saying, “But you didn’t make your mortgage payments,” and that’s the end of that.  It’s almost like a get out of jail free card.

So, you say, “But your Honor, they’ve forged the documents, falsified the records, committed fraud on your court.”  But he says it doesn’t matter… you didn’t make your mortgage payments… you have no rights and the party that’s foreclosing is now exempt from all of the laws that might otherwise apply.  In fact, those laws are now reduced to being mere “technicalities.”   And no one cares about technicalities as compared to you not making your mortgage payments.

So, I’m just wondering… don’t you think this sets kind of a dangerous precedent?

Let’s say that you’re not making your mortgage payments.  And one night after dinner, the doorbell rings and you answer the door and it’s a representative of your mortgage servicer… and he punches you right in the face and then proceeds to beat the crap out of you.

And you end up in court.   And the judge says, “But you didn’t make your mortgage payments, “ and dismisses the case.  And you say, “But, your Honor… my mortgage servicer beat the crap out of me and that’s against the law, in fact there are all sorts of laws broken by him beating the crap out of me.”  But the judge just replies, “But you didn’t make your mortgage payments, “ and that’s the end of that.

Do you think I’m being ridiculous?  Why?  What’s the difference between ignoring one set of laws and another set of laws?  If you’re allowed to foreclose and kick someone out of his or her home without being the party that either owns the loan or represents the person who owns the loan… if you can ignore those laws, why can’t you ignore other laws too?  Which laws apply, when one of the parties didn’t make his or her payments?

You see, I think the reason we have laws about the transfer of property is because it was important that someone not lose their property without those laws being followed.  Whether one made their payments or not, wasn’t the point… the point was simply that the transfer of property rights has always been seen as a pretty big deal under the law, as far as I can tell.

I think the reason we let things get a little loose concerning foreclosure is that we trusted the bankers who were foreclose.  In California, and all of the non-judicial foreclosure states, as far as I know, you don’t need to prove to the court that you hold the title to someone’s home in order to foreclose, and I’m pretty sure that the reason that was okay to our lawmakers was that they trusted the bankers… and they never envisioned not trusting them in that regard.

The problem is that today there is an abundance of evidence that says we cannot trust our bankers… quite often they lie, commit fraud on the courts, and in general are more than willing and able to fabricate and falsify whatever is required to foreclose on someone’s home… period.  They don’t care at all… and they don’t get in trouble for it either, which I find the most disturbing part of the whole thing.

So, since its become clear that bankers lie, and cannot be trusted, we’re going to need to bring back the old laws about having to prove you’re the right party to be foreclosing on someone’s home before you’re allowed to do so.  Several states have already done this… Hawaii and Arkansas, most recently.  Arizona tried to pass such a law, but the banking lobby got to them and killed them both.

California had a bill that would have come close, but the banking lobby killed it in committee, for heaven’s sake.  It was too dangerous to even debate in the legislature.

Some have said to me, “But Mandelman… the banks need to be able to foreclose or repossess when people don’t make their house or car payments.”  And I reply… “No one is debating that point.  Of course they can foreclose when payments are not made.  If they’re the party who holds the beneficial interest, as the lawyers says, in the loan.  If they lost the pink slip, they’ll have to correct that problem before they can come take back my car.”

It’s no different than if my car gets impounded for being parked in the wrong spot.  When I show up to get it out of impound, I better have the registration, right?  If I don’t, what am I told by the man at the impound lot?  No ticket, no laundry, right?

We have laws about the transfer of property in this country and there are reasons for these laws.  None of these laws say anything about banks only being required to follow them when someone is current on his or her payments.

Let’s stop making this more complicated than it needs to be… if the trust can prove that it does hold the note, that the note was properly assigned to that trust, that the note was endorsed… or whatever was supposed to happen according to the laws and rules, did in fact happen, then fine… foreclose away.  But if that’s not the case, banker people… then you have to fix it… before you’re allowed to foreclose.

Sorry, and I know how unfair you think this is, but forging the documents isn’t an okay answer to this problem.  Like if you want to repossess my car and you lost the pink slip, the acceptable answer is not to fake one on your laser printer and get Linda Green to sign it, got it?  That’s not how we fix things in this country, and it doesn’t matter who made payments on time and who didn’t.

If that’s inconvenient, then so be it.  And I have to think it’s a damn sight less inconvenient than what’s going on today, and if it’s even more inconvenient than that, then the bankers in this country have really screwed up bad, and we should all be shown what they’ve done.

I ran all of this by a lawyer friend of mine and here is the language from the Deed of Trust (page 23):

“Reconveyance.  Upon payment of all sums secured by this security instrument, lender shall request trustee to reconvey the property and shall surrender this security instrument and all notes evidencing debt secured by this security instrument to trustee.  Trustee shall reconvey the property without warranty to the person or persons legally entitled to it.”

So, apparently this language appears in EVERY Deed of Trust, including yours, your Honor. So when you want your pink slip/title/note in order to have your mortgage burning party, you may be disappointed to find that no one seems to have it.

And what about title insurance in the future?  Will we be able to get it as a result of this whole mess being allowed to go on unchecked?  I don’t think anyone really knows the answer to that question.

Lastly, the question always seems to come around to one of damages.  How did the note not being properly endorsed to the trust and the trust being permitted to foreclosing anyway damage the homeowner?  Again, it’s quite simple, really…

If someone is allowed to repossess my car even though that entity doesn’t hold my pink slip or work for the entity that holds my pink slip, then whoever repossessed my car STOLE IT.  And that, by itself, sounds pretty damaging.

But what if someone shows up later and says they have the pink slip?  What then?  Will they be understanding and say, “Oh, someone else got it.  No problem, we’re sorry to have bothered you.  We’ll follow up with them.”

Somehow I doubt that will happen that way.  And there are several reasons I’m not at all sure that this won’t be the case in the years to come.  For one thing, both Taylor Bean & Whittaker and New Century Mortgage were found to have sold mortgages to more than one person at the same time, and others have admitted that it happens all the time.

And for another, I know of several homeowners who have filed quiet title actions and are still waiting for someone to show up and say they own the loan… in one case that’s recently been brought to my attention, it’s been almost a year and still no one has shown up.  Does that mean no one will?  Or will someone show up years from now?  (Here’s the case, click it and you’ll see.)

Harvey v Garbett, Quiet Title Case in Draper Utah

I don’t really know, but wouldn’t it just be easier for the entity foreclosing to be the entity that actually holds the beneficial interest in the loan?  You know, just as the law has always intended?

There’s another reason that it makes sense to require the right entity to foreclose… because the right entity, the entity that does in fact hold the beneficial interest in the loan would be much more likely to want to modify the loan as opposed to foreclosing on it, in instances where the payments have not been made.

You see, servicers chose to foreclose because it’s in their own best interests to foreclose, but what about the investor’s best interests?  After all the investor is who put up the money in the first place, so what about the investor’s best interests?

Surely the investor would rather have a modified loan, especially in instances where the home is terribly underwater and by foreclosing the investor will realize an enormous loss and then not be able to sell it… perhaps for several years… wouldn’t you think that investor would prefer to modify the loan and get payments again?

Louis Ranieri, who is often referred to as the father of mortgage-backed securities had the following to say about foreclosing:

“The cardinal principle in the mortgage crisis is a very old one. You are almost always better off restructuring a loan in a crisis with a borrower than going to a foreclosure.

 

In the past that was never at issue because the loan was always in the hands of someone acting as a fiduciary. The bank, or someone like a bank owned them, and they always exercised their best judgment and their interest. The problem now with the size of securitization and so many loans are not in the hands of a portfolio lender but in a security where structurally nobody is acting as the fiduciary.”

Well, what do you know about that?  So, it seems there are lots of good reasons that we should make sure that the entity foreclosing is the entity who does in fact own the loan, or at least work for the entity that owns the loan.

So, why are we making this so damn difficult?  And why is it such a big problem for a bank-servicer-whatever to show up and actually prove that the trust actually holds the note in question?  They don’t really expect us to buy into that whole, “But we lost them, your Honor.  All of them, your Honor.  It was a mass misplacement, your Honor.”

I mean, come on now… are we really supposed to believe that ALL of the major banks lost ALL of the notes and ALL at the same time?  Seriously?  I know 14 year-old boys that could tell you that such a story is simply not believable.

It’s time to come clean banker-people.  Your story stinks to high heaven and the homeowners, lawyers, investors, and even the government investigators are all getting closer to uncovering the truth every day.

And until the banks start telling the truth, or modifying loans in the best interests of the investors and homeowners like they are supposed to…

… how about we the people pass a bill that requires the entity foreclosing to prove they are the entity that owns the loan… because it’s clear… abundantly clear… that we certainly can’t trust the trustee any more.

About these ads

46 Responses

  1. [...] on August 26, 2011 at 6:06 am said: It’s time foreclosure must be outlawed and banks must be forced to modify mortgages. This [...]

  2. [...] Raysik, on August 25, 2011 at 10:33 pm said: Best set of short, easy to understand arguments I have read on this site. Kudos. It is all [...]

  3. To Shelly Erickson above,

    I have documents with Dominque Johnson and Deborah L. Beard on them too, I have read your posts in different places online and need your help. You said you have dirt on these signatures, please help, we are about to lose our home and I know this is fraudulant.

  4. [...] MANDELMAN MATTERS: DEADBEAT BORROWERS AND THIEVES WHO CALL THEM THAT MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE “If you’re allowed to foreclose and kick someone out of his or her home without being the party that either owns the loan or represents the person who owns the loan… if you can ignore those laws, why can’t you ignore other laws [...] [...]

  5. Jan van Eck,

    Great post — right on it. Fraud upon the court?? No SOL.

  6. @Lee Perry

    yo said “Questions of law (standing) come before questions of equity in pretty much every state in the country.”

    that’s pretty good. Thanks

  7. Yeah but Judges are waiting for their pensions to get paid.

    DO SOME OBJECTIVE REPORTING ON THAT YOU COWARDS!

  8. If you modify your mortgage with the bank you are making a statement for the bank .. They own your mortgage. When the debt collectors do not own the mortgage. You are allowing the banks to get away with their crimes. To be paid again and to come back down the road with another plan to steal your house maybe in a few years. Oh the mods over now you owe back penalties etc. The crooks do not own the mortgage. If it was a mistake and their was an innocents about this I would say ok lets redo this so it is fair for all. This is not an innocent mistake, this was a full scale plan to cause risky loans and defaults and steer people who had good credit to default for profit and to steal thousands of American homes heartlessly. They need to go to jail and I for one am after their throats. I may not succeed, but I have thrown everything at them including “RICO” and violations of the “Honest services Doctrine” Fraud Upon The Cour, non compliance with the Washington CPA laws and the Washington Deed of trust Act, and modification fraud, time barred statutes of limitations, for unsecured debt, adverse possession, proof of clouded and slandered title, and a blank PSA and you name it- it is on my claims with every element met. I am one ticked off homeowner that will not let the bus run over me and my family without a fight.

  9. In response to Shelley A. Erickson, who posted on August 26, 2011 at 12:38 am: we, too have a document with Malik and Steeg on it. How can we trade copies for comparison?

  10. very true – the bureau drawer thing was brilliant and a 6th grader really could understand the concepts.

  11. Hey, all, here’s one of my favorite Classic Mandelman articles…love the bureau drawer analogy:

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2011/03/mandelman-u-presents-securitization-mortgage-backed-securities/

  12. I agree with you guys about the mod crap. I love Mandelman, goodness I do! He’s the man! But he seems to be stuck in a rut on the modification thing…how can a loan be modified when those who are doing the modifying have NO CAPACITY?

  13. Right on, Alice.

    This “modify” crap is sooooooo old and tiresome.

    When is Neil going to start telling the WHOLE truth????

    Come on, Neil…we need you to be the hero we think you are.

  14. Good article but stop with the ‘modifying’ line. They can’t modify a loan that doesn’t exist. The only one that can do the modifying is a the one who is owed the debt. Since no one seems willing or able to prove they own the debt that tells me their is no loan to modify. The realtors wonder why their short sales can’t be approved..perhaps it is because there is no one to approve them. Carie’s point about collection rights is right on. That is all that this was, collection rights and I guess that is why all the servicers are now sending out letters that they are debt collectors. Fine, debt collectors for who? They don’t want to disclose this information but want us to believe that they have that ‘pink slip’ and we are supposed to say, okay, we believe you and you don’t even need to show us any proof. Millions of Americans have gone along with this, not one of them requiring any proof, just watching as their homes were stolen by someone claiming they own the debt but not providing any proof. How gullible have the American public become. Perhaps those of us in the know just need to start foreclosing on our neighbors because we can..that sounds crazy because it is but it is happening hundreds of times every day.

  15. Why should we “modify” unsecured false default debt???

    THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO OUR MONEY!!!

    “…What we need to focus on is that borrower’s subprime refinance was unsecured — a false and fraudulent mortgage — and nothing more than debt collection on a fraudulent transfer of collection rights to a false default debt. Everyone (in subprime refinance) was in (false) default before they even refinanced.
    The banks (as debt buyers) accomplished this by falsely placing borrower in current default (and never telling them) — and then the servicer purchases the collection rights from either Freddie or Fannie. Then the servicer “reinstates” the false default debt with a fraudulent refinance. And, if there is a subsequent refinance, that is just another transfer of collection rights. Servicer reports original F/F mortgage as “paid” — but it is “Paid-OUT” — by servicer purchase — and not “Paid-OFF” by the borrower as it should have been by the (fraudulent) subprime refinance. . Thus, borrower remains in default on F/F loan – despite a subprime refinance — and borrower can never refinance with an F/F again — They are doomed if they miss even one payment on the false collection rights — and will never recover because always held in default — on both the F/F loan and the collection rights. BUT
    BORROWERS should not be paying on fraud!!!! They have a right withhold payments on fraudulent debt.
    All fraudulent, all in violation of consumer protection laws — and, because the “creditor” of collection right never validates the “debt” — by disclosing the actual creditor to the false default debt — in violation of FDCPA and May 2009 TILA Amendment. Meaning borrowers should not be paying anything — because of fraud and violation of federal statutes.”

  16. “Hey, everybody! Time now to check what’s going on with that giant portfolio of foreclosed-upon homes that we, as taxpayers, own. Did you forget that we owned a giant portfolio of foreclosed-upon homes? Because we do. Anyway, the good news is that we may not have this portfolio for much longer. The bad news is that we’ll be relieved of it in one of the worst deals possible.

    At any rate, Ken Layne points us to some recent news on that front:”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/taxpayer-assets-vulture-funds_n_937063.html

  17. When the judge asks the borrower if they stopped making payments, the answer should ALWAYS be – Your Honor, the answer to that question is outside your jurisdiction to ask until you determine that the lender has standing to be in this courtroom. Questions of law (standing) come before questions of equity in pretty much every state in the country. If you can’t abide by this legal precept, then please recuse yourself from this action.

  18. Too big too fail = Communism = Soviet Union = United states = guaranteed to fail.

    America Wake up for our Childrens Sake.

  19. Karl says it pretty good:

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=193037

    The only thing I don’t like is he uses “invest” and trade in the same sentence. Correction is it’s all trading. there is no investing.

    “Don’t even try to “invest” in this market folks, and if you decide to trade, realize that you’re playing in a rigged casino and the entire force of the government is not only behind rigging the casino but explicitly endorses and permits the rigging to go on and continue, despite being fully-aware of it.”

    ————————————

    But now, you can liken the stock market to the housing market. There is no liquidity anymore.

  20. Thanks tnharry.

    This is my wife’s CC. Unfortunately we are still w/i SOL. I’m gonna pull her free credit report and see if Cap 1 is reporting and what they say on the CC report.

  21. We are heading for the fascist regime. The corporations will get all our money until we are just serfs with no civil rights left. It is coming. This country already acts like it is fascist–subsidies to giant corporations that make obscene profits and do not pay taxes. This environment is how Hitler came to power. Watch out!

  22. Here’s a suit regarding the manipulation of the LIBOR;
    Charles Schwab Corp. on Tuesday filed an antitrust suit in California against nearly a dozen banks including Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc., becoming the latest investor to accuse prominent financial institutions of conspiring to manipulate a key interest rate.

  23. @cubed – I’m not following you regarding authority to sue. is it cap1 that sued you as plaintiff? if so, did you have a credit card from them? if both are yes, then I’m not seeing the authority/standing issue. if no, then you have a point to argue the case with. nothing wrong with trying it, but a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (more modern version of demurrer, some places still use the term, some don’t) probably fails since they’ve alleged you owe a debt. that’s a valid claim. whether they can prove their case is another issue, but for a motion/demurrer, they get the benefit of their pleadings being assumed to be correct. best defense is deny deny deny. see if they’re willing to fly in a corporate rep of cap1 to be a live witness. if they file an affidavit of debt, file your own affidavit in opposition. meet their proof with proof until they have to bring in a live person, which they might never do. these are done in volume hoping for defaults. make it hard on them and sometimes they just give up. you’ve referenced several times that you’ve been stringing creditors along for years. that makes me think you should also check the applicable statutes of limitation and maybe use that as well. good luck

  24. Matt Taibbi on the Obama and the “Dirty Banker Deal”

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/obama-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824

    Warren Buffett just put 5 billion into B of A preferred stock. Is Buffet the “Insider of Omaha”?

  25. CUBED2K ,

    Your reply to a similar situation just a few days ago looked great ,, you posted a DEMURRER and this request for docs ..

    *****************************************************************

    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
    IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
    MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT
    Plaintiff
    Vs.
    Joseph Consumer
    Defendant(s)
    Case No._____________________
    REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
    COMES Now Defendant, xxxxxxx, and files this Request for Production of Documents, and requests the Court to grant such Motion based on facts stated below:
    “Document” means any written, recorded or graphic matter, whether produced, reproduced or stored on papers, cards, tapes, belts, or computer devices or any other medium in your possession, custody or control, or known by you to exist, and includes originals, all copies of originals, and all prior drafts. It includes all original business records, non-identical copies, computations, memoranda of oral or telephone conversations, tabulations, records of correspondence, notes made on other documents, microfilms, etc. A request to identify a document is a request to state as applicable:
    1. The date of the document;
    2. The type of document;
    3. The names and present addresses of the person or persons who prepared the document and of the signers and addressers of the document;
    4. The name of the employer or principal whom the signers, addressers and preparers were representing;
    5. The present location of the document;
    6. The name and current business and home addresses of the present custodians of the original document, and any copies of it;
    7. A summary of the contents of the document; and
    8. If the original document was destroyed, the date and reason for or
    circumstances by which it was destroyed.
    1. The alleged credit application from “”Account””, bearing the plaintiff’s signature;
    2. The alleged credit agreement from “”Account”” that states interest rate, grace period, terms of repayment, et cetera;
    3. Itemized statements or credit card statements from “”Account”” that demonstrate how the alleged amount of $X,XXX was calculated;
    4. A contract, agreement, assignment, or other means demonstrating that XXXX. had the authority and capacity, and was legally entitled to collect on the alleged debt from “”Account””;
    5. Letter(s) sent to plaintiff by XXXX., demonstrating an attempt to collect on the alleged debt, “”Account””;
    6. A notarized statement, if presently existing or otherwise, by a person with original knowledge of the alleged debt, as it was constituted, and who can testify, or be so interrogated in a deposition, that the alleged debt was incurred legally;
    7. Any and all further documents that you believe establish that plaintiff had an outstanding account or debt related to “”Account””;
    8. Any further documentation, beyond what has been previously requested, that clearly establishes plaintiff’s liability and/or responsibility to the alleged debt;
    9. Any and all written communication, received by the defendant from the plaintiff, regarding the reporting of the alleged account to any credit reporting agency, as well as defendant’s accessing of plaintiff’s credit report(s).
    10. Any and all communications from defendant to the plaintiff explaining
    why defendant reported the alleged debt to any credit reporting agency, as well as obtaining plaintiff’s credit report(s);
    11. Any and all credit report(s) defendant obtained from any credit
    reporting agency concerning the plaintiff;
    12. Any and all notes, memoranda, or likewise, be they handwritten,
    computerized, or typed, regularly kept in the normal transaction and
    business of collecting debts, that relate to the plaintiff and/or
    “”Account””;
    13. The defendant’s Articles of Incorporation;

  26. It’s time foreclosure must be outlawed and banks must be forced to modify mortgages. This is huge mess and is not doing anything good to the nation or the people.

  27. I think the Judges should ask the owner :
    Why did you not make the payment ?
    My answer : because the bank close my HELOC account .
    I TRUST the bank , that I could use the HELOC for emergency .
    May be we will get a new law , what list all corruption without
    going to gail.

  28. E tolle

    Sorry. I assume nothing where I don’t have all the info

    Sorry, as well to have to point out that some assignments, however noxious we might perceive them, do transfer a given debt

    My only point was that sometimes an “Answer” is premature where dismissal is warranted on jurisdictional grounds

  29. As to the original Posting, regarding evidence that the Plaintiff actually owns the claim of debt, the alternative strategy is to put up the money into “escrow” and sue the plaintiff (and their counsel, of course) claiming that they are perpetrating a deceit upon the courts.

    As to the matter of credit-card debt with “Capital One,” keep in mind that the entity doing the suing is most likely NOT Capital One, but some third-party debt buyer. What happens is that the third parties buy “baskets” of debt at a bid auction, then go and try to collect full value. The buyers typically pay about 6 cents on the dollar; whatever they collect, is gravy. However, as debt collectors, they now become governed by the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 18 USC 1692, if I remember the statute number correctly. You will find that they screw up the provisions of Statute routinely, all grist for counter-claims and special defenses in your lawsuit. Once you file a detailed set of responsive Motions, they usually walk away, and go hunt for easier pickings.

  30. I have dirt on Malik Basurto assist sec of MERS and the nortary is on two dif docs and both docs have two very very dif signatures for both Malik and Shannon Steeg the notary whom are together on the two pierce county doc from Washington. Also the pretend assist sec of MERS Dominique Johnson and the notary Deborah L. Beard are together on two dif docs and both of the two with totally dif signatures and all in May, June and August of 2011. Recently done. Proof of perjury, and fraud.

  31. @ marie, gotta love “Are you certain they have the right
    Cubed?”

    In other news, those utter wastes of a perfectly good Utah bench that just basically overturned Carpenter v. Longan should be taken out back and disrobed. I’m afraid one day these idiots will learn the hard way that people will only put up with boot marks on the neck for so long, and when that day comes it won’t be pretty.

    Day after day finds yet more yanking of basic legal protections that have been in place not only for as long as anyone can remember, but that are there for very profound reasons. Every civilization has understood that basic human rights aren’t a luxury, but a necessity for a properly functioning populace, and the removal of same will not be tolerated by people who rememeber their ancestors telling the king to kiss their collective asses. I believe we should bring back stocks so as to lock these offenders in front of their own courthouses for public humiliation, ridicule and mockery.

    Now for the weather. Here’s hoping that Wall Street will take the full fury of Irene in a direct hit as a catagory 10 even though the scale currently only goes to 5, and that it’s totally obliterated, destroying all records save for what is necessary to lock them all up. Film at 11:00.

  32. Best set of short, easy to understand arguments I have read on this site. Kudos.

    It is all so very simple folks. It was written over a hundred years ago.
    Black Letter Law.
    Stick to it!

  33. About all I can say is WOW. Simple, yet easily understood commentary. To those that think, “well you owe the money” should REALLY read this, it is as simple as written. The criminal organized crime entities known as BankSTERS need to be arrested for the crimes of stealing these homes!

  34. signon.org has new software to start petitions, I heard.

  35. A couple decent judges have gone so far as to amend the local rules of their courts to say to the banksters, essentially, don’t even show up in my court if you don’t have……. But this is the exception, unfortunately.

  36. Cubed

    Motion to strike before answer: failure to state a cause of action

    Check the court rules. Analyze analyze. They’ve probably glossed over some of the elements. Is there a necessary affidavit or statement of the debt owed?

    Are you certain they have the right
    Cubed? Don’t admit ANYTHING

    Not legal advice, just thinking of what I would do

  37. THIS EXAMPLE SHOWS YOU HOW THE SERVICERS ARE DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL AND THEY KNOW IT:

    1. Person lost job due to economic crash…could not pay monthly “mortgage” payment—(was a refinance in 2006).

    2. Person read about HAMP—saw that they “qualified” under HAMP “guidelines”.

    3. Person applied for HAMP…sending paperwork 8 times—dealt with EXTREME ineptness…wondered–why are good people being treated this way…didn’t make any sense…finally sent stream of faxes DEMANDING ATTENTION to “Default escalations specialist”, after getting fax number.

    4.Emailing back and forth with “escalation specialist”—finally “approved” for “trial payment plan” for permanent “loan mod”. Sent ONE payment, then borrower found out about total fraud (collection rights ONLY sold), from before and after origination of “fake mortgage”.

    5. INSISTED on PROOF from servicer of an actual creditor, and actual “conveyance” of my payments to a “loan in some trust somewhere”.

    And guess what…servicer CANNOT come up with the answer…and has ignored borrower’s question and not communicated with this borrower for months…nor sent any kind of bill…borrower has sent NO MONEY for months…and borrower’s credit report says: “Paying on partial payment plan.”

    Now I ask you—would a legitimate and legal entity behave this way? NO.

    BECAUSE IT IS NOT LEGAL OR LEGITIMATE. THE SERVICERS ARE A COMPLETE SCAM…DECEIT ON ALL LEVELS CONTINUES UNABATED…

  38. Well, as Mandelman explains about somebody repossessing a car, no pink slip, how can you repossess?

    Well, we just got sued by Cap 1 for defaulted CC debt. I answered the door, and served the papers. Afterwards I thought shoot, why did I answer the door and except the summons from this 70 year old lady? I felt really stupid, I mean I’m really a nice guy even though I give the finger here on this blog.

    So anyways I research now what to do. So check and type in on net being served a summons for CC debt. So looking and looking, and knowing what I know from before looking and posting here and researching.

    I find out that if I didn’t except the summons from the 70 yr old bitch, they as in lawyer for opposing party, plaintiff, can still serve even if they can’t find me by just publishing the summons in a local newspaper. Don’t that beat it all. I never read the newspaper. So they got you anyways. Better to be served and except it.

    So , in my further research, you have to answer, and if you don’t why a default judgement goes against you and you are stuck. You have to pay or get a lien, or garnishment or something.

    So I research now how to answer per se. What do I do? Hire a lawyer? Lets see, what is the cost of that vs just paying the defaulted judgement? How much do I make per month, is it worth it to fight it, hire a lawyer, not answer the summons????

    So I look it over and decide if I go per se, and take my chances, I’m out so much. If I hire a lawyer, I’m out so much but maybe save a little.

    So, in view of what Mandelman says about pink slip and stories I’ve read about people getting sued by CC’s and debt collectors and lawyers acting as debt collectors. And then I realize why this lawyer serves me with papers that says I owe Cap 1 money and they wish to sue me for the amount owed.

    So I ask myself is this lawyer really representing Cap 1? No contract was provided with the summons. No statement of actual amounts owed was provided, just stated amount in the pleadings. Just figures on the pleadings. But no proof attached.

    So just like somebody coming to repo your home or car, does that somebody actually have the right to do so? Where is the contract or written agreement that somebody, whether they be a law firm or servicer or whatever, have the right to repo, as provided from the original creditor?

    So, what to do. It’s all rules. So my research tells me to answer my summons and complaint with a demurrer. Specifically asking what gives this lawyer the right to sue me on behalf of Cap1. Where is there agreement that proves that Cap 1 hired them. In addition to the fact the no contract was attched either as to prove the debt owing to Cap 1.

    BUT, what gets me, the average person who receives such a thing because they defaulted on their debt to some financial institution, doesn’t have a clue, and they fall victim. And what gets me is that as a result of this and the rules, lawyers can just serve summons and complaints on people in a civil action and if the person served does nothing, why they looooose. Nice rules, THAT IS NOT JUSTICE.

    And you humans call that JUSTICE. Give me a break. You humans who set up these rules are just as bad as the thieves who trap people into the nuances of the words used to establish the rules. It’s all really trickery, a magicians trick on the public.

    And of course it’s all just about money…………but more importantly these days,,,,,,,,,,,,,it’s about keeping the books, the books straight.

    But the cinch in the armour, is off course the masses are not using credit or debt as much as they were (which is really velocity of money as deb issued=money), so this puts a problem onto the debt issuers…………..

    It’s really simple, if the issuance of debt is less, then money is less, so everything contracts. As debt = money in circulation. So if people, the masses, decide to borrow less, why then money in circulation becomes less. So, when all these Wall St firms and banks have leveraged themselves on debt, why that debt or money is less, so they contract. So the Gov’t takes over to borrow more, debt ceiling raised. So Gov’t makes up for the masses not borrowing(=money). Round and round it goes, but up it goes, the false debt. And what sucks is we have to pay taxes on this ponzi. There really is no reason for it.

    Anyways.

  39. Don’t mean to be redundant; answered on the wrong thread.

    Re: The recent Utah Appellate Court ruling in Commonwealth Property Advocates, LLC vs. Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (“MERS”), 2011 UT App 232 (July 14, 2011
    More proof that the rule of law is being ignored in the quest for making America homeless to pacify the rentiers.
    Following the reasoning of “sound public policy” in rejection of “the rule of law”. But not just any law; a law from 1872 (a pretty substantial precedent, I might add, that has been attacked multiple times, to be sure!). I know Great Scot is screaming at the top of his lungs right now.
    I smell a Supreme Court case

    This is why the Utah Court is ruling the way they are ruling. The cat is out of the bag, my friends. Our story is now on the front page. They will not be able to stop the blowback.

    http://www.istockanalyst.com/finance/story/5379587/bank-favoring-government-corruption-reaches-pinnacle

  40. HAMP was just another tool to steal money tax money and investors money and to talk thousands into falling behind to qualify for the mod so they could steal more houses ASAP and collect insurance money for defaults and through fraud. It was all a set up. It was never meant to help the homeowner. I don’t believe the government did not know this was a set up. The servicers added up the service fees while paralleling foreclosures. These theives have not missed one beat to steal and set the trusting up for the most hellish tort and terror ever.

  41. I am with you on that Martin, to have a law specifically written for any and all entity trying to foreclose on homes to first prove that they own the NOTE, or have the PINK SLIP so to speak. But I always thought that there were regulations and laws concerning that already, isn’t there?

    There’s no reason why the banks should not modify a loan in these difficult economic times except for the fact that they don’t have any authority to do so. If they could I think they may have done so, because they gave all kinds of crazy reasons that did not make any sense as to why they could not. Then they create a reason out of thin air and try to make it stick.

    I have many conflicting letters from the servicer with several different reasons, but recently they gave me an interesting one. They said to the OCC after I filed a complaint with them that the property value was greater than the ration required to do a mod. the amount they gave to the property was higher than what the property was worth back in the highest housing boom times, LOL.

    What a joke, what else will they come up with as an excuse not to modify people’s loans? The whole system is a joke, the courts have become a joke, the judges are making mockery of our judicial system, how un-foretunate for our country!

    I will be the first to vote for a new law that will protect the consumers we just need an honest government to allow justice to take place! thinks may have changed slightly in favor of some homeowners, but certainly not enough, much more is needed!

  42. What about the people whom are most of us, that had our incomes cut in half to none at all and our businesses cut in half to none at all caused by the banks greed. Then on top of it get approved for a mod loan, only if we fell behind told to do so by the servicer, then pay five mod payments that are turned into partial payments due to mod fraud? I was never in default. I quit paying cause I was defrauded, the servicer violated honest service, and breached the contract ot me, and told me to get at least one payment behind to qualify for the mod loan, It was the bank and three servicers told me to do this, so I finally did. Are you in default if you are told to fall behind by your servicer? I find now the lender was in default and breach of contract the day i signed the loan, then tries to steal my home after I abided by all their rules. I sent a letter of debt dispute immediately trying to find the real lender and the FDCPA letter was never answered. I had no one in my state to talk to and had to send certified and process serve my Pro Se case to New York, and Ohio, and California. No agent in this city or Seattle,or Washington state. Violating the Washington CPA laws and the WA Deed of trust law. My business has been cut over a hundred thousand net a year by these gansters. Non of it mattered to the district judge Pechman. I dont consider myself to be in default. I consider the bank to be default and breach of contract. Found they did not even have the right to modify the loan. We have all been duped.

  43. http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/forum/topics/davies-v-deutsche-bank-9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-all-documents

    They don’t but they need to pay for their attorney fees when we all sue them and share the information freely.

  44. NOT LOANS—STOP CALLING THEM LOANS—

    “Neil does not listen — he is narrow-minded on focus that because someone else may have advanced payments for borrower — that borrower is NOT in default. This will NEVER win in courts. Courts do not care if someone else pays — they care about the borrower not paying. What we need to focus on is that borrower’s subprime refinance was unsecured — a false and fraudulent mortgage — and nothing more than debt collection on a fraudulent transfer of collection rights to a false default debt. Everyone (in subprime refinance) was in (false) default before they even refinanced.
    The banks (as debt buyers) accomplished this by falsely placing borrower in current default (and never telling them) — and then the servicer purchases the collection rights from either Freddie or Fannie. Then the servicer “reinstates” the false default debt with a fraudulent refinance. And, if there is a subsequent refinance, that is just another transfer of collection rights. Servicer reports original F/F mortgage as “paid” — but it is “Paid-OUT” — by servicer purchase — and not “Paid-OFF” by the borrower as it should have been by the (fraudulent) subprime refinance. . Thus, borrower remains in default on F/F loan – despite a subprime refinance — and borrower can never refinance with an F/F again — They are doomed if they miss even one payment on the false collection rights — and will never recover because always held in default — on both the F/F loan and the collection rights. BUT BORROWERS should not be paying on fraud!!!! They have a right withhold payments on fraudulent debt.
    All fraudulent, all in violation of consumer protection laws — and, because the “creditor” of collection right never validates the “debt” — by disclosing the actual creditor to the false default debt — in violation of FDCPA and May 2009 TILA Amendment. Meaning borrowers should not be paying anything — because of fraud and violation of federal statutes.”
    “Neil and LL have to redirect their focus — challenges after AG settlement without investigation — will be extremely difficult. Neil’s premises will not hold water – and not help the situation —- must rethink his focus — very stubborn — or he works for private debt buyers. (eventually banks sell the collection rights to private debt buyers and hedge funds — not regulated). Believe that maybe Neil and many others on LL — work for these private debt buyers — trying to “modify” again — the collection rights — just continues the fraud!!!”

    EVERYBODY CONTACT YOUR AG’S ASAP—MUST STOP SETTLEMENT!!!! MUST STOP THE COVER-UP!!

  45. How does a thief legally modify the loan?

  46. [...] Livinglies’s Weblog Filed Under: Foreclosure Law News, Foreclosure News Tagged With: crisis, foreclosure, [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,118 other followers

%d bloggers like this: