Tag Archives: free house

THE ARROGANCE OF BANKS!?

(OP-ED) — The author of this post is not an attorney and none of this should be construed as legal advice but is put forward for educational purposes only. 

No matter what defensive (or offensive) strategy is seemingly employed by homeowners (as borrowers), not only do we still get the same ‘ol, same ‘ol from bank attorneys (who actually represent the mortgage loan servicer and not the owner of the note themselves) as to their defamatory conjecture from “Your Honor, they (meaning the borrower) just want a free house!” … we still get the continued misrepresentation of the facts in a foreclosure action, whether it be judicial or non-judicial in nature.

In a judicial scenario, the arrogance is blatant. The attorney files the foreclosure action (generally employed by a foreclosure mill that gets paid a low winning bid dollar amount) and puts all of the same, standard “trash talk” about the homeowner (as the borrower), claiming the borrower is in default and that it (the client) is entitled to enforce the security instrument.  This isn’t personal really.  It’s a numbers game and if you’re a borrower who hasn’t made his payments in ages, it does not necessary mean that the burden of proof shifts to you, just because it’s your home and you’ve been served with papers which, nine times out of ten, contain pleadings that have notably false and misrepresentative statements contained within them.  In a judicial state, it’s still up to the alleged claimant-Plaintiff to prove its case or go home. This is why the banks want everything changed to non-judicial in nature, so they don’t have to work so hard to steal people’s homes.

Instead, the borrower opts to defend his position by putting forward an answer and affirmative defenses to the Plaintiff’s assertions.  The very act of this filing and anticipated response immediately gives the court jurisdiction to hear the matter before it (with an assigned case number and recorded lis pendens).  At the point of the recording of the lis pendens, the borrower’s title is slandered (not the filing of the case with the applicable court).  It is the notice of lis pendens that gives the world constructive notice of the proceedings against the property because it is the security instrument that the Plaintiff seeks to enforce.  However, in a judicial state, the Plaintiff must possess the Note, or in the alternative, sufficiently demonstrate that it had the note, but lost it, and made every effort to find it, but couldn’t.  Instead of looking for the note (or dummying one up out of nowhere like we know they do) and presenting a complete case, the arrogant bank and its lawyer press forward anyway and prey on the emotion of the court, backed by the reasoning that since they filed a complaint to foreclose, they must be the lender, right?

Generally, when the Plaintiff can’t produce the note, it produces an assignment of mortgage, which is generally “manufactured” by the mortgage loan servicer’s employees in favor of the servicer.  Half the time, the assignment includes the language “together with the note”, which, if MERS is involved, is a physical impossibility because MERS cannot transfer something it does not own.  This makes the assignment false and misrepresentative.  Instead of questioning the tactics of the servicer, on many an occasion, the banks’ own attorneys just take it and run with it, or even worse, are complicit in its manufacture!  This makes it even worse because the bank’s attorney (and law firm) would be suborning perjury, which, the last time I checked, was a felony.  It’s even worse when they try to rely on the assignment to steal the house.  It is the INTENT that is made known when the misrepresentations within the assignment are orally pontificated upon the court by the bank’s attorney in his arguments … thus, the arrogance of the bank is transferred to its lawyer, who can then claim reliance on the document because the attorney (or the “cover lawyer”, different from the attorney who filed the original pleadings) is now at greater than “arm’s length”position from the transaction and thus will claim plausible deniability (as in “I had no idea, Your Honor.”)

In a non-judicial setting, the scenario is much more deceitful.  If the borrower doesn’t stop the proceeding with something factual that can be proven in court, followed by a temporary restraining order, it is assumed that whoever commences a foreclosure action against the property is going to get their wish because going to court is not required in deed of trust states, except in certain cases, which is why the arrogant banks keep trying to lobby legislatures to change their method of enforcing security instruments to non-judicial, because all non-judicial actions do not require a court’s approval and thus all foreclosure actions are deemed legal unless proven otherwise.  This too is a numbers game of greater proportions because most homeowners in deed of trust states do not have access to competent foreclosure defense attorneys because “the system of things” does not warrant a board specialized attorney (in real property law or foreclosure defense) to come forward and shut the door on the foreclosure.  Most attorneys in deed of trust states really don’t know how to defend against foreclosures but they sure know how to structure a business model to take a retainer, followed by monthly payments, making their newly-found client their newly-created annuity payment.  This is great for business because it boosts cash flow.  But, it doesn’t nothing for the homeowner (as the borrower) unless the homeowner has something in the chain of title worth arguing.

Such is the case in South Carolina, where a MERSCORP attorney has allegedly testified under oath (in a deposition) that MERS cannot act for a “non-functional entity” (which means an entity that has gone out of business and years later, all of a sudden uses MERS (through the actions of the servicer’s own employees or another third party) to cover up the chain of title and bring the note and mortgage or deed of trust from the originating, out-of-business lender, to the present tense, in an attempt to allow whatever party comes in with a claim against the property, to foreclose on it.  Apparently, this same testimony allegedly worked on  a case in New Mexico as well, allegedly.  I use the word “allegedly” here because there’s no attached “oral transcript” or “order” from either court to validate the claims made by attorney Jeff Barnes, who goes into court pro hac vice (a guest of the court, using the resident attorney’s bar license) to help the homeowner (who is paying major dollars to both Barnes and the resident lawyer) get out of their foreclosure jam.

I find it odd that a post, dated October 29, 2018, on Barnes’s website, would make such statements without completing the grandstanding against MERS by actually including “hard evidence” in the form of a transcript or order, don’t you think?  In the New Mexico case, it wasn’t a slam dunk, however, it appears, without verification, that most of the borrower’s affirmative defenses would be sustained based on this new admission of MERSCORP’s own lawyer.  If one wanted to really make themselves appear “credible” with their “victory lap”, don’t you think one should brandish the sword they used as the weapon of choice?  (I put this in here for you Game Of Thrones fans!)  But, seriously, wouldn’t that make logical sense?   So we could read HOW the defeat occurred?

But wait, that would make the grandstanding (to get more business obviously) more plausible and less arrogant, right?  We can’t have THAT now, can we?  We need to further our business model and leave borrowers in the dark, only to surmise that somewhere out there, a MERSCORP attorney was indeed deposed and testified that his client has no right to transfer the note (something I’ve been saying for years) because MERS has no interest in it.  Factually, even if such an order or transcript WERE included, do you really think most borrowers would know HOW to take what they’ve learned from it and apply it to their own scenario?  Not hardly.  Not in today’s court systems.

It should be noted that the claim was made (in Barnes’s website post) that a deposition was taken, which means the only way you’re going to get damning information to shut down the banks’ arrogance, it to get damning information by conducting a deposition.  This is where the rubber meets the road with foreclosure defense attorneys because great discovery wins cases and if your attorney is “lacking” when it comes to getting the right set of facts out of a deposition, you’ve lost not only your home but all those financial resources you could have used to move onto PLAN B. Pro se litigants rarely, if ever, conduct a deposition, let alone a proper and complete one.

In sum, you’re either going to fight the bank’s arrogance with provable facts or you’re not.  The system of things supports more than just an affirmative defense against the bank’s lawyer because of the misrepresentations in his pleadings.  It supports a bar complaint.  I don’t see too many foreclosure defense lawyers putting forward bar complaints based on false and misrepresentative pleadings from foreclosure mill attorneys, do you?  (This is why we focus more these days on “the system of things” and how that plays out!) 

And somehow, the good ‘ol boy network seemingly continues to survive.

NOTE: If you want to hear multiple scenarios explained about why our voting system may be all f**ked up (especially in Florida with the recent negative spotlight put on it), listen to Dave Krieger tonight (6 p.m. EST) on WKDW-FM’s City Spotlight – Special Edition, just by clicking on this link and then clicking on LISTEN NOW!  Joining Dave and co-host R.J. Malloy as their guests are North Port, Florida City Commissioner Jill Luke and outgoing City Commissioner Linda Yates.

4 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

THINKING OF PLEADING TILA? THINK TWICE!

BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED — 

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has just affirmed the U.S. District Court’s decision (for the District of Minnesota) on the Jesinoksi case once and for all.

Why am I not surprised? 

See the Opinion here: Jesinoski v Countrywide Home Loans Inc et al, 8th App Cir No 16-3385 (Feb 28, 2018)

It did not fare well for the Jesinoksis TILA claims, which were narrowly ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court and sent back down to the U.S. District Court for further determination.

There are a lot of folks out there who are caught up in mortgage loans of their own making, now realizing that they “coulda, shoulda, woulda” when it came to disputing whether or not the lender of their mortgage complied with all of the regulations in the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA).  The facts of the case are pretty much self-explanatory, but very narrow in interpretation, so I’m not going to belabor the point by regurgitating the pain of explaining it again.

If you’re going to plead TILA, read this case first and realize what the court accepted and what it didn’t.  If you didn’t comply with ALL of the requirements of TILA, you will find yourself in the same boat as the Jesinoskis.  I hate to make an example of them, but as the result of this case, a lot of wannabe paralegals and attorneys have fleeced homeowners for money, claiming they can help them file a TILA case on their behalf, only to find themselves in more legal hot water than they bargained for.

First, TILA is a federal regulation.  That means it has to be litigated in federal court, where judges are bound by this decision.

If your attorney has never successfully litigated a TILA claim, then why did you choose that attorney?

Filing a rescission does NOT mean you get a FREE HOUSE!  I don’t give a damn what these well-meaning “pro se paralegals” tell you.  If someone makes that assertion, run like hell in the opposite direction!  With TILA cases, there are strings attached … and because there is a mortgage loan involved and the homeowner inured to the benefit of that loan, then there will be hell to pay when the homeowner has to solely rely on TILA claims instead of looking for real “red meat”, like the fact that the loan started out with America’s Wholesale Lender (“AWL”), which Bank of America, N.A. claims is its subsidiary, when in fact, there is no recorded proof in the New York Secretary of State’s office that indicates that AWL was a “New York Corporation” at the time it allegedly made the Jesinoski’s loan.  The focus of the Jesinoski Complaint was that they did not receive the required number of TILA-related copies, which the Court found to be inaccurate.  If this is the best one can do … not getting the right number of copies … (I’m shaking my head now) … this just set precedent as well as a learning curve for others.  It appears that a non-existent New York Corporation (vis a vis the lying bastards and thieves at Bank of America, N.A.) just stole the Jesinoski’s home and no one even bothered to contest whether AWL was actually a legitimate entity at the time the loan was executed.  Of course, MERS and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. were involved.  Both Delaware corporations were involved in ALL AWL TRANSACTIONS!  The whole thing was a sham based on a sham corporation.

Don’t believe me?  Look here: US Bank v Dimant_2013-CA-001130

When you don’t look at the whole picture, this is what happens to you.  Learn from the Jesinoski’s mistakes.  Federal judges are NOT big fans of American homeowners!  Do your research before jumping in with both feet.

This was a very expensive case to litigate all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and back.

It started at the U.S. District Court level (the District of Minnesota, a Torrens State, which does NOT favor homeowners and loves MERS).  The State of Minnesota enacted the “MERS Statute”.  And you want to live there?  Seriously?  This should have been an indication that in Minnesota, you either pay your mortgage or you’re homeless … or you move elsewhere.  If MERS is in your chain of title, it doesn’t matter about Torrens issues, your title in Minnesota is still shit!

Then it went to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against the Jesinoskis, who then appealed it to the U.S. Supreme Court, who narrowly ruled on the law and sent it back down to the U.S. District Court, who correctly determined that the Jesinoskis were incorrect in their assumption of the TILA regulations.  They then appealed THAT ruling to the 8th Circuit again, which affirmed the lower court and now the rest is history.  Unless the Jesinoskis attack the real culprit, the phony AWL New York Corporation, they might as well pack their things and find a new place to live.

Don’t let this be YOUR “hard lesson”.

Listen to Dave Krieger, Clouded Titles author, on WKDW-FM, 97.5, North Port, Florida, Friday Night at 6:00 p.m. EST on City Spotlight, Special Edition (with co-host R.J. Malloy, retired attorney and former Clerk to a U.S. District Court judge), streaming live on kdwradio.com.  Click “LISTEN LIVE” to join the broadcast.  Dave will be talking about a variety of consumer-related issues, including this one!

4 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

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