Tuesday, October 14, 2014

IF WELLS FARGO WRONGFULLY FORECLOSES UPON YOU, AND YOU WIN YOUR CASE, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATORY DAMAGES (TIMES THREE, OR TREBLE DAMAGES, IN MANY STATES) IF CERTAIN ISSUES CAN BE PROVEN - TALK TO YOUR ATTORNEY. SOMETIMES, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, WILL BE ORDERED AGAINST YOUR LENDER. IT IS WORTH EVERY EFFORT.

Lawyers Take Note: Wells Fargo Slammed With $3.1 Million Punitive Damages on One Wrongful Foreclosure

Posted on April 12, 2012 by Neil Garfield

THE COURT'S MEMORANDUM OPINION 

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

GARFIELD PROPOSES NATIONAL LAW FIRM FOR COUNTER-ATTACK

Editor’s Comment: 
The most perplexing part of this mortgage mess has been the unwillingness of the legal community to take on the Banks. Besides the intimidation factor the primary source of resistance has been the lack of confidence that any money could be made, ESPECIALLY on contingency. If you were the lawyer in the case reported below, you would be getting a check for fees alone of over $1.2 million on a single case. And as this article and hundreds of others have reported, based upon objective surveys, most of the 5 million homes lost since 2007 were wrongful foreclosures.
So the inventory for lawyers is 5 million homes plus the next 5 million everyone is expecting. Let’s due some simple arithmetic: if 4 million homes were wrongfully foreclosed and the punitive damages were $1 million per house the total take would be $4 Billion with contingency fees at $1.6 Billion. If each house carried $200,000 in compensatory damages, then the total would be increased by $800 Million with Lawyers taking home $320 Million. These figures exceed personal injury and malpractice awards. Why is the legal profession ignoring this opportunity to do something right and make a fortune at the same time?
Right now I’m a little under the weather (open heart surgery) but that hasn’t stopped my associates from rolling out a plan for a national anti-foreclosure firm. I’m only doing this because nobody else will. If you have had a home wrongfully foreclosed or suspect that your current foreclosure is wrongful, write to NeilFGarfield@hotmail.com (remember the “F”) and ask for help. Lawyers and victims of wrongful foreclosures should be able to pool their resources to attack the massive foreclosure attack with a massive anti-foreclosure attack.

Wells Fargo Slapped With $3.1 Million Fine For ‘Reprehensible’ Handling Of One Mortgage

A federal judge who has fiercely criticized how big banks service home loans is fed up with Wells Fargo.
In a scathing opinion issued last week, Elizabeth Magner, a federal bankruptcy judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana, characterized as “highly reprehensible” Wells Fargo’s behavior over more than five years of litigation with a single homeowner and ordered the bank to pay the New Orleans man a whopping $3.1 million in punitive damages, one of the biggest fines ever for mortgage servicing misconduct.
“Wells Fargo has taken advantage of borrowers who rely on it to accurately apply payments and calculate the amounts owed,” Magner writes. “But perhaps more disturbing is Wells Fargo’s refusal to voluntarily correct its errors. It prefers to rely on the ignorance of borrowers or their inability to fund a challenge to its demands, rather than voluntarily relinquish gains obtained through improper accounting methods.”
The opinion reflects Magner’s disgust with tactics that Wells Fargo used to fight the case — and perhaps frustration with an appeals court ruling in a separate, but similar case, that overturned her order that would have forced Wells Fargo to audit and provide a full accounting for more than 400 home loans in her jurisdiction.
As The Huffington Post previously reported in a story co-published with The Center for Public Integrity, sources familiar with the preliminary findings said that the bank made costly accounting errors in the administration of practically all of those loans.
In an emailed statement, Tom Goyda, a Wells Fargo spokesman said: “The ruling handed down by the court in an individual bankruptcy case covers allegations going back more than six years and ignores significant changes in servicing practices that have occurred since that time. We believe that there are numerous factual and legal problems with the opinion and are reviewing our options regarding an appropriate legal response.”
Goyda said that an appeal of the ruling is “one option” the bank is considering.
Despite widespread reports that the banks and other companies that service home loans engaged in a range of misconduct — from ordering unnecessary property inspections to misapplying payments in a way that can lead to wrongful foreclosure — few judges have had the time, ability or inclination to do the kind of forensic analysis necessary to uncover wrongdoing in individual cases. For a non-accountant, reading a loan history is like interpreting hieroglyphics without a Rosetta Stone, and banks are often reluctant to turn them over in the first place.
The exceptions have tended to come in federal bankruptcy courts, where justices typically have more time to dig into loan accounts, and are much more likely to have the financial expertise necessary to do so. In an earlier interview, Magner said that she analyzed the loan files of more than 20 borrowers in her court and found mistakes in every instance.
“These are loans of working-class people who bought homes they could afford and whose loans were not administered correctly from an accounting perspective,” she said. “I think that these types of problems occur in almost every [defaulted] loan in the country.”
The current case involves Michael Jones of New Orleans. In a 2007 decision, Magner ruled that Wells Fargo improperly charged Jones more than $24,000 in fees, owing to a fundamental problem in the automated methodology the bank used to account for his loan payments.
After Jones fell into default, Magner ruled, the bank improperly applied his mortgage payments to interest and fees that had accrued instead of to principal, as required by his servicing contract. This triggered a waterfall of additional fees and interest that consumer lawyers call “rolling default.” Later, after Jones applied for bankruptcy, the bank continued to misapply payments, according to Magner’s opinion.
In the most recent opinion, Magner describes Wells Fargo’s litigation tactics, which involved filing dozens of briefs, motions and other filings that slowed down the proceedings to a snail’s pace, as “particularly vexing.” The tactics suggest that any other borrower who might wish to contest a fee or charge would find a legal challenge to the bank simply too burdensome.
And yet, Magner writes, it is only through litigation that the abuses can be uncovered. Calling Wells Fargo’s conduct “clandestine,” Magner wrote that the bank refused to communicate with Jones even as it was misdirecting payments for improper purposes.
“Only through litigation was this practice discovered,” Magner writes. “Wells Fargo admitted to the same practices for all other loans in bankruptcy or default. As a result, it is unlikely that most debtors will be able to discern problems with their accounts without extensive discovery.”
Magner wrote that the bank still refuses to come clean with homeowners about mistakes it made in the accounting of home loans. This is particularly troublesome in her district, where more than 80 percent of the borrowers who file for bankruptcy have incomes of less than $40,000, and consequently are often unable to hire the kind of legal firepower necessary to counter Wells Fargo’s army of lawyers.
“[W]hen exposed, [Wells Fargo] revealed its true corporate character by denying any obligation to correct its past transgressions and mounting a legal assault ensure it never had to,” Magner wrote.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor,Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: | , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , 
«   »

151 Responses

  1. plantmum6, on November 9, 2013 at 3:13 am said:
    case is so ridiculous, absurd and frustrating most people I share the story with can’t believe it happened! But it did, and I have had many people attempt to step in and help. I have the documents as well as names of two attorneys who would gladly testify in my behalf, but will not take the case as it is not in their scope.
    In a nutshell. My grandparents owned the home we had lived in for 17 years. They had a A/B trust…with this propert being in the survivors half, my grandfather. He appointed his brother as executor, and as he was getting quite elderly, he helped him with paperwork etc. In Dec. 2007, my grandfather, aged 96, refinanced this home, pulling all available out to set aside in a fund to pay for any future care he might need. In Dec 2009 my grandpa, at 98, passed away. Settling the trust took a long time, and in Dec 2010 I (sole inheritor) was granted the deed, and began to take back over the payments, about 1700 a month. (The trust had paid them prior. The first thing I did was find out that in California, the law is that the bank would be required to offer me a NON QUALIFYING ASSUMPTION ( (regardless of credit or finances I could assume loan). The loan had been Wachovia, but was now Wells Fargo, btw.They sent me a giant package of paperwork, that I pored over and returned quickly along with a dna sample, my oldest sons ear and signed it in blood (lol, not really…but close).
    To speed it up: The bank said NO. My grandfathers brother (the exucator) was on the loan as cosigner!! This being a complete mistake the mortgage broker and myself, executors attorney and others spent nearly a year “getting his name removed”. We had a signed document from Wells Fargo President stating his name should never have been on loan, and we though that was that. NO. I spent many more mobths trying to assume loan, only to be told same thing….faxed in nite about error…many, many times. This began hundreds of hours of endless excuses, different answers, elevated inquiries etc. During this my husband and I seperated. “I” fell behind by two payments over the course of a year. I wanted to discuss what I could do, but they couldnt as “I was not on the loan”. In May of 2012 I had the needed funds to catch up loan. (Btw, the h͵ouse had NO equity anymore). Suddenly, my payments doubled to 4,000. I did not know why, or for how long. They could not tell me as MY NAME WAS NOT ON THE LOAN. My grandfathers brothers lawyer, citing the signed clerical error, insisted he have no further contact as he really had no rights or interest in this property. So I had the 8,000 or so to catch up on a mortgage, not in my name, that I would lose anyhow at 4,000 a month (the max it could be rented for was 1700)…I would happily catch it up however if we could get paymemt back to 1700 or at least closer, otherwise I would be throwing away the 8,000. Wells Fargo continuelly told me there was probably a good chance of it being modified….but that was all they could say AS MY NAME WAS NOT ON THE LOAN AND MY GREAT UNCLE…ALIVE, NAME WAS ON LOAN. (Even though it wasnt) This nonsense continued with much more to tell until, it was auctioned on Jan3. I brought 5 kids home to that house, and to lose it was ALMOST the most painful thing ever except this: January 6th I received a letter, to me (they had me a contact, meaning they could discuss some of loan with me…aknowledged deed was in my name et,) THE LETTER STATED MY NEW PAYMENTS FOR COMING YEAR WOULD BE BACK TO, CLOSE TO THE 1700. Now, a few days after my heart had been wrenched out they tell me it had been a temporary escrow account(?) ….. they could not tell me that EARLIER (we would have found a way to pay 4,000 for just a few months…..) because…drum roll please…my name not on loan and my great-uncle was loan owner…….
    What hell. I mean the freaking pain and suffering of the whole nightmare nearly did me in. I want them to pay! Howcould they get away with this?
    I apologize for all the “clerical errors” on my post, I had to do it rushed, on very small phone with no spell check.
  2. Jane Doe, on March 13, 2013 at 3:22 pm said:
    Where are the attorneys that we can hire to help us? The article is very accurate in that most attorneys will not stay in for the long hall and will request to sub out when the going gets rough.
  5. nootkabear, on April 21, 2012 at 12:31 am said:
    Reblogged this on Manifest Injustice.
  6. ANONYMOUS, on April 19, 2012 at 5:16 pm said:
    Societal effect of foreclosures — beyond our lifetime.
  7. pendinglawsuit, on April 19, 2012 at 7:30 am said:
    Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Re: Reply to Wells Fargo’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Motion to Compel WITH EXHIBITS A, B, C, D, E, F & G

  9. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 18, 2012 at 10:18 am said:
    Jennifer, the homeless are living with their families, relatives. My adult children are in my remodeled (for them) double garage and extra bedrooms while I fight the mod fruad and crime to save my house.. Hard working adult children and ten grandchildren, that did not deserve this hell. My son is trying to save his home and living in his home while trying to save it. Many of my customers and family and friends are living in homes they are trying to save and or have relatives living with them. All doubled up like third world countries NO LIKE AMERICA FOR NOW! Yes this hides this crime all to well. The banks leaving them in the homes until they pick them off one at a time hides the evidence of just how bad this crime really is. a’nd of course there are massive suicides in every neighborhood of the U.S. due to this crime. Blood is on the hands of our officials not doing their job to help the innocent victims, choosing to line their pockets with silver and gold and do the banks bidding. Think it is bad now they are doubling the hell and foreclosures. Throw all the officials out of office. Pretty soon Americans will be throwing stones at the public buildings like Iceland. Our public officials and all Americans have to “wake up” and see this battle has to be fought one way or another. If they all squat in their houses and file in the courts and make the litigation so outrageous, perhaps this would all end. This was so unthinkable a few years ago. Every American must see what is happening.
  10. Jenifer Baldwin, on April 18, 2012 at 8:02 am said:
    You’re fighting the “invisable man” here.There are way too many cooks in the kitchen here and the servicers cook up their own dish to shove down your throats.Question is…who is pulling the strings at the top? How can this happen? Who is involved? Why is it going on? Where is the help for the American homeowner? Why is it still happening? Why aren’t these theives going to jail?Why don’t we here more about this on the news? With thousands,upon thousands of people being tossed out in the streets,out of their homes I’d like to ask this question…where are they? Where are the countless homeless people living? Our streets should be over ran with the homeless by now.Sure,the hotels and motels are over flowing,homeless shelters,and families taking in family,a few tents,but our streets seem to be pretty much vacant where I live.Maybe a solution would be to line our streets with the homeless for all to see in every state and town,”band together” make it known and then you might see change.
    This would draw attention to the media,then people could tell their stories.There’s still people out there that believe that we are just a bunch of idiots who took out a mortgage we could not afford,they haven’t a clue what really happens behind the scenes.This is not an act of nature.This didn’t happen because of a tornado,hurricane,an earthquake,fire,etc this happened out of pure GREED and it needs to stop now!!! We must make a stand.
  11. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 17, 2012 at 6:50 pm said:
    zHomeowners I know that sold their homes on a short sale to try to keep their credit good and do the right thing, that know find they were tricked into selling a home they possible owned out right due to the crimes by the banks, and sold them through the name of a fraud debt collector, and lost thousands in equity,,,,, have questions I am unfamilar with. can they seek counsel and win the house back due to taking a path they would never have taken due to being defrauded and tricked, on the false information they had?. Should they seek help from Neil or is it to late for them?
  13. ANONYMOUS, on April 16, 2012 at 6:03 am said:
    dcbreidenbach
    Much happened, but the bulk not as you describe. The source (as to subprime), ironically starts at the GSEs..
    GSEs are not opening books and not participating in anything.
    Those books need to be open.
  14. Unprecented TImes, on April 15, 2012 at 4:43 pm said:
    Below is from todays LA Times (4/15/12). Undue influence, Stockholm syndrome, gas lamping……these are all tactics used by financial abuse predators against elders. As the overall economy continues in its down state of affairs, experts predict even more financial abuse of the vulnerable elderly, and as the AARP points out this is a easy scam to do, given the very low percent of cases even pursued by Law Enforcement.
    I have on my own, educated myself alot about financial elder abuse, and after I finish all the litigation with Onewest/Deutsche (going on 33 months now) I have plans to launch a one stop informational website to educate elders themselves, and those who love them, about resources available, what warning signs to look for, support groups etc.
    With that said……below is the relevant advice column in todays LA Times paper. This is a real under reported social issue and with 10,000 baby boomers turning 65 every day in this country now, something must be done to increase awareness of this issue.
    latimes.com
    HEADLINE
    Consult lawyer to protect finances from bullying son-in-law
    Attorney is needed to help draw up a new trust for an elderly couple who have lent $300,000 to their daughter and her controlling husband, who continues to badger them for money.
    Liz Weston
    Dear Liz: I am 84 and my husband is 88. We have two daughters, the elder of whom is married to a very controlling man. In the past we lent them money and were paid back. But starting in 2009 his small business began to do poorly. They borrowed nearly $100,000 from us. Then in 2010, he begged us to get a home equity loan on our home, which was paid for.
    They now owe us $300,000. We make the home equity payments of $800 a month because they are not able to pay that amount. He said he planned to sell a parcel of land to pay us back. Now he wants to borrow from my individual retirement account. He is telling our daughter to go after us and what to do. So I told my daughter and her husband, no more!
    We are so sad. We didn’t expect to have money problems at this age. We wanted our estate to be divided equally between our daughters. But we’re wondering if we should make a new living trust to reflect the debt owed to us. Should we consult a lawyer?
    Answer: You absolutely need a lawyer. Not just to draw up a new trust but to stand between you and the financial predator you call a son-in-law.
    Badgering people in their 80s for money could be considered a form of elder abuse, and the amount he’s squeezed out of you is horrific. If either of you died or became incapacitated, he could swoop in to clean you out completely.
    An elder law attorney can help you protect your finances and figure out what to do about this debt. It certainly would be understandable if you wanted to deduct the money you’re owed from your elder daughter’s inheritance, but you can expect this bully to cause misery regardless of what you decide.
    Not that you needed more to worry about, but what you’re calling a home equity loan may well be a home equity line of credit. Although home equity loans come with fixed rates, lines of credit do not — which means the payments that are difficult for you to make now will be more expensive when interest rates rise. In any case, you might want to ask the attorney about the feasibility of a reverse mortgage, which could allow you to pay off the loan without having to make further payments.
    You can get referrals to the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys athttp://www.naela.org. If your other daughter is trustworthy, please enlist her help in looking for and speaking with an attorney. She needs to know what’s going on so she can help in your efforts to protect yourselves from this man.
  15. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 15, 2012 at 1:52 pm said:
    I would think you would have every right to pursue this case Pro Se. I sure hope they find that you can. Would not make any sense to say you have no right.
  16. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 15, 2012 at 1:46 pm said:
    So Sad! I have come across several people whom have had care takers try to steal their inheritance. One man spent five years fighting and loosing mass money from his inheritance cause a care taker claimed his dying father had signed a X that she was in charge of his will. He has never signed anything with an X. I believe our elderly are being taken advantage of also. the lawyers told him he and his mother were lucky they were allowing them to keep one of the homew to live in while they battled. Brother. My husbands great aunt just caught her attorney and a financial advisor putting the financial adviser in charge of her will without her permission. Such a sad world we live in. Good luck to your fight and may God Bless! There is never an end to the fraud and shams and crimes. We must fight this and win these battles.
  17. dcbreidenbach, on April 15, 2012 at 1:17 am said:
    @UNP
    That is extraordinary——stepping back from statutes–if you are sole heir then you are de facto the equitable owner of the net estate—-so you are a party in interest obviously–and if you are the sole heir you are the sole party affected right—it is de fact pro se if not yet in law–if you were able to wrap the estate yoy would take subject to the debt–so its a step away from already legally yours—yes it is interesting and i would suggest that the due process clause would be applicable to justify your right as exclusive equitable and ultimate legal owner—should be a law school test question–im sure most law students would bend over backwards to avoid the forfeiture which is what you have described—your inchoate interst cannot afford to defend itself —if you are prevented pro se then its siezure w/o due process–the reason for the no pro se for hire is to prevent abuse of 3rd parties–that element is not present—your interst and protection of due process as a principle is more important than a meaningless application in a unique case
  18. usedkarguy, on April 14, 2012 at 9:52 pm said:
    test
  19. Unprecented TImes, on April 14, 2012 at 9:51 pm said:
    @ tmharry and @ Shelly A. Erickson:
    Shelly……..first and foremost thank you for your support and links.
    To clarify my previous post…….the Judge has issued a minute order requesting me, and Onewest/Deutsche to submit additional Points and Authorities by May 4 and oral arguments set for May 10 in this matter.
    The Judge said this is an interesting situation and he has never come across this before. At the end of the day, the abuse of the banks is across generations in my case. I am fighting on behalf of my Dad who passed away in Feb 2008. I am the sole heir of an i estate teetering on insolvency and only child.
    HIs case has all the pieces of the puzzle…….ranging from documented Loan Origination fraud to documented Securitization Failure. I will put up on scribd both my Points and Authorites as well as Onewest/Deutsche Points and Authorities on or around May 5 as FYI.
    Below is excerpt from a respected treatise and explains why this issue for proceeding in Pro Per is not cut and dry as it relates to the affairs within Probate Court here in California.
    If Judge rules I cannot proceed to represent the Probate Estate in Pro Per (Trust itself is terminated per language in that document) then I have some backup plans I will not reveal here for strategic reasons.
    Suffice to say the Banksters in cahoots with the criminal caretaker really did a number defrauding my elderly Dad, as they have to countless other victims in this world wide Ponzi scam.
    Just as a related aside, the LAPD were useless in stopping the ripoff of my Dad. Watch two minute clip here:
    From Rutter Group – Probate
    (1) [15:470.4] Pro per personal representative? A nonattorney personal representative may not prosecute a general civil (nonprobate) action in pro per on behalf of the estate. [Hansen v. Hansen (2003) 114 CA4th 618, 621, 7 CR3d 688, 691]
    It is unclear, however, whether a nonlawyer representative of a decedent’s estate may appear in pro per on behalf of the estate in matters within probate proceedings; or whether nonlawyer executors or administrators may represent themselves in probate proceedings affecting their personal rights (e.g., on a petition for executor’s compensation). [See Hansen v. Hansen, supra, 114 CA4th at 622, 7 CR3d at 691–692 (noting but not deciding those issues)]
    (2) [15:470.5] Suit by heirs/beneficiaries on behalf of estate under “special circumstances”: While Prob.C. § 9820 only authorizes the personal representative to bring suit on behalf of the estate, under special circumstances a decedent’s heirs or beneficiaries may file suit on their own. [See, e.g., Olson v. Toy (1996) 46 CA4th 818, 824, 54 CR2d 29, 33—decedent's heirs under will had standing to maintain action to invalidate trust and compel delivery of trust assets where “special circumstances” of trustee doubling as estate representative existed (¶ 15:511)]
    [15:470.6–470.9] Reserved.
    From Rutter Group – Civil Procedure Before Trial
    (3) [2:130] Appearance through counsel: An executor or administrator cannot appear in pro per in matters outside the probate proceedings (e.g., in actions by or against the estate). Any such appearance must be through counsel. (Of course, if the executor or administrator is a licensed attorney, he or she can act as such counsel.) [City of Downey v. Johnson (1968) 263 CA2d 775, 779, 69 CR 830, 833; Hansen v. Hansen (2003) 114 CA4th 618, 621, 7 CR3d 688, 691 (citing text)]
  20. dcbreidenbach, on April 14, 2012 at 9:33 pm said:
    something of that sort was tried in ohio a few years back–maybe not exacltly—-i dont know if the lawyers involved were just censured or were disbarred——-
    somehow you need to do such things under the cloak of a non-profit public defenders operation—legal aid—-go volunteer as a paralegal
  21. joann, on April 14, 2012 at 9:23 pm said:
    “Magner wrote… The tactics suggest that any other borrower who might wish to contest a fee or charge would find a legal challenge to the bank simply too burdensome……”
    Something really sinister about that….read the article.
    “And yet, Magner writes, it is only through litigation that the abuses can be uncovered…“Only through litigation was this practice discovered,” Magner writes. “Wells Fargo admitted to the same practices for all other loans in bankruptcy or default. As a result, it is unlikely that most debtors will be able to discern problems with their accounts without extensive discovery.”…..T
    “This is particularly troublesome in her district, where more than 80 percent of the borrowers who file for bankruptcy have incomes of less than $40,000, and consequently are often unable to hire the kind of legal firepower necessary to counter Wells Fargo’s army of lawyers”
    Question: Can propria personas plural (pro se persons) do a mass joinder or joiner or class action co op in propria persona? Can an attorney or attorneys help them draft it and provide coaching to whoever appears in their behalf in court? Can attorneys be part of the pro se action for their own mortgage?
    Can we take the issues in common for cases or speciific “lenders” and “servicers” and “trustee banks” in each state and leave out the things that are very specific to individuals at first (they could still file an individual case after) just wondering.
    Homeowners having to go on the offense in non-judicial and the defense in judicial – either way they don’t have a chance even if they have a prayer. And they cannot afford it.
  22. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 8:45 pm said:
    Quite frankly I never dreamt in my wildest dreams this nightmare could happen and to so many Americans. Blantant crime and treason against us all. Shock and Awe as Bush kept promising. And Change Obama kept promising. Well they were not lying just concealing what they really intended.
  23. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 8:38 pm said:
    That is part of the issue. I was told over the phone I was approved and all my paperwork had finally showed up, therefore to immediately begin making payments of aroung 3200.00 a month until the paperwork showed up that never showed up. I did not have any guide lines given to me except to submit this specific list of documents which I did over and over for ten months. The only papers that came were the coupons that stated once the trial payments were made timely I would qualify for the final paperwork. This was the first of any notice of a trial payment. After I had paid two mod payments. I figured they were just waiting for three payments on time and that was all they meant. The party on the phone also told me to continue making he payments until I recieved the paperwork. I never did, then I got a letter stating I was disqualified. So I called them thinking this is a mistake but I better get this straigntened out. I was told due to the Obama changes I was now disqualified and my mod payments were now considered to be partial payments and I was in forecloser after making five mod payments. I was way to trusting that a big well known bank that would never do this to anyone. Boy was I wrong. Way to nieve. Way to trusting of a big bank that would never do this to anyone and tarnish their reputation. WOW! THIS IS ALL UNIMAGINABLE & UNTHINKABLE! COULD NEVER HAPPEN! RIGHT! But Not anymore.
  24. E. Tolle, on April 14, 2012 at 8:34 pm said:
    “….them saying there would be no agreement that they not pursue a deficiency–just that customarily they did not [a matter of trust???]”
    Bwah…..Bwahahah Bwahahahahah Bwahahahahahahahahahahah
    Oh man you’re killing me!
  25. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 8:22 pm said:
    I dont think it is legal to represent someone other than yourself as pro se (propia persona is best) unless possibley you have a power of attorney. I am not sure that works. You do have every right to represent yourself.
  26. dcbreidenbach, on April 14, 2012 at 8:05 pm said:
    SAE
    Would you please outline the terms of the mod offer that you received? I think there are a lo of people who might be looking at this trying to decide whether to accept it or walkaway. Or take another course of action.
    I am curious if some of you have had the same type offer i received:
    –pay on loan as if it was 75% of actual amortized principal and 75% actual interest
    –the accrued but unpaid interest would be placed in a reserve account until the property was sold or until 5 years passed, at which point it was vague as to what happened
    –the interst rate was to be capped at 5% or so as I recall but it was long ago
    –basically there was no forgiveness —-just a deferral of the date of reckoning aka look for a place to rent—
    —also I do remember them saying there would be no agreement that they not pursue a deficiency–just that customarily they did not [a matter of trust???]
    I did not go with it–it seemed too loose on the backend to me–hardly something that would allow you say you had put it behind you—this was pre-HAMP
    Have the HAMP mods been any different?
    From what Im seeing here its more like the old collection agency squeeze –at one point I had the collection agency [supposedly a "servicer"] rep suggest to me that i should go around the house and see if there was anything that I could dismantle and sell to remit monies to them–like fixtures from extra bathrooms—etc
    that is when i really began to wonder how the proceeds were being divied up–any of you that are beneficiaries of pension plans –eg police/firemen/teachers—or other——-this is your money that they wanted me to steal for them—dismantling the house to pay the servicer????—-
  27. tnharry, on April 14, 2012 at 7:41 pm said:
    @unprecedented – you have every right to go pro se, but you’re seeking to represent parties that are not you in the litigation. despite Shelley’s ringing in with her opinion that you have every right to go pro se, it does appear at first blush that you seek to represent others than you
  28. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 6:03 pm said:
    October 13, 2009, I was still clueless the trustworhy (cough! ) banks were not banks but criminal enterprizes screwing the entire globe. Once I was mod defrauded it did not take me long to figure this out and warn everyone I knew not to get a mod. Some listened some did not and looked at me like I was a fool. Knock on wood and not bragging just lucky and having God on my side, I am not foreclosed on yet and am still in my house and several that mocked me have moved out and are in homes they think are cheaper and affordable and are probably clouded titles they will loose to the ripped off homeowener. They did not believe the clouded titles issue either. Hopefully they will get their house back they were driven from if there is ever any justice. I have saved some of my spa clients from making both these mistakes, by forewarding all the info from the internet and informing them.
  29. Gorble, on April 14, 2012 at 5:40 pm said:
    @Shelley. Lucky for me I was following this site. I was able to determine the banks scheme to steal my house by lying about Hamp results. Or non-results really. Wells Fargo proved to be a bunch of lying jerks, women and boys alike. I just got the pleasure of tell my hamp “representative”, who has a very heavy mexican accent btw, to never ever contact me again, all was being recorded, and if she did it was going to be considered harasment by my family criminal lawyer. Sandra Gomez is her name btw. Give her a call and see how she’s doing, be prepared to learn her native language though. lol I think everyone should call her and see how she’s doing. She works for wells fargo and is located in Calif. Tell her I said hi.
  30. carie, on April 14, 2012 at 5:39 pm said:
    Yes, Shelley—I was there, too…after much insane wrangling (for a year and a half) with the servicer, they finally “approved” me for one of those BS “trial payment plans”…but I refused to pay it because I had heard too many horror stories about people paying for months and then being denied a “real mod” anyway (in almost every instance), based on whatever stupid LIE they could come up with, and never, ever getting that “suspense account” (trial plan) money back…I had demanded that before I pay them ANY money—they had to show me a ledger and a balance sheet showing conveyance of my money to the securitized trust…they couldn’t/can’t do that, of course—because it never happened—and they ignored my request…and proceeded to foreclose—saying they were “foreclosing on behalf of the securitization”…ON BEHALF OF THE SECURITIZATION…how does that make any sense whatsoever? It doesn’t.
  31. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 4:38 pm said:
    Carie, I and many of my friends, spa customers and people I have met on the web over this crime, were all given modifications, paid for five to nine months then told we were now unapproved and the mods were being considered partial payments and they litterally used the mod program to drag us into foreclosure. This is a common ponzie they use to drag homeowners into loosing their homes cause we were ;oed to and told we were approved, to begin paying mod payments immediately not to wait for the paperwork. It is on its way, to find the paperwork does not come and we are told (after being told verbally on the phone we are approved, and nothing about a trial plan, then drug into a false default and foreclosure.
  34. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 4:17 pm said:
    WOW! You have every right to go pro se. This is ridiculous. No right to represent yourself? There are statutes stating Pro se’s have the right to self represent. Should not even be a question.
  35. carie, on April 14, 2012 at 3:32 pm said:
    Dirma Rodriguez, Disabled Daughter Forced Out Of Home Even After BofA Modification
  36. carie, on April 14, 2012 at 3:23 pm said:
    Eliot Spitzer: Obama ‘Has Been On Wall Street’s Side Since Day One’
    “…Spitzer also claims the White House did not fight to give judges the ability to reform mortgages in the wake of the housing collapse.
    “The White House and Treasury intervened to defeat that in the Senate, something that could have fundamentally altered the course of our mortgage crisis that still continues to this day,” he said…”
  37. Unprecented TImes, on April 14, 2012 at 2:14 pm said:
    @Neil
    Count me in. Great idea for a National Law Firm for Counter Attack!
    Although I had a small win last year against Onewest Bank (google search: Onewest Bank Gets Spanked For Being a Pretender Lender along with Living Lies); my attorney has now filed a motion to withdraw from the case after 33 months.
    Right now, OneWest Bank objects to me going pro per the rest of the way in this case. See for yourself in their filed Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC)objection and my Declaration to the court re: Pro Per.
    Sidebar note: If you check out above scribd link….notice how they do not properly identify the full name of the Securitization Trust.
    They really put my soon to withdraw Probate Esq thru hoops. To his credit he has gotten past three (3) Onewest Bank/Deutsche Bank Motions to Strike and three (3) demurrers, with next court date, maybe for trial setting.
    Judge wants more pleadings from both sides to determine if I am allowed to go Pro Per.
    I know I can eventually kick their butt In Pro Per, however it would be better to have a “gun” from your proposed National Law Firm to finish the job (Financial Elder Abuse/Predatory Lending etc) against someone in his late 80’s who fell victim to the Wall Street Securitization Scam. It really is hard to find Attorneys in Southern California “who get it” and do not want $25K upfront.
    Be well……..your health is more important in the overall scheme (no pun intended) of things.
  38. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 1:20 pm said:
    Pardon me not all judges. We have some great judges. Schack, Rakoff and several more, out of hundreds and thousands. But way to many lower court judges.
  39. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 1:16 pm said:
    The banks are murderers and they have been getting away with it. Blood was spilled just two days ago and massive suicides and homicides have happened due to their horrific reckless intentional crimes, encouraged by our government officials. Gifted by our tax dollars with the blessings of the judges and AG’s and Tim Geithner and many more..
  40. MariK, on April 14, 2012 at 1:07 pm said:
    It’s better to be a murderer –
    Especially if you are a really ‘bad’ multi-killer, attorneys will fall over themselves to get the publicity to defend you at no charge.
    We have the choice of just giving our house to the ‘Goliath 5′ or fighting a very hard fight – learning how to file paperwork in a ‘foreign language’, looking at docs that have the magic MERS in them but do they qualify ?, feeling that everything and everyone has a connection to the banks, and then appearing in Court not knowing the genre, all accompanied by pain and shame.
    Back to the bad guy – sitting in jail, eating so-so meals, wearing pink underwear if in AZ, with a roof over his head and lots of leisure time.
    Worry about court docs ? – no, the lawyer does that, or a staff.
    Since there is lots of TV coverage, all the judges and down, cannot be shown as anything other than fair ’cause all will be looked at with a microscope.
    Court appearance ? Pain and shame ? Are you kidding ? Anything good that happens is a ‘cherry on the top’ because he has KILLED people !
    It’s better to be a murderer !
  41. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 11:49 am said:
    The judge should be made to order the note handed to the owner at foreclosure. not a copy. If they get the house the note is honored. The note for the house. Not the photo copy. The courts make sure the house goes to the fraud, but no one makes sure the honored note goes back to the homeowner. If they dont have the check they dont get the house until the check comes endorsed back to the homeless homeower..
  42. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 11:45 am said:
    Debriedenbach, This is also why there is a page limit. If the page llimit and the exhibits are within the rules, the judge should be looking at them. Not taking a tweny minute bite out of it, then making a lifetime alteration judgment without knowing what is in the brief. Destroying lives. There are no page limits in the U.S. Constitution and no twenty minute limits for justice due. Sign now without reading, dont know what is in the brief, off with your head we dont care! Judges making the law as they go and not upholding the rule of law. Hurry hurry, we are in a hurry to party! sounds pretty lawless to me. Why are we paying them and how can they be paid to uphold their oaths of office to uphold the US Constitution? Manipulated SMJ dismissal without discovery is a real joke on the U.S. Costitution and shold be a U.S Supreme court question of being unlawfull violating the U.S. Constitution. Judges have not even given a homeowner two sentences before it was off wtih their heads. Do you owe this bill, instead of are you the rightful holder of the note and where is it. The banksters should have to have the original wet note (check in hand) to foreclose or represent in the court. If this happened and the rule of law applied in our courts there would be almost no foreclosures. There would not be the exspectation of the crooks to cause this entire scam, due to justice would be served. Our broken judiical system and manipulated laws in violation to the U.S. Constitution and our bill of rights and total disregard for the laws in place not in violation to the U.S. Constitution is enabling the fraud from the inception of the fraud.
  43. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 10:49 am said:
    They can lie all they want but it you prove a broken chain of title, proving they lie and can not be affirming they have ownership to the note, that would stop this issue. Part of artilce 3 already posted on this blog below, states if the homeowner is not protected and a third party can make claims of ownership have to be proven. Hearsay is not proof. Attorneys affirmation for their cllients is not acceptable by law. I have a copy of that law. If someone needs it. The attorney was obviously not present at the time of the original signing but after the fact. And we all know these fraudsters attorneys lie for them.
  44. dcbreidenbach, on April 14, 2012 at 10:31 am said:
    @SAE
    Point is that the system is designed for the attys to shake it down to a bite the judge can swallow——judges normally cant investigate your facts—–i dont like it—but thats how it works—-the real rub is when you pay your atty to do his job and he doesnt for one reson or another—same judge looking at your mortgage in the morning may be making a decision in the afternoon as to whether some 17 yr old gets life sentence or death sentence—-whats he thinking about when hes listening to your harangue–maybe how your claim of denial of due process is a lot less than the kid who had a bad pd?
    problem in my view and based on hard experience is with mill defense attys——–what is needed is competent foreclosure Public defenders—thats where the damn $25 billion shouldv gone –not to the inept state ags to buy overstuffed chairs
  45. dcbreidenbach, on April 14, 2012 at 10:12 am said:
    @ANON
    Lets simplify—say you run around saying i work for “ANONYMOUS HOLDING COMPANY INTERNATIONAL BEST EVER FRAUDER MADE INCORPRATED, LLC.” c/o ANONYMOUS at ONE-HUNDRED WALL STREET, FRAUD CITY USA and in fact you are just plain old ANONYMOUS an individual who paid $5 for some bsiness cards, you never filed articles of incorporation, never had shareholder mtgs or elected officers etc—no minutes– etc—-and you use the business cards to sell stock in your fake enterprise–issued fake receipts from your big name fake enterprise to keep up appearances—–take the investor[sucker] dollars and pay half to get a homeowner [sucker] to hand over their real estate to your fake co–name the fake as the grantee–so you can show the investor suckers that you used their money to buy deed to real estate in same name as fake co that they bought interest in —–and go repeat till youv stolen all you can get
    now you take the money and run to caymans—–creditors file bankruptcy for you—-individually——not fake co—which they realize now never existed——NOW-who owns the real estate?–who owes the investors?—–i think the answer is you did originally and after the creditors filed the involuntary bankruptcy —–your bankkrupt estate in both cases–trusts ][r fake trusts] are no different
  46. dcbreidenbach, on April 14, 2012 at 9:51 am said:
    @SEAN PARK
    What is name of caymani “securitization”
    it is necessary for payer to withhold 30% on fixed payments to foreign entitiies–most of the trusts have provisuions forbidding ownership of MBS by foreignors–presumably to avoid the withholding rule irc 1441
    i know iv seen foreignors holding the mbs by looking at the CUSIPS
    probably tax fraud–by trustees if no withholding–something to think about people
  47. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 9:37 am said:
    Somehow the post would not let me finish. We are being railroaded into poverty and homeless camps.
  48. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 9:34 am said:
    Swamped courts and backed up log jammed up hearings is not an excuse in the U.S. Constitution for deprivation of Constitutional rights of due substantive process! This is “[Not]” the victims fault the corruption is so huge! Rushing this increases the crimes against us and the lack of substantive due process. There is “[No]” excuse for this injustice. A twenty minute at most hearing on this is outrageious. I dont remembering anywhere in the constitution that due process is SMJ without discovery and a twenty minute max hearing on this very complicated issue. Americans are being railroaded into
  49. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 9:10 am said:
    Jack Palmer, Whistleblower, Finds Death-Threat Note On Office Chair
    Providing Education, Research & Litigation Support for Attorneys, HomeOwners, & Pro-Se Litigants.
    Jack Palmer, Whistleblower, Finds Death-Threat Note On Office Chair
    April 14, 2012
    The Huffington Post | By Alexander Eichler Posted: 04/13/2012 12:01 pm Updated: 04/13/2012 12:03 pm
    How come there aren’t more whistleblowers?
    It’s a vexing question for anyone who’d like to see corporate crime reduced. Just this week, CNN noted that half of all misconduct at financial companies never gets reported, according [...]
    Find out more
    Home | About | Contact Us Unsubscribe from this newsletter
    Property Defense Network, 17837 1st Ave S #169, Normandy Park, WA 98148
    To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit:
  50. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 9:05 am said:
    If you cant follow the law you cant judge me: Boy that is a mouth full and I so agree. This is an issue I have been upset with. I flat our asked the judge in my city law suit against this corrupt mayor and city employees, where I live, is she had read my case in full. She danced around the issue, I repeated myself. “Before we begin this hearing I want to know if you read my case in full?”, she replied, I read it in part and handed it to my baliff to read the rest”. She continued to tell me she was not going to go through all the exhibits. I ordered the audio, to have a court reporter put it on paper. Now the audio says I have read your case in full and even measured it with a tape meaure.”. I fortunately had a paralegal witness with me at the time, and witnessed the judge tell me she had only read it in part, that has written a declaration & notorized it, that the judge has manipulated and altered the audio, that is not what she told us. This is how corrupt some of the judges are. I am submitting this to the bar.And fileing against the judge with a motion to prosecute her and the lawyers and mayor for the city defense.
  51. dcbreidenbach, on April 14, 2012 at 8:57 am said:
    @if you dont….
    reality is that cts are swamped—they often but not always let parties narrow stuff and its best to skinny it down to one page–simple statement of facts and best case in their area
    they are people too–underpaid —-snowed by bankers
  52. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 8:54 am said:
    lostinlitiation, When I first looked on the FBI web site, the site stated on of the FBI’s duies was to investigate economic crimes and terrorism. Then you hear on the news, the FBI is spending all its resources on terrorism, and do not have the resources for economic crime. Well they can kill two birds with one stone. This crimes is both and intertwined. Internal homeland economic crime/terrorism. Click click. They know this! Whom are they kidding? A trogan horse!
  53. dcbreidenbach, on April 14, 2012 at 8:53 am said:
    @lostinvestigation…
    “I have uncovered Illeagal property flipping schemmes, “Shotgunning” (that is what the FBI calls taking out multible loans on one property)
    can you post examples? one example pls–involving same trust or dfferent trusts?
    are they fed insured, ie fha or fdic? ie false claims act
  54. dcbreidenbach, on April 14, 2012 at 8:46 am said:
    @joann
    is this correct please? notes ae subject to ucc if you are trying to get them subject to a financing statement–al trusts for example must have loan schedules filed with ucc 9 financing statements–to perfect the lien on the note itself–or are you saying something different
  55. dcbreidenbach, on April 14, 2012 at 8:42 am said:
    @tn
    i agree with your statement but ponder the issue of how much weight to attach to an affidavit? what if their aff says “iv got the original note and its attached” and your aff says” you cant because it was not signed out of the bankruptcy court—–it is either stolen or a forgery”
    iv got this case pattern–not hypothethical–any thoughts re stolen note?
  56. dcbreidenbach, on April 14, 2012 at 8:36 am said:
    @joan
    thanks re moore–im compliling list of states tht have adopted this rule———this is same as mass rule and fed ct boyco right?
    anybody already built the list ?
  57. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 14, 2012 at 8:29 am said:
    The big huge issue here is one it is next to impossible to find an attorney in any state, second the justice system is corrupt and broken. If you have been foreclosed on join Neils national firm. I have followed his sight since sometime after October of 2009. He gets it and he knows the issues above. It takes the higher courts to win your cases and someone whom gets it. There is no better hands to be in. Micheal is a lucky man to have found a good attorney in Texas. Thiought we had at least one here in Washington state. Rumor is he was threatened by our corrupt bar and he is laying back. He was threatened not to even show up to a clouded titles meeting. If my pr se case was not at the end of the Appeal in Appeals court I would join Neils National attack back in a flash. I have freinds including myself that have spent from six thousand to a hundred thousand for help, that recieved no help. Most people give up in the lower courts and I dont see help in the lower courts. Bank law, no rule of law carried out in the lower courts no matter how good the attorney is. That is why Melissa Huelsman has take the question to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington State, is MERS legal in Washington state or Illegal and does the rule of law still stand in Washington Courts? Cause she has witnessed bank law and not the rule of law stands in Washington Courts. No help for the victims but to victimized over and over by the judges, some lawyers taking advantage of the victims, good lawyers up against bank law and being threatened by the bar if they help homeowners. Threatened if they even go to a clouded titles meeting!
    Neils major attack back with a national firm is a blessing. I hope everyone including people whom are not in this horrific situtation donate to Neil and his firm to support them while they go after these crooks on a contigency. This is for the national good of all of us, weither you are touched by this or not. We are at war with national crime and terrorism, theives stealing our property, preplanned to default you by all and any means to steal and make money at the cost of America and your families freedom and physical health. This is bigger than property and buildings.
  58. ANONYMOUS, on April 14, 2012 at 7:15 am said:
    In order for trustee to have possession, you need conveyance to the trust. And, we also know that the trust and security investors are not the creditor under the TILA Amendment and Federal Reserve Opinion (now RULE). Trustee only “holds” bare legal title to mortgage loans — does not acquire it. But, the REMIC trust and security investors are not creditor and neither do they acquire legal title — unless an investor acquires OUTSIDE the trust, via a derivative swap or third party contract. But, these contracts are not part of the trust.
    We all know the trust is just about depleted. Government has disposed of toxic assets it held. All that may survive from the toxic trusts are remnants of the “pools” of loans that once claimed to be conveyed to the trust. But, they do not survive in the structure of that original formed REMIC trust. — even if they did, the REMIC could be considered the creditor, which the Fed Res has said no.
    Will the real creditor please stand up??
  59. Nora C, on April 14, 2012 at 6:57 am said:
    Carie & others,
    Thanks for your prayers and thoughts. The feeling that we are ants trying fight a corrupt and insatiable anteater overwhelmed me temporarily…and Joe is out of clean pants. If I ever do actually take my life, remind me to teach him how to use the washer before I go.
  60. Chicago Attorney 855-FISH-LAW » Blog Archive » We’re Not Afraid To Take The Big Banks On, on April 14, 2012 at 5:20 am said:
    [...] recent article on a blog called LivingLies certainly doesn’t hold when it comes to foreclosures in northern Illinois. The writer [...]
  61. joann, on April 13, 2012 at 9:40 pm said:
    tnharry:
    “@joann, read Moore again – it’s a temporary victory ”
    The temporary victory will be permanent unless the Appellee can “prove” and “demonstrate” and “show” a few things.
    The judge uses the “prove” word and “demonstrate” word and “show” word in referring to what the appellee must do.
    From US Bank vs Moore:
    To show you are the “holder” of the Note you must prove you are in possession of the note and the note is either “payable to bearer” (blank indorsement) or to an identified person that is the person in possession (special indorsement).8 Therefore, both possession of the note and an indorsement on the note or attached allonge9 are required in order for one to be a “holder” of the Note……
    ….Some jurisdictions have held, without holder status and therefore the presumption of a right to enforce, the possessor of the note must demonstrate both the fact of the delivery and the purpose of the delivery of the Note to the transferee in order to qualify as the person entitled to enforce. In re Veal, 50 B.R. 897, 912 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011). See also, 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-203.
    Appellee must also demonstrate it became a “person entitled to enforce” prior to the filing of the foreclosure proceeding. We find there is no evidence in the record establishing Appellee had standing to commence this foreclosure action. The trial court’s granting of a default judgment in favor of Appellee could not have been rationally based upon the evidence or Oklahoma law….
    …It is a fundamental precept of the law to expect a foreclosing party to actually be in possession of its claimed interest in the Note, and to have the proper supporting documentation in hand when filing suit, showing the history of the Note, so that the defendant is duly apprised of the rights of the plaintiff. This is accomplished by showing……
  62. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 13, 2012 at 9:01 pm said:
    Thanks Joann, I can sleep like a baby tonight.
  63. joann, on April 13, 2012 at 8:47 pm said:
    @tnharry
    “@joann and shelley – that’s just not correct. ucc 9 doesn’t apply to real estate mortgages. you can’t pull sections out of context out of the the ucc. the scope and applicability section of article 9 specifically excludes real estate”
    I know nothing. Take it up with these guys:
    REPORT OF THE PERMANENT EDITORIAL BOARD FOR THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE APPLICATION OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE TO SELECTED ISSUES RELATING TO MORTGAGE NOTES
    NOVEMBER 14, 2011
    by The American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
    Quote:
    “Although the UCC provisions are settled law, it has become apparent that not all courts and attorneys are familiar with them.”
    Quote:
    “Issues relating to the transfer, ownership, and enforcement of mortgage notes are primarily governed by two Articles of the UCC:
    In cases in which the mortgage note is a negotiable instrument,5 Article 3 of the UCC6 provides rules governing the obligations of parties on the note7 and the enforcement of those obligations.
    In cases involving either negotiable or non-negotiable notes, Article 9 of the UCC8 contains important rules governing how ownership of those notes may be transferred, the effect of the transfer of ownership of the notes on the ownership of the mortgages securing those notes, and the right of the transferee, under certain circumstances, to record its interest in the mortgage in the applicable real estate recording office.
    This Report explains the application of the rules in both of those UCC Articles to provide guidance in:
    Identifying the person who is entitled to enforce the payment obligation of the maker9 of a mortgage note, and to whom the maker owes that obligation; and
    Determining who owns the rights represented by the note and mortgage.
    Together, the provisions in Articles 3 and 9 of the UCC (along with general principles that appear in Article 1 and that apply to all transactions governed by the UCC) provide legal rules that apply to these questions.10 Moreover, these rules displace any inconsistent common law rules that might have otherwise previously governed the same questions.11″
  64. tnharry, on April 13, 2012 at 8:20 pm said:
    @dcb – that’s the nature of summary judgment. moving party sets out facts “not in dispute” that go to the very heart of the issue in dispute. those facts must be shown either by cites to the record, documents, or affidavit testimony. the non-moving party must meet proof with proof, and can’t merely rely on their pleadings. the way the Moore case seemed to read, the only real issue in dispute was whether they had the note the day they filed their petition.
    @joann and shelley – that’s just not correct. ucc 9 doesn’t apply to real estate mortgages. you can’t pull sections out of context out of the the ucc. the scope and applicability section of article 9 specifically excludes real estate. it does deal with notes and instruments, but again, in different contexts. and @joann, read Moore again – it’s a temporary victory on a specific evidentiary issue, not a merits case
  65. joann, on April 13, 2012 at 8:07 pm said:
    dcbreidenbach, on April 13, 2012 at 6:20 pm said:
    @JOANE
    Please provide the case cite re Moore case?
    U.S. BANK v. MOORE
    2012 OK 32
    U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF GSAA HOME EQUITY TRUST 2006-6, Plaintiff/Appellee,
    v.
    DAVID F. MOORE, a/k/a DAVID F. MOORE and BARBARA MOORE a/k/a BARBARA K. MOORE, Defendants/Appellants.
    No. 109763.
    Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
    Decided: April 10, 2012
  66. dcbreidenbach, on April 13, 2012 at 6:36 pm said:
    @TH
    “they’ll refile the motion for summary judgment with an additional statement on their affidavit in support saying they had the note at filing of the case and, unless the borrowers can prove otherwise, they’ll win again”
    Imthink you are right—but how do you prove the negative–if they just use an aff,——-aff on summary judgment –how do you attack veracity off aff. –not really evidence–sufficient to shift burden—but i see what you are saying—must find caselaw –aff no good by itself in the situation where no trail of custody—–aff nakedly says i own this or that–i own the moon–does it constitute evidence of itself-im confused
  67. dcbreidenbach, on April 13, 2012 at 6:20 pm said:
    @JOANE
    Please provide the case cite re Moore case?
  68. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 13, 2012 at 5:34 pm said:
    I definately believe these crooks should have to answer to God. And I wonder if their are a lot of questions that should be answered by the Supreme Court. Like Melissa Hueilsman has asked “Does the rule of law still stand in the state of Washington and is MERS legal in the State of Washington? Like the Constitutions 18USC2,3,&4.
  69. joann, on April 13, 2012 at 5:24 pm said:
    @Carie:
    “interesting commentary by Sheila Bair…”
    Interesting indeed! LOL …Wonders never cease!
    I thought this was a joke (that she actually wrote it – her satire may not be a joke to her credit).
    It almost makes up for looking the other way while JD runs wild with WAMU assignments of nothing….but not quite.
  70. joann, on April 13, 2012 at 4:57 pm said:
    Different states and different rulings. Conflcting rulings within the same state in different jurisdictions. Seems like this should be addressed by some supreme authority maybe God.
    In non-judicial MA we had Ibanez and Bevilacqua and we are waiting for Eaton.
    In non-judicial CA we had Calvo.
    This is a comment from a different site. I have quoted it before and hope the author does not mind. He posts here sometimes too.
    Just when you thought there was no more smoke to the fire….
    Phred on February 5, 2012 at 8:43 am
    Calvo v. HSBC was affirmed by Ca. Supremes on 1/4/12. It seems to sound the death knell on 2932.5.
    But as Sun Tsu observed “… your enemies will bring weapons to you”. Citing Calvo, a borrower may be able to raise the argument that any RJN (request for judicial notice) for recorded assigned documents is moot because the Calvo ruling determines that not all possible transfers of the beneficiary interest are available to the court as a result. Therefore, lender can no longer rely solely on recorded assignments as evidence of possession of beneficiary interest, and standing of lender is automatically questioned unless lender is the same entity shown on the promissory note.
    With an automatic question of standing of Lender as a party of interest, certainly the question of tender to a party over which the court may have no jurisdiction is no longer required.
    The opinion above is from a person who is not an attorney, and should not be construed as legal advice. Pay a bunch of money to consult a REAL attorney, then ask why they didn’t post this comment.
    Posted with the hopes it will fry some judges’ reputations who are obviously on the take by the banksters.
  72. joann, on April 13, 2012 at 4:09 pm said:
    From the Oklahoma judge in US Bank vs Moore April 10:
    “Ownership of the note determines ownership of the mortgage. Engle v. Federal Nat’l. Mortg. Ass’n, 1956 OK 176, ¶ 7, 300 P.2d 997, 999. Oklahoma law does not permit the bifurcation of the security interest from the note. Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Brumbaugh, 2012 OK 3, ___P.3d ___; BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. White, 2011 OK CIV APP 35, ¶ 10, 256 P.3d 1014, 1017. A party which is assigned a mortgage without the accompanying promissory note holds no rights of enforcement. Id. Plainly, a party must properly acquire rights to both instruments before such party is able to enforce their terms.”
  74. joann, on April 13, 2012 at 3:44 pm said:
    “Generally, Articles 3 and 9 of the UCC are relevant to mortgage loans. If the note is considered a negotiable instrument, Article 3 provides rules governing both the obligations of parties to a note as well as enforcement of those obligations. Article 9 governs the transfer of notes, whether the note is a negotiable instrument or not. ”
    “According to the board, the sale of a mortgage note not accompanied by a separate conveyance of the secured interest securing the note does not result in the mortgage being severed from the note. Instead, assignment of the interest in the note by the seller automatically transfers a corresponding interest in the mortgage to the buyer. This conclusion is interesting, as many plaintiff-borrowers contend that the UCC requires the opposite conclusion”.
    “Where no assignment is available, the board opined that the buyer may record a copy of the security agreement in the real estate records along with a sworn affidavit stating that default has occurred and that the secured party is entitled to enforce the mortgage non-judicially.”
  75. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 13, 2012 at 3:36 pm said:
    A note is not real estate, it is a debt that can be secured by real estate. Carpenter V Longan 1872 states when the note is separated from the deed of trust, the note is void. Then the note is not a debt against the real estate. If note is void due to non compliance to PSA law the note is void. No debt against the house/ real estate. That is why when the house is returned for the note the note must go back to the owner of the house in exchange for the house. It is the note debt owed on the house or the house one or the other. The forecloser is not suppose to keep the note and the house. The note is a contract of debt owed. Secured by realestate.
  76. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 13, 2012 at 3:07 pm said:
    Am I wrong that article 9 applies to the note that is the debt against the realestate?
  77. joann, on April 13, 2012 at 3:00 pm said:
    @tnharry
    you said
    “@joann, carie, shelley – you guys are as much trolls as you accuse me of. what a are you talking about “lie” and they have to “prove under penalty of perjury” and “con the judge”???”
    I think you were the one who used the word “prove”.
    “US Bank need only prove that they held the note at the time of filing…”
    There is a reason the real party of interest does not show up in court or record it’s interest – it is that “perjury” thing.
    No problem. Just record the required lawful docs, security interest, sworn affidavit – not bogus transfers ect. and produce the endorsements, allonge ect., ect. when required.
    Not doing it is a con they have been getting away with. If not a con they can prove it. Oklahoma court specified what is needed. No burden of proof on the homeowner. Court said it all. If not a con it will be proven but the shenanigans at the very least open up the door for anyone to get away with a con which is why there are laws to prevent this on the books even if ignored…so far.
  78. joann, on April 13, 2012 at 2:57 pm said:
    @tnharry
    you said:
    “article 9 is mostly irrelevant”
    PEB disagrees.
    Draft Report of the PEB on the UCC Rules Applicable to the Assignment of Mortgage Notes and to the Ownership and Enforcement of Those Notes and the Mortgages Securing Them”.
    Quotes Article 9 throughout.
  79. tnharry, on April 13, 2012 at 2:38 pm said:
    @joann – what are you talking about? it’s so dangerous to pick one concept out of context. 9-203 discusses security interests and perfection thereof in very specific collateral, none of which is real estate. in fact, in the “scope and applicability” section in 9-109, it specifically says article 9 doesn’t apply to real property except for very two specific issues.
    out of context misinformation is so dangerous and unnecessary……
  80. joann, on April 13, 2012 at 2:22 pm said:
    UCC Article 3 and UCC Article 9 interact to determine the secured interest of a beneficiary.
    On March 29, 2011, the Permanent Editorial Board (“PEB”) for the Uniform Commercial Code issued a Memorandum: “Draft Report of the PEB on the UCC Rules Applicable to the Assignment of Mortgage Notes and to the Ownership and Enforcement of Those Notes and the Mortgages Securing Them”.
    On page 7 it says that Section 9-203(b) of the Uniform Commercial Code provides that three criteria must be fulfilled in order for the owner of a mortgage note to create a “security interest”:
    The first two criteria are straightforward – “value” must be given and the debtor /seller must have rights in the note. The third criterion may be fulfilled in either one of two ways. Either the debtor must “authenticate” a “security agreement” that describes the note or the secured party must take possession of it pursuant to the debtor’s security agreement.
    (Footnote 27 says: “Similar nomenclature conventions define “debtor” to include the seller of a payment right, “secured party” to include the buyer of a payment right, and “collateral” to include a sold payment right. See UCC §§ 9-102(a)(28),(72),(12).”)
    On page 9 the PEB Draft Report discusses the further steps that must be taken in non-judicial states:
    “ In some states, a party without a recorded interest in a mortgage may not enforce the mortgage non-judicially. In such states, even though the buyer of a mortgage note (or a creditor to whom a security interest in the note has been granted to secure an obligation) automatically obtains corresponding rights in the mortgage, this may be insufficient as a matter of applicable real estate law to enable that buyer or secured creditor to enforce the mortgage upon default of the maker if the buyer or secured creditor does not have a recordable assignment. The buyer or other secured creditor may, of course, attempt to obtain such a recordable assignment from the seller or debtor at the time it seeks to enforce the mortgage, but such an attempt may be unsuccessful.
    “Article 9 of the UCC provides such a buyer or secured creditor a mechanism by which it can record its interest in the realty records in order to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure. UCC Section 9-607(b) provides that “if necessary to enable a secured party [including the buyer of a mortgage note] to exercise…the right of [its transferor] to enforce a mortgage non-judicially,” the secured party may record in the office in which the mortgage is recorded (i)a copy of the security agreement transferring an interest in the note to the secured party and (ii)the secured party’s sworn affidavit in recordable form stating that default has occurred and that the secured party is entitled to enforce the mortgage non judicially.”
  81. tnharry, on April 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm said:
    article 9 doesn’t really apply to real estate. there is some stuff in there that get’s brought in from other sections, but article 9 is mostly irrelevant
  82. tnharry, on April 13, 2012 at 1:36 pm said:
    not wrong at all shelley. that’s exactly it
  83. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 13, 2012 at 1:36 pm said:
    Article 9 UCC LAW also.
  84. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 13, 2012 at 1:33 pm said:
    Am I wrong i the judicial states the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs being the foreclosures? and in non judicial the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs being the homeowers.
  85. tnharry, on April 13, 2012 at 1:10 pm said:
    @JenninGA – it sounds like you’ve already figured it out. now the trick is proving it using admissible evidence. that’s what separates the lawyers from the nonlawyers most often. you can’t just hand the judge a handful of documents. you have to lay a foundation, authenticate the evidence, and be prepared to argue its admissibility over objections to relevance, hearsay, etc.
  86. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 13, 2012 at 12:58 pm said:
    Boy I thought trolls were suppose to be kinda ughly and I thought we are all kinda cute!
    Article 3 UCC and Article 9 UCC law is very important law protecting us.
    As stated by Grant Gilmore, Article 3 is not unlike a “museum of antiquities — a treasure house crammed full of ancient artifacts whose use and function have long since been forgotten.” Grant Gilmore, Formalism and the Law of Negotiable Instruments, 13 Creighton L. Rev. 441, 461 (1979). His following quotation is apt and often-repeated: “codification . . . preserve[d] the past like a fly in amber”.
    In addition, Article 3 does not purport to govern completely the manner in which those ownership interests are transferred. For the rules governing those types of property rights, Article 9 provides the substantive law.17 UCC § 9-109(a)(3) (Article 9 “applies to . . . a sale of . . . promissory notes”). Article 9 includes rules, for example, governing the effect of the transfer of a note on any security given for that note such as a mortgage or a deed of trust. As a consequence, Article 9 must be consulted to answer many questions as to who owns or has other property interest in a promissory note. From this it follows that the determination of who holds these property interests will inform the inquiry as to who is a real party in interest in any action involving that promissory note.
    Obstacles to Negotiability of Residential Mortgage Notes
  87. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 13, 2012 at 12:51 pm said:
    looks to me the homeownershould have proven the broken chain of title, by a title report . And the note being separated from the deed of trust. The PSA being void per the PSA agreement. They all are. However we will see if the bank comes back and appeals this. Carpenter V. Longan voids the deed of trust and note if they are separated. UCC article 9 protects the homeowners..
  88. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 13, 2012 at 12:23 pm said:
    JenninGA, look at the UCC 3 thoroughly, in there you will find that if there is a chance you are not protected from a third party making claims against then they have to prove the note. Also UCC 9 over rules UCC 3. And the Carpenter V. Longan 1872 US Supreme court case law states the note can not be separated from the deed of trust or it is void. (Nullified) not voidable.
  89. tnharry, on April 13, 2012 at 12:22 pm said:
    @joann, carie, shelley – you guys are as much trolls as you accuse me of. what a are you talking about “lie” and they have to “prove under penalty of perjury” and “con the judge”??? the case says they provided a note endorsed in blank. the only issue is whether they had the note in their possession at the time of inception of the case. and again – THIS WASN’T ON THE MERITS. they’ll refile the motion for summary judgment with an additional statement on their affidavit in support saying they had the note at filing of the case and, unless the borrowers can prove otherwise, they’ll win again.
    hate the banks, their attys, and the judges all you want. the system isn’t completely broken – you just have to know how to use it and then actually use it
  90. JenninGA!, on April 13, 2012 at 11:57 am said:
    @ tnharry
    re: check out UCC 3-308 in whatever form your state has adopted it. signatures on documents are entitled to a presumption that they are authentic and authorized. it’s the burden of you to put that into issue with proof.
    would like your suggestion –
    loan originated 2005
    Current servicer says loan beneficiary = a trust
    the trust they list was sold to Freddie 12/2005 and I have read PSA for the trust and it closed on 12/20 2005
    Assignment filed lists a date in 2009 as the day MERS assigned both deed and note to trust??? Now we all here at LL know can’t be assigned to trust that closed in 2005
    How do I show GA court that this would prove assignment is a fraudulent document created to decieve GA courts (which is a felony in GA)??
  91. joann, on April 13, 2012 at 11:40 am said:
    Oklahoma courts have their ducks in a row.
    From the Moore Case:
    “ 13 To enforce a negotiable instrument as a non-holder in possession, the moving party must show (i) that the party possessed the negotiable instrument when suit was filed; (ii) how possession was achieved; and (iii), if necessary, that the purpose of the transfer was to transfer rights of enforcement. 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-301. The Appellee has not demonstrated its possession of the Note at the time it commenced foreclosure proceedings against Appellants.”
    “ 18 To show you are the “holder” of the Note you must prove you are in possession of the note and the note is either “payable to bearer” (blank indorsement) or to an identified person that is the person in possession (special indorsement).8 Therefore, both possession of the note and an indorsement on the note or attached allonge9 are required in order for one to be a “holder” of the Note.”
    “20 Appellee must also demonstrate it became a “person entitled to enforce” prior to the filing of the foreclosure proceeding. We find there is no evidence in the record establishing Appellee had standing to commence this foreclosure action.”
    From the footnote:
    “9. According to Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) an allonge is “[a] slip of paper sometimes attached to a negotiable instrument for the purpose of receiving further indorsements when the original paper is filled with indorsements.” It should be noted that under 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-204(a) and its comments in paragraph 2, it is no longer necessary that an instrument be so covered with previous indorsements that additional space is required before an allonge may be used. An allonge, however, must still be affixed to the instrument.”
    This is all true in judicial and non-judicial. Time to rule according to the rule of law and if a fraud in any of the above occurs declare it a fraud with appropriate consequences.
  92. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 13, 2012 at 11:15 am said:
    The banks tried to con the judges and lost! They wont beable to con this judge with a fraud and a lie. The game is over for the fruad debt collector. Now the owner can prove clouded title and file for quiet title.
  93. carie, on April 13, 2012 at 11:15 am said:
    A lawyer once said to my husband: “Man, you are a really convincing witness—if you don’t mind lying, you could make a LOT of money…”
    ’nuff said.
  94. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 13, 2012 at 11:13 am said:
    tnharry, they dont have the notes! If they come up with a fraud they are screwed. If they had the note they would have presented it. There is not much chance they will Most likely ZERO!
  95. carie, on April 13, 2012 at 11:11 am said:
    “US Bank need only prove that they held the note at the time of filing and they’ve lost again…”
    You mean they only need to LIE again…and again…and again. Disgusting and pathetic.
  96. joann, on April 13, 2012 at 11:06 am said:
    tnharry:
    “US Bank need only prove that they held the note at the time of filing”
    Exactly. “Prove” being the keyword. (Under penalty of perjury by the real party of interest). Showtime.
  97. tnharry, on April 13, 2012 at 10:44 am said:
    “THE MOORES WIN APPEAL AGAINST US BANK AS TRUSTEE FOR GSAA”
    read the case. The Moores won a temporary victory of vacating the grant of summary judgment and remanding. US Bank need only prove that they held the note at the time of filing and they’ve lost again.
  98. ABBY IN CA, on April 13, 2012 at 10:34 am said:
    THE MOORES WIN APPEAL AGAINST US BANK AS TRUSTEE FOR GSAA……
  99. tnharry, on April 13, 2012 at 10:28 am said:
    the common theme here is that the attorneys and courts are ignoring the rules and railroading people with forged or fraudulent documents, but there is very little actual proving fraud in the court room happening. file your case, get discovery, and prove that the individual lacked authority to sign or maybe never signed. but you can’t read something on mandelman’s site or hear about a register of deeds on a crusade in Massachusetts and rely on those in your case. each case depends on proof of facts and a demonstration that the facts, once proven, equate to something legally actionable.
    check out UCC 3-308 in whatever form your state has adopted it. signatures on documents are entitled to a presumption that they are authentic and authorized. it’s the burden of you to put that into issue with proof.
    that’s a roundabout way of saying that it’s not necessarily the judge or the attorney that’s corrupt. it’s a lack of knowledge about these issues and how to present them that leads people to state that the system’s fixed, etc.
  100. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 13, 2012 at 10:24 am said:
    ANora, I second Carie.
  101. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 13, 2012 at 10:22 am said:
    Joanne, the article on it states it is being used in reverse against the banks by the Obama administration and is being challenged like they will challenge all claims. Dont know why it should not be used in reverse when we are the ones being defrauded. The real challenge is finding a judcial system that judges by the rule of law. They object and challenge, we object and challenge. This statute like all others another tool to use and hope the judicial system does due process and serves justice by the rule of law and not unconstitutional bank law. Which I find does not seem to happen often at all in the lower courts.
  102. carie, on April 13, 2012 at 10:22 am said:
    @Nora C.
    Please don’t do anything drastic…we are all on this planet for what amounts to an instant, really…rich or poor, house or no house, everyone goes to the next world eventually…”speeding it up” by taking your own life is not the solution…we have to keep searching for truth and be as courageous and loving as we can. We are in the test of our lives right now…the truth is coming out…slowly—just hang in there—I’ll say some prayers for you!
    This has helped me lot: baha’i.org
  103. John Anderson, on April 13, 2012 at 10:08 am said:
    What we are suffering through is governmental and judicial, anarchy.
    We have rules on the books about forged documents, and there admissibility in court. We have laws and penalties concerning the fabrication of documents, and penalties for notaries who notarized them improperly.
    Yet none of this is being addressed, except by a few federal judges who will not accept this fraud. God bless them.
  104. dcbreidenbach, on April 13, 2012 at 9:46 am said:
    Nora C, on April 12, 2012 at 11:55 pm said:
    I tried a couple of the attorneys listed on this blog. Waste of time. One never returned multiple phone calls and emails, the other ripped me off for two hundred dollars for a “consultation”. She also never returned my documents after promising to mail them to me a month ago. My daughter is evicting me from her moldy basement and I have no where to go. If I had life insurance, suicide would be a good route, but Joe can’t afford to bury me”
    I can empathize. i still have life insurance to fall back on –for my family anyway. it definitely starts to become an option people in our situation start thinking about—more and more–especially those of us who are older. I just listened to senator Corker speaking against principal reductions because of the “moral hazard” —i guess he wont admit that anyone who voluntarily steps in front of the train is basically a total fool —anyone who ever dealt with a bank-collection agency over a $25 charge has already a pretty good idea of the consequences of a default on your mortgage—Corker is either out of touch with reality or corrupt to the core.
    There are lots more people who have been forced into foreclosure/defaults thinking about suicide than there are well-off people just trying to escape a debt. The statistics are not being collected to establish it. Going into election is a good time to start polling foreclosure victims about their suicidal thoughts–grim as it may be–extrapolate the numbers. Compare that to the mercedes owners thinking about strategic defaults —there can be no comparison.
    I suppose the only thing that would make Corker admit hes full of it–would be if somebody set himself on fire in Corkers front lawn. I suppose whoever does best park his Mercedes well away from the fire scene.
    remember please people—-the banks really want you to commit suicide –that gives them a shot at your insurance money—–you have to go through a bunch of complex estate planning and trust formation etc to prevent them from siezing your life insurance. say for example Nora did have life insurance—with proceeds to her estate [ie no designated beneficiary] or to her husband. Upon her death, the proceeds would be siezed by the bank—undoubtedly. we all know that they love to get insurance proceeds–FHA, FDIC, homeowner casualty claims for sieze and freeze insurance frauds, i wonder how many life policies they already have made claims against?
    anybody that has dealt with them knows there would be no hestitation–i would even imagine that they have specialists focused on it—–anybody know of a situation where they went after the life insurance proceeds???
    Nora –if you actually do such a thing–make sure you carefully document the facts of the harrassment that drove you to it–there could be a wrongful death action or even manslaughter charges made. I hear about these assertions about proving complex criminal conspiracies, but frankly I think a simple wrongful death civil claim in front of a jury would have a much better chance. I know this is ghoulish—and im not encouraging it–but I also know that there are hundreds and probably thousands that are doing it—I know it because of Nora—and others—after awhile they take away your will to live. Because that gets them a shot at the life policies—-and my guess is they would put a lien on proceeds directed to a child under some convoluted argument to force the child to give up and let them steal the money—its no more than they do every day. The child is an easy target–he saw his parent kill himself or be driven to death by depression etc by these monsters. The child knows that the govt is not there to do anything but protect the collection agency people no matter what they do. The child has a job–wants a life free of the misery that his parent died over. As far as the child feels the money is a windfall that hes not going to give up his life over—its easy money for the banks when you think about it. They will probably allege that a change in beneficiary was a fraud perpetrated on them by the dying parent and child–demand punitive damages and attorney fees, and that the money be frozen so the child cant use it to defend the case. Anybody who has dealt with their lawyers knows that this is not unrealistic—-this false claim stuff is their bread and butter.
    Please post the plan for the natl law firm idea–i think its good—but one big problem iv seen is that so many defense attys are in bed with the bank attys—Judas Goats leading their clients to slaughter. One of the priorities of a natl effort should be to bring charges in the bar associations against these wolves in sheeps clothing—and im not referring to people advertising here–because i do not know them–nothing of them. But I have seen these others in action. they are identifiable by the number of clients they have 100 plus for one lawyer for example–or guys that have not taken any cases to juries–settlement specialists—and guys that act as mediators as well as purported defense attys. Keep in mind who choses the mediator–how the selection process operates.
  105. joann, on April 13, 2012 at 9:27 am said:
    @Shelly A. Eriickson:
    “A STATUTE put in place during the S&L crisis”
    In the article …”power to subpoena documents”…. and “if prosecutors believe defendants violated certain criminal laws but have only enough information to meet a threshold that proves a claim based on the “preponderance of the evidence.”
    Says so far this has only used against individuals. There is conjecture over this whether it can only be used against individuals (as in those individuals who “defrauded” the innocent victim banks…). or against the institutions that did the defrauding (against investors who are also financial institutions? homeownerswho are non entites it seems?).
    Would like to know what you think – could a homeowner put their fraud docs (not the predatory origination claims ie who did the lying ect.or expired TILA claims or complaints about mods ect – but the fraud conveyance claims in front of the finra “prosecutors”?
    Point to the institutions plural involved but also point to the individuals – for instance the low level loan (foreclosure) processor who will then point to the higher ups who empowered him or her to do their fraud.
    For instance the DOT trustee company employee who is posing and signing as the CEO of the fraud /servicer/beneficiary not/ and notarized by an employee of the servicer who is not a beneficiary – who never purchased anything for value. This fraud robo forging signer making an assignment “For Value Received” to a trust closed years ago which is an impossible sale or transfer for all kinds of numerous reasons re psa, sec, irs and warranties and representations made to investors but also importantly an impossible transaction because the entity making the assignment has no ownership they can sell or transfer to anyone at any time (trust is either already the beneficiary or previous beneficiary is the Depositor and only the Depositor can make the assignment which is also not possible after 90 days beyond the closing date of the trust.
    There is a fraud claim of ownership going on, a fraud conveyance going on and the entity named as new beneficiary (the trust) who is now seeking to foreclose also does not have ownership either specifically because of the fraud conveyance.
    So who got defrauded by who? At origination and at foreclosure/theft? Who is owed how much by the homeowner? Identify. Homeowner does not owe a thief. If a thief gets paid or gets a house the “real” beneficiary got defrauded and is still owed. Who is that? Subpoena the accounting and the docs. Answer the question “why” the fraud transfer and who got defrauded once and for all concerned. There is no recovery for the economy until this is done.
  106. tnharry, on April 13, 2012 at 8:54 am said:
    @linda – more proof that sending letters just doesn’t stop the machine. file suit. getting in front of it and stopping the sale is so much of a better position that trying to unring the bell after the sale.
  107. linda, on April 13, 2012 at 8:25 am said:
    Ruthlessly evicted from our home by Wells Fargo…I guess for trying to work out something with them! They are the worst. I don’t know how they manage to keep their nose out of the media as much as they do.
    The typical credit bid, then sold our home two month’s later. Here we are floundering around.
    I mailed them all the defects in title and securitization audits. Forged signatures. They saw nothing wrong with the loans. (They got from Wachovia via World Savings) CA AG settlement = $178. Whoopty-do. OCC a waste of time so far. WF maintains foreclosure and eviction are valid. They will not budge because that is like admitting fault. They admit one fault and they have to do it for all of us and that means a LOT of money goes out to us for their fraud.
  108. Christopher King (@KingCast), on April 13, 2012 at 5:04 am said:

    Meanwhile CNN is part of the coverup:
    FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 2012
    KingCast and Mortgage Movies sneer at CNN Money story that reads like a press release from the mortgage & banking industry.
    Here is today’s CNN story, and here is my reply. I saved my reply because they have enabled comment moderation of course.
    “Many foreclosures have been in limbo since fall 2010 following the so-called robo-signing scandal, when banks allowed employees to sign off on thousands of foreclosure documents a month with little verification.”
    “So-called robo-signing”
    “Bank employees”
    “squatters?”
    Have you ever heard of the concept that you have to have STANDING in order to initiate a foreclosure, and the forged or fake documents notarized or signed by people FAKE TITLES might not pass legal muster?
    This story reads like a press release from the banking industry. Robo-signing and the bifurcation of note and mortgage have been done in ways that clearly violate UCC Articles §3 and 8, and you put out some garbage like this? Is Bethany Hood a “bank employee?” Is she a “MERS employee?” If so why does the law firm of Fein, Such & Kahn have no comment for me, and why does Ms. Hood (a postal clerk for lender processing services) pass me off to her legal team that never returns my phone call?…….[SNIP]
  109. Lawyers Take Note: Wells Fargo Slammed With $3.1 Million Punitive Damages on One Wrongful Foreclosure, on April 13, 2012 at 12:43 am said:
    [...] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: appraisal fraud, bailout, bank error, bankruptcy, borrower, disclosure, Eviction, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, forgery, fraud, housing market, investors, Lender Liability, loan servicer, Louisiana, mortgages, predatory lending, settlement, The Center for Public Integrity, Wells Fargo Livinglies’s Weblog [...]
  110. Nora C, on April 12, 2012 at 11:55 pm said:
    I tried a couple of the attorneys listed on this blog. Waste of time. One never returned multiple phone calls and emails, the other ripped me off for two hundred dollars for a “consultation”. She also never returned my documents after promising to mail them to me a month ago. My daughter is evicting me from her moldy basement and I have no where to go. If I had life insurance, suicide would be a good route, but Joe can’t afford to bury me.
  111. Wendell Fitzgerald, on April 12, 2012 at 10:29 pm said:
    I just came away from a meeting here in Jackson County, southern Oregon, where we discussed the fact that banks have illegally avoided paying fees to county clerks offices for recording the many transactions that occurred with every mortgage that was bundled and sold as derivatives during the many years that MERS was in operation. When MERS is found to be not a legal replacement for the duly recognized recording requirements with county clerks offices the counties have a couse of action to recover these fees. It is estimated that virtually every one of the over 4000 counties is affected and that $millions in fees were improperly withheld from each county.
    The potential liability of the banks has got to be in the billions. This is nowhere near the sums mentioned in this article but it is money owed to local governments. it is also in the interests of both the left and the right to see to it that these sums be brought back for local use.
    Coud get interesting as a way to mobilize citizens across the political spectrum against the parasitic siphoning of money out of localities to Wall Street.
    Next stop is moratoriums on foreclosures which will further stop the hemorraghing of wealth out of localities by the parasites at the top of the economic heap. Next stop after that is absentee landlords who can be prevented from siphoning locally created land value out of state.
  112. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 12, 2012 at 9:15 pm said:
    With limited statutes of limitation running out and harder to prove statutes this statute is welcome. Only perponderance of the evidence and a ten year statute.
    Yes we have good statutes this is not a new one it is very old and just brought to surface. http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/04/12/firrea-u-s-tests-rare-legal-path-in-financial-crisis-cases/
    Just like the Carpenter V Longan 1872 US Supreme court case.
  113. Enraged, on April 12, 2012 at 9:09 pm said:
    @Shelley,
    In this country where everything and its opposite has been litigated to death, I am absolutely convinced we don’t need more laws. We need more people to know how to invoke them. That requires… real lawyering, maybe? The Atticus-Finch kind, not looking out for his own buck but for the greater good?
    Jeez! What a novel idea!
  114. Jenifer Baldwin, on April 12, 2012 at 9:01 pm said:
    A few years back I called a place to tell them my story of how “THE GREAT OZZ” illegally took my house and ruined my business down on Main ST, when I mentioned who the bank was this lady asked “do you know who they are? I told her yes I do…THEY’RE A BUNCH OF CROOKS !!!
  115. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 12, 2012 at 8:58 pm said:
    A STATUTE put in place during the S&L crisis, the Obama administration just brought to light.
  116. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 12, 2012 at 8:40 pm said:
    more deaths and another tragedy for everyone involved caused by the banking criminals. http://www.modbee.com/2012/04/12/2154770/sheriffs-deputy-shot-while-serving.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy
    The crooks and the lack of government support to stop this crime is the cause of this tragedy for multiple families here.
  117. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 12, 2012 at 7:40 pm said:
    satish, I have also heard constantly of neighbors committiing suicide all to often. This is absolutely horrific. That is why I am donating to Neil and hope more will and have sent the message to everyone I know to join this battle with Neil that is able to. I hope more people donate to this cause and help Neil and his firm win this war. This is a war we can not loose. Well worth supporting in every way. I have been impressed with Neils knowledge and am very happy and excited to see him jump in and do this.
  118. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 12, 2012 at 7:35 pm said:
    Thanks Micheal, good attorneys need to be exposed to help people that are desparately looking for help. good lawyers are hard to find. I have begun donating fifty dollars a month to Neils blogg and will continue as he helps people, If everyone donated a little money to good lawyers to help this country back on its feet we would be saving america. If a thousand people donated $50,00 dollars a month to help fight this crime it would help the good attorneys helping a lot of people while the battle goes on. Or even a hundred people donating 50.00 a month. In the end we all win. No matter whom you are and if you are oblivous to this crime. We are in a battle to keep America not just homes. We are fighting organized crime supported by our own tax dollars. Our economy would jump start to a growth if this crime was ended. My son and my case is to far into the Appeals court to be able to join this massive attack back at the banks with Neil and I have not been foreclosed on, (mod defrauded with threat of foreclosure. ) My son, has been foreclosed on, however RECONTRUST just withdrew from the foreclosure on my sons case. The lawyers for the banksters wanted him to approve a new party they now want to represent when he has them in the Appeals court for fraud upon the court among other issues. Including non compliance to the FDCPA letter and not registered to be doing business in the state of Washington. Like he would approve this. The lawyers want to represent Countrywide that went bankrupt, instead of RECONTRUST AND MERS AND BOA AND US BANK. My son and I are in the last stage of the Appeal on both our cases. His is mod fraud also.
  119. Enraged, on April 12, 2012 at 5:01 pm said:
    @Bart,
    Just waiting for the truth to make us free. Can’t get the truth if we don’t ask the right questions…
  120. Bart, on April 12, 2012 at 4:45 pm said:
    Wow….this is a hot button subject……
  121. Enraged, on April 12, 2012 at 4:21 pm said:
    @tnharry,
    With all due respect, you seem to want us to believe that all your peers do is “advocate” for their clients but, the way you make it sound, they play by the rules and everything is on the up and up. This is far from the truth. Many actually prey on our ignorance of the system.
    You might very well be part of a breed in extinction (the honorable Atticus-Finch-type lawyer) but many of us, here, could tell your hair-raising horror stories of our experience with attorneys.
    And by the way… doesn’t the Bible talk about lawyers? And in not-so-flattering terms, if I recall… I think they’re right there, next to the tax collectors. Hmmm. i wonder why…
  122. chas404, on April 12, 2012 at 3:53 pm said:
    Ann. Thanks for Wiedner post.
    I have a silly demand form letter from Wells Fargo that looks like a dead ringer for this notice of default issue.
    I have been long harping on this. They should follow the contract. They send silly notices that they ‘may’ do this or they ‘may’ do that. And they are form letters that speak of the “deed of trust’ while in Florida.
    Meanwhile the borrower has NO ONE to call or speak with.
    We will see.
    Thanks
  123. ian, on April 12, 2012 at 3:50 pm said:
    NEIL! 4,000,000 homes X $1,000,000 in damages for each home adds up to $4,000,000,000,000. That’s 4 trillion dollars, NOT 4 BILLION dollars. Come on now, for cryin’ out loud, you’re acting like a pretend lender, juggling the numbers around.
  124. exposetherotteneggs, on April 12, 2012 at 2:42 pm said:
    @TNHarry
    We paid him an agreed upon amount but didn’t sign anything. He said after he filed the Bankruptcy he couldn’t accept any more payments. I was ignorant of the process. He said 3 days before our house was sold he was going to file the lawsuit, obviously he didn’t.
  125. exposetherotteneggs, on April 12, 2012 at 2:35 pm said:
    oops! posted on auto. We had a BK attorney who didn’t file the lawsuit in BK court as we planned up until days before they sold our house as I continually asked him we needed a Lis Pendens on our property. We were also actively in a BK13 when our house was sold under section 362 of the BK code third filing rule which our attorney failed to inform us about. Then after our house was sold we hired a very capable and passionate attorney who tried so hard to fight in the Ca. court system which is like hitting your head against the wall over and over again. We did not expect her to work for free or pay the court fees, she was preforming a service for us. Many attorneys are just not capable or want to practice this type of law as it is complicated and constantly changing. One of her cases against Wells Fargo she asked the opposing attorney “how do you sleep at night”? My point is there are caring attorneys around who actually want to help people and there are greedy lawyers who just want to make a buck. I think it is a smart idea to start a National Law Firm with massive lawsuits inundating the courts with wrongful foreclosure lawsuits run by Neil Garfield and his team who are wise to the ways of the bank’s tricks. Hope you feel better soon am sending you good wishes. I have learned so much from this weblog. Thank you!
  126. Tnharry, on April 12, 2012 at 2:25 pm said:
    Did you pay the bk lawyer to file suit? If so, sue him and report him. If not, then there’s your problem. Retainers and bk fee agreements need to clearly define the roles in the agreement
  127. Ann, on April 12, 2012 at 2:22 pm said:
    BOMBSHEL (wink, wink)- MANY, MANY FORECLOSURE CASES SHOULD BE DISMISSED
    April 12th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    The big shot banks had teams of lawyers being paid hundreds of dollars an hour to draft their documents….all of their documents. Then they had teams of lawyers and minions devising their devious little programs and schemes to take on the task of servicing the loans.
    But in their mad rush to suck down so much of America’s wealth, they stopped paying attention to details….including not paying attention to the details of what they wrote into their own damn contracts.
    Contracts must be specifically complied with!!
    and
    Ambiguities in contracts will be construed against the drafter!!
    (and their fancy $600/hour attorneys)
    Which brings us to today’s object lesson…the banks routinely failed to comply with a key element of foreclosure….sending the default letter. And when they did….they failed to include the correct language in the default letter they sent.
    And if that language ain’t correct….CASE DISMISSED!
  128. exposetherotteneggs, on April 12, 2012 at 2:13 pm said:
    In our experience we had a BK lawyer who said he was “our friend” although he didn’t file the lawsuit
  130. lostinlitigation, on April 12, 2012 at 1:35 pm said:
    Just another report from the “Battlefield”. I have contacted every agency who has been charged with protecting the consumer, I was told to contact the VA, police, FBI, State Banking authorities, and many more. Since I have been ivestagating my own, (on my own) with the tremendous help from this site and other, I have uncovered Illeagal property flipping schemmes, “Shotgunning” (that is what the FBI calls taking out multible loans on one property)
  131. michael, on April 12, 2012 at 1:32 pm said:
    im in texas. houston . my lawyers are Barabra J Hudson and lenease Fuller of the legal and foreclosure defense group.
  132. If_You_Don't_Follow_The_Law_You_Can't_Judge_Me, on April 12, 2012 at 1:29 pmsaid:
    I always find it interesting when people say things like “no state judge has the time nor the desire to study.”
    If I pay my court fees, that’s a contract, and he has a “DUTY” to study the issues of the case. If a judge doesn’t know them, (and here’s the key) isn’t “willing to investigate,” then he needs to be recused. Judges are not allowed to form, or have, an opinion about anything unitl facts have been established for the record.
    People need to start holding EVERYbody to task. That’s what the heck “equal protection beside the law” means. EVERYbody is bound by “LAW.”
  133. Shelley A. Erickson, on April 12, 2012 at 1:23 pm said:
    Micheal please share your attorneys names and the state you are in. I hope you the best. None of us intended on getting rich or having a free house. This has become a war against the biggest most harm causing criminal gangsters in the history of man or at least our life time. This is war against the bankster gangsters and the criminals enabling them, this is much more than a house debt being waived. This is justice and saving the middle class and restitution for millions of families being held hostage in hell. This is a war that the rule of law exhist in our country and to keep the rule of law. To save the U.S. Consitution. And to make case law to help all victims in all states. To take these criminal entities down and to stop the bank law from controlling our government.
  135. ian, on April 12, 2012 at 1:11 pm said:
    tnharry- lawyers? I can’t find one lawyer who has a clue as to the internecine connections between; NY Trust Law, Del. Trust Law, Pooling and Servicing Agreements, Mortgage Loan Schedules, IRC 938 reports, “corrective” assignments of mortgage, arms-length transactions, MERS rules of membership, out-of-business entities whose names appear on court filings years after they have become defunct, I mean, NOT A CLUE. so here I am. Pay for what? An atty to practice, using my house and family as a punching bag? No thanks.
  136. Javagold, on April 12, 2012 at 12:55 pm said:
    thats right michael, same fraud over and over and over……the damn lawyers should be knocking on the homeowners doors begging for their case
  137. Sean Park, on April 12, 2012 at 12:34 pm said:
    Hi Michael,
    Who is your attorney? I am looking for a contingency attorney in CA. I have 7 properties including my primary with appraisal fraud, original loan doc fraud as well as title fraud. If you’re attorney is elsewhere, maybe he knows of one in CA….THANKS…
  138. michael, on April 12, 2012 at 12:21 pm said:
    My attorneys are working on contingency, they get it.. we are seeking 9 times the amount of the loan in damages, for wrongful foreclosure, not just a principle waiver…. too much evidence against the banks at this point to just ask for a free house, it’s down right abuse at this point and not only that its habitual.
  139. MD, on April 12, 2012 at 12:03 pm said:
    Thank you Neil for all you do……Take care of yourself….I sent you an email……
  140. carie, on April 12, 2012 at 11:10 am said:
    Your statement proves all you care about is money…not truth and/or justice.
  141. neidermeyer, on April 12, 2012 at 11:09 am said:
    TNHarry ,
    Lets calm down here … I spent 6 months looking for someone competant to handle a QT and found no-one despite having done ALL the prelim legwork for them… I have had 2 other actions where I know that the lawyer I hired sold me out in a deal and pocketed some really good money while torpedoing me… It is a profession which controls it’s own oversight and where everyone involved is a member of the profession including the arbiter/judge… it is primed and ready for corruption and we have seen much of it … The biggest problem is the bar association ,, they ignore complaints , impose meaningless fines and are above any law… they direct the profession away from what is right/true to back up what is expedient and profitable in the short term ,, just look at Stern and Weidner ,, lawyers are herded by the bar , some actions are protected , some are punished.
    Lets face it most lawyers specialize in one area and slack off for decades ,, just freshening up the same tired set of perhaps a dozen documents on their pc for each client… I’m thinking elder law , BK , slip and fall , contract law etc. It doesn’t take much in the way of brains to graduate law school ,, just look at the huge numbers that do so every year.
    Nobody should work for free and he didn’t SAY that .. read javagolds statement again .. and I agree with him , the corruption goes up past the local circuit judges … this is directed from someplace higher in an effort to help the banks bottom line and avoid a monetary crash… It is destined to fail at some point.
    In the case mentioned here wasn’t this actually AHMSI posing as WF?
  142. Tnharry, on April 12, 2012 at 11:00 am said:
    Show me this easy pot of gold and I’ll switch teams, because the big victories are still very hard to find. Even if a quiet title case is successful, there’s no money judgment to pull fees from. You didn’t answer the question if you work for free. And as for swearing to uphold the laws, I think you’re confusing lawyers and judges. Attys are paid to represent and advocate one side of a case. Just add a free lawyer to the list of free things you want I guess….
  143. Patricie Brown, on April 12, 2012 at 10:54 am said:
    In the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, lawyers do not get it! I showed the lawyer where my note was never endorsed from Argent Mortgage Company LLC, which is now closed. The lawyer saw that the bank provided a non endorsed note in 2009 and now in 2012 they have obtained an endorsement from the defunct since 2008 Argent Mortgage. Ever attorney still says well how much can you give the bank, we can only work a modification with this evidence. I wish that I could pull a lawyer from another state that gets it.
  144. Javagold, on April 12, 2012 at 10:23 am said:
    TN, who said anything about FREE…..they will not take the job, even with a pot of gold sitting out there for them to take and quite easily i might add…..plus how about just following the law they swore to uphold and doing what is just for the people……stop trolling, you are annoying
  145. Tnharry, on April 12, 2012 at 10:17 am said:
    @java – so lawyers are money grubbing and part of the corruption because they charge fees that you deem expensive in order to earn a living? Or that they’re part of the problem because they won’t represent you for free? What do you call the store Neil runs here for profit? What do you do for a living? And are you in some way obligated to do it for free for people? I really doubt it
  146. Sean Park, on April 12, 2012 at 9:39 am said:
    Hi, I have a Wells Fargo loan which was later assigned to Bank of America after they filed a NOD. However, our Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale states that Wells Fargo is the closing lender and all document regarding taxes are to be sent back to Wells Fargo? I need a good attorney in California as it is clear the wrong party foreclosed. Also, my loan is showing it is current in a Caymen Islands Securitization and Bank of America is the manager and Wells Fargo is the Trustee. It specifically shows.
  147. Gorble, on April 12, 2012 at 9:38 am said:
    Not topic related directly but…..Obamas NEW relief plans for non-government backed mortgages. As far as I can tell there is still nothing written ANYWHERE as to what his new plans are, even though I believe the banks already know, or are actually in charge of making the new rules. Hence the sudden acceleration of forclosures? They were getting set for action against me but, low and behold, I came up with the money they threatened to sue me for and it was certified and completely documented by yours truely. If I am wrong would someone please correct me? Is this just going to be another version of Hamp? Hamp II?
  148. pendinglawsuit, on April 12, 2012 at 9:25 am said:
    Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Re Request for Judicial Notice of a Related Case Michael l. Jones v Wells Fargo Punitive Damage Award of $3,171,154 
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/88520673/Sample-Request-for-Judicial-Notice-of-a-Related-Case-Michael-l-Jones-v-Wells-Fargo-Punitive-Damage-Award-of-3-171-154
    Comes now Plaintiff Barry S. Fagan herewith serves upon Defendants and their Attorneys of record his Request for Judicial Notice of a Related Case No. 03-16518 DEBTOR SECTION A CHAPTER 13 ADVERSARY NO. 06-1093
    MICHAEL L. JONES VS WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC.
    DATED APRIL 5, 2012 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE: MICHAEL L. JONES v WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE. THE COURT FINDS THAT A PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARD OF $3,171,154.00 MILLION IS WARRANTED TO DETER WELLS FARGO FROM SIMILAR CONDUCT IN THE FUTURE. THE COURT FINDS THAT IT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROCEEDING FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT.
    This is an official act of the UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BEFORE THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH W. MAGNER in her effort to review the practices of Wells Fargo Bank which ultimately concluded that a punitive damage award of $3,171,154.00 million is warranted to deter Wells Fargo from similar conduct in the future. That Court hopes that the relief granted will finally motivate Wells Fargo to rectify its practices and comply with the terms of court orders. In Plaintiff’s case, Wells Fargo Bank has fraudulently altered recorded documents, robo-signed discovery responses, falsified loan applications, failed to provide loan level accounting, and Plaintiff has supported all of its allegations with multiple expert opinions. (Attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A)
    The issues and findings are intimately related to the case at bar and is authorized under California Evidence Code § 452.


  151. jordana lipscomb, on April 12, 2012 at 9:20 am said:
    I am a lawyer or should I say “was.” Lately, I’ve been trying to help as many people as I can using my knowledge and formidable writing and researching skills…. completely gratis. I agree that most are not so admirable. I have renewed hope though after reading this. I was feeling pretty down yesterday but I feel a lot better now. Thanks Neil. I hope you’re feeling better too. I have some very good “kharma” and I’m sending some your way.
  152. Enraged, on April 12, 2012 at 8:33 am said:
    I have been harping over and over that, for people who can’t find a foreclosure defense attorney, the least they could do was to file for BK. I know a few people on this blog who might have benefited from it rather than go solo in state court with “exotic” defenses no state judge has the time nor the desire to study and that they never had a chance to present in the first place.
    To recap, NY BK judges awarded many houses to homeowners on faulty or flat out fraudulent paperwork. Before that, in 2007, Ohio BK judges awarded the house to something like 32 homeowners. It’s been also seen in MA, IL, MI and other states and when you live in a non-judicial state, it gives you access to a court of law.
    We need to keep fighting but we’ve got to do it intelligently. Know your state. Know BK laws. Study what you can do and not do and… do it! BK does not require an attorney (although it is always better to have one) but if you want to find one, it is easier than for a straight foreclosure defense.
    And it is true that BK judges are into following the money. it is their job. that’s what they do. Use what this rotten system has to offer to your advantage and don’t try to break new grounds with theories you can’t understand, let alone argue.
    I see progress…
  153. Javagold, on April 12, 2012 at 8:21 am said:
    everyone says lawyers are money grubbing leeches and the one time the people actually want/need lawyers help, most are nowhere to be found……the corruption must really go that high up
  154. satish shetty, on April 12, 2012 at 8:18 am said:
    Congratulations Neil! Keep it up. I hate to say this but we are dealing a lot with attorney incompetency. And those that are competent are either too busy or too expensive. There has to be an alternative solution. Either training attorneys how to fight and keep abreast with the latest decisions and court opinions. I will take on and join this fight shortly. I am still experimenting with ideas. I have come up with a brilliant one and will test it immediately. WE SHOULD STOP THE BANKS NOW BEFORE MORES LIVES ARE LOST. Last week a home owner committed suicide in my neighborhood. Similar reports have come to my attention in other places too. I personally cannot tolerate this bad news and government impotency. Relying upon the government or law enforcement is out of question. There are deals being made and laws ignored in favor of the one who holds the gold. We have to take the fight to Court and do it successfully one home at a time. Time is now before we loose another life or another family destroyed. YOU WILL HEAR FROM ME SOON. Neil keep it up. I have seen other blogs whose interest lie in their own profit. I am proud of you. I have learned a lot from you personally. Thank you and will report from the battlefield.
    Satish


Related articles

Posted by at
Labels: , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

DO YOU NEED HELP TO AVOID FORECLOSURE?

If you would like to receive information on how you might avoid the foreclosure of your home, please e-mail me your name, address, and phone number. Someone from our office will be in touch right away to assist you. With Warm Regards, Kelly L. Hansen, HOMEOWNERS HELPING HOMEOWNERS, ctsmyhon@yahoo.com
Be happy, healthy and prosperous, but most of all, be blessed.
Kelly L. Hansen's photo.

Kelly L. Hansen


Jurisdictionary® just click on the link
Make Sure Your Attorney Is Working For You!
Kelly L. Hansen
HOMEOWNERS HELPING HOMEOWNERS FOUNDATION
33605 W. 88th Street
De Soto, KS 66018
913-269-0399 Phone
888-881-2349 Fax
MORTGAGE FRAUD VICTIMS
ARE YOU A VICTIM OF MORTGAGE FRAUD?


PLEASE DONATE TO HELP HOMEOWNERS!