Showing posts with label Pro se legal representation in the United States. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

PRO SE'S LOVE WHEN THEY GREAT ATTORNEY'S SHARE THEIR MOTIONS. THANK YOU NEIL!!

Motion to Compel Discovery: General Template I am Using

Posted on October 7, 2014 by Neil Garfield

Having seen the usual short version of a motion to compel, I have determined that a great deal more must be said in order to convince the trial judge and preserve your issues on appeal. Remember you must set down their objections for hearing IN ADDITION TO a hearing on your motion to compel.

To assist practitioners I am offering my own template, which ALWAYS requires editing because the facts in each case are different. THIS IS WHY THE FOLLOWING FORM SHOULD NOT BE USED BY ANY PRO SE LITIGANT WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH A LICENSED ATTORNEY IN YOUR JURISDICTION. Where it describes a party, put in the actual name.

COMES NOW the Defendants by and through their undersigned attorney and moves this court to enter an order denying the Plaintiffs’ objections to discovery and compelling complete responses with respect to Defendants’ Interrogatories, Request for Production and Interrogatories and Request for Admission and as grounds therefor say as follows:

This is a foreclosure case in which the Plaintiffs have alleged that a trustee is the party representing a REMIC Trust which in turn allegedly represents undisclosed creditors (Investors) with respect to a debt for which a promissory note is alleged to be evidence of the Defendant’s indebtedness. The promissory note was alleged to be lost when the case was initially filed. Now the Plaintiff says it has recovered the note and has filed what it calls the “original” note and mortgage with this Court.

Published in academic surveys and testimony of multiple banks, including the banks involved in the alleged chain of documents relied upon by the Plaintiff in this case, and the alleged originator of the subject loan and the alleged servicer for the subject loan, shows that the industry practice was to shred the notes without certification, allege lost note, and then if the case is defended, they suddenly come up with what they allege to be the original.

Defendants must be permitted to inquire into this issue inasmuch if the original note was destroyed or lost, the subsequent events and circumstances surround the destruction , loss or transfer of the note is essential to arriving at the truth in connection with Plaintiff’s claim for foreclosure and Defendants answer and affirmative defenses. The current servicer and the former servicer or Master Servicer, are the ONLY source of information about these matters.

The “servicer” has changed multiple times and Plaintiffs have changed without amendment to the complaint. This shows movement of rights or ownership that corroborates Defendants theory that this is a loan that is securitized or subject to claims of securitization where the result they seek is a Judgement that produces a violation of the Internal revenue Code and forcing a loss on investors who have no notice of these proceedings.

Hence there might be an indispensable party missing from these proceedings.

Plaintiff alleges it is the holder and does not allege that it a holder in due course, but the name of the holder in due course or “owner” of the loan remains undisclosed along with the source of authority to assert rights to enforce.

Defendant’s theory of the case is that the “creditor” consists of a group of investors whose money was loaned in the name of an originator, the alleged originator claimed to be the “lender” which Defendants denies.

Defendant further asserts that the subject loan involved solely the Defendants and the investors and was undocumented and is therefor unsecured.

Defendant further asserts that the subject loan is subject to claims of securitization and multiple claims of ownership.

As corroboration for Defendants’ theory of the case, Defendant cites the allegation that the Plaintiff is a holder but did not allege its representative capacity, the source of its authority nor the identity of the actual owner of the loan, thus preventing a proper defense as well as any attempt to modify the loan in accordance with any Federal or State program.

Based upon investigation by the Defendants, undersigned counsel believes the REMIC Trust that has NOT received payments (and that alleged “trust beneficiaries” have received payments) is neither the holder with rights to enforce nor the owner of the debt. The investors own the debt but were denied the promised protections of a note and mortgage in favor of the the investors as the source of money for origination and acquisition of loans.

Defendants theory of the case is that the Trust was ignored, to wit: that the trust did not buy the subject loan, did not receive delivery as set forth in the trust document, and that the “endorsement” and “assignment” were false documents that were unsupported by any real transaction in which value was paid for acquisition of the debt or the note.

Only the Defendants have the actual documentation to show the money trail, if any, in which the source of funds of the “lender” is disclosed and the transaction in which the note and mortgage were purchased for value.

The note is alleged to be secured by a mortgage executed by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs have not alleged a loan to the Defendant by the Plaintiff or anyone else in their alleged chain of “title” to the loan or loan documents.

Defendants have denied the Plaintiffs’ allegations.

Defendants challenge the alleged default, ownership of the debt and loan documents and the balance alleged in the complaint, and affirmatively defend with payment by way of servicer advances received by the trust beneficiaries from the servicer.

Defendants also are inquiring as to the authority of the Plaintiff and possibly ______ Bank, who is not named in the Trust instrument (Pooling and Servicing Agreement) as the Trustee. If that Bank is not the Trustee then the trust has not received proper notice of an action that directly affects their economic interests as the only real party in interest.

Defendants are entitled to pursue discovery for anything that might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Defendants point out to the court that the suit is brought as a holder and not a holder in due course. Hence all defenses of the borrower may be raised as though the trust was the originator of the loan.

Even as “holder” Plaintiffs fail to allege and object to any information as to the basis of their claim or rights to enforce a claim on the alleged note and alleged mortgage.  If the Plaintiff is merely a holder and not a holder in due course then the question becomes whether there was ANY transaction in which the Trust paid for the loan or if the trust or servicer is acting in a representative capacity for an undisclosed creditor.

Or, if the reason that the Plaintiff is not alleging status as holder in due course, the other two reasons are potentially that the trust was not acting in good faith or that the trust had knowledge of the borrower’s defenses.

Defendants investigation has led it to believe that at no time through the present have the loan documents ever been delivered to the trust or any other creditor or its appointed agent (Depositor) as expressly set forth in the trust instrument. Defendants have a right to know when such delivery occurred, if ever and to inquire as to the circumstances of such delivery or non delivery.

These are all issues that Defendants are entitled to pursue.

If the Trust owns the loan, as alleged, then it must have done so according to the terms of the trust instrument which is governed by New York State and potentially Delaware State law — both of which declare transactions outside the scope of authority of the Trustee to be void, not voidable.

In order for the trust to have ever acquired an interest in the loan, the transaction must have occurred with the Trustee’s acknowledgement and consent.

Defendants seek documents showing the actual money trail and the actual document trail — not just documents the Plaintiffs wish to use at trial.  Defendants seek documents that Defendants can use at trial to prove their theory of the case.

As for the balance, Plaintiffs object to the Defendants getting confirmation that “servicer advance payments” were made to the trust beneficiaries and that all distributions required to be made to the “creditor” have been made. If such payments were made and the creditor(s) is or was, at the time of the declaration of default, not showing a default because the creditor had been paid in full, it is a matter of argument as to whether such payments negate the default and whether the payments gave rise to a different cause of action by the servicer against the Defendants for unjust enrichment that would not be secured by the mortgage unless this court is going to cut pieces off the security instrument and declare equitable part ownership of the mortgage in favor of the servicer or other third party payor.

Defendants have a right to know the balance actually due to the creditor on account of the alleged property loan apart from any claims of the servicer or other third party who may have made payments that were in fact received by or on behalf of the creditor(s).

In other words, if the creditor is showing a different balance due, why is that? If the creditor is not or was not showing a default, why is that?

Or if their books started showing a default, when was that? The records offered thus far, show transactions (payments) between the alleged borrower under the note, but do NOT show the payments to the creditor(s). How can the payments to the creditors be irrelevant? If they received payment they had no default. If they didn’t receive payment then there is a default. But the question remains as to whether the default was under the PSA, the note or both.

It appears that the Plaintiff wants to have this court assume that the records of the servicer are the records of the creditor, but this is not the case. The creditor(s) are paid in accordance with the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and are not equal to the payments made by the borrowers. Defendants theory of the case is that neither the Plaintiff nor any trust nor any predecessor in interest ever participated in loaning money to the Defendants. If that is the case, it is something that could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiff is apparently attempting to have this court adopt a standard for discovery that would state that if the items requested might not be admissible in Court, then the the Defendants cannot be entitled to discovery as to such items. In fact, the standard for discovery is to prevent the necessity of long “investigation” at trial and pursue anything that MIGHT lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that this court enter an order denying each and every objection raised by the Plaintiff with respect to discovery, compelling the Plaintiff to respond and that the Court award attorney fees and costs as sanctions for obstructive behavior on the part of the Plaintiff.

Filed under: foreclosure

« Who Are the Creditors? What happened to those “lost notes?” »

8 Responses

mycookiejars, on October 10, 2014 at 9:27 am said:

JG, I hope you are well. Don’t hold your breath waiting on Neil, 7yrs and not a peep from Neil about Suretyship.
johngault, on October 9, 2014 at 11:56 pm said:

‘WHEN IS A SURETYSHIP* A REAL DEFENSE?”

*(sometimes aka a guarantee – think fnma fhlmc, maybe AIG, etc, etc)

This may be critical, so I’m sorry I can’t provide any answer just now.
Try google / yahoo / whatever the question: 1) When is a suretyship a real defense? or 2) When is a guarantee a real defense? 3) try suretyship as a key word in case law research (doesn’t necessarily have to be regarding foreclosure). Imo, suretyship or a guarantee is
a (real) defense to a contract, probably any contract. Maybe Neil will address this.
Ian, on October 9, 2014 at 8:12 pm said:

A Man- the title Insurance policies post-2008 all have exclusions, as do “special warranty deeds”, – on any securitized/MERS items in the chain of title for a home or raw land, clear title is only insured since the current “owner/lender/ bank took ownership. In other words, once the chain of title has been laundered.
usedkarguy, on October 8, 2014 at 10:41 pm said:

Article on florida Law Firm-forecosure defense

http://extra.heraldtribune.com/2014/10/05/strategy-mortgage-violation/
The A Man, on October 8, 2014 at 12:41 pm said:

Does this answer the question the some Judges claim that as long as there is a Title insurance company that is willing to cover the transfer of title the that there is no broken chain of title.

NEVER AGAIN
Deborah wynn, on October 8, 2014 at 11:24 am said:

Back drop ( man behind the curtain)

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2014/10/07/matthew-stoller-aig-breaks-hell-hath-no-fury-like-a-bankster-scorned/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ForeclosureFraudByDinsfla+%28FORECLOSURE+FRAUD+%7C+by+DinSFLA%29
Deborah wynn, on October 7, 2014 at 9:33 pm said:

Thank you. Yes adaptable. Just need case remanding ! As it should be.
neidermeyer, on October 7, 2014 at 7:26 pm said:

I like it ,, it’s a good starting point and a great deal of the verbiage is adaptable to many other situations.

Thursday, October 2, 2014

FRAUDCLOSURE AGAINST AMERICA'S MIDDLE CLASS

Fraudclosure Against America’s Middle Class – A War with Serious Repercussions

I. War Against America’s Middle Class.

While most Americans’ (and in fact the world’s) attention is on Syria, I would like to point out that there has been a war waging right here at home for several years, and it is far more likely to have a direct impact on you than anything overseas.

There is a financial war being waged that is arguably as damaging as any war in recent history. Warren Buffet said “In my view, derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal”. [Click HERE for PDF - Warren Buffet on Derivatives]

There has been a cyclical, premeditated, manufactured implosion of our economy that is guided particularly to our middle class, with the intent to keep it from acquiring and maintaining any true wealth and economic empowerment. Do you recall the Enron and S&L scandals of years gone by? The effect has been the extraction of over 40% of middle class wealth, the reclamation of well over 10 million homes, destabilization of the US dollar

and a devastated middle class left reeling and struggling to survive. There have been casualties. The carnage that has been left behind is devastating and as palpable as any other war: Broken families, homeless children, destroyed lives and even suicides are all consequences of this horrific man-made disaster.

II. The Shame Game.

What seems to be the worst thing is that the victims are left to suffer in guilt and silence because they are made to carry the weight of the blame for the disaster as they are the “deadbeat homeowners” or the “Lazy American” who brought this upon themselves. This is anything BUT the truth. Anyone who has spend any time at all exploring this issue, will soon find that most Americans were well meaning, worked hard and were simply pursuing the American dream. [And deceived by the banks. DC Ed]

To date, I have not yet found the proverbial “deadbeat homeowner.” I suppose they may be out there but they do not come to my office. The stories I hear are of people who have often work their entire lives to support their families and build a future for themselves and their progeny only to have it taken from them in a few short years. Many of them never missed a payment in their lives until they lost all the value in their homes when the market went upside down, as the bankers and their accountants assuredly knew would happen. They most often have even reached out to their “bank” to try to get help.

They are told “We are here to help” but you have to STOP making your payments in order to qualify for modification programs: In reality we have court cases and whistleblowers who have educated us to know that the plan was to always avoid any so-called loan modification because you – the homeowner – was being dual-tracked right into fraudclosure and straight out of your home so that the banks could reach a pay point with insurance.

III. Evictions on Main Street

What are the chances that over 10 million homes could be over taken by such a disaster and there not be a response of compassion and support from the American People and our government? There has been very little of either so homeowners have been left to struggle and fight on their own, In fact, until recently they have had very few options. However thanks to the hard work of pro se’ litigants, foreclosure defense advocates and well-meaning attorneys who have learned what it actually takes to prosecute these cases, we are starting to experience victories and that bring me to the purpose of this piece today:

IV. Hope for the Future:

I am pleased to say that Washington State is one of the most progressive states in the union relative to this issue. For example, our legislatures responded to the concerns they heard by enacting the Washington Foreclosure Fairness Act, which provides for mediation via the Washington Department of Commerce. See: Foreclosure Fairness Act Takes Effect July 22, Washington Is Third Non-Judicial Foreclosure State To Offer Mediation

We, in the state of Washington, have had case law established in favor of the homeowner in cases such as:

Bain v. Metropolitan Mortgage Group, WA Supe. Ct. Docket No. 86206-1, 285 P.3d 34 (2012). [Click here for LINK]

OVERVIEW: When a company that maintained an electronic system for tracking mortgage debt initiated foreclosure proceedings, the court held that only the actual holder of the promissory note was a beneficiary for purposes of Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.005(2) with the power to appoint a trustee to proceed with a nonjudicial foreclosure on real property.

Klem v. WAMU and Quality Loan Service Corp WA Supe Ct. No. 87105-1, 295 P.3d 1179 (2013). [Click here for LINK]

OVERVIEW: Practice of a trustee in a nonjudicial foreclosure deferring to the lender on whether to postpone a foreclosure sale and thereby failing to exercise its independent discretion as an impartial third party with duties to both parties was an unfair or deceptive act or practice and satisfied the first element of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

Schroeder v. Excelsior Management Group, WA Supe Ct. No. 86433-1
[Click here for LINK]

OVERVIEW: The borrower had obtained a loan from the lender secured by a deed of trust and an agreement that the property was not agricultural. The supreme court held that the trial court erred in permitting the trustee to proceed with a nonjudicial sale without first determining whether the land was agricultural because agricultural land had to be foreclosed judicially under Wash. Rev. Code §§ 61.24.020,.030(2) and the borrower could not waive the statute.

…………and other cases at the appellate level such as Beaton v. JP Morgan & NWTS,2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42806 (Western Dist. WA 2013). [Click here for LINK]
See also: DEBORAH H. BEATON, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., et al., Defendants.

FDCPA:

To the extent that Chase acquired Beaton’s loan in 2008 before she defaulted, it falls within the 15 USC § 1692a(6)(F) exemption of “debt collector.” NWTS was appointed as successor trustee on November [*11] 29, 2010. Dkt. # 39-6 (Ex. 6 to RJN). However, Beaton had been in default since approximately July 1, 2010. Dkt. # 58-4 (Ex. 4, Not. of Default). Accordingly, NWTS does not fall within the same exemption. Beaton alleges that the identity of the “Note Bearer/Creditor remains unknown[,]” that it remains undetermined if Chase is the actual beneficiary pursuant to RCW 61.24.005(2), and that NWTS violated FDCPA and damaged the Plaintiff by foreclosing her property. Dkt. # 55 (SAC) at 6:4-8. Liberally construed, the court finds that Beaton has plausibly alleged that NWTS attempted to collect on a debt that may not have been owed to Chase, which may have violated the FDCPA. See: McDonald II, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31730, 2013 WL 858178 at *12

Deed of Trust Act:
If Chase was not the holder of the note, it did not have the authority to appoint NWTS as a successor trustee, and NWTS did not have authority to initiate foreclosure proceedings without knowledge of the beneficiary as required by RCW 61.24.030(7). This would result in a material violation of the DTA. Accordingly, Beaton has plausibly alleged a violation of the DTA that survives dismissal.

************

This has been the result of years of diligent effort, sacrifice and passion for justice on behalf of attorneys here in our state. I have always believed that this war would be fought in the courtroom, case by case, argument by argument and by using multimedia to reach increasing numbers of consumers, and that is proving to be true. Most recently the StafneTrumbull Law conducted an extremely telling Deposition of Jeff Stedman of Northwest Trustee Services: Writes Stafne:

“In this deposition Jason Lemelson, who has been threatened with foreclosure, obtains evidence that Northwest Trustee Services is a biased trustee, i.e. judicial substitute, which considers the mortgage lenders as its clients. Further, when this biased substitute judge needs legal advice with regard to applying the law it goes to mortgage lender’s attorney for advice. Justice isn’t blind when it comes to nonjudicial foreclosures by Northwest Trustee Services and Lemelson requests in his case for the judiciary to stop this abuse.”

Within the deposition Stedman refers to internal procedures established to comply with the Washington Deed of Trust Act (DOTA). He states that,

“If there was a dispute, if there was a request that—or that the current noteholder was not the noteholder or didn’t have the ability to—didn’t have standing, then I think it would be up to me to go back and do some more research and look into it, and I would most definitely do that. But absent a dispute, I don’t think I need to.” (See Stedman Deposition click here for LINK)

I highly recommend reading this deposition if you are a foreclosure defense advocate, homeowner or work in any sort of enforcement capacity. In light of this recent evidence, we are encouraging people to contact their trustee if there is any confusion regarding who the noteholder or beneficiary of their loan and the Stafne Trumbull Law firm is pursuing post foreclosure lawsuits.

Monday, August 1, 2011

PRO PER LITIGANT, AFTER BEING HAMMERED BY THE JUDGE AND BEING TOLD SHE WAS CRAZY, HAS BEEN OBJECTING LIKE CRAZY. NOW IT HAS PAID OFF. THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT TAKES TO SUCCEED AS A PRO SE (PRO PER IN CALIFORNIA) LITITGANT.

Cal. BKR: No Trust Identified, No Relief From Stay

Posted on August 1, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

PRO SE LITIGANT NAILS US BANK — NDEX WEST SHELL GAME

see in RE Deamicis – Real Party in Interest – For Publication

NOTABLE QUOTES FROM CASE:

“A motion for relief from the automatic stay must be prosecuted by the real party in interest… “party in interest” under section 362 must be determined on a case by case basis, with reference to the interest asserted and how that interest is affected by the automatic stay.” [Court refers to In re Veal, 9th Circuit, BAP 2011].

“The problem with this Motion lies in the fact that three different proceedings have now been prosecuted in the state court and in this bankruptcy court by three different entities.

“If USBNA was the wrong party to bring the first 362 motion, then by the same logic the court is not persuaded that the Terwin Trust is the right party to enforce the U.D. Judgment which was not issued in its name.

“The Terwin Trust offers no evidence to suggest that the entity identified in the court pleadings and the U.D. Judgment as “U.S. Bank National Association as indenture Trustee” even exists separate from the specific trust(s) for which it is supposed to serve.” (e.s.)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

By Dan Edstrom, Senior Securitization Analyst, Livinglies

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. This email contains my opinions and is for educational purposes only.

This case is HUGE for what it says, which is exactly what Jim Macklin and I have been saying. In my (non-legal) opinion, California Civil Code 1558 applies (although it was not mentioned directly in this case). This case will have an impact in a HUGE number of cases where loans were securitized. This is because in a large number of cases we have analyzed (including our own cases), no trust is identified. Or where a “trust” is identified, the name given is not the actual name of any trust. In many cases they list the names of the certificates and not the legal name of the trust.

This case shows that you should focus on these issues where they apply. Also remember that where a trust is private, there is no publicly available document showing that the trust was actually created. In my opinion, without presenting the trust document (Pooling and Servicing Agreement, Trust Agreement, etc.), there is no proof that the trust itself actually exists. For the in RE Deamicis case, the trust is a private trust and the documents showing that the trust was formed and constituted are not available through the SEC. So even if they somehow overcome the obstacles in front of them now, they will have to prove the trust itself exists and what it can actually do (capacity).

Speaking of where they apply, in Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie cases this is HUGE. Because they each securitized the loans and do not even identify that a trust actually exists.

In my case I have an assignment of my loan from Mortgage Lenders Network (the originator) to US Bank, NA as Trustee by Residential Funding Company, LLC FKA Residential Funding Corporation Attorney in Fact. How this would relate to the trust my loan was allegedly conveyed to is beyond my understanding. The name of the Trust is RASC Series 2005-EMX4. Residential Funding was the sponsor of the trust. The attorney in fact is (allegedly) Wells Fargo Bank. By failing to identify the trust, this assignment is meaningless.

I have a 2nd assignment done some 5 months later. The assignment this time was from Mortgage Lenders Network to U S Bank NA, as Trustee. This time they completely changed it, but it is still meaningless. Plus they never rescinded the first assignment.

My Substitution of Trustee was done by “Wells Fargo Bank NA, attorney in fact for U S Bank National Association, as Trustee” … Again, a meaningless entry that fails to actual name any entity.

Attached is this case, plus my two assignments and my Substitution of Trustee for reference.

see Assignment of Deed of Trustsee Assignment_07_15_2009

see Notice_of_Substitution_page2

[EDITOR'S NOTE: THE FIRST ASSIGNMENT WAS PROBABLY ROBO-SIGNED. The substitution of trustee, a document often just glanced over, tells a story that will plague the banks and those in the title business for decades unless the truth be known and told, to wit: Edstrom, homeowner, signed a deed of trust to MERS and his original "lender." The substitution is signed by (probably robo-signed, forged in other words) Karen Abernathy as "assistant secretary." (A sure sign of robo-signing is when someone is identified as "assistant secretary" on a document as important as substitution of trustee with the power of sale over hundreds of thousands of dollars in real property.
Karen Abernathy is thus said to have signed this document and is said to be an assistant secretary. The question is “assistant secretary to what and to whom?” It doesn’t say. Above her signature is Wells Fargo Bank, NA, but it is not saying it is acting as a bank. It says it is acting as “attorney in fact.” Any title writer will tell you that without the written power of attorney in recordable form, that signature is worthless. It immediately clouds and probably slanders the title of Edstrom.
But it doesn’t stop there. Karen Abernathy, assistant secretary to somebody somewhere is signing on the signature line for Wells Fargo who in turn is signing for “U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee.” The question first is “Who is U.S. Bank, and since they are not appearing as a bank, but instead appearing as “trustee” what is the name of the trust for whom they are signing” (see above case). Is U.S. Bank., Trustee an actual entity? The answer is no it isn’t unless it identifies the Trust, which this document does not.
But wait, there’s more. There is nothing in the document that recites the authority of US Bank, Wells Fargo or Karen Abernathy to sign anything in this chain of title since before this time none of them were mentioned anywhere in the chain of title. So what we have here is a document that looks official but says nothing. And that means that ALL ACTIONS FLOWING FROM THE “SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE” ARE VOID, WHETHER IT IS FORECLOSURE, EVICTION, SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE OR SALE OF PROPERTY TO A THIRD PARTY AFTER A SUPPOSED AUCTION SALE WHICH WAS ALSO NOT REAL.

By the way this judge HAMMERED Ruth in the beginning, basically telling her she was crazy and she could not list the property as part of her estate. She has been fighting all of her cases in pro per and objecting like crazy – and now it has paid off. But she still needs a good lawyer. When Wells Fargo changed their mind as to who the real party in interest was (I think this was a case in Mass. or somewhere on the East coast), they were sanctioned $800,000).Thank you,
Daniel EdstromDTC-Systems

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor,Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: | 362, bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, Deamicis,disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, Ndex West, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit,trustee, U.S. Bank, US BANK, WEISBAND

« Motion for Remand: Tool for Counteracting the Notice of Removal

Be the first to like this post.

5 Responses

leapfrog, on August 1, 2011 at 2:20 pm said:
Yes, great job, Dan! And hello, Gwen, long-time no see. Did you pass your bar exam? Hope so! And hello to Carie too, still fighting & feisty, I see. I’m in a good mood, what the heck I’ll even say hi to TN too.
carie, on August 1, 2011 at 1:49 pm said:
tn—in layman terms what do you mean by that?
tnharry, on August 1, 2011 at 1:18 pm said:
wow – this one gets very close to Rooker Feldman
Gwen Caranchini, on August 1, 2011 at 1:07 pm said:
good post, but you are an expert and know what you are talking about. Not everyone can do what you do and do well I might add. That is the problem with pro se. You don’t know what you are doing and get a bad decision it affects others cases and the banks will go after you and use that case. I saw that in three cases on the eastern side of mo–its a killer. Good job Dan
carie, on August 1, 2011 at 1:01 pm said:
AWESOME!

ARE YOU A VICTIM OF WELLS FARGO'S PAIN?

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

PRO SE'S LOVE WHEN THEY GREAT ATTORNEY'S SHARE THEIR MOTIONS. THANK YOU NEIL!!