Can You Find the Fraud? The Judge Did.

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Can You Find the Fraud? The Judge Did.

Posted on December 2, 2011 by Mark Stopa

Here is a copy of the indorsements which were affixed to the Note that was attached to the Complaint in a mortgage foreclosure case I’m defending. http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Indorsements-on-Note-attached-to-Complaint.pdf

Here is a copy of the indorsements which were affixed to the original Note, which the Plaintiff, Citimortgage, Inc., filed after filing suit.
http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Indorsements-on-Original-Note.pdf

The notes themselves were identical, but notice any differences in the indorsements?

Upon close inspection, it’s clear that the Note attached to the Complaint contains an indorsement in blank, whereas on the “original” Note, the blank indorsement is filled in with the stamp of “Citimortgage, Inc.”

At my motion to dismiss hearing today, Citimortgage’s lawyer argued this was irrelevant – whether the Note was specifically indorsed or indorsed in blank, Citimortgage would have standing either way.

The judge’s view, however, was much different.

I cited the Second District’s recent decision in Feltus v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/69517251/4DCA-FELTUSvUSBANK-Lost-Note-Fraud-Affidavit-Rule-1-190-a
which explains how banks cannot rely on an “original” note that is different from the Note attached to the Complaint.

But it’s more than that. The obvious question, and the one that the judge posed, was why the original Note was specifically indorsed to Citimortgage when the Note attached to the Complaint was indorsed in blank.

The bank’s lawyer argued “maybe the Note that was stored electronically was different than the hard copy.” But the judge wasn’t buying that argument, especially since it was prefaced with “maybe.” The judge granted the motion to dismiss and directed that Citimortgage, Inc. explain, in its Amended Complaint, how Citimortgage’s stamp appeared on the original Note when it wasn’t on the Note attached to the Complaint.

The lawyer’s explanation, in my view, is hogwash. I suppose I could see this argument if there was no indorsement at all on the Note attached to the Complaint. In that event, it might be possible that the specific indorsement was done later. However, I see no innocent explanation for how there was a blank indorsement on the Note attached to the Complaint, and that very indorsement had the name “Citimortgage, Inc.” on the blank when the original Note was filed. In my view, there’s only one explanation here – Citimortgage had a Note, indorsed in blank, and said “We don’t want this indorsed in blank, let’s put our stamp on it.” Maybe I’m wrong, but let’s put it this way – I can’t wait to hear their explanation.

By the way, there was a court reporter for this hearing, and the transcript will be a great read – I will post it upon receipt.
Mark Stopa

http://www.stayinmyhome.com

E

About these ads

29 Responses

  1. Dear Nora:

    The Federal cause of action is what I need to overturn the Magistrates order and findings and recommendations. I also received the UD documents yesterday and have 5 days to respond to them. I also need to reopen my State case filed 12-8 since the judge vacated the whole case instead of just the Civil Harresment RO. They file the UD 12-9.

    Any one can email me at groveey@wildblue.net

  2. great idea blank, it must be endorsed though to transfer right ?

  3. It seems clear, being the pay to the order of ?, means they were paid at closing. A blank means not paid, they must fillin the blank to get paid. It is a promise to pay when lawful money is back in the system. So the mortgage is paid in full, that is why the complaint had the blank, an attempt to show somehow the fait money was still owed, they deposited the note just as a paycheck. Response at greggorylawrence@Hotmail.com Love & Light people.

  4. Bijaya Kumara das brian de grover;

    Are you asking for CASES to cite, or CAUSES OF ACTION? I’m NOT an attorney, but these simple statements may shed light for you:

    CASES to cite would be Carpenter v. Longan, US Bank National Association v. Antonio Ibanez, or Cranston v Gonzales, etc.

    CAUSES OF ACTION are divided into STATE LAW or FEDERAL LAW. They would be RICO, Tortuous Interference, TILA violations, RESPA violations, Unjust Enrichment, Predatory Lending, Fraudulent Inducement, etc.
    The only things you can cite in your pleadings are the things you can PROVE using the rules of evidence (through documentation or the testimony of an expert witness) and you must correctly plead the individual elements of each cause of action. (Use legal website like Nexus or Loislaw.com to look up elements)

    The thing is, when you get to the stage where you apparently are, you need a litigator. I understand how daunting a task it is to face the bad guys pro se. I also know how hard it is to find the money to pay for legal representation, and it’s even harder to find an attorney who’ll fight like a tiger for you. I still have not found an attorney, myself.

    I’ve been reading cases that were unpublished because the banks don’t want their soft underbelly exposed and there is much to be learned from them. It’s taken me about two years to come from total ignorance to a point where I understand the legal system, and that bank fraud on the massive scale we’re seeing is now common knowledge.
    There are links to decisions all over the web, and on this site, where the bankers lost, big time. I hope this helps you some, although I am not sure what exactly you were asking. Attorneys incur costs and have to pay their overhead, so not many will assist you for free–they have to eat too. Here, I believe we do try to help each other and support one another, but you get what you pay for, sort of.

  5. Help I need some federal causes of action to file if I am allowed to stay in the game. I only had Carpenter vs Logan in my causes twice.

  6. in the beginning and forever is the decision to be

    so be in debt forever and live by your decision to be a debtor…………

    The banks decision is for you to be in debt, and this is globally,

    now you decide which you wish to be…………get out of debt, somehow, someway and enjoy your future free of debt………you don’t want to be the last one…………better to make the issuer’s of debt the last one…………..don’t you think………

  7. I declare all debts to big banks as bull shit,,,,,,,,,,,,,thus you figure it out———-they only want you in debt so they can live very well off of your work…………

    so be it

  8. what somebody is robbing you and you are going to tell the truth to the robber………….what nonsense…………..you must survive……….not him——————-it becomes war……………

  9. Dear Neil,
    Sorry I missed you November 30, 2011 conference, the windstorms in L.A. knocked out internet.
    Gary Gesler PhD

  10. Well Zoe………….& Shelly E….

    consider this——-

    your dollar bill, your 20, your 50, your 100 dollar bill says “Federal Reserve NOTE”………..

    Your mortgage is a NOTE………….

    oh how we never notice the obvious——–

    What does NOTE mean?

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/note

    ——————–

    Imagine if you had to sign a dollar bill everytime you transfered the debt from you to another for paying for something…………..?

    See, it’s all hidden.

    Welcome to the Federal Reserve System of banks. Started in 1913.

    Now realize all the codes, all the rules, all the laws are based on NOTES (or debt) and realize who started the system and realize the system is skewed to those that started the system, and that would be banks and that would be banks taking over the monetary system of the USA or any country. But the confusion is all banks, when in fact it is simply only BIG BANKS, thus TBTF. It is not small local banks or any bank not involved in Securitization of debt.

    So, your survival is in duping those others that are trying to dupe you. There are no morals or justice. It is simply a court of law, created byt the big banks. And thus do whatever to win. And to win. So lying to some fuk that is clearly in the wrong,,,,,why not,,,,,,,,why would you give the corrupt system power,,,,,,and be careful to not create fraud, but do what you must to survive, and to survive well.

    Always have a plan b or c, and win somehow………….some way……….and don’t ever borrow from big banks and that includes their plastic demons call ed credit cards………….it is a SYSTEM,,,,,,,,,so don’t use it……….

  11. Citibank, to me, has become an object of much attention. I had NO relationship, or papers dealing with them, yet at the end of my Foreclosure “Sale”, all of a sudden their name comes up. I can’t understand why there are so many entities involved in a Contract that I originated with one “Bank”- Countrywide. How these banks interact with one another might an interesting search.

  12. Brian,
    You wrote: “There are arguments that an endorsement in blank renders the note void under UCC9.” Do you have any pointer to those arguments? Thanks.

  13. Dear Mark: It is a amazing what you find when you are put into the game. My DOT is different then the one filed by Defendants and recorded at the county.

  14. Not our judge! Just got email from our attorney Magistrate recommends that the Banksters motion to dismiss be GRANTED. Total Robbers…all of them!

  15. @Shelley,

    Let me help make a point about your comment.

    The UCC says the borrower is obligated to pay the party entitled to enforce, and if this obligation is not met, the debt is not discharged dollar for dollar. The only remedy for recovery is an expensive lawsuit if the borrower pays a party not entitled to enforce and the real party decides to enforce later (see the Veal case for more on this).

    To have the right to enforce, the UCC says a party must be in possession of the INSTRUMENT. The UCC defines its use of the term “instrument” as meaning “a negotiable instrument.” A copy of a note is not negotiable. If it were, could not we take the copy received in the QWR response and claim to be the holder of the note? The servicer, who claims to be holder and/or owner of the note with the right to enforce, delivered the copy of the note to the borrower.

    The QWR copy of the note usually bears an indorsement in blank, unlike the copy of the note received at closing. So if we stamp our name into the blank, why would it not transfer control of the note back to us just as legally as the copies of notes used in courts across this nation? Why not stamp our name into the blank indorsement and claim that we now have the right to enforce…then just decide not to? We even could falsify an assignment of mortgage to make the transfer look more authentic.

    We all can imagine what the court would do if WE used court resources to gain control of the property with only a copy of the note with a blank indorsement, and maybe an affidavit stating that we could not locate the original note. The judge probably would fine us for fraud upon the court, and if we filed an assignment of mortgage, we would probably go to jail for committing the felony of filing false documents for recording in land records.

    Something happened to me last week that drives this point home perfectly, from a somewhat different angle.

    One of the big banks returned a payment to me, which I made more than a year ago. The payment was 28 cents short. The bank claimed it could not accept partial payment. (Wait! Is this bank telling me it took over a year to find this out, and a 44-cent stamp to tell me it was 28 cents short?)

    The UCC applies to negotiable instruments, including checks. This is what I found out about that check when I made a color COPY of it for my file: the face of the copied check was covered with the word VOID. Well, the big bank must protect its interests, right?

    The bank would not want multiple parties, or one party multiple times, getting paid on that same check, now would it?

  16. It looks to me like there are only two things standing between us and even darker days: our voices/votes and the judiciary. I appreciate Mr. Stopa sharing this information with us.

    The other day I posted some info about loans not being seasoned prior to securitization, which according to my source, makes them not viable, in fact illegal, to securitize. WS did it anyway with the use of its own structured but illegal remedy: the guarantee. I asked MS, who among us would know (?), if the seasoning requirement (borrower and no one else must have made at least 6 payments first) I heard about is factual or fiction. MS has not commented. I have not had time to dig deeper because I’m on a mission to inform the judiciary about the machinations of “MERS”. (If you want certain info included in my missives to the state supreme courts, let me know. Post it here or at scribd and link it here or email me. This will only take a small amt of time. You may have some vital info for our justices. You can write a rant or your own story as long as it’s ‘clean’. I’m not kidding.
    Fork it over and I’ll include it. If you want to include something, if you can’t create a pdf doc (which to my knowledge can’t be changed), after you write it or find what you want included, upload to scribd which will convert to pdf and then download it as a pdf. Don’t send anything which is copyrighted! You don’t’ have to send a pdf doc – just a suggestion. john.gaultt@yahoo.com

    Back to the seasoning requirement, I’ve also heard that a company in CA is using this problem of WS’s to fend off foreclosures and essentially going after and getting quiet title in their favor. Why ‘their’ favor? Because they are offering the homeowner a very low five figures (I heard around 10k) to quit claim his interest in the home and then they take up the fight about the non-seasoning. If seasoning is in fact required, there is more securities fraud than we knew. If a group is doing this with homeowners, I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I see them as major bottom-feeders; on the other, if the homeowner doesn’t want the battle, well, 10k is better than a sharp stick in the eye. Anyone know any more about this, any of it? Mr. G?
    Don’t forget to send me your ‘stuff’.

  17. I anticipate our judge “brushing over” the fraudulent assignment in blank added to the note post-Bk filing. It’s a “Joan Mills” rubber-stamped indorsement.

  18. CA federal court denied Wells, US Bank to dismiss foreclosure case due to CA penal code and fraudulent assignment of deed of trust made years after closing date of trust. No tender required.

    http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blogs/fraudclosure-defense-progess-in-federal-court-eastern-district-in

  19. There are arguments that an endorsement in blank renders the note void under UCC9. JPMorgan uses endorsement in blank on WaMu notes. Look for the indorsement to have been by stamp and it expired years before 2008. JPMorgan has claimed they were never receiver for WaMu loans in answer to the Deutsche Bank suit against their securities. It seems they have admitted criminal fraud if you have an indorsement from WaMu to Chase, since they state it never happened, and offer it as their proof. Get an attorney, they can’t abide discovery on admitted fraud.

  20. This is exactly what Stern did almost 2 years after he filed the complaint which had no note attached at all not knowing that I already had one that has different info, the new ‘original’ one was assigned to someone and filed as an original at the clerk’s office and now is there on record even though the case was dismissed and the bank did not get a substitution of attorney to replace Stern…and remember Stern never hand over the files until long after the bank posted bond and filed suit against him for their documents.

    Now the servicer/bank or whatever they call themselves is trying to get me to do a modification through some program and their representatives and using Realtors to do their dirty job and going to post letters on the homeowner’s door.

  21. Yesterday, we all reacted poorly to Stephanie Walker’s piece we could sum us as “Consider your foreclosure the blessing of your life”. She pissed me off with her assumptions that people were in the predicament they are in for want of “communicating” with their lender. I am all in favor of free speach but… not for everyone!

    Since then, 60 minutes has run that documentary using “banks”, “fraud” and jail” in the same sentence.

    A year ago, it would have been unheard of. That is progress. Slow, painful but progress nevertheless. For that, i am grateful!!!

  22. I typed in article three I dont know why it did not show up but I meant article three and nine.

  23. My note I have a copy of says it is endorsed to “blank”. The defendants have claimed they do not have to produce the original note by law. I have argued otherwise. Part of article protects my claims and article nine. When a third party or more can come in and make claims on the mortgage and the homeowner is not protected there are laws in place to make the lender show the origninal note. Not a copy of the note.

  24. How about finding a Supermarket Chain that does business with the big Banksters and boycotting them. Find some big chain like starbucks subway etc…. that does business with the banksters. Walmart Target etc….. Boycott them until they pull out their money from the banksters.

    For Example payroll etc……..

    NEVER AGAIN

  25. Karl Denninger –of market-ticker—says stop doing business with the big banks:

    Find a way to screw them to the maximum lawful extent. Civil judgment? Become judgment proof and who cares? Spend their money and don’t pay it back. Perhaps it’s time for a general strike of a different form — a general debt strike where everyone pulls every dime they have from a bank and simply refuses to pay any debt, erecting the middle finger to the banking system. Screw ‘em.

    Tell “the banksters” and “the system” to go blow it out their backside. Refuse to do business with these institutions or anyone who does. Shun them all. Oh, you’d like your car fixed? Go see the (Government Motors) dealer. You want your kid to have a job? Not here — sorry, being a politician is not a member of a protected class. You want a haircut? Go buy some clippers from WalMart and give yourself a mohawk — they’ll still sell to you, but we, the independent barber shop, won’t.

    ———————

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=198571

  26. More power to you Mark. Way to go. If there was fairness, the other side would be hand whacking kudzu on the side of the road for the next decade, along side Citimortgage’s CEO. As long as I’m dreaming….

  27. [...] Read this article: Can You Find the Fraud? The Judge Did. [...]

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 3,418 other followers

%d bloggers like this: