Daily Archives: April 13, 2019

DEFEATING DIVERSITY IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) — The author of this post is the author of Clouded Titles, The Quiet Title War Manual, The C & E on Steroids!, The FDCPA, Debt Collection & Foreclosures, The Credit Restoration Primer, End Game Strategies, Beyond End Game Strategies and host of The Krieger Files.  The opinions expressed herein are that of the author and should not be construed as legal advice.  For legal advice, seek competent counsel that clearly understands what constitutes diversity jurisdiction.

Even in its most liberal stature, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has again, redefined and re-explained that REMIC trusts can end up costing you lots of money in litigation, fighting a losing battle in federal court by re-constituting an opinion of what constitutes diversity jurisdiction.  See the link below to the 17-page ruling:

Demarest v HSBC Bank USA NA, 9th App Cir No 17-56432 (Apr 8, 2019)

You’ll readily notice in the caption on Page 1 that HSBC and MERS were “incorrectly sued”, which would indicate to me they were sued in the wrong name, as indicated in the caption.

Part of the problem here is that the trustee was also sued (Western Progressive, LLC) and the trustee was also out-of-state as to its “headquarters”, which put all of the Defendants, coupled with the $75,000 required for complete diversity jurisdiction, squarely in federal court.

Again, Hawaii Attorney Gary Victor Dubin, who is again in the crosshairs of the Hawaii Bar (thanks to the banks and their attorneys who don’t like lawyers who beat them in court), likens being in federal court to suicide, which he has succinctly stated that it (suicide) is better than being in federal court.  Yet, a lot of people end up becoming victims within the federal system because of improper and incomplete pleadings.   Couple that with WHO you sue and the numbers of removed cases rise exponentially.

Why sue MERS?

This entity is the “bastard child” of MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., which is now owned by Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (which also owns the New York Stock Exchange).  This newly-acquired entity has the backing of Wall Street.  The ownership of MERS may have changed, but the stupidity of the courts in relying on every tenet of MERS’s flawed business model incorporated within the “MERS® System”, has caused nothing but utter conflict among the state courts and federal circuit courts.

Like MERS says or intimates in its pleadings (among some of the third-person, schizophrenic quotations from its collective counsel and others), “We didn’t do anything wrong!”  “We want to be all things to all people!”  “We are the God of Securitization!”  (sic)  “We are everyone’s beneficiary that names us in their mortgages and deeds of trust!”  “We can be a nominee (agent) and beneficiary at the same time!”  “We can do anything we want, because we’re MERS!”  “We can remove you to federal court because we know your pleadings lack sufficiency and we can get them dismissed!”  “We can be in multiple states at any given moment and the federal judges will do what we say because we own them!” (that’s what they think, seriously).

Knowing you’re dealing with such a filthy, stinking rich entity that kowtows to Wall Street, why in bloody hell would you name them in anything?  Do you seriously have deep pockets?

You’re dealing with a multi-billion-dollar-a-year company here.   Here are some facts you should face:

  1. You signed the mortgage (or deed of trust).  No one held a gun to your head.  You could have walked away from the closing, but you didn’t.
  2. You could have read the entire agreement, asked questions; and when you didn’t get sufficient answers, you could have put off the closing until you got clarification, but you didn’t.
  3. You had no idea that the closing agent and the entity that agent represented knew (or should have known) WHERE the funds were coming from; how the funds were getting to the escrow account that was wiring your funds to the closing agent; and all of the details regarding the validity of the “lender” and “mortgagee of record”.
  4. You had no idea what the acronym “MIN” meant … nor had you any idea of the 18-digit number following that acronym.
  5. You had no idea your loan was being securitized through a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) on Wall Street.
  6. You had no idea that your home loan was being funded by investors unknown to you.

Yet, you got hoodwinked into signing your life away to a life of potential PTFD (Post-Traumatic Foreclosure Disorder), should you fail to make your monthly mortgage payments!

What constitutes diversity jurisdiction?

In order to be able to remove a lawsuit to federal court (which is a court of limited jurisdiction), two things have to occur:

  1. The Plaintiff is a resident of State “A”, while the Defendant(s) are known to be residents of State “B”.
  2. The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.

Gee … I wonder what would happen if the homeowner showed the caption as:

Joan Demarest and the Registered Holders of Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-HE2 … as joint petitioners … with NO defendants listed … and asked for a declaratory judgment ruling on the merits of WHO got screwed in this deal?  Where’s the controversy then?  (you attorneys can chime in here)

In order to have justiciable controversy (the makings of a proper lawsuit that a court can claim jurisdiction to rule on), you have to have a Plaintiff and a Defendant(s).  If you have “joint petitioners” and NO defendants, how can there be a “controversy” if both joint petitioners agree on the same thing?  Despite the fact that the certificate holders are from all over the world, some of them (To Be Determined) may be in the state you’re residing in (State “A”).   If there’s no State “B”, then why list DOES 1-10, inclusive, like this case did?    I actually litigated a case (while out of state) through the mail, with a co-party, as joint petitioners, and got my ruling from a court in Missouri!  Does that surprise you?

Diversity FAILS if … 

  1. There is no amount in controversy (which is what you have in a declaratory relief case, like a cancellation and expungement action (C&E) over a bogus document in the land records; and
  2. You aren’t naming out-of-state defendants until the in-state defendants respond and lock the case up in state court.

Does this make any legal sense to you?

This is part of what we taught in the C&E Workshop in Las Vegas April 6th and 7th. 

America’s land records are a “crime scene”!

MERS’s flawed business model helped make it that way.  Over 80-million homeowners who unknowingly borrowed investor money through securitized mortgages did the rest of the damage.  It was “intentional” on MERS’s part.   It was ‘unintentional” on the homeowners’ part.

Despite the fact you can beat diversity, certain entities will remove the case to federal court anyway, just to F**K with you and your pocketbook!  MERS is one of those entities.

There is a right way and a wrong way to approach this scenario.  What Joan Demarest did in her case was the wrong way.

The “trustee” is a necessary party in Deed of Trust states!

You should know that if you name the trustee in your lawsuit, it’s likely that the trustee is “headquartered” out-of-state.   The trustee (in this case) was declared by the 9th Circuit panel to be a “real party to the controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction when he possess certain customary powers to hold, manage, and dispose of assets for the benefit of others”.

This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 27, 2016.  You would think that by then, anyone involved in this case could have figured out what the “end result” could be … but NO!  We have attorneys out there that like to use the “shotgun approach” instead of the “sniper approach”.  This is why California Attorney Al West and I put together “The C & E on Steroids!”   It’s a sniper approach to cleaning up the “crime scene”.   If you clean up the “crime scene”, then what evidence is there that a crime occurred?  What evidence is there that a party has standing to foreclose when the intended “consequence” of an assignment is declared void, cancelled and expunged from the land records?

This is why we found instructional appellate case law to support our research and methodology for doing these types of “sniper approach” end game strategies.  Everyone wants an “end game”.  Getting to that point is why people run into trouble having their dirty laundry removed to federal court where it’s likely to get dismissed on a 12(b)(6) motion.  And the foreclosure happens anyway, because “we’re too pissed to think straight!”

Watch the movie “American Sniper”.  Then, liken that mindset to your approach.  Knowing WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHY you need to “take out” a target makes all the difference in the world.

Look for The C & E on Steroids!, along with the DVD training video kit, available in early May, only on CloudedTitles.com!

Sniper training at your fingertips!

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, Securitization Issues, workshop