CALIFORNIA FRAUD DEFINED

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Sorry the supporting PDF documents did not come through but if any lawyers out there are interested and send me a replie email and I will forward the supporting PDF copies along with the text

by Forrest Hazard

Hold onto your hats Folks…

There are not just two separate frauds here: I finally figured out how to stop MERS [Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc] as foreclosing entity and assignee in California and possibly throughout the United States and it applies to all previous mortgages as well Follow the logic:

The block in totality applies to every mortgage entered into or foreclosed upon since the name MERS {Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc] was suspended by official action of the Franchise Tax Board and the Secretary of State the name cannot be used by MERS [either California or Delaware] because of Section 201B of the Corporartion as both Names were/are identical and still remain suspended thereby invoking at least during the known period of suspension [since 2004] [See below] and activate the following bar to conducting any real estate transaction

(d) If a taxpayer’s powers, rights, and privileges are forfeited or suspended pursuant to Section 23301, 23301.5, or 23775, without limiting any other consequences of such forfeiture or suspension, the taxpayer shall not be entitled to sell, transfer, or exchange real property in California during the period of forfeiture or suspension

CALIFORNIA CODES CORPORATIONS CODE SECTION 200-213

Undoubtedly two identical names are likely to deceive the public

201. (a) The Secretary of State shall not file articles setting forth a name in which “bank,” ” trust,” “trustee” or related words appear, unless the certificate of approval of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions is attached thereto. This subdivision does not apply to the articles of any corporation subject to the Banking Law on which is endorsed the approval of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions.

(b) The Secretary of State shall not file articles which set forth a name which is likely to mislead the public or which is the same as, or resembles so closely as to tend to deceive, the name of a domestic corporation, the name of a foreign corporation which is authorized to transact intrastate business or has registered its name pursuant to Section 2101, a name which a foreign corporation has assumed under subdivision (b) of Section 2106, a name which will become the record name of a domestic or foreign corporation upon the effective date of a filed corporate instrument where there is a delayed effective date pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 110 or subdivision

c) of Section 5008, or a name which is under reservation for another corporation pursuant to this section, Section 5122,Section 7122, or Section 9122, except that a corporation may adopt a name that is substantially the same as an existing domestic corporation or foreign corporation which is authorized to transact intrastate business or has registered its name pursuant to Section 2101, upon proof of consent by such domestic or foreign corporation and a finding by the Secretary of State that under the circumstances the public is not likely to be misled. The use by a corporation of a name in violation of this section may be enjoined notwithstanding the filing of its articles by the Secretary of State. (c) Any applicant may, upon payment of the fee prescribed thereforin the Government Code, obtain from the Secretary of State a certificate of reservation of any name not prohibited by subdivision(b), and upon the issuance of the certificate the name stated therein shall be reserved for a period of 60 days.

The Secretary of State shall not, however, issue certificates reserving the same name for two or more consecutive 60-day periods to the same applicant or for the use or benefit of the same person, partnership, firm or corporation; nor shall consecutive reservations be made by or for the use or benefit of the same person, partnership, firm or corporation of names so similar as to fall within the prohibitions of subdivision (b).

23303. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 23301 or 23301.5,any corporation that transacts business or receives income within the period of its suspension or forfeiture shall be subject to tax under the provisions of this chapter.

Identically MERS has no exemption to use of the state Real Property registery authorizing it to use EDS/LPS or MERSREGISTRY therefore they owe significant fees under the following statute: [Unjust Enrichment] These are triggered any time MERS conmducts a foreclosure or completes an assignment of s mortgage on part of its primary

MERS either California or Delaware is additionally in violation of the following state-county statute

CALIFORNIA CODES REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE SECTION 11911-11913

11911. (a) The board of supervisors of any county or city and county, by an ordinance adopted pursuant to this part, may impose, on each deed, instrument, or writing by which any lands, tenements, or other realty sold within the county shall be granted, assigned,transferred, or otherwise conveyed to, or vested in, the purchaser or purchasers, or any other person or persons, by his or their direction, when the consideration or value of the interest or property conveyed (exclusive of the value of any lien or encumbrance remaining thereon at the time of sale) exceeds one hundred dollars($100) a tax at the rate of fifty-five cents ($0.55) for each five hundred dollars ($500) or fractional part thereof. (b) The legislative body of any city which is within a county which has imposed a tax pursuant to subdivision (a) may, by an ordinance adopted pursuant to this part, impose, on each deed,instrument, or writing by which any lands, tenements, or other realty sold within the city shall be granted, assigned, transferred, or otherwise conveyed to, or vested in, the purchaser or purchasers, or any other person or persons, by his or their direction, when the consideration or value of the interest or property conveyed(exclusive of the value of any lien or encumbrance remaining thereonat the time of sale) exceeds one hundred dollars ($100), a tax at the rate of one-half the amount specified in subdivision (a) for eachfive hundred dollars ($500) or fractional part thereof. (c) A credit shall be allowed against the tax imposed by a countyordinance pursuant to subdivision (a) for the amount of any tax dueto any city by reason of an ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision(b). No credit shall be allowed against any county tax for a city tax which is not in conformity with this part.

11912. Any tax imposed pursuant to Section 11911 shall be paid byany person who makes, signs or issues any document or instrument subject to the tax, or for whose use or benefit the same is made,signed or issued.

Causes of action are set forth below:

CALIFORNIA CODES CIVIL CODE SECTION 1565-1590

1571. Fraud is either actual or constructive.

1572. Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract:

1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;

2. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true,though he believes it to be true;

3. The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; 4. A promise made without any intention of performing it; or,

5. Any other act fitted to deceive.

1573. Constructive fraud consists:

1. In any breach of duty which, without an actually fraudulent intent, gains an advantage to the person in fault, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; or,

2. In any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent, without respect to actual fraud.

1574. Actual fraud is always a question of fact.

QUESTIONS OF FACT ARE DECIDED BY JURIES

CALIFORNIA CODES CIVIL CODE SECTION 1708-1725

1708. Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights.

1709. One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers.

1710. A deceit, within the meaning of the last section, is either:

1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;

2. The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true;

3. The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it,or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact; or,

4. A promise, made without any intention of performing it.

1711. One who practices a deceit with intent to defraud the public,or a particular class of persons, is deemed to have intended to defraud every individual in that class, who is actually misled by the deceit.

1712. One who obtains a thing without the consent of its owner, or by a consent afterwards rescinded, or by an unlawful exaction which the owner could not at the time prudently refuse, must restore it to the person from whom it was thus obtained, unless he has acquired a title thereto superior to that of such other person, or unless the transaction was corrupt and unlawful on both sides.

Is MERS responsible for the actions taken by corporate signors Officers California law says YES

2337. An instrument within the scope of his authority by which an agent intends to bind his principal, does bind him if such intent is plainly inferable from the instrument itself.

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE AGENCY SECTIONS 2295-2300, 2304-2326, 2330-2339, 2342-2345, 2349-2351

2295. An agent is one who represents another, called the principal, in dealings with third persons. Such representation is called agency.

2296. Any person having capacity to contract may appoint an agent, and any person may be an agent.

2297. An agent for a particular act or transaction is called a special agent. All others are general agents.

2298. An agency is either actual or ostensible.

2299. An agency is actual when the agent is really employed by the principal.

2300. An agency is ostensible when the principal intentionally, or by want of ordinary care, causes a third person to believe another to be his agent who is not really employed by him.

2304. An agent may be authorized to do any acts which his principal might do, except those to which the latter is bound to give his personal attention.

2305. Every act which, according to this Code, may be done by or to any person, may be done by or to the agent of such person for that purpose, unless a contrary intention clearly appears.

2306. An agent can never have authority, either actual or ostensible, to do an act which is, and is known or suspected by the person with whom he deals, to be a fraud upon the principal.

2307. An agency may be created, and an authority may be conferred, by a precedent authorization or a subsequent ratification.

2308. A consideration is not necessary to make an authority, whether precedent or subsequent, binding upon the principal.

2309. An oral authorization is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.

2310. A ratification can be made only in the manner that would have been necessary to confer an original authority for the act ratified, or where an oral authorization would suffice, by accepting or retaining the benefit of the act, with notice thereof.

2311. Ratification of part of an indivisible transaction is a ratification of the whole.

2312. A ratification is not valid unless, at the time of ratifying the act done, the principal has power to confer authority for such an act.

2313. No unauthorized act can be made valid, retroactively, to the prejudice of third persons, without their consent.

2314. A ratification may be rescinded when made without such consent as is required in a contract, or with an imperfect knowledge of the material facts of the transaction ratified, but not otherwise.

2315. An agent has such authority as the principal, actually or ostensibly, confers upon him.

2316. Actual authority is such as a principal intentionally confers upon the agent, or intentionally, or by want of ordinary care, allows the agent to believe himself to possess.

2317. Ostensible authority is such as a principal, intentionally or by want of ordinary care, causes or allows a third person to believe the agent to possess.

2318. Every agent has actually such authority as is defined by this Title, unless specially deprived thereof by his principal, and has even then such authority ostensibly, except as to persons who have actual or constructive notice of the restriction upon his authority.

2319. An agent has authority:
1. To do everything necessary or proper and usual, in the ordinary course of business, for effecting the purpose of his agency; and,
2. To make a representation respecting any matter of fact, not including the terms of his authority, but upon which his right to use his authority depends, and the truth of which cannot be determined by the use of reasonable diligence on the part of the person to whom the representation is made.

2320. An agent has power to disobey instructions in dealing with the subject of the agency, in cases where it is clearly for the interest of his principal that he should do so, and there is not time to communicate with the principal.

2321. When an authority is given partly in general and partly in specific terms, the general authority gives no higher powers than those specifically mentioned.

2322. An authority expressed in general terms, however broad, does not authorize an agent to do any of the following:
(a) Act in the agent’s own name, unless it is the usual course of business to do so.
(b) Define the scope of the agency.
(c) Violate a duty to which a trustee is subject under Section 16002, 16004, 16005, or 16009 of the Probate Code.

2323. An authority to sell personal property includes authority to warrant the title of the principal, and the quality and quantity of the property.

2324. An authority to sell and convey real property includes authority to give the usual convenants of warranty.

2325. A general agent to sell, who is intrusted by the principal with the possession of the thing sold, has authority to receive the price.

2326. A special agent to sell has authority to receive the price on delivery of the thing sold, but not afterwards.

2330. An agent represents his principal for all purposes within the scope of his actual or ostensible authority, and all the rights and liabilities which would accrue to the agent from transactions within such limit, if they had been entered into on his own account, accrue to the principal.

2331. A principal is bound by an incomplete execution of an authority, when it is consistent with the whole purpose and scope thereof, but not otherwise.

2332. As against a principal, both principal and agent are deemed to have notice of whatever either has notice of, and ought, in good faith and the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, to communicate to the other.

2333. When an agent exceeds his authority, his principal is bound by his authorized acts so far only as they can be plainly separated from those which are unauthorized.

2334. A principal is bound by acts of his agent, under a merely ostensible authority, to those persons only who have in good faith, and without want of ordinary care, incurred a liability or parted with value, upon the faith thereof.

2335. If exclusive credit is given to an agent by the person dealing with him, his principal is exonerated by payment or other satisfaction made by him to his agent in good faith, before receiving notice of the creditor’s election to hold him responsible.

2336. One who deals with an agent without knowing or having reason to believe that the agent acts as such in the transaction, may set off against any claim of the principal arising out of the same, all claims which he might have set off against the agent before notice of the agency.

2337. An instrument within the scope of his authority by which an agent intends to bind his principal, does bind him if such intent is plainly inferable from the instrument itself.

2338. Unless required by or under the authority of law to employ that particular agent, a principal is responsible to third persons for the negligence of his agent in the transaction of the business of the agency, including wrongful acts committed by such agent in and as a part of the transaction of such business, and for his willful omission to fulfill the obligations of the principal.

2339. A principal is responsible for no other wrongs committed by his agent than those mentioned in the last section, unless he has authorized or ratified them, even though they are committed while the agent is engaged in his service.

2342. One who assumes to act as an agent thereby warrants, to all who deal with him in that capacity, that he has the authority which he assumes.

2343. One who assumes to act as an agent is responsible to third persons as a principal for his acts in the course of his agency, in any of the following cases, and in no others:
1. When, with his consent, credit is given to him personally in a transaction;
2. When he enters into a written contract in the name of his principal, without believing, in good faith, that he has authority to do so; or,
3. When his acts are wrongful in their nature.

2344. If an agent receives anything for the benefit of his principal, to the possession of which another person is entitled, he must, on demand, surrender it to such person, or so much of it as he has under his control at the time of demand, on being indemnified for any advance which he has made to his principal, in good faith, on account of the same; and is responsible therefor, if, after notice from the owner, he delivers it to his principal.

2345. The provisions of this Article are subject to the provisions of Part I, Division First, of this Code.

2349. An agent, unless specially forbidden by his principal to do so, can delegate his powers to another person in any of the following cases, and in no others:
1. When the act to be done is purely mechanical;
2. When it is such as the agent cannot himself, and the sub-agent can lawfully perform;
3. When it is the usage of the place to delegate such powers; or,
4. When such delegation is specially authorized by the principal.

2350. If an agent employs a sub-agent without authority, the former is a principal and the latter his agent, and the principal of the former has no connection with the latter.

2351. A sub-agent, lawfully appointed, represents the principal in like manner with the original agent; and the original agent is not responsible to third persons for the acts of the sub-agent.

CALIFORNIA CODES REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE SECTION 23301-23305e

23301. Except for the purposes of filing an application for exempt status or amending the articles of incorporation as necessary either to perfect that application or to set forth a new name, the corporate powers, rights and privileges of a domestic taxpayer may be suspended, and the exercise of the corporate powers, rights and privileges of a foreign taxpayer in this state may be forfeited, if any of the following conditions occur: (a) If any tax, penalty, or interest, or any portion thereof, that is due and payable under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 19001)of Part 10.2, or under this part, either at the time the return is required to be filed or on or before the 15th day of the ninth month following the close of the taxable year, is not paid on or before 6p.m. on the last day of the 12th month after the close of the taxable year. (b) If any tax, penalty, or interest, or any portion thereof, due and payable under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 19001) of Part 10.2, or under this part, upon notice and demand from the Franchise Tax Board, is not paid on or before 6 p.m. on the last day of the 11th month following the due date of the tax. (c) If any liability, or any portion thereof, which is due and payable under Article 7 (commencing with Section 19131) of Chapter 4of Part 10.2, is not paid on or before 6 p.m. on the last day of the 11th month following the date that the tax liability is due and payable.

23301.6. Sections 23301, 23301.5, and 23775 shall apply to a foreign taxpayer only if the taxpayer is qualified to do business in California. A taxpayer that is required under Section 2105 of the Corporations Code to qualify to do business shall not be deemed to have qualified to do business for purposes of this article unless the taxpayer has in fact qualified with the Secretary of State.

23302. (a) Forfeiture or suspension of a taxpayer’s powers, rights,and privileges pursuant to Section 23301, 23301.5, or 23775 shall occur and become effective only as expressly provided in this section in conjunction with Section 21020, which requires notice prior to the suspension of a taxpayer’s corporate powers, rights, and privileges.

(b) The notice requirements of Section 21020 shall also apply to any forfeiture of a taxpayer’s corporate powers, rights, and privileges pursuant to Section 23301, 23301.5, or 23775 and to any voidability pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 23304.1.

(c) The Franchise Tax Board shall transmit the names of taxpayers to the Secretary of State as to which the suspension or forfeiture provisions of Section 23301, 23301.5, or 23775 are or become applicable, and the suspension or forfeiture therein provided for shall thereupon become effective. The certificate of the Secretary of State shall be prima facie evidence of the suspension or forfeiture.

(d) If a taxpayer’s powers, rights, and privileges are forfeited or suspended pursuant to Section 23301, 23301.5, or 23775, without limiting any other consequences of such forfeiture or suspension, the taxpayer shall not be entitled to sell, transfer, or exchange real property in California during the period of forfeiture or suspension.23303. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 23301 or 23301.5,any corporation that transacts business or receives income within the period of its suspension or forfeiture shall be subject to tax underthe provisions of this chapter.

23304.1. (a) Every contract made in this state by a taxpayer during the time that the taxpayer’s corporate powers, rights, and privileges are suspended or forfeited pursuant to Section 23301,23301.5, or 23775 shall, subject to Section 23304.5, be voidable atthe instance of any party to the contract other than the taxpayer.

(b) If a foreign taxpayer that neither is qualified to do business nor has a corporate account number from the Franchise Tax Board,fails to file a tax return required under this part, any contract made in this state by that taxpayer during the applicable period specified in subdivision (c) shall, subject to Section 23304.5, bevoidable at the instance of any party to the contract other than the taxpayer.

(c) For purposes of subdivision (b), the applicable period shall be the period beginning on January 1, 1991, or the first day of the taxable year for which the taxpayer has failed to file a return,whichever is later, and ending on the earlier of the date the taxpayer qualified to do business in this state or the date the taxpayer obtained a corporate account number from the Franchise Tax Board.

(d) If a taxpayer fails to file a tax return required under this part, to pay any tax or other amount owing to the Franchise Tax Board under this part or to file any statement or return required under Section 23772 or 23774, within 60 days after the Franchise Tax Boardmails a written demand therefor, any contract made in this state by the taxpayer during the period beginning at the end of the 60-day demand period and ending on the date relief is granted under Section 23305.1, or the date the taxpayer qualifies to do business in thisstate, whichever is earlier, shall be voidable at the instance of any party to the contract other than the taxpayer. This subdivision shall apply only to a taxpayer if the taxpayer has a corporate account number from the Franchise Tax Board, but has not qualified todo business under Section 2105 of the Corporations Code. In the caseof a taxpayer that has not complied with the 60-day demand, the taxpayer’s name, Franchise Tax Board corporate account number, date of the demand, date of the first day after the end of the 60-day demand period, and the fact that the taxpayer did not within that period pay the tax or other amount or file the statement or return,as the case may be, shall be a matter of public record.23304.5. A party that has the right to declare a contract to be voidable pursuant to Section 23304.1 may exercise that right only in a lawsuit brought by either party with respect to the contract in a court of competent jurisdiction and the rights of the parties to the contract shall not be affected by Section 23304. 1 except to the extent expressly provided by a final judgment of the court, which judgment shall not be issued unless the taxpayer is allowed a reasonable opportunity to cure the voidability under Section 23305.1.If the court finds that the contract is voidable under Section 23304.1, the court shall order the contract to be rescinded. However,in no event shall the court order rescission of a taxpayer’s contract unless the taxpayer receives full restitution of the benefits provided by the taxpayer under the contract.23305. Any taxpayer which has suffered the suspension or forfeiture provided for in Section 23301 or 23301.5 may be relieved there from upon making application therefor in writing to the Franchise Tax Board and upon the filing of all tax returns required under this part, and the payment of the tax, additions to tax, penalties,interest, and any other amounts for nonpayment of which the suspension or forfeiture occurred, together with all other taxes,additions to tax, penalties, interest, and any other amounts due under this part, and upon the issuance by the Franchise Tax Board ofa certificate of revivor. Application for the certificate on behalf of any taxpayer which has suffered suspension or forfeiture may be made by any stockholder or creditor, by a majority of the surviving trustees or directors thereof, by an officer, or by any other person who has interest in the relief from suspension or forfeiture.

CALIFORNIA CODES BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17900-17930

17903. As used in this chapter, “registrant” means a person or entity who is filing or has filed a fictitious business name statement, and who is the legal owner of the business.

17910. Every person who regularly transacts business in this state for profit under a fictitious business name shall do all of the following: (a) File a fictitious business name statement in accordance with this chapter not later than 40 days from the time the registrant commences to transact such business. (b) File a new statement after any change in the facts, in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 17920. (c) File a new statement when refiling a fictitious business name statement.

17910.5. (a) No person shall adopt any fictitious business name which includes “Corporation,” “Corp.,” “Incorporated,” or “Inc.”unless that person is a corporation organized pursuant to the laws of this state or some other jurisdiction.

In 2005 I sued MERS and MERSCORP both successfully I also sued the California Department of Corporartions and California Secretary of State in small claims court I settled those small claims cases for a Certificate of a Non Filing entity and a letter see below

17918. No person transacting business under a fictitious business name contrary to the provisions of this chapter, or his assignee, may maintain any action upon or on account of any contract made, or transaction had, in the fictitious business name in any court of this state until the fictitious business name statement has been executed, filed, and published as required by this chapter.

This is one of the items obtained from that small claims suit

According to the Enforcement Division of the SEC in Washington which I spoke to both under Paul Cox and Mary Schapiro Ace Securities a Chinese Shadow Bank doing business under a Japanese Division of the Karachi stock Exchange fraudulently filed 85000 documents with the SEC and loaned out over 39 Trillion dollars [One trillion dollars is a stack of 100 dollar bills 700 miles in heigth] never paid any state or federal taxes claiming that it was a Delaware business trust [A trust declared to be illegal outside of Delaware by the IRS an abusive trust] but loaned mostly to Bank of America Wachovia Wells Fargo CountryWide Washington Mutual and a host of others including Ownit Mortgage [From CNN Special A house of cards infamy] mostly through HSBC as Trustee and securitized through MERS [Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc]

To this the Franchise Tax Board sent the following response:

In the case of MERS they stated the following:

Apparently they refuse to follow this Corporation law in this matter

All of my documents having been issued by California state and Delaware state regulatory agencies were granted Judicial Notice [Court authenticity] in the courtroom of Judge Laura Halgren September 17 2007 in multiple cases most notably El Cajon California East County San Diego case number 2007-33928. There are 6 – 1000 page folders in that case alone

No action was ever taken by any entity against either MERS or Ace to the best of my knowledge

DFI counsel Kenneth Sayre Peterson stated

The California Attorney General Issued one of many letters seen below

56 Responses

  1. Is anyone aware of a remedy for re-acquiring or reinstating a mortgage loan that originally in 2007 handled and serviced by Wells Fargo and recently sold at auction to FHLMC without knowledge to individual property owner ? Please advise. Could use help on this.

  2. OPPPSSSS – TDSF.com website oddly down? offline ? Hmmmmm. Interesting coincidence

    ian – w ‘anyone’ can file a notice of default – blank form on TD Services website:

    ‘Foreclosure’s Notice of Default’ Foreclosure request screen oddly enough just opens to anyone?

    https : // www . tdsf . com / rqsnod . htm

    TD Services dba TD Escrow Services,

    TD is a partner in a number of networks and a PREMIER provider for several industry providers including MERS.

    Look at cover pages provided in Discovery for “TD ”

    any DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS look for ‘TD’
    All dirty deeds done by the non-judicial state ‘TRUSTEES’ and Sub-stitutue ‘TRUSTEES’ and judicial states robo-firms.

    You are about to launch T.D. Service Company’s on-line request to prepare a notice of default.

    To initiate a foreclosure proceeding, please complete the request form on the following page. You must then forward copies of the applicable documents (as selected on the form) to our office. If you have any questions please contact our office at (800) 843-0260 and ask for a foreclosure specialist.

    By clicking the button below you agree to the following:
    I accept sole responsibility for the information provided to T.D. Service Company via this on-line form for the purpose of preparing foreclosure documents. I understand that this web application is proprietary to T.D. Service Company and is used solely for the purpose of initiating foreclosure proceedings. I have also read and understood T.D. Service Company’s privacy policy regarding on-line transactions.

    Chart of Document Services Outsource Work Flow, click on image, and save document using internet browser, file, save, TD_Doc_Outsource.jpg
    Paste URL and view documents http://www.tdsf.com/graphics/Outsource_flow.jpg

    Web-based Lookups, Electronic Reporting screen can be saved as a document “WEB-STAR” Lien Release Search. Click on the image and browser select ‘File’ save as TD_WEBSTAR_Lien_Release.jpg

    You’ll find in related documents and discovery, ‘Service#’ and ‘Loan#’ and Borrower Name, State, Payoff Date, Property Address. The Nancy Drew investigators will be looking at the screen image integration

    Data inside ‘input screens’ are saved inside databases and those databases used to create checks, wire transfers, falsified DOT’s, DOS,’s, Assignments, Liens, Allonges, Notes, etc

    TD preferred provider of MERS, a transaction partner with LPS, and can accept data for many of TD services INCLUDING LIEN RELEASE, ASSIGNMENT, FORECLOSURE, AND MANY OTHER TRANSACTIONS.

    TD ‘can send’ data ‘back to TD clients in wide variety of formats including:
    XML, hard-copy, txt, csv (spreadsheet default format to import and export data, and others.
    SECURE ‘FTP’
    web services,
    many othe rmethods.
    Reports & Billing on-line applications.
    On-line applications can interface (integrate) with customers’ in-house systems.

    TD partner IBM Business Recocvery Services (BRS).
    TD provides hot site aound nation mirror equipment duplicate TD’s operating environment and config.
    TD Data Security, as required by HUD, TD fully complaint with Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Financial Moderenzation Act) regarding ‘privacy’ of sensitive data. Consumers don’t realize when they sign credit application on-line or on paper, all bank-affiliates and non-bank affiliates globally have access to their data.

    Bruce Gauger, TD’s CIO responsible for TD’s

    ‘Trustee sale information’
    ‘lien releases’
    ‘reconveyance lookup’
    ‘assignment’
    ‘document research inquiryt’
    ‘dedicated FTP’
    ‘other’

    TD owners and benefactors constanting develop applications for their commercial clients who engage in commerce in private licensed communication channels or publically licensed communications channels.

    Publishing and posting of Legal Notices, Conducting trustee Sales, Senior Lien bidding

    TAC Trustee Assistance Corporation, a subsidiary of TD Service Financial Corp, weblink changed, Cached google not working, text only

    Publishing and posting of Legal Notices, Conducting trustee Sales, Senior Lien bidding.

    Established in 1985, Trustee’s Assistance Corporation (“TAC”) is a subsidiary of TD Service Financial Corporation. Its primary focus is providing publishing, posting, conducting trustee sales and related support services to the industry.

    TAC is headquartered in Santa Ana, California with a branch office in Phoenix, Arizona. TAC offers a broad range of services in the states of Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington including:

    Automated Trustee Sale Hot Line:
    (714) 480-5690 (24 hours) Web-based Trustee Sale Lookup

    Publishing and posting of legal notices.
    Conducting trustee sales.
    Senior lien bidding.
    Connectivity to customer’s servicing systems, electronic transfer of publication data to newspapers.
    Messenger service for pickup and delivery of documents.
    Property inspections.
    Trustee sale/auction information free on web and by telephone (714) 480-5690.

    For more information, contact Renee M. Patrick (714) 480-5550

    This is Google’s cache of http://www.tdsf.com/tac.htm. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Aug 8, 2011 18:36:42 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more

    Full versionThese search terms are highlighted: td services

  3. [fn2] Rule 8 lists the following as “affirmative defenses” that are
    waived if not pled in the answer:

    accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk,

    contributory negligence, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel,

    failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant,

    laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds,

    statute of limitations, [and] waiver.

    Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c).

  4. This is interesting:

    NRS 40.453 Waiver of rights in documents relating to sale of real property against public policy and unenforceable; exception. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 40.495:

    1. It is hereby declared by the Legislature to be against public policy for any document relating to the sale of real property to contain any provision whereby a mortgagor or the grantor of a deed of trust or a guarantor or surety of the indebtedness secured thereby, waives any right secured to the person by the laws of this state.

    2. A court shall not enforce any such provision.

    (Added to NRS by 1969, 573; A 1973, 911; 1985, 371; 1987, 1643; 1993, 152)

  5. ian – apparently I missed those discussions on endorsements in blank – mind pointing me to them? thanks

  6. johngault- everyone on LL was debating endorsements in blank for the last week. The Ibanez (and LaRace) Mass. Supreme Court decision ruled that endorsed-in-blank notes are not enforceable. Not only that, but the persons attempting to assign the endorsed-in-blank notes must alson prove that they had the right to assign via a clear chain of title. just a reminder.

  7. MS said:

    c) REGARDLESS WHAT A BORROWER AGREES TO, a “Borrower” cannot legally grant MERS the right to assign the note or any of the rights of the note owner, including the Deed of Trust.
    If the Borrower doesn’t have the note owner’s powers, then the Borrower can’t grant the note owner’s powers to MERS. ”

    True as heck.

    “The Deed of Trust is therefore unlawful and unenforceable.”
    Not all provisions in a contract which are unenforceable invalidate the contract. There might be language in the dot which would, though, or at least get rid of MERS.
    I’m going to email you when I’ve had time to use the fine-tooth comb. For anyone who wants to play forensic sleuth – Nancy Drewe?- consider the role of the dot trustee in relation to the real estate as discussed here in the past week and read a dot again as to anything at all in ref to MERS.

  8. cubed2 said:

    “p. Improper Notice of Breach. Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim to plaintiff failed to give proper notice to this defendant of the claimed breach prior to filing this lawsuit. Notice was required, and failure to give notice deprived this defendant of the opportunity to timely correct the breach.”
    I’d say if the party for whom notice of breach is allegedly being given has no interest in the deed of trust, notice can’t be “proper”. If there is no proper notice, there is no compliance with any state’s foreclosure rules nor with the terms expressed in the deed of trust. The deed of trust, the contract,
    says the BENEFICIARY, not some yeahoo pretender. So if today I got a NOD, I would ask the trustee, as I’ve said, for evidence the current ben told him to foreclose. I’d give him about 2 seconds to fork over the documentation he relied on, and when he doesn’t, I’d file an action in state court.
    Someone could help me give that action a name?
    I dont think QT is it. Maybe one for declaratoy relief.

    Thank for posting those affirmative defenses. I’m going to cut and paste and everyone might do this to keep handy.

  9. “2300. An agency is ostensible when the principal intentionally, or by want of ordinary care, causes a third person to believe another to be his agent who is not really employed by him.”

    Yes, but see the discussion of agency when it comes to matters involving real property in Agard. Those agencies must be in writing because the actions of the agent involve interests in real property. Because the statute of frauds is implicated, the agency must be in writing and may not be inferred or ‘ostensible’. This is very
    significant; it’s why MERS isn’t and never was an ‘agent’.

  10. @makeithappen – I really like this Marcy K. She is the caliber of representation homeowners need and aren’t getting. Bad news is that clip is two years old and nothing’s changed.
    She’s naive, though, in thinking busted-flat- in baton-rouge-or-any-where-else homeowners can find pro bono representation. Just not enough to go around.

  11. As I read this blog, I was reminded of the centuries old legal principal, Fraus omnia vitiate, or “Fraud vitiates everything it touches.”

    Here is more food for thought:

    • Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy, 3 Pet. (28 US) 210 (1830), “Fraud vitiates everything”
    http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0824002.doc

    • United States v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, 70 (1878) “Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments.”

    • Ellett v Ellett Virginia 0824-00-2 (March 13, 2001) — a property settlement overturned and specifically cites Throckmorton.

    • In Re Jose Alejandro Penafiel, Relator, No. 05-021316 Texas Supreme Court (2001) “Texas law holds that fraud vitiates every transaction tainted by the fraud”
    http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/05/05021303.pdf (Page 24)

    • Nudd v. Burrows, 91 US 426 (1875), “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters”

    • Dakota Partners v. Glopak, Inc, 2001 ND 168 North Dakota Supreme Court.
    http://www.court.state.nd.us/court/opinions/20010092.htm

    And one more a bit far removed; nevertheless relevant:

    • Lazarus Estates Ltd -v- Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702 from the UK.

    “No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgement of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved, it vitiates judgements, contracts and all transactions whatsoever; see as to deeds……. So, here, I am of opinion that if this declaration is proved to have been false and fraudulent, it is a nullity and void……”

    (case excerpt from John Washburn, VoteTrustUSA, Voting Technology Task Force August 09, 2006)

  12. Oh, man. Who was it again who says here ‘it never ends’? He aint kidding. The stinking complication this time is that these notes are allegedly negotiable instruments (I’ve already advanced my argument they’re not so won’t do so again).
    But assuming they are taken as negotiable instruments by courts, how does this stack up when the alleged collection rights buyer shows up with a bearer or special endorsement note demanding his alleged entitlement to enforce the dang thing? No way I believe that mallard took the note without notice of its dishonor, so at least he’s not a hidc. But, he is a holder. Courts don’t cotten to allegations they see as widly speculative, so then homeowners have to present reasonable arguments that the guy allegedly with the note wouldn’t have bought a note in default which further was collateralized by a deeply underwater property /
    dot.
    I have seen some case law wherein the court determined that the deeply discounted ‘sale price’ of the note was indicative of default, that is, that the alleged holder had notice of the default.. It’s out there, but this is generally or may be good only to hidc status.
    That’s helpful, tho, because if one is just a holder vrs a hidc, one is subject to affirmative defenses to the note by the borrower.
    But, this is just crap if courts rely on holder status by the new guy for a note which has already been expensed. This must all be found to be fraudulent.. It’s crap because it’s put on the homeowner to establish it.. I have no actual knowledge this stuff is being done, but it does read when a loan is allegedly transferred after default. Don’t know about you, but it’s making me madder than hell anew.

  13. @cubed2 – you said:

    “But what if they bought written-off debt, which is declared as uncollectable per IRS rules?”

    Good point (it’s written off as UNCOLLECTIBLE) A write off is a write off, no matter that it’s from a promissory note with alleged collateral.
    ** I don’t suppose you’d be interested in digging up that IRS section for us? **

  14. johngault, thanks for your insight. I so love the way you put things in laymans terms, and btw the form is a 4506 and 4506-T 😉

  15. @ian – got me. First of all, if they sold the same loan 30 times, and thanks to MERS they could, that’s a hell of a mess. But something’s up with this – NOD and no f/c – and it seems to support a theory the investors are only entitled to payment streams if payments are actually made, plus any amt of payments guaranteed by master svcrs or (anyone). It also seems to support that the investors don’t own the notes – the depositor does, so he files the NOD and writes it off. I don’t think the investors have subrogation rights – they don’t have any path to the notes and their collateral. Only thing I can make of it. I wonder, tho, if assignments of the dot were done to anyone prior to the NOD being done, as in who is the dot trustee or his alleged minion (that’s such a joke) acting for when sending out the NOD? If the depositor owns the note and the NOD isn’t sent on the depositor’s behalf, isn’t his bs?
    Is that’ what’s going on when there’s a new
    “servicer” after NOD? The bankster wrote off the loan and simultaneously sold collection rights to
    some other joker? If so, carie is right, and there’s no collateral and this is true for any loan written off, not just sub-prime wraps.
    If the debt were defaulted and the ‘evidence’ for book entry is the NOD, the dot or mortgage should have been released because there’s no debt to have collateral on imo. But they can’t release the dot because they have no legit assignment because any phonyied up goes from a to d, and that courtesy of “MERS”? But that’s weird, because they’re willing to use those phony “MERS” assignments to steal the house from the homeowner when they want to do themselves using the sec trust trustee via f/c.
    We have so little facts to go on with a lot of these issues, it stinks: “Well, your honor, …………”

    If there is ever a consensus that this is happening, arguments need to be formulated for the judges so the judge sees he can’t make an informed decision without some very salient and missing ‘material’.

    It’s ironic- when we got loans, we have to sign the dreaded 8406 or 9406 or whatever that was form which allows the bankster to access our tax returns. They should’ve had to give us one, too!

  16. Banks and CC companies and mortgage companies and servicers are just business’s, trying to make a profit………………don’t be a sucker

    hahahha,

    not so serious after all.

  17. it’s just Business………………

  18. And nothing to fear…………….

  19. so I defaulted on all my credit card debt some 2 1/2 years ago. Per the link I provided below, SOL in Calif is 4 years, what if I get a phone call from some debt collector in 3 years from now, after SOL. How do I reply? Tell them to suck eggs. What if they sue me? I respond with the form as provided on the link below. They are shit out of luck. All per se. Piece of cake. don’t need no stinkin lawyer.

  20. debt collectors who bought debt have Lack of Privity.

  21. “Lack of Privity. This defendant did not have an agreement with plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim, and there was no contract between them.”

  22. People in California. I highly suggest you read those two links I provided.

  23. This from http://www.courts.gov/partners/167.htm

    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – ATTACHMENT 4 Page:_ ___

    a. Running of the Statute of Limitations. The complaint and each cause of action are barred because they were filed after the time period allowed in Code of Civil Procedure sections 340, et seq.

    b. Failure to State a Cause of Action. The complaint does not contain facts sufficient to state a cause of action against this defendant.

    c. Waiver. Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim to plaintiff either told, or led this defendant to believe, that plaintiff would not sue this defendant.

    d. Estoppel. Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim to plaintiff acted in such a way as to cause this defendant to believe that plaintiff would not file suit, and defendant relied on those actions or representations.

    e. Unclean Hands. Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim to plaintiff acted in a dishonest or fraudulent manner with respect to the dispute at issue in this case.

    f. Laches. Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim to plaintiff waited too long to file this lawsuit, making it difficult or impossible for defendant to find witnesses or evidence to defend the case.

    g. Failure to Mitigate Damages. Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim to plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to minimize or prevent the damages plaintiff claims to have suffered.

    h. Unjust Enrichment. Granting plaintiff’s demand in the complaint would result in the plaintiff receiving more money than he/she/it is entitled to.

    i. Prevention of Performance. Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim to plaintiff prevented this defendant from performing his/her obligations under the contract.

    j. Act of God. A natural occurance, such as an earthquake, flood or storm, prevented this defendant from performing his/her obligations under the contract.

    Short Title

    Case Number

    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – ATTACHMENT 4 Page: ____

    k. Discharge by Bankruptcy. Any obligation plaintiff claims this defendant owes was discharged by bankruptcy on _(date)_______________ __, in case number ______________.

    l. Statute of Frauds. The contract described in the complaint was not in writing, and the law requires that such a contract be in writing.

    m. Parole Evidence Rule. The complaint includes references to alleged agreements made outside the written contract, which violates the parole evidence rule.

    n. Failure of Condition Precedent. This defendant was excused from having to perform his/her obligations under the contract because certain conditions that were required to occur first never occurred.

    o. Attorneys’ Fees Not Recoverable. Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim to plaintiff is not entitled to reimbursement of attorneys’ fees because the contract did not include such a provision, and there is no law that otherwise allows them. (California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021).

    p. Improper Notice of Breach. Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim to plaintiff failed to give proper notice to this defendant of the claimed breach prior to filing this lawsuit. Notice was required, and failure to give notice deprived this defendant of the opportunity to timely correct the breach.

    q. Offset. This defendant is entitled to a credit for money owed by plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim to plaintiff.

    r. Usury. Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim to plaintiff is charging higher interest than the law allows.

    s. Accord and Satisfaction. This defendant reached an agreement with plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim to plaintiff to pay a different amount than what the complaint in this case asks for and this defendant paid that agreed upon amount.

    t. Contract Void as Against Public Policy. The money loaned by plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim to plaintiff was given in violation of the law. Allowing plainitff to recover the amount of money being sued for would hurt the public interest by encouraging and rewarding illegal conduct.

    Short Title

    Case Number

    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES – ATTACHMENT 4 Page: ____

    u. Lack of Privity. This defendant did not have an agreement with plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim, and there was no contract between them.

    Other:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ___________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ___________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  24. see, they can BE a bank because they have depositors and per the rules, but what are they actually BEING. They are being somebody who uses your money to trade as Glass Stegal was repealed.

    Just like a Debt Collector can be a debt collector because the have a few accounts which they collect debts for, per FDCPA. But what if they bought written-off debt, which is declared as uncollectable per IRS rules?

    No can do, unless you can get the borrower to re affirm the debt, per the rules.

  25. Why when a Bank Like JP Morgan Chase can hire people to walk around in a neighborhood and get them to bank with them and offer them $225 dollars to do so,

    ask the question, where does the bank get the money to do so, such a thing.

    Doesn’t seem right,,,,,,,,,,,,,a bribe????????????? read the fine print……………………….another trap……………very last line says……………..Fees may reduce earnings on the account.

    Guess what earnings are??????????? APY is 0.01% for all balances in your savings account. That is .0001 times $1 = 1 penny. One penny per 1 dollars. So they can use your money to trade and pay millions to the owners collectively so they can say they have depositors and be a “”””””””””””””””bank””””””””””””, safe place to hold your money.

    Keep it under your mattress or bank with a local credit union.

  26. so Ian

    in those stock charts I posted, how many people lost there shirts when those stocks took a nose dive? Which people made money? What about buy and hold? Will those stocks ever return to their highs? Did the fund managers collect their income no matter what? Did those fund managers diversify their holdings so it really wouldn’t matter in their holdings that a particular stock tanked? What individual investors in those stocks really loose out? Because they believed???????

  27. Wall St ——-get everybody to invest (really trade at a loss) in the next greatest thing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,houses,,,,,,,,,,,,,and then pull the plug, now with loans……………everybody is trapped via legal codes and other such confusions. HAHAHAHAHAAH

    You must pay, you have a moral obligation to do so…………..you borrowed the money…………….you signed…………………..so we could monetize your signature……………..and keep you in debt……………..as we are the toll booth…………….pay and pass go……………..you may continue on your journey…………..don’t pay and we collect via courts and contracts and we make the rules…………………..we have no choice as there is no debtors prison in the USA………………..but it costs too much to sue…………….so we will trick you into believing you must pay via the media and paid advertising on the internet……………

  28. The exact same thing happened during the DOT CON ERA, not to be confused with the dot.com era. HAHAHAHAHAHA

    PeaPod, deliverying of groceries in a god damn Big City like San Francisco where there is no parking whatsoever. HAHAHAHAHAH

    ………….CON

  29. sorry ribs=robs

  30. Here’s a different tack on a problem- was checking the 2007 stock prices and financials on MBIA, AMBAC, PMI, ASSURED GUARANTY, MGIC, RADIAN, and several other MBS/RMBS/CMBS insurors, vs.their stock prices and financials yesterday. They are down to a dollar a share from 40,50, etc. WHY? Well they’ve been paying off “defaulted loans”. Anybody have a list of which loans they’ve “paid off”? This must be when the loan i.d.number changes- or is this when the pool defaulted when it hit 7% delinquency rate? But the remaining 93% were current, yet placed in default? I get it, these loans were all in dozens of different trusts at the same time, and some of them defaulted but some didn’t? Maybe this is what has Obama so confused.

  31. @carie

    “the bank hasn’t seized full ownership”

    Goes to show you that not many connect the dots and those that do can’t do anything about it.

    But I certainly can, I don’t pay these MOFO’s. HaHa, jokes on them since I figured it out.

    thanks for your posts.

    Keep repeating as it will sink in.

    PS. I can’t believe it. Today two guys show up at my home around lunch time, ring the bell. they are in suits. I don’t answer the door.

    Hey, I live by this one section of the code of honor – do not give or receive communication unless you yourself desire it.

    So, these dudes leave and I see them walk to my neighbor. Lo and behold they leave a flier at my door. It says get up to $225 dollars and a better bank in your neighborhood. Chase.

    And god dam Jamie Dimon on CNBC today doing a god damn road show.

    Well, I’m pissed.

    But now that I think about it, these guys are hurting if they must have stooges walking around talking to people to get them to bank with JP Morgan CHASE.

    We are in deed winning and don’t fall for these A holes tricks.

  32. johngault- ” they file a NOD, eject the homeowner, and then do….nothing” What they just did, is get rid of another securitized loan, if nothing else. This is what has them all whipped into a foreclosure frenzy. Getting rid of the securitized loans. I have a hard time reconciling in my own mind, what happens when there is a blip, and another loan evaporates from who knows how many GSE/tbtf bank? balance sheets, CDOs, etc. If these ‘loans’ have been sold up to 30 times or more, each, the reverse leverage,for lack of a better term, must be enormous. anyone?

  33. Well, carie, you’ve zeroed in on another pile of dog shyt if I’m reading this right. I’m taking it that the bankster files a NOD, the homeowner moves out, and then the d.w. bankster doesn’t complete the foreclosure. They don’t because they don’t want to take care of the property. So why’d they file the stupid NOD? Wonder what that gets them. Why not just eat a rock and leave the homeowner alone? Now this is where some new legislation might be needed. As far as I know, there is no law which says that a bankster once it has started f/c (NOD) must complete it by a certain time. And these days, that’s crap. As you say, that leaves these properties vacant and decaying. The bad news is, the way it sits,
    they don’t own the properties in that status – NOD but no foreclosure. They shouldn’t be allowed to do a NOD and then do nothing. It’s like you know what or get off the pot. When a bank has foreclosed on a property and is letting it get run down, I’d be running right to my local councilman or other city elected official. If they ignored me, I’d put their name and mugshot on a sign in the yard asking them to clean this up. Then I’d take a picture of my sign in the yard and post it all over the internet. (Actually one could do this with the bankster’s name, also, on a poster in the yard. ) Then I’d probably get charged with vandalism or some bs! What a crock.

  34. I would like a copy of the PDFs. How do I get access to those documents?

  35. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/10/chicago-vacant-buildings-_n_923506.html#s326550

    “The city has laws on the books requiring owners of vacant properties to perform upkeep on them: cutting grass, plowing snow, boarding up doors and windows.

    Vacant houses in foreclosure, however, sit in a sort of legal limbo. The person who signed the mortgage has walked away from the home. And while the foreclosure churns through the legal system — a process that, in Chicago, takes an astonishing average of nearly a year and a half at around 490 days — the bank hasn’t seized full ownership of the property either. So banks like Bank of America and many others argue that they’re not responsible for the property, either.

    Hence the mounting problem of homes — sometimes entire blocks — left to decay. In 2010, the number of Chicago vacants was pegged at around 15,000, approximately 85 percent of which were in some stage of foreclosure.”

    This is SO SICK. People HOMELESS because the banks TOOK/STOLE the houses that they had NO LEGAL RIGHT TO…and then they let them deteriorate…

    “the bank hasn’t seized full ownership”

    BECAUSE THEY DON’T OWN THEM. THEY STOLE THEM. AND THEY KNOW IT.

  36. And in the case of foreclosure-mill-chop-shops, the 25.00 is getting an employee of a business which is not even a MERS’ member the title of “assistant v.p.” or “assistant secretary” or some such nonsense. These are not legitimate relationships between MERS and these yeahoos, and that’s the argument imo. (never minding the robo-signing).

  37. Here is a link to Agard – it’s a good read and has a really good discussion of agency. Don’t try to read it at scribd unless you’ve got all day!
    Wait for scribd doc to fully ‘load’, then download and read.

  38. “2350. If an agent employs a sub-agent without authority, the former is a principal and the latter his agent, and the principal of the former has no connection with the latter.

    2351. A sub-agent, lawfully appointed, represents the principal in like manner with the original agent; and the original agent is not responsible to third persons for the acts of the sub-agent.”

    Yup. I’m so glad you posted these agency tenets here. It’s ridiculous that homeowners need to learn all this to keep their homes from being stolen, but I guess it’s what it is.
    But a distinguishing fact here is that MERS alleged to be the agent of all its members. These laws don’t address appointing a principal as a sub-agent of its own agent, because there is no such thing.

    The Agard case has the best discussion of “agency” I have seen and you might want to read it if you want to see agency’s application as to MERS being an ‘agent’ for its principals, the members. You won’t find a discussion of members being sub-agents of MERS, the agent, because there’s no such thing. The Agard case ultimately finds that any agency agreement, and specifically the one alleged between MERS and its alleged principals, like so many other things, would implicate the statute of frauds and require the agency agreement to be in writing – an agency agreement may not be found by actions. The court articulated why it found no written evidence of MERS’ alleged agency in any docments – not the dot, not MERS’ membeship – nuthin.
    The court in Agard appropriately noted that in the MERS’ (read member) assignment, MERS (read member) alleged to act as the nominee (or who cares what here – some capacity) for the ORIGINAL lender. Every MERS
    assignment is done allegedly on behalf of the lender stated in the dot. The court found the original lender no longer has an interest to assign, so for whom is MERS (read member) alleging to act? The court found that U.S. Bank was the party asking MERS (read member) to assign the dot to it, not the party identified in the assignment as being the party MERS represented in doing the assignment, the original lender.
    In other words, U. S. Bank had no authority to order MERS (read member and in this case, it was probably the straw officer of its own or at Aurora) to do an assignment to it. That authority to MERS (which the court found really doesn’t exist in the first place in the absence of a poa or some such) has to come from the last guy who was the beneficiary on the dot. And none of this addresses the fatally missing chain of title for the dot, and on that note, it’s worth pointing out that NY (Agard) is a lien-theory state.

  39. It has also come to my attention that some of these so-called bankrupt pretender/lenders are being resurrected under the same or similar name in other states to “confuse” the issue. They went bankrupt as XYZ Portfolio Services, and they are being recreated as XYZ Portfolio Lenders in another state. More sneaky stuff.

  40. I guess if I had a week, I could figure out what this is meant to say.
    I’m pretty happy to see people finally, finally getting around to the laws of agency, tho. But, the relationship expressed above is the wrong one, so the wrong attack. The fallacy is a perception that the member is acting as an agent for MERS when it uses its straw MERS’ officer to execute documents. It’s a fallacy because MERS alleges to be the nominee of the member in the dot and MERS has in many, many instances of litigation sworn it is the agent of the member-beneficiary-principal.
    Since MERS is or has claimed to be the agent of the member, its principal, then the principal cannot be the agent of its agent. There is no such thing. MERS swore it’s the agent, right? and that’s how they snarfed a gazillion homes. Let’s not forget this. No, let’s not. It’s called estoppel. You cannot say the moon is made of cheese over here in this litigation, and then assert it is made of diamonds over there in that litigation: you may not take inconsistant positions. To apply this to the situation here, MERS may not deny now imo that it is the agent of the principal-member, and because it can’t, it’s not possible for the member to be the agent of MERS. MERS isn’t and never was an agent, but that’s another story. The point is they swore they were. But acknowledging that MERS is not and never has been an agent – it’s just a nominee – it’s principal still may not be its agent. And see

    Bank of New York v. Alderazi, 900 N.Y.S.2d 821, 824 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010) (the “party who claims to be the agent of another bears the burden of proving the agency relationship by a preponderance of the evidence”);

    If you use MERS’ historical litigation arguments that it’s an agent against them, keep in mind a principal (member) may not be the agent of its agent, MERS.
    The members to date have not alleged they are the agents of their agent (or nominee), Mers, nor will they. The relationship relied on when executing assignments is not that they are MERS’ agent. They rely on the alleged status with MERS of their in-house MERS’ straw officer. That is the relationship which has to be attacked. The Koontz court threw out the assignment by a MERS’ member executed by the alleged MERS’ in-house straw officer when it learned the straw officer was an employee of the member, not an employee of MERS. And the only reason they ‘got to this’ in that case is because the borrower put it in the court’s face, which few if any other people have done. The bankster relies on the straw officer being a bona fide MERS’ corporate officer, which it isn’t. That ‘status’ is bought for 25.00.
    For 25.00, MERS the alleged agent (or even nominee) has made an employee of its principal an alleged MERS’ corporate officer. These appts are done by William Hultman, a MERS officer. On info and belief (Hultman deposition), Mr. Hultman could not produce a MERS’ corporate resolution authorizing him to make these sham appointments in the first place.

    That’s only the beginning of the attack possible, although it should be the end.
    I think we’ve all figured out by now that the servicer or other bankster is using their MERS’ straw-officer to do self-assignments. The first defense is the straw officer is not a bona fide MERS corporate officer. (I’d like to see a court actually scrutinize that 25.00 appointment.)
    The next one is MERS one way or another has no authority to execute an
    assignment of the dot. Even its own rules state that assignments may not be done in its name by member’s straw-officers unless the assignment is to a non-MERS’ member, which also requires de-activation of that loan from the MERS’ system as MERS may not even retain its placeholder status in public records for non-members with whom it has no agreement. These membership rules are all over the place. Print them and use them. Or ask the court to take judicial notice and link the website (they might prefer the docs) or do both.
    The next question might be: for whom is this MERS’ straw-officer taking his authority to assign the deed of trust? Here is what the Agard court said about this and I don’t see this as an interpretation of any state-specific statute:

    “Accordingly, at the time that MERS, as nominee of First Franklin, assigned the interest in the Mortgage to U.S. Bank, U.S.Bank allegedly already held the Note and it was at U.S. Bank’s direction, not First Franklin’s, that the Mortgage was assigned to U.S. Bank. Said another way, when MERS assigned the Mortgage to U.S. Bank on First Franklin’s behalf, it took its direction from U.S. Bank, not First Franklin, to provide documentation of an assignment from an entity that no longer had any rights to the Note or the Mortgage.”

  41. oops, guess I’m late to the party – john gault commented on it already : )

  42. Hey all, what about this?

    http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/look-out-lenders-mers-is-about-to-take-you-down/#more-437

    I don’t know if someone here has already discussed this & posted link? I’ve been down with salmonella (horrible!) for a few days – got my fighting spirit back though & thought this was some good news.

  43. Forrest Hazard
    Please send me the pdf docs so I can send to my attorney
    Thanks.

    denisej_24@yahoo.com

  44. @foreclosureinfosearch—
    please elaborate on your number 10…and type of “punitive damages…” thanks.

  45. I also could not reply by email. Please send supporting .pdf files to brad@btaylorlawfirm.com. Thank you.

  46. Please send me a copy of the supporting documents.

  47. Hows this….

    Read the IRS rules for a nominee for God’s sake. Now go an attack MERS!

    I hate MERS the same as I hate Ghosts, Mr Clean and the Jolly Green Giant (I do like the green beans) .

    MERS has NO standing – really? (Rocket Science) . Look at the assignment prior to trustee sale. Look who is prima facia , on the Docs and now taking back the same of assignment . Wake up and smell the coffee…

    MERS is your only shot at Scientor, misjoinder, estopples by lache, manipulations of a wholesale channel, conspiracy claims, it’s a nominee for the principal listed prima facia on the settlement and held in public records.

    Santa Clause, Boogie Man and MERS ….

    Great defense

    MSoliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  48. Borrowers should try and demonstrate that the lender at settlement was reckless and guilty of fraud, oppression or malice in its wrongful conduct, punitive damages may be awarded.
    1. MERS is the only real chance to bury the lenders case.
    2. The Debt Collectors are trying to assist you
    3. Those payments you stopped making – were they payments?
    4. Who really is the lender?
    5. Who really is foreclosing ?
    6. What really is the servicing function?
    7. Why the FDCPA?
    8. Under what rules are the loans unenforceable?
    9. What triggers unenforceability?
    10. Why is material changing to a contract you number one claim?
    11. Who is the real creditor?

    Some of these posts are so far off. Good post Good Comments ….? (Oh no –here we go again with the “Lost Note”!)

    You are further away from the facts than ever.

    For more information
    M.Soliman
    Expert.Witness@live.com

  49. Please send me a copy of the PDF supporting Docs.

    Steve Lucore esq.

  50. Good Post,
    PLUS – Why MERS is a NON-Authorized Agent

    MERS cannot legally assign a Promissory Note or Deed of Trust, because MERS is a Non-Authorized Agent under Established and Binding California Real Property Law, and the borrower can’t legally grant the Note-Owner’s powers to MERS.

    First, a Nominee is someone who is nominated potentially for a future position. Much like being nominated for President, yet a Presidential Nominee doesn’t receive any powers until the person actually becomes President.

    Second, in the Deed of Trust MERS is identified “Solely as a Nominee” and as the Beneficiary. Which is logically and legally impossible, because a party can only be either the nominated Beneficiary or the Beneficiary. You can’t “not be” and “be” the beneficiary at the same time.

    Third, Ca Civil Code §2924, et seq. is exhaustive and a Nominee is never included as an acceptable form of “authorized agent” in a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure.

    Fourth, MERS acts “Solely as a Nominee” for lenders, and under Established California Law a “Nominee” is a “Non-Authorized” form of agent, which fails to comply with California Civil Code §§ 2924 through 2924k, as a nominee inherently lacks the right to enforce or assign, the Note or real property ownership rights, per the following case.

    “In Cisco v. Van Lew, 60 Cal.App.2d 575, 583-584, 141 P.2d 433, 438., Cisco could not enforce the land sale contract because he was not a party to it, the court, at pages 583-584, said: “The word ‘nominee’ in its commonly accepted meaning connotes the delegation of authority to the nominee in a representative or nominal capacity only, and does not connote the transfer or assignment to the nominee of any property in or ownership of the rights of the person nominating him.”
    Born V. Koop 1962 200 C. A. 2d 519[200 CalApp2d Page 527, 528], see file below

    Fifth, in addition to MERS’ inherit lack of authority, MERS is not a party to the Note and the Note fails to use the words, for example “ Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB or Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB Nominee”.

    “The purpose of the document in question here was to offer an obligation to Harold L. Shaw alone and not to his nominee or any other person whomsoever.”
    Ott v. Home Savings & Loan Association, 265 F. 2d 643 [647,648], see file below

    Finally, GOMES V. COUNTRYYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, is Bad Law!
    a) Born v. Koop was not addressed or applied in the Gomes case, and treated the definition of a Nominee as a new creature vs. one that has been defined by established law.
    b) The first thing the Deed of Trust does is (i) take away MERS right to payments and (ii) take away the right to enforce the Note. At this point the Deed of Trust is impotent to MERS and any assignee of MERS.
    c) REGARDLESS WHAT A BORROWER AGREES TO, a “Borrower” cannot legally grant MERS the right to assign the note or any of the rights of the note owner, including the Deed of Trust.
    If the Borrower doesn’t have the note owner’s powers, then the Borrower can’t grant the note owner’s powers to MERS. The Deed of Trust is therefore unlawful and unenforceable.

    Source:
    https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia/

  51. Could not reply by email. Please send supporting .pdf files to frodshamr@gmail.com . Thank you.

  52. ATTACKING THE CLOSING AND SETTLEMENT
    (from the Settlement Date through the CutOff Date)

    The borrower applies for a mortgage loan. The loan he qualifies for initially is typically quoted within his means. The loan he receives the day of signing is a something that is hard to resist. The new mortgage and second mortgage calculate to 100% CLTV with more cash than he was ever anticipating.

    The borrowers Back end ratio calculation easily exceeds 100% based on Career .com and other referrals. He is told the cash can be used to pay down debt, consolidate bills, and buy a second home and so forth.

    The loan is an obligation he gives in consideration of the loan he receives. A security is required to protect the lined from eminent default and the borrower executes the deed of trust
    Causes of Action
    Inducement to enter into an illegal unaffordable predatory loan; unscrupulous financing provided solely to liquidate into cash and cash equivalents ;Unconscionable Financing provided by FDIC member bank
    Delivery of a unlawful Obligation into the hands for a Fiduciary trustee ;Inducement to remove the equitable title from fee simple estate; Acceptance policy placing household at risk of loss from default; Material Misrepresentation under Government Approved Acceptance Guidelines

    Oppressive and negligent acts against a household and title; Intent to commit tax fraud against the IRS (under Form 4506) ; Avoidance of company policy under Quality Control guidelines; Intent to defraud NYSE common stock holders comingling resources and asset s into a private placement registration.
    Material misrepresentation of assets sold into an SEC accredited registration; Fraud perpetrtated on government forms 1003 and 1008

    The wrongful foreclosure action is brought after the non-judicial foreclosure sale. In most cases, a wrongful disclosure action alleges that the amount stated as due and owing in the notice of default is or was incorrect. The parties to the transaction are prima facia to the transaction and recorded in county records immediate , before the proceeds are delivered to the settlement agent. Upon confirmation of the recording the proceeds are released to the borrower.

    Companion allegations include claims for emotional distress and punitive damages that will usually accompany a wrongful foreclosure action. The reciprocal claims for of attorney fees provisions in all real property notes and deeds of trust must be taken seriously.

    Damages available to a borrower in a wrongful foreclosure action can be hefty. This is true where the borrower is hurt from the abusive lending practices taking place at closing. They can total an amount sufficient to compensate for the combined detriment proximately caused by the servicer or trustees wrongful conduct and are usually measured by value of the property at the time of the sale in excess of the mortgage and lien against the property. Munger v. Moore.

    It’s not uncommon for borrowers to also seek damages for emotional distress in a wrongful foreclosure action. Young v. Bank of America; Anderson v. Heart federal Savings & Loan Assn.. fraud claims can prevail under a clear and convincing presentation of the evidence.

    Evidentiary

    ABA Wire transmission
    Copy of the recorded Deed of trust
    Copy of the final HUD I
    Lenders Instructions into the settlement Agent
    Underwriter approval and second signature for exceptions
    Payment Shock analysis at contract rate
    Appraisal PV value to subject loan
    Recalculate the APR for all costs
    Lenders “raw” daily price sheet for any POCs paid at closing

    A significant volume of case law in California existing back to recent memory reveals that a borrower first allege tender due and owing amount of the debt due and owing in order to bring a wrongful foreclosure cause of action. Copsey v. Sacramento Bank (1901); Crummer v. Whitehead (1964); MCA, Inc. v. Universal Diversified Enterprises Corp. (1972).

    The Reality is that many courts WILL NOT require a debtor to tender the entire accelerated amount of the debt prior to bringing a wrongful foreclosure action. Borrowers should try and demonstrate that the lender at settlement was reckless and guilty of fraud, oppression or malice in its wrongful conduct, punitive damages may be awarded.

    For more information

    M.Soliman
    Expert.Witness@live.com

    Witness testimony provided in matters of wrongful foreclosure under the direction of the Plaintiffs counsel. If your requiring legal assistance always consult an attorney for proper guidance and to determine your legal rights.

  53. WOW! Complicated, yet simplistically sets forth the Truth , and some of the “Means” that these Fiduciary Trustees, (Which includes ALL parties associated with the “altered” and fraudulent transfers of Monies originated as a “Mortgage”) are involved .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: