Tag Archives: civil conspiracy

GUTTING THE UNDERBELLY OF THE BEAST – PART 4

(OP-ED, first posted: September 4, 2018) —

The writer of this post is a paralegal and consultant to attorneys on matters involving chain of title, foreclosures and document manufacturing.  The opinions expressed herein are that of the writer’s only and do not constitute legal or financial advice.  Any use of the theories or ideas suggested in this post is entirely at your discretion and will probably result in disaster without the proper legal help.  By the end of this “series” of posts, you should understand what RISK is! 

WHY INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE “RISK AVERSE”

Like most of us who take the time to analyze the “odds” (remember the Hunger Games … “may the odds be ever in your favor”?), insurance companies make money betting on sure things.  They don’t like paying out claims.  They won’t insure individuals who may have a propensity to do “crazy shit” (like skydive, bungee jump, etc.) that might result in a serious accident or death.  They won’t insure companies that have a higher risk than normal for being sued (for committing fraud, etc.).  They also make exceptions to items within “the system of things” concerning real property, which is where this part of the evisceration of “the system of things” takes place.

SCHEDULE “B”

If you’ve ever looked at a “Schedule B” in an Homeowner’s Indemnity Policy, you will see that things that aren’t recorded in the public records as part of a chain of title are exempt from coverage. Heck, if you’ve looked at a number of the exceptions on that portion of the policy, virtually everything that you could imagine, from encroachments against a registered legal description, riparian right or legal description changes due to accretion or avulsion, virtually every obvious thing that could be insured, isn’t.  Then what is the policy worth spending extra money on?   Because the insurance companies are willing to bet you won’t ever file a claim on anything having to do with title.  That’s a sure moneymaker to them.  Anything that has alleged “coverage” on it (or so you thought) is probably exempt thanks to “Schedule B”.  Get your title policy out and look at Schedule B and you can easily spot what I’m talking about here.  This is how insurance companies make most of their money.  They exempt issues and activities that could result in them having to pay out claims.  The insurance companies really didn’t understand the “risks” that were played on them in the securitization game either, which is why they filed lawsuits against many of the REMICs’ sponsor-sellers when they realized the “game was rigged” in favor of the banks. They were paying out too many claims on the seller’s title policies because the chain of title was all screwed up.  As history has shown us, the sponsor-sellers of these REMIC trusts made off (Madoff) like bandits!

“BEAN COUNTERS”

This is why actuarial tables are developed by the “bean counters”.  Based on past performances of certain professions or activities, insurance companies know whether or not a certain profession is susceptible to risk; thus, the insurer having to pay out a claim to an injured party at some point.  The insurance companies have had years of experience in paying (or not paying) out claims to know which professions and activities present the most risk; thus, they become “risk averse”, meaning, they run away from risk.  It’s like the little guy who has a chance to walk away from a fist fight with a big guy twice his size.  Not every scenario presents us with a David versus Goliath option … and that’s the battle homeowners have been fighting.

AGENCY, NEXUS AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY

Now we come to the part in the “story” where you are dealing with a foreclosure.  Since I started doing research into “clouded titles” and discovered that part of the equation included the recording of certain documents, which make up a property owner’s chain of title, many of these documents appeared to have presented a certain “risk” of being challenged as to their validity.  I don’t have to spend time (here) wasting the effort to explain the 2008 financial collapse and the resulting “cause and effect” of what was finally unveiled to Main Street … securitization … and the sloppy paperwork (or the lack thereof) that eventually crept its way into every county’s land records throughout the entire United States.  Anyone that understands “robosigning” or “document manufacturing” or has read Clouded Titles knows what I’m talking about here.

As was revealed in both the Williamson County Real Property Records Audit and Osceola County Forensic Examination that my firm conducted, despite the fact that the mortgage loan servicers all agreed NOT to produce phony documents and record them in the land records in an attempt to “create standing” to foreclose, they’re still doing it anyway to this very day!

Each one of the parties involved in any Assignment or Mortgage or Deed of Trust had to establish a contractual relationship with one another.  By signing agreements to provide certain provisions for each assignment, a “nexus” (or connection) was created that could tie all of the participating individuals or entities together.  Each individual working within a company acts as an “agent” (or representative, whether an employee or independent contractor) of the principal.  Agency is thus established by the party granting the status (the “grantor” of anything) within “the system of things” … NOT the Grantee (the agent).  The agent however, in tandem with other agents from other nexuses created by outside party contracts, can be held liable for misrepresentation on a document and so can the principals themselves.  If you sign an insurance policy and claim that you do not engage in activities that are “risk averse” and you go out and commit suicide (for example) within a 2-year period, the insurance company will not pay because they learned quickly (ab initio) that people who find themselves destitute (such as in the crash of 1929), take out a life insurance policy with whatever money they have left and then kill themselves (by jumping out a window) believing that their heirs will get money from the insurer, quickly got the attention of the insurance companies, who quickly developed a 2-year waiver of indemnity for killing yourself and conveniently called it a “suicide clause”.

When two or more actors are involved in the creation and execution of a document, each party becomes suspect (NOT GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY) as to taking part in what could be alleged to be a civil conspiracy.  I think many attorneys doing foreclosure defense have missed that part of the equation because they don’t bother to depose EVERY AVAILABLE PARTY that is represented within any given document being used as evidence against their clients.  Why?  Because depositions start at somewhere around $3,000 apiece and most homeowners don’t want to spend that kind of money.  The “other side” will bring their attorney into the mix, who will object to virtually every question asked that is posited to prove that a contractual relationship existed somewhere, with the intention of thwarting anything discoverable that can be used to defeat the foreclosure or to seek damages.  I also believe that many (not all) foreclosure defense attorneys are inherently lazy and would rather do the business model of “the taking of people’s money” [not necessarily at this firm (below), for which I find their name symbolic] and eventually watching them lose their homes anyway:

Not every state actually has a “cause of action” for civil conspiracy; however, every state has a cause of action for …

NEGLIGENCE

… and this is where “the system of things” starts to get interesting.  When the same group or groups of individuals misbehave and participate in document manufacturing scams that deprive homeowners of their rights, they draw unwanted attention to themselves.  Take Bryan Bly, Crystal Moore and Dhurata Doko for instance.  They have all been deposed (more than once as I understand it from watching their deposition videos) and were asked questions about their “risky behaviors” in creating assignments of mortgage and deeds of trust.  At the time these three were deposed, they were all employed by Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. of Palm Harbor, Florida.  By virtue of the name used, one should be able to assimilate what they mean by “title clearing”.   In fact, this company boasts (online) that it has been involved in the recording of over 16,000,000 documents since its inception.  It’s kind of like the McDonald’s of document mills (over 16-million served).  In my book, that’s not something to brag about just to get clients. In fact, one of Core Logic’s attorneys (in a webinar I was privy to) declared that companies making up documents to “clear title” or “assign or transfer” mortgage loans or notes had better be careful in what they create and attest to for fear of retribution under the laws covering the Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL), which is a felony in every state that has such a statute covering this “risky behavior”.   Thus, one who KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the behavior they’ve engaged in constituted a felony, could be deemed negligent.  This also goes for attorneys working for the banks that are “suspect” for participating in the “process” (after recording, return to the ABC Law Firm). The law firm’s apparent involvement in creating (or directing the creation of) an assignment in order to foreclose becomes a party to the civil conspiracy.

Every attorney is bound by a state bar association’s Rules of Professional Conduct, each of which is drafted (in whole or in part) according to the national substantive rules promulgated by the American Bar Association.  There’s a section on “Misconduct”, which can be used to punish attorneys who come into court and commit certain misdeeds, like relying on or making false and misrepresentative statements (in the court record or in open court).  These attorneys are held to a higher standard, where they KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that what they were attesting to in writing or orally in open court, could be held against them personally and they could be held liable for their negligent behavior.

ENTITY REPRESENTATION

In “cutting to the chase”, banks and mortgage loan servicers (and title companies or document manufacturing companies who are working with them in creating documents to “clear title” or “create standing”) HAVE TO have a law firm representing them in court; otherwise, they can’t appear.  If we use “the system of things” to “hold the attorney and his law firm’s “feet to the fire”, they would naturally be discouraged from appearing in court to represent their “entity”, which may have used false and misrepresentative statements in a document contained in their foreclosure arsenal.  In other words, you wonder why law firms are “substituted out” right in the middle of a case?  Look at the case and seek out what the firm being substituted out might have done that created a liability for itself that it is trying to distance itself from.  The firms appear to be working in tandem to thwart any appearance of misbehavior that could be exposed for which they could, individually or as a firm, be held liable.  Which is why law firms have E & O insurance (errors and omissions).

It’s all about the insurance … and what’s not covered … that they’re worried about!   More details about insurance and bonding and the court’s responsibilities to NOT indulge felony behavior and the potential resulting liabilities for their actions coming soon to this blog post  … stay tuned!

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under I'm not posting any more stuff on here!, OP-ED, Securitization Issues

Nothing has changed much in Washington State, post-Bain!

Op-Ed —

August 16, 2012 is a day that will go down in Washington State’s history when it comes to dealing with the issues created by the licensed lenders in that State who rely on MERS to cover up “dead spots” in the chain of title to properties.  I’m attaching the Supreme Court’s en banc ruling to refresh your memory and to fill in any gaps that might be missing in your thought process.

BAIN V METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. ET AL

Only a handful of states in the union agreed with the Washington Supreme Court’s decision insofar that MERS was NOT a real “beneficiary” because it didn’t loan any money and therefore, had no interest in the borrower’s promissory note.  In fact, during the oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, counsel for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (not “MERS”, which means MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.; I’ll explain in a moment) could NOT identify WHO owned Kristin Bain’s mortgage loan! That didn’t bode well before the justices, who were stunned at the lack of knowledge and almost sheer arrogance of MERSCORP’s counsel.

You see, what the Washington State Supreme Court justices were never presented with, and thus did not have in evidence to be able to make a determination of, is that the Rules enacted by the parent of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (then MERSCORP, Inc.), specifically note that under Rule 1 § 1, when the term “MERS” is used, it means the PARENT, NOT THE CHILD!  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is THE CHILD. The lack of knowledge by the attorneys for the homeowners (for Bain and Selkowitz) and the deliberate omission of MERS’s own “rules” by its representative counsel should be cause for alarm in the way cases are being litigated all across the country!

THE PARENT AND THE CHILD ARE NOT THE SAME!

In fact, they are two distinctly separate Delaware corporations. This was a contrived scheme of mass proportions, created in favor of the banks, which caused tens of millions of fraudulent and misrepresentative documents to be recorded into the land records of all 3,041 counties, townships and boroughs in the United States, literally clouding titles to over 80-million properties!

Thus, when Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. shows up in any legal proceeding, it’s the “empty shell” (a bankruptcy-remote entity with no assets or liabilities; no income or expenses; and no employees) that shows up in court … NOT THE PARENT!  MERSCORP is footing the legal costs in every proceeding (because it is a roughly $2.7-billion a year business model) that operates and argues on the flawed idea that the agent (nominee) and the beneficiary can be one in the same party.

The Tennessee Supreme Court completely gutted the MERS business model in the Ditto decision. MERS v DITTO_TN Supreme Court rules against MERS!  To NOT understand all of the basic tenets of real property and mortgage law could be fatal to you in your foreclosure case!

This is why I am hosting the Foreclosure Defense Workshop in Orlando on September 30-October 1, 2017.  (see below)

Part of the “good fight” in dealing in foreclosure actions is knowing the truth and how to find it (or go after a determination to get at it).  This is a lot of what we are teaching in the workshop, even if you’re going pro se!

You have little time to make reservations, because airfare is going up the closer you get to the date and the number of seats to the event has dramatically shrunk.  If you are even thinking of remotely preparing yourself to “fight the good fight”, you need to be at this event!  Since Hurricane Irma hit Florida and knocked out a lot of the internet connections, many Florida consumers won’t know about this event until this weekend and likely, there will be an onslaught of registrations at the last minute.

FDW ORLANDO REGISTRATION FORM

Meanwhile, back in Washington State … 

It appears that the regulatory agencies that govern the behavior of the banks aren’t falling all over themselves to stop the continual process of recording documents in the land records that makes use of MERS as a “beneficiary”, post-Bain.  Here is one such Consent Order, issued in 2017, that exemplifies my point (sent to me by one of the readers of this blog):

Planet Home Lending

The Consent Order appears to have noted that a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act [RCW 31.04.027(2) and (13)] occurred when Planet Home Lending, a lender licensed under Washington law to conduct business in the State, caused several Assignments of Deeds of Trust to be filed in counties all across Washington State, post-Bain, characterizing MERS “as the beneficiary when MERS did not hold the corresponding promissory note.”

While I was not provided with any specific Assignment to review, I would guess (and my guesses are usually pretty right on) that the Assignment was created by employees of the servicer of the loan. Recognizing this scenario is important for two key reasons:

  1. If a consumer is economically affected by the recording of one of these subject, suspect Assignments, the consumer would have to assert a specific violation of the foregoing state statutes; and
  2. If the Assignment of Deed of Trust used MERS to characterize the Assignor as a “beneficiary”, post-Bain, for the purposes of transferring any rights in the note to a REMIC, or even more importantly, to the servicer, who then commences a foreclosure action against the Property, then there may also be a violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1641(f) and (g), the Federal Consumer Protection Act.

Through the use of the federal citation, the case then becomes a federal issue, so one would have to get a competent attorney to sort through which would be more effective to prove (as a Plaintiff) against Planet Home Lending, the violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (which has a supporting Consent Order to apply to the case as evidence) or the Federal version of the same.

The problem is however, that the Consent Order implies that Planet Home Lending didn’t admit to guilt, even though the State found violations of the foregoing Act (under Agreement and Order Paragraph C). For all intents and purposes, the Order basically said, “Don’t do it again!” and by agreement, any further violations of the Order would be dealt with in the future (to what extent, we do not know).

Now, I can surmise that all of the litigious folk out there affected by the issuance of this Consent Order have realized that there is nothing stopping a consumer from bringing a private right of action against Planet Home Lending (or any other lender or servicer violating the Washington CPA). However, I caution those considering such to use due diligence in determining “damage”, whether actual, compensatory, exemplary or punitive.  Without some sort of financial loss, it may be more difficult to press forward with a CPA violation claim.

That being said, it appears that suit may be brought under the foregoing state statutes in lieu of any decision like Yvanova v New Century Mortgage Corp. et al (California) and Miller v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 726 F. 3d 717 – Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 2013 – Google (Texas) that gives consumers the right to challenge the creation of (and subsequent recording of) a suspect document affecting chain of title in the land records of any county in Washington State.  This may also apply in other Consumer Protection Act-related statutes across the country, but it is likely that a consumer would have to conduct some pretty specific discovery (against the mortgage loan servicers’ employees and notaries) to see who ordered the creation of the document and who caused it to be manufactured, for what purpose and determine accountability.

It should also be noted that civil conspiracy is defined in virtually every state statute.  While this term does not in of itself, constitute a cause of action in the literal sense, the act of one or more actors getting together and conspiring to do a thing to scheme that adversely affects the economic or financial well-being of another would certainly be an issue to be considered.

In Florida, for example, Florida Criminal Code § 817.535 makes it a third-degree felony to record a document containing false and misrepresentative information with the intent to deprive another of their property.  While consumers cannot commence criminal proceedings directly, they can file a criminal complaint with the local sheriff’s department (the county land records are the sheriff’s jurisdiction) and pursue a criminal case that way, especially if discovery shows that a civil conspiracy to create the document indeed occurred. You should understand that (based on our past dealings with a certain sheriff’s department) detectives at the county level are either lazy, in defiance of or lack the knowledge to properly and fully investigate such matters, as evidenced by the Osceola County Sheriff’s Department, who could find no wrongdoing in the OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION.

The foregoing subject matter is only PART OF what we’re going to cover in the upcoming Foreclosure Defense Workshop.  Thus, the tools and weapons that pro se litigants and litigants being represented by counsel are being refined to be more effective and the means by which documents are challenged has also been refined (AND PROVEN) to work!  There are three specific things I’m going to be sharing at the workshop in this regard, in addition to the newly-developed tactics by Rich Kalinoski, the attorney lecturing to those attending this workshop.

Again, this is the ONLY workshop we’re doing in 2017.  We have not decided whether we’re going to do another workshop again. Rich is very busy implementing his new developments and for this reason, may stifle any efforts to conduct a workshop in the future.  Know this … legal tools will be available to all of those who attend!

In the meantime, keep researching and “fighting the good fight”.

Dave Krieger is the author of several books, including Clouded Titles, available on his website.  He consults attorneys in foreclosure matters and drafts pleadings and conducts research for attorneys and litigants. Mr. Krieger is Managing Member of DK Consultants LLC in San Antonio, Texas. 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under OP-ED, workshop

STRIKE TWO AGAINST OCWEN’S “QUALIFIED WITNESS”; SAY ALOHA OCWEN!

BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED … 

(Honolulu, HI) — For those of you looking for ammunition against Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMICs) and the servicers and subservicers who screw homeowners on their behalf, a new case out of Hawaii has surfaced that should put more securitization and civil procedure into greater detail, courtesy of foreclosure defense attorney Gary Victor Dubin.  You can download the .pdf of the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling here:

US Bank NA v Mattos, Sup Ct HI No SCWC-14-0001134 (Jun 6, 2017)

For those of you battling against U.S. Bank, NA as a Trustee of a REMIC, you should know that U.S. Bank has admitted in a 4-page brochure that they do NOT know when a Borrower is in default:

US Bank Brochure – Role of the Corporate Trustee

Further, U. S. Bank (in the same brochure) admits that the Borrower is in fact a part of the securitization chain!

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, long before the Glass-Stegall Act was repealed in 1999, issued a Comptroller’s Handbook on Asset Securitization that also stated the Borrower was a party to the securitization chain (see Page 8 of 92), contemplating in advance of how the chain actually was supposed to work:

OCC Asset Securitization Handbook

Ocwen, as you may recall, admitted to the United States Government (via 6 different federal agencies) in writing that when Borrowers don’t make their payments (to the REMIC), Ocwen, as servicer through the Sales and Servicing Agreement, makes their payment for them, in an article I just posted, see page 2 (bottom) and 3 (top) of  EXHIBIT 29

The Hawaii Supreme Court reversed an appellate court ruling, which upheld the district court’s ruling that U.S. Bank, as Trustee of a REMIC, had the right to foreclose on a property belonging to a Hawaii property owner, which other courts across the land have dared to lightly tread upon these same similar issues. Sadly, borrowers seldom ever follow through on getting to the nation’s highest courts (the state Supreme Courts) to achieve finality.

I beg of you to read Gary Dubin’s case, because part of the equation in securitization failure has been examined and ruled upon by a state Supreme Court (Hawaii).  I am singularly surprised that other state’s haven’t made the same glaring rulings finitely (Florida’s 4th DCA is close, but NOT THIS CIGAR!).

This case is a rarity that should be examined in more detail because the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) was included in the attack.  What’s worse, Ocwen’s “Contract” witness, who tendered an affidavit claiming he was a “know-it-all” about Ocwen’s business records (which 20 states and the District of Columbia are calling a sham), which did nothing for U.S. Bank because U.S. Bank’s attorneys couldn’t prove the relationship between Ocwen and U.S. Bank.

I was truly shocked about the part of robo-signing, which in fact was mentioned in the ruling.  No one has yet to challenge this act as part of a civil conspiracy (yet); however, this is to come.  I am not going to go into detail for you here, because I know many of you out there like to do your own research into the elements of civil conspiracy in your respective states, as in a Google search, “What constitutes the elements of civil conspiracy in _____ (insert your state here)____?” and see what pops up.  The burden of proof is much lower than RICO and easier to prove by attacking the signers, witnesses and notary involved in the assignment.

Oh, darn! This involves spending money doing depositions, huh? Shit!  And here you thought you were going to get a “free house”!  I don’t know where the bank’s attorneys get off making these snide remarks about homeowners wanting a free house, because they don’t even know what the homeowners are thinking.

The Trustee hasn’t paid a nickel to the investors that it can document; however, EXHIBIT 29 clearly identifies WHO pays the investors.  So, taking this to its logical conclusion: If the investors are getting paid, then how can the Trustee, on behalf of the investors, claim the investors have been harmed or prejudiced because the securitization chain failed?  I have no contract with the servicer, do I?  My contract is the Mortgage and Note. Those contracts are with the Lender.  When the Lender goes belly up, as history has shown us, the mortgage servicers use the MERS® System to “keep the lie going” by giving unproven authority to thousands of writer’s cramped individuals who execute assignments in its name, being told by third-party document mill executives that it’s perfectly legal to do what they’re doing.

This is why the entire banking underbelly is corrupt and illegal as hell.

The securitization chain failed because the parties to the trust DID NOT follow the REMIC’s own governing regulations, not because the investors weren’t getting their payments!  When push came to shove, Ocwen and other third-party butt plugs had to gum up the chain of title with what I consider falsified documents, Assignments of Mortgages and Assignments of Deeds of Trust.  That is my new term for document mill robo-signers who have no knowledge of the facts contained in an assignment they’re claiming they have knowledge of! To even proffer this … and then brag about it like NTC does (the McDonald’s of robo-signing, “over 16-million served”, referring to the number of documents this third-party document mill says it’s recorded as a means to “clear title”) … should have put this entity, its directors and employees, in prison.  However, since the banks have virtually paid off the state legislators and executive enforcement arms … no one has gone to prison, yet.

A Court Case Full of Surprises! 

I am glowing about the securitization/forensic analysis included as a mention in this Hawaii case as a means to educate a judge … and nothing more.  Most judges can’t wrap their heads around this kind of testimony because they are only thinking about their retirement accounts and how those accounts might be affected if they rule against the bank.  Unfortunately, what they DON’T GET … it that the entire 424(b)(5) prospectus is in play here, NOT just the PSA portion of it!  Let’s take a look, shall we?

SEC Info – Mortgage Asset Securitization Transactions Inc – ‘424B5_ on 1:14:05 re: Mastr Alternative

There are 357 pages in the Prospectus attached above.  Yes, the WHOLE enchilada!  Why just pick out the PSA?  That’s like eating the peas and leaving the steak! It doesn’t contain ALL of the information now, does it?  This is the Prospectus for the foregoing Hawaii case! 

Look at the portion of the Prospectus that talks about the PSA.  If you look under the TABLE OF CONTENTS, the Pooling and Servicing Agreement is found beginning at Page S-95.  However, the cut-off and closing dates that are related to the issues expressed within the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are found OUTSIDE OF the section on the PSA, at Page S-5, 90 pages away from the PSA!  The Prospectus of this REMIC (and any REMIC for that matter) is the entire “sales pitch” of the REMIC!  It’s the entire set of governing relations for the REMIC!  Why then are we just focusing on the PSA when the entire 424(b)(5) Prospectus has all the rest of the nuggets that make the PSA make sense?   Because judges are lazy and don’t want to read 357 pages of this stuff.  If judges figured this out, there wouldn’t be one retirement plan vested in RMBS’s and CMBS’s!

This is the end result of what the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act has caused.  This is the lazy man’s excuse for not wanting to read (texting is more funner, sic).  This is why Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s reintroduction of the Act cannot go unsupported.  The people need relief here.

Text – S.881 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act of 2017 | Congress.gov |

I have talked about securitization failure systematically on this blog prior to the mass deletion of what came before this set of recently-posted articles.  It would make no sense to educate a judge that thinks his retirement account will fail if he rules against a bank.  This is why I have always told consumers involved in foreclosure litigation to “background their judge” (hire a private investigator if you have to, to dig up the judge’s nasty little political secrets)!

What has happened since the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed has turned into an all-out war involving servicer fraud and this case is a clear example of it.  I seriously doubt that U.S. Bank was really involved in this case (more like Ocwen).  If the attorneys for the bank were actually forced to admit WHICH aggrieved party they were representing in this case, they probably couldn’t tell you.  My guess is, Ocwen retained them because Ocwen wants to steal your house to reimburse itself for all those pesky servicing fees it racked up paying the REMICs off!  This is how Ocwen wants to get rich off America … and it uses Altisource and REALServicing (more-than-arm’s-length devices) to pull it off!  Any time that you see “corporate layering”, you are going to have to dig deep like many of the readers of this blog do … and pull up the serious stuff that matters.

We have to be smarter than the banks if we want to win.  Unlike the banks, we have to expose the truth!

This is my truth: OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION

 

3 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED