Neil, the bank attorney for the pretender lender admitted to me and my husband, in the hall,after court, and after I told him that I want to see some discovery, (the note is unendorsed) outside of the courtroom that the loan was never delivered to a trust, there are no assignments, no psa agreement…there is no trustee…the original lender is a failed bank..the pretender lender who brought the fraudclosure is PHH mortgage…The bank attorney told me the allonge is the assignment…I told him that is not true…The judge gave me 21 days to answer the second amended complaint with affirmative pleadings of fraud and forgery…how do you recommend that I proceed? I am in Illinois and there are no attorneys helping homeowners fight a fraudclosure..I have filed 2 motion to dismiss on the fraud and forgery, both were dismissed w/o prejudice..the Judge said he sees my point but I need a hearing..there is fraud everywhere even in the foreclosure..they have stamped over forgeries and alterations from the original foreclosure filing…An attorney advised me to file a motion to dismiss on the altered docs…the judge won’t do it..I told the attorney after his admission, that you are telling me that this is an unsecured debt and you are no more than a third party bill collector..?.he said, I did not say that…What would you do Neil..? I have uncovered tons of fraud and forgery not to mention what the bank attorney told me…he let the cat out the bag..could you please e-mail me or post some advice as how to proceed..I have about 2 weeks left to answer..
ANSWER: I think you have encountered a lawyer with a conscience. He is probably not going to be working for the foreclosure mill much longer. Needless to say I cannot offer legal advice in a state where I am not licensed on a case which I know nothing about. But as it turns out I know of another case in your state where under virtually identical facts the homeowner’s lawyer simply amended his complaint as directed by the information from opposing counsel and then filed for discovery addressing those very issues. The Judge was of course reluctant to allow discovery since that would “encourage frivolous litigation” but the homeowner’s lawyer turned to opposing counsel and said “Are you going to deny here and now that the facts as they have been pleaded by my client won’t find support in the form of admissible evidence if the court allows discovery?” The lawyer from the foreclosure mill said “No, I will not deny that.” Discovery went forward and the case settled in days under confidentiality. The answer is get a lawyer, you are very likely on the cusp of a victory.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND |