Bill Paatalo Hits Another Nail on the Head

If you want to know what persistence means, go visit Bill Paatalo. This time this Oregon private investigator has found a California statute that applies to many different originators. It seems that once they have been deactivated, nobody is allowed to make a transfer of anything on behalf of the originator unless the originator has settled all tax liabilities.

The use of MERS to provide cover for illegal transfers is now coming under increasing scrutiny and findings by multiple courts. If the originator’s name is listed as “lender” on the mortgage and payee on the note, then without a legal transfer from the originator, MERS, as agent, is also suspended and cannot be the agent of another entity unless MERS has a separate agency contract with the “new entity.”

But the real question is when will the courts recognize that the judicial system has been weaponized against the interest of landowners by parties falsely asserting agency or powers of attorney from entities that are suspended  or no longer exist or that never existed.

see Paatalo Article on Legal Status of Originators Who Are Suspended From Making Any Transfers of Assets

 

7 Responses

  1. Los Angeles is hit by TYPHUS at epidemic rate – a decease which rapidly killed millions in Europe during past centuries.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/downtown-los-angeles-hit-with-outbreak-of-flea-borne-typhus/ar-BBO0m3j

    Despite all warnings about dangers of illegal foreclosures, judges continue to help banks steal properties and send Americans (who bailed out banks with $ 29 trillion and who fund judicial paychecks for honest services) on the streets – while provide false information about the number of people who live in tents, in anti-sanitary conditions and without any control.

    With millions of homeless typhus can spread at astronomic speed and its nearly impossible to catch it at the early stage and treat with antibiotics.

    I can only guess about the next Evil growing in homeless camps

    Like

  2. @ ALL

    For Kalifornians, from Business and Professions Code:

    BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE – BPC
    DIVISION 4. REAL ESTATE [10000 – 11506] ( Division 4 added by Stats. 1943, Ch. 127. )
    PART 1. LICENSING OF PERSONS [10000 – 10580] ( Part 1 added by Stats. 1943, Ch. 127. )
    CHAPTER 3. Real Estate Regulations [10130 – 10249.93] ( Chapter 3 added by Stats. 1943, Ch. 127. )

    ARTICLE 5. Transactions in Trust Deeds and Real Property Sales Contracts [10230 – 10236.7] ( Article 5 added by Stats.
    1961, Ch. 886. )

    §10233.2 For the purposes of Division 3 (commencing with Section 3101) and Division 9 (commencing with Section 9101) of the Commercial Code, when a broker, acting within the meaning of subdivision (d) or (e) of Section 10131 or Section 10131.1, has arranged a loan or sold a promissory note or any interest therein, and thereafter undertakes to service the promissory note on behalf of the lender or purchaser in accordance with Section 10233, delivery, transfer, and perfection shall be deemed complete even if the broker retains possession of the note or collateral instruments and documents, provided that the deed of trust or an assignment of the deed of trust or collateral documents in favor of the lender or purchaser is recorded in the office of the county recorder in the county in which the security property is located, and the note is made payable to the lender or is endorsed or assigned to the purchaser.

    (Added by Stats. 1992, Ch. 158, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 1993.)

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&division=4.&title=&part=1.&chapter=3.&article=5.

    **Pay attention to the legal mandate of “shall” within the context of unity of “and” applied to the “assignment of the [DOT]”…”and the note…is endorsed…to the purchaser.”

    ***This means no blank endorsements allowed.

    Like

  3. The rule is UCC9 where if your not the originator of the Note as with Wells Fargo Bank in every Washington Mutual Bank Ginnie Mae pooled loan that they foreclosed on after Sept 25, 2008, which would be 104,000 or so loans in 2009-2010 with the foreclosure rate of government loans at 4% per year during that period. WaMu not being in possession of the Notes per Ginnie rules performed UCC3 procedure of endorsing the Notes in bland and relinquishing the Note at the conception of the pool. WaMu went one step further as there was a physically transferred the blank Note on Jul 31, 2006, making no doubt that Ginnie was the owner of the Notes.

    The Note debt cannot be purchased by Ginnie as it not authorized by US Congress so a permanent separation of the Note and Debt occurred. WaMu collapsed without the ability to ever regain the debt. The FDIC could not and did not sale the WaMu Ginnie pooled loans as Ginnie not a member of MERS as a lender and is not the debt holder so any agreement with MERS stops on Sept 25, 2008, making it impossible for MERS to assign the titles to Wells. There must be proof of purchase to the court in order to call the debt due as all the Notes have blank endorsements!

    Every State uses the UCC rules and UCC9 demand a non-originator provide proof of purchase to the court! No non-judicial foreclosures!

    Like

  4. A huge hat tip to Bill Paatalo for finding this statute. This statute looks like it will be very useful if used in the right situations.

    Like

  5. Hey Bill Pataalo,
    See if this law applies to all 50 states and I’ll send you a fine Cuban cigar-

    Like

  6. Hmm — incredible Roger!!!! And, who is the “Lender??!!!!!!” No one anyone knows.

    Like

  7. Did the Circuit Court abuse its discretion by ignoring the Breach of Contract claims related to the Home Affordable Modification Agreement(s) entered into by the Appellants that were breached by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the ENTERPRISE) by attempting a sheriff sale after collecting timely payments (first HAMP) and by not returning countersigned copies of the agreement (as required by the documents’ own wording) to the Defendants to make the contract binding (second breached HAMP)?

    Standard of Review: De novo

    Trial Court: From the transcript of hearing dated May 31st, 2018 Page 9 Line 21:
    THE COURT: Let’s take a step back. They’ve presented me with some documents here. They have asked me to make a finding that this appears to be an original document consistent with what was filed. Any comments on that?
    MR. RINALDI: Yes. First of all, the Home Modification—the Home Mortgage Modification Agreement that Plaintiffs rely on was never returned to us to make it a binding contract.
    THE COURT: Number one, it doesn’t have to be returned—
    MR. RINALDI: Yes, it does.
    THE COURT: I’m talking. I’m talking. Okay. If you sign an agreement then there is an agreement. Okay.

    Pursuant to the Home Affordable Modification Agreement second paragraph:(RJN Exhibit 9):
    “I understand that after I sign and return two copies of this Agreement to the Lender, the Lender will send me a signed copy of this Agreement.”

    What bias?

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: