Category Archives: BREAKING NEWS

UPDATE: PRO-BANK 5TH U.S. CIRCUIT APPELATES TAKE DOWN ANOTHER HOMEOWNER … MAYBE?

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) —  The author of this post is a paralegal and consultant to attorneys in foreclosure matters and issues involving “the system of things”.  None of what you’re reading in this post should be construed as legal advice nor posited to guarantee a legal outcome.  

UPDATE: Now that the legal community has had somewhat of a chance to review the previously discussed Fifth U.S. Circuit ruling (in THIS case), let’s see what one law firm has to say:  5th Circuit Holds Bankruptcy Stay Tolls Statute of Limitations | Weiner Brodsky Kider PC – JDSupra

This will certainly give you an idea of how the other side thinks.

_______________________________________________________

As promised, I bring you the latest relevant case from the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Big Easy.  But wait … it wasn’t a “big easy” for the borrower, whose case I worked on long ago (in doing a chain of title assessment for) and whose assignments of deed of trust I use in my chain of title workshops to show “document manufacturing gone wrong”.  Wilshire Credit Corporation, used by Countrywide as one of its servicers,  is to blame for that screw-up.

None of what you’re about to read in this ruling appears proper because no one ever attacked the assignments head on, even when it was suggested to do so. Remember, I can’t give legal advice and it’s sad when I have to read rulings like this, knowing what I know that should have been done, but wasn’t.

So … let’s read the ruling first, then we’ll analyze how the homeowner shot himself in the foot because he put his money where it shouldn’t have been put and didn’t put his money where it should have been put:

HSBC Bank USA NA v Crum, 5th App Cir No 17-11206 (Oct 17, 2018)

We’ll do a little analysis on the chain of title and show you what suspect document manufacturing looks like and my perspective on HOW it should have been challenged.  Is it because of attorney ignorance or just plain and simple frustration?

Let’s see how sharp you are in detecting WHAT went wrong here:

ASSIGNMENT NUMBER ONE                                                                                              

NOTE: Click on the assignment to see it in larger print and click the BACK tab on your computer screen to get back to the article.

I put this assignment FIRST for a reason … look at the time (in the upper, right-hand corner) as to WHEN the assignment was recorded … 11:04:32 a.m. on July 14, 2009.   I surmise that this document was manufactured by employees of the servicer, Wilshire Credit Corporation, to create standing for HSBC Bank USA NA as Trustee for MLMI (that’s Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors) Trust Series 2005-WMC1.  It should be clear to you that “WMC” in the REMIC series was a REMIC set up by WMC Mortgage Corporation, which was the alleged original lender.

The 5th Circuit has already ruled that it doesn’t matter if the original lender went bust BEFORE the documents were created.  How could they do that?   Corruption?  Maybe?   Maybe it was given the wrong information in the pleading.  Maybe?   The appellate court can only rule on the information it was provided and I don’t believe that any of this stuff I’m showing you here was properly vetted in discovery, was it?

Notice something else?   The signer executing this document (a known robosigner), claims to be an “Attorney-in-Fact” for MLMI Lending, Inc., however; as I will show you, she’s not acting as an attorney in fact for WMC Mortgage Corporation, is she?   There’s no written evidence of where the Limited Power of Attorney is recorded on this document, is there?

Also notice that Wilshire Credit Corporation (the mortgage loan servicer) prepared this document and after it was recorded, got it back through the U.S. Mail. This will be important to note for future discussion.

This recording was a 3-page document.  Page 2 contained the legal description.  Now … wait until you see Page 3!

What’s wrong with this picture?  These F**KTARDS can’t even do their job right, can they?   The executor of this document prepared this Allonge to show that the Depositor conveyed it into the REMIC on July 6, 2009.  If you look at the Trust’s 424(b)(5) Prospectus (shown below), the Cut-Off Date for assigning the note and mortgage to the REMIC was January 1, 2005, because (according to the IRS’s Start-up Date for the REMIC) the Closing Date of the REMIC was January 27, 2005.  This Allonge was done over 4-1/2 years later … in violation of the REMIC’s own regulations!  Besides, what do $10/hour employees of Wilshire Credit Corporation know anyway, right?   Who investigated this?  I did!  I told the Borrower long ago what happened to his chain of title.  His attorney apparently didn’t care enough to depose anyone.

Here’s what wrong with this picture:

First, you attach an “Allonge” to the promissory note, NOT an assignment!

Second, the executor of the document, a robosigner-employee of the servicer, claiming to be an attorney-in-fact for MLMI Lending, Inc., not WMC Mortgage Corporation, executed this Allonge less than a WEEK PRIOR TO the actual recording of this assignment!   How convenient is that, considering she is NOT the Lender.

Third, WMC Mortgage Corporation, owned by GE, was closed in 2007 due to the subprime mortgage collapse.  So here we have a servicer’s employee, two years later, claiming she has “attorney-in-fact” status, when most powers of attorney expire when the company GRANTING the LPOA ceases to do business!  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out!  AND …

Fourth, the signer of this document and Allonge is claiming she has power of attorney for MLMI Lending, Inc., right?  Would you please look at the above list of Principal Parties and tell me you see MLMI Lending Inc. anywhere in that document as a listed party to the equation?   So where is Treva Moreland’s authority as a $10/hour mortgage loan servicer’s employee attorney-in-fact status for a lender that closed up shop years earlier?  Oh, wait, the Pro-Bank 5th Circuit doesn’t give a shit, do they?   Or was it the Borrower or the Borrower’s attorney’s fault for not checking into this further?

But wait … it gets better!  (That’s an Al West sarcastic remark!) 

ASSIGNMENT NUMBER TWO

I put this assignment SECOND for a reason … look at the time (in the upper, right-hand corner) as to WHEN the assignment was recorded … 11:13:08 a.m. on July 14, 2009. This document was recorded SEVEN MINUTES AFTER THE FIRST ASSIGNMENT!  Again, I surmise that this document was manufactured by F**KTARD employees of the servicer, Wilshire Credit Corporation, to create standing for HSBC Bank USA NA as Trustee for MLMI (that’s Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors) Trust Series 2005-WMC1.  Notice the same Oregon notary (Justin M. Burns) appears on this assignment as well, claiming that on July 6, 2009, the same day as Treva Moreland, the signer of the first-recorded assignment claims to have attorney-in-fact status …

Here comes Melissa Tomlin (another $10/hour Wilshire Credit Corporation F**KTARD employee), claiming she’s an Assistant Secretary for “MERS” as Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. for then-defunct WMC Mortgage Corporation … AND … she’s assigning BOTH the Note and Mortgage to Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. from WMC Mortgage Corporation who (now-defunct) is a “valid Assistant Secretary” for MERS … WOW!  MERS’s resolutions must really be legally sound to be able to have servicer’s employees creating shit documents out of thin air using MERS as a nominee for a closed company … Hmmm … I wonder what agency relationship existed between MERS and WMC after GE closed WMC over two years earlier?

This assignment was also 3 pages in length and was prepared and mailed back to Wilshire Credit Corporation after it was recorded.  Page 2, like before, contains the legal description of the subject property.   And now … for the GRAND FINALE … let’s see what’s on Page 3, shall we? (I am chuckling at this juncture, see if you can figure out why):


Notice what’s on the last page?   AN INDORSEMENT STAMP to Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. by WMC Mortgage Corporation!   Again, I surmise the following:

First, endorsements belong on either the promissory note or the allonge to note (if the promissory note is full of endorsements and cannot accommodate any more of them) … NOT ON A RECORDED ASSIGNMENT!

Second, the executor of the document, a robosigner-employee of the servicer, claiming to be an Assistant Secretary for MERS as nominee for then-defunct WMC Mortgage Corporation, HAD KNOWLEDGE OF what she signed when she affixed her signature to the document (that the indorsement stamp was affixed to page 3 therein), or should have had knowledge of it, right?

Third, you’d think she’d have every opportunity, being an Officer of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (Assistant Secretary), by alleged resolution ONLY and not attorney-in-fact, that she’d have some smarts about stuff like this. Nope! Doesn’t appear that way, does it?  In fact, I’m not even sure that Melissa Tomlin (after doing several signature comparisons on assignments from around the country) actually was the party executing this document!

Fourth, remember, WMC Mortgage Corporation, owned by GE, was closed in 2007 due to the subprime mortgage collapse.  So here we have a servicer’s employee, two years later, claiming she has an agency relationship with MERS as an Assistant Secretary, when in fact she’s a Wilshire Credit Corporation employee (clearly, a misrepresentation of fact), when the company GRANTING the nominee status to MERS to create an alleged (unproven) agency relationship in the first place, is no longer business!

Fifth, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that when a company goes bust, agency relationships can be challenged!  I don’t ever see that happening in this case, do you?  (If you do, please correct me in the comments section of this post so everyone can see how uninformed I am!)

But wait … it gets better!  (That’s another Al West sarcastic remark!) 

No one knows how this happened … BUT … either the documents were improperly submitted wrong by Wilshire Credit Corporation when they mailed the packet to the Dallas County Clerk’s Office for recording in his Official Real Property Records … OR … the Clerk’s office juxtaposed the documents … SO … here’s what happened (you may have already figured this out … this is a fun example of a brain teaser for you researchers out there) to screw up the borrower’s chain of title with suspect documents (fact check these if you will):

(1) At the time BOTH assignments were executed, WMC Mortgage Corporation was no longer in business (not that the 5th U.S. Circuit really cares).

(2) MERS was used to cover up the chain of title, even though the agency relationship more than likely ended when WMC closed up shop (there was never a repudiation agreement against the MERSCORP executory contract ever filed in WMC’s bankruptcy, if it fact, it filed for such).

(3) In order for the facts to present themselves in proper order, the second assignment SHOULD HAVE BEEN recorded FIRST to reflect the transfer of the Note and Mortgage to MLMI Lending, Inc. from WMC, so MLMI Lending, Inc. could properly convey it into the REMIC Trust.

(4) But wait!  MLMI Lending, Inc. is nowhere to be found in the Prospectus for the REMIC under “Principal Parties”.  The originating lender was subprime mortgage lender WMC Mortgage Corporation.  True sale #1 would have been from WMC to the Seller, Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital, Inc., an entirely separate corporation from Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Lending, Inc., right?  So True Sale #1 was F**KED UP!

(5) True Sale #2 should have been from Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital Inc. to Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., the Depositor for the trust, who, under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement found in the Prospectus, signed under penalty of perjury under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, would have and should have completed True Sale #3 by transferring it into the REMIC itself, as the Issuer of the Certificates!

(6) All true sales had to be completed before the Cut-Off Date … so in fact we have a violation of the trust agreement and a misrepresentation in the Prospectus, if we are to believe what just happened here was factual.

(7) The misrepresentations contained within the Assignments themselves purport to have transferred everything (in order) from WMC to MLMI Lending, Inc. and from MLMI Lending, Inc. to the REMIC Trust; however, with them being recorded in reverse, it would have been impossible to represent this the other way around, so the entire chain of custody of the note is convoluted and so is the chain of title, creating suspect issues for discovery.

(8) Because MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) cannot convey Notes because it doesn’t have an interest in the Notes (it only allows lenders to record them in the MERS® System database), then the entire claimed transfer by the servicer’s employee (and NOT the lender itself, who was by then defunct) was also misrepresentative in fact.

(9) Further, all of these misrepresentations appear to constitute violations of the Texas Penal Code and the fact the U.S. Mails were used could constitute felony mail fraud (two counts), which is a 95% slam dunk for the prosecution.  Thus, had “the system of things” played itself out the way it should have been played out, Treva Moreland, Melissa Tomlin and Justin Burns would all be doing time instead of going about their feeble lives doing whatever.

(10) Under “the system of things”, the attorneys for the bank relied on these assignments to steal Mr. Crum’s property and should be disbarred.  The judge in the state court could obviously NOT be held accountable for the fraud on his court, because he wasn’t made aware of it at the time the suit was filed and answered (the Texas Constitution requires all HELOC’s to be judicial challenges under Rule 736 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure).  If the judge was made aware, he could have lost his bond and have been removed from the bench and the headlines would have grabbed national attention!

(11) And now … for the piece d’resistance … the lawsuit filed by the alleged REMIC, for which it got a judgment against Mr. Crum, conveniently alleged that Mr. Crum was in default, when in fact, the REMIC’s own Prospectus required Wilshire Credit Corporation to make Mr. Crum’s payments on the home if he couldn’t make them … see here, see here:

Notice where is says (in Paragraph 2 of the foregoing paragraphs) that the Servicer (Wilshire) is obligated to make such advances with respect to delinquent payments of principal and interest on each Mortgage loan … how then, could Mr. Crum be in default?   If MLMI 2005-WMC1 was never aware of the default, which we know probably didn’t happen since the servicer was making all of the advance payments, then WHO actually was foreclosing on Mr. Crum?

(12) Wilshire Credit Corporation … using what I claim are false and misrepresentative documents!  But I’m not the expert witness here (but I have an attorney who is though).  I still see a mess in the constructive notice to the world of when the documents were juxtaposed.  Improperly recorded documents put the cart before the horse, didn’t they?  Can you see it spelled out now?

Any decent, well-informed, non-agenda’d judge should have been aware of all of this … but then again, they only review what’s put in front of them and what’s challenged and why.   You be the judge as to WHO failed WHO here and why.

I had all the facts in 2011.  Now they’ve come home to roost over seven years later … in a bad way!  I can definitely say discovery was sorely lacking here!

Join Dave Krieger and R. J. Malloy for another exciting segment of City Spotlight – Special Edition on WKDW-FM, 97.5 in North Port, Florida, this Friday night at 6:00 p.m. (Eastern) … the subject matter this week … blockchain, jurisdictional issues, societal breakdown and the latest from the ABA blogs!  To listen to the show, CLICK HERE!

 

 

 

 

 

11 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, Securitization Issues

UPDATE: BRUCE JACOBS IS FIGHTING BANK OF AMERICA!

UPDATE FROM MIAMI —

Miami-Dade Judge Bronwyn Miller has rejected attorney Bruce Jacobs’ demands that Bank of America be sanctioned for withholding and destroying records … 1.8-billion of them!  There was no specific reason given for the Judge’s decision.  Bank of America (of course) argues that Jacobs’ claims were baseless.

Jacobs had accused the bank of purging the records while under a court-ordered subpoena (in another foreclosure case) to hide evidence of alleged fraud because the original records may have been altered.  Bank of America responded by stating that the records were copied by an outside firm and returned to the bank and that it was the “outside firm’s copies that were purged”.  Bank of America’s attorney stated that Jacobs’ claims were not relevant to this matter because they were based on claims from another case raised in bankruptcy court.  (See the article below for clarification!)

 

See the following link:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/11/bank-of-america-fights-court-battle-over-purge-of-nearly-2-billion-bank-records.html

NOTE:  Bruce has asked me to repost this!

OP-ED — It is not surprising that the individual documents involved in the particular case are not a part of the scrutiny involved here.  Anyone reading any “manufactured” Bank of America document could understand that in (for a time) in Simi Valley, California, tens of thousands of so-called fraudulent assignments of both mortgages and deeds of trust were created under the direction of Bank of America in order to create standing so it could foreclose on affected homeowners.  Many of these documents contained “CoreLogic” on them.  We know from a certain interview with a former contract worker at Simi Valley (in the document manufacturing plant there) that he was signing documents as a Vice President of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and he didn’t even know who MERS was.  Documents were always referenced back to CoreLogic in Chapin, South Carolina.  Remember the LPS debacle?

Title companies and document processing plants that go out of their way to create documents (or be involved in the creation of them) are NOT your friend!

Many of these documents claim that Bank of America, NA ended up with (as an assignee, or transferred to another party as an assignor) an assignment of mortgage or deed of trust as the result of a merger involving “BAC Home Loans Servicing LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP”, which we have researched thoroughly and found to be false, as Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. was not directly subsumed into Bank of America, N.A.   Oops!  We forgot Red Oak Capital and another merger entity.  The point being … if the other side is going to claim that it acquired something by merger … don’t you think it’s necessary to make them prove it?   We take too much of this for granted and don’t recognize when something is that obvious that we “forget” to challenge it. Every state in the U.S. has a civil component for attacking fraudulent documents.  Why is no one using them to their fullest extent?

Of the documents we now find worthy of discovery: (a.) all assignments in the chain of title; (b.) limited powers of attorney recorded for the benefit of the assignee (Grantee); and (c.) agency and/or merger agreements.  The Grantee (or Assignee) of an agency relationship cannot prove that relationship.  It must be legally proven by the Grantor (or Assignor) of the relationship!  For example … how can a Borrower “agree” that an agency relationship between Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. exists on a mortgage or deed of trust when the Borrower has no proof or personal knowledge of such?

This is why homeowners should regard anything involving “MERS” as suspect and (as we suggest) … walk away from the closing table!  It’s bad enough that over 80-million homes have issues involving their chains of title because of MERS and yet people keep going to the closing table and signing these documents without reading them because they just want the damned keys to the house, whether it financially and psychologically affects them in the future!

This is why we see increased bankruptcy filings, suicides and murder-suicides related to foreclosure cases all over America!  There are portfolio lenders (like fsnb.com) out there … why aren’t we using them instead?   And now another round of subprime mortgages has hit the national marketplace and people who got into trouble in Round One are the first ones standing in line for Round Two.  When will we learn that those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it?

In my next post, I’m going to present a 5th U.S. Circuit case where a REMIC won because of a homeowner’s failure to properly attack his case!  This case involves not one but TWO Assignments of Deed of Trust that were not only servicer “manufactured” but recorded in “reverse”, which would appear to have negated the effectiveness of BOTH of them!  You be the judge!

3 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

HAWAII SUPREMES TELL U.S. SUPREMES TO PISS OFF … AND OTHER STUFF!

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) — The author of this post does not posit legal advice here.  It’s is food for thought for your own educational value! 

Honolulu … Gary Victor Dubin has done it again!   This time, it’s a rehash of the Reyes-Toledo case “perfected”!

Bank of America, NA v Reyes-Toledo et al, Hi Sup Ct No SCWC-15-0000005 (Oct 9, 2018)

I know it’s a week old case, but it’s worth the commentary because of something the Hawaii Supreme Court basically told the U.S. Supreme Court (who basically came up with their own “plausibility” pleadings scenario when they ruled in Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.  It basically gave attorneys that represent the banks the opportunity to get 12(b)(6) dismissals of foreclosure cases simply by removing them to federal court and citing the two foregoing cases, which basically … in layman’s terms … requires a pleading to contain facts that are totally “fact”, enough to substantially prove their case.  That also meant (in Hawaii) that their “Notice” pleadings weren’t sufficient.  In the foregoing ruling, the Hawaii Supremes said otherwise!   That is significant for homeowners living in Aloha because the judicial foreclosures commenced there (because Hawaii is a mortgage state) get to review cases that have minimal allegations instead of having to write a non-fictional “book” every time an attorney had to answer or file a complaint to shut down the other side’s foreclosure attack.

In the foregoing instance, the Hawaii Supremes told the Hawaii Appellate Court and the Circuit Court, “You BOTH got it wrong!”

First, understand that the entire merger scenario presented by Bank of America, N.A. is false.  It did NOT happen that way.  Every time Countrywide Home Loans is mentioned (in any form), Bank of America conveniently neglected to mention Red Oak Capital or any other entity involved in the actual acquisition of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.  That in of itself is false and misrepresentative and Bank of America had to have relied on an Assignment of Mortgage that was “manufactured” to create standing in order to bring its claim in the first place!  Therefore, B of A’s attorneys should be brought up on charges to the Hawaii Bar and either get heavily sanctioned for wasting the Court’s time or face disbarment for committing repeated ethical violations!  Yes, Hawaii does have “Misconduct” as a section in its Rules of Professional Conduct that mirror the ABA’s own set of rules.

Page 3 of this 44-page Ruling clearly cites how the Appellate Court applied the “plausibility” standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court, when in fact, Hawaii has its own set of pleading standards!  Page 4 at Paragraph 2 REJECTS the plausibility standard.  If this doesn’t send a clear message to all of the Circuit Court justices in Hawaii, nothing will.  In fact, this Ruling should be shoved up every one of their asses until they “get it”!  Otherwise, the system of things could see to it that each county in the State of Hawaii “pays dearly” out of its own coffers and each circuit judge is removed from the bench.  This is why we have Appellate Courts (because Circuit Judges do not always, in fact almost always, DON’T DO THE RIGHT THING!) and in this case, the Appellates applied the wrong standard as well.

As to where MERS is concerned … I don’t believe that any Court in the land has been tasked with having MERS and its representatives answer to HOW an agency relationship was established and HOW MERS had any right to transfer a mortgage loan, given the fact that on its own website (owned now by ICE), MERS declares that it has no interest in loans and doesn’t take any monthly payments.  Only one judge in Florida (that I am aware of) did the RIGHT THING in knocking out a servicer’s phony document from the land records because MERS never gave any rights to HSBC Bank USA N.A.!  How then can MERS transfer interests it doesn’t have?  It’s the phony document scam again.  It always has been.  And the banks’ attorneys keep relying on these phony documents to foreclose and no one does the right thing to expose the document for what it is and hold the attorneys liable.

You see, great discovery is like an enema.  It’s supposed to help flush out the shit!   Can I be any more succinct than that?

The problem is, MERS hardly answers any of the discovery propounded against it.  And now that MERS is owned lock, stock and server by the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, how much of a conflict of interest is there in our court systems now?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?  MERS and its counsel seemingly don’t believe they have to answer any of the discovery served upon it.  If it does, it’s with an objection.  Homeowners would rather waste thousands of dollars plying discovery on MERS rather than go after the notary and the executor(s) of the phony document that contains the false representations the bank’s attorneys keep relying on!   It’s no wonder they’re losing!  Sadly, in one particular case I’m personally aware of, an attorney was paid $6,000 (by his client) to take the depositions of a notary and a robosigner that clearly lied on the assignment … and he took the money and spent it and did nothing.  In fact, the attorney didn’t even plead the phony document was phony!  When you have homeowner’s attorneys that can’t or won’t do their jobs properly, you wonder how homeowners are getting wins at all!

Such was the case in Alabama.  The attached case made its way to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Jackson v Bank of America NA, 11th App Cir No 16-16685 (Aug 3, 2018)

Needless to say, the attorney for the homeowners in this case is in real trouble!  To my personal knowledge, this is not the first case he’s had that has been mishandled or improperly filed.  (Let’s see what the 11th Circuit does!)

The foregoing represents a sheer waste of homeowner money and resources.  The foregoing represents a delay game gone wrong.  The foregoing represents clear attorney misconduct.  The foregoing represents an opportunity for a federal appellate court to really mete out a severe punishment hefty enough to put the attorney out of business for good without even having to bring him on on State Bar ethical violations!

The irony of the fact that both cases involve Bank of America NA … and they ended up with different results.

The system of things worked superbly in one instance … and clearly failed in the other.  Ah, the “learning curve” we all must face.  At least the Hawaii Supreme Court appears to have its stuff straight!

For those dealing in Bank of America merger issues, it’s all going to be about the assignments and all of the false and misleading statements contained within them!  Chase isn’t much better with its self-dealing assignments.  Sadly, title companies and the U.S. government are all “in bed” with them.  This is what happens when we move away from the truth and the liars are allowed to get away with it.  They get arrogant and believe they can keep doing the same thing over and over again.

History Repeats Itself … get ready for another round of subprime mortgage lending … a New York attorney just sent me the linked article.  Read it and weep.

SUBPRIME MORTGAGE LOANS BACK ON MARKET … 

Listen to Dave Krieger on City Spotlight – Special Edition on WKDW-FM, 97.5 FM, every Friday night at 6:00 p.m. Eastern.  This week, Dave will be discussing the attached article with co-host, R. J. Malloy (retired attorney and former Clerk to a U.S. District Court judge), along with Jacob Gil regarding Florida’s Amendment 2 campaign.  If attorneys and judges are listening to Dave’s show, you should too!  In fact, over 7,000 listeners dial us up every week on kdwradio.com from all over the globe!  Knowledge is power!

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

MERS HAS A NEW OWNER … THE SAME BUNCH THAT OWNS THE NYSE!

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) — 

It’s official and still under investigation (by me) … but the reasons that the author of this blog post wrote the book Clouded Titles goes to the very core of an argument I made ages ago, siding with various law professors and legal minds in the world of foreclosure defense:  MERS cannot be trusted to be a reliable source for the truth!

Now it has been announced by multiple news pieces within the financial sector that Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (“ICE”) has announced that it has acquired ALL of MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.’s assets, namely, the MERS® System and everything that goes with it.

ICE also announced that it has moved all of the MERS® System’s operations to its data center in Mahwah, New Jersey.  ICE acquired the New York Stock Exchange in November of 2013.

You’re probably all wondering why this happened.  In one short statement, ICE claims that the addition of MERS will help ICE “serve its customers better as the U.S. mortgage industry is gradually shifting to more digital mortgages and electronic notes from a paper-based process.”

WARNING — There’s a signpost ahead.  It says you’re about to enter “The Twilight Zone”! 

There are some serious repercussions with this acquisition.  I spoke with California attorney Al West yesterday about this acquisition.  Here are some of the components to consider:

(1) There is a movement afoot to privatize the entire land record system and take it away from the state-sponsored, state-sanctioned, state-mandated public databases and archives! 

Since this country was founded, our Framers gave the States certain rights to govern their own affairs, one of which was to establish land recording systems.  The purpose of this was to establish who owned what parcels of land.  Each state legislature voted on setting up these archival databases, which in of themselves, have evolved into (at least many of them) digital centers of database retrieval.  While it is certainly convenient to go online and search out your chain of title, taking all of this and putting it into ledger technology that is decentralized (“blockchain”) is dangerous because ANY system (over time) can be hacked and tampered with.

(2) The fact that there was even a mention of moving towards “digital mortgage” means that the possibilities do exist that you can easily get a mortgage loan from your smartphone or your home computer, all with the push of a button that applies your “digital signature” through your IP address. How convenient for the mortgage banking industry and MERS! Isn’t that wonderful?  NOT! NOT! NOT!

Part of the problem that precipitated the 2008 financial collapse was easing up on credit restrictions.  Credit was available everywhere (as long as you “could fog up a mirror”). History repeats itself and those who are ignorant of it are doomed to repeat it.  For starters, even though taking out one of these “digital mortgage loans” may supply you with a copy of what you signed … (a.) digital signatures are NOT your actual signatures; (b.) the digital signature you picked will be present on the “copy” of the mortgage paperwork you received; (c.) in all likelihood, your IP address from your computer or digital technology relative to your smartphone will be stored for retrieval in case you default on your loan and then that technology will be used against you for sure; (d.) all of this technology will be registered within the MERS® System now that ICE owns it lock, stock and server.  You can bet the obfuscation towards consumers will be just as prevalent, if not greater, as it has been in the past; and (e.) because the increased use of MERS will be tolerated, you can bet more foolish investors will keep buying into the thought that securitization is a great way to make money.  As history has shown us, even with its lingering effects, a lot of investors lost money while the sponsor-sellers made off (Madoff) like bandits!

(3) With “digital” technology, there are no “originals”!  

That means no original “note”, no original “mortgage”, no original SQUAT!  And ICE will keep the disclaimers on the “MERS” website it now owns, making sure things are just as “fuzzy” for everyone but “investors” and actual subscribers of the MERS® System.  It is unknown at this time WHO will actually entertain the previously-referenced “executory contract” now that MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. appears to have sold off all interest in its patented process (or so we might think).   Verifiability will shrink making it harder to defend mortgage foreclosure actions.

(4) The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s role in determining MERS® System violations is undetermined!

Given what we know about lax prosecutions in the revolving door business known as the “SEC”, it is hard to ascertain at this time what we’re dealing with as to potential non-disclosure violations or other liabilities first assessed against the MERS business model.

(5) Even more serious … using any digital technology puts you at risk of identity theft!

Look … if hackers can get into the Equifax database … put your thinking cap on before you fill out an online mortgage loan application!

WARNING TO THE JUDICIARY! — You … as a judge … may play into “the system of things” in an adverse way! 

Because the same parent company to the NYSE owns MERSCORP’s “MERS® System”, all state and federal judges holding any NYSE-traded shares may have a conflict of interest!

It is seriously important to recognize, as Al West pointed out to me yesterday in our phone conversation, that any judge having any stock in the NYSE, now that MERS is a directly-linked, wholly-owned subsidiary, may represent a conflict of interest if that judge’s portfolio contains any NYSE-traded stock, which could be stock in any financial institution or any loan with MERS in it that is connected in any way to an NYSE stock, which could be cause to have the judge recused from your foreclosure case!

Further, my radio co-host (on WKDW-FM’s City Spotlight-Special Edition), R. J. Malloy, also intimated that in Florida, all of the senior judges presiding over foreclosure dockets could also be at risk of being recused based on similar conflicts of interest because their pension funds are vested in these types of stocks, bonds, securities, etc.  Not good!

If the judge is called upon to recuse himself from a case because he holds stock in the NYSE, which is connected to MERS, or has a pension vested with anything related to either, and fails to recuse himself, it could trigger an attack on the judges bond for a multitude of behaviors, including non-disclosure, which if played out to its distinct finality, could represent an ethical violation for which he could be permanently removed from the bench.  This would include federal judges (who, for the most part, have their finances laid bare at Judicial Watch!) who end up getting cases that have been removed by foreclosure mill attorneys who think they can get a 12(b)(6) out of the federal districts.

Besides clogging up the judicial system throughout the United States, all of the U. S. counties that employ judges that are even remotely “attached” to “the system of things” are at risk of having their treasuries plundered because most U.S. counties are self-insured.

For one minute, I do not believe that any of the people involved in the acquisition of the MERS® System even thought about the repercussions of having MERS connected to the NYSE!

If you thought that the idea of shredding documents was an option, with digital technology, there won’t be any originals to shred … and loan mods will probably be done online … reviewed online … and denied online.  Information gathering technologies will put all of your personal identifying information at risk, because ALL systems at some point, can be hacked. That furthers your risk for identity theft if you “play the digital game”!   Be forewarned!  Things are about to get dicey!

 

8 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

BRUCE JACOBS CATCHES FLAK FROM FLORIDA’S THIRD DCA!

(BREAKING NEWS – OP-ED) —

The statistics are unlike anything I personally have ever seen as a consultant to attorneys on matters of foreclosure, chain of title and the system of things … BUT Miami-Dade foreclosure defense attorney Bruce Jacobs has put himself in the firing line by causing the Third DCA into an apparent retaliation by issuing Jacobs a Show Cause Order as to why he should not be sanctioned for violating not only Florida Appellate Rules of Procedure but Florida Bar Rules as well.  I’ve personally met and talked with Bruce Jacobs, a former Miami-Dade State’s Attorney, a devout follower of Judaism.  There are those in the foreclosure world who think little of him for various reasons, while others think he’s too busy to handle their cases, while yet others believe he is a true fighter for “the little guy”.

Miami’s Daily Business Review (via law.com) just broke a story yesterday (October 4, 2018) of the potential sanction news against Jacobs. After doing a little digging, I found the subject per curium ruling that put Jacobs in the crosshairs of some very pissed off judges.  It all stems from their reversal of the famous HSBC v. Buset case, where Jacobs represented the Busets.  After the 3rd DCA’s reversal, I asked Bruce about their opinion in Buset and he told me succinctly that “This is war! This ain’t over yet!”

In a State where homeowners have had more opportunity to figure out “the system of things” as to how foreclosure courts behave, the statistics you’re about to read, which were contained in a filing with the Florida Supreme Court in the cited case, includes statistical evidence of how Florida’s Third DCA is apparently biased and prejudiced against delinquent homeowners:

Alexander v Bayview Loan Svcg LLC, 3D16-2228 (filed April 20, 2018)

Knowing what I know about phony assignments, I proffer an idea here that squarely puts “the system of things” into motion.  By reading this “Opinion” issued by the Third District Court of Appeals in Florida, see if you can make out the frustration not only felt by Bruce Jacobs but by virtually ALL homeowners who’ve ever been in front of any judge in the Third DCA:

Aquasol Condominium Assn Inc v HSBC Bank USA NA et al, 3D17-0352 (Sep 26, 2018)

Again, Jacobs has locked horns with a nemesis that has a propensity to lie in the manufacture of assignments.  In a case in Hillsborough County, Florida, HSBC’s “document manufacturing” came under serious scrutiny and the recorded document was ordered cancelled and expunged from the Clerk of the Circuit Court’s official records in that county.  The case involving that apparent suspect document is still ongoing and if “the system of things” is allowed to play itself out, one particular foreclosure mill law firm and five of its attorneys could be facing the same consequences as Jacobs is now.  It is problematic that most homeowners let their frustrations get in the way of common sense, but the latest “Opinion” seriously appears to put Jacobs in a very tenuous position, since he’s called out the Third DCA for what he believes they apparently are … biased and prejudiced against homeowners … enough to ignore obvious frauds on their own court systems!

However, it should also be made clear here (IMHO) that “the system of things” as I have described in the 10-part series, “Gutting the Underbelly of the Beast” was not implemented in Buset … was clearly not implemented in Alexander … and was definitely NOT implemented in Aquasol, predicated on what didn’t happen in Buset.  That may be tough for some to get their head around; however, when you see the quotes that Bruce Jacobs included in his brief to the Third DCA, which made them recoil, it’s clear the Opinion they issued was really a Show Cause Order that the media is now going to make a 3-ring circus out of, especially in light of what happened to Pinellas County foreclosure defense attorney Mark Stopa.  It’s obvious that Florida does not like aggressive foreclosure defense attorneys, whose first duty is to “the Court”.   With the advent of a Florida judge testifying (at Stopa’s hearing) that Florida foreclosure court judges are incentivized to clear their dockets and receiving bonus cash rewards for doing so, it is very clear that our courts have allowed their own political agendas to taint “Lady Justice”.

I’ve always said it’s about the assignments.  It’s always about the assignments.  This is why C&E actions are so vitally important:

(1)  They dissect the false and misrepresentative information contained within the assignments that are being relied upon by bank’s counsel in foreclosure proceedings.  This involves deposing robosigners.  HSBC has robosigners.  They defaulted when challenged in a C&E as to what authority they had to execute the document.

(2) They bring to light certain statutory violations. Florida has a civil component to its criminal component in F.C.C. § 817.535, which some attorneys rarely use and if they use it, apparently don’t go far enough in using it. They “drop the ball” by NOT doing a C&E on the document called into question.  This is no different than a pro se homeowner going into court and waving a document around and calling it a fraudulent document.  Same results. The Court says, “Prove it!” … and you have no proof!  So piss off!

(3) They bring to light certain ethical violations. Imagine you’re a foreclosure mill lawyer who’s relying on the false and misrepresentative information contained within an Assignment of Mortgage (or even an Assignment of Deed of Trust, for those of you in non-judicial states that have sought to litigate a matter to stop a foreclosure), and you (a.) failed to exercise due diligence in vetting your evidence; (b.) were purposefully involved in the creation of the fraudulent document; and (c.) new or should have known that the information you proffered to the Court would result in a statutory violation.  There are individual Bar Rules in every State that call out this type of behavior.  These Rules fall under the section labeled “Misconduct”.  On occasion, State Bar Associations and Courts across America have to deal with such matters; however, foreclosure cases are particularly egregious in nature because the ethical violations appear to arise out of statutory violations being promulgated on the Court.

(4) They require a determination as to their validity of the document in question.  In the Hillsborough County matter, HSBC had every opportunity to respond, yet didn’t.  When you look at the C&E’s allegations there, HSBC employees could have been facing felony UPL charges.  Duh!  It’s no wonder they didn’t show up.  The good ‘ol boy network on occasion does “circle the wagons” to protect its own practitioners.  I gotta give ’em credit for their somewhat misplaced allegiance.  They pick and choose who they want to prosecute.  Obviously, the several HSBC employees aren’t in jail, so they’ll keep manufacturing phony documents (like every other mortgage loan servicer has done since they were told not to in 2012).

(5) They require a definitive action by the Court.  When presented with the facts, the judge in the Hillsborough County matter cancelled the document and ordered it expunged from the real property records.  That expungement was not detected by the foreclosure mill law firm.  That expungement created further triable issues of fact.  That expungement, in of itself, created a statutory violation.  That expungement further convoluted the chain of title, impairing that property’s vendibility.

(6) They are the “backbone” of any quiet title action.  Once eliminated, assignments and other documents set the basis for the complaint or counterclaim sounding in quiet title because the “obstacle” that the bank has to contend with is an illicit document, shown to be fraudulent, or in the alternative, proven to be fraudulent, with expert witness trial testimony from an attorney to back it up in subsequent cases.  This posits a very serious scenario for the foreclosure mill law firm.  It posits an even more of an issue for any judge hearing the subsequent quiet title action, because the same unclean hands that created and/or relied on the phony document that was cancelled and expunged through the C&E have now come home to roost.

As long as the homeowners are in a position to control the outcome of their cases, the C&E may become a vital tool to measurably determine the success or failure of their destinies.  Sadly, as vigorous of a defense that any foreclosure defense attorney could throw at the other side, especially in this matter, the C&E wasn’t part of it.  Without a basis in finality, how then can “the system of things” work to impose sanctions on the real violators and unseat judges for agreeing with them?

6 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED