Monthly Archives: November 2019

TEN YEARS LATER … HAS YOUR DEFINITION OF “INSANITY” CHANGED YET?

(OP-ED) — The author of this post posits these comments based on his own observations and none of this should be construed to be legal advice. For the record, the definition of “insanity” is … doing the same thing for the next 10 years you did the last 10 years expecting different results. 

Who would have ever thought that me breaking my foot would steer me down a path of moral concern, that is, America’s foreclosure crisis based on phony documents?

The Beginning of Insanity

It all began in mid-2007, when, quite by accident, I was surfing the county clerk’s website looking for details on my Texas property and discovered repetitive references to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter “MERS”).  I had no idea who MERS was until I started doing further research into this entity only to discover this electronic database had been around since at least 1999.  It didn’t even occur to me that MERS was a brainchild of the banks because at that time, there wasn’t much information out there because the lawsuits that have made the annals of American history were not made manifest yet.

I also had no idea that MERS and the banks were working hand in hand to further their “case wins” in courts by posturing MERS as some sort of legitimate “party” that had the right to foreclose on property.  I only discovered this in 2009 after I started doing serious research into security instruments and all of the accompanying documents that littered the land records across America in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 and the previous redux of securitization, which finally reared its ugly head in a way that most Americans could understand.  It was at that time I started to develop what would later become the Chain of Title Assessment (COTA).  How the documents interrelated to each other became more important than the actual information contained within each document because a pattern of behavior became obvious which was worth doing more research on.  That pattern of behavior was recorded assignments being placed within the land records just prior to a foreclosure being commenced on any given piece of property in America.

By mid-2010, I had a specific pattern identified and was able to develop a COTA checklist based on that pattern of misbehavior.  The pattern was not just a making of the law firm or the trustees attempting to enforce security instruments.  It became obvious later on in the game that the law firms and trustees actually were doing the bidding of the mortgage loan servicers; however, that realization did not come until AFTER Clouded Titles had been published (in December of 2010).  It was not until mid-2012 that things began to surface that would lead me straight to identifying who was behind all of the chicanery that enveloped all 3,041 of our nation’s real property records.  At that point in time, I had already established a working relationship with several Texas Clerks and had lectured to their Clerks’ School, sponsored by the V.G. Young Institute for County Government.  Williamson County Clerk Nancy Rister and Williamson County government were the first to attack MERS and the servicers and third-party document mills head-on in a land record audit, which was formally released in January of 2013.

WILLIAMSON COUNTY REAL PROPERTY RECORDS AUDIT_January 29, 2013

Judging by MERS’s reaction to the audit, I knew we were onto something. MERS went out of its way to try to debunk the 179 pages of damning assertions that the mortgage loan servicers and their third-party document mills were the ones behind all of the false and misrepresentative statements we would soon come to identify in the hundreds of COTAs I would being conducting since Clouded Titles was released.  Reporters kept telling me that MERS claimed it did nothing wrong and my reply was, “Then why is everybody suing them?”

A Big Mistake

The chain of title assessment (COTA) has been referenced as a “chain of title analysis”; however, through whatever name you want to give it, the research that goes into a COTA makes it a report, an investigative piece if you will.  By the time that the mortgage loan servicers agreed with 49 states Attorneys’ General to stop production on fraudulent documents, word had spread not only to the legal community but also the public at large, that this chicanery was widespread. Foreclosure victims became outraged at the thought of being defrauded through the illicit use of the land records.  It was at about that time that the COTA hit the courts.  Reliance on a COTA in a court of law or of equity is a huge mistake as many have discovered.  Proof of that will be made manifest in this post.  By the time homeowners and their attorneys ran screaming into court about the “fraud” in the documents, MERS and the banks had already set case precedent that the contents of the documents could not be challenged because the borrowers were not “third party beneficiaries” to the assignments and therefore had no right to challenge.  In my opinion, this lame excuse of not benefitting from the assignment was a ploy to gain favor with the courts, whose judges went along with the argument because the homeowners’ attorneys had no comeback to the argument.  The big mistake however, was the misuse of the COTA and the laziness of homeowners’ counsel to conduct proper discovery.

Many litigants ran into court with their research and attempted to use it as “evidence” to prove their theories that they were defrauded by and through the use of “fraudulent documents” recorded in the public records. Once such case involving this posts’s author manifested itself in Texas on November 25, 2013, in the same year that the Williamson County Real Property Records Audit was released.  See the case below and pay attention to the references on Page 4, where this author’s name is mentioned:

Brown v BANA_Tex 5th App Dist No 05-12-01382-CV (Nov 25, 2013)

Quoting my name and my book and making references to it is not PROOF as the Appellant soon learned the hard way.

During the time span from the time this case came out, Clouded Titles had been on the market for three years and had expanded from its 254-page original version to 432 pages (not the Mayday Edition, which is the revised final version). I knew that judges and attorneys were aware of it … and not just because of its consistent use in the courts.  By that time, the Circuit Clerk of Osceola County, Florida, Armando Ramirez, was introduced to the book and was encouraged by the public to make contact with the author, which led to the commissioning of another land record investigation, which was conducted roughly 90 days AFTER the mortgage loan servicers vowed in writing never to launder the land records with fraudulent documents again, as shown below:

OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION

The author of this post, once this document was made public, was attacked by the media in what appeared to be political retribution against the Clerk of the Circuit Court (Ramirez), who was again elected to his Clerk’s post in a majority vote the following election cycle.  However, this time, MERS did not play a role in the politicizing and demonizing of the report, which had an attorney opinion letter attached to it like the Williamson County report did.  Instead, the media and foreclosure mill law firms jumped into the fray, slamming the Clerk for spending county money on a report that they maliciously called a “foreclosure audit”.  Again, misuse of the COTA.  The Report issued to the Clerk was just that … a Report outlining the abuses that continued in his own land records from June 1, 2012 to June 1, 2014, well after the mortgage loan servicers agreed to stop putting false and misrepresentative documents in the land records, where they still appear to be continuing on through today!

The Bigger Mistake

What’s even worse is that a lot of wannabe “investigators” who claimed that their research was solid proof did not pass muster in other cases.  As I will demonstrate in the upcoming Chain Of Title Assessment Workshop, to be held online on the Clouded Titles website starting on February 1, 2020, this author has been pontificating all through the ages that Chain of Title Assessments (COTAs) are NOT EVIDENCE in court, despite the ignorance of litigants and their attorneys.  In this workshop, the author will cite a U.S. Supreme Court case that clearly identifies a COTA as research developed from multiple sources and compiled into a report, which this author has constantly maintained is to be used for case development and not as evidence in of itself.  But given the desperation of homeowners, along with the mistakes made by these alleged “foreclosure rescue services” that claim the COTA is their Holy Grail in order to make a buck, these assessments are STILL NOT EVIDENCE in court, as the most recent case out of Idaho demonstrates:

Losee v Deutsche Bank Natl Trust Co, Sup Ct Idaho No 45721 (Nov 29, 2019)

Do you see the date on this case?  It was just issued the day before this author published this post! 

What in the hell are these people thinking?  If I have maintained that a 1943 United States Supreme Court ruling by this nation’s highest court mandates that COTAs cannot be relied on as evidence, why are these wannabe investigators and their litigants ignoring it?

Previously, much to my chagrin, I’ve warned attorneys NOT to waive my COTAs around in court.  One of them did in a Houston federal court and got screamed at by the judge.  This is where the joke about “judges screaming my name and it wasn’t during sex” evolved from. (“Who’s Dave Krieger????!!!!!!!!)

One other attorney in Michigan was forced to let a judge see the COTA (by the judge’s own insistence) because the attorney kept referring to the document while making arguments in court.  Once the judge read the document (assumedly during his lunch break), he got an education, even though it was still NOT being offered as evidence, and ordered the parties to settle the case as he stated, “neither one of you are going to like the way I rule on this one!”   In the end, the bank got the house back and the homeowners got their money back and then some.  This still does not mean that the COTA is evidence unless the material within the COTA is vetted and relied upon by expert witnesses or utilized to craft discovery to go after the underbelly of the other side’s arguments.

I beg of you … please do not continue to misuse these reports.  These reports are meant as investigative research and proper discovery must be utilized to vet the research.  Simply walking into court and waving these reports around screaming “Fraud This!” and “Fraud That!” will get you nowhere.

To get a real idea of HOW TO do a Chain of Title Assessment (COTA) on your own, where you can get a real education, I am offering the first online COTA Workshop on Saturday, February 1st (2020), in 4, 2-part segments, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.  Here’s the schedule of the online classes:

Sessions 1 and 2, Saturday, February 1, 2020; 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. (EST)

Sessions 3 and 4, Saturday, February 8, 2020; 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. (EST)

Sessions 5 and 6, Saturday, February 15, 2020; 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. (EST)

Sessions 7 and 8, Saturday, February 22, 2020; 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. (EST)

I have revised the COTA to take the purpose of the workshop out of the “business model mode” and craft it into the “consumer mode” for the purposes of giving you a basic education into the realm of document identification and research.  Click the following link to leave your email address in the blank space provided and the Registration Form will be emailed to you.  Once you are enrolled in all four sessions, you will be able to access the online workshop presentation (as it will be recorded for future use) on the Clouded Titles website!

The Definition of Insanity Needs to Change in Your World!

I can tell you with a certainty that mine has!  In fact, I use COTA research to make money in my real estate investing.  Had homeowners going through foreclosure been thinking about Plan B instead of trying to fight the inevitable losing court battle ratios, America might have had better case law than what it has now.  With the banks creating as much negative case law against homeowners and as tilted as the system is against borrowers who don’t pay their mortgage payments, it’s time to change your mindset and use the COTA to your advantage.  My workshop strategies have now shifted into the realm of COTA use to make money to survive instead of defending your home in a losing battle.

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, workshop

WHEN JUDGES LISTEN … AND WHEN THEY DON’T!

(OP-ED) — The author of this post begs your consideration of the following foreclosure-related news item from the SE Texas Record (a journal published to highlight cases where the banks win and the homeowners lose, among other things) … for educational purposes only …

Notice the above Defendants?  

It should be well-decided among the legal community that suing MERS is fruitless, but people still listen to these half-baled arguments that MERS knew or should have known that its so-called “members” (which really are user-subscribers to the MERS® System) freely use MERS’s name (an acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) to assign notes and mortgages to anyone the servicers’ employees are told to assign them to, regardless of whether MERS really has any authority to do so.  Yet some attorneys are still smoking “legal crack” and are still naming MERS as a Defendant.

When will the legal community wake up to this grievous error?   MERS is a database run by Wall Street’s Intercontinental Exchange Inc. and NOT an entity with money or answers to anything.  An electronic database (nor its officers, of a shell corporation) are willing and able to give any plaintiff any discovery.  The real issue here is what the chain of title would have revealed if carefully analyzed.

Read the appellate ruling from the 1st Division of the Texas Court of Appeals if you like, for educational purposes only about how to get cases removed to federal court, where the federal judges (who are appointed for life) bend you over, screw you with no lube and hand you back to the state court after you beg for mercy.

Hernandez v MERS et al, 1st App Ct Tex No 01-18-00468-CV (Oct 22, 2019)

While not attempting to be so graphic, can you imagine the money these folks spent trying to stay in their home, to no avail?

Notice two of the Defendants … LSF8 Master Participation Trust and Caliber Home Loans, Inc.?  These two are married in a third-world debt collection scheme to screw homeowners.  LSF8 is no more of a trust than the LSF9 that this blog posted recently lost in a court battle in West Palm Beach, Florida at roughly the same time and space in the foreclosure world.  This is why I call it the “LSF8 (or 9) Masterbatory Participation Trust” because these jerk-offs do nothing more than spin third-party debt sell-offs into a package they claim is a “trust” but is nothing more than junk, defaulted mortgage loan pools and then call them “equitable instruments” and using their phony documents (where they incorporate MERS into the equation) to steal people’s homes.  U.S. Bank didn’t suffer any harm here because U.S. Bank as Trustee didn’t really pull the trigger.  Caliber Home Loans did.  I’ll bet if you looked at these folks’ assignments, Caliber Home Loan employees were using MERS to convey these toxic assets into these debt pools for the purposes of foreclosure … and they do it within the time frame that homeowners could challenge them anywhere.  In Texas, the state’s Civil Practice and Remedies Code (§ 16.033) allows you to challenge a recording that is less than two years old … and I can tell you … Caliber is stupid enough to file stuff within that challenge timeframe because it wants to steal your home, by any means possible. They’re greedy, remember?

MERS, Robosigners and Perjury

Sadly, these attorneys don’t realize that anyone signing as an “Officer” of MERS has to have a $5,000,000 fidelity bond and an errors and omissions policy covering their signing activities.  That requirement is mandated under MERS Rules of Membership for all robosigners.   So why aren’t these robosigners being sued in a Cancellation and Expungement action and made to produce these documents to prove they’re a legitimate, bona fide, MERS “Certifying Officer”??? (which is a joke in of itself) because these people have no idea what they’re signing at any given moment.

In my world, we don’t sue assignees and we don’t sue MERS.  We sue the robosigner and the notary (if the notary doesn’t have a bond) on the assignments, because the devil is in the details within the assignments, NOT THE NOTES!  When you start arguing NOTES, you lose because judges won’t listen.  Judges don’t care about assignments in foreclosure courts either.  If the party bringing the foreclosure has the note (somewhere in their possession), that’s good enough for the judge. How they got the note doesn’t matter to the judge either.  The judge just wants the case off their docket and YOU are nothing more than a statistic to them.  They can go home and sleep at night, knowing they put you out on the street, because they were simply doing their jobs.

In any scenario (and I don’t care what foreclosure defense attorneys have to say about it), MERS should never be a defendant. The parties who sign the assignment have a different story to tell (other than the stories MERS vomits in court).  These people are minimum wage employees (generally) that randomly sign hundreds of documents a day into these junk debt pools, because they can’t be foreclosed on and sold any other way.  The chains of title are so screwed up that it would take an Einstein to figure out how to quiet them in a quiet title action.  Sadly, they sell these junk debts to investors who buy them (like Fannie and Freddie’s crap) who attempt to peddle them or turn them into the nation’s rental pool.

Most people don’t recognize that if you hold the robosigner’s feet to the fire, you might find out that:

  1. The law firm doing the foreclosure had something to do with the manufacture of the assignment (subornation of perjury);
  2. The person signing the document as an officer of MERS didn’t have the required fidelity bond and E&O policy (lack of authority, perjury);
  3. The notary who acknowledged the document was part of the bigger picture in the scheme (notary fraud, false swearing); and
  4. The attorney bringing the case to court knew or should have known about the chicanery behind the scenes (especially if the law firm had the document returned to them after the dastardly deed was done).

All 50 states have laws against perjury on the land records … and they are all felonies.  Some states have stronger laws that recommend that these false documents be turned over to prosecutors to have these robosigners “dealt with”.  Yeah, right.  This is America.  No politician (dressed in district attorney or state’s attorney’s clothing) will risk their asses prosecuting someone connected to the scheme of things because they might find out the real truth … this stuff occurs on a grand scale all across America!

My take on this is doing a cancellation and expungement action on the phony document BEFORE the case gets to foreclosure. Ah, but wait!  We all sit idly by and don’t bother checking the land records for clues, do we?  Part of America’s complacency, I guess.

This is the sad state of America.  This is why you should NOT deal with banks and other financial institutions who sell their paper into the MERS® System.  Portfolio loans, owner finance on a clear title or nothing. Your choices are few.  Make good choices.

Coming to the Clouded Titles website in February … ONLINE CHAIN OF TITLE ASSESSMENT CLASSES … stay tuned!

2 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

FANNIE, FREDDIE AND MERS: RECIPE FOR COLLUSION TO SCREW AMERICA!

(OP-ED) — The author of this post is a consultant to trial attorneys and author of Clouded Titles – Mayday Edition, which exposed the corruption in banking in tandem with darker forces within the U.S. Government to fuel the largest housing grab America has ever seen.  The opinions expressed here are his own and do not constitute legal advice or seek to draw and conclusions of law. 

There has been a recent unveiling of sorts that discusses the conflict between the two GSE’s (government-sponsored entities) and MERS, which clearly shows who in fact spearheaded the push to turn the secondary residential mortgage market into a lying, conniving, deceiving bunch of thieves that have promulgated the use of electronic promissory notes (“eNotes”), which are uploaded into an electronic database called Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter “MERS”), which, at its conception, was owned by MERSCORP, Inc.   Both of these entities were Delaware corporations based in Reston, Virginia.  But no longer.

After being merged into MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. in February of 2012, nearly seven years into the eRegistry (the database itself, which operates electronically to store information on the mortgage loans; e.g. the note and the security instrument), MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. was acquired by Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (hereinafter “ICE”), which also owns the New York Stock Exchange.  All of MERSCORP’s Reston, Virginia operations were moved to ICE’s data centers in Mahwah, New Jersey, where they exist today.

Collectively, MERS members pay $7.95 every time they enter a transfer of the eNote and its accompanying paperwork in the MERS® System.  Herein lies the rub.  The banking industry, in at least one letter to a judge (in 2009, in Florida), has admitted that once the paper “notes” are uploaded into the MERS® System and become “eNotes”, they don’t need the paper notes anymore and thus, they brag about shredding them.  On another note, there are “archives” all over the country that the megabanks claim hold the originals of the notes and mortgages, available within a reasonable time frame (to be retrieved) as a mortgage foreclosure case develops and the documents are called for.  But is that really the case?  What if these documents were actually “downloaded” from the MERS® System, printed out, and claimed to be (by the lender’s/servicer’s) the originals?

eNotes versus the Uniform Commercial Code (the “U.C.C.”), UETA and e-Sign

This recent article, authored by lawyers within the law firm of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, unveiled an eAlert which seeks to address potential issues which I thought might be useful for you and your attorney to know, or should they?  Due to the nature of the banks and their attorneys to play games with us and misdirect us at every turn with their propaganda … this article, whose link can be found here …

Potential Issues for Warehouse Providers with Electronic Mortgage Notes | Dorsey & Whitney LLP – JDSupra

… could be one major misdirect, according to our UCC guru Bob Janes, author of SHELLGAME MERS, Contrived Confusion, which can be found on the Clouded Titles website!

Here’s what Bob has to say about this article:

This paper shows an ignorance of negotiable instrument law and its interaction with Art 9 of the UCC. It appears to be a continuation of the effort to give appearance (operative word) of merit to the MERS system and the mortgage finance industries desire to profit by ignoring existing law and creating an sham appearance that might be able to help take people’s homes in future foreclosures without adherence to applicable law.

Secured interests under Art 9 are trumped (or is that a dirty word now?) by Art 3.  Only the person entitled to enforce the negotiable instrument has a right in the collateral (mtg or dot).  Whether the name of that person is in the chain of title for the mtg/dot is not important. 200 yr old common law, now codification by 9-203(g) are in unison: the collateral pledged to secure payment of the debt under a negotiable instrument always belongs the person entitled to enforce the debt pursuant to Art 3 of the UCC.  This paper does not address nor even encourage that the new e system design compile factual information necessary to determinations of enforcement right under the negotiable instrument law of Art 3.  The paper’s discussion of ‘perfection’ and ‘controller’ are irrelevant to determination of enforcement right under Art 3.  The paper shows no understanding of the importance of ‘possession’ of the note under negotiable law nor how and when possession is connected to the right to enforce the note.

The paper’s discussion of ‘holder in due course’ (“HDC”) also reflects the author’s ignorance or desire to misstate law.  The many elements of status as holder in due course are not addressed, nor is the system of maintaining eNote or eVault  requisite information/proof of the legal elements necessary to the right to enforce the note.   HDC is a subset of holders under the UCC.  Any person entitled to enforce the note pursuant to 3-301 (holder, nonholder in possession with rights of a holder, a person not in possession but with overwhelming evidence of having been the holder or nonholder entitled to enforce when the note was lost, stolen or destroyed) has priority rights in the mtg/dot regardless paperwork ‘perfection’ under Art 9.

The paper does not address the subservient role of Art 9 to negotiable instrument law and enforcement rights of Art 3.  This paper neither discusses the article 3 requirements for a person to be a holder in due course, nor does it demonstrate that information gathered and retained by the e-system will be useful in determining who has a right to enforce the note, and thereby, to enforce the mtg/dot.

Whether or not the enote/evault system becomes a reality, the homeowner defense against negligent or fraudulent foreclosure remains unchanged as long as the UCC remains as currently in the statutes of every state.  Merit requires discussion of the Art 3 detail necessary to establish enforcement rights in the note, and this paper is without demonstrated knowledge or effort to address the Art 3 requirements, policies, etc.

What do I think of this paper?  Not much.

The Continued Screw Job! 

So you see, Fannie and Freddie continue to peddle their toxic paper into our economy, further screwing with chains of title all across the country with every property their servicers stole on the back end of the foreclosure, which ended up getting transferred to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You only see these two hoodlums on the back end of foreclosures, as they certainly wouldn’t rear their ugly head in the middle of one for fear of giving the government a black eye … and we wouldn’t want that now, would we?

It’s bad enough we have politicians polarizing America and screwing up everything they touch!  They don’t have the decency to quit interfering with the housing market by continuing to allow Fannie and Freddie to exist.

What’s worse, judges don’t really care about the UCC and are quick to misapply it.  Those who aren’t smart about what the UCC says (and turn their lamebrain lawyers loose in the courts repeating this bank’s diatribe) are sure to lose.  Yet we keep going to banks that don’t portfolio their own loans and keep doing business with them.  That’s on us!

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under OP-ED, Securitization Issues