Dual Tracking: Luring Homeowners into Foreclosure

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment: 

I call it fraud.  They prefer to call it “dual-tracking”.  The fact is, that homeowners ignorant of the real intent of the banks and servicers went through the charade of seeking modifications and settlements.  Yet they were set up every step of the way, in every way possible.  From bogus lenders to robo-signed documents and now to have made official what we’ve known all along, that the pretender-lender banks had procedures in place to operate a dual-track system.  In other words at the same time that homeowners were negotiating for modifications, the same banks had them on a track for foreclosure.  No wonder a homeowner could never reach the same person twice, no wonder every new voice on the phone needed to have the information sent in again, no wonder the banks told homeowners that they could not help them until they were behind in their payments.  Just like common oxymorons, the paradoxes such as deafening silence, living dead, or denying us our civil rights and calling it the patriot act, loan modifications and help for homeowners is really just an oxymoron.  Makes sense now, doesn’t it. 

California attorney general seeks more mortgage protections

Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris says the proposed California Homeowner Bill of Rights would help homeowners facing foreclosure and fix serious flaws in the system.

By Marc Lifsher, Los Angeles TimesFebruary 29, 2012
Reporting from Sacramento—

California’s top law enforcer is calling on legislators to pass half a dozen new bills that would give more protection to homeowners facing foreclosure.

Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris said Wednesday that the proposed legislation, dubbed the California Homeowner Bill of Rights, is aimed at fixing some of the most serious flaws in the system.

If approved by lawmakers and the governor, the bills would stop banks from simultaneously pursuing foreclosures against troubled borrowers who are in talks with them about loan modifications. Borrowers also would have to be given a single point of contact instead of being passed from one department to another.

“California communities and families are being devastated by the mortgage and foreclosure crisis. We must ensure the deceptive practices that caused it never happen again,” Harris said. “The California Homeowner Bill of Rights will provide basic fairness and transparency for homeowners, and improve the mortgage process for everyone.”

The proposed legislation comes almost three weeks after California joined a nationwide foreclosure settlement with some major banks that’s projected to provide up to $18 billion in financial assistance to California homeowners.

Speaking at a news conference at the state Capitol, Harris noted that California, along with neighboring Nevada, suffered the most from the housing meltdown. She was joined by 11 Democratic lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) and Sen. President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento).

The multi-state settlement “helps thousands of Californians, but thousands more need the same help,” Steinberg said.

The new legislation before the state Senate and Assembly would:

End so-called dual-track foreclosures that allow mortgage holders to simultaneously negotiate loan modifications to lower homeowners’ interest payments while taking legal steps to foreclose on the same properties;

Provide a single point of contact for homeowners with their loan servicers and impose a $10,000 civil penalty for “robo-signed” mortgage documents containing unverified information;

Give local governments tools to force banks and property owners to maintain blighted, foreclosed homes and to give new owners incentives to improve their properties;

Allow renters more time to stay in foreclosed residences;

Collect fees from banks to pay for enhanced law enforcement actions to defend homeowners;

Create a statewide grand jury to investigate alleged financial and real estate foreclosure crimes.

Steinberg conceded that he and his allies are in for a tough legislative fight. Similar foreclosure prevention bills have been defeated or watered down in recent years after lobbyists from the deep-pocketed financial services industry rallied opposition from conservative Republican and moderate Democratic lawmakers.

“We’re going to have to push, fight and negotiate,” Steinberg said. “There’s some history on these issues, and we know what some of the opposition arguments have been.”

If approved, the legislation “could lead to the slowing or halting of a still-crashing wave of foreclosures,” said a statement of support by the ReFund California Coalition, an alliance of community and consumer groups.

A bankers’ trade group said it hadn’t had enough time to offer any detailed comments on Harris’ proposal.

“California’s lending community remains committed to both helping homeowners and protecting affordable access to mortgage credit,” said Dustin Hobbs, a spokesman for the California Mortgage Bankers Assn. “It is critical that any new legislation take into account our state’s fragile economic condition. Any introduction of new legislation and regulation must include a realization that markets and consumers need stability in order for lasting economic recovery to take hold.”


About these ads

117 Responses

  1. chas 404

    I also have a Carla Naughton assignment. Want to trade?
    dianarb100@gmail.com

  2. In 1987 there was the savings and loan crises that cause millions to go into foreclosure. Then the RTC Resolution Trust Corp took over and settled through the FDIC in a few years and things went back to normal. The mortgage crisis of 2008+ is different. There are thousands of companies out there that at specifically set up to handle foreclosures, webbased companies like Equator, REOWorld, who make who make huge money handling foreclosures. Perhaps the banks are behind these companies too! Banks were trying to get into the real estate business and this is how they did it!

  3. I never stated that I was going to tell a judge that. Like most people who are fighting, I’ve already made multiple requests for information and the bank stonewalled, saying the information was proprietary. Since when can we not express our opinions?
    In my case a non-creditor made a false claim to my property before the court, which is a third degree felony punishable with fines and imprisonment. They also collected from the insurer and failed to apply the collected amount to the loan balance, when they had no insurable interest to begin with. Demand letters for an amount that was not owed was sent through the U.S. Mail, which is also a felony which in the judges discretion is either a one million dollar fine or twenty years in jail. I don’t need any help pursuing these criminal charges, and I clearly said “I don’t think…” which is merely a statement of opinion. Nothing the banks are saying is generally or specifically true, and that is not an opinion, that is a fact.

  4. regardless to what the theories are about whether the Notes exist or don’t exist, on a individual basis each homeonwer has to know where the banks are saying their Note is, and who they say owns it. While there are several different methods of attack, going into court and telling the judge that all the Notes are shredded because they are being sold on wall street as securities will get the homeowner a nod, yawn and dimissal. So asking the Servicer for a certified copy of the Note and who the owner is a good place to start. Then the homeowner can start back tracking the Note’s movement to where the breaks are, and hopefully through some discovery get intel on the indorsement, and use that information to get a fair and reasonable loan. Don’t misunderstand me, we need to understand what has happend but we also have to fight the fight throuhg legal procedures the courts understand.

    For more information on fighting foreclosure and an unlawful detainer in California go to http://www.infotofightforeclosure.com

    KEEP UP THE FIGHT!
    Simonee

  5. @Ian,

    I don’t believe any notes made it into any trusts, and I don’t believe the Notes exist anymore because they were necessarily destroyed. When the Note is converted to a stock, it’s illegal for the Note and stock to exist at the same time. It could be sold over and over again if that were the case, so the Note is destroyed and all that remains is an image on microfilm or a digital file. There is no reconstituting it–its gone for good, but by generating a copy, the banksters are able to convince future buyers to buy it another time or two, or three. These multiple-pledged notes are what Fannie and Freddie discovered, and failed to report to the authorities in order to protect the profit stream created by servicing rights.
    Other theories suggest that the Notes still exist, and that the reason banks are working so hard to push through fraudulent foreclosures is to use a Power of Attorney to return the Notes to the pools and cover their tracks, but there are holes in theories like these. The banks just want the homes because they are getting them for NOTHING. This whole mess is about getting all real property transferred to themselves
    in exchange for WORTHLESS PAPER–
    fiat, worthless, paper currency, which they will then devalue to nothing, and replace with an electronic currency, that they alone have control of. Real property, that underlies loans is a true and valuable asset. Paper is only valuable when everyone believes it’s valuable or is backed by something of value. So by transferring all the real, valuable assets in exchange for worthless paper, they are really pulling off the largest heist in history, right under our own noses.

  6. Simonee- thanks for the post. Unfortunately, the servicers THEMSELVES own many of the collection rights. There is no loan. The notes (on paper anyway) were deposited into the (bogus) trusts, the mortgages went to MERS. If you were going to sell the same loan to 100 different people, you wouldn’t put the loan in the PSA mortgage schedule, because you’d be trapped. This is why no one knows who owns what. Hence the multiple changing loan numbers, the same loan
    with 10 different loan numbers.
    The amount of insurance fraud is staggering. If you were not in default when you signed your note, you were in default 31 days later, and that triggered an insurance payment.

  7. Sorry, quoted the wrong Tila code above, below is the code that mandates the Servicer tell you who the owner is:

    Under the Truth in Lending Act, or TILA, the government has stepped in and told servicers that upon written request they must provide general investor information to the borrower. Write a letter to your servicer, citing 15 U.S.C. § 1641(f)(2), a provision of TILA, and request that the servicer provide the name, address and telephone number of the owner of the mortgage. They are required by TILA to respond to you within 10 business days. If they choose not to reply to this request, 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a), coupled with the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, allows for recovery which can include actual and statutory damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.

    For more information on how to fight your fraudclosure and/or an Unlawful Detainer in california as a pro se, visit http://www.infotofighforeclosure.com

  8. To Carrie,
    The code the bank may be referring to (if you are in Caifornia) is

    Pursuant to Calif. Civ. Code § 2943(5) (b)(1) A beneficiary, or his or her authorized agent, shall, within 21 days of the receipt of a written demand by an entitled person or his or her authorized agent, prepare and deliver to the person demanding it a true, correct, and complete copy of the note or other evidence of indebtedness with any modification thereto, and a beneficiary statement.

    This code says they only have to give you a COPY of the Note. Which may or may not be a copy of it’s current state (i.e. the indorsements on the Note). To find out who the OWNER is, there was a new law enacted in 2009. Use this code in the letter to the servicer demanding to know who the owner is:

    For these purposes, a “mortgage loan” means “any consumer credit transaction that is secured by the principal dwelling of a consumer.” 15 USC 1641(g)(2). Under TILA, a “dwelling” is a one-to-four family residential structure, including a manufactured home or an individual condominium or cooperative unit. 15 USC § 1602(v). Lien position is not a criterion, so first and junior lien loans will be subject to the transfer notice. Similarly, there is no distinction made between closed-end open-end loans. The definition of “mortgage loan” appears to be broad enough to include not only a conventional first mortgage loan, but also a loan or retail installment contract secured by a manufactured home, as well as a home equity loan or line of credit. A loan secured by the borrower’s vacation home is not a “mortgage loan” for these purposes.
    Pursuant to Section 131(g), the new owner or assignee of a mortgage loan must notify the borrower in writing within 30 days after his mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred. The notice must include:
    1. The assignee’s identity, address and phone number;
    2. The date of transfer;
    3. Contact information for an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the assignee;
    4. The location of the place where transfer of ownership of the debt is recorded; and
    5. Any other relevant information regarding the assignee.
    15 USC § 1641(g)(1). The seller of the mortgage loan has no notice obligation under Section 131(g).
    An assignee that violates this notice requirement will be subject to civil penalties under Section 130(a) of TILA. 15 USC § 1640(a). Effective July 31, 2009, the maximum penalty that an individual consumer may recover for a TILA violation in connection with a closed-end loan secured by real property or a dwelling will increase from $2,000 to $4,000.

    To find out more how to fight a wrongful foreclosure or unlawfu detainer in California visit http://www.infotofightforeclosure.com

    KEEP UP THE FIGHT!
    Simonee

  9. Carie….it is the Commercial Code in the 3301-2209 mostly governing use of substitute paper and lost originals, etc. …check it out. If you need some help contact Consumer Rights Defenders at 818.453.3585 and ask for Steve, Sara or Jackie. Our litigation team is on board with attorneys and paralegals and ala carte pricing you can afford.

  10. This is the thing which I never see mentioned in any of these cases, and perhaps Neil can expound on it: National Banks cannot by law own mortgage Notes.
    So why is JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association foreclosing in their name?

  11. SOMETHING GOOD FOR HOMEOWNER IN HER APPEAL IN SEVENTH CIRCUIT- SEE ORDER, OPINION, MOST APPEAL FILINGS HERE

  12. AND—this is what the servicer said when I asked him who owns the promissory note and WHERE is it?

    “California code does not require that we provide you with the original promissory note, or evidence of it’s location, in order to proceed with foreclosure…”

    Does anybody out there know what the heck “code” he is referring to?

    Notice he never answered the ownership question—just says “your loan was pooled into the mbs trust, blah blah blah…”

  13. This is the vulture debt collector (Aztec foreclosure company) that LIED to me when I asked them in writing who is creditor/lender (under FDCPA)—listen to this stupid, blatant LIE–they said: “Your original lender/creditor was MERS…your current creditor/lender is DBNTC (the Deutsche Trustee of the MBS trust)”…TOTAL BS—every word.

    Look how many thefts/sales they have lined up:

    http://www.aztectrustee.com/Reports/CAZ_WebPageUpSalesRpt.pdf

    Feel free to write a nice little letter telling the the assistant vice pres and the assistant secretary—Robbie Weaver—how you feel about all of these thefts:

    rweaver@logs.com

  14. @ hman

    Good luck…it is probably missing like everyone else’s…Go figure?

  15. @ hman,

    The servicer. If they say no, file a complaint with the Dept. of Corporations.

  16. Does anybody know where/who to request the original note from after a foreclosure? The servicer? The trustee? The substitute trustee that sold the home?

  17. UnMarketable Titles = Millions of Rentals
    If you decide to buy the New Colt with Good Papers …. Make sure your Attorney demands your credit record be cleared as part of the settlement.

  18. @ Chris……. My daughter bought her house Jan 2007. It was a forclosure, the owner/seller was Ocwen. The broker/origionator was Home123,… the Servicing was given to New Century. The Lender was Home 123 and the mortgage was assigned to MERS. The problem was when I called Scott Anderson on the fact that Ocwen was never the Owner and never had the right to sell …… he rolled over and told me to tell my daugter to sue her attorney that represented her at closing. She got a new attorney just as Home123/New Century filed for BK. She is living in the home because nobody can prove ownership. Unfortunatly that leaves her with an Unmarkable title also. Althou she has lived there for 5yrs … she does not want to invest her money to have someone show up later and lay claim to it. Trust Me …Robo-Signing has Many Victims! Most just do not know it yet. Get an Attorney….. you need to decide if your going to pay for a dead horse or move on and buy a new colt.

  19. @ Kathy

    I have one for the case in NC Federal Court. He is the one who discovered the document from the SOS.

    He’s not on contingency, but filed my Lis Pendens, Injunction and Restraining order. I pay him as we go and file some of my own Motions, except where I am clueless and in a hurry. I have a case in another state, which I am the creditor Pro Se.

    Let me ask this: If I am considered a creditor in some proceedings, is it possible to lien my own property for improvements, down payment, upkeep? I am thinking there has to be a way to do that? No?

  20. @ dee and Kathy

    You are both correct. I have followed the paper trail and the deed is around, but the note is not “original” and get this…I have the original wire transfer and there are notes in blue (a copy) dated December 21, 2006..2 months prior to my closing? I think my mortgage was never funded and one better, defaulted when they received the application…to collect insurance proceeds, nothing else makes sense!

  21. @ Chris … I’m sure my name is one that Scott Anderson will not ever forget! You really need an attorney, it would be truley benificial to you.

  22. @ ian

    DLJ Capital…forget the name, but that guy is VP, CEO of 23 or 27 companies? No board members, employees, etc…

    Go figure?

  23. Dodd/Frank useless. Corrupt lefties (no offense meant to lefties)…

    Servicers exempt for disclosure…
    (1) A ‘‘covered person’’ means any person, as defined in § 226.2(a)(22), that becomes the owner of an existing mortgage loan by acquiring legal title to the debt obligation, whether through a purchase, assignment or other transfer, and who acquires more than one mortgage loan in any twelve-month period. For purposes of this section, a servicer of a mortgage loan shall not be treated as the owner of the obligation if the servicer holds title to the loan, or title is assigned to the servicer, solely for the administrative convenience of the servicer in servicing the obligation.

  24. @ ian,

    SPS is Select portfolio Services…

    @ dee

    I have a forged POA 2010, the Defense attorney for the servicer Ocwen, assigned himself trustee within his own, privately owned company (Secretary of State, NC doc) Forged notary signature from Scott Anderson and notary (7 companies employed same time frame and have signatures of Anderson and notary…don’t match) Judge Schack asked for 1099’s or W’2 and he never provided them. Judge Schack, NY-gave a house to a litigant because of that. My note 02/27/2007…BK New Century 04/02/2007…paper trail dies on my end…except for the forgery and trust October 07, 2007, which my loan was not in…but they had 90 days anyway…everything about my loan is funky?

  25. OK. I went to county and found that MERS had assigned my mortgage to Wells Fargo in anticipation of foreclosing on me.

    Officer for MERS is Carla Naughton who is conveniently an employee of WF. Document prepared by WF.

    MERS as nominee for MortgageIT, Inc. (MortgIT is gone swallowed up by Deustch Bank).

    This is Florida. So essentially WF as servicer is assigning the mortgage to itself via MERS as nominee via MortgageIT.

    Question. Does new Dodd/Frank require disclosure of this?? Says 30 days to disclose but I think servicers are exempt.

    Thanks. Seems like they are doing what they have always done no changes.

    Comments PLEASE.

  26. @ Chris
    I believe dee about covered it. Thank You Dee! Illinois has held the same long before the Ohio ruling. The note and Mortgage (Lien)Travel together …. once they are seperated, you usually end up with a bad title and an unsecured debt. This makes me wonder what is going to happen when people wake up and realize when they pay off the debt …. they are left with an “unmarkable title”. Would you pay on a contract if the dealer delivered you a car with a defective title? Would you pay on a car if you knew the seller was not really the owner with the right to sell it? Think about it?

  27. chris- PMI Group (private mortgage insurance) bought a stake in Fairbanks (sps to be) in 2000. In 2002 bought Equicredit from BOA, this was their (BOAs) subprime finance subsidiary. I believe they got financing from DLJ morgage capital (also credit suisse). PMI sold SPS
    SPS Holdings in latter half of 2005 to Credit Suisse.
    I don’t know what SPS Holdings is or does.
    DLJ Mortgage Capital is in alot of the SEC docs I have seen.
    Hope this helps.

  28. @ chris

    OHIO GETS IT RIGHT: MERS, NOT BEING THE PAYEE ON THE NOTE, HAS NO RIGHT TO ASSIGN IT: BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED WITH COURT HOLDING THAT BANK HAD NO STANDING TO BRING FORECLOSURE AND IS NOT THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST

    December 7, 2011

    Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court has issued a 9-page opinion which ultimately held that the foreclosing bank did not have standing to foreclose and was not the real party in interest, denying the Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granting the homeowners’ MSJ. The Court’s reasoning is based on exactly what we have been and continue to argue as to MERS in cases all over the United States: that MERS, not being the payee on the Note and having no ownership rights in the Note, cannot transfer it.

    This decision now joins the legion of cases which have similarly held MERS to its very limited position as “nominee”, notwithstanding MERS’ inconsistent attempt to anoint itself with additional powers which are not permitted by MERS’ own Terms and Conditions. MERS’ consistent violation of its own self-imposed internal restrictions is part of the recent action filed by the Delaware Attorney General against MERS.

    In the Cuyahoga County, Ohio case (Huntington National Bank v. Brown, Case No. CV-09-702894), as with literally millions of other foreclosure cases filed nationally, the original Note was made payable to a third party. Huntington purported to claim entitlement to summary judgment on the basis of a MERS assignment, in this case where there was no endorsement in blank on the Note as well. The opinion states:

    It is beyond peradventure that one cannot transfer rights in property that one does not own. Since MERS was not the original payee on the note, and since the note was never endorsed to MERS or endorsed in blank, MERS had no legal rights by the tenor of the note and therefore was not legally capable of transferring the note to anyone.” The opinion also states that without the blank endorsement, Huntington could not claim status as a “holder” of the Note.

    Significantly, the opinion also states that “Possession alone of a negotiable instrument does not establish that a party has the right to receive payments under it”, citing Ohio case law. This statement exemplifies the misleading nature of the argument consistently made by foreclosing banks, servicers, and securitized “trustees”: “we have possession of the Note, therefore we are entitled to enforce it and foreclose.” The question which is not answered by this position is “How did you come into possession of the Note and how did you acquire the rights to enforce it and the mortgage instrument?”. This, of course, implicates potentially numerous questions, especially in an securitization case.

    A promissory note executed in connection with a mortgage instrument is not a simple “negotiable instrument” transaction. As the Court held in the recent In Re Veal case from the 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, a promissory note tied to a mortgage instrument implicates Article 9 of the UCC (which governs secured transactions) in addition to Article 3 (which governs negotiable instruments). Thus, a foreclosing party should have to prove not only proper possession and ownership of the Note and the rights under it, but also intent of delivery, manner of delivery, and actual delivery of the mortgage instrument under Article 9 of the UCC. Those of you who have reviewed PSAs know that the Mortgage Loan Conveyance Provisions of the PSA set forth the requirements to prove intent of delivery, manner of delivery, and actual delivery of the mortgage instrument, and that these requirements are consistently ignored in securitization cases.

    Congratulations to Ohio for getting it right as to MERS. We would hope that those jurisdictions which have not yet addressed the issue realize the true fallacy in MERS assignments and what MERS really is: that is, nothing more than a simple “nominee” without the power to transfer a Note which it did not, does not, and can never own.

  29. @ chris

    MORE ON FRAUDULENT PRACTICES OF NEW CENTURY: MERS ASSIGNMENTS CANNOT BE EFFECTIVE AS NEW CENTURY REPUDIATED ITS CONTRACT WITH MERS AS PART OF ITS BANKRUPTCY

    December 8, 2011

    As those of you who follow this website know, New Century, which was one of the larger California securitization origination “lenders”, filed for Bankruptcy in 2007. However, thereafter and to this day, MERS continues to execute foreclosure documents, including assignments, as “nominee” of New Century.

    The big problem for MERS and those using such assignments is that they are absolutely fraudulent, as New Century repudiated its contract with MERS as part of its Bankruptcy, and there is no evidence of any grant of authority from the New Century Bankruptcy Court which would permit MERS to execute such assignments in the first place. This issue has come to the fore in several of our cases in different states.

    Further, the separate company which purchased the New Century brand out of bankruptcy has made it clear on its “Legal” page that the company has no connection to or power over the old company’s loans. As such, any “new” assignments by the “new” New Century are also most likely fraudulent.

    The world is finally starting to wake up to the massive, pervasive, nationwide fraud which has been engaged in with impunity by MERS, Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, US Bank, and their servicers and “trustees” in their never-ending quest to reap massive profits at the expense of homeowners and damn the consequences. It is no longer homeowners who are seeking relief. Attorneys General are also taking action: the Attorney General of Massachusetts has sued several of the “banksters” for fraudulent mortgage practices; the Attorney General of Delaware has sued MERS for fraudulent practices both in foreclosure and its attempt to avoid recording fees; and yesterday, the Attorneys General of California and Nevada formed a joint task force to pursue foreclosure fraud. It is no longer a situation of simply foreclosure defense: the new wave is grounded in affirmative claims against the banks and their agents for their outright fraudulent conduct all over the United States.

    The good news is that the CEO of one of them, that being JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, has publicly announced that JPM has plenty of reserves to defend the lawsuits against it. On behalf of the Attorneys General and private litigants who are going after JPM for its nationalized pattern of fraudulent conduct, we thank you, Jamie, for affirming that JPM is a still a collectible entity

  30. @ Kathy Charlotte

    New Century…but, they were borrowing money for funding at the time and 7 of 13 lenders had shut them off. At the same time MA and OH had cease and desist orders, due to not funding the mortgages? Curious…

    Your thoughts?

  31. here is help for Chase/WAMU/LongBeach people!
    http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/MERS%20is%20a%20SHAM.pdf. See the OCC letter on the web: Occ letter January 14, 2005, national bank law does not preempt state law. Deutsche Bank is not in compliance with Washington Deed of Trust Act law nor in compliance with Washington State CPA law for the same reasons RECONTRUST is not in compliance in “ Washington State V. RECONTRUST, filed by AG Rob McKenna. See Deutsche Bank V FDIC.Chase.WAMU. See……
    SEE on the web: FDIC & JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA’S P&A AGREEMENT DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE NOTES.
    The Purchase &Assumption Agreement between the FDIC & JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA for Washington Mutual Bank does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note.
    U. S. DISTRICT COURT CASE # CV10-0815 0D2 (FFMx)
    JAVAHIERI V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA et al:
    Order GRANTING in Part & DENYING in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint file April 28, 2011
    Decision can be found at http://www.chasechase.org/doxcc/Javaheri35Order.pdf
    US Code: TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part B > § 1641
    § 1641. Liability of assignees can be found at

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1641&url=/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001641—-000-.html

    From the decision”:

    C. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE & QUIET TITLE

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA’s assertion that the P&A Agreement suffices to establish their ownership of the Note is no longer viable. Indeed, the P&A Agreement does not specifically identify Plaintiff’s Note. (See Dkt. No. 10, Exh. 2.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has now sufficiently alleged that JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA did not own his Note and therefore did not have the right to foreclose.

    From Plaintiff’s memorandum of law attached:

    WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE – SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (hereafter Chase) offers no proof that it acquired an interest in Plaintiff’s residence. In this Motion to Dismiss, once again the only document offered to support its claim is the P&A Agreement. Chase asks the court to leap to the conclusion that Washington Mutual Bank (hereafter WMB) was the Lender on September 25, 2008, the date that the Purchase & Assumption Agreement was signed, even though the likelihood of that, given WMB’s history of securitization, is less than 50%. The challenge facing homeowners is to prove facts to trial courts at the pleading stage.

    Wall Street and the Financial Crisis – Anatomy of a Financial Collapse, the U.S.
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (April 13, 2011) 650-page report,
    was released following an 18-month investigation into the causes of the financial
    crisis. WMB was the leading case study in the report—183 pages (28%) of the report were devoted to WMB—the worst of the worst. The report is readily
    available for download at the Senate Subcommittee’s website. 2
    Defendant alleges in its Purchase & Assumption Agreement that “JPMorgan obtained its rights under the loan from the FDIC” (P&A 4:5). Whether or not the Loan was an asset of WMB on September 25, 2008, a key issue in this case, is not mentioned. Chase asks the court to find, without evidence, a fact that it must prove in order to take the property. Nothing in the P&A Agreement shows whether WMB had any beneficial interest in Plaintiff’s loan on September 25, 2008. The court is asked to guess the answer and dismiss the case. Then Plaintiff will lose his house.

    Where factual findings or the contents of the documents are in dispute, those
    matters of dispute are not appropriate for judicial notice. Caravantes v. California
    Reconveyance Co., 2010 WL 4055560, 9 (S.D.Cal. 2010) citing Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transp. Comm’n, 2006 WL 167657, at *2 (N.D.Cal. 2006).
    See Stephen R. Buchenroth and Gretchen D. Jeffries, Recent Foreclosure Cases: Lenders Beware (June 2007); Wells Fargo v.Jordan, 914 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 2009) (“If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”);
    Chase argues that it obtained the right to sell Plaintiff’s property when it acquired

    Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
    – 17 –
    WMB’s assets through the P&A Agreement for $1.9 billion. Chase could only acquire what WMB owned. WMB no longer owned Plaintiff’ mortgage. Perhaps the identity of the Lender can be tracked down, but it remains unknown.
    Defendant argues that Chase assumed no liability for actions taken by WMB prior to September 25, 2008 in regard to the subject loan. This obscures the issue. Plaintiff alleges that WMB did not have any interest in Plaintiff’s residence on September 25, 2008. His property was not an asset of WMB, and therefore Chase could not acquire any interest in Plaintiff’s residence. This is not a liability issue.
    Chase seems to assert that it can foreclose on any property under the P&A Agreement on the grounds that WMB might have had a beneficial interest in the property at some time, even though WMB sold most of its mortgages to investors.

    Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 62 of the SAC that WMB securitized Plaintiff’s single family
    residential mortgage loan through Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. If WMB retained no beneficial interest in the promissory note when it brokered the deal, Chase cannot acquire what WMB never had. If WMB transferred all of its beneficial interest in the note at the inception of the loan and never entered it in its books as an asset, and entered no corresponding reserve on its ledger as a liability in the event of Plaintiff’s default, then Chase did not acquire ownership of the note by purchasing WMB’s assets because WMB had nothing to sell. This is a question of fact. Plaintiff alleges in ¶ 30 of the SAC that Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, not a holder of the Note, and not a beneficiary under the Note.

    If Chase has no beneficial interest in the note, Chase can only proceed if it
    proves that it is the servicer and joins the owner of the note in this action. To dismiss
    this lawsuit before ascertaining the truth of these allegations is unwarranted. Chase
    could produce evidence in its files, but it prefers to rob Plaintiff of his day in court
    __._,_.___
    Neither WMB, Chicago Title Company, California Reconveyance Company (hereafter CRC), Chase, nor anyone else has recorded a transfer of a beneficial interest in the Note (or any other interest in the) Property to Chase. (SAC ¶ 29). Chase does not have standing to enforce the Note because Chase is not the owner of the Note, Chase is not a holder of the Note, and Chase is not a beneficiary under the Note. Chase does not have
    capacity to exercise a power of sale. Chase does not claim to be a holder of the note.

    The core issue in this case is to ascertain who is the Lender. Plaintiff did not borrow money from Chase. Plaintiff’s pre-discovery inquiries indicate that WMB did not own the loan on September 25, 2008, and therefore Chase is not the Lender. This issue cannot be brushed aside because California is a non-judicial state.

    Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) remained the Lender for no more than a few days until WMB sold the loan. Thereafter, it was, at best, a servicer of the loan. The Lender was the investment trust that put up the money.

    Foreclosure of the Wellworth Property was commenced by CRC, having been
    appointed trustee on April 30, 2010, by Chase. Chase was not the Lender.

    The Deed of Trust (SAC Exhibit 4) states on page 13, paragraph 24: “Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor Trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by Lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county in which the Property is located.” (SAC Exhibit 8, ¶24).

    Defendant asks the Court’s approval to proceed with foreclosure of Plaintiff’s
    property on the basis of a NOD and NOTS filed by CRC, a wholly owned subsidiary
    of Chase (SAC ¶16) that was appointed as successor Trustee by Chase even though
    Chase is not the Lender and has not revealed who the Lender might possibly be.

    (A) all of the beneficiaries under the trust deed, or their successors in interest…
    Nowhere does the Civil Code allow for assignment of a Deed of Trust by the assignee acting on its own behalf.

    Since Chase is not the Lender, it would violate the terms of the Note and the Deed of Trust to dismiss the SAC and allow Chase to foreclose as a result of a forged Assignment of Deed of Trust signed by someone working for the Assignee.

    The mortgage is not secured by the note and the contract is breached at inception due to failure to disclose the true lender and fraud assignment to Duetsche Bank National Trust whom is unlawfully doing business in the State of Washington, not incompliance with WA Deed of Trust Act and not in compliance with the Washington CPA laws and Washington Corporation laws. See on the web OCC letter dated January 14, 2005 stating National Bank law does not preempt state law. Duetsche bank has never been authorized to be doing business of any kind including banking , foreclosing, and being a beneficiary in the State of Washington and has been foreclosing unlawfully in the State of Washington.

  32. @ Chris,

    Who is the lender listed on the Note? Who is the Lender listed on the Mortgage or Deed or Trust?

  33. @ dee

    No, the HUD is the only place a lender is mentioned. That is RBC. On the foreclosure notice it is Ocwen, from SPS, from New Century 2007 who is also listed as the servicer.

  34. @ ian

    Didn’t know that. Do you know when? RBC Bank, Chicago…New Century bought them in 2005, with “non-loans” assets.

  35. chris- was your RBC Bank of Georgia, or RBC Bank NA? Also, you propably know that Credit Suisse bought SPS, fka Fairbanks Capital.

  36. @ chris

    Are there any endorsements on the note? Does your QWR, response mention who own the note,

  37. one of my rare days off i called the IRS- well agent of- i told him i would really like it for IRS to joinder mt lawsuit lol

  38. @ dee

    No…however…do not know who lender is.

    HUD statement says RBC, they are claiming to know nothing about my loan. The originator claims to be the lender and the servicer on the foreclosure doc’s. Then we have Duetsche Bank claiming to be the originator, while First Citizens sends the wire transfer and US Bank NA is trustee of note and deed, then another servicer jumps in SPS, then Ocwen…floating around somewhere is Credit Suisse..while the trust/pool was not created until October 07, 2007…loan was generated on February 27, 2007, after the originator filed bankruptcy.
    And finally, I cannot find loan anywhere, 3 different loan numbers and counting. Actually, there is more, but this is the meat and potatoes….Lot of unanswered questions.

  39. @chris

    Your original lender still in business?

  40. Update:

    My HUD lists RBC as my lender. Just got a letter from them: they have no knowledge of this loan, never funded or serviced it in any way.

    The plot thickens. It appears the information on my HUD is all a lie!

    Go figure…

  41. Isn’t THIS exactly what these perpetrators have done? HOW do we go after them for these things:

    Mail And Wire Fraud

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In the United States, mail and wire fraud is any fraudulent scheme to intentionally deprive another of property or honest services via mail or wire communication. It has been a federal crime in the United States since 1872.

    History

    In the 1960s and ’70s, inspectors under regional chief postal inspectors such as Martin McGee, known as “Mr. Mail Fraud,” exposed and prosecuted numerous swindles involving land sales, phony advertising practices, insurance ripoffs and fraudulent charitable organizations using mail fraud charges.

    Mail

    18 U.S.C. § 1341 provides:
    Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

    Wire

    18 U.S.C. § 1343 provides:
    Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

    Honest Services

    Main article: Honest services fraud
    18 U.S.C. § 1346 provides:
    For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.
    Elements

    There are three elements to mail and wire fraud:
    Intent;
    A “scheme or artifice to defraud” or the obtaining of property by fraud; and,
    A mail or wire communication.
    To be fraudulent, a misrepresentation must be material.
    Mail fraud does not require that the mailing cross state lines; however, wire fraud does require that the wire communication cross state lines.

  42. @ dee

    Yes and yes…2 Federal Cases, as we speak! I have some substantial circumstantial evidence from a lot of digging and I want to see what they come up with if anything. It will not match what I have, guaranteed. The judge being honest, is going to be an issue.

    Have QWR’d everyone who touched my paperwork too. Trying to file a title claim also…the paperwork is in my hand for unmarketable title, because of the forgery. I’m sure that will be another fight, after they try and kick the claim. So we’ll see. Thanks for asking. Any advice?

  43. Mortgage Notes Are NOT Negotiable! Mortgage Notes Are NOT Negotiable, NOT NEGOTIABLE!
    March 7th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/03/mortgage-notes-are-not-negotiable-instruments-one-of-my-first-posts-ever/Thomas A. Cox is one of the national leaders in the fight to protect consumers and defend the Rule of Law. Cox, along with Tom Ice, first worked to expose the whole robo signing fraud and now Cox weighs in with this weighty piece of scholarship that addresses the issue that MORTGAGE NOTES ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE.

    I hope to get an appellate decision in Florida soon, but I encourage everyone to weigh in on this most important subject. We need our trial court judges to be thinking about this every single day….it’s the next front in this maddening war.

    Tom’s analysis, contained within this long law review article, is very critical and frankly this is precisely the kind of hard assessment we need. If we could lock judges in a room and insulate them from the chaos that the banks have dumped into our courtrooms and into our law, the decision would be simple….NOTES ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE and must be transferred under Article 9.

    Making these kind of difficult decisions is precisely what our courts are supposed to do. We simply must demand that they fulfill their highest function…the development of clear, guiding law.

    TAC Non-negotibility memo 3-5-12 w Ex A

    Mortgage Notes Are NOT Negotiable Instruments– One of My First Posts EVER!
    March 5th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    This little ole blog has been around since July 2009. At that time, blogs were new and frankly the defense of foreclosures was not particularly sophisticated. I knew way back then that there were major problems with foreclosures, but then the theories were not yet developed. So many of the issues have been more fully developed since then, but too many of them still remain undeveloped.

    As I’ve recently been digging into the fact that notes are not negotiable, I realized that I first wrote about this issue as one of my first posts. I’m frustrated that we haven’t really developed that issue yet, but then again I’ve only pursued the issue once at trial….but check this out:

    In nearly every foreclosure case filed in Florida, the law firms include a count in the lawsuit to “re-establish a lost note”. In order to prevail in a foreclosure case, the lender must present to the court the original promissory note singed by the borrower at closing. Because these note are often lost, a technical legal procedure was developed which allows the plaintiff to present to the court a copy of that note and ask the court to rule that the copy presented is just as good as the original note.

    In many cases, the Plaintiffs will be able to produce a copy of the note that was “lost”, at some point in time in the proceedings. In this case, the lost note count is dropped and the foreclosure case moves forward without this techincal problem. In some cases however, the Plaintiff either cannot even produce a copy of the promissory note or the promissory note signed by the borrower does not fit the precise legal definition of a “negotiable instrument” that is subject to the techincal reestablishment procedures.

    In either of these cases, the Plaintiff is going to have a very hard time proceeding with their forecloure case and they have very few easy options which would allow them to prevail in their foreclosure case…confronting this reality should encourage the lender to enter into very favorable mortgage modifcation discussions with the borrower, but more often than not it seems the attorneys just abandon the case leaving the homeowner in a home with noone to make a mortgage payment to and nonone calling or making any attempts to get them to pay.

    http://www.floridacivpro.com/rules/2009/10/1120_pleading_special_matters/

    LOST NOTE http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2009/07/lost-note-and-mortgage-foreclosure/

    Or how about this one:

    The first question a competent attorney should ask is, “Does the plaintiff who is suing my client have the right to file a lawsuit in Florida against my client?” The fact of the matter is that a variety of statutes and rules prohibit various persons and entities from availing themselves of the jurisdiction of Florida courts.

    Minors may not alone avail themselves of the jurisdiction of any court of this state; neither may individuals who are otherwise incompetent. Minors and incompetents may only access the courts of this state through guardians or other legal representatives. Personal representatives appointed by in estates opened in other states may not maintain suit in this state. An ancillary estate must be opened in this state. Businesses operating as a fictitious name may not maintain suit. Only the individual who runs that entity may file suit. Foreign corporations not registered with the Secretary of State may not maintain suit in this state. They must first register as a foreign corporation.

    CAPACITY http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2009/08/foreclosure-cases-that-dont-allege-capacity-to-sue-should-be-dismissed/

    If these two issues alone had been pursued the landscape would be much different than things are today….

  44. @ chris

    Have you started discovery yet? If so did your attorney file a Motion to Compel.

  45. @ carie

    Absolutely NOTHING! It’s okay to cheat the IRS if you are a bank, originator or servicer. The rule of law only provides for big business Felons, not the “little people” as Leona Helmsley said! She was tokenly arrested…

  46. So what IS the IRS doing bout all this?

  47. WONDERFUL WORK HERE @ joni brit, you appear well clued in whilst you may allege anything you like you must have clear and convincing evidence befor you make those arguments.In my painful experience, as a pro se litigant, even then, you are faced with a very unlevel playing feild and i know im stating the obvious now. btw, who wants to go on 60 minuites ? you know the little guys version, obstruction of justice ect.
    MD i feel your pain, same situation here…BK will protect you for a bit
    this is what i did, i said screw the fico, (still lost the house) i went into BK whilst i got the adversary proceeding lined up, then i came out voluntarily and pursued in federal court, not sure if that was best, you can argue in BK, but you also are clipped in the wings because you have to pay a trustee, so how pray tell do you litigate unless you have a contingency, very few attorneys can do that for you. if you are going pro se it has its obvious disadvantages, as well as advantages, either way, yes its hell, but im surviving, 3 yrs and the bastards still havnt got me down. my advice being pro se, always have your plan B. ready for surprise attack. ninja training is good.
    being broke (and a bit cross) and when there is nothing to loose but your self respect, then we have the mother of invention. we gotta think outside the box. seek and ye shall find. truth is coming out,. i believe there is a solution to every problem, i have to believe it will be a good one that works for justice in this world.
    side note authoritive law, the IRS can i believe, banks, nope. yet have.

  48. @ Joni Brit

    The servicer can’t…they forge documents because they have no standing….no lose other than the fabricated fees, which as a servicer they get to keep in the PSA.

    It is my opinion, as I have stated before, these “supposed loans” were bad prior to closing, as the defaults were in play as the originators were signing us up…that paperwork was shipped off to the insurer with the “fake” applications to collect proceeds and dupe the pool. Essentially they were selling “junk bonds”. Even when the “servicer” got TARP funds, they lied and faked paperwork to the Federal Government saying they were “a party in interest”, which is a bold faced lie!

    My $.02…no legal advice, just an educated opinion

  49. To Mark Stopa Esq: I have a question:regarding Servicer as Forecloser:
    How can a Servicer, Legally Service a Derivitive for an Investor who has disobeyed SEC regulatory considerations by not Securitizing all Derivitives into the Pool?
    What part is illegal:
    A) Not Registering Derivitive with the Sec;
    B) Servicing Nonsecuritized Derivitive Into Numerous Trusts and Remics For an Investor who is in violation of SEC regulations;
    C) Foreclosing on mortgagee as the Servicer of a Non- Registered, Non Securitized derivitive, purchased in secret without a valid mortgage assignment, or Note; .
    D) Profiting from this relationshp?

  50. Renegotiations? Don’t think for a minute you can negotiate with thieves and liars and come out on top. Why negotiate anyway, when there is a zero chance that they own your mortgage due to the type of fraud involved in the securitization scheme? Fannie and Freddie both hid the fraud. The SEC destroyed the evidence. I can’t see the top of the mountainous pile of fraud that has acumulated. Add to that the fact that the banks create the money out of thin air, and have nothing invested in your property. Your equity has been exchanged for some worthless paper as soon as you sign the documents, then they collect as many payments, from as many sources as they can get before they steal the house, too. I ain’t gettin’ involved with these people, ever again. There is no debt, therefore negotiation is not indicated as a solution. Put ‘em in jail.

  51. #1)how can you name four banks and leave out wells fargo?
    and #2) re litigation…good attorneys must be paid for their litigation, and few litigants can afford it, and that is why better modifications are trying to be negotiated for all and why we all have to recognize the importance and victory of kemp v countrywide: no foreclosure without a valid Note at the time foreclosure action was brought. This does not mean a free house but it will mean a renegotiation, and no foreclosure.

  52. @Ahn

    From your Stopa post:

    “…Or is it set up/slanted (at least in some courtrooms) in a way that merely facilitates foreclosure?”

    Oh, ABSO-FRICKIN’-LUTELY it is “set up/slanted”!!! Mr.Stopa HAS to know that…give me a break…These judges are trying to save their own ass—sorry—“job”.

  53. ——————————————————————————–
    And you thought we had problems? People, hang on to your house, go plant a few veggies, stash away some rice and bean and… observe. It will come down. Isn’t that what gravity is all about? What goes up, up, up… has to come down, down, down…

    Derivatives: The $600 Trillion Time Bomb That’s Set to Explode
    October 12, 2011
    By Keith Fitz-Gerald, Chief Investment Strategist, Money Morning

    Do you want to know the real reason banks aren’t lending and the PIIGS have control of the barnyard in Europe?

    It’s because risk in the $600 trillion derivatives market isn’t evening out. To the contrary, it’s growing increasingly concentrated among a select few banks, especially here in the United States.

    In 2009, five banks held 80% of derivatives in America. Now, just four banks hold a staggering 95.9% of U.S. derivatives, according to a recent report from the Office of the Currency Comptroller.

    The four banks in question: JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS).

    Derivatives played a crucial role in bringing down the global economy, so you would think that the world’s top policymakers would have reined these things in by now – but they haven’t.

    Instead of attacking the problem, regulators have let it spiral out of control, and the result is a $600 trillion time bomb called the derivatives market.

    Think I’m exaggerating?

    The notional value of the world’s derivatives actually is estimated at more than $600 trillion. Notional value, of course, is the total value of a leveraged position’s assets. This distinction is necessary because when you’re talking about leveraged assets like options and derivatives, a little bit of money can control a disproportionately large position that may be as much as 5, 10, 30, or, in extreme cases, 100 times greater than investments that could be funded only in cash instruments.

    The world’s gross domestic product (GDP) is only about $65 trillion, or roughly 10.83% of the worldwide value of the global derivatives market, according to The Economist. So there is literally not enough money on the planet to backstop the banks trading these things if they run into trouble.

    Now, You Don’t Have To Pay Lots Of Money To Make Lots Of Money
    “Join me for my daily ‘private briefings’ with our top editors.
    Click here to learn more

    Compounding the problem is the fact that nobody even knows if the $600 trillion figure is accurate, because specialized derivatives vehicles like the credit default swaps that are now roiling Europe remain largely unregulated and unaccounted for.

    Tick…Tick…Tick
    To be fair, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) estimated the net notional value of uncollateralized derivatives risks is between $2 trillion and $8 trillion, which is still a staggering amount of money and well beyond the billions being talked about in Europe.

    Imagine the fallout from a $600 trillion explosion if several banks went down at once. It would eclipse the collapse of Lehman Brothers in no uncertain terms.

    A governmental default would panic already anxious investors, causing a run on several major European banks in an effort to recover their deposits. That would, in turn, cause several banks to literally run out of money and declare bankruptcy.

    Short-term borrowing costs would skyrocket and liquidity would evaporate. That would cause a ricochet across the Atlantic as the institutions themselves then panic and try to recover their own capital by withdrawing liquidity by any means possible.

    And that’s why banks are hoarding cash instead of lending it.

    The major banks know there is no way they can collateralize the potential daisy chain failure that Greece represents. So they’re doing everything they can to stockpile cash and keep their trading under wraps and away from public scrutiny.

    What really scares me, though, is that the banks

    think this is an acceptable risk because the odds of a default are allegedly smaller than one in 10,000.

    But haven’t we heard that before?

    Although American banks have limited their exposure to Greece, they have loaned hundreds of billions of dollars to European banks and European governments that may not be capable of paying them back.

    According to the Bank of International Settlements, U.S. banks have loaned only $60.5 billion to banks in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy – the countries most at risk of default. But they’ve lent $275.8 billion to French and German banks.

    And undoubtedly bet trillions on the same debt.

    There are three key takeaways here:

    •There is not enough capital on hand to cover the possible losses associated with the default of a single counterparty – JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), BNP Paribas SA (PINK: BNPQY) or the National Bank of Greece (NYSE ADR: NBG) for example – let alone multiple failures.
    •That means banks with large derivatives exposure have to risk even more money to generate the incremental returns needed to cover the bets they’ve already made.
    •And the fact that Wall Street believes it has the risks under control practically guarantees that it doesn’t.
    Seems to me that the world’s central bankers and politicians should be less concerned about stimulating “demand” and more concerned about fixing derivatives before this $600 trillion time bomb goes off.

  54. Telephone “Glitch” Prompts New Hearing, Disappointment

    Posted on March 6th, 2012 by Mark Stopa

    Have you ever felt a certain way and wished you didn’t but you just can’t help it? That’s how I feel right now. I’m disappointed. Disappointed because a judge just told me something but, for a variety of reasons (mostly because of how this particular judge has acted in foreclosure cases, both towards me and my clients and in general), I just don’t believe it. 999 times out of 1,000, I’d believe a judge in a situation like this. Even here, I want to believe this judge, and I suppose I should believe the judge. Unfortunately, in this situation, I just don’t, making today perhaps the most disappointing day in my entire legal career.

    Here’s what happened…

    I recently had a hearing in a foreclosure case on a Motion for Summary Judgment or to Dismiss. My argument was two-fold: (1) the bank, a foreign corporation, failed to post the cost bond required by Fla. Stat. 57.011, requiring dismissal of the lawsuit; and (2) the bank failed to give the homeowner notice of the alleged default and a 30-day opportunity to cure it, as required by paragraph 22 of his mortgage.

    These arguments were simple, straightforward, and, quite frankly, dead winners.

    The hearing was odd from the outset. Nobody showed up for the bank, via telephone or otherwise (the judge even clarified no attorneys were “on hold”), so it was just me and the judge in chambers. The judge was visibly uncomfortable from the outset, but asked me to start my argument. About half way through my argument, the Court’s phone rang. The judge excitedly took the call, thinking it was opposing counsel calling in for my hearing. But it was a different lawyer from a different case, totally unrelated to mine. Oddly, the judge conducted the hearing in that case, unopposed, granting a summary judgment of foreclosure in that case. (It was weird and uncomfortable, frankly, because it felt like the judge was trying to “buy time” to give opposing counsel in my case a chance to show up.) Then, with that hearing over, the judge told me to resume my argument.

    When I finished the argument, unopposed, explaining why the case should be dismissed for failure to post cost bond and/or summary judgment entered for failure to comply with conditions precedent, the judge told me the Court would take the matter under advisement.

    This was exceptionally rare. Banks get summary judgments entered when cases are unopposed as a matter of course. Why not here? Why not for a homeowner? I’m all for judges taking matters under advisement and giving careful consideration before ruling – that’s a good thing. But what was there to think about here?

    I then asked the judge if I should provide the Court with a proposed Order. The judge said “no,” that the Court would prepare its own Order.

    Again, very odd. With all of the Orders that the Court signs in uncontested cases or at uncontested hearings, why did the Court want to prepare its own Order here? To put that in perspective, that’s the first time in 10 years of practicing law where I’ve seen a judge take a ruling under advisement at a hearing where one side did not even show up, then refuse a proposed Order from counsel who appeared, insisting on preparing its own Order. Even at the time, I was wondering … why?

    The situation only got stranger from there.

    I just received the Order, and the judge denied the motion to dismiss (the cost bond argument), without explanation, ordering my client to file an Answer within 10 days. As for the summary judgment part of the motion (the bank’s failure to give notice and cure), the judge ruled the hearing had to be rescheduled because the judge’s assistant informed the Court, when the hearing was over, that the bank’s attorney was “on hold” for the hearing but due to some unknown telephone “glitch” with the Court’s phone system, the judge did not see that the lawyer was on hold.

    As I said at the outset, I really want to believe the judge in this situation. I do. I want to think the opposing attorney was actually on hold and didn’t get through to the hearing (in which event rescheduling the hearing is the fair thing to do).

    Unfortunately, I can’t say I believe it. I don’t believe the opposing attorney was on hold. Heck, the judge took a phone call (for another hearing) right in front of me and the phone was working just fine. Plus, the judge clarified at the start of the hearing that no attorneys were on hold. I want to believe the opposing attorney was “on hold” and that a “glitch” in the Court’s phone system prevented the judge from realizing it, but I don’t.

    In fairness, I suppose there’s no way to know for sure, but, at worst, I’m very skeptical.

    You might think I’m a conspiracy theorist, but I disagree. 999 times out of 1,000, I’d believe the judge in a situation like this. Unfortunately, I think my skepticism here is reasonable and, frankly, unavoidable. Bear in mind, this is the same judge who regularly gives 5-day turnaround times for homeowners to file an Answer or take some other act even as banks are given 60 or 90-day extensions ex parte. This is the same judge who interrupts defense lawyers, cuts off their arguments, rules against them without hearings, regularly defaults them out of court ex parte and without notice, etc., etc. The best way to describe the dynamic is this … imagine you are an out-of-state lawyer going into court for the first time in a small western town in the 1960s. All the small-town cronies are sitting in the audience, smiling and joking, as the judge approaches the bench. You lose, and you know you got home-towned, but there’s nothing you can do about it. That’s how it feels before this judge in every foreclosure case, and I know I’m not the only one who feels that way.

    Please don’t misunderstand – the vast majority of judges before whom I appear are terrific and fair. If this sort of thing happened before almost any other judge, I’d have shrugged my shoulders and moved on. It’s sad that I can’t do so here. It’s sad that the temperament and demeanor of this judge has been such that I’m left questioning whether the opposing attorney was actually “on hold” and the Court didn’t realize it due to a phone “glitch” or whether something different is going on.

    Maybe my skepticism is well-founded and maybe not. Perhaps I’m right, perhaps not. Either way, it’s sad when I can’t just accept what the Court has said at face value. It’s sad when I’m left wondering, rightly or wrongly, what really happened here.

    More than anything, this is why I’m a foreclosure defense attorney. If/when homeowners lose their home, they should always – always – feel like that was the lawful result, if not the just one. Any judge should be able to look that homeowner in the eye and say “[t]his is what the law requires,” and the homeowner, as upset as he/she may be, has to be able to accept that. We might not like it, and I’ll fight like hell to avoid it, but if that’s what the law requires, we have to move forward. That said, I need – need – to feel like it’s a fair fight. I need to feel like the law requires a foreclosure in a given case – not that the system was set up or slanted in a way to facilitate that foreclosure.

    That’s why I’m disappointed today. I’m disappointed because I’m left wondering what our court system is all about. Does the system allow a fair adjudication of cases? Or is it set up/slanted (at least in some courtrooms) in a way that merely facilitates foreclosure?

    The fact that I have to ask that question is sad, and it’s what drives me to keep fighting for homeowners.
    Mark Stopa

    http://www.stayinmyhome.com

  55. My lasy post is a year old. Sorry about that: it popped out under today’s date in some research I was doing.

    Still, doesn’t hurt to file a complaint witrh the bas association. That’s what got Stern and others in really hot water…

  56. Florida Homeowners Take On the Bank’s Lawyers As Florida Bar Flooded With Lawyer Complaints
    Posted By Larry Tolchinsky on May 12, 2011

    Florida homeowners are not only getting mad, they’re fighting back against the evildoers who’ve misrepresented things to them, or about them. They’re taking on the lawyers.

    Foreclosure Lawyers Are Being Investigated by the Florida Bar: Massive Number of Grievances Being Filed

    The Florida Bar is being flooded with complaints about Florida lawyers and law firms. In fact, the Florida Bar is reporting a Four Hundred percent (400%) rise in the number of pending investigations than it had just 6 months ago. That’s a lot of very mad Floridians.

    Most, if not all, of these complaints are Florida homeowners who are pointing their fingers at the lawyers involved in the foreclosure proceedings involving their property. That’s right: the lawyers who represented the banks and mortgage companies.

    Right now, the Florida Bar has 226 pending Foreclosure Fraud grievance investigations in process. Many involve the “foreclosure mills,” which we’ve all been reading about in the news – the law firms like the Law Offices of David J. Stern, where all they did was foreclosure work for banks and all sorts of bad things happened there: “robo-signing” of documents and other false, illegal stuff.

    The lawyers who made good money a couple of years back in all that Foreclosure Fever shouldn’t just be fretting over when they’ll be getting that dreaded notice from the Florida Bar that an investigation has begun into their past acts, and their license might be pulled or suspended. That’s bad, sure.

    Foreclosure Mill Lawyers Also Risk Being Fired From Their Current Jobs – A Florida Assistant Attorney General Axed Last Month

    However, for some of the Foreclosure Mill lawyers, the day of doom has already hit. Their current employers may not be willing to wait on the Bar investigations when they are aware that they employ a lawyer with a past history in the Florida Foreclosure mess.

    Last month for example, Attorney General Pam Bondi fired Erin Cullaro, an assistant Florida attorney general. Cullaro had been reprimanded last year for moonlighting for a “foreclosure mill” and was reprimanded a second time in March 2011 by Governor Rick Scott when the Governor’s office became suspicious of a number of variations of her signature on legal documents, suggesting “robo-signing.”

    The strangeness in Cullaro’s signatures was brought to light by Foreclosure Defense attorneys as they combed through the records of their various clients’ loan and foreclosure paperwork. The homeowners’ attorneys took their findings to the judges presiding over their particular clients’ cases, and the investigations proceeded from there – culminating in Cullaro’s reprimands and job loss.

    Think You Know of Some Bad Acts by the Bank’s Foreclosure Lawyer? Start Asking Questions.

    If you think that the attorney representing the bank or mortgage company in your foreclosure process – or loan modification, or mortgage negotiation – is hinky, then it’s important to voice that suspicion. How?

    •Talk with your foreclosure defense attorney about it.
    •You can also call the Florida Bar and file a complaint.

  57. IS CHASE IS PLAYING “HIDE-AND-SEEK” WITH MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURTS– INQUIRING MINDS AND FORECLOSURE VICTIMS WANT TO KNOW
    If these charges described below are found to be true, then could every foreclosure action brought by CHASE be in question?

    On January 13, 2012 the Law Office of J. Arthur Roberts in Newport Beach, California filed a Class Action Complaint, Ernest Michael Bakenie and others vs. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA and Does 1-10, in the United States District Court, Central District of California located in Santa Ana. Case No. SACV12-0068 JVS (MLGx). This is a class action for over $10,000,000.00 where at least one plaintiff is diverse from one defendant. The Defendants are conducting business in the state of California.

    A federal class action lawsuit is founded on California’s unfair/unlawful acts statute and alleges JPMorgan Chase routinely falsifies documents to deceive bankruptcy judges into believing Chase is the beneficiary in bankruptcy cases, and goes so far as to Photoshop documents to “create the illusion” of standing “in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases.” The action alleges among other things that JPM engaged in perjury, fraud and intentional misrepresentation by manufacturing a chain of title transfer evidence in order to falsely prove it stands in thousands of bankruptcy matters; andused manufactured evidence to deceive the bankruptcy court and other bankruptcy players as to the identity of the true beneficiary or creditor of Class Members’ non-negotiable promissory notes (MLNs).

    The plaintiff, Ernest Michael Bakenie, owns real property in Newport Beach, CA.

    JPMorgan Chase Bank NA (“Chase”) is a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States, headquartered in the State of New York and doing business in the State of California.

    Injunctive relief is sought.

    ALLEGATIONS:

    CHASE is engaged in systemic fraud upon the Bankruptcy Courts and other bankruptcy players for financial gain.
    That CHASE has violated federal perjury statute 18 USC 1621.
    Plaintiff believes and alleges that CHASE is “engaged in the business practice of deceiving” bankruptcy judges, Chapters 7, 11, and 13 Trustees, the Offices of the United States Trustee, creditors, creditor attorneys, debtors in possession, debtors, and debtors attorneys as to CHASE’s “status as a secured creditor in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases filed nationwide.”
    Bakenie further alleges that through the use of fabricated assignments, endorsements and affidavits that purport to transfer Deeds of Trust, Notes, and rights to all monies due under the terms of tens of thousands of non-negotiable promissory notes that CHASE has demonstrated a patter and practice of playing “hide-and-seek” with debtors, judges and other bankruptcy players.
    CHASE intentionally conceals the identity of the true parties in interest to enforce the tems of tens of thousands of residential non-negotiable promissory notes for its own financial benefit to the detriment of the integrity of the bankruptcy system.
    CHASE services tens of thousands of residential home loans, many of which are pledged to Mortgage Backed Security Trusts.
    CHASE allegedly acquired the assets of WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK NA (WAMU) from the FDIC after WAMU failed and was placed in receivership.
    CHASE network attorneys file proofs of claims and Motions for Relief from Automatic Stay and falsely claim to be the party entitled to the monies due under the terms of the Notes
    That the PSA (Pooling and Servicing Agreement of each private Mortgage Backed Trust serviced by CHASE contemplates no less than THREE true sales of each MLN from originator to sponsor to depositor and finally to the Trustee of the MBS (the “Chain of Title”).
    CHASE and agents frequently lack evidence of the multiple transfers required to establish legitimate standing in bankruptcy, particularly in the case of WAMU originated Notes.
    CHASE et al refuses to offer the actual evidence of the transfers due to costs associated with providing standing of the true “chain of title.”
    Rather than prove up its own standing or the standing of the MBST, CHASE systematically misrepresents CHASE or a designated MBST to be a creditor in vast numbers of bankruptcy cases by utilizing manufactured documents.
    That CHASE et al “fabricated evidence is ‘photo-shopped’ and is HIGHLY PERSUASIVE and authentic in appearance so as to ensure legal victory in bankruptcy courts for unjust enrichment.
    That the said practice allows CHASE to dump defaulted loans that were never properly securitized b WAMU and other originators acquired by CHASE by creating “the illusion of a valid transfer.”
    ROBOSIGNERS identified in the law suit include KIMBERLY M. HORNE and ANGELA NOLAN.

    For More Information:

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/17/HidenSeek.pdf

  58. Illegal Mortgage Foreclosure, JP Morgan and a Federal Injunction
    Font size: (SE) Chris Ryan March 05, 2012

    JP Morgan (NYSE:JPM) has a new liability from mortage foreclosures on its hand, thanks to the Lawfirm of Ken Eade who won a landmark federal injuction against Washington Mutual and JP Morgan. The economic crisis of 2008 had its roots in the mortgage crisis and collapse of the American housing market. Millions of homeowners were pushed into foreclosure due to the illegal predatory lending practices of mortgage lenders. As the real estate crisis deepened, mortgage lenders had little incentive to work with borrowers, as it was more economical to simply foreclose. A recent court decision, however, over the alleged predatory lending practices of Washington Mutual Bank and its successor, JP Morgan Chase, may allow millions of these homeowners to sue their mortgage lenders for compensation.

    The plaintiff had had been issued a home mortgage and a home equity line of credit to cover a home purchase. Both loans went into foreclosure after the collapse of the real estate market. The plaintiff alleged that following the foreclosure sale of plaintiff’s property, JP Morgan Chase attempted to collect nearly $250,000 on the home equity line of credit, or HELOC. JP Morgan Chase also reported it negatively on plaintiff’s credit report, despite California statutes that expressly forbid such actions following foreclosure. The decision places an injunction against JP Morgan Chase from neither collecting on a HELOC nor reporting negative information to credit agencies when such action is legally barred by state statute.

    The alleged predatory lending practices are often associated with lenders that intentionally deceived borrowers. This was often by taking advantage of the customer’s lack of understanding of the mortgage loan process and their weak financial situation. Aggressive sales and marketing tactics, and deceptive practices often convinced customers to agree to mortgages with abusive or unfair loan terms. Lenders may have pressured homeowners into signing for unneeded home equity lines of credit or unnecessary home improvement loans at high interest rates. Predatory lending practices are illegal in every state and victims are entitled to compensation.

    The accountability of lenders will be the next issue of the ongoing mortgage crisis, and the plaintiff will need to prove the violations took place. The mortgage loan process itself will provide the necessary documentation for a homeowner to bring suit against their lender. During the foreclosure process, a mortgage lender must sue to obtain the property from the homeowner, and the homeowner must prove that they were the victim of violations.

    The homeowner can use the information found in the promissory note to prove the lender acted illegally. The promissory note and terms of the mortgage will indicate if any violations occurred. The note will have the signature from each party involved. This will show that the homeowner used the same lender to acquire the loan in question.

    The above ruling will encourage homeowners who lost their property though foreclosure by JP Morgan and Washington Mutual, to re-examine their promissory notes and mortgage terms. The decision guarantees protection for a homeowner from the questionable actions of a lender. If homeowners can prove that they were victims of predatory lending practices, then lawsuits against mortgage lenders can potentially reach into the millions.

  59. @Rabi,

    That’s exactly what I think. And I find it extremely interesting that the media do not mention any of it. Then again, the media don’t speak about foreclosures either and, but for CBS 60 minutes, no one woud know anything about the fraud. We would still be trying to guess…

    At least, some sites (even if they seem a bit weid to me: I’m not particularly conspiracy-oriented…) are willing to talk about it. And there is that video of Blackheath before the UK parliament, that mention of Geithner having been interrogated by Judge Napolitano and other things. Hush hush can’t survive in the information technology age… That will save us, I’m sure. Because I don’t believe that any government can simply shut down internet without taking a huge risk of having it blow in its collective face. And as i said, even though government is counting on cops and the military, those people have families, relatives, friends who got screwed out of a house, got seriously mistreated, got pushed to suicide or murder. I would suspect that their loyalties will be with the proper parties when time comes to defend someone.

    What goes around does come around. I want to see it in my lifetime… That would give worth and meaning to my life: at least, whatever I believed in was true and was the only way to act if humanity is to survive. No better vindication than that.

  60. @ Enraged

    If it were up to me, these guys would be facing the death penalty, for treason. Yes, financial treason ’cause that’s what this is. Devastating an entire global market…trusting people, hard-working decent people, all scammed and robbed of their money, dignity, honor and homes, not houses.

    Telling everyone we bought more than we could afford. What garbage. I never bought anything I could not afford. You make decisions for the time…with history and experience. Who would have ever known this kind of thing was going on and on and on…?

  61. @ Enraged,
    Keep posting. It is indicative of something going on. Nothing happens by chance.

  62. We’re up to 125 bank resignations.

    http://lucas2012infos.wordpress.com/

  63. @Ian,

    You may not believe it but… in certain states (and Michigan is one of them) notaries do not have to have a stamp!

    When i went through my paperwork, I found that out and I was flabbergasted! I started to look all the states involved in my paperwork (MI, IA, KY, CA, MA – my paperwork has gone all over the country…) and MI is not the only one not requiring notary stamps.

    @Nora, Chris, and everyone else,

    Thanks for your comforting words. I am not ashamed, though. Pissed? You bet! But not ashamed. I didn’t create this mess. I applied for a loan in good faith. I refi’ed in good faith and didn’t even get a Heloc: my goal was only to lower my interest rate at the time. That’s when all hell broke loose! But I will fight. I owe it to my kid to die standing and with my head high. I believe that there is a divine justice. I would like to see it applied while I’m alive, though. But I know the thieves have it coming. Today, tomorrow, next month, next year, I don’t know when but it is coming! That’s why I post all those bank resignations and all those positive things: to comfort me in the idea that it is coming.

  64. chris, at least you had a notary whose signature could be forged! The notary I have doesn’t exist. So I would guess that there is no forgery, as the person who signed the doc wasn’t purporting to sign someone else’s name- there was no one else- so where’d they get the stamp? And what’s with the bogus, nonexistent license number? what the…..
    Good luck in your two court hearings.

  65. @ ian

    I have a POA signed by a guy who worked for 7 companies at the same time, Judge Schack knows him and threw a case out over it. The notary who is alive and well “supposedly” witnessed his signature, but I got a copy of her original application and the signatures do not match.

    We’ll see. I am headed to Federal Court, in 2 states over this stuff. I’ll let everyone know the outcome, as soon as I do!

  66. After a year in the district court and now in Appeals court the fraudclosure attorneys want my son to approve a change of representation for RECONTRUS & MERS to Countrywide! He has them by the balls also. They misrepresented the wrong party to the courts, whom they knew lacked standing and now want out by his approval. Like he would do that? The entire Appeal is due to lack of standing and fraud upon the court. RECONTRUST has withdrawn their foreclosure sale notice on the county records and all their fraud affidavits of assignments, between them and MERS. Now signing a fraud affidavit to BAC which he objected to and is asking the county deeds of register to remove all fraud assignements off his county records.

  67. Nora C–you said it!

  68. Check your state bankruptcy law and with the attorneys. In WA state I understand that charged of debt is taxabe by the goverment, however when charged off in bankruptcy it is tax exempt. That would be the ony time bankruptcy would be beneficial, as far as I am concerned. Are bankruptcy attorneys liable for negligence if they did not protect their clients by refusing (in some cases I know of) and some just not being of the know or getting it. Can the bankruptcy be changed cause of the client and or attorney making a decision due to not knowing the whole picture and fraud, making a choice without knowledge of the fraud and the other choice they had? I believe I saw a law a while back, that if you make a choice due the facts before you and find you had another path concealed from you that you have the right to ask for damages or restitution or make a change on the act you did with the limited info you had. Anyone whom knows of the laws on this please post!

  69. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: 60 minutes, affidavits • attesting • Daniel Edstrom • DTC-Systems • fabricating • false information • false sworn documents • foreclose • illicit business practices • improper statements • imp, AHMSI, appraisal fraud, attorney general, auction fraud, Chris Koster, credit bids, DocX Indictment, foreclosure fraud, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, foreclosures, forgery, housing market, housing prices, investors, linda green, LPS, Missouri, mortgage fruad, mortgages, Robo-Signing, settlement, strategic default, Wells Fargo Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  70. Massachusetts Appeals Court Rules That Lost Promissory Note Renders Mortgage Unenforceable
    by Rich Vetstein on March 2, 2012 · 1 comment

    in Foreclosure,Massachusetts Real Estate Law,Mortgages,Real Estate Litigation,Title Defects,Title Insurance

    Share10Case Underscores Importance of Safeguarding Loan Documents And Getting Subordinations

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. v. Casarano, Mass. Appeals Court (Feb. 28, 2012) (click to read)

    In a decision which could impact foreclosure cases involving missing or lost loan documents, the Appeals Court held that a mortgage is unenforceable and must be discharged where the underlying promissory note securing the mortgage could not be found.

  71. Purchase the Kevin Trudeau book Debt Cures! Eight bucks in paper back at Barns and Nobles. Or on line and his forms. Screw the debt collectors. Discharged off debt is uncollectabe house, car trucks boats. They brought this on themselves and this is a way to fignt back. If they take you to court, you tell the judge it is a charged off debt and uncollectable. The judges throw it out for everything but the house. They should be doing it for the house. Read the book and then talk to an attorney that gets it, if you luck out and find one. kTalk

  72. chris (or anyone)- you seem to be moving along at an organized steady clip, so here is a question: legally, if the ‘notary’ who has notarized a limited power of attorney giving the servicer the right to proceed on their behalf, is not a notary at all? The Secretary of State has no records of the person, either by name or by license number. Allegedly notarized in the presence of the managing director of the trustee bank for the Trust, witnessed by two other people.
    I would assume that the whole thing gets thrown out, but what do I know?

  73. @ Enraged,

    I know exactly what you’re talking about. Crappy chapter 7 here, the attorney didn’t even tell me that I could file an Adversarial Motion and discharge the mortgage debt, when the bank couldn’t prove standing.
    I didn’t get scammed by the phony mod help scam, because a friend went through it and I learned from her disaster.

    The fabric of society has been riddled with tears and integrity has become non-existent in a fragment of the populace. Largely this is due to the fact that mothers went to work, and daycare centers raised a generation of kids, mine included. It’s all by design. Like other bad designs, we must work toward tearing it down and building something better. When we allow ourselves to become disillusioned and bitter we let them win. Focus on the positive, because there are good, caring people who are truthful, and although they may be getting tougher to find, they’re out there. I believe we will win this war through sharing and cooperation with one another.

    Remember it’s not a crime to stop paying on a debt, especially one no one can prove you owe. There is no criminal charge for default, infact there are remedies for it, to protect people from abuse by greedy creditors who value money over human life. The strategic moving of jobs overseas and the destruction of the industrial age were simply too easy to bring about, and done deliberately to perpetrate the transfer of all wealth once effected by creating a housing bubble by hocking up all the personal property and then popping it. We’re a part of history! It’s a lousy chapter, though. All things pass, and this will too. We’ll give every corrupt member of congress the boot this fall, rewrite the rules and get our guy in the white house, then demand that the new department of Justice put some banker asses in jail for a very, very, long time, for every homeowner who commit suicide, or who walked away from what was rightfully theirs because they didn’t have the financial resources to fight the fraud. Think positive. When you start feeling down, think about Eric Schneiderman, judge Schack, and John OBrien. Oh and those nuts in Oklahoma who refused to get involved in the stupid 49 state settlement. They rock. We’ll Rule.

    Keep your chin up, friend.

  74. @ ian

    Really…Thanks

  75. chris- next time you have to deal with a buffoon with an IQ lower than that of a toaster or other household appliance, tell him “if brains were gasoline, you wouldn’t have enough to fill a piss-ant’s motorcycle doing half a lap around the inside of a cheerio”. That usually gets ‘em.

  76. @Abby In CA

    That is indeed disturbing. It seems they are getting bolder and bolder. Are they trying to push it to the point that we just storm their castles and kill them with our bare hands? They have no authority over us. We are given inalienable rights, bestowed by God, annexed to the constitution in writing as the bill of rights. Screw them. Sue them!

    I find it very encouraging that so many here are fighting, whether it’s pro se or with an attorney. Twice now, my house has been plucked from the inventory of a foreclosure auction on the courthouse steps, literally on the scheduled day. This is thanks to a pro se case I filed last year which stopped the sale, and this year I had help from a friend who managed to get me from a state of true vagabondage, to a place where I have the banks and their shithead attorney by the bawls.

    Keep your head up. Also keep every piece of correspondence you get, every envelope–write on it when you received it–because you never know when that simple envelope will turn into proof that they have your correct mailing address, and deliberately mailed notices of sale to the wrong address so you wouldn’t get it in time to defend. In my case, saving everything and organizing it into folders & timelines and coupling that with photographic evidence paid off. I’ve been saving this crap since the closing!

    Every letter you get from private mortgage insurers, every letter you get from the bank’s counsel, every legal document and notice is a potential source of evidence you can use to make your claim. File all default notices, demand letters and anything else you get because there are facts and evidence in them that your eyes may not see, but when trained eyes look, they see fraud, forcible detainer, fraudulent inducement, false claims and more. Keep pounding on the bad guys in court, because I’m beginning to see blood in the water. We have the long straw, we may just not realize it yet. Evidence and sharp lawyering win cases.

    Every case is different, but the need to develope evidence is universal.

  77. @ Enraged

    It’s good to know I am not alone. Going through this I have been lied to soooo much, can’t believe it’s true! Like you, the lying and deception is so deeply rooted, I don’t know if most of these folks even know the difference anymore?

    Got a call just yesterday from a bottom feeder. At this point, like you, it is hard not to get nasty, but I told him, pity the poor foll who has your job, I understand companies are hiring from the lowest IQ pool to keep costs down and I wished him luck in life!

    You know Enraged, it is not a crime to get behind on bills, life happens, but surely harassing people, degrading them and threatening them is a crime. Our values have certainly gotten skewed.

    And a final note: competency is failing at every level. In my lifetime I have never witnessed such “incomprehensible buffoons” in the legal system/courts, professional services and administrative positions.

    My $.02

  78. Well unfortunately the banks, the general media and even the govt (via HAMP HARP), oh and even friendly Fannie Mae try to push the old idea of “contact your bank” if there are problems etc.

    First as we know there is no ‘bank’. The servicers refuse to show authorization to work on behalf of the trust/trustee or reveal the trust etc.

    2nd. Basic business sense teaches you you do not offer information to your adversary with whom u may end of in court.

    It is a contract. The Banks are not your friend. Any decent lawyer will say do not give financials to them. Maybe maybe later on as part of some settlement.

    But it is hard to look past all the govt and media and bank propaganda pressure and not talk with the bank.

    I think it was easier for me bec I do not trust govt and do not like Obama so I was skeptical of his alphabet soup HAMP/HARP stuff but really this is a non-partison issue.

    We will see what happens. Meanwhile I sit in my bunker.

  79. @ Enraged and Chris

    We learned a expensive lesson with our previous attorney. He did not have any Federal litigating experience. We will make sure our next counsel has trial experience in Federal Court.

  80. @Chris,

    I was reading your story and… well, very similar here. Got screwed into a botched BK13, after having forked up the “counseling” money, the filing fee, the attorney downpayment. The attorney did nothing for over a year and the plan wasn’t confirmed. As soon as it was discharged (and thank God! All my money was returned to me, except for the monthly trustee handling fee), all my creditors started to zero in, demanding their money. I’m fighting them in court and so far so good. Takes a lot of work.

    I also got screwed into that loan mod. I was one of the first people who got conned out of $3500 by an attorney who… clowsed shop around Christmas a few months later, doing absolutely nothing. Again, very expensive lesson. So, all in all, almost $6000 gone because crooks are allowed to prosper in this country.

    Still… going through life distrusting everyone is not how I want to live. In order for me not to get there, I have to simply avoid any contact with banks. Their employees lie so much that they have to be encouraged to do so. It’s not natural for anyone to lie as much. It is a learned behavior. I cannot imagine lying as much. I wouldn’t be able to live with myself! But the problem is that they won’t let me go easily!!! Every single day, I get phone calls, letters, and such, offering to give me money if i open an account. They don’t take “NO” for an answer either. I end up becoming rude, which is not something i enjoy. It’s like they are pushing you to become violent, to grab a gun and shoot someone. At times, I thank god I don’t have one. Otherwise, I might have been tempted to use it many, many times…

    But the thing is: I’ve become so angruy that i would welcome any big blow up. Riots, a bloody revolution, something to get rid of the bad elements and allow us to start anew, on good grounds.

  81. chris- I surmise that the feds know exactly that there are no notes, the trusts are empty, the debt is unsecured- why else would LOAN SERVICERS get TARP bailout money? You can view the list, go to Pew Mortgage Institute, follow links, this was set up by Nye Lavalle. Curiously, they list banks’ assets, but all the mortgage servicers’ asset column says not available. If the defaulted,charged off, unsecured notes that the servicers (debt buyers) were fraudulently collecting on were properly listed as assets, the glaring deficiencies would raise a red flag.

  82. @ chas404

    One of the biggest mistakes people make is trusting banks. They will not help you. They do not own your note, if you even have one. They lie all the way to court and lie some more. Every piece of paper they hand the judge is fraud and forgery.

    The fact is, even people that are not in our situations yet are going to have bad title, if the lawyer is honest. This is a massive problem and the worst of it has yet to rear its ugly head!

    Just my $.02

  83. BSE right on
    sadly

  84. Hey everybody I have a question.Who is George Poltzer? Does anybody know?Here is a clue,the broaker he worked with in Az when he came here to cover up all this fraud his name was Todd Menard. George and Todd targeted my family acted like they were there to help and after stealing everything attached to our property left us for dead.Go to the source of this web site and you will find more fraud than you care to see.

  85. Nice comment chris. I think these comments really help people. I am on my ‘least-worst’ path bec I had read these types of blogs before I made my decision and thus did not get HAMPered or HARPooned. I did however make some big mistakes.

    Who knows what the outcome will be.

  86. Yes. A form of this dual track system happened to us.
    Once the train starts, it just keeps building momentum and you can’t get it to STOP.

  87. @ Enraged

    Refinance your car loan? Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!

    They are already over market value! What a**holes give this kind of advice?

  88. @ chas404

    I spent every penny of savings, pension and sold personal items…never late for 23 years on anything. I regret it. Could have walked off and bought a house cash.

    All I asked the bank when I was late was if I could make 2 payments to pay the arrears. Flatly said no and offered me a forbearance of $1570 per month for 18 months ($28,260), when my mortgage payment is $676.80…40% down and $85,000 in upgrades. I owed them $5,200.00.

    Never again…I did the wrong thing. Now I am thousands of dollars in the hole from hiring two attorneys, who knew nothing about foreclosure/real estate law and a bankruptcy attorney, with a staff of 10, who didn’t finish the schedules and the bk was dismissed. (I filed the first one myself and completed them, but was encouraged to hire an attorney). I say all this to warn you…everyone hasn’t had this kind of crap happen, but even the lawyers are not trustworthy.

    Hang in there and good luck!

  89. New and improved way to strengthen the economy…

    REFINANCING YOUR CAR LOAN!!! What am i missing? Am I the only one who has a problem with that idea?

    http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/03/05/the-money-saving-refinancing-move-youve-never-considered/

  90. @Dee,

    Yeah… except that Iceland is doing very well. See, in Iceland, the country refused to bailout bad banks and the country as a whole decided not to repay any debt to anyone. So, their taxes are not being used for everything and everyone, like here. In fact, their infrastructures and social programs have hardly suffered because they put people first.

    And… they don’t need oil, with all their geothermic energy. Most of the public transportation system is propelled by electricity from geothermic energy.

    So, they go after the bad guys, they protect the little guys and they tell the rest of the world “Go piss up a rope”. Then again… it’s too cold there. I don’t think I’d want to live there.

  91. SURPRISE, SURPRISE…

    Fewer than 5% of the underwater homeowner will get a write-down… We all knew that, didn’t we?

    Get on your phopne and start calling attorney where you live. Sue, sue, sue. That’s the only way!

    http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2012/03/05/only-5-of-delinquent-borrowers-may-qualify-for-principal-reduct/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl25%7Csec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D140731

  92. Economic crime is defined to be a treasonalbe crime and is defined as a crime by terrorism. Part of the patriot act states, that filing false claims in public records with the intent to steal property is an act of terrorism. I have the law on my propria persona case. To war against the U.S. Constitution is an act of treason. All officers of the court including lawyers and judges on both sides, are mandated by 18USC2,3, &4 statutes to report fraud, not uphold it.

  93. Dee thanks for the article. I hope this is only one of thousands and many of the government represenatives that have turned a blind eye to help us and due their fudiciary duty. These government repres are Breaching Oath of Office and putting Unconstitutional law in place which there is law in place that states no policy can be valid if it is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. The judicial system is broken and way out of control. Our represenatives that have a duty to the common man and woman and child to protect our Constitutional Rights and Bill of Rights are breaching their oath of office. They need to be impeached and trialed, like this leader..

  94. by law you are obligated to pay the lender. The crooks have hidden the lender from us. By law if we are suppose to make sure we are paying the right guy, then it should be law we are to be shown by proof whom is the lender and if it can be, then the represenative esttople law should take place. And quiet title. It is unethical to pay someone you do not owe. It is unethical to be forced to pay someone you do not owe. It is up to the lender to contact us. We have been trying to find the lender. FDCPA and QWR and public request. Only fraud debt collectors making false claims and stealing our houses are contacting us.

  95. tnharry, from what I have seen all the modifications are fraud. It is unethical to negotiate to pay a fraud beneficiary. So the negotiations are worthless. Pull up the McDonnell report for Phil Ting county assessor for SanFrancisco and the McDonnell report for Register of Deeds O’Brien and the report on a Non Compliance Crisis for Kamala Harris, and see that the reports show 75% of the county assignment docs in Essex County are invalid and 84% of the aasignments in SanFrancisco out of a group they audited, were invalid. 100% of the PSA’s are invalid. The woodbee foreclosure is not the beneficiary, and in the State of Washington their is a law that the borrower has a duty to make sure they are paying the right guy. and if they dont they owe the right guy even if they pay off the fraud. Those two reports are believed to be consistant with the happenings in the rest of the county registers in the entire U.S. I for one believe thsi to be true. So any negotiations with a fraud irrevelant or invalid and or causing you to reup a loan you dont owe to a fraud and still legally bound to pay the real guy. Plus the new loan against the house you just reupped or signed to pay a loan you do not owe. In my thinking and correct me if I am wrong prove me wrong. only the fooled negotiate a mod. Only the fooled pay the fraud beneficiaries. By law you are not suppose to be obligated to pay the frauds.

  96. There is a new article on Stopforeclosurefraud.com from U.S. Supreme court law, dug out of the old archives, that brings up an old case law, 1867 I think, but it is still standing good case law and has been distinguished by judges to make it less generalized. The order is that the note and deed of trust can not be separated. When they are, they are Null and void. Carpenter V. Logan !

  97. FYI for those contemplating walking and joining us Walking Dead(beats)… I am 6 months no pay with no papers served still.

    Fannie Mae Florida loan.

    I wish I had done it earlier by about a year or so.

    Maybe my tune will change later.

  98. MD,
    Sue them yourself! You can do it! I never thought I could, but 2 1/2 years later, I still have my house. I’ve fought tooth and nail, many sleepless nights, more coffin tacks than I care to recall, but they haven’t yet succeeded in getting me out! It ain’t easy, but it can be done.

  99. @ MD

    Please be thoughtful about lawyers, not too many know what they are doing. I have been burned twice, with zero results other than the same foreclosure notices. Have gotten further on my own…and that’s not saying much!

    Good Luck, I do not mean that sarcastically.

  100. @ ian

    My paperwork screams of default in note, before it was closed and not funded.

    Can’t go into details, but I am betting everything, many loans were in default, before the closing paperwork was endorsed. Guarantee it!

  101. LOTS OF INFO BELOW ON SB 1890 EMAILING FLORIDA SENATORS TODAY, ATTENDING DEMONSTRATION TOMORROW & MANY OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS

    SB 1890 the (UN)Fair Foreclosure Act is posed to pass on the Florida Senate Floor this week. There is a protest planned tomorrow morning in West Palm Beach (details here). Please email the Florida Senators (Florida Senator email list & suggested comments opposing SB 1890 below)

    Rocket Docket coming back to a Fraudclosure Court near you! More . http://www.scribd.com/doc/83235165/Return-of-the-Florida-Robo-Judges-to-Violate-Due-Process-Rights-of-Citizens-Facing-Fraudclosure

    VOTE NO ON CS/CS/SB 1890
    richter.garrett.web@flsenate.gov, smith.chris.web@flsenate.gov, alexander.jd.web@flsenate.gov, bennett.mike.web@flsenate.gov, fasano.mike.web@flsenate.gov, gaetz.don.web@flsenate.gov, hays.alan.web@flsenate.gov, margolis.gwen.web@flsenate.gov, negron.joe.web@flsenate.gov, oelrich.steve.web@flsenate.gov

    sobel.eleanor.web@flsenate.gov, altman.thad.web@flsenate.gov, benacquisto.lizbeth.web@flsenate.gov, bogdanoff.ellyn.web@flsenate.gov, braynon.oscar.web@flsenate.gov, bullard.larcenia.web@flsenate.gov, portilla.miguel.web@flsenate.gov, detert.nancy.web@flsenate.gov, dean.charles.web@flsenate.gov, dockery.paula.web@flsenate.gov

    evers.greg.web@flsenate.gov, flores.anitere.web@flsenate.gov, garcia.rene.web@flsenate.gov, gardiner.andy.web@flsenate.gov, gibson.audrey.web@flsenate.gov, haridopolos.mike.web@flsenate.gov, jones.dennis.web@flsenate.gov, joyner.arthenia.web@flsenate.gov, latvala.jack.web@flsenate.gov, lynn.evelyn.web@flsenate.gov

    montford.bill.web@flsenate.gov, norman.jim.web@flsenate.gov, rich.nan.web@flsenate.gov, ring.jeremy.web@flsenate.gov, sachs.maria.web@flsenate.gov, simmons.david.web@flsenate.gov, siplin.gary.web@flsenate.gov, storms.ronda.web@flsenate.gov, thrasher.john.web@flsenate.gov, wise.stephen.web@flsenate.gov

    District Member email Capitol/ District #

    37 Garrett Richter R richter.garrett.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5124 / (239) 417-6205

    29 Chris Smith D smith.chris.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5112 / (954) 267-2114

    17 JD Alexander R alexander.jd.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5044 / 1-800-444-974721 Mike Bennett R bennett.mike.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5078 / (941) 727-6349

    11 Mike Fasano R fasano.mike.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5062 / (727) 848-5885

    4 Don Gaetz R gaetz.don.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5009 / (850) 897-5747

    20 Alan Hays R hays.alan.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5014 / (352) 742-6441

    35 Gwen Margolis D margolis.gwen.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5121 / (305) 571-5777

    28 Joe Negron R negron.joe.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5088 / (772) 219-1665

    14 Steve Oelrich R oelrich.steve.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5020 / (352) 375-3555

    31 Eleanor Sobel D sobel.eleanor.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5097 / (954) 924-3693

    24 Thad Altman R altman.thad.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5053 / (321) 752-3138

    27 Lizbeth Benacquisto R benacquisto.lizbeth.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5356 / (561) 753-2440

    25 Ellyn Setnor Bogdanoff R bogdanoff.ellyn.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5100 / (850) 487-5100 / (561) 650-6833

    33 Oscar Braynon, II D braynon.oscar.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5116 / (305) 654-7150

    39 Larcenia J. Bullard D bullard.larcenia.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5127 / (850) 487-5127

    36 Miguel Diaz de la Portilla R portilla.miguel.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5109 / (305) 643-7200

    23 Nancy C. Detert R detert.nancy.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5081 / (941) 480-3547

    3 “Charlie” Dean, Sr. R dean.charles.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5017 / (352) 860-5175 / (352) 873-6513

    15 Paula Dockery R dockery.paula.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5040 / (863) 413-2900

    2 Greg Evers R evers.greg.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5000 / (850) 689-0556 / (850) 595-0213

    38 Anitere Flores R flores.anitere.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5130 / (305) 270-6550

    40 Rene Garcia R garcia.rene.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5106 / (305) 364-3100

    9 Andy Gardiner R gardiner.andy.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5047 / (407) 428-5800

    1 Audrey Gibson D gibson.audrey.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5024 / (904) 359-2553

    26 Mike Haridopolos R haridopolos.mike.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5056 / (321) 752-3131

    13 Dennis L. Jones R jones.dennis.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5065 / (727) 549-6411

    18 Arthenia L. Joyner D joyner.arthenia.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5059 / (813) 233-4277

    16 Jack Latvala R latvala.jack.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5075 / (727) 556-6500

    7 Evelyn J. Lynn R lynn.evelyn.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5033 / (386) 238-3180

    6 Bill Montford D montford.bill.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5004 / (850) 653-2656

    12 Jim Norman R norman.jim.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5068 / (813) 265-6260

    34 Nan H. Rich D rich.nan.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5103 / (954) 747-7933

    32 Jeremy Ring D ring.jeremy.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5094 / (954) 917-1392

    30 Maria Lorts Sachs D sachs.maria.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5091 / (561) 279-1427

    22 David Simmons R simmons.david.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5050 / (407) 262-7578

    19 Gary Siplin D siplin.gary.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5190 / (407) 297-2071

    10 Ronda Storms R storms.ronda.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5072 / (813) 651-2189

    8 John Thrasher R thrasher.john.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5030 / (904) 727-3600

    5 Stephen R. Wise R wise.stephen.web@flsenate.gov (850) 487-5027 / (904) 381-6000

    Lisa Epstein

    ForeclosureHamlet.org

    Latest Fraudclosure News on Twitter here

    Blog

    Facebook

    EVENTS

    March 6th 11:30am West Palm Beach, FL Demonstration against SB 1890 – Florida Senator Chris Smith’s office.

    1077 N. Tamarind Rd, West Palm Beach

    March 7th 10am-12pm ET web-radio every Weds morning WPBR 1340am S. Florida – Fraudclosure Awareness Radio live stream here (if technical difficulties, try scrolling down here)

    March 10th 1:30pm Tampa, FL Occupy Tampa & April Charney Fraudclosure Awareness Teach-In. More here

    March 17th San Diego, CA Occupy San Diego Fraudclosure Awareness Teach-In. More here

    March 31st Detroit, MI National Conference for a Fraudclosure & Eviction Moratorium. More here

    May 10th 9:30am Tallahassee, FL Florida Supreme Court Fraudclosure Case Oral Arguments Pino v BoNYM. More here

    URGENT NOW! EMAIL FLORIDA SENATORS INSIST THEY OPPOSE SB 1890! Email pointers & contact info below!
    ________________________________

    REMEMBER each and every Florida House & Senate member is up for reelection this year due to redistricting.

    CS passed as amended; YEAS 94, NAYS 17 Wednesday, February 29, 2012 12:04 PM

    While it’s clear the legislature has already decided to pass this bill, we still have one last chance to voice our strong opposition.

    VOTE NO TO SB 1890!

    THIS BILL PROVIDES HARMFUL OR MISGUIDED SOLUTIONS TO A MASSIVE FLORIDIAN PROBLEM.

    In Palm Beach County alone, there are 10,794 final judgments in foreclosure cases that are over one year old yet where the bank has not proceeded to sale. In almost every single one of these cases, a sale was set by a judge, cancelled by the bank, and then never reset DESPITE an estimated 90% being uncontested.

    This study should be repeated in every county. It proves that there is much misunderstanding of the nature of Florida’s foreclosure crisis. The faster foreclosure bill, SB 1890, is a misguided attempt to solve a problem that has not been fully studied or understood while undermining due process rights and property rights of millions of Floridian citizens. We all know that the misrepresentation of this bill being limited to “abandoned” homes is a slick bait-and-switch. We all know how abusive the financial services industry is to citizens. We all know that any home, anywhere can be determined “abandoned” in the same way that tens of thousands of active duty, deployed military members were determined “non-military” as they lost their homes in illegal foreclosures. The financial services industry has a clear, unbroken track record of violating laws and settlement agreements. We all know this.

    In addition, the legislature’s ostrich approach to foreclosure fraud and widespread property ownership document fraud is offensive. Instead of protecting citizens harmed by a pervasive, deeply damaging fraud our elected officials are legislating the polar opposite, methods for the fraud to be perpetrated faster and smoother while dispossessing millions from their homes during a crushing economy. Ignoring widespread, widely recognized real estate document fraud only serves to lessen confidence in our real property commerce for decades. The bill is completely silent on the massive fraud against the people. Where are the protections for the people? It’s not just assignment fraud that the industry frames as “techicalities” but now a growing body of evidence reveals equally widespread promissory note fraud.

    Ignoring the foreclosure fraud chain of title problems only dumps these problems on potential new buyers.

    Line #387 may violate Obama’s 2009 Tenants Rights in Foreclosure.

    Also, since people of Florida are also heavily invested in the mortgage-backed investment pools, the bill’s section on automatic 3%-of-mortgage lawyer fees for bank lawyers will ultimately be paid by our retirement accounts (including Florida’s retirement fund), pension funds, and Florida taxpayers (Freddie/Fanne). Palm Beach County has approx. 1.5 billion in our investment fund, 40% of which is invested in Freddie/Fannie/Ginnie mortgage-backed securities. We will be paying that 3%-of-mortgage bank lawyer fee because it will be billed to us as the “investor”.

    Lisa Epstein
    ForeclosureHamlet.org
    Latest Fraudclosure News on Twitter here

  102. So tired….My fight started on SEPTEMBER 11, 2009. (that’s ironic?) Notice stuck to my door last Thurs….Process Server….Still trying to find a lawyer…Have consult this Thurs….I’m pretty sure the price will be steep to do nothing for me…Title and Securitization audit via this website will probably not even garner a look by a bankruptcy lawyer…

  103. @BSE,
    Yes, I really dislike the idea that I’m paying for Fannie Mae to defend itself against my lawsuit while my ass is hanging out in the breeze–no one but me is covering MY legal fees.

  104. dual tracking and parallel foreclosure was originally called a manufactured default. Manufactured by the loan servicer, that is.

  105. aCOMMENTARY Three years ago, I put former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac CEOs Daniel Mudd, Frank Raines and Richard Syron at the top of the list of those responsible for the financial crisis.

    Since then, the Securities and Exchange Commission and various class-action groups have filed lawsuits alleging these former executives committed all sorts of accounting and securities fraud. Sounds great, right? We the people are finally getting justice, right?

    Wrong. Guess who’s footing the roughly $200 million in legal bills to defend these alleged crooks against all those legal actions? You are. The taxpayers. The same is true of $400 million that Fannie Mae already paid to settle an SEC fraud suit. And that’s just the tab to date; this will go on for years and years.

    Even worse, this shouldn’t be happening. Crony federal regulators and executives appointed by those same regulators after the flailing pseudo-government entities were brought under the federal government’s conservatorship are letting it happen instead of doing their job of protecting the American people.

    Who’s responsible for the financial crisis?
    The financial crisis for dummies

    As is typically the case, Fannie and Freddie by-laws and contracts protect and indemnify company executives and directors against litigation costs. But that’s not the case if executives or directors breach their fiduciary duty — the duty of loyalty to the company and its stockholders — or engage in intentional misconduct.

    And that just so happens to be what former executives are being accused of: overstating income and manipulating profits over a period of six years to generate more than $115 million in improper bonuses, and misleading investors by understating their exposure to risky subprime mortgages, among other things.

    The dilemma, of course, is that as long as the former executives maintain their innocence, neither admitting nor denying they did anything wrong, regulators and the CEOs they appointed to fix this mess say they’re contractually and legally obligated to continue to indemnify the defendants.

    Not exactly.

    When the federal regulatory agency FHFA moved to put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under conservatorship in 2008, then FHFA director James Lockhart and U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson — both of whom took deep bows for this “sweeping government intervention” — had the chance to deny those indemnification agreements. The only problem is, they didn’t.

    So here we are, you and me and all the other American taxpayers; proud owners of over $5 trillion in questionable mortgages and securities; printing more and more money to cover the $1 trillion plus bailout and executive bonuses for these remarkably dysfunctional pseudo-government entities.

    And the worst part about it is, when the SEC sues Fannie and Freddie, it’s essentially suing you and me, since that’s who ends up paying all the penalties, settlements, and even the legal fees to defend the companies and their crooked executives. In total, that’s $600 million and counting. Hard to believe.

    Bottom line, the question of whether executives who have allegedly committed securities and accounting fraud — cooking the books, for short — should be indemnified for their legal fees is questionable. Meaning it’s up to the current company executives and federal regulators to decide how aggressive they want to be.

    So far, they’ve been pretty gutless, and you and I are paying the price.

    In the mean time, there’s no incentive for either side to do anything but pile on the lawsuits and drag things out as much as possible. Meaning hundreds of lawyers on both sides continue to rack up hundreds of millions of dollars in billable hours. The ironic thing is, win or lose, we lose. We pay.

    And we’re going to keep on paying until Congress and federal regulators say enough is enough and decide to stand up for the American people instead of protecting their cronies, printing money, adding to the federal deficit, and indefinitely prolonging the whole mortgage bailout mess.

    In case you’re wondering why we’re having the most anemic post-recession economic recovery in decades, now you know.

    Gid rid of Obam

  106. Dual Tracking is also “Parallel Foreclosure”.

  107. Right Abby

    But, it is not a FELONY to commit fraud, forgery and steal, if you’re a banker! NICE!

  108. Just for the record Neil:

    I have friends and family in CA, Kamala Harris is not doing anywhere near enough for homeowner’s. As a matter of fact CA is one of the worst places to be in foreclosure. They help “illegals” more, than citizens. And by and large this state is where most of the fraud started.

    Just my opinion.

  109. although we are in the middle of “hell” i think of it as a god send that we get to fight for these houses and the fraud that was put on us. we did not walk away we have lawyers and if the judge is a good’ol boy, which i am afraid of you appeal. do not stop the fight. every thing mention by neil is what happened to me. we need to fight and win.

  110. I MUST CHIME IN ON THIS , I CANT LET THIS REST. IAM ON THE VERGE OF AFTER MUCH WRESTLING, WITH BANK, ATTORNEYS AND BANK ITSELF TO MAKE A CONFER AND DISCOVERY TO SHOW PROOF OF CLAIM. IT TAKES TENACITY AND DUE DILLIGENCE SUCH AS EDUCATING YOUR SELF ABOUT HOW THE LAWYERS AND COURTS WORK AND COPY THE SAME ACTIONS TO SUCCESS. YES THATS RIGHT YOU ARE THE LAW IN YOUR SPACE AND IF YOU DONT DO SOMETHING LAWFUL AND LEARN WITH DEDICATION AND STRENGTH IT IS NOT GOING TOBE SUCCESSFUL. LEARN TO FILE DOCUMENTS AND MOTIONS TO FIGHT, GET A SMALL LAW FIRM AND PAY THEM BY THE HOUR AND RECIEVE ADVICE. YOU ARE THE ULTIMATE DECISION MAKER NOT THE BANK TAKE ACTION AND FIND THE LIGHT AT THE END OF YOUR TUNNEL..IT CAN BE DONE WITH GODS WILL ALL DOORS CAN BE OPENED, AND FOR THOSE THAT DONT YOU WILL FAIL WITHOUT PRAYER. PRAY………. ITS POWERFUL AND BE PATIENCE IT WILL SUCCEED, IF YOU WANT ADVICE AS TO WHAT I HAVE DONE OK I WILL HELP, DONT CONTACT ME UNLESS YOU HAVE A DUE OR DIE ATTITUDE. PERIOD, I HAE NO TIME OF BEING NEGATIVE….. CONTACT WADEROBERT65@YAHOO.COM ALSO 209 242 4484 AND I WILL SHARE THE PROCESS THAT I WENT THROUGH.. ROBERT IRWIN WADE. BE THE ALPHA DOG…………… GOD BLESS………..

  111. Banks should provide a single point of contact hahahahahaha….. OCC requires single point of contact hahahahaa…

    Only single point of contact on their side is a collections agent with a funny name who could not get hired by the DMV.

    My single point of contact will be my lawyer.

    Everything else is a waste of time.

  112. ALL roads lead to foreclosure…we are in hell…with NO accountability, NO justice, and NO ONE paying for these crimes…and cover-ups continue unabated. The sociopathic criminals are emboldened to continue their crimes when there is no punishment.
    Show your friends and neighbors this massive fraud…make it understandable to a layman…figure out how to get the WHOLE truth out to the media…it’s not going away…you simply can’t hide the truth forever.

  113. i’d be concerned that a bill aimed at ending dual-tracking would have the unintended consequence of eliminating the modification track altogether. if the bank can’t dual track, then they’ll just pursue the single track that they want to pursue anyway – foreclosure

  114. CONGRESS PASSES ANTI-OCCUPY LAW–FELONY

  115. “If approved by lawmakers and the governor, the bills would stop banks from simultaneously pursuing foreclosures against troubled borrowers who are in talks with them about loan modifications. Borrowers also would have to be given a single point of contact instead of being passed from one department to another.”

    Wasn’t that part of the OCC directives already?

    Are we going to have to legislate something as elementary to death, in every jurisdiction, when it’s already been ruled upon over and over?

    People, banks don’t care about bills, laws and the like. Banks are, for all intended pruposes, self-governed. They answer to no one. The only way to force them to accountability is to LITIGATE and TRY everything that can be.

    As long as litigating hasn’t become our first line of action against them, they will keep onforeclosing while in the modifying process. No amount of rules and regulations will stop it.

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 3,524 other followers

%d bloggers like this: