EXAMPLE OF PLEADING TRAPPING PRETENDERS IN THEIR OWN LIES

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

  1. Using the exhibits filed by the respondents the confusion created by the respondents, the on-record conduct of the Respondents in arrogant defiance and contempt of the this Court’s discharge injunction, and the breaks in chain of title that are self-evident (and clearly shown below), leads to the inescapable conclusion that the application for relief from stay was faked, the foreclosure sale was faked, the deed issued was improper, and the eviction was wrongful even without the issues of forgery and fabrication.
  1. The entire series of events caused by the respondents is based upon the substitution of an illegal notary clause for an actual affidavit with sworn testimony from an actual person with actual knowledge verifying the authority of the signatories and the authenticity of the documents. California notaries are expressly forbidden to attest to the authority of an individual for use in another state. Respondents nevertheless regularly use this device to create the appearance of authority when none exists. They did so when they used the name of Chevy Chase Bank, a defunct bank to apply for relief from stay, and they did so in connection with several key documents without which they would have no color of title to property or loans for which it is clear that had no actual authority or title.
  1. But for this sleight of hand trick by the Respondents, none of the actions to seek relief from stay in Petitioner’s bankruptcy and to collect on a debt that was not due to them, none of the actions for foreclosures, sale or possession would have or could have occurred. The following chain of title report is taken from the Respondents’ own exhibits with reference thereto.

4. Careful scrutiny of the chain disclosed below reveals the unlawful intermediation of parties that were at best conduits but who masqueraded as real parties in interest for the express purpose and intent of stealing from the Petitioner and the undisclosed creditor-investor, who probably still does not know what transpired in these actions. The result was a substantial loss to both the Petitioner and the other creditors of the Petitioner who could have otherwise been paid.

  1. When Chevy Chase applied for relief from stay, it was at best a bookkeeper.  It provided no proof of its own authority as to the decision to foreclose or even to establish the status of the debt. It was presumably receiving instructions from the “creditor.” The “creditor” from whom it was receiving such instructions may be presumed from the actions of the respondents to have been the Respondents themselves, who inserted themselves into the process without any right, justification, excuse or authority. Hence the application for relief from stay was fraudulently filed and procured.
  1. DEED OF TRUST: (EXHIBIT B)

6.1.                  GRANTOR/TRUSTOR: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

6.2.                  GRANTEE: NORTH AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY

6.3.                  BENEFICIARY: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., “NOMINEE” FOR FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION

6.4.                  LENDER: FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION

  1. TRANSFER OF SERVICING RIGHTS 8/29/06 (EXHIBIT C)

7.1.                  ASSIGNOR: FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION

7.2.                  CHEVY CHASE BANK, F.S.B.

  1. NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE:  (EXHIBIT C -10)

8.1.                  ASSIGNOR: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., “NOMINEE” FOR FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION.

8.1.1. Signed (allegedly) by Pamela Campbell as “Assistant Secretary” of MERS while she was employed by Cal-Western Reconveyance who is not and was not a member of MERS.

8.1.2. Campbell’s name has been widely cited as a known robo-signed signature affixed by numerous different people, as can be seen by the different signatures on sets of documents discovered in Maricopa County, corroborated similar reports from California and other states.

8.1.3. Petitioner has learned that whoever signed Pamela Campbell’s name must have used the user ID and password of someone other than Pamela Campbell — Probably someone from US Bank, who was by pretense asserting itself as the creditor.

8.1.4. Based upon Published information in cases, media and the MERS website, these facts would strongly indicate that the substitution of trustee document was neither prepared nor executed by anyone employed by Cal-Western and was probably prepared and executed by one of the many servicer providers that were in the business of fabrication and execution of false documents.

8.2.                  FIRST MAGNUS WAS LIQUIDATED PREVIOUS TO THE ALLEGED SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE IN A TUCSON BANKRUPTCY CASE

8.3.                  FIRST MAGNUS DID NOT CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF PETITIONER’S LOAN IN ITS PREVIOUSLY FILED BANKRUPTCY

8.3.1.     THUS EITHER FIRST MAGNUS WAS MERELY A NOMINEE FOR AN UNDISCLOSED LENDER AT ORIGINATION OF THE LOAN OR FIRST MAGNUS ASSIGNED THE LOAN TO A THIRD PARTY BEFORE THE FIRST MAGNUS BANKRUPTCY

8.3.1.1.         If First Magnus was a nominee, then it follows that there were two nominees on the Deed of Trust — First Magnus and MERS. Since no other institution was named, that leaves two nominees acting for an undisclosed principal. UNDER ARIZONA LAW NO LIEN COULD BE PERFECTED AGAINST THE LAND WITHOUT DISCLOSURE OF THE CREDITOR.

8.3.1.2.         If First Magnus assigned the loan to a third party before the First Magnus Bankruptcy, the documents submitted by Chevy Chase and the other “successors” are fabrications and forgeries by definition.

8.3.1.3.         EITHER WAY, APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY, THE SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE, THE NOTICE OF SALE, THE SALE, THE JUDGMENTS, AND THE EVICTION WERE ALL WITHOUT ANY COLOR OF AUTHORITY.

8.3.1.4.         EITHER WAY, THE ACTS UNDERTAKEN TO OBTAIN THOSE JUDGMENTS WERE CONTRARY TO THE DISCHARGE INJUNCTION ISSUED IN PETITIONER’S CASE.

8.3.1.5.         EITHER WAY THE DEMAND FOR RELIEF FROM STAY BY CHEVY CHASE IN PETITIONER’S BANKRUPTCY WAS WITHOUT COLOR OF AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF A CREDITOR THAT WAS NOT DISCLOSED DESPITE PETITIONER’S REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO REVEAL THE CREDITOR (ALSO CONTAINED IN THE PUTATIVE “SUCCESSORS” EXHIBITS)

8.3.1.5.1.              Petitioner has determined that the pooling and servicing agreement for the referenced pool contains language that requires the servicer to continue payments to the undisclosed creditor even if the homeowner fails to make payments. Said document also contains numerous references to insurance and credit enhancements that require payments and credits to the undisclosed creditor that were never revealed despite Petitioner’s numerous attempts to obtain said information. See Respondents Exhibits.

8.3.1.5.2.              Even if Chevy Chase was the authorized servicer at the time it applied for relief from stay, it failed to identify, contrary to OCC requirements, the status of the debt (and of course the identity of the creditor), taking into account all payments made. If the servicer complied with the pooling and servicing agreement then the creditor was receiving payments and reports that the loan was fully performing while at the same time other parties entered the picture out of the chain of title claiming a default. Hence the representation that Petitioner was in default was made either without knowledge or with reckless disregard for the truth.

8.3.1.5.3.              NO CREDITOR ON RECORD: The record is devoid of any representation from the true creditor that it is the creditor and the current status of the obligation, the amount due and what payments have been received from the servicer or other parties.

8.4.                  ASSIGNEE OF SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE: CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION (alleged by Petitioner robo-signed, forged and fabricated by Cal-Western using signature of Pamela E Campbell as “campbell,” reciting she is Assistant secretary of MERS, using notary clause in violation of California law attesting to Campbell’s authority). In short, Cal-Western appointed itself using an outsource provider to claim deniability as to the source of the document.

8.5.                  ABSENT FROM SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE: AUTHORITY OF PAMELA CAMPBELL, WHO WAS EMPLOYEE OF CAL-WESTERN, NOT MERS. No document has ever been produced showing a corporate resolution from First Magnus, MERS, or even Cal-Western to indicate that Campbell had any authority whatsoever. Instead the “successors” used a faked notary clause that violated California law to attest to Campbell’s authority. These “successors” thought it important to create some attestation of Campbell’s authority so they cannot now take the position that it was unnecessary.  In order to satisfy the requirements of title examination, the authority of Campbell would need to be established as these same “successors” have done in other cases where they filed a false Power of Attorney or Limited Power of Attorney.

  1. NOTICE OF TRUSTEE SALE: (EXHIBIT E)

9.1.                  TRUSTOR: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

9.2.                  CURRENT TRUSTEE (WITHOUT AUTHORITY): CAL-WESTERN

9.3.                  CURRENT BENEFICIARY: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (NOT AS NOMINEE), C/O CHEVY CHASE BANK . This is another indication that if MERS contact information for this loan was in care of Chevy Chase Bank FSB, then the document allegedly signed on behalf of MERS would not have been executed at the offices of Cal-Western, where Pamela Campbell worked as Assistant Vice President.

9.4.                CLEAR BREAK IN TITLE: NO MENTION OF FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, “LENDER” IDENTIFIED IN DOT AS SECURED PARTY. Hence, the Notice of Sale was not on behalf of First Magnus, AMBAC, who shows on its website that it administers the pool identified by Respondent US Bank as supposedly owning the loan, nor even US Bank as successor to Assignee of First Magnus. Thus the Notice of Sale clearly states it is for MERS as the creditor, which is universally accepted as factually untrue, and contrary to the application to this Court for relief from stay obtained by Chevy Chase. Note that US BANK remains out of the picture — it is not mentioned on any document, recorded or otherwise.

9.5.                  EXECUTED BY CAL-WESTERN, “A LICENSED ESCROW AGENT”

  1. TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE: (EXHIBIT I)

10.1.               CURRENT TRUSTEE: CAL-WESTERN (WITHOUT AUTHORITY

10.2.               GRANTEE: US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4

10.2.1.  FIRST TIME US BANK APPEARS — OUT OF CHAIN OF TITLE

10.2.2.  US BANK, TRUSTEE WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO ANY TRUST

10.2.2.1.      PETITIONER HAS DETERMINED THAT NO TRUST EXISTS

10.2.2.2.      PETITIONER HAS DETERMINED THAT US BANK IS NOT A TRUSTEE FOR ANY TRUST POSSESSING A CLAIM OR INTEREST IN PETITIONER’S LOAN

10.2.2.3.      PETITIONER HAS DETERMINED THAT AMBAC ADMINISTERS THE POOL ALLEGED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LOAN, BUT THE DOCUMENTS DO NOT MENTION THE POOL NOR AMBAC.

10.2.3.  FIRST TIME CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC APPEARS, OUTSIDE CHAIN OF TITLE

10.2.4.  FIRST TIME MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4 APPEARS OUT OF CHAIN

10.2.5.  AMBAC, ADMINISTERS MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4 NEVER MADE A PARTY. AMBAC’s role is not yet known to Petitioner except that it claims ownership or rights to the same pool claimed by US Bank, “as Trustee, relating to” that pool. The presence of AMBAC and its known role in insurance and credit enhancement products for mortgage backed bonds indicates that it may have paid off the balance due to the investor-creditors who were the source of funds on Petitioner’s loan.

10.2.6.  NO CONSIDERATION FOR ISSUANCE OF TRUSTEE DEED: NO TENDER OF CASH OR DEBT OBLIGATION BY NOTE, AFFIDAVIT OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTATION. NO CONSIDERATION FOR SALE. Thus the deed was issued in derogation of the rights of the true creditor, who remains undisclosed, as well as the rights of any other party who might have rights to the property or could have bid on the property. The result is that US BANK received title to property on which it had never made a loan, never purchased the obligation, and never had any authority to represent the true creditor, whether disclosed or not.

10.2.7.  SIGNED (PURPORTEDLY) BY RHONDA RORIE, WHO WAS UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE NOTARIZING ROBO-SGINED DOCUMENTS FOR CAL-WESTERN, AGAIN alleged by Petitioner robo-signed, forged and fabricated by Cal-Western using signature of RHONDA RORIE as reciting she is A.V.P. of CALWESTERN, using notary clause in violation of California law attesting to RORIE’S authority).

  1. VERIFIED COMPLAINT: (EXHIBIT J) FOR EVICTION

11.1.               PLAINTIFF: US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4

11.1.1.  COMPOUNDING BREAK IN CHAIN OF TITLE (SEE ABOVE)

11.2.               DEFENDANT: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

11.3.               RECITES US BANK BECAME OWNER PURSUANT TO TRUSTEE SALE

11.4.               VERIFIED BY SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING BY DARREN BRONAUGH “ON BEHALF OF US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4.”

11.4.1.  FIRST TIME SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING APPEARS

11.4.2.  NO AUTHORITY REFERENCED OR ATTACHED

11.4.3.  DARREN BRONAUGH SIGNATURE HAS BEEN REVEALED AS ROBO-SIGNED ON NUMEROUS OTHER DOCUMENTS AND IS ALLEGED FORGED ON THIS VERIFIED COMPLAINT.

  1. 12.           LETTER FROM QUARLES AND BRADY 2/11/2011: (EXHIBIT (B)

12.1.               Asserts representation of US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4

12.2.               Does not assert representation of Specialized Loan Services, Chevy Chase Funding LLC, First Magnus Financial Corporation, Mortgage Electronic registration Systems, or Cal-Western.

12.3.               Demands possession for US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4

 

UNPUBLISHED AZ APPELLATE DECISION ON IMPROPER SERVICE VOIDS FORCIBLE DETAINER

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

SEE FHLM V TIETJEN LACK OF PROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS CV20100212

Before you start thinking that this decision is of little consequence, consider this: First Magnus cases are riddled with service problems just as most of the cases are filled with fabrications, forgeries and misrepresentations. This Court might reconsider its decision to make this case unavailable to be cited as precedent when it starts seeing more of these appeals. I know of one case where the Judge actually threatened to cuff the party and wait for service in court.

But read the case carefully because it is correct as to its reasoning. You can easily waive service of process by asking for anything other than dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The converse mistake is also being made where once the Judge has ruled, the homeowner fails to assert defenses for fear of it being construed as a waiver of the original objection to service. Once the Judge rules, all defenses should be raised.

While this case is NOT some great victory for homeowners across the state of Arizona nor anywhere else, it is another incremental step of the court system in scrutinizing the actions of the supposed lenders. It also reveals some pique by the appellate judges about the cavalier attitude of trial judges towards homeowners in ignoring the express public policy of the State of Arizona that foreclosures are a bad thing for the state as well as the homeowners. The legislature passed that language, not some wild-eyed blogger. Look it up.

 

Finding WAMU Securitizations

FROM an unidentified researcher:

Okay, So in all of my digging I have unearthed so many things I can’t start to explain it all but thought if I can save others the time and energy I most certainly will.

So here is what I know so far and if others have info please share.

Washington Mutual was the LARGEST!! bank failure in the history of this country. Why? Guess.

The value of the bank as estimated before the FDIC stepped in was 321 Billion give or take. What did it sell for to Chase with the FDIC help?
@ 1.9 Billion of .005 cents ish on the dollar

I wonder what they know that we don’t? Fraud mostly

So in researching your loan if you ended up with them as your servicer chances are you were part of the mess and you thought they were only a bank that you made payments to, right?

Well, you are not alone.

They did business with originator banks(fake pretending lenders that are really brokers) of the like of:

First Magnus Financial(bankruptcy in AZ)
Countrywide(Imploded and is now BofA)
Plaza Home Mortgage-active
First Horizon-active
Alliance Bancorp-unsure
Residential Funding-unsure
Mortgage IT
Steward Financial
UBS

This comes from my knowledge of the wonderful Neg Am Option ARM and may have many more players. Either way alot of the above lenders used a warehouse line of credit to fund the loan and then sell it to WAMU for securitization.

1) I am attaching a link to the WAMU Seller’s guide which explains the underwriting and the way the files are to be delivered etc.
Pay attention to the BLANK endorsement requirement on assignments(Why?)

They also make a point of keeping WAMU’s name out as the purchaser of the loans which I would say is a concealment issue. Add that to the MERS situation and you have more non-transparency

https://www.wamumsc.com/sellerguide/reports/pdf/msc_seller_all.pdf

2) Second is the Servicer Guide which explains the servicing procedures etc:

https://www.wamumsc.com/servicerguide/reports/msc_servicer_all.pdf

3) Third is a master Prospectus filed with the SEC which explains all of the advanced calculus that goes into confusing all but three humans on earth.

http://www.secinfo.com/dScj2.u2p2.htm#c38e

4) Then each bundle of securities gets an individual prospectus to go with it:

http://www.secinfo.com/dsvRa.v32u.htm

5) When they submit the bundle they list all of the loans in the trust at the time of creation. Here is what that looks like. This one has originating lenders names and the loans by number:

http://www.secinfo.com/d16VAy.u5c.htm

and another without lender names:

http://www.secinfo.com/d16VAy.vyb.htm

6) Here is a Pooling and Servicing Agreement that goes through the process of creating the securities and the pool of mortgage loans etc.:

http://www.secinfo.com/d16VAy.u83.d.htm

Here are various lawsuits that are filed against WAMU from investors that I have found so far. The last one is a link to the WAMU bankruptcy case and all of the documents that go with it. Chase and WAMU are battling over billions of assets. Interesting reading and gives details of underwriting and appraisal fraud:

http://securities.stanford.edu/1043/WAMUQ00_01/20091030_f01c_090155…

http://securities.stanford.edu/1042/WAHUQ_01/20091123_r01c_0900037.pdf

WAMU BK filing and case with Chase

http://www.kccllc.net/wamu

You may or may not be able to find if your loan is included in the above. You can narrow the search down to the year in which you closed your loan and search the above www.secinfo.com site and find the classes for your timeframe. Once you find the trust(WMALT 200? such and such) you can search the attachments for a FWP file and search through by zip code and see if you are included.

If you log into the secinfo site it may require you to register for free to continue access.

I hope this helps you find more info on your loan WAMU/CHASE loan and if you need help please let me know.

I will keep adding as I go so if anyone else has info please add it to the pile. I will try to keep it semi organized so that it is easy to find.

Happy reading!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,118 other followers

%d bloggers like this: