BOA Facing Fraud Suit from FHFA

CHECK OUT OUR NOVEMBER SPECIAL

Consult with Neil F Garfield, MBA. JD

For Representation by a Licensed Attorney in Florida, Ohio, or California, please call our customer service number at 520-405-1688

BOA lost in a bid to dismiss a lawsuit based upon the lies it told the Fannie and Freddie about the loans it was seeking guarantees for sale into the secondary securitization market. This follows closely my prior post about why the obligations, notes and mortgages should all be considered a nullity — worthless.

Unfortunately, Judge Cote said that the FHFA (Federal Housing Finance Agency) failed to state a strong enough case about loan to value ratios. Perhaps the agency will take another crack at that because appraisal fraud was an essential ingredient in this PONZI scheme.

If you read the complaint, it will give you a few ideas on how to frame your own complaints. Obviously it would be wise to beef up the allegations regarding loan to value ratios and the relationship of those to appraisal fraud. FHFA_v_BoA_Other

About these ads

37 Responses

  1. This is all true. I have written about my loans. One with First horizon aka MetLife and this one I am currrently tackling. This one is with Bank of america aka The Private Bank ” Wellsfargo”
    They have sent me packing with nothing.
    I was terminated from my hob because clearly they purchased the Voided Trust which my loan was part of. I refused to sign the bogus modification which inflated the principle owed and did not seem to have any of the payments made well over a year. I sent a final request to cure letter. That very same day they received this letter while anticipating the modification agreement I was terminated.
    UNFORTUNATLEY THIS LOAN WAS SET UP FROM THE VERY BEGINNING FOR FRAUD.
    Mayor Slays office was heavily involved in the fraudulent documents submitted into the Recorders office. They have now hired a firm DYSNS to handle the foreclosure with survilance placed on your vehicle for tracking purposes with flying helicopters that sour ahead of you. Your are treated as if… you did something wrong rather than pay your mortgage. They have looted the pension funds!
    You now get to pay for that. Julie Leicht family members are currently part of the file. Millsa and Singer placed this document in the file with an affidavit.
    The problem is I filed for Bankrcupy and certainly did not expect what I got. Forget the fraud that is involved says the Judge , forget the Robo signers Who are they? what is that ? well I’m permitting the foreclosure.
    Forget they have no standing and you have the original Deed, this means nothing.
    GIVE US EVERYTHING YOU GOT!!!
    THIS IS THE LAW, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!!!!
    and don’t you dare challenge us , we will make life difficult for you.
    Forget the Mayor is involved in this fraud with Beyond housing member Reed Realty. OH yes I forgot to say the Non for Profit organization that is clearly backed by the Mayor. They have sites for all of this.
    It is true the plan is to Bankrupt everyone. My attorneys removed themselves from my case after I investigated the Re-Affirmation Agreement. I provided them with the fraud within these documents and was told oh, there is nothing we can do for you. We can’t do anything else. I guess not because you are behind these documents , that you say you do not endorse. The reason once again is because they are behind these documents.
    This is not Bank of America , Corelogic is listed however , the Fed -EX tracking slips indicate these documents came from ReContrust.
    Judith Belangers name appear as Corelogic however, her son works for The Private Bank, Signatures are Forged as is the signatures of Dominique Johnson.
    This administration is lost . They will place blocks in your way for Justice. Due Process is not for you. Regardless of what the President States. We all have a voice. No we don’t. Come see what your endorsers and buddies are doing here in stlouis.

  2. christine, hmmmm, you write so much like Enraged

  3. @Guest … At Midnight December 31st 2011/Jan1st 2012 Lets Hope the Get It Right this Year!

  4. @MS RE: For now, United States citizens have a constitutional right to due process and to protection from unlawful seizure of their property.

    Raad 18 USC Adminsitrative civil forfieture . Under the department of treasury . Fool . Obama revoked the constitution at midnight of last year . Please wake up and smell the coffee folks. These worms have infiltrated this site for years. This is a siezure of abandoned property YOU failed to calim back . READ

    ________________________________________________________

    100% Agreed!

  5. Here is prejudice in my opinion:

    A foreclosure complaint filed. The usual owner/hold note, re-establishment of lost note. Copies of mortgage and note to different party. Note, no indorsment. No assignment, No facts plead.
    MTD filed and Court orders Pl. to produce within ten days. 20 days go by. Court grants MTD in favor of Def. Few days later Court overturns MTD granted to defendant. On the 20th day that Pl was ordered to do something, they claim they found the note and file fabricated assignment. But does not file the allege note until 1 year later. Went well over the ten days, don’t you think, Plaintiff gets a buy..prejudice???

    PS no hearings on the matter, nothing. Just accomodates Plaintiff. Has been happening since. I have been making my record since day one, for appeal. My opinion, as well as many, dealing with such bias.

  6. masterservicer (Maher [aka ?]),

    Obama revoked the constitution at midnight of last year.
    Midnight last year? Which midnight?

    Read Title 18 USC Civil Forfieture [Forfeiture]

    Upon which part of Title 18 USC Civil Forfeiture are you basing
    your opinion?

    How about being more specific? Prove your comments.

  7. keep reading and its true that its late in the day, 6 years and any good decisions get appealed by opposition and they can tie us up in court for ever unless we get them cited criminally, and thats what it will take. if the wrong argument is brought…theres always another argument
    my experience is my due process and rights to the same law that the opposition is held to are in fact not upheld so far , i made it to appeal the games continue im being bloicked and ive been told lies. I think that the truith shall set you free and somewhere between LL Neil, and Maher Soliman is the whole truth and i always hoped and did try to get council to embrace Mahers knowledge and gear my case up for the whole truth to come out…well seems like i now have the proof that i was not supposed to prevail ,i could have saved myself so much money and pain and suffereing and my decisions may have been different, not that im saying this is an unworthy fight, its a very important part of what i hold true and worth fighting for and i dont regret but i am angry about being lied to. its time to tell the truth. sorry my posts are a bit off topic but its because it doesnt matter how good the argument whether you are right on law procedure and under god its a case of good men with the power to do something different but do nothing to stop the bleeding. we are still bleeding 6 years on.

  8. Wrong wrong – A debt, or loan, thats been securitized has been made into a fixed asset, or part of a capital inventory backing a securities offering.

    Wrong wrong – where is this coming from . Time is running out . They turned “converted”… the fixed assets into short term assets . This is how they generated a waterfall of 20:1 the notes face value for preferred stock . GAAP is 2200 pages with changes over the last six years- go read it ! Raed each year for comparison …..120,000 pages .

    People – take a postion and stick with it. If anyone is to be called a fraud …your day will come before the man and I know I will defend my postions using GAAP FASB IASB 1122AB codified changes to the FAS140 into ASC 320 Readfor yourself .

    Be ready to do the same!

    Title 18 USC Civil Forfieture …means an attorney is interferring with martial law. Homes have or are beleived to have been marshalled in a long time ago. The US Atty General is processing modifcations . ah whats up with that ? Love your country and read and stop attacking i t. Your fight is a extremely intelligent cause with NO guessing . If you want to prevail make the right calim and perhaps – but it would have to be sealed if brought in a public venue. This is heading to the US Supreme court -you know that.

    CALVO, WALKER and MERS Decsison, MA Land Court Bifurcation decsions, etc All wrong – Why ?

    A loan that’s been securitized has NOT been made into a fixed asset, and is the entire basis in asset you call the capital inventory . It is not the backing for securities offering. It is the entire securites offering under IRC for tax payer rerporting purposes . Four years and still guessing.

  9. For now, United States citizens have a constitutional right to due process and to protection from unlawful seizure of their property.

    Raad 18 USC Adminsitrative civil forfieture . Under the department of treasury . Fool . Obama revoked the constitution at midnight of last year . Please wake up and smell the coffee folks. These worms have infiltrated this site for years. This is a siezure of abandoned property YOU failed to calim back . READ

  10. Please do no listen to ANYONE who peddles fear and tries to dissuade you from defending title to your property. You not only have a right to do so, you have an obligation to do so. (Please READ your mortgage.)

    For now, United States citizens have a constitutional right to due process and to protection from unlawful seizure of their property. We should not sit by idly while we are bankrupted, one by one, by the power of a banking cartel. We must not let fear keep us paralyzed. There are MILLIONS of us. MILLIONS!

    Homeowners need to organize and unite! We are scattered all over the place, as we fight one case at a time; but think of the power we could have if we could organize and unite. (Make no mistake, the banks are organized and united.) To start uniting homeowners, please do not get into fear, especially not with the crap about how defending against wrongful foreclosure interferes with the US Treasury. Come on! We haven’t done that; the banks have!

  11. “A would be forecloser waiving a note representing a debt that has been securitized didn’t aquire the debt via transfer of the note. Therefore, they cannot avail themselves to the jurisdiction of the court because they experience no economic harm and fail to state a cause of action. Even still, without acquiring the debt evidenced by the note, the lien will not bind or benefit them.”

    In theory, that sounds really good but in reality 1) they do avail themselves to the jurisdiction of the court, 2) courts agree to hear them and rule on their petitions or motions 3) homeowners don’t know how to properly raise the issues of standing and securitization and 4) courts fail or refuse to recognize their limitations and the underlying problems with the cases filed by foreclosers. Imo that is part of the big problem: courts have failed to acknowledge what was not within their power and what should have been left to regulators and in so doing, oftentimes, they have created damaging precedents that have considerably slowed homeowners’ progress.

  12. Old Post:

    patrick, on June 7, 2012 at 11:24 pm said:

    Thank you Neil

    A debt, or loan, thats been securitized has been made into a fixed asset, or part of a capital inventory backing a securities offering. A capital asset can’t be transferred by intentional delivery and endorsement for enforcement purposes. Capitalized assets must be disposed of or abandoned when their usefullness has expired, become non performing, or have become obsolete for their original purpose and a capital gain (or loss) must be reported for tax purposes.

    So did the would be forecloser come to possess the note from a garage sale or the lost and found box? Don’t let the blank endorsement fool you. Disposal and abandonment doesn’t equal transfer. Negotiation must be by endorsement together with intentional and purposeful delivery.

    The terms of the promissory note contract attached as an exhibit to the complaint is facially more restrictive in its characterization of who may enforce it than FL statute 671.201(20) and requires a two part test to determine if an entity is the note holder entitled to enforce the instrument. The note must be acquired via transfer and the entity must be entitled to receive payments made under the note.

    A would be forecloser waiving a note representing a debt that has been securitized didn’t aquire the debt via transfer of the note. Therefore, they cannot avail themselves to the jurisdiction of the court because they experience no economic harm and fail to state a cause of action. Even still, without acquiring the debt evidenced by the note, the lien will not bind or benefit them.

  13. Does anyone have an information on if the Plaintiff is relying previous servicer (whom was shut down c&d) accounting records, those records are deemed untrustworthy…and should therefore not be allowed as evidence. I saw that on Mark Stopa website…

    Those servicing records are not wrong I can assure you. They represent something far different than what you’re looking at. Your attorney needs to motion for order to compel …but for what – do you know what you’re looking for?

    Two notes – YES Legal
    Lost Notes -NO Destroyed
    Note Holders foreclosing – NO
    Notes tendered – NO Liquidated
    Mers Corp Assignments – YES Legal embrace it – Its joinder,

    I’m telling you Mers Corp is there begging for you to embrace it . . . please I’m telling you this as a fact! Mers has standing that is prima fascia to your arguments.

    Think Hmmm

    Two Notes?
    www. foreclosurealternative.wordpress

    ———————————————————————————————–
    Not a legal opinion and for reading purposes only. Not a legal view. Call your state bar for a Lawyer who may be able to defend your property rights

  14. Jeff ,

    You say – – FDN attorneys have obtained positive results in foreclosures cases in three different states this week.

    How – really. Im told month after month ,to defend F/C is to interfere with the US Department of Treausry . The last client who brouhgt in compelling arguments was gone after a call from . .

    And her attorney who is a damn good attorny – she wont take these cases anymore .

    Come on I got tale after tale – its the same thing over and over . The blue team is ready to score , go to goal , and here we go …Oh myyyy ….another fumble – Game over .

    I know of two attorneys who hired counsel to answer for the foreclosure errors we found ….linked of course to SEC violations

    This is not a fun practice inmy opinion …but I admire you .

  15. JG
    You say – allegations” regarding loan to value probably aren’t going to get it. But if used, yes, better to make it a good argument.

    Okay enough said . . .

    Again There are two lemonade stands on one another corner. Smith owns stand A and Jones Stand B

    Each has the capacity to pour 20 glasses of juice – units, sales etc .

    Smith pours all his inventory and rests with 20 sales – nice job!
    Jones completes his day with 40 sales . How ?

    Clue if Jones had an extra pitcher , what would it matter if each had only the capacity to pour 20 glasses?

    [Q] Why will Jones seek a tax shelter for his activities ?
    [Q[ What will the CPA do with 240 Phantom sales at year end?
    {Q} If glasses eqal a Billion in loan production , do Ya think Jones will have to deal with the $240 Billion in Ghoast receivables .

    You know what I think ….

    That’s what I thought …..No really ,

    Attorneys ,

    If you can join in here. Every case I have been involved with has had the lawyers pull out – freaked out I mean running before the matter moved to trial. A few bolted at trial – You do know this is a spearheaded effort by the US Sec. of Treasury – national effort , By Act of Congress.. Under the etc etc …right ? Yeassss. The effort is in FACT to recover abandoned assets -under accounting rules FAS 140 SFAS 140- 3 ASC 310-20 etc etc (Uh Huh)

    You know who is bringing the F/C in every case – right? Correct . US Secretary and he considers you an officer of the court – correct? Your license obligates you to act a servant and member of the States Judicious and serve the Constitution etc ….I mean – anyone ….

    No attorney can take a case IN MY LAYPERSON OPINION let alone too far …without doing a Chuck Conners and being branded …..I mean at worse your disbarred and at best sued for malpractice. Yikes

    Comments ?

  16. More on the debt jubilee by OWS. I don’t understand banks’ whining that it creates a “moral Hazard”. Then again, I don’t understand much about this country’s current situation and incestuous relation with the banks.

    November 10, 2012 07:00 AM
    Occupy Takes Their Movement Into The Debt Market

    By Susie Madrak

    I’ve noticed that a lot of people think the Occupy movement has simply fallen apart. Absolutely not true: After Hurricane Sandy, they used the contacts with community organizations they’ve developed on housing issues to help set up a broad range of relief efforts throughout the NY area. And now, it comes out that they’re buying up debt. Very interesting:

    This time last year, Occupy Wall Street participants were regularly storming through Lower Manhattan, snaking around the financial district and beyond in boisterous marches and defending their Zuccotti Park home base in tense street battles with the NYPD. Twelve months later, Occupy is pouring energy into buying up debt bonds.

    It’s not incongruent.

    The Rolling Jubilee — borne of Occupy offshoot group, Strike Debt — is best considered one among many Occupy tactics which aim to challenge or disrupt our current socio-politico-economic conditions. And as far as tactics go, this one is pretty clever. The idea is this: Occupy plans to buy up distressed debt — debt which is in default — and then forgive it (or, “abolish” it, as the ever-dramatic Occupy parlance puts it). Banks sell on distressed debts at pennies on the dollar (since the debts are in default, they’re not making money off them and prefer to get rid of them). There are a number of websites where anyone can go and then buy this discharged, cheap debt. So, you, or I, or Occupy, could buy $16,000 worth of debt for just $500, and then either make a profit by recovering the difference or just cancel it. Occupy and Strike Debt plan to do the latter on a large scale.

    The Rolling Jubilee campaign, also dubbed “The People’s Bailout,” kicks off with a good-ole-fashioned fundraiser telethon in New York on Nov. 15 with big name musicians including Jeff Mangum performing. Occupy has already started taking donations for the project and Strike Debt announced Friday via Facebook that the effort has already erased $100,000 worth of medical debt. The hope, then, is to get it “rolling” — to create snowballing networks of debtors using what money they can to buy off and cancel more and more debt. Ideally, a pay-it-forward attitude would compel individuals who have their debt forgiven to help buy up and cancel more debt.

    The plan is legally sound and has been tested in successful experiments, which included buying and forgiving $14,000 for $466. Discharged credit card debt, but medical debt and private student debt can all be bought (government-backed student loans — since they’re government-backed — don’t get sold on.)

    The New Statesman’s Alex Hern noted that despite the “legal mechanics” of the jubilee idea working in Occupy’s favor, the effort may face other obstacles. “Debt collectors really can cancel the debt if they want. The problem is that if you try to actually do that, you may find very quickly that people stop selling you debt.” Hern explained a similar plan concocted by a group called American Homeowner Preservation, in which they would buy a foreclosed house in a short sale at the market price, and then lease the home back to the ousted homeowner until the homeowner had the ability to get a mortgage and buy it back at a pre-set price. Felix Salmon wrote about the effort:

    The idea might have been elegant, but it didn’t work in practice, because the banks wouldn’t play ball: they (and Freddie Mac) simply hated the idea of a homeowner being able to stay in their house after a short sale, and often asked for an affidavit from the buyer saying that the former owner would certainly be kicked out.

    The banks’ behavior here, as Hern points out, was telling: they have no reason to care what happens to a house once they’ve sold the mortgage, but they did care when it came to the American Homeowner Preservation project. “The best explanation for their stubbornness is that they fear that organizations like American Homeowner Preservation are creating a sort of moral hazard by reducing the penalties for defaulting on mortgages.”

  17. POSITIVE RESULTS IN THREE STATES IN ONE WEEK

    November 9, 2012

    FDN attorneys have obtained positive results in foreclosures cases in three different states this week.

    Today in Lee County, Florida, a Circuit Judge denied Deutsche Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court Order provides that there are genuine issues of material fact and discovery remains an issue. Jeff Barnes, Esq., who had a previously summary judgment in the case vacated, represents the homeowner and argued the matter earlier today. The case involves not only a signature on an alleged “original” promissory note which signature does not match that of the homeowner on either her driver’s license or her Affidavit (and which “original note” was mysteriously “found” just before a prior summary judgment hearing and when the Complaint contained a count for “Lost Note”), and outstanding discovery compelled by a prior Order of the Court which also assessed attorneys’ fees against Deutsche Bank. There are also issues as to the validity of the alleged “endorsement”.

    In Tennessee, a Judge has entered an Order staying any sale of the homeowner’s property pending the full disposition of the litigation without the requirement of a bond, and has commanded that all discovery (which the “bank”, that being Bank of New York Mellon as the securitization trustee, had opposed) be overseen by a Special Master. The “bank” had previously filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay Discovery. The Court reserved ruling on the Motion to Dismiss pending discovery. Notwithstanding that no discovery was produced, the “bank” renewed its Motion to Dismiss, which was denied again. The homeowner is represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq. and local Tennessee counsel Andrew Farmer, Esq.

    The third was the Colorado ruling in the post below [posted 11/5/12]. We have had over a dozen requests for copies of this decision from attorneys in several states.

    Jeff Barnes, Esq., http://www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

  18. […] If you read the complaint, it will give you a few ideas on how to frame your own complaints. Obviously it would be wise to beef up the allegations regarding loan to value ratios and the relationship of those to appraisal fraud. FHFA_v_BoA_Other […]

  19. Amen to that:

    Despite the glut of foreclosure cases pending in many Florida counties, Florida’s appellate courts appear to be sending a message to trial courts that clearing up their backlogged dockets cannot be undertaken in a way that sacrifices litigants’ procedural rights.

  20. Found this on another website:

    More Evidence of Changing Winds in Florida Foreclosure Appeals
    Posted by Dan Bushell on May 16, 2011

    Print
    Comments

    Defendants in Florida foreclosure cases are getting help from District Courts of Appeal not only in Miami and West Palm Beach, but in Daytona Beach and Tallahassee as well.

    As I noted in an earlier post, the 3rd DCA and 4th DCA’s recent decisions in foreclosure cases such as Jade Winds and Arsali are cause for optimism for South Florida foreclosure defense lawyers and their clients. Those appellate courts have made it known that they will reverse foreclosure judgments, like any other judgment, when due process has been disregarded, or a trial court has granted judgment based on lawyers’ assertions that have no evidentiary support in the record.

    It turns out that the 3rd and 4th DCAs aren’t the only appellate courts that are cracking down on such procedural lapses in foreclosure cases.

    In recent weeks, the 5th DCA has issued two separate published decisions reversing judgments of foreclosure due to insufficient notice. And both the 5th DCA and the 1st DCA have recently released published opinions reversing foreclosure judgments due to insufficient evidence of the plaintiff’s standing, i.e., its right to foreclose on the property at issue.

    Taken together, these decisions are powerful evidence that Florida’s appellate courts are increasingly receptive to foreclosure defendants’ complaints that some trial courts are not holding foreclosure plaintiffs to the requirements of Florida Civil Procedure – and perhaps that they are also paying attention to the widely reported improprieties in the mortgage lending industry.

    More details below.

    Two Decisions Finding Insufficient Evidence of Notice Service

    The 5th DCA’s most recent foreclosure decision, Silva v. BAC Loans Servicing, L.P. No. 5D10-3511 (released May 6, 2011), deals with substituted service under Florida Statutes Section 48.031. The trial court had refused to set aside a default judgment of foreclosure in favor of a lender.

    The 5th DCA emphasized that the plaintiff “has the burden to prove the validity of service of process” and voided the trial court’s judgment for lack of that proof. While the plaintiff said that process had been served on a person residing on the property, the 5th DCA observed that there was evidence indicating that that the property owner neither resided on the property, nor had any idea who the person was that was supposedly served.

    A few weeks earlier, in Ciolli v. City of Palm Bay, the 5th DCA reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a city seeking to foreclose on a property lien resulting from a code enforcement proceeding. Ciolli , like Silva, turned on the plaintiff’s failure to provide evidence that notice requirements were observed.

    The twist in Ciolli was that the foreclosing party failed to provide proper notice not of the foreclosure case itself, but of the code enforcement proceedings in which the city obtained the lien on which it foreclosed. The 5th DCA refused to accept the city’s proffer of a receipt showing that something to the defendant around the time of the enforcement hearing as evidence of service, without evidence of the contents of the mailing.

    And it refused to preclude the defendant from challenging the validity of the underlying order even though years had passed and the deadline for appealing that order had come and gone long ago. Although the homeowner didn’t timely appeal, the court explained, that omission may have resulted from the city’s failure to notify him of the order, as the city did not provide sufficient evidence to show that he was ever served with the order.

    The city did produce a certificate of service stating that the order was “furnished by mail to Respondent and/or Respondent’s authorized counsel,” but that certificate did not raise the general presumption that evidence that a letter was mailed is evidence that it was received.

    In a conclusion that may have implications far beyond the realm of foreclosure litigation, the 5th DCA held that this presumption does not arrive unless there is specific evidence of the address to which the document was sent, and that the address was correct.

    Two Decisions Emphasizing That Standing Must be Proven, Not Merely Alleged

    In a decision released on April 8, 2011, Khan v. Bank of America, N.A., No.5D10-3288, the 5th DCA reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a foreclosing bank due to a lack of evidence of the plaintiff’s standing to sue.

    The bank in Khan alleged that it was the holder of the defendant’s note and mortgage, and attached a copy of the note to its complaint. But the note it attached said the defendant was indebted to another entity, not the plaintiff.

    The 5th DCA faulted the trial court for granting summary judgment based on mere allegations that the plaintiff was the holder of the note, when the documents it submitted contradicted those allegations.

    The 1st DCA reached a similar conclusion in Villanueva v. Federal National Mortgage Association, No. 1D10-5380 (released May 4, 2011). Like the 5th DCA, it found that the trial court had improperly granted summary judgment when there were fact issues as to whether the plaintiff bank was the proper party to foreclose on the property. Indeed, on appeal even the bank admitted as much.

    Despite the glut of foreclosure cases pending in many Florida counties, Florida’s appellate courts appear to be sending a message to trial courts that clearing up their backlogged dockets cannot be undertaken in a way that sacrifices litigants’ procedural rights.

    Tags:
    1st DCA
    ,
    3rd DCA
    ,
    4th DCA
    ,
    5th DCA
    ,
    Ciolli v. City of Palm Bay
    ,
    Due Process
    ,
    Evidence
    ,
    Foreclosures
    ,
    Khan v. Bank of America
    ,
    L.P.
    ,
    N.A.
    ,
    Silva v. BAC Loans Servicing
    ,
    Villanueva v. Federal National Mortgage Association

  21. liz – look at rules of evidence: hearsay and business record exceptions to hearsay. Also study “authentication”. Have to burn some midnight oil.

  22. @christine – that’s music to my ears. Tell you the truth, in fantasy-land I was hoping people like Buffet and Gates would set up non-profit organizations and do just this. Guess they’re not going to. But can you imagine the money that would pour into the economy if they did? An impediment, of course, is the issues with the validity of claims. There’s a solution somewhere for that. Anyway, that’s some good news.

  23. OWS Campers, Great job….helping families out
    It would be nice if the Wall Street Creeps would step up and help.

  24. Does anyone have an information on if the Plaintiff is relying previous servicer (whom was shut down c&d) accounting records, those records are deemed untrustworthy…and should therefore not be allowed as evidence. I saw that on Mark Stopa webiste…

  25. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9666748/Occupy-Wall-Street-campaigners-buy-up-debt-to-abolish-it.html

    Occupy Wall Street campaigners buy-up debt to abolish it
    A group of campaigners linked to the Occupy Wall Street movement is buying-up distressed loans for pennies in the pound and cancelling them to “liberate debtors at random”.

    By Matthew Sparkes

    1:24PM GMT 09 Nov 2012

    The Rolling Jubilee project is seeking donations to help it buy-up distressed debts, including student loans and outstanding medical bills, and then wipe the slate clean by writing them off.

    Individuals or companies can buy distressed debt from lenders at knock-down prices if it the borrower is in default or behind with payments and are then free to do with it as they see fit, including cancelling it free of charge.

    As a test run the group spent $500 on distressed debt, buying $14,000 worth of outstanding loans and pardoning the debtors. They are now looking to expand their experiment nationwide and are asking people to donate money to the cause.

    David Rees, one of the organisers behind the project, writes on his blog: “This is a simple, powerful way to help folks in need – to free them from heavy debt loads so they can focus on being productive, happy and healthy.

    “Now, after many consultations with attorneys, the IRS, and our moles in the debt-brokerage world, we are ready to take the Rolling Jubilee program live and nationwide, buying debt in communities that have been struggling during the recession.”

  26. ms – I know how to spell pic – that’s about it. Except that maybe it can’t be used in this manner. Maybe excess pic can be. If pic and not excess pic is used in this way, it must mean something as to the structure it’s in. I wouldn’t have a clue.
    I don’t know if this is going to be your bottom line or if you will go on
    to explain the ramifications or impossibility of subsequent alleged acts, but if part of your argument is against the use of pic, I hope you include support that 1) it happened and 2) what that means to the structure, if anything.
    more lay opinions. ask a lawyer

  27. ms – I appreciate your willingness to share what you think is important. Problem is, there’s no argument there, except that you are challenging stare (notice correct spelling) decisis and if I weren’t me, I’d have never figured even that out because imo it’s written so poorly. Please don’t take that wrong. One can be a genius and yet not have a grasp on how to convey what one knows or his point, especially in the legal arena. But so far as to stare decisis, got it. Okay. One should be able to argue against earlier decisions / case law in that jurisdiction. But I’m not so sure you’re arguing against stare decisis – not if you are presenting different arguments. The harm which might be done in arguing against stare decisis is that it may imply you have the same arguments and you don’t (if you don’t).
    Some people want a diff decision, but fatally neglect to argue against stare decisis. Stare decisis, for anyone interested, is the doctrine which says if a court ruled one way on Monday, it must rule the same on Tuesday, mol.
    You appear to be saying the wire for funding is reversed and at the same time, the trust gets the loan in exchange for “paid in capital” (pic), i.e. investor funds, or at least the pic has been used for funding. Is it pic in excess of par? Does it matter – is it relevant? You are calling the investor funds pic (v cashola) for a specific reason, no doubt. Where is the paid in capital sitting?
    Funds have to get to the disbursement agent somehow. Someone takes the pic and sends it to the disbursement agent? In this way, the investors have actually funded the loan? Why the charade? I don’t believe it’s even possible unless the d/b agent is in cahoots and delays the disbursement. Well, with the speed of electronic wires, maybe it would be possible.
    The ‘why the charade’ is or might be critical. If there were no problema,
    the pic would just be wired and skip the w/h wire (which is going to be reversed). If the w/h funds are reversed, the pic is the one and only
    funds used for the loan. I know you only posted a piece of a pleading, but we are missing the “so what”? The rest must go on to describe what the problems are here. I’m not saying there aren’t problems, just that they’re not identified in that material.
    IF one may call those funds pic because they are factually pic, as opposed to someone else using those funds, I don’t think the payee named on the note could appropriately be called a nominal payee for lack of an agreement between the two. So, so far, what does this mean? Who’s the lender, and then what happened and or what was alleged to have happened which couldn’t (not shouldn’t) have happened and why? I hope the rest of your argument can lead to a legal finding that the funding with pic changes things, in a couple words, of which there can be no doubt, at least to me. But what if the bottomline is the pic was used to fund loans, other people then bought and paid for those loans, and sold them back to the trust? I seriously doubt that happened (because then what was the point, UNless someone was maxed on warehouse lines – but if that were true, there would have been no w/h wire to reverse?)
    You’re not likely to win on “shouldn’t”. You’re going to need “can’t” here. I’m not trying to undermine your stuff. Not at all. In fact, I’d like to see you prevail. Who wouldn’t. You’ve obviously done a lot of work. But all you’ve said so far is that the loans were actually funded by an unidentified party’s pic.
    Oh, you also argued hearsay, but failed to identify it or support that it’s ony hearsay “because”. Not going anywhere.
    You said:
    “Lenders originate the loans and a Warehouse Bank, A Commercial Lender wire the funds under a Third Party Contract. If both companies are Bank of America owned one can see the reason for no early assignment.” No, one can’t nor can one see the relevance. Subsidiaries, as applicable here certainly, are legally distinct and separate entities. Also, one must very careful, aka don’t do it, of making only statements from which you want a court to infer something, which is what the first sentence is. You said “if”, not that they were both b of a companies, which as I said doesn’t
    lead to what you think one can see: that no assgt were necessary.
    This isn’t an attack on what is probably your argument in chief (or anything) Don’t know what it is.
    These are lay opinions. ask a lawyer

  28. There are only a few judges of a court in the country that are placing law before the banks and their wrong doing.

    In those cases where the judges do not follow the law, it matters not what you present to the court. They have the advantage of painting you as someone trying to live in a house without paying for it and a judicial system that is reluctant to let people do that regardless of the facts of the case.

  29. I have a Judge (senior) on my foreclosure case. He keeps ruling/denying my rights, due to a modification that was done which I have brought proof and information before the court that that modification was made with no authority, a possible fraud, etc, due to the originating lender being under bankruptcy and ordered c&d., when that mod was done.

    How can I get this Judge to stop assuming my rights are null and void due to this mod. There has been no proof after three years of any alleged transfer or sale, to any party (and places this mod in question)

    Anyone have a thought to how I can turn his denying me Protection??

  30. As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, including avoiding dishonesty or evasion about reasons the attorney or his/her client is not appearing, the location of documents and other matters related to conduct of the courts.

  31. officer of the court n. any person who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system, including judges, the attorneys who appear in court, bailiffs, clerks, and other personnel. As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, including avoiding dishonesty or evasion about reasons the attorney or his/her client is not appearing, the location of documents and other matters related to conduct of the courts

  32. DO NOT REPRINT UNLESS YOUR GIVING CREDIT TO THE AUTHOR .
    Defendants has filed a Motion for dismissal which relies on factually inapplicable decisional law; ignores the threshold of legal standing; fails to justify the counter arguments to a free home; and purports to be supported by personal knowledge and which is in fact based on incompetent hearsay.
    Plaintiff relies on arguing a conventional foreclosure under a star decisis counter claim, “bound by decisions of prior courts. Accordingly, Plaintiff is challenged in conveying convoluted subject matter arguing a separate set of circumstances urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law.
    NO ASSIGNMENT UNTIL TIME OF FORECLOSURE
    Lenders originate the loans and a Warehouse Bank, A Commercial Lender wire the funds under a Third Party Contract. If both companies are Bank of America owned one can see the reason for no early assignment.
    False the assignment in mandatory for preferential treatment in setting forth the investment scheme that is for converting mortgages into shares of common stock.
    The question then is how the commercial lender transfers the mortgages into the trust apparatus. The answer is by economic contribution as paid in capital. Hence the wire received by the settlement agent on (date) is reversed, literally to covert the commercial lines into common stock.

  33. Not an attorney and not intended as legal advice – for informational purpose only

  34. The foreclosures are implemented by the Dept of Treasury. Attorneys are officers of the court . They cannot interfere with the Secretary s order to repossess homes. Lawyers taking cases for the plaintiff are taking money from clients they cannot represent. Lawyers representing foreclosure victims are officers of the court and barred fro these foreclosure defenses – they are subject to sanctions malpractice and being disbarred – Caution homeowners Caution Write your Bar or call ASAP for more info…Caution .

    (I wont be silenced as a fraud any longer NG – Get the truth out NOW )

  35. NG, “allegations” regarding loan to value probably aren’t going to get it. But if used, yes, better to make it a good argument. If appraisals gave a false number, they did so by way of 1) bad adjustments to comps and 2) using comps that weren’t comps (too far away, under contract but not closed, failure to note owner financing on a comp, etc.). Any legit appraiser worth her salt can spot most of (1) in a NY minute. (2) takes two NY minutes. I suggest some kind of certified review of the appraisal used. If the borrower doesn’t have a copy, then some kind of certified analysis of the value without ben of the appraisal. I don’t know how difficult that would be, but appraisers do.
    I’m not saying this would do any good. i’m just saying if one has an argument about a bogus appraisal, it might be best to try to support it. .

  36. without a doubt.

  37. They’ll be a settlement and back to business as usual….

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: