what a rip off losing your home to people who never put up a dime and who forge every single document to do so and get away with it.

how many people are now homeless and the business magazines do not write about it.
I guess it may be advertising revenue.

I just a chance to read your last post.

I have a slightly different issue here. BofA as “successor” trustee for Lasalle Bank blah blah for the Trust is the actual party foreclosing on me.

So I have no MERS to contend with(makes it simpler)
I have no “servicer” foreclosing as an agent.

All of the rest with regard to the Trust issue is about the same. The trust doesn’t really start the foreclosure without receiving the default “evidence” from the servicer, which is in a sense the same entity as the Depositor/Sponsor and the Underwriter of the Securities which is where the two Class action suits against them gain traction.

This is all going to fall under one classification……..Plausible Deniability

If the blame bounces around(this still happens with MERS too) we will all be dead before the blame comes to rest on the correct person.

I am losing track where all of the things I have come across are listed but I think I read somewhere that is the Trust is established for the mere accounting and tax shielding that it cannot actually be damaged. This would require that the damaged parties step up as plaintiffs in the action and prove damage by tracking the funds or invoke the repurchase by the now defunct lender.

Everything is shielded from enforceability with the shell game. Disclaimers to the investors about risks shield the depositor from liability beyond repurchase(cannot be done accept through the liquidating trustee of the BK estate in alot of cases) If they accept loss as the risk, but the trust is simply a non-damaged agent how can the trust even have standing?

In comes the blank note endorsement. It is blank to ensure the trust can foreclose as simply a bearer and hold the note. It is not a lender but can be the holder or bearer.

The bank wants to maintain the asset on their books including the receivables from the neg am or reverse mortgage principle increases as receivable and or pledge the note(not the income as that is pledged to the trust) and the implied income from the payments. This they can do maybe through the Small Bank entity that shadows the main bank FSB relationship.

MERS hides the real owner and only has to disclose the Servicer of record so that it always has to go back through the bank/servicer that made the mess.

Transparency………????

You have been busy on this thread since I checked it this morning!

I haven’t viewed a post that addressed this but if asking for the full chain of assignments(I doubt more than the first one to blank exists) would it not be a good idea to also request the record books of the notaries to verify they were properly recorded in accordance with the Notary standards?

Since they are typically principles of the assigning entity anyway they should be available.

I heard from the clerk today and need to appear to set a hearing on my motion to dismiss in the morning. I hope the judge is less biased than his clerk.

I have been using a great letter against credit card debt collectors and it might be useful for the mortgage situation, too. It addresses the issues you brought up about whether or not the “lender” loaned its own money, whether the “lender” suffered a loss, etc. It’s long, but I think it could prove useful. I should point out that this debt validation letter WORKS (or at least has worked so far, which has been about 5 months), especially on unsecured credit card debt being sought after by bill collectors.

Here it is (the only person I know to credit with this letter is “Goldie”)–maybe it will help some people with discovery:

Non-Negotiable, Non-Transferable

NOTICE OF DISPUTE OF ALLEGED DEBT
(Insert Collector’s Name Here)

Applicable to All Successors and/or Assigns
_____________________________________________________
Notice to the agent is notice to the principal and notice to the principal is notice to the agent

Date: Monday, January 1, 2010

From: (Insert Your Name Here)

To: (Insert Collector’s Name)
P.O. Box XXXX
City, ST ZIP

Re: In the matter of: Debt collection letter dated 12/25/2009; INSERT NAME OF CREDITOR, (“alleged creditor”);
Account # XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Sent by: U.S. Postal Service REGISTERED MAIL

To Whom It May Concern,

Please take notice as follows:

1. Authority: That this Notice of Dispute of Alleged Debt (“Notice of Dispute”) is sent to you pursuant to Title 15, United States Code Annotated (“U.S.C.A”) § 1692 et seq, known as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), the legislative purpose of which is to protect consumers from abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by debt collectors;

2. Your debt collection letter: That I have received and read your debt collection letter referenced above, identifying yourself as debt collectors,(Exhibit A; copy of debt collection letter), wherein you allege that I have a debt obligation to the alleged creditor referenced above;

3. Purpose of this notice: That the purpose of this Notice of Dispute is to assert my rights in debt collection under FDCPA § 1692(g)(b) without delay and within thirty (30) days of my receipt of your aforesaid debt collection letter;

4. Alleged debt disputed: That I hereby dispute the validity of the alleged debt in its entirety;

5. Verified documentary evidence requested: That I hereby request you provide me with the following verified (sworn to by affidavit) documentary evidence in substantiation of the alleged debt claimed by the alleged creditor referenced in your debt collection letter (see Exhibit A);

(a) Proof of authority: Please provide me with verified (sworn to by affidavit) proof of your authority to represent the alleged creditor in this instant matter;

(b) Real party in interest: Please verify who the real party in interest is in this debt collection matter;

(c) Alleged original creditor. Please provide me with the name and address of the alleged original creditor if different from the alleged creditor identified in your above mentioned debt collection letter.

(d) Alleged original agreement: Please provide me with a verified (sworn to by affidavit) copy, both front and back, of the alleged original agreement and any other alleged original security instruments in their entirety, including the allonge , affixed to the original alleged agreement for endorsements. Said affidavit is to be sworn to be true, correct, complete, and not misleading, by a properly identified and authorized officer of the alleged creditor, who states that he or she has personal knowledge (Federal Rules of Evidence [“FRE”] Rule 602) of the validity of said alleged original document(s).

(i) Inspection of document(s). Please provide me with the date, time, and place convenient to (CITY, STATE), that I can personally inspect the above alleged original agreement and any other alleged original security instruments in their entirety relevant to the above alleged debt.

(ii) Custodian of document(s). Please provide me with the name, title, and address of the natural person custodian of the alleged original agreement and of any other alleged original security instruments.

(iii) Address of physical location of document(s). Please provide me with the address of the physical location of the alleged original agreement and any other alleged original security instruments if different from “(ii)” above.

(e) Holder in due course. Please provide me with verified (sworn to by affidavit) evidence that the alleged creditor is the secured party in the instant matter, i.e., holder in due course, and has a perfected security interest in the aforesaid alleged agreement and alleged debt;

(f) Proof of Value Given: Please provide me with verified (sworn to by affidavit) copies, both front and back, of all documents and records with respect to the aforesaid alleged agreement and alleged debt from the beginning, including but not limited to, any and all lender issued cancelled certified checks, cashiers’ checks, money equivalents or similar instruments, identified as or evidencing assets provided by the alleged creditor and/or the alleged original creditor to me and indorsed by me;

(g) Deposit slip and cancelled check: Please provide me with a verified (sworn to by affidavit) copy of the deposit slip for the deposit of my alleged agreement in its entirety by the alleged creditor associated with the above alleged account/file number, and a verified copy of the cancelled check issued by the alleged creditor as payor in payment for my alleged agreement in its entirety and any other alleged related security instruments;

(h) Affidavit of debt & damages: Please provide me with an affidavit of debt and damages incurred, sworn to be true, correct, complete, and not misleading, by a properly identified and authorized officer of the alleged creditor, hereinafter “affiant,” upon his or her personal knowledge (FRE Rule 602) stating:

(i) that the alleged creditor is, indeed, the secured party and holder in due course of the aforesaid alleged original agreement in issue and has an enforceable perfected security interest therein pursuant to and in compliance with the Uniform Commercial Code (“U.C.C.”) Section 9-203, Section 9-204(1), and Section 9-305, or equivalent sections of the Commercial Code of (INSERT YOUR STATE HERE);

(ii) that the alleged creditor provided consideration to me, the alleged debtor, from the assets they had on hand before the alleged credit was made, and incurred a financial loss under the full and complete alleged original agreement and alleged debt, and state each and every loss that the alleged creditor has incurred to date under the alleged debt in issue; and

(iii) that affiant has personal knowledge (FRE Rule 602) regarding the facts of the alleged debt and is the original custodian of the books of entry, or directly supervises said original custodian of the records.

(i) Bookkeeping journal / account ledger entries: Please provide me with a verified (sworn to by affidavit) copy of the complete set of original bookkeeping journal / account ledger entries associated with my alleged agreement and alleged file/account number using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles per 12 U.S.C. § 1831n, showing all debits and credits and identifying the source(s) and amount of the credit funds/assets; Note: The verifying affidavit of journal / account ledger bookkeeping entries is to be completed by the original custodian of the books and records, sworn to be true, correct, complete, and not misleading. Further, said affidavit shall contain positive identification of the custodian, and state that he or she has personal knowledge (FRE Rule 602) of said entries.

(k) Assignment contract: If applicable, please provide me with verified (sworn to by affidavit) proof of an assignment contract in its entirety of the alleged original agreement and the alleged debt in issue from an alleged original creditor, as assignor, to the alleged creditor, as assignee.
(l) Proof of authority: Please provide me with a verified (sworn to by affidavit) copy of the contract your firm has with the alleged original creditor which authorizes your firm to engage in collection activities on their behalf against the above alleged account, and naming you as an authorized collection agent / claims adjuster.

(m) Certification of authority: Please provide me with a verified (sworn to by affidavit) certificate of authority from the State of XXXXXXXX authorizing your company to transact business in the state of XXXXXXXXXXX and a photocopy of your State Department of Commerce and Insurance certificate.

(n) Form 1035: Please provide me with Department of the Treasury Form 1035 Custodian of Documents attached or associated with my alleged original agreement and /or the name and address of said custodian per “(b)(ii)” above;

(o) Form 1099: Please provide me with Department of the Treasury Form 1099 Original Issue Discount for each year the alleged creditor was holder in possession of the alleged original agreement;

(p) Vendor sales slips/vouchers: Please provide me with verified (sworn to by affidavit) copies of all original sales slips/vouchers from all alleged vendors covering all alleged transactions in the above referenced file/account from its inception to date.

Note: This Notice of Dispute is not a request for confirmation that you have mere photocopies of alleged documents. I am requesting ONLY VERIFIED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE in validation of the alleged debt pursuant to the FDCPA.

6. Warning: That all your communications and omissions will be made a part of and incorporated into any litigation arising from this matter.

7. Time is of the essence; reply deadline: That time is of the essence, therefore, I extend to you, RightWay, thirty (30) days from the date of your receipt of this Notice of Dispute to perform in compliance with verifying the alleged debt as requested above per FDCPA mandates. I will consider a reasonable extension of time–only for the production of verified documents–should you need more than the thirty (30) days if you request it in writing to the address below. Your failure to perform as herein requested will show bad faith and will establish the fact that you are using abusive, deceptive, false, and unfair collection tactics against me as a consumer. Furthermore, if you remain silent to this request or are unable to verify the debt as above, the legal concepts of estoppel by acquiescence and tacit admission will come into play whereby the alleged debt will be admitted invalid, a nullity, and unenforceable, and thereby repudiated in its entirety ab initio . In the interim, you are prohibited from any contact with me, the undersigned, except in writing, and only in regards to the matters herein expressed. All debt collection activity– including litigation– is to cease per FDCPA § 1692g(b) “… the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt…”

8. Mandatory reply to undersigned: That all of the above demanded verified evidence, sworn to by a competent witness per FRE Rule 602, should be sent to me, (INSERT YOUR NAME), the undersigned, as indicated at the address below within the above-mentioned thirty (30) days from your receipt of this Notice of Dispute. Please do not send any reply correspondence to me at any other mail location except as follows:

Send to: YOUR NAME
YOUR ADDRESS
CITY, ST xxxxx

9. Exhibits: All exhibits attached to this Notice of Dispute are incorporated by reference herein.

Signed with reservation of all rights,

By: ________________________________________

INSERT YOUR NAME

Enclosures: Exhibit A – Copy of 12/25/2009 debt collection letter

Quoted from the above article; consider this. The drug companies own the banks, who in turn own the government. This is not just my opinion, it happens to be true. So where does that leave us in the food chain?

I, personally, am in a business that is directly affected by employment and financial stability: automobile sales. When sales figures go from 16 million to 10 million/year, your income stream disappears overnight. We have seen a severe downturn (and I’m in a premier import-branded store) in sales, and there is no end in sight. I do believe that the worst is yet to come. This rally we see on Wall Street right now is the beginning of the “Suckers Rally”. Commercial real estate is tanking (because of the retailers imploding). I look across the street at the suburban shopping mall and see the empty, boarded up storefronts. As we watch the fundamentals of our economy deteriorate (employment, homeownership, and the value of the Dollar, particularly)we can only wonder what the future has in store for the children we brought unto this world. This is not the country I grew up in. I am sorry to say that. My belief system was based in work ethic, capitalism, and I as I got older, making sure to think a little further into the future. And doing the right thing. I have always voted, but now, the lines are blurred. Maybe the lines don’t exist at all. Just two different takes on how to widen the divide and steal more wealth. It’s time to make something happen. There are plenty of angry people. We must all make an effort to channel the angst and energy of those folks, along with our own, and take control of this country.

I will undertake this challenge to save our country, one neighbor, one foreclosure, and one predatory lender at a time. You don’t have to be a LAWYER to TALK about the LAW, DO YOU?

Foreclosure Defense Workshop
Community Center
Tuesday Night
Bring a Friend!

yes i have both info …
Quality Loan Service (AKA McCarthy & Holthus LLP, LSI, LPS, Fidelity National, Fidelity ASAP, etc) this should keep you busy!

I thought you provided the court case names for anyone who wanted to inquire?

Are not court records, filings and case dispositions, even eviction writs, in the public domain for all to view?

Why are you threatening folks with defamation and libel?

Could you please cite your source.

This is a very old article.

Thx

Closing Agents
• Concealed Payments
• Multiple Settlement Statements
• Conversion of Funds to Personal Use
• Multiple Conveyance
• Bogus Down Payment Sources / Seller 2nds
• Sales Contract Manipulation
• Borrower Identity Validity
• Affiliated Relationships
• Validation and Verification

These reports were not exactly as I had expected but they have directed me to just ask more questions.

Abby is right on target – these fields are the fields used by the users and applications but administration, maintenance, auditing and other reasons there is MORE information available.

Discovery is something I had assumed that every company takes seriously because of the issues with comtempt of court. I was amazed to see so many companies failing to respond at all to discovery. But there is a bigger issue involved.

Issue #1 is that usually the Trustee (if you are being foreclosed by the Trustee or an AGENT of the Trustee) is not a part of the litigation and does not even know it exists. To get an answer to discovery, the foreclosing party would actually have to go and talk with the Trustee.

Issue #2 is that in my SEC filings it specifically states that the Trustee does not have to foreclose or file a lawsuit unless a certain number (or percentage) of investors elect to do so AND they indemnify the Trustee. In addition, it states that the Trustee does not even have to respond to a lawsuit. The master servicer (who is also the sponser, seller and remic administrator for my trust) agreed to indemnify them and hold them harmless of any loss they suffer.

So, how do you get them to respond to discovery? My guess is you are going after the wrong party. You may need to sue (or subpeona) the master servicer (and/or sponser and/or seller and/or remic administrator) AND/OR the depositor.

After all, they are the one who created the securitization in the first place AND they are the one who probably owns the asset (your note) and they are the one directing the other parties and indemnifying them.

Which brings up another question. If GMAC-RFC designed and created the securitization, and they have their hand in everything, the pledged instead of sold the assets, they control the Trustee and tell them what they can and cannot do, etc., etc.,etc., – is the Trust REALLY a seperate entity? They cannot exist with GMAC-RFC.

As Maher said, this is not an arms length transaction. The Trust is a registrant only. The Trust cannot just exist for accounting reasons only (there must be a business benefit). The Trust has NO REASON to exist except for accounting purposes.

Hmm, we need to delve into this further.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is referring to my particular situation which may be different from yours. Consult with your attorney to see if this is even remotely applies.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD
Member of Congress
Washington, D.C., Office:
2330 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-1766
Fax: (202) 226-0350

Dear Maher:

Knowing you interest in housing issues, I want to take this opportunity to update you with my views on the foreclosure crisis, FHA loan limits and down payment assistance.

I strongly believe that FHA-backing of mortgages is one of the most significant steps we can take to address the current foreclosure crisis. As you are aware, while the Economic Stimulus Act temporarily increased the FHA-insurable loan limit to $729,000, if further action is not taken, the limit will fall to $362,000 at the end of this year. This level is far too low to make a difference in California where the cost of a home greatly exceeds the national average.

I continue to support down payment assistance programs that allow low-income families to afford decent housing without have to sacrifice other essentials like food, clothing, healthcare, or a child’s education. Families should not be forced to choose between these basic needs when budgets are tight.

You will be pleased to know that on May 8, 2008, I voted in support of the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (H.R. 3221), which was signed by the President and became public law on July 30, 2008 . This housing stimulus includes an expansion of the FHA program, and also permanently raises the FHA loan limits. You may be assured that as your representative in Congress and as a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on transportation , Housing and Urban Development with funding jurisdiction over housing programs, I will continue to represent your views as Congress continues to take steps to help homeowners and homebuyers avoid foreclosure.

Once again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to hearing from you in the future on this and on other issues of importance to our community, our state, and our nation.

Sincerely

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD
Member of Congress

Sign up for periodic e-mail updates from Congresswoman Roybal-Allard at http://www.house.gov/roybal-allard

SPEAKING ABOUT FRAUD
November 9th 2009 4:55 AM PST
By M.Soliman

First ; Talk about BeMoved, AOL and fraud. All parties will use his public comments to form basis for defamation and a libel suit immediatly in superior court. This is unfair to a borrowers privacy and misleading a court clerk in a disturbing matter. This should be good as the reader caused tortous interference with an attorney client privlidge. Yes…what I (we) have been told would happen and have been waiting for….and waiting for. Mis statement of facts, libelous comments and intent to inflict pain and suffering, . . interference while case is subject to appeal….Caution forewarned and issued cease and desist….ON APPEAL INQUIRY .Superior Court Case
It must stop and it will. Moving on ….(we’ll keep you posted) ….

There is a science to looking at the instruments used for recorded notices…or maybe it’s an art? Anyway. What a roll we are on as fraud is running out of control. Who you ask? You name it.

Hers a bit of advice.

The equipment or software used to print the notices or instruments (CA) is approved for use in banks and popular with mortgage bankers.

The software cannot be altered without the person having clearance. He / she would enter the system in order to alter a document and the revision is there for eternity after making the changes.

Thereafter the person who made the changes is on record as the last to alter a preprinted form. Why would they ever need to change a pre-printed form used for recording?

One more thing. The biggest tips I can give you with respect to recorded instrument used to foreclose are as follows:

See your notices
(1) Default,
(2) Assignment and
(3) Substitution

They are (almost) always printed in a set. Forget MERS here for a second as the documents are printed by the originator or successors and assigns (Depositor).

There is never any need to print any of the three documents separate let alone on a different date.

The foreclosure specialist’s are good, very good [and never the hit of a party...] but they do know what they are doing!

I believe the CA civil code 2923.5 and Obama Plan are causing these opportunists to “back date”. Last minute and when you back date the succession of dates becomes vulnerable.

These foreclosure specialists left over from the crash are lucky to have jobs and do as they are told. I am sure the trustees are telling them “rescind or revise, it’s up to you”?
Remember also, an altered instrument for recording in VOID or VOIDABLE I don’t care what you say about jurisdiction! Trust me on this one as case law is abundant.
———————————-
We have a case right now whereby I will testify (if they don’t come back with a settlement). I opine it’s a “voidable” claim and subject solely to damages as the property sold to a 3rd party animal. Void you win the home back and voidable you lose (right to reclaim your home back).

It should be a monster settlement / claim and its happening to a great guy (plaintiff). We have a document that was technically drawn on 12/18/2009. That is verified. Problem is the document is dated by hand and endorsed the same day by the notary as of 12/08/2009. . . 10 days prior to being printed?

I would move to case precedent and say every foreclosure for this lender as of the date of this claim may be grounds for rescission. Is there an attorney in the house?

Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishment of Liabilities, contains criteria that restrict “sale accounting” on transferred financial assets when there is a concurrent purchase agreement.

With so much focus on the overburdened American homeowner suffering in default, little discussion on revamping the mortgage sector of the economy is evident.

This notion presupposes a desperate need to vacate the prospect of the willingness for rouge lenders to exist. Yielding to outrageous synthetic affordability with respect to debt and housing, there now come calls for more serious enforcement against criminal conduct. Such escalated policing of consumers and lenders should isolate the heftiest sentencing scaled to certain criteria for constituting unimaginable access to debt.

Debt leveraged solely to accommodate earnings acquired from the purchase and sale of real property at closing is not compensation at all.

The premise is for fiscal safeguards to be seen as impenetrable ensuring economic survival free of radical shifts and downswings.

My gut tells me not long gone are the days of a criminal mindset culminating with a opportunistic borrower lender cohabitation. Tax payers are equally vigilant in seeking to rid society of the category of excess tariffs due to bail out of a criminal borrower mindset.

If not now then when is it time to bring to the forefront of this dilemma and a willingness to punish the perpetrators?

Malfeasant lending by intoxicated institutions at the expense of shareholder and tax payer bailouts are on target for isolating only one problem piece of this respectable Chinese puzzle. The white collar profile or part time dental assistant that brazenly purchase a fourth or fifth property are equally fit to join bank management in expanding our states correctional holding capacity and prison populations.

A scale for both indecent and vile acts towards the economy will no more safeguard the shank delusions of the attorney. Make accountable the warped and corrosive mind of the dental hygienist and Trump Real Estate grad turned property owner.

No one shall be insulated from the call to justice cause by capital waste and fraud. Let these night lurking intestinal worms be driven out and into the light. Like Megan’s law, habitual criminal offenses will label the mortgage fraud perpetrators, legal buffoons and financial morons of society.

Let this effect on the public be blind to occupation and status. Therefore no professional, union member, trade group or white collar persons may escape the retribution of a societies call for registration after sentencing and time spent incarcerated.

Mortgage debt lawlessness and accountability shall have no regard for race religion and creed.

Today’s culprit shall be the targets and hopefully the last of its kind. Let this state show it’s will for they shall grow weary and we will set by example the call to sanity and a safer economic society

What is now beginning to surface are the losses attributed to the massive amount of fraud that mortgage originators created and passed on to Freddie Mac with two specific types of origination fraud know as “Double-Funding”, “Double Selling” or “Double Warehousing” fraud and Assignment Fraud.

“Double-Funding” involves a mortgage originator sending simultaneous funding requests for the same loan to two different warehouse lenders. Both warehouse lenders, unaware of each other, would send funding for the loan to the title companies specified by the mortgage originator. The mortgage originator then disburses the money from one lender to the borrower, while directing the title company to wire the money received from the other lender to mortgage originator’s bank account.

The mortgage originators then provide fabricated mortgage documents to the warehouse lenders that falsely represented that the lender’s funds had, in fact, been used to finance borrower loans.
Assignment Fraud involves modifications to the original loan where the name of the bank who actually owns the note is changed on execution of the Loan Modification Agreement. The problem with these “modifications” (actually new loans with new “lenders”) is that the old loans remain unaffected. The existing cloud on title to the property, the mortgage deed (or deed of trust), the note, the obligation, the purported assignments etc. is being compounded by attempts to allow impostors to foreclose on the mortgage, collect on the note, modify the loan, or approve a short sale. The time bomb is title where securitized loans were recorded, foreclosed, modified or sold. The parties (other than the borrower and possibly the Trustee on the Deed of Trust) had actual knowledge that the “lender” was not the Lender, the terms of the obligation were already changed at the time of closing, the appraisal was false, the underwriting was negligent or fraudulent, the Good Faith Estimate was by definition rendered neither in good faith nor even close to an accurate estimate, and the list goes on and on.
In determining whether a particular loan is part of a “double-funding” or “double-selling” scheme, examiners and forensic accountants should look for as evidence that a mortgage originator is engaging in this scheme and participating in a pattern of deception, forgery and fraud. Once demonstrated, these indicators inevitably point to fraudulent affidavits and assignments of mortgages filed in the public records.

As you examine your loan documents you should be looking for the following:

1. Loan originators, servicers and their lawyers forge documents with “squiggle marks” that are not the marks, initials or signatures of the actual officer that is notarized to be the signatory.

2. Signature, initials or “squiggle marks” differ for the same signatory from document to document.

3. Squiggle marks and full signatures that are diametrically opposed to the known signature of the signatory.

4. Pre-stamped assignments and notary signatures on assignments, affidavits and proof of claims.
5. Back-dating of dates on assignments and signatures of officers dating years after either a company is no longer in business or the officers are no longer with the company
In the Plaintiffs matter we are pleading the performance or occurrence of conditions precedent, it is sufficient to allege generally that all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred. A denial of performance or occurrence shall be made specifically and with particularity, and when so made the party pleading the performance or occurrence shall on the trial establish the facts showing such performance or occurrence.

In pleading a judgment or other determination of a court or officer of special jurisdiction, it is not necessary to state the facts conferring jurisdiction, but such judgment or determination may be stated to have been duly given or made. If such allegation is controverter, the party pleading is bound to establish on the trial the facts conferring jurisdiction.

In pleading a private statute, or a right derived there from, it is sufficient to refer to such statute by its title and the day of its passage, and the court shall thereupon take judicial notice thereof.

LIBEL OR SLANDER ACTION.
In an action for libel or slander it shall not be necessary to state in the complaint any extrinsic facts for the purpose of showing the application to the plaintiff of the defamatory matter out of which the cause of action arose; but it shall be sufficient to state generally that the same was published or spoken concerning the plaintiff. If such allegation is controverter, the plaintiff shall be bound to establish on the trial that it was so published or spoken. In the answer, the defendant may allege both the truth of the matter charged as defamatory, and any mitigating circumstances, to reduce the amount of damages, and whether the defendant proves the justification or not, the defendant may give in evidence the mitigating circumstances.

Official document or act. In pleading an official document or official act it is sufficient to allege that the document was issued or the act done in compliance with law.

Recitals and negative pregnants. No allegations in a pleading shall be held insufficient on the grounds that they are pled by way of recital rather than alleged directly. No denial shall be treated as an admission on the ground that it contains a negative pregnant.

Fictitious parties. When a party is ignorant of the name of an opposing party and so alleges in a pleading, the opposing party may be designated by any name, and when such partys true name is discovered, the process and all pleadings and proceedings in the action may be amended by substituting the true name.

Designation of unknown heirs in actions relating to property. When the heirs of any deceased person are proper parties defendant to any action relating to property in this state, and the names and residences of such heirs are unknown, they may be proceeded against under the name and title of the unknown heirs of the deceased.

Designation of unknown persons. In any action to determine any adverse claim, estate, lien, or interest in property, or to quiet title to property, the plaintiff may include as a defendant in such action, and insert in the title thereof, in addition to the names of such persons or parties as appear of record to have, and other persons or parties who are known to have, some title, claim, estate, lien, or interest in the property in controversy, the following: Also all other persons or parties unknown claiming any right, title, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint herein. [CCP 12/2/78]. The matter will go before a court and unlawful detainer hearing where the jurisdiction is highly limited for arguments regarding the ownership and title. The matter of a UD is confined to jurisdiction with little if any concerns for the causes of action brought in a grievance complaint better suited for another court’s jurisdiction.

Consent judgment, a final, binding judgment in a case in which both parties agree, by stipulation, to a particular outcome.

Declaratory judgment, a judgment of a court in a civil case which declares the rights, duties, or obligations of each party in a dispute
Default judgment, a binding judgment in favor of the plaintiff when the defendant has not responded to a summons.

Summary judgment, a legal term which means that a court has made a determination without a full trial.
Vacated judgment, the result of the judgment of an appellate court which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court.

The expert can document various lengthy history of training and working exclusively at an institutional level in subprime lending was mostly spent as a secondary trader. I now work as an Expert.Witness who appraises a case and testifies in court. I jumped ship in 2003 wrongly thinking the market would soon crash. Little did I know what the industry would resort to in order to keep the lies alive? Hundreds of thousands of American homeowners face losing their homes due to unaffordable loans they received.

The breadth and depth of experience allows for a unique perspective for sharing with the public my views certain procedural knowledge that offers insight into the procedural defects seen to exist from one lender to another the parties consistent procedural must be limited to facts as I try to steer way from any bias. In this market that is hard.

My views and experiences on the subject of foreclosure assume you’ll need an attorney. I can merely make a distinction for you case from the presence of unlawful business practices and deceptive acts in a foreclosure. Here’s what is at stake when If you’re facing eviction from a foreclosure.

Filing an action is necessary for keeping your home after determining a wrongful foreclosure claim. Until a court rules on the matter it may be the only way have a way to protect your home. Real Property (e.g. in California) cannot transfer from one party to another where a lien is considered to be defect. The notion is the sale must fail whereby a transfer or conveyance or real property is near impossible. But a closer look at case law will show us the need to seek out a good attorney for determining the grounds for calling a Trustees Sale void or voidable and understanding the remedies where a tort or material violation does exist. Even when a fraud takes place we remind clients the court may not necessarily rule your home is you’re anymore even after determining the deed and transfer was unenforceable.

A predatory loan is something that falls under a theorem of “Mutual Consideration”. It is the shared responsibility by both sides for a willful act offered by one and accepted by the other party. For example, you took the loan under the circumstances as a borrower from a predatory lender and now changed your mind.

The courts say I don’t think so. Courts also are sticking with the notion of equitable consideration. Therefore there is no one to blame according to some courts recent rulings. I don’t know about that where a cause of action can be made by an attorney and claims can be made supporting the deed is potentially defective. Another type of claim is made for circumstances where a forgery or recorded document accomplishes the sale from someone committing an unlawful act.

Where it can be shown there exists fraud or deceptive business practices the deed is considered defect and therefore the sale must fail. If the subject loan originated through unfair business practices, then your deed or mortgage maybe argued to be subject to a defect.

That deed or mortgage will “rest disturbed” if subject to substantive arguments brought in litigation. Therein your claims may make the transfer of the property to anyone impossible. In other words the Power of sale and right to acceleration in a non judicial matter are rendered unenforceable. You challenge the lenders security which allows them to claim your home in a default judgment. It is unenforceable from commencement or discovery and subject to a void or voidable determination by the court.

Here is the catch you need to be aware of. It falls under fraudulent releases, request for reconveyance and forgeries.

Can a bona fide purchaser acquire title to property involved free of the improperly reconvened deed of trust? The answer is yes! The distinction between void and voidable acts and deeds, suggest it’s not the mere presence of forgery but where forgery comes into play that determines the outcome between innocent victims.

Case Law:

A reconveyance of a deed of trust, executed by the trustee in misplaced reliance on a forged request for reconveyance, is voidable but not void. That is according to a California Court of Appeal that held this decision in the case is Schiavon v. Arnaudo Brothers, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 801, 2000 WL 1586381 (2000) . The same rules apply to the reconveyance of the property interest under a deed of trust as to the conveyance of property by grant deed. Here, the lawful trustee under the deed of trust executed the reconveyance of the deed by the signature of its Vice President and with full awareness of the effect of the act. The fraudulent misrepresentation occurred in the forgery on the request for reconveyance.

The conveyance was therefore voidable, but not void. The subsequent bona fide purchaser of the property was entitled to rely on it. “The Court then described earlier California cases to illustrate the void vs. voidable distinction.

In Erickson v. Bohne, 130 Cal.App.2d 553 (1955), the plaintiff was mentally and physically incompetent when she executed a deed. She didn’t know she was signing a deed, didn’t intend to convey her property, and received no consideration. The deed was held void, and the plaintiff prevailed over a later bona fide purchaser.

In Wutzke v. Bill Reid Painting Service, Inc., 151 Cal.App.3d 36 (1984), the plaintiff held a deed of trust naming as trustee a corporation that was owned by the trustor/borrower. The trustor/borrower executed and recorded a reconveyance using a fictitious name, purportedly the executive officer of the trustee/corporation.

The reconveyance was found to be a forgery and held void, and the plaintiff prevailed over a later bona fide Lender.

In Fallon v. Triangle Management Services, Inc., 169 Cal.App.3d 1103 (1985), the original owner executed a deed to Tolbert, and Tolbert then mortgaged the property. The deed was found to have been procured by undue influence and held voidable, and the bona fide lender prevailed over the original owner.

Now in Firato v. Tuttle, 48 Cal.2d 136 (1957), plaintiffs held a deed of trust naming a real estate broker as trustee. The trustee/broker executed a reconveyance without authority, falsely stating that the loan was paid off. The reconveyance was found to have been unauthorized and voidable, and a bona fide lender prevailed over the plaintiffs.

You should conclude that the facts in the Schiavon case are more akin to those in Firato than Wutzke, where the Court held that the interest of the “innocent purchaser for value” (Arnaudo Brothers) will prevail over Schiavon et al. This case presents a classic example of the distinction between void and voidable acts and deeds.

This case study is not intended to offer a legal opinion where only a licensed practitioner may do so. It is more for giving the pre-foreclosure victim something to consider where affirmative defense should include acts of fraud but mat not necessarily save their home if it goes to sale. In a trustee sale the lender will take back the home in a trustee’s sale or sell it through a trustee sale to a bonifide purchaser. As an expert who testifies in court I can tell you the problems you have with potential deceptive and unlawful acts such as forgery are likely to get you the courts attention.

But if discovered after the fact you may find your remedy at best may not include getting your home returned to you. It appears it’s not the mere presence of forgery but where forgery comes into play that determines the outcome between innocent victims.

Therefore do evaluate and consider the need to mount a defense against foreclosure before a sale back to the bank or even worse a third party. As an Expert Witness who provides testimony in these matters I know where to evidence fraud if fraud exists in the file. I often see repeated foul play in the transferring of the asset from the parties to a trust and then after the fact.

And know that there is a strong chance the lender and interested parties can be prevented from forcing a borrower out of the home. In the examples you have read an unlawful detainer may not be justified if another court can determine your rights are being violated subject to a court having the proper jurisdiction rule in accordance with remedies and damages subject to the deed having been determined to be void or voidable.

I never gave that paragraph in the mortgage much thought because I honestly do not understand it. I am researching this now. Let me know what your attorney says. thanks

Alina

As you are well aware, each company or trust will not utilize the same field names in their respective databases.

Also, in discovery, you’d want to limit the data produced to only the data in those fields related to your loan. You don’t want them to come back with the entire ‘world’ of data for other customers.

One more thing, I am asking for the names of the data base admiinstrators, specifically the DBA who is actually running the report for my data for discovery.

I might want to depose the DBA.

Listen, i’ve been in the database world for over 30 years.

I think you probably know this Dan, but the database product, such as Oracle, Sybase, DB2….typically will have a date/timestamp for every insert, update, delete to any database record.

I’ve asked for copies of every insert, update, delete and the date/ timestamp and the userid associated with the database action in my discovery.

I had a situation where I made an electronic bank payment of my mortgage. Chase held onto it for 2 months and then sent it back. Then said I was in default. I’m wanting to see the database transactions.

Also, I am requesting in my discovery any information technology security policy and audit standards.

MERS PEOPLE—should you be asking for discovery—request MERS documentation on their IT security and audit policies AND any IT audit reports!!

You are seeking to determine how secure your information is on their system and how easy or where the holes are that someone could modify and replace one of your documents on the MERS system.

Again–to reiterate–Dan, please make it clear to all that the Data Field Names you listed above are for a specific company or trust. I do not believe each big bank, securities trust, lender etc…will have the exact same data fields.

If any LivingLies bloggers need help with any data type or database audit type questions or data security questions you can contact me at carra2009@gmail.com and I am sure Dan Edstrom would assist.

Thanks,
Dan Edstrom
dmedstrom@hotmail.com

I have been on the same track as what you are experiencing. They specifically assign the notes to blank on purpose which the court should look at anyway as questionable practice. It’s not like they don’t know where the loan is going before they do the assignment.

They additionally, at the exact same time they endorse the note to Blank, record the change in ownership on the MERS system. Even for the normal layman that is beyond common sense considering they are supposed to run together.

They also seem to, once again as standard practice, lose or shred the original notes. I am guessing they do the assignment to blank so that if they can’t find the note and they have to produce it they can make one appear without having to reacquire it from the other sucker they sold it to for more money.

We all need to fight this very thing and get enough cases in front of every judge in the country and make sure that the rulings keep coming back the way we need them to. The more success we have the better it will be for those behind us that are still holding on and staying current.

Most of us by sharing have enough information at our disposal to support others in this and as far as I see it there is enough question being raised and enough focus on this problem that it will not easily be swept under the rug by politicians.

I agree that everyone needs to focus on their legal rights and know that even if it seems like a daunting task it needs to be done so that it will not affect the next three generations of homeowners as well.