MORTGAGE ELCTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. V LISA MARIE CHONG, LENARD E SCHWARTZER, BANKRUUPTCY TRUSTEE, ET AL

Dist Ct. Case No. 2-09-CV-00661-KJD-L

Bankr. Ct Case No. BK-S-07-16645-LBR

MERS_Hawkins-DistCtAffirmsBK

Appeal by MERS from Bankruptcy Court decision denying MERS’ motion for lift of automatic stay in 18 cases. Affirmed by District Court.

The significance of this decision is that it gives a simple explanation for the findings by dozens of other judges. Here are the salient points of this decision:

  1. Just because the document SAYS that an entity is the beneficiary doesn’t mean that is either true or dispositive. It is merely an allegation that is subject to the test of judicial process. The courts look to”Substance over form” rather than the other way around. Otherwise ANYONE could come in with paperwork of any kind and whether it was right or not, make a successful claim against you. [Litigation Hint: You only want to pay your real creditor, not some imposter. So you raise the question in a credible way and seek expedited discovery to show you are not trying to delay anything. After all the answers and paperwork you are seeking should have been in the possession of the forecloser before they initiated proceedings.)
  2. In the context of a motion for lift from stay, the burden is on the movant (MERS in this case) to establish to prove it is the real party in interest. This is a standing issue and can be raised at any time because standing is jurisdictional. In order to prove their status as real party in interest they must now file a pleading that contains the story of how they got to be the real party in interest.
  3. The Judge ruled that since MERS, by design, neither took in any money nor paid it out it could not be the real party in interest. A real party in interest is one who has advanced actual money in the transaction, while MERS serves only as a “bookkeeping” service in a shell game designed to confuse or obscure the identity of the real party in interest.
  4. The same logic applied to its claim that it was a beneficiary. MERS produced no evidence that they ever advanced any money to fund the loan, admitted that they would not lose money if the obligation not was paid and could not show that they were in fact (as counsel had represented to the court) an authorized agent for the real creditor. An essential background or context to this ruling is that MERS refused to identify the real party in interest, who would be the real beneficiary of the promise to pay, or obligation.
  5. The breakthrough of this opinion was that a statement in a document, whether recorded or not, is not a proof of the matter asserted. The matter asserted was that MERS was a beneficiary and their only reason for saying so is that the deed of trust said it. While the Judge would give the benefit of a reputable presumption that a recitation in a document is true, the presumption is eviscerated merely by challenge based upon (a) information to the contrary, like a expert written signed and perhaps notarized report and (b) and references to the MERS’ Website where it quite explicitly says it will take no interest in the obligation,note or mortgage.
    1. At that point it is the burden of MERS to file a pleading that tells the story of why it is the real party in interest.
    2. Even before that pleading is filed, you seek expedited discovery and an expedited evidentiary hearing on this issue alone. Here is where the rubber meets the road. An attorney’s rhetoric is neither information nor evidence. An objection to the lawyer’s comments is appropriate seeking to have the lawyer contain his comments to either matters that are already in evidence (I.e, accepted by the judge and stamped as such by the clerk) or legal matters that would effective the quality or credibility of the evidence. Instead he will try to replace their burden of proof with rhetoric — the old two-step. If the lawyer wants his rhetoric treated as true, then he must become a factual witness, and probably quit the case because he is a material witness. In any event, if he chooses to represent facts to be accepted by the court into evidence, then like any other witness he must take the witness stand, be sworn in,establish his first hand knowledge (personal knowledge) of the events, how he came into possession of this knowledge and who else has knowledge regarding these documents. He would be subject to cross examination which is the subject to the lessons I am preparing for laymen and lawyers.

PRACTICE NOTE: Here was a Judge who “got it.” He was alarmed that the wrong party was in court and curious as to why the right party was not present. That is the nub of your strategy and tactics. The potential invalidity or enforceability of the obligation, note or mortgage is a secondary, deeper issue that should arise only after it is clear that, as here, MERS did not have the note or other documents to show any standing and even admitted it, tried to withdraw its motion but was NOT ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION TO LIFT STAY ON THE TRUSTEE’S OBJECTION. 27 cases went down with this ruling. Why did MERS try to withdraw the motion? In my opinion it was because the argument had shifted from theoretical legal argument to hard facts.

EVIDENCE NOTE: There are substantial differences between rhetoric (argument), information, and evidence. Those who know the differences are more likely to prevail than those who don’t.

Of particular note is the Court’s mention that while the Deed of Trust NAMED MERS as beneficiary of the note, there was no mention of the identity of the CURRENT beneficial owner of the note. And perhaps of even greater significance is the failure to identity any successors in interest. This is the case in securitized obligations, notes, and mortgages even where MERS is NOT involved.

12 Responses

  1. I just received a copy of my Deed of Trust in which the lender is named along with the title company from 2006. The original lender is Decision One Mortgae Company and the title company was Grand Canyon Title Company. It was sold to Countrywide and then as we know Bank of America took over Countrywide’s business issues. All have been MERS transactions. Shouldn’t the Deed of Trust reflect the name of the current owner of the mortgage? And why would Bank of America use Recontrust Company to initiate foreclosure proceedings against our property? I initially requested a copy of my Deed of Trust from Recontrust and they told me that Bank of America would have it. This past June 2011 we were approved for a short sale program and foreclosure proceedings were suspended. It seems that everytime the deed exchanges hand it should be updated with the appropriate holders of the note. Any comments of suggestions? It all seems shady to me.

    Like

  2. I found the MERS servicer ID site last night and found my loans listed with MIN. Today, it shows no record, NO MIN. I tried several times and made sure I had no typos. Could this be some kind of trap? Odd that the site showed up suddenly. Maybe the system is keeping track of borrowers who are aware of the MERS issue. Then again, maybe my trust level is severely battered and my paranoia poked and stirred too much.

    Like

  3. […] MORTGAGE ELCTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. V LISA MARIE CHONG, LENARD E … […]

    Like

  4. Please contact us we are in Minnesota. We are souvergin and have our status and standing recorded into the public records. We understand all the fraud in our mortgage and it has more than the adverage. We have served all the said lenders & Mers to, Third parties, Sheriff, County Attorney, Attorney General, County Recorder, Examiner of Titles, The Title company, the title insurance company, and third party scum realtors, The News paper of record the Cease and decit all ad. and some to verify under oath the debt they claimed we owed. they went silent. They still moved forward they foreclosed on our home Dec 8, 2009 even with out Power of attorney. We were ignoranat when we thought we were taking out a loan but as you know it was our signature that created the funds into circulation and we know it was a one sided pledge we wer tricked into. We also know and understand the UCC and have also included a waiver of tort into all of the affidavits we have served upon the crook through a notary witness to make record of their responses which have been zero. We have millions in UCC liens already and more to record. We know that this is nothing more than a salvage claim, $65.00 and a Ad. Today we picked up a copy of our title the cooks already recorded themselves on title and recorded pergery in the record stating the a process server served my husand the foreclosure documents. He threw them in our yard and we voided them for cause and returned them to the third party interloper attorney the debt has never been verified. We have so much on them. We have have many corrupt public officials no one will show us the black letter of the law and we have the records packed with their admittance and will be recording more. This is Fraud and perjury tand treason to the highest! Please contact us 651-334-7083

    Like

  5. The Architecture Of The Scam (Goldman .et.al.)

    The Wall Street Journal has put forward an article that adds color to the general view I have always held about securitization, risk-shedding, and what I allege amounts to organized, systemic fraud by our “big banks.”

    While they focused on Goldman Sachs, it is a serious error to maintain focus there as a “universal” or “sole” villain. Quite to the contrary – the entire financial system became one gigantic fraud machine during the last 20 and especially the last 10 years.

    Nonetheless, let’s walk through and identify the scams that were built into this model:

    Goldman Sachs Group Inc. played a bigger role than has been publicly disclosed in fueling the mortgage bets that nearly felled American International Group Inc.

    Of course.

    In Goldman’s biggest deal, it acted as a middleman between AIG and banks, taking on the risk of as much as $14 billion of mortgage-related investments. Then Goldman insured that risk with one trading partner—AIG, according to the Journal’s analysis and people familiar with the trades.

    This sounds ok, right? You take on a risk, then you insure against something going wrong. This is how one does business. Except….

    The banks wanted protection in case the housing market tanked. Many turned to Goldman, which effectively insured the securities against losses. Then, to cover its own potential losses, Goldman bought protection from AIG, in the form of credit-default swaps.

    Goldman charged more than AIG for the protection, so it was able to pocket the difference, making millions while moving the default risks to AIG, according to people familiar with the trades.

    Here’s the definition of the problem: Exactly how did AIG price the protection at less than Goldman?

    One of them was wrong in their assessment of the risk.

    But that’s ok – people take on risk all the time, and at times they guess wrong. This is what makes a market, and if things ended here it would all be ok.

    But it didn’t end here.

    A Goldman spokesman said that between mid-2007 and early 2008, Goldman showed AIG “market price levels” at which trades could be undone, allowing AIG to decrease its risk, but “AIG refused to accept that the market was deteriorating.”

    When Goldman didn’t get as much collateral as it wanted from AIG, in 2007 and 2008 it bought protection against a default of AIG itself from other banks.

    But wait a second – I thought AIG had prudently underwrote those original CDS? No?

    What has Goldman said about this? Well…..

    “What is lost in the discussion is that AIG assumed billions of dollars in risk it was unable to manage,” the Goldman spokesman added.

    Really? But Goldman was willing to buy that protection from a firm that was unable to manage their risk.

    This goes back to what I have said since The Market Ticker began:

    If I make a loan to you that has a risk-adjusted return of 300 basis points (that is, 3%) over Treasuries of the same maturity, that is all the return that is available in the transaction.

    Each and every person who handles that transaction demands some amount of money to do so, as nobody works for free.

    The only way to obtain more than 300 basis points of return from that transaction is to find someone who will enter into a trade that they cannot cover – that is, someone who will go broke and be unable to pay off in the adverse circumstance.

    This is the fundamental scam in finance that has infested the banks and other institutions over the last 20 years – and which accelerated in the 2000s. The entire game rested on the premise of finding someone who would write insurance they could never pay on, or who would utter an “opinion” that the deal had less risk in it than it really did. In point of fact virtually all of the lending risk for all non-standard mortgage instruments written from 2003-2007 was predicated on one and only one thing – property values would never go down.

    Why? Because none of those loans, analyzed dispassionately on the standard “5Cs of credit”, were likely to perform to maturity. None of them.

    This scam is in fact exactly what Paul Volcker was talking about in the piece quoted on the 9th:

    “I wish someone would give me one shred of neutral evidence that financial innovation has led to economic growth — one shred of evidence,” said Mr Volcker, who ran the Fed from 1979 to 1987 and is now chairman of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

    He said that financial services in the United States had increased its share of value added from 2 per cent to 6.5 per cent, but he asked: “Is that a reflection of your financial innovation, or just a reflection of what you’re paid?”

    Right.

    Effectively, what the financial system has done is siphon off an increasing portion of the rents charged for various activities while justifying the increasing prices (that is, lower risk and therefore less reserve against “adverse events”) through concealment via bogus “risk-shifting” and “risk-management” that in fact never really occurred.

    Remember, “rent” is a generic term. We think of it as what you pay to occupy an apartment, but in fact “rent” is charged for the use of capital in all of its forms – as a place to live, as a means of financing investment, as a means of financing speculation. All involve the charging of rent of one form or another, and all the financial system has done over the last 20 years is find ways to increase the amount of rent that lands in the financial system itself – instead of being distributed to the actual owners of the capital that is being lent out!

    The simple reality is that CDOs, CDS and similar articles when used to hedge large quantities of financial instruments or events (such as by a bank) are an artifice. The only way that one can “deal in” CDS and make a profit, as the banks have done, is if someone is willing to sell you protection at less than the true risk-adjusted cost, or you can manage to sell it at higher than the risk-adjusted price.

    Both require that someone be deceived – that is, that someone intentionally misrepresent either by commission or by intentional concealment of material facts.

    This is the definition of fraud!

    Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.

    It is not possible for you to buy protection for less than the actual risk of default from a party who can pay in the event of default. This should be instantly obvious to anyone who applies more than 15 seconds of thought to the problem – on balance it is impossible to insure a pool of risks for less money than the risk of loss across the pool.

    Let’s assume the risk of default is 1% and recovery if there is a default is 50. Therefore, if you have $100 million of such bonds 1% of them, or $1 million worth, will default, and of that $1 million there will be a $500,000 loss.

    The price of purchasing insurance against that pool must always be more than $500,000.

    If it is less then the company writing it will not be able to pay. If it is in fact equal they will not be able to pay, since the company must expend some amount of money (no matter how small) employing their staff and maintaining their facilities (buildings, etc.)

    It is reasonable for someone to buy insurance against a single event, as a single actor, holding a single risk. That’s because their individual risk is large for the return they receive. It is why you buy insurance against a fire in your house – the risk of a fire is small, but the damage if you suffer a fire is large.

    But if you own 100,000 properties dispersed across the nation with no particular concentration you’re an idiot to buy insurance against each and every property having a fire. Why? Because it is axiomatic that you will pay more for the insurance than you will lose to fires! You must – otherwise the insurance company that sells you the policies will go broke and be unable to pay at all!

    The key point here is that when you buy below risk-adjusted cost “insurance” you have in fact bought nothing and are just as exposed as if you had not purchased said “insurance” at all.

    It is therefore never prudent and appropriate for anyone who holds a large enough pool of risk to “transfer” that risk to a third party because the cost of doing so will always be higher than the cost of simply absorbing any losses that occur.

    This must always be the case unless the organization holding the large pool of risks is able to find someone who will write that insurance at a loss. This, in turn can only happen if the entity writing the insurance either (1) is unable to appropriately judge the risk compared to the person purchasing the insurance or (2) is unable to pay if the loss occurs.

    This is the root of the scam folks, and that we refuse to understand and face the math is part and parcel of why it is that we continue to be abused by these large financial interests.

    The sooner we wake up the better, as the math is never, ever wrong.

    Like

  6. Sal,
    Nice find.

    I also found the following:

    When facts indicate a high level of knowledge of or involvement in the lending process, fraud may be pleaded against lenders, underwriters, and assignees with regard to loan origination, loan administration, or loan workouts. See, e.g., Henry v Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. (In re First Alliance Mortgage Co.) (9th Cir 2006) 471 F3d 977, cited in
    §§ 12.5, 12.47N.

    A private lender acting in a fiduciary capacity towards the borrower may be liable for constructive fraud. Warren v Merrill (2006) 143 CA4th 96, 49 CR3d 122, discussed in §§ 12.5, 12.13, 12.45.

    There is a one-year limitations period for a private right of action under the Truth in Lending Act (15 USC §§
    1601-1693r). Pacific Shore Funding v Lozo (2006) 138 CA4th 1342, 1355, 42 CR3d 283, cited in § 12.11.

    Documents from a bank’s files (including a photocopy or microcopy copies) shall not only be deemed original
    records for all purposes, but the documents may be introduced into “evidence in all State and Federal courts or administrative agencies, and shall be admissible to prove any act, transaction, occurrence or event therein recorded.” 12 USC § 1820(f), cited in § 12.32.

    An assignee may defend against claims arising from the acts or omissions of an originating lender by invoking the holder-in-due-course doctrine, adopted in California under Com C § 3302. The doctrine allows the assignee to hold the loan contract free of claims the borrower has against the originator. See, e.g., Wilson v Toussie (ED NY 2003) 260 F Supp 2d 530; Stuckey v Provident Bank (Miss 2005) 912 So2d 859. See discussion in § 12.33A.

    The yield spread premium, a kickback to a broker for steering the borrower into a high interest loan, does not bring a loan within the scope of the coverage under Fin C § 4970 because it is paid by the lender after close of escrow and not by the borrower at or before close of escrow. 127 CA4th at 352. Wolski v Fremont Inv. & Loan (2005) 127 CA4th 347, 25 CR3d 500, cited at § 12.47H.

    The statute of limitations for RESPA violations is one year from the date of the consummation of the loan
    transaction. 12 USC § 2614. There is a division among federal courts as to whether the statute is jurisdictional and thus not subject to equitable tolling. Ninth circuit courts continue to avoid deciding the issue by resolving cases on other grounds. See Kay v Wells Fargo & Co. (ND Cal 2007) 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 55519, cited in § 12.47J.

    When an action is commenced and a lis pendens is filed, the recordation of the lis pendens restarts the 10-year limitations period for actions under the lien pursuant to CC § 882.020. Slintak v Buckeye Retirement Co. (2006) 139 CA4th 575, 43 CR3d 131, cited in §§ 2.8, 3.20, 7.31.

    When there are no other parties making claims to sale proceeds, surplus funds from a trustee’s sale may be
    distributed to a victim of fraud whose identity was used to obtain the property secured by the deed of trust. CTC Real Estate Servs. v Lepe (2006) 140 CA4th 856, 44 CR3d 823, cited in § 2.79.

    In resolving disputes over claims to surplus funds from a trustee’s sale, where a judgment lien has attached after a trustor has declared a homestead exemption, the judgment lien is reduced by the amount of the homestead exemption. Title Trust Deed Serv. Co. v Pearson (2005) 132 CA4th 168, 33 CR3d 311, cited in § 2.83.

    In cases involving fiduciary fraud, when neither recission damages (CC § 3343) nor out-of-pocket tort damages (CC §§ 1709, 3333) will fully compensate the plaintiff, the award may be based in part on the subsequent appreciation of the property that the plaintiff otherwise would not have sold but for its reliance on the fiduciary. Strebel v Brenlar
    Invs., Inc. (2006) 135 CA4th 740, 37 CR3d 699, cited in § 2.96.

    A timely claim for rescission under the Truth in Lending Act (15 USC §§ 1601-1666j) is not lost if the borrower has refinanced. Pacific Shore Funding v Lozo (2006) 138 CA4th 1342, 42 CR3d 283, cited in § 7.33A.

    The automatic stay of 11 USC § 362 does not apply to or make void sales or transfers of property initiated by the debtor, even when the transaction was without bankruptcy court approval. Irwin Mortgage Co. v. Tippett (In re Tippett) (BAP 9th Cir 2006) 338 BR 82, cited in §§ 7.84, 11.15.

    The Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act (12 USC §§ 3801-3806) does not preempt California’s per diem interest limitations under Fin C § 50204(a) and CC § 2948.5. Quicken Loans, Inc. v Wood (9th Cir 2006) 449 F3d 944, cited in §§ 8.14, 8.41, 8.49A, 12.11.

    A court has held that CC § 2941 creates no duties or obligation for escrow holders. Markowitz v Fidelity Nat’l Title Co. (2006) 142 CA4th 508, 48 CR3d 217, cited in § 8.84.

    Under 11 USC § 105(a), bankruptcy courts possess inherent authority to impose sanctions for patterns of bad faith conduct that transcended conduct addressed by particular rules or statutes. Price v Lehtinen (In re Lehtinen) (BAP 9th Cir 2005) 332 BR 404, cited in § 11.17.

    Whether or not the value of the property is sufficient to cover a creditor’s claim, a debtor is prohibited from using 11 USC § 506(a) and (d) to strip off the creditor’s judgment lien. Concannon v Imperial Capital Bank (In re Concannon) (BAP 9th Cir 2006) 338 BR 90, cited in § 11.86.

    In 2005, the legislature revised provisions of the Civil Code that govern notice procedures and postponements in nonjudicial foreclosures (trustee sales). See CC § 2924b(b) and revisions to §§ 2.20, 2.27, 2.30, 12.74; CC § 2924g(c)-(d) and revisions to §§ 2.70, 2.72A, 2.72B, 10.67. The most significant requires a new notice of sale if a foreclosure sale is postponed for more than 365 days.

    A nonjudicial foreclosure (trustee) sale is invalid if the trustor and the beneficiary have agreed to reinstate the loan, but neglected to inform the trustee of their agreement prior to sale of property to a third party purchaser. Bank of America v La Jolla Group (2005) 129 CA4th 706; 28 CR3d 825, cited in §§ 2.38A, 7.63.

    A professional buyer of distressed property who purchases property at a nonjudicial foreclosure (trustee) sale for a below market price may qualify as a “bona fide purchaser,” and trustee sale is valid when beneficiary had breached repayment agreement and BFP had no knowledge of the agreement. Melendrez v D & I Inv., Inc. (2005) 127 CA4th 1238, 26 CR3d 413, cited in §§ 2.38, 2.43, 2.61, 6.78, 7.57, 7.61-7.62, 10.18, 12.54.

    A nonjudicial foreclosure (trustee) sale will not be found invalid for a “slight” irregularity such as a premature notice of sale. Knapp v Doherty (2004) 123 CA4th 76, 20 CR3d 1, cited in §§ 2.46, 2.61, 7.57.

    An action to set aside a conveyance following a judicial foreclosure must be brought within 90 days under CCP § 701.680. A court of appeal strictly construed this statute and held that the failure to file the action within this 90-day period renders the sale absolute. First Fed. Bank v Fegen (2005) 131 CA4th 798, 31 CR3d 853. See § 3.78.

    In cases that may affect the interpretation of lending documents, two appellate courts have come to opposite conclusions regarding the application of California law to virtually identical attorney fee provisions in contracts containing choice-of-law clauses favoring New York law. See ABF Capital Corp. v Grove Props. Co. (2005) 126 CA4th 204, 23 CR3d 803 (fourth appellate district holds California law applies to provision) and ABF Capital Corp. v
    Berglass (2005) 130 CA4th 825, 838, 30 CR3d 588 (second appellate district holds California law does not apply to provision), cited in §§ 4.58, 7.21.

    A borrower may be held personally liable, and antideficiency protections are unavailable, for attorney fees incurred by a lender in defending against the borrower’s postsale attack on a nonjudicial foreclosure. Jones v Union Bank of Cal. (2005) 127 CA4th 542, 25 CR3d 783, cited in §§ 7.20A, 7.56.

    A debtor may be entitled to emotional distress damages when a creditor violates the automatic stay even if the debtor has not suffered any financial damage. In awarding attorney fees, the court has discretion to determine if the number of hours expended and the hourly rate were reasonable. Dawson v Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. (In re Dawson)
    (9th Cir 2004) 390 F3d 1139, cited in § 11.17.

    Thanks,
    Dan Edstrom
    dmedstrom@hotmail.com

    Like

  7. It seems to me the whole MERS thing is outright illegal. In a perfect world, any mortgage involving MERS should be declared null and void. The down side to this is that the banks effectively own the government, making it next to impossible for the courts to rule against their “masters”. Ergo, the battle rages on.

    Steve
    99Libra@gmail.com

    Like

  8. Great Success and a BIG SLAP on the dirty face of MERS and its members who are always in bed with each other in looting the poor and innocent people.Thieves a day will come that you will not find a way to go and wait for that time when we will chop you down and remove your dirty and stinking skin. Just see and wait you SOBs.

    Like

  9. I’ll say it again: MERS, the judges have called your bluff and found you wanting.

    I didn’t realize that the “corporate resolution” that “allows” employees of servicers to act as employees of MERS was online. I read over it and it seems to me that even according to this resolution, servicer employees are not allowed to do the things they’re doing. Or I should say, they’re allowed by MERS policy, but not by LAW–unfortunately for MERS, there is a distinction.

    For instance, the resolution says that these temporary “assistant secretaries and vice presidents” of MERS can do the following:

    “assign the lien of any mortgage loan naming MERS as the mortgagee when the Member is also the current promissory note-holder, or if the mortgage loan is registered on the MERS System, is shown to be registered to the Member; ”

    Notice that although none of the conditions in the quote above are make it legal for MERS to assign anything, but at least they name the least bad one first–MERS doing dirty work for a note-holder (even though MERS does not have the authority to do even that if challenged in court).

    The second condition, that a mortgage loan be “registered on the MERS System” or to be “registered to the Member,” is laughable. The company policy of MERS is NOT the law. Being “registered” with MERS is legally meaningless, but unfortunately county recorders and judges will treat these assignments generated by registration on the the MERS system unless we challenge them. Or as Neil often says–challenge everything, assume nothing.

    Just do a search for “MERS Corporate Resolution” and you’ll find the document.

    Like

  10. Dear Sir,

    As you know, I have the pleasure of defending myself Pro se.

    I received your back dated Notice of Hearing on December 10, 2009. You have not served me a summons, to this day, nor have you served me a complaint and you have back dated the NOH, will you then claim that this is a typo?.

    You were successful in confusing me, but, I was able to catch on in time to save my case and to continue to defend my rights, in the court of law. Moreover it is lawyers like you who caused so many pro se litigants to not want to trust a lawyer.

    I doubt that you will prosper with this kind of behavior, your regulators may act on you and the cost they may make you pay could be very high and may not be worth it.

    I consider people like you to be criminals, in the true form of the word. I hope you are not thinking that I will not make haste in bringing all these improper actions, you have taken, which are not lawful, to the attention of the judge and your regulators, as soon as I can. I will go to the department of Justice in DC with this.

    However I have seen the bar not act on crimes as they should, so you must do this with the full knowledge that you know, nothing will happen to you, again I do not know, I am a ” non Lawyer ” right?.” Lawyers are supposed to be educated people”, yeah right.

    I have so many questions, why if you felt that you had such a good case, did you do all this under handed, non lawful stuff?, I believe I can answer this for you, you did not have nothing to sit on, you knew you did not have a case, I can assure you.

    I will not let you get away from me legally, no matter what you do. I know I surprised you, you did not think that a simple pro se litigant could beat you so bad, so quickly right? well good sir you aren’t seen nothing yet, when we meet in court I will show you, what the force of a good pro se litigant is, I will get legal revenge, for all the pro se litigants and other consumers you have so plundered.

    My question is therefore, how will you get this backdated NOH on the record? Or do you have too? I am not a lawyer but I will find out soon, am I to assume you have someone on the inside of the clerk’s office doing your dirty work. How will you explain this to a Judge? I see why you wish to attend the hearing on the phone; do you think that the Judge will allow you to do this?

    I believe you will pass this case to another useless warm body, who will simply say, “judge it was not me”. If and when you do attend this hearing please remember to bring with you the wet ink signature, on the original contract I signed, and I also want all the assignments, plus I want to see the PSA, you may bring this to me now or stone wall me until, I fight you forever, and the Judge will eventually compel you to give me the discovery I want.

    Also I would like, if you can, let your clients know that you should bring a signed check, as I will demand as much money from you as I could possibly get, from your clients and from you.

    Actually I prefer if you bring my money for me in a box, I do not trust a check from you, you may be going to jail and lawyers in Florida do not have D and O insurance or any kind of insurance at all, plus the bar only gives $2500.00 compensation, but if you do insist on giving me a check, I will demand a bankers check, which is certified funds, and I also want the titles for the two cars, clear and clean.

    I will move the court to grant me Judgment and a lot of money damages. I am keeping those two new cars and I will not be ever paying you at all, never. I want the titles in y name forthwith.

    Have a merry Christmas and I will see you in the New Year, in court. I am thinking of moving the case up a day or so, if I do decide to ask you, I will file a motion with the court and I will copy you, to ask your permission.

    Oh and before I forget I may move the case to the federal court I understand that they really do like lawyers like you, plus I get much more compensation for the damages you and your clients cased me.

    If and or, by any sliver of chance, you do have any errors and omissions policies, or any insurance at all, please send them this communication, and please send me a copy of the certificate, so I may claim on it. I wish to collect the money from this premium may you have paid, as this is now my right, a right I herein so reserve.

    But I know, or I may well make positive assumption, that you have so such insurance; most lawyers do not have such insurance, in discovery I will ask this question. Also please make your colleges and the workers who assist you, know that they also may be liable to me, for damages, and that they may also spend time in that dirty lockup, with you.

    I am sure I can check your past cases in the many courts you operate in and I am sure I can find several cases where you pulled the same cheap trick, if I do find such a consistence, I will bring a case of civil RICO case to your little doorstep.

    Regards

    Mario Kenny

    Like

  11. California Mortgage and Deed of Trust Practice § 1.39 (3d ed Cal CEB 2008)

    § 1.39 (1) Must Be Obligee

    The beneficiary must be an obligee of the secured obligation (usually the payee of a note), because otherwise the deed of trust in its favor is meaningless. Watkins v Bryant (1891) 91 C 492, 27 P 775; Nagle v Macy (1858) 9 C 426. See §§ 1.8-1.19 on the need for an obligation. The deed of trust is merely an incident of the obligation and has no existence apart from it. Goodfellow v Goodfellow (1933) 219 C 548, 27 P2d 898; Adler v Sargent (1895) 109 C 42, 41
    P 799; Turner v Gosden (1932) 121 CA 20, 8 P2d 505. The holder of the note, however, can enforce the deed of trust
    whether or not named as beneficiary or mortgagee. CC § 2936; see § 1.23.

    Like

  12. Good Morning!

    So many times I find information here that is so timely it’s spooky!

    I quote from the above:

    “He would be subject to cross examination which is the subject to the lessons I am preparing for laymen and lawyers.”

    In my case(s) – I exercised Rescission and “lenders” subsequently failed to comply in 20 days. (it’s actually been more like 6 months now)

    Right now I’m preparing all my loan docs for Initial Reviews and then Forensic Audits.

    Meanwhile, if the “lender” or any of their agents sneak around my back and seek summary judgment or unilateral hearing without my knowledge, resulting in my inability/failure to answer, I can race off and seek BK protection with the claim my homes are unsecured due to Rescission.

    Thanks! (I hope this is from Brad. Neil you are supposed to be resting!!!!!) 😉

    Like

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: