Tag Archives: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc.

ENTER 2019 AND THE NEW MERS!

(BREAKING NEWS – OP-ED) —

FYI, NOT for use as legal advice … but for the added benefits of research!

ICE OWNS MERSCORP … and things have changed! 

If you haven’t been paying attention to the “new and improved MERS”, you should be.  As of October of last year, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (“ICE”; the same bunch that owns the New York Stock Exchange) took over MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Two new corporate shills appear to be heading up the parent (MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.).  I got this from the “new and improved MERSinc” website:

How ironic?  The “Goone” squad!  (I know you’re trying to hold back the laughter, but this is serious folks!)

Noticeably missing from the MERSINC.org website is the “Member Search” tool.   Now ICE has made it impossible and further obfuscates WHO is participating as a “user/subscriber of the MERS® System!  Thus, anyone wanting to do research on a MERS-originated mortgage or deed of trust is going to have to ask for their closing documents PRIOR TO signing them.  Otherwise, those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it because THE GOONE SQUAD now controls all of the information in the MERS System!

It also appears that since Goone is connected to the DTCC, he now might have access to every credit transaction conducted throughout the United States!

You can still search for the alleged “Servicer” on the MERS® System website; however, the users of the system are expected to continue to put the same malarkey on the “Investor” portion of the site when you go to access that information, vis a vis entering your personal identifying information, namely, your last name and your social security number.

Let’s be clear one more time … your social security number is actually NOT your number.  It was assigned to you by the Social Security Administration when you volunteered to be in the social in-security program.

My wisdom for 2019 … AVOID MERS MORTGAGES LIKE THE PLAGUE!

Any mortgages or deeds of trust you intend to execute from now on probably should be through the following entities:

(1) credit unions that are NOT user/subscribers to the MERS® System; and

(2) owner financing, or in the alternative, hard money lending, designed to purchase within the short term.

You have every right to walk away from the closing table and not have your property encumbered by “MERS” paper.  You should also do a chain of title search on anything you intend on purchasing because you never know what unknown (mesne) assignees might be lurking in the shadows, just waiting for that inopportune moment to foreclose on you!

My further wisdom for 2019 … TAX DEEDS!

Every state has a system for purchasing tax deeds. Investigate these in the alternative!  You’re helping the county pay its bills, in addition to getting yourself a great deal!

In Florida, for example, you can buy tax deeds at auction for less than assessed value.  In Florida, for example, when you buy a tax deed and your tax deed is recorded, possession is immediate!  You get to own the land (or a single lot; sometimes you can get acreage) outright; however, first investigate to make sure you can put a manufactured home or site built home of smaller proportions (if you’re in the scale-down mode) on such a lot.  Many areas have deed restrictions.  Don’t forget, you still need to quiet the title to the property, but on tax deeds, provided you don’t have to serve a foreign investor or person outside of the U.S., most QT actions take 60-90 days to complete and shouldn’t cost you an arm and a leg.

Whatever “state” of the union you’re in, the county maintains the #1 position for liens, based on payment of property taxes.  The ways of the allodial title have disappeared, despite what you’ve heard from some well-meaning Patriots that claim you can restore a land patent to its original state.  There is an interesting comment from Washington State I found to back that up:

(NOTE: Click on the image to enlarge it to make it easier to read!)

Anyone trying this crap may find themselves on the receiving end of criminal charges because filing false documents into the land records is a felony in almost all 50 states and is punishable under both civil and criminal aspects.  You cannot evade property taxes anywhere.  This is why I like buying tax deeds for less than assessed value … the annual taxes on them is cheap and buying agricultural land (if you can find it) is even better!  It’s a great way to “start over” with less money, especially if you’re reeling from the effects of a foreclosure and are opting NOT TO DEFEND, but rather to move on.  Just make sure that if you’re buying a lot to build on, have a plan to follow through on that quickly.  Don’t buy raw land just for the sake of having a nest egg because you will continue to pay annual property taxes on that land in the future whether you live on that land or not.  Now that industrial hemp is being legalized, build your home out of hemp (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfQbXuTzQQU) like these folks did in Asheville, North Carolina!

I’ve gotten past the point of asking people to simply deed their properties (that they’re about to be foreclosed on) over to me so I can litigate them in court.  If people were that “entitled” in the first place to make bad decisions to buy property using MERS-related securitization, thus screwing up their title, why would I want that headache?  Analyze every deal before engaging it!

MERS generally is never found on the titles to vacant lots!  That’s another plus for buying tax deeds on vacant land you intend on quickly building on.  Being mortgage free is a blessing in this day and age and I can only wish the best for my readers, that they can enjoy the freedom of not owing a bank or a monthly payment to a landlord, if not in 2019, then at some point in the near future.  That might be a great New Year’s resolution to make!  Why become part of the Nation of Renters if you don’t have to?

 

3 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

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

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!

4 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

5TH U.S. CIRCUIT MAKES IT CLEAR … NO FREE HOUSE! MERS RULES!

(BREAKING NEWS – OP-ED) — 

The author of this post is not an attorney and therefore cannot render legal advice.  However, he believes that everyone reading this post can clearly understand the intentions of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out the blatant meaning behind the Circuit Court’s thinking here.  As an Op-Ed piece, I would think the Burke’s counsel needed to approach the assignment of deed of trust to Deutsche Bank (who I refer to hereinafter … and not lovingly … as Douche Bank) National Trust Company, as Trustee for a REMIC that was empty in the first place!  The courts still do not “get” this yet; thus, we have a ruling that is holding the lower court’s feet to the fire (the lower court may have gotten it right).  Here’s the case for your review:  DBNTC v Burke, 5th App Cir No 18-20026 (Sep 5, 2018)

NO ONE CHALLENGED FULLY CHALLENGED THE DOCUMENT! 

For a number of posts since the McGinnis case was brought up, I’ve been talking about the assignments. I am not totally sure that the Burke’s lawyer was up to speed on any of what I’ve been talking about, but if we were to look up the assignment in question, which the lower judge took issue with, we could pick it apart, piece by piece … and figure out how and why Douche Bank went to federal court to get the result it did, when home equity lines of credit in Texas start out as Rule 736 motions (the cheapest way for the lender’s servicer to steal the property in any Texas state court).  Once you’re done consuming the contents of the 6-page ruling, you can decide where the “manifest injustice” really is!

You see, the Burke’s probably had the funds to fight this the right way.  How and why they didn’t plead or properly attack the assignment is beyond me.  Why they didn’t attack MERS’s “beneficial” interest is beyond me too, because Restatement of Mortgages (Third) § 5.4 clearly does NOT fit Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

However, if you look at the bad case law set by the suit against MERSCORP in the Southern District of Texas, the Burke’s arguments fall short of a “win” (which is not what was desired here).  Instead, from all appearances, the lower court (Judge William Smith, U.S. District Court, Houston) justice got into a pissing contest with the 5th Circuit over the validity of the assignment.  In order to fully comprehend what’s happening there, you’d have to pull the law of the case on the subject (which I did) … see it below:

DBNTC v Burke, U.S. S.D. Tex No 4-11-CV-01658 (Sep 16, 2014)

If you notice the numbers on the case, it’s been going on since 2011.  I would suspect it’s been going on since the “suspect” assignment was recorded in Harris County, Texas and Douche Bank and Ocwen (who was the servicer in that case) “manufactured” the document with the intent to steal the property.  The problem is, the Burke’s put an Affidant forward to the Court from a “Chief Fraud Examiner” (Charles K. Lamm) … hmmm … who died and made him chief?   Mr. Lamm’s affidavit was excluded because he was NOT allowed to be an “expert witness” at trial.  Another presumptive mistake by the Burkes and their counsel.  Again, as I spoke of earlier in the articles GUTTING THE UNDERBELLY OF THE BEAST, the first mistake was allowing this case to proceed in federal court, where the homeowner and his attorney have minimal control over the foreclosure, especially where any form of “MERS” is brought up.  You also have to look at “the times” (the period in our history of litigating against any MERS entity) … that things have come about in a different way, which has resulted in virtual conflict among the States of the Union as to whether any MERS entity has any right to claim itself as anything, when Restatement of Agency (Third) was clearly brought into the equation.  I bring you the screen shot from the case to discuss the importance of understanding WHY I’m talking about what constitutes an “Expert Witness” and proper discovery to bring about the desired results within “the system of things”, even if it comes to an unfolding scenario in federal court (an obvious ongoing fight for what appears to be over 4 years):

NO EVIDENCE … NO RULING IN YOUR FAVOR! 

If you’ll notice in the foregoing screen shot WHAT the Court said is that there is NO SUPPORT FOR THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED!  Further, the Court pointed out that NONE of Mr. Lamm’s documents were authenticated.  That, my friends, is sloppy lawyering.  This was typical for what was going on in the courts around this country (and probably still does occur) at the time because people still haven’t gotten past the emotional state of running into court and screaming “FRAUD!”, expecting to get results in their favor, with no discovery, no depositions and no live testimony from a proper expert witness.  What “personal knowledge” could be gleaned from Mr. Lamm, as all he did was examine documents he had nothing to do with creating.  Where were the depositions here?  I don’t see any mention of them anywhere within the 4-page Order of the lower court in 2014, do you?   What the hell were these litigants thinking?   The same thing many homeowners think when they see what they believe is a “suspect” document.  They hire some self-proclaimed “chieftain” to analyze their document and tell them what they want to hear, with no evidentiary support to back it up … and definitely … no personal knowledge of anything.  This pattern has followed many a homeowner through unsuccessful foreclosure processes all over the U.S.   I guess people have not awakened to the principles of the Rules of Evidence yet.

IN SOME STATES, GOING AFTER ANY FORM OF MERS IS A BIG WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY! 

Unless money grows on trees and you have such a tree growing in your yard, or you live in Tennessee (where the Ditto decision gutted MERS like a chicken), whatever State you happen to be in (in this case, Houston, Texas), the courts are split on what MERS is … and what MERS isn’t.  It isn’t just in the federal circuits … it’s in the state courts too.  A lot depends on what legislation was promulgated (and by whom) to get “nominees” into the mix within the county land records, which in turn decimated the county’s earnings directly because of HOW the MERS® System works.

The only way I see this coming to a finite end is to “gut the underbelly of the beast”, where the beast least expects it.  This case serves as an underlying reason why “the system of things” has to work the way it was designed to work, NOT the way you think it should.

This is done by going after the attorneys for the banks and their servicers and holding them liable for felony perjury on the court (which BTW can be exerted in either state or federal; however, there is no “money flow” from the federal side, only from the counties that are heavily insured or self-insured) by directly attacking the document(s) involved, which means you have to focus on those creating (manufacturing) them.  If you want to win, there is no getting around this.  If you want to take down MERS, you have to take them down in principle by going after the “users” of the MERS® System and NOT MERS DIRECTLY!  You see, the “users” are all trained liars!

For the rest of the story, see the upcoming post … GUTTING THE UNDERBELLY OF THE BEAST – PART 7.  In that segment, you can learn and differentiate when judges “do the right thing” versus when they don’t.  When they don’t do the right thing … is when the system of things kicks in!

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, Securitization Issues