Schack bangs HSBC for False Paperwork

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: Plausible deniability went out the window as HSBC tried to get out of the consequences for submitting false, fabricated papers to the court in support of a fraudulent foreclosure. They tried to say they didn’t know. Schack didn’t buy it and slapped them with a $10,000 fine.

But the real story is yet to be told. We are getting closer to the real question, yet the inquiry into WHY false papers are being submitted on such a widespread basis has not occurred. This is the industry that practically invented dotted i’s and crossed t’s. They processed tens of millions of mortgages just the way they wanted them without error. Now they are claiming that they messed up the paperwork because of the same volume that they processed without a problem. And they are layering the responsibility by outsourcing the fabrication, forgery and fraud.

THE REAL ANSWER: When we get to the point where the question is asked and answered, it will unravel the entire securitization scam and it will be obvious that although the MONEY was treated as though the loans were securitized, the DOCUMENTS were not. Why would they do that? To cover up the money they were skimming from the investor dollars that were advanced for funding mortgages but instead were used to pay fees to the investment bankers and their cohorts.

In order to give the appearance of selling the loan over and over again, and in order to create “trading” activity that would  justify the profits and fees they were taking without the knowledge of either the investor or the borrower, they needed a gap — a vacuum that they would fill with bogus transactions which gave them the lions share of the pot created by the sale of bogus mortgage backed securities that were in fact, not backed by mortgages and were in fact not transferred into the pools.

But none of those extra transactions fit in with the documentary scheme required by law for mortgages and none of them conform to the documentary requirements in the pooling and servicing agreement. So they filled the gap, for purposes of foreclosure with fabricated, forged, fraudulent documents that refer to transactions and payments that never occurred.

A FULL accounting will easily show that the alleged transfers of the loan obligation were never the basis for payment between the transferor and transferee. A FULL accounting will show that the most of the loans have been paid down further than any required principal reduction. It will show that the past foreclosures were fraudulent, the sale of bonds to investors were fraudulent, and that the new ones coming up are equally baseless and without merit.

HSBC like ‘know nothing’ Sgt. Schultz from ‘Hogan’s Heroes,’ Brooklyn judge says Blames bank in foreclosure errors

Blames bank for foreclosure errors

BY John Marzulli
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Originally Published: Wednesday, December 28 2011, 3:12 PM
Updated: Wednesday, December 28 2011, 7:16 PM

John Banner in his role as the dim  Sgt. Schultz on ‘Hogan’s Heroes.’

Courtesy Everett Collection

John Banner in his role as the dim Sgt. Schultz on ‘Hogan’s Heroes.’

A Brooklyn judge ridiculed HSBC’s “know nothing” defense for filing a false document in a foreclosure case and slapped the bank with the maximum $10,000 penalty.

“HSBC sounds like … Sgt. Schultz in the classic 1960s television comedy, ‘Hogan’s Heroes,'” Supreme Court Justice Arthur Schack wrote in a Dec. 22 decision made public Wednesday.

“The inept Sgt. Hans Schultz … would feign ignorance about the escapades of his Allied prisoners by telling his commandant, Col. Klink, ‘I know nothing! Nothing!'”

HSBC had incurred Schack’s wrath earlier this year when he caught its lawyers submitting documents filed by “robo-signers” purporting to work for the bank who were were actually employed by a loan servicing firm.

Bank officials and their lawyers are required to review and verify the accuracy of filings in foreclosure cases under regulations issued by state Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman.

Later, a bank senior vice president submitted a sworn affidavit claiming HSBC had no knowledge of the mortgage in question and blamed the fiasco on the loan servicer.

But Schack, whose blistering and colorful opinions from the bench have made him a folk hero for financially troubled homeowners — said HSBC is responsible for the actions of its agents.

The ticked-off judge also docked the bank’s Rochester-based law firm $5,000 for its conduct in the matter, according to court papers.

The judge had ordered HSBC President and CEO Irene Dorner to appear at a hearing last July, but she blew it off.

“She was missing in action, demonstrating her personal contempt for the Supreme Court of the State of New York,” Schack fumed.

A representative for the law firm Shapiro DiCaro & Barak said it is appealing Schack’s decision.

Bank spokesman Neil Brazil said HSBC neither serviced the loan nor “prepared nor filed any of the underlying legal documents presented to the court.”

The tumult stemmed from homeowner Ellen Taher‘s delinquent mortgage on her Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, residence.

jmarzulli@nydailynews.com


Read more:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hsbc-sgt-schultz-hogan-heroes-brooklyn-judge-article-1.997923#ixzz1hwNKkgj2

 

61 Responses

  1. […] Like Be the first to like this post. 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 « Schack bangs HSBC for False Paperwork […]

    Like

  2. I will give your 6.5 million readers specific examples of how Shapiro, Dicaro & Barak fabricate documents and falsify documents to facilitate ‘Judge reading’. If your case is not under the LOGS network, you can use this information to verify the documents Plaintiff attorneys present to Judges. It’s unbelievable what I found, I will post here and only here.

    Like

  3. no, got security warning. Oddly I stumbled on it today, tho. He’s got some really good stuff.

    Like

  4. @johngault

    Did Dan Edstrom link work?

    Like

  5. @debbi – don’t want to rain on your parade, but all the same, you need to research case law on that one in PA. A court of equity may not at all agree your ‘mortgage is null and void’ because your signature was not actually notarized. You admit you signed it, but even if you hadn’t, a court might find, for instance, that you intended to give a security interest in your home, and impose one, which if it were to happen to you, would be a very rude surprise $$$. I think such decisions are crap and undermine the law, but I have seen it, which tells me what I said earlier is not necessarily true: I said a court cannot in equity rule in favor of equity when a statute says a thing must be done. Apparently, they can and do. As I said, I think it’s crap and these kinds of decisions erode law, imo, but they didn’t ask me.

    Like

  6. I’m from Pittsburgh and FINALLY found an attorney close by “who gets it”. I’m meeting him on Jan. 6. He did ask me during our phone conversation what I was looking for, a “free house”? I have paid principle and interest every month on this house for the past nine years, a total of over $64K and I HARDLY CALL THAT FREE! I’ve read alot of comments on this site and many others and no one seems to mention that fact (about their payments). My case is quite simple – my mortgage, although recorded is null and void. The agent representing the originator came to my home, sat at my diningroom table and had me sign papers. She didn’t bring a copier and she didn’t bring a notary! Turns out that she had the papers notarized after the fact (a big NO NO for mortgage/deed of trust) in Pennsylvania under PA law and Notary Act of 2002. Going to submit paperwork to court to agree (hopefully). Therefore, there is no mortgage recorded so my “note” is unsecured. Will keep folks posted if interested.

    Like

  7. Alaikam salaam, and may you find God walking by your side always. Shari Barak is a pig that should be put out with the bacon.

    Like

  8. @ enraged – there is only two ways fannie owns your loan. They bought an entire package direct for their own secutiization, your loan included, or the purchased GSE certificates, which are tranches inside of private pools that should have met Fannie underwriting guidelines. There is a Master Trust for all Fannie loans and sub trusts which are governed by the master trust. Same crap though, none of your docs ever left the originator who also retained servicing, your originator will try to foreclose in their name, typically without authority because the GSE never took possession of the collateral docs.

    Fannie & Freddie are part of the scam!

    Like

  9. @Carie,

    I understand that but I want to know what the steps are to track down something I expect my servicer to argue and that I want to disprove.

    It isn’t enough to say: “I ain’t so.” I don’t even know what kind of documents the servicer would be producing to support its contentions. Without any knowledge of the documents themselves, I can hardly question anything about them. That’s what i want to be able to do.

    Like

  10. @dee – you posted a link to dan edstrom’s site, dtc systems. I wonder if he knows a security warning is issued about going to his website.
    Happened when I followed your link and again when i tried another route to his website………..

    Like

  11. @enraged

    NO (fake) “loans” EVER went into ANY securitized trusts…

    http://frauddigest.com/pdfs/untrasnferrednotes.pdf

    Like

  12. @Mr. Soliman,

    The question was (and has been for a few months), albeit unanswered:

    I have a Fannie Mae. It was refinanced a couple of times. I have confirmed that it is a Fannie Mae thru their site (it states that, indeed, it is) but no further info is given on it allowing me to dig further.

    Questions: how do I find out which trust(s), if any, my loan went in. What are the steps? What numbers do I use? Where do I go?

    I have no idea why you wrote that long thing about MERS. I know what MERS is, I know why it was created and I never asked about that. I asked a very simple question which could only trigger three answers:
    1) “I don’t know” (fair enough but too honest for many people to blurt out )
    2) “Here are the steps…”
    3) “With the full accounting of your loan…” followed by whatever price you charge. Of course, I’m not interested. Can’t afford it.

    Thank you in advance.

    Happy New Year

    Like

  13. The last paragraph I try to give a hint of where the real problem lies. http://www.free-press-release.com/news-hsbc-bank-avoids-close-call-in-foreclosure-controversy-1325322688.html

    Its leaving somthing up to the reader to discover

    Like

  14. Re: Enraged;

    The mortgage business is in fact a pompous industry of thin skinned high profile easy money personalities …that are that way without paying their dues . I’m not like that. In fact your piece written is a little TMI into your own psyche …just an observation.

    Thanks no less, for reading and write me anytime – I’ll explain the best I can . I try to respond patiently and it’s hard – but I look at questions as “whom through why .

    Mers Corp and its customers represent by election of a nominal interest by the lender. From 1996 and its humble start through today, it has forced itself onto the American mortgage lending scene. It is in fact intended to represent every homeowner loan in America today. It is the nominee named on a deed of trust and appears in a very curious and highly exposed manner.

    Why in such a non transparent industry, we ask ?

    Mers Corp is to all SFR 1-4 mortgages , both firsts and seconds including non agency SP loans and GSE mortgages and whole loan assets. Whole loans are traded on the secondary as servicing released files.

    Its alleged purpose is for greater efficiency and improving sector capacity as for transfers and equitable interests in the Intervening assignments. I believe it is set up to facilitate the demand for instant transferability.

    It is still unknown why it may or may not violate RESPA Reg X and Sec 8. Where it is used to facilitate the demand for instant transferability there is likelihood for unfair business practices. Standing to bring a foreclosure for example, or need to avoid unrecorded transfers , unlawful transfers by convenience and Inducement to defraud are all issues that MersCorp lawfully resolves for the real parties in interest.

    I believe that MersCorp is the avoidance of regulatory requirements in mortgage lending , for transfers of serving and recovery sector of the industry . I also believe that MersCorp is the government patent affirmed on every recorded deed of trust.

    It is the advantage to the lender from it falling prey to legitimate claims of a wrongful foreclosure .

    M.Soliman
    Expert.witness@live.com

    Like

  15. Johngault,

    Happy New Year and… Holy S*#t!!!

    I posted the following site yesterday, without taking the time to really look into it. Now that I am completely numb with good whiskey, good wine and lots of food, I feel brave enough to brave it and… it isn’t pretty!

    http://www.mersnews.com/MERS-in-the-Courts.php

    MERS’ role has been pretty much ruled upon in every jurisdiction and from every angle. It can transfer DOT, Mortgage notes (Yes Siree!), it can foreclose, if can be the agent, the P.O.A. for the trustee, it can assign, it is the almighty, omnipotent and omnipresent evil doer of everything mortgage.

    Except that a few courts’ decisions have started to change that since January 2011 and that site isn’t quite up to date.

    Jeff Barnes has that nationwide case rulings site to allow you some updating.

    Use both at the same time. Otherwise, you may have a heart attack…

    http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/

    MERS has been delt a few blows since 1/1/2011. Still, that damn thing is quite evil…

    Like

  16. @Nabdulla,

    ??????

    Like

  17. @ Everybody….

    Heading out to “The Park” to bring in the New Year with the 99. Eat some of that good food Fresh Direct is giving out and make Salat with my Brothers. Just wanted to say and wish everybody here a safe and peaceful New Year before I go. As Salaamu Alaikum !!

    @ Enraged….

    I really feel that you owe foreclosureinfosearch a sincere apology my Brother. Peace

    Like

  18. enraged -fwiw Ucc is only applied after & when the jurisdiction the action is filed in – as state statue or federal law does not address the allegation[s] to render or allow a determination on the matter before the court,its important to understand the applicability and WHEN it will be correctly applied, the vampires will try to raise ucc issues if it suits their needs regardless of if it applies as their counting on you not knowing, catching, or raising the objection or confronting the need or ability to look to ucc to guide the determination.The court MAY on its own raise issues of applicability but i believe its under no obligation to and no help for the bankster court to find in YOUR favor!
    The court only has to give the “appearance” of “unbiased” as viewed by an uninterested observer.

    i compiled these from mers v neb case – below .
    mers admits to and disclaims certain acts & rights,
    this can be used to nail the lid closed on the vapor beni using
    perjury by inconsistent statements.

    A-04-000786
    IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS
    MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATIONS S
    Plaintiff/Appellant
    vs .
    NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING

    As demonstrated above, t he Act distinguishes the interests in the promissory note or debt
    instrument on the one hand, from interests i n the deed o f trust or security instrument on the other.
    I t is important to understand that MERS ma y acquire a legal interest i n a mortgage or deed o f
    trust (as nominee for t he actual lender) without acquiring any corresponding interest, legal or
    beneficial, i n the promi ssory not e secured b y such deed o f trust. Thi s is because t he note owner appoints MERS to be its agent to only hold the mortgage lien interest, not to hold any interest in
    the note

    pg 16 ¶ 2
    Bifurcation
    Accordingly, a person may hold legal title to a note while appointing another entity to
    hold legal title to the mortgage securing such note. I n the mortgage banking industry, it is
    standard industry practice for an investor, such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, to hold legal title
    to notes secured by mortgages and use a separate servicing entity to hold title to the mortgage via
    a recorded mortgage or assignment. With the development o f MERS, these interests are now
    split three ways instead o f two

    Falsity of 3 debt validation notice[s] i received each claiming the debt 1- mers 2- litton loan,3-wells fargo
    The debtor on the note owes no obligation to MERS and does not pay MERS
    on the note. MERS holds legal title to the mortgage for the benefit o f the owner o f the note

    pg 17 ¶ 1
    No Interest to convey AT ALL
    As demonstrated above, MERS cannot be deemed to be acquiring mortgage loans under
    the Act because i t does not obtain legal or beneficial title in loan instruments. MERS does not
    acquire an interest in promissory notes or debt instruments of any nature.

    MERS cannot convey that which it does not aquire
    The Court should further recognize that without owning an interest in the debt instruments, MERS cannot be deemed to be acquiring mortgage loans under the Act.

    pg 20 CONCLUSION
    No Interest to convey AT ALL
    MERS does not obtain legal or beneficial title to
    promissory notes or other debt instruments; therefore, unde r a ” plain meaning” interpretation of
    the Act, it cannot be deemed to be acquiring mortgage loans

    pg 19 ¶ 1
    MERS claim – Consumers at risk & needed protection from ;
    Furthermore, none o f the other potential problems noted above b y the Department
    adversely affect consumers. MERS is largely transparent to the consumer. Origina11enders o f
    mortgage loans , investors who purchase or acquire mortgage loans on the secondary market, and
    servicers o f mortgage loans are the “persons” under the Act that mortgage loan consumers need
    to b e protected from because it is these persons who actually underwrite loans, make loans,
    service loans, acquire loans, and ultimately decide whet her or not a consumer is in default on the
    loan .

    Like

  19. @Nora,

    For all those years sitting in front of this tube, my once-cute-little-fannie has become irremediably… flat. So, I know what you’re saying…

    Like

  20. @Johngault,

    Are you referring to MERS v. Johnston in Rutland County, VT?

    Here is a site (not updated with the latest but still pretty good. You need to change Ohio since the Huntington National Bank v. Brown, where MERS was said to not be able to assign/transfer as it is NOT the payee on the note)

    http://www.mersnews.com/MERS-in-the-Courts.php

    PS: it says it is an “independent” site. I have my doubts…

    Like

  21. While trying to avoid whatever that is you’ve heaved up there, E Tolle,
    I am laughing at the tourettes and smiling about that great edit of yours. Precisely the case. We have great power en masse, on queue.

    I wonder what our financial revolt will do to drain the billions sitting in offshore accounts. I wonder how we’ll get the attention of those folks with their head glued to the football game, long enough to school them on the dire consequences of their lack of involvement in preventing what is shaping up to be the new Holocaust. I wonder how we’ll do filing another “Sherman” (Antitrust) on corporations who see fit to poison us and the environment, for profits.
    As much as I’d like to blame processed foods and additives for the extra pounds that have accumulated since I’ve been chained to this chair, I’d be amiss in that. Research and writing are fattening!

    So, to our sponsor Neil Garfield, thank you for a valuable bit of cyber real estate, and to my friends and fellow posters Happy New Year. I’m going to walk around the block as soon as the circulation returns to my legs, and ponder these questions, grateful for the freedom to do so and believing it will prevail.

    Like

  22. @Johngault,

    I can tell you’re pretty p.o’d. I can see why; I am too.

    The thing I get out of this is that knowing which state we are in is the crucial piece of information because words do not appear to mean the same thing and the procedural differences are a great part of the problem. When Carie (CA, non-judicial) kept on mentioning that her D.O.T. had been recorded, i didn’t have a clue what she meant. In my state (OH-judicial), there is no recordation of D.O.T. What is being recorded is the mortgage note. It can then be “assigned”, “transferred” or “subordinated” by MERS.

    For me, if made a lot of sense, in the context of “Where is the Note”. I could relate. I could absolutely not relate to D.O.T. and all the hooplah made of the securitization, empty trusts, PSA, etc.

    You mention question of facts that can be raised in any jurisdictions. I agree: a question is a question. What i don’t agree with is that, if you can argue that NE ruled in such and such fashion on MERS, MA or MI will automatically range with that ruling. In fact, the opposite appears to be true.

    That is one of the reasons I decided to go the federal route. The other reasons are that:
    1) Assignments of an OH note had been made in MI, IA and CA in my file. It made no sense and it opened the question of: “Which jurisdiction does that fall under?” And “What would give a DE entity the right to foreclose on an OH property by using IA documents?”
    2) I figured that, once I can prove fraud, I may be able to go back with something else, such as mail fraud, since the docs travelled so far.

    I’ve spent a lot of time working on my own case and I have learned quite a bit too. One of the things I have learned is that there is absolutely no absolute recipe and that judges are limited by the rules and laws of their respective state. For example, OH has a statute concerning debt collections. I looked at it and, under that statute, my servicer might have been able to screw me while UCC and FDCPA are broader and give a much better chance to prevail and the damages are higher. And from what I understand, you can claim only either or. Not both.

    So, I really feel your frustration. If I could count the hours I spent trying to figure out my own case, they largely exceed 31,000. I’m not an attorney but sometimes, I think I’m getting ready to present to the frickin’ exam!!!

    Like

  23. Enraged, I love your logic, common sense, and most of all, your passion!
    Like this-Happy New year to all. I shall drink (a lot.(me too) It’s the night to do just that!!!) to victory for the homeowners, jail time for the banksters and sudden enlightment of our pitiful, pathetic congress and government
    then this,-Yep. I looked again and what assigned by MERS from one servicer to the other is… the Mortgage Note, indeed. It says nothing about Deed of Trust.
    You hit the nail on the head.
    If you look at “trustees deeds” in county records? Here’s WHERE there is uniformity.

    They refer ONLY TO the DOT never the warranty deeds.

    The instrument numbers are refering to deeds or mortgages.

    Top billing is the warranty/grant deed always which CAN never be taken away from you. Take a look at the INSTRUMENT #’RS.

    You never see those numbers on the trustees deed those numbers refer to ONLY the deed of trust or mortgage. Hell, even the tax assessor has higher billing than some lien! (I know as I talked to her)Do you see we as grantor are suppose to “grant” it to the thieves?-Then how come
    WE don’t sign it away as the “substitute trustee does. How “legal” is that? THEN?- they call it a “special warranty deed”. OH ya it’s special all right- it means ANYONE who has a warranty in front of that?

    CAN lay claim-and we will. No one buying a foreclosed home has ANY clear title and at any time someone can come up and say, sorry,
    but you bought a stolen home get out. The buyers can and do become co-conspiritors-no immunity here.
    Just thoughts for the up coming new year.

    Like

  24. @Johngault,

    Here is a site with all kinds of cases in which MERS appears to have assigned the “note”. I didn’t read the whole thing but I do kow that Illinois is not in favor of homeowners.

    http://www.niu.edu/law/organizations/law_review/pdfs/full_issues/31_1/Hudspeth%201-18.pdf

    Hope you find what you need.

    Like

  25. UNPRECEDENTED FRAUD ON TH COURT OF RECORDS…

    Like

  26. @enraged – yes, that’s all true. If you know of a case, any case, anywhere, where a court has ruled MERS may assign a note, I’d be interested in a link or at least the name.
    “MERS” can’t assign a note. That’s a fact. For one thing, if they could, the bankster in the Anderson case I cited would NOT have admitted it (altho this is not the basis for my stating this as fact). I also point to MERS’ own testimony and statements in the Nebraska case. It doesn’t matter that it was in Nebraska, Hawaii, or timbucktwo. They were statements made by MERS that may be introduced in litigation in any venue and held against them.
    There are other questions of fact which I try to pose or induce thought on which are generic and applicable to any case, just as you appropriately induce others to ask themselves certain questions.
    There are a lot of statements made by banksters in litigation posing as
    facts in evidence which are not facts in evidence whatsoever. Most judges will not call them on it. That leaves us. Sometimes some of us here try to assist others here with their specific situations, even if just with thinking outloud mol. What we really need is a generic roadmap to objections to bs, a path to discovery, how to make a court see that it cannot make determinations without all the information, and the biggie, a consensus on what constitutes “all that information” , and so on. We all face pretty much the same spiel from banksters, with moderate variations, so an outline or a roadmap is in fact what we need imo.
    That’s my goal, certainly, and it’s some pretty rocky terrain.
    MS has probably got the goods. Okay, that’s nice. But I don’t understand it and I’m not gonna. Too complicated especially if my only source is the ‘teasers’ you pointed out, I think. It took me years of doing nothing else and I mean nothing to learn the little I know. So for us mere mortals, we continue to seek in-roads on procedure and attack where we can, where we think a judge might agree. That’s all we can do. Well, that’s not exactly true. More of us can be activists and help “educate” the judiciary. How can we do this? Write them letters, not about our own situations, but generic, or send them copies of well-reasoned decisions which support our ideas of the law, like that one in Vermont –

    any of you smarties remember what case that was? I sure could use it just now

    – which was a really good scathing analysis of the MERS’
    illusion. We have the power to be armchair quarterbacks, but not if we do nothing. We can write our elected officials. Send “get ’em” letters to the few attorneys general who are fighting the good fight.

    I of course have another goal, which I believe should be a common goal, and that is to see MERS’ database commandeered by the appropriate agency and their little (changed course of history) operation terminated. I read MS’ stuff at his link and he and I at least appear to agree on one thing:

    MERS HAS TO GO

    Like

  27. MERS WAS AND IS A TOTAL CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE THROUGH AND THROUGH…START TO FINISH…AND THEY ARE NOT FINISHED…

    Like

  28. @Johngault,

    Yep. I looked again and what assigned by MERS from one servicer to the other is… the Mortgage Note, indeed. It says nothing about Deed of Trust.

    Like

  29. @Johngault,

    Also, (and that was part of my tirade to infosearch) I don’t have that jargon down to a “T”. The question of whether states have agreed the “note” could be assigned vs. the DOT makes no sense to me. It may make no sense to people who don’t have the jargon down either.
    What they want to know is: here is my situation. Can I get out of it? If so, how?

    The fact of the matter is: when I look at my own file, I don’t see that it says anywhere “Deed of Truts” on the transfer/assignement of the mortgage. What is being assigned is the note and/or the mortgage (which one, I really don’t exactly know). In some states, your record a DOT. In others, you simply record the mortgage note.

    Like

  30. And, btw, MERS sold itself by telling everyone that it would help
    make funds for lending more available. How’s that working out so far, you &^$#!$%$!*?
    MERS HAS TO GO

    Like

  31. joann – good points you made, including this one:

    “Award it to a thief in court or look the other way while the thief absconds with the goods, it’s the same thing.”

    If courts are being swayed by their own perceptions and beliefs that a homeowner should not get a free house, we need to change that.
    First of all “free”? What the sam hell is a government bailout? What was TARP? Why did someone’s stock porfolio or retirement account become worthless practically overnight? Why is unemployment rampant? Why can’t some of us make our house payments? Why are businesses failing? (Even Sears fka Sears, Roebuck, and Co., certainly at one time an American icon, is closing a blankload of stores) Why are so many of us “stuck in the kitchen with the Tombstone blues”?

    I have seen a homeowner’ attorney throw it back at the bankster, but good, when the attorney prattled about the h.o. trying to get a “free” home. He basically said you wanna talk about free? Okay, we’ll talk about free, and he went into his own recitation about the bailouts, etc., his nemisis being a big recipient.
    The point is we need to change that perception. They got the FREE, the big FREE. Free money, free pass, free everything.

    They have ALREADY seen salvation $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (for their own blunders and crimes), your honor.

    And why shouldn’t a homeowner end up with a ‘free’ home if the LAW affords him one? If the LAW affords someone a ‘free’ home, your honor, you really have no legitimate choice. The homeowner got a loan (if one admits even this) and agreed to pay Party X. We’re not arguing that, but X et al’s failure to get his own legally mandated act together is no legal or moral justification for bench law. WE didn’t come up with that ridiculous plan (and all the pesky paperwork) about what to do with our loans. They did. We didn’t set the country on its head – they did. The judiciary needs to be calmly made to see who got the FREE and why valid legal arguments are available to homeowners, whether or not the court sees homeowners as deadbeats, reminding them WHO created this financial wreck and WHO made the production of mountains of legitimate evidence necessary to determine that the party before it is the aggrieved party, and that without that evidence, the homeowner may end up with a ‘free’ home because that is the LAW.
    Given what the polity is suffering just now, would that be so tragic?

    Like

  32. @Johngault,

    From what I understand, the MERS argument has been made over and over by homeowners and the appeals court of certain states have declined to hear cases arguing MERS’ lack of standing (Michigan was one until not too long ago), MERS’s right to assign and transfer notes (ditto for Michigan), etc. Some appeals’ courts are still sanctioning the sanctity of MERS and its right and power to transfer loans. Other states are still considering that a copy of a note is perfectly good to foreclose on someone.

    Sad to say, it really still is a state-by-state/case-by-case situation for each one of us. Sometimes, the district court may rule a certain way and the state court another. With 50 states and 12 districts, we can’t expect uniformity since people have only recently started to engage in the fight. It’s going to take time for every court and district to sort out the issues at hand.

    My best advice for anyone reading this site:

    1) Find out exactly what your problem is. Is this an economy-induced (TBTF-induced…) lack of money and you can’t pay anymore and simply want to modify egardless of whatever esle could be argued?
    2) If yes, have banks played the mod game with you and got you pissed enough to attack? Most of the time, state court might be the answer. Then, the next step is to figure out what your state overall opinion of homeowners is.
    3) Are you in a judicial or non-judicial state? it makes a huge difference on how the bank will proceed and what you need to do to protect yourself.
    4) Is your problem really serious and did you stop paying a long time ago? Are you in a position where all you’ll be doing is putting fires?
    5) Did you do the most elementary research and figured out that many laws were breached by the servicers allegedly holding your note?
    6) Do you know if anyone has the right the foreclose on you?

    Etc., etc. The list of questions to ask is very, very long, depending on what people want to accomplish.

    Most of the time, the battle does not consist in obtaining all the answers (most of them have to be given by the party on the attack anyway) but rather in asking all the right questions that will allow you to realize that the problem is not with you as a defaulting homeowners but with the servicer you may have paid forever without proof that that was the right party and the one legally entitled to foreclose.

    Johngault, you and I already know that no one is but most people assume that the NOD is adequate, proper and legitimate on the part of the servicer.

    Right now, what I often notice is that many people get the NOD from the servicer and scramble in a panic to get help here without having a reasonable common-sense understanding of what is happening to them, why, how, when, where, etc.

    All I was saying is that this site gives some pretty good info but it will not and cannot give blanket, all across-the-board answers and advice, simply because there are too many parameters involved for each case. I think we should all get in the habit of asking right of the bat the question: “Which state are you in and is it a judicial or non-judicial one?” That way, we can start helping people without them wasting a considerable amount of time asking the wrong questions and being misled and misdirected.

    A lot of people start out telling their story right off the bat. I know for a fact that, coming from a specific state, I immeditiately tend to have a knee-jerk reaction of “Such and such court decided such and such. That person is panicking unnecessarily”.

    So, my comments to Dee were born from my trying to help people with practical ways to find the info they need but, most of the time, I can’t give them the answer because… their state is not mine.

    Like

  33. @enraged – I’m not sure what you mean. Some states have decreed MERS may assign a note? That would be news to me. Dot, yeah, note – NO. As to assignments of dots: What a court rules is by and large based on the arguments before it. Bad argument, bad decision. Once a court has ruled one way, yes, it would be more difficult to get a diff ruling. BUT, that’s why I always say one can’t just read a decision. You have to read all the stinking arguments even if you think they’re evident in the decision. A court shouldn’t say we’ve already covered this if one is making new arguments. IMO there are
    numerous reasonable arguments which are routinely not made.

    As to Dee’s deal, I stand by what I said about the note. She has yet to fight the fight on the assignment of the dot, however, if she’s up for it.
    I appreciate your good points and wish there were more actually. IMO that’s how real solutions are found.

    Like

  34. @johngault

    http://dtc-systems.net/2011/12/texas-ropes-in-motion-dismiss-denied/

    This Judge heard you johngault. Thanks!

    Like

  35. Dee, so an assgt was allegedly done while the originator was in bankruptcy. What does this mean? I’m not sure, not very knowledgeable about that stuff. From the hip, I would say it’s crap and I smell the same fecal matter you do. You might call or write – try fax – the trustee of co. A’s bankruptcy and ask him or her who ended up with any assets of co. A. Chances are huge someone else did, which would mean they had nothing to assign. Try to find out if anyone were granted the authority by the bk court to execute assignments of anything. You could also get a Pacer account and research the docket in co. A’s bk and I strongly urge you to do so. I will help you negotiate the docket, if you want, but I can’t practice law! Just tell you how to find things. What’s the name of the co?
    If you tell me, I’ll take a quick look.
    Who has an opinion about that notarization being done 6 mos after the alleged execution of the assignment? I don’t know what attack
    to make on that exactly.

    You said:

    ” MERS was the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust for Lender A and its successors and assigns, which includes Lender B. ”

    I’m guessing you got this from bankster attorney. In the Walker case, as I recall, the original lender was not even a MERS’ member at the time the dot was originated, though the dot listed MERS as nominee. If arguendo (because there is really no evidence it was) company A were at one time a MERS’ member, but was then dissolved through bk (was it?), then obviously not still a MERS’ member, which ‘relieves’ MERS of its alleged authority to assign the dot one way or another.

    As the Wilhelm (In re Wilhelm) judge said, what you need are some facts, beyond what I see as you being able to reasonably argue there has been no “assignment” of the note, so hit the bricks, bankster.

    Btw, there is never any evidence submitted that anyone in the chain of the dot is or was a MERS’ member at the requisite times. The trusts which allegedly own the beneficial interest in the notes, for instance, aren’t MERS’ members, so why is MERS’ (read member) acting for them? Where is it written that they may? “Oh, you say they may? Okay, show me and the court please.”

    Like

  36. @johngault,

    We need to qualify that kind of statements. What I mean is that it still depends on how states have ruled thus far. Which is not to say that the argument must not be made but we need to warn people that, depending on how their state have ruled, it may still remain a very difficult argument to successfully make.

    As an example, I know that MI has ruled that MERS could assign and transfer. So, I wouldn’t base my entire defense on something like that. Ohio has ruled the opposite. And from what I understand, federal courts have the same problem: some of them have ruled in favor of MERS’ assignment while others haven’t. Any strategy needs to take that into account, until such time as there is a consensus on that issue, favorable to all homeowners victimized by MERS.

    Happy New year to all. I shall drink (a lot. It’s the night to do just that!!!) to victory for the homeowners, jail time for the banksters and sudden enlightment of our pitiful, pathetic congress and government.

    Like

  37. dee – MERS has no authority to “assign” a note. Period. That statement alone may not get one anywhere in a court, however. How does one get a court to get off its duff and understand these things?
    Look at the docs either ‘in your space’ or before the court. I don’t know if you’re litigating. Can you find somewhere in those docs where MERS is granted some authority to “assign” a note? No, you can’t and neither can the rest of the world, including a judge. Even if MERS is the nominee, agent, beneficiary in the deed of trust, and as I always say – pick one – (and excuse me while I get sick), MERS is no one as to a note. If they recorded such an assignment, they’ve recorded a false instrument, which is a crime in all states of one degree or another. If they gave it to a court, they have presented a false document for reliance by the court, also an offense.

    Here is what the bankster attorney said about MERS’ “assignment”
    of a note in PHH v Anderson / Shelly in October 2011, BK NV
    10-31903 (in admitting MERS may not assign note):

    “Though MERS never held the Note, it could by virtue of its nominee status (note bankster is now calling MERS a nominee, not an agent or the beneficiary) transfer the DOT on behalf of the Note Holder. Although the Assignment contains language purporting to assign both the Note and Mortgage (it’s not a mortgage, you idiot stick), MERS
    *lacked the assignable interest in the Note.” *

    **”While this surplusage evidences poor drafting, it does not affect
    the validity of MERS’ s (yikes! who typed this?!) assignment of the Deed of Trust. (cases cited – sic)” **

    Surplusage? What manner of bs is this? This “surplusage” is the standard language in ALL MERS’ (read member-self-assignment)
    assignments and is routinely recorded and submitted to courts for reliance by everyone involved and everyone in the world, given the statutory notice of recordation. MERS lacked the assignable interest? Now there’s a news flash.

    I haven’t read the cases cited for the proposition that the inclusion of the fraudulent assignment of the note in the assignment of the dot does not invalidate the assgt of the dot, but believe me, I would argue otherwise and look til the cows come home for support.

    So, Dee, where are we? MERS can’t assign a note. Ever. An assignment of a dot without a right to payment on the note is a
    “legal nullity”, or so have said several jurisdictions (and logic), and I just dont’ know what’s going on with those arguments in MA and AZ being entertained that one may f/c with just the collateral instrument. This world’s gone crazy. At any rate, here’s a case where it has been admitted that MERS may not assign a note. So scratch note. Without an attorney, I don’t know that you could argue what needs to be argued in court, but you can certainly write a letter saying nice try, sportsfans, but forget it. Everyone who has lost a home to this
    bs assgt of the note in the assgt of the dot oughta get out their pens
    and start sqwauking. Put it on public record. Do SOMEthing. Ask a lawyer how to preserve your objections, thinking statute of limitations. Something like that.

    Like

  38. More Rot in the OCC Foreclosure Reviews

    posted by Adam Levitin

    Michael Olenick, Gretchen Morgenson, and Yves Smith have all written pretty damning things about the foreclosure reviews persuant to the OCC consent orders with major mortgage servicers. (For my own previous thoughts, see here and here.) I’ve just started to peruse some of the engagement letters with the firms conducting the reviews, and the rot is even worse that these other critics portray.

    What follows is in no way a comprehensive cataloging of the problems in the OCC foreclosure review process–this is just what I spotted from the briefest of perusals. Yet it is clear that there are two types of serious problems: conflicts of interest and flawed substance of the review process. I’ll lay both out below and then give some thoughts as to what could and should be done to remedy this farcical process in order to ensure some accountability to the public and justice for homeowners. The post concludes with some thoughts about the core problem–the OCC–and what can be done to remedy it.

    Conflicts of Interest
    (1) The Allonhill letter has seemingly strict conflict of interest rules. But then it grants various conflicts-of-interest exceptions to Allonhill. What’s more ridiculous is that it’s all being done on the honor system. That just doesn’t work with conflicts of interest.

    Read more at http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2011/12/more-rot-in-the-occ-foreclosure-reviews.html

    Like

  39. @Colleen,

    Thank you. I needed to get it off my chest…

    Like

  40. @infosearch,

    Dee is so desperate that he/she posted the same thing over and over. I don’t know what he/she is asking and I can’t help. I told her/him that much. However, I didn’t see anywhere that you even bothered to address what he/she wrote.

    Apparently, you’re very well connected. With all those “testimonies” you’ve given, you know people; you could help by giving them names or by directing them to appropriately to sources. People on this site ask for names of attonneys willing and able to help. I didn’t see anywhere that you gave that kind of info to anyone asking for it.

    This is a site where we help each other. You seem to use it as a self-serving plateform to sell your “full accounting”. Great for the very few of us who can pay for one. That leaves all the rest biting the dust and becoming more and more depressed as time goes by.

    I am not very happy with you. I hope you got that much… I’ll tell you one thing: I don’t know much. There is one thing I know: mobilizing and refering people to the right source helps them a hell of a lot more than throwing in DOT, REMIC, TRO, empty trusts and what not at their faces. Ask Holly what she cares about them. She asked for help to save her house before it’s taken away on January 3rd. We didn’t throw crap at her. We gave her names and how-to. Know what? Within 24 hours, she was in touch with Mandelman and now, she’s in touch with Max Gardner. Didn’t take any poopooing, any condescending tone, any grandiloquence. Just 5 minutes to direct her to the best possible source.

    And no one tried to sell her a “full accounting”!

    Homeowners on the brink of foreclosure can’t afford elitiism. They don’t have the money and time is running out for them. Got that? And they want to celebrate each and every decision in their favor. Posts such as yours destroy it for them.

    Like

  41. BROVO enraged… Logic at it’s finest!

    Like

  42. @foreclosureinfo,

    With all due respect (and I just finished reading the link you posted), what does it really matter since the case was dismissed anyway?

    What you don’t get is that WE DON’T UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING. See, we come from generations of honest people, whose word means something, whose signature is important and not to be squandered about and whose desire is only to get out of those situation s we didn’t create (although banks have done everything to make us believe we had).

    The tone you use to disqualify judge Schack’s decision is unbelievably condescending and, quite frankly, pompous. So, you’re an expert? Good for you! I’ve read your posts and they make no sense to me. Want to know why? Because I am so direct and transparent that my brain is not wired to understand fraud. I don’t even understand most of the questions to ask, let alone the answers!!!

    What are you really doing to make it palatable to us and to judges? Not a hell of a lot! You throw in your knowledge and your science with your consdescending and pompous tone, you poopoo every single court decision in favor of homeowners because the judge “didn’t get it” but what are you really doing, beside saying the same thing on this site, over and over? What are you really doing to educate homeowners, judges and attorneys? Have you offered your science to 60 minutes? To Max Gardner for his conferences?

    I asked a few direct questions a while back. You never answered! For example, if I have a Fannie Mae, how do I find my trust and whether it is full or empty? Have you written any how-to book like sone attorneys have (23 legal defenses to foreclosure)? Because what you need to know is: “with a full accounting” is not within our reach. We can’t even pay for the damn house, let alone for a “full accounting of the loan”! How much do you charge? $2,500? $5,000? $10,000? We can’t hire you to testify, you see. How much do you charge an hour? $300? $500? $700?

    So, please, start answering small questions instead of throwing big words nobody understands and everybody gets confused with. Maybe your thing is accounting. Great for you!!! Ours is different. I know things you don’t. We all know things you don’t. Even judges know things you don’t.

    Please, stop pissing on our parade!!! For us, every single decision in favor of a homeowner is a victory, regardless how much the judge “got ot”. Don’t you “get it”?

    And, by the way, do you do Pro Bono? Probably not…

    Like

  43. WHAT YOU SEE IS NOT WHAT YOUR GETTING JUDGE !

    Unbelievable – Judge Shack blows it and no one on this site can pick it up . How many more homes will be lost .

    LL. A FULL accounting will easily show that the alleged transfers of the loan obligation were never the basis for payment between the transferor and transferee.
    Soliman – Why , Your defeating the conversion argument? It was by pledge

    A FULL accounting will show that the most of the loans have been paid down further than any required principal reduction.
    Soliman – Wrong – they were discounted – like a zero coupon

    It will show that the past foreclosures were fraudulent,
    Yes ..why?

    the sale of bonds to investors were fraudulent,
    wrong – Bonefide sales ; FDIC Obligations!

    and that the new ones coming up are equally baseless and without merit.
    Soliman – Correct – But why ?

    Here is the case law as long as the mississippi ….

    M.Soliman
    http://www.free-press-release.com/news-hsbc-bank-avoids-close-call-in-foreclosure-controversy-1325322688.html

    Like

  44. http://www.free-press-release.com/news-hsbc-bank-avoids-close-call-in-foreclosure-controversy-1325322688.html

    WHAT YOU SEE IS NOT WHAT YOUR GETTING JUDGE !

    Unbelievable – Judge Shack blows it and no one on this site can pick it up . How many more homes will be lost .

    LL. A FULL accounting will easily show that the alleged transfers of the loan obligation were never the basis for payment between the transferor and transferee.
    Soliman – Why , Your defeating the conversion argument? It was by pledge

    A FULL accounting will show that the most of the loans have been paid down further than any required principal reduction.
    Soliman – Wrong – they were discounted – like a zero coupon

    It will show that the past foreclosures were fraudulent,
    Yes ..why?

    the sale of bonds to investors were fraudulent,
    wrong – Bonefide sales ; FDIC Obligations!

    and that the new ones coming up are equally baseless and without merit.
    Soliman – Correct – But why ?

    Here is the case law as long as the mississippi ….

    M.Soliman

    expert.witness@live.com

    Like

  45. @johngault

    Lender A filed for Bankruptcy May 21, 2006 however, our Assignment of Note and Deed of Trust effective date was April 1, 2008. The Assignment was not notarize until September 17, 2008. Therefore, did Lender A Bankruptcy Court grant Mers authority to execute such assignments. Lender B attorney stated ( MERS was the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust for Lender A and its successors and assigns, which includes Lender B. Lender B was authorized to act under the Deed of Trust to enforce Plaintiff’s indebtedness.) Lender B attorney is alledging Mers had authority from Lender A to assigned our Note and Deed of Trust to Lender B.

    Like

  46. Oh, no, spitfire. If a judge orders fines or sanctions, and they don’t get paid, it is NOT a walk in the park. They’ll pay. They have to and they know it if an appeal court doesn’t throw it out. What’s her face missy is probably already in contempt for not showing up. They don’t want to add more contempt.

    Like

  47. a Spitfire

    I wanted to contact you regarding the attorneys referral.

    Like

  48. Good for Judge Schack, but really, if the President of HSBC has such disdain for the Supreme Courts orders to appear, what makes him think they are going to pay any fines?? Good luck with that. They are protected as a corporation, so unless he named an individual party of HSBC, not sure how this will make any difference to them. Unless of course, he is also willing to impose SANCTIONS against them that effectively create a situation where every day that they do not pay or comply with court orders, the fines double and at some point, the entire company is confiscated and SHUT DOWN until they do comply.

    Yeah, yeah, I know ~ wishful thinking.

    Like

  49. Barbara – thanks for the link. That was a fascinating read. The bankster and counsel were sanctioned, and more good news is this does not vitiate the borrower’s own action against HSBC and company. I still can’t believe the nerve of that whole gang. Guess it’s because they’re used to getting away with it.

    Like

  50. “But Schack, whose blistering and colorful opinions from the bench have made him a folk hero for financially troubled homeowners — said

    HSBC is responsible for the actions of its agents.”

    This is (one of the reasons) why MERS avoided the word ‘agent’ in deeds of trust, and choice the innocuous ‘nominee’ instead. MERS’
    members only later alleged MERS is an ‘agent’ out of desperation to take our homes.

    Like

  51. As was stated already, Americans are still Rip Van Winkling hard and fast. The NBC Nightly News last night was about the gazillions rushing off to the Disney places….like…”Well America, you’ve been gang raped! What are you going to do next?”

    But the outcome that TPTB CANNOT prepare for or against is when WE ALL ARE FORECLOSED UPON, as in the economy just keeps heading towards earth’s core and everyone’s left in the resulting crater. Their alleged (not sayin’ yes, not sayin’ no, left for another day) FEMA camps will probably end up being filled with people they didn’t count on, THEMSELVES!

    And then THE GREAT REBUILD begins in earnest. DEBT JUBILEE, and free cigars and single malt Scotch to everyone left standing.

    Laissez les Bon Temps Roulez!

    Like

  52. And I have been shouting: “We already paid forward with all the bailouts!”

    What kind of rationale could justify rewriting a contract under government’s auspices with a party one never had a contract with in the first place? Now, that’s a thought for you: if the modification is regulated by our government and one still defaults simply because the economy doesn’t get any better, doesn’t that increase the penalty simply by virtue of said government’s involvement? Doesn’t that, in essence, foreclose on available defenses to foreclosure, even though that same government might be guilty of gross mismanagement and failure to uphold the laws?

    I hear that there are hundreds of ways to skin a bear. I refuse to be that bear… It’s bad enough to find myself wide open to banks’ fraud. I won’t compound it with government half-ass intervention.

    Like

  53. I’ve been shouting it for years, “YOU CAN’T MODIFY FRAUD!”

    And like joann says, if you can prove you own it: you can modify it, foreclose it, sell it, or shove it for all I care.

    Like

  54. Mainstream, govt, attorneys and judges are starting to get it that fraud paperwork is being used to foreclose on homes. The point of view remains that this is about banks with bungled paperwork attempting to foreclose on deadbeat homeowners who owe them money. Who actually owns the “mortgage” not an issue. All arguments even those that go to the ownership still have the end game of modification. Govt investigations seek leverage in that end game. Lawsuits by attorneys seek leverage in that end game. If the modifier doesn’t own something, he can’t modify it. Make him do it if you can and now he owns it. It’s a whole bunch of fraud shoved under the rug to prevent deadbeat borrowers from getting a free house. Award it to a thief in court or look the other way while the thief absconds with the goods, it’s the same thing. Why should a theif get modified payments? Find the ownership first and how much is owed. Modify second. Probably won’t even need a modification.

    Like

  55. My point exactly!

    Nothing happened for 4 years because people were too afraid to act. They no longer have that excuse…

    Then again, what’s that smell in the air? Oh, right! It’s the smell of election year… Funny how that gets some people moving.

    Like

  56. […] are Neil Garfield’s comments regarding this case from LivingLies (https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/schack-bangs-hsbc-for-false-paperwork/): Posted on December 30, 2011 by Neil […]

    Like

  57. “We have more power than we give ourselves credit for.”

    How’s about we agree on, “We have more power than we give ourselves.”

    It’s the credit part that causes my dry-heaves and this uncontrollable bout of Tourettes. 🙂

    Like

  58. Judge Schack is shaking the rafters along with Judge Spinner in Suffolk. That is why 2012 will be the year of federal filings. i already see all the servicing of the loans going back under the N.A. Umbrella. This is being done in advance because the N.A, or a direct wholly owners subsidiary was always the Seller / Donor Bank and they have the Notes. Very similar to the credit cards trusts and the Public, Private Participation fraud going on over at the FDIC.

    We need an everyone stop paying their mortgage date! We need an everyone go to their pension fund and tell them they no longer want these mutts on Wall Street managing transactions, that’s why they pay a fund manager. Take our other assets out of these institutions and bankrupt them!

    Banks are like crack dealers with suits on. You can find them on every corner and if we all work together to put out the current scum there will be another to occupy that spot.

    We just need to crash it and reform based on the terms of the people. If we all begin a financial revolt they will come to terms quickly. We have more power than we give ourselves credit for.

    Like

  59. Another great news!

    Mandelman is helping Holly who wrote here (Congratulations article) about her situation yesterday and he is contacting Max Gardner to handle her case.

    We can make a difference!!!

    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 )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: