Tag Archives: mortgage loan servicer

THE C&E, ASSIGNMENTS … AND YOUR RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THEM (PART 1) …

(OP-ED) — The author of this post is a consultant to attorneys on quiet title and cancellation and expungement actions and thus, not an attorney who can give legal advice.  This overview, with its suggestive commentary, is for your educational entertainment only. 

Scenario … “The Set-Up”

You want to buy a home.  You don’t have much money, but credit is plentiful, as long as you can “fog up a mirror”.  You’re the “party of the first part” because you’re willing to take a gamble that if you can get a loan, you’ll be able to pay it back, with interest.

However, you’re not “Party A” (the party of the second part).  Party A” is a corresponding lender. That means it’s highly likely your loan is going to be securitized, which means it’s going to be put into the MERS® System, which is now owned by the same company that owns the New York Stock Exchange.

But of course, you’re ignorant of all of the shenanigans going on behind the scenes because you just want the keys to the house.

Meet “Party B” … not Cardi B; Cardi B has lots of money and she can probably pay cash for a house).

Party B is more than likely the sponsor-seller (the interim funding lender in the deal).  Party B figured out how to make a puttload of money doing securitization, so Party B hooked up with some attorneys who all engaged in “pure intellectual masturbation” together to create a “sales pitch”, known to investors as a 424(b)(5) Prospectus.  This document was drafted and signed under penalty of perjury under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  But that wouldn’t really matter to you, because you just wanted the keys to the house, right?

Meet “Party C” … the Depositor.  This entity is never a “member”, “user” or “subscriber” of the MERS® System; however, the Depositor plays an important role in securitization because it has to accumulate all of the documents (mortgages and notes funded by the REMIC) together by the specified “Cut-Off Date”, which is shown in the Prospectus (the sales pitch), which has to be done by a date certain (not 5 or 7 years down the road) or else the transfer of the loan into the REMIC would be void.  Party C is one of those parties that is a necessary party to securitization, so without it being named in the chain of transfers from Party A to Party B to Party C to “Party D” (the Trustee for the REMIC trust), as specified in the Prospectus, by the specified date, then it creates all sorts of legal challenges down the road, for both borrowers and investors alike.

To make even more money on the deal, Party B goes out and makes applications all over town for default insurance, while placing side bets (credit default swaps) on the performance of the certificates issued to the investors who have no idea what’s coming.

Now that all the side bets are in place and the loans have all been funded, the loan you got through Party A (the corresponding lender who only put up 5% of the deal) just closed and Party A got reimbursed by Party B, who actually funded the loan!

Later you find out the truth … but wait … if Party B was actually footing the bill with investor money it got through securitization, shouldn’t Party B be named the lender on the mortgage or deed of trust?  You’d think so.  But nope!  That puts Party B too close to the action on the assignment that’s supposed to be recorded in the land records where your house is … but somehow … Party B and its corresponding lenders are having too much fun giving loans to people they knew couldn’t repay them … so they forget about recording the required assignments altogether.

Ha! Ha! Ha!  Not!

The sponsor-seller knows what’s coming, because it’s holding all the Aces and it knows that over time … the house of cards will fall because all the loans in the pool are set to “reset” themselves within a certain period of time, causing the entire REMICs value to collapse.  I call it “Day 91”.  That’s the day the sponsor-seller gets to cash in on all of the insurance policies and credit default swaps.  The sponsor-seller can take a $500,000 loan and make $7.5-million off of the deal!

And here you are, swimming in debt, trying to figure out how to pay that mortgage that just reset itself through that adjustable rate BS you obligated yourself for.  But there’s more month at the end of the money.  You stop paying.  Party B is counting on it!  Party B set the whole thing up (using the MERS® System) to obfuscate the chain of title so it can create assignments of mortgage and deeds of trust to record in the land records vis a vis the mortgage loan servicer, who is tasked with taking your payment every month.

At least that’s what the mortgage loan servicer wants you to think when it sends you the default notice!  But alas … another lie.

The mortgage loan servicer is required to pay your principal and interest payments on your mortgage loan to the investors whether you pay them or not!   It’s called an “Advance”.  That too, is in the Prospectus … (not in the PSA)!   Simply put … are you really in default when the alleged REMIC moves to foreclose on you?   If someone is paying the investors every month, then how can they claim you’re in default.  Because they have a contract with you?   The originating lender (Party A) was paid off at closing by Party B (who used investor money to fund the loan) … this is what we call “table-funded lending”.

I’m trying to tell a story here, because this is the part where the rubber meets the road! 

Until you default (when the servicer declares you aren’t making your payments anymore) … you’ll never see an assignment recorded in the land records (99% of the time).  You have no contract with the servicer (Party E, for Empty Pockets).  Servicers have been known to “rob Peter’s account to pay Paul’s account” all the time, like Ocwen, which is why servicers are sloppy with handling money and shitty record-keeping.  But the servicer has another angle … it uses its employees to create assignments of mortgage and deeds of trust using MERS to cover up the missing links in the chain of title and conveys the title from Party A to Party D, without any recollection or mention of Parties B or C!   So who is it really coming into court to foreclose?

If you said Party E, you’re right!   These days, servicers are being even more brash, claiming they have a power of attorney from Party D (the Trustee for the REMIC) to foreclose on behalf of Certificateholders of some REMIC “series number”, claiming the certificate holders have been “harmed”, when in fact, the servicer is just trying to reimburse itself for all the defaulted payments it kept making on your behalf.   Now it’s using phony documentation to claim the note and mortgage were transferred to Party D, many years later.  The REMICs only stay open a year, so none of that makes any sense.  So the mortgage loan servicer retains the law firm to foreclose on your house … let the lying, cheating and stealing begin!   All on behalf of Party F (the investors).  I use Party “F” because in this scenario, the investors get “F**ked” in the end because the money made by stealing your house using phony assignments created by the mortgage loan servicer and its employees goes into their pockets and not those of the investors.

The attorneys continue the lie by claiming you’re not a third-party beneficiary to the assignment!   

And the judges buy into that crap hook, line and sinker!  It shows their ignorance! 

There are a lot of problems with these foreclosure mill lawyers using that falsehood.  In fact, the very pleadings or responses they file in lawsuits brought by the homeowner in deed of trust states to stop the foreclosure, or in the pleadings they put into the court record in mortgage states, contain misstatements in of themselves … and even more so when they have to rely on the recorded documents that the mortgage loan servicers put into the land records, in violation of statutes and penal codes, that contain false and misrepresentative information.

And the borrower and the attorney for the borrower run into court and wave the assignment around, telling the judge it’s a fraudulent document.  The judge of course (after hearing the attorney say you can’t challenge the assignment because you’re not a third-party beneficiary to the assignment) goes along with the bank’s argument … just because it seems to make sense.  However, there is a problem with that scenario.

Check back for PART 2 … where we discuss the bank’s flawed argument … and what homeowners are countering that flawed argument with!

HINT: Are the investors really third-party beneficiaries?  (think about it seriously, really).

Why should that affect you?

Look at your assignment!

6 Comments

Filed under 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

TO FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT … OR NOT!

OP-ED — THIS IS STEP THREE OF A 3-PART SERIES BY DAVE KRIEGER, AUTHOR OF CLOUDED TITLES

I have conducted intense research for over ten years on chain of title issues and what it means for affected homeowners.

Foreclosure mill attorneys could care less about the chain of title, so long as they can come up with a game plan to steal the property, even if it means participating in the manufacturing of title documents that create standing for their client to allow their little “scalping party” to appear in court.

Once the mess of confusion has subsided and the educational process has begun, the average homeowner discovers (over time) that the method by which the alleged “lender” has preyed upon them has imbued them with a combination of guilt, rage, entitlement or empowerment or the combination of one or more of the above.  This is where things get tricky because the average homeowner generally does not know what the chain of title could possibly reveal in their particular foreclosure case.

As the clock ticks, depending on where you live, the process of foreclosure continues.

If you’re in a deed of trust state, you generally get about 45 days prior to the date of the sale to react.  By “react”, I mean file a lawsuit and get a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop the sale and have your case heard before a tribunal.

If you’re in a mortgage state, you generally get 20 days to file an answer ONCE YOU’RE SERVED with process.  This is key to your understanding. Once a party to a foreclosure action finds out the lender is attempting to serve them through a process server, they hide to avoid service.  This only works for a short time, as the process server will figure out (through skip tracing) what your daily routine consists of and will eventually catch up with you and serve you with the foreclosure complaint when you least expect it.  Avoiding service usually means the attorneys for the bank (or the servicer) could end up going to the judge and requesting what is known as substituted service, which generally means that a relative who knows you can be served with the papers instead.  Then the 20-day clock starts.  By the end of that 20th day, you would have had to file an “Answer” or face default judgment.

Answer #1 … to Run or Not to Run … 

What you’re about to read is NOT all-encompassing, because every homeowner seems to choose a different path.

95% of homeowners who are served with a notice of foreclosure … RUN AWAY from it!  I know that figure is hard to believe … BUT … that is exactly what the lender wants you to do.  The alleged “lender” knows it’s a “numbers game”.  The majority will run away but some will stay and fight.  By avoiding the foreclosure (by running away or doing nothing), you’ve made the lender’s job 95% easier … provided the lender (or the alleged lender) has done their job right.  When the average homeowner gets served they RUN because they lack education or the funds to get educated and fight the foreclosure.  The lenders know that 95% of all homeowners do not have a legal defense fund set up to wage war in the court against the lender to save their homes.  The lenders know that in most cases, they will end up with the house (whether free and clear is debatable here) because the homeowners are scared away from a fight.  Those who do not understand that the court systems in America are motivated in favor of lenders will soon find out that fighting “the good fight” is not the easiest task in the world.

Now let’s look at the 95% of the homeowners who “run away” from the problem.  Many pack up and move out as soon as they are served with notice.  A certain percentage of them will simply “freeze in place” once served.  They don’t know what to do next.  Rather than pack up and move right away (upon service of process), they stay put and either ignore the paperwork (denial) and whatever notice they are served with and simply wait for the county Sheriff or constabulary to evict them and put their belongings to the curb.  I can’t begin to tell you what that feels like, so I’ve included a video clip to refresh your memory in the event you can’t visualize it.

I cringe watching that video, almost to the point of tears.  This is not HOW I planned to peel away at the onion!   I pray to God that no one has to endure this, but sadly, in order to avoid what that video depicts, the homeowners plan their move accordingly, knowing the bank will eventually show up to their doorstep with law enforcement and they are “moved” whether they like it or not.  This does NOT have to be you!  Even if you have a PLAN B in place, the best well-made plans take time.  You do NOT have to run, now or then.

Answer #2 … to Fight the Good Fight … or Not! 

Not fighting “the good fight” manifests itself with bad behavior.

Remember I first discussed guilt, rage, entitlement and empowerment (or any combination thereof) earlier in this post?

Fighting based on guilt is totally inappropriate.  It basically means that you’ve let the lender and/or its henchmen (the servicer’s $9/hour cubicle employees) take over and run your life based on “power over” collection tactics.  The mortgage loan servicer is obviously trying to fleece you for every dime it can get because that’s how it makes money.  You fight the urge to say “no more” based on guilt feelings.  You fight the urge based on guilt because failing will bring on more guilt.  You want to keep your house and so you’re literally “bending over” at every whim of the foes coming against you.  While this appears normal as part of our built-in defense mechanism, letting guilt drive your emotions means making bad decisions (decisions based on emotion rather than common sense and logic).  It’s basically fighting with yourself because the servicer is making your decisions for you and you’re not making them yourself.  You feel guilty because you let them win … and they’re just getting started!  Guilt can fuel the unthinkable, like murder-suicide.  That is not the answer.

Fighting based on rage is also totally inappropriate, unless your rage is channeled into the fight itself.  Walking around being pissed off at the world, being pissed off at your family and friends and whoever you happen to engage in any related financial conversation is not the answer.  Rage, like guilt, is also an emotional element not worth pursuing if you’re going to fight “the good fight”.  Rage will make you do extremist things, like spend money where it doesn’t need to be spent logistically; spending money going on lavish vacations while ignoring the responsibilities of American homeownership; substituting rage for logic in failing to develop a business plan in order to make things happen.  Rage can also fuel the unthinkable, like murder-suicide. That also, is not the answer.

Fighting based on entitlement is understandable based on the political times we live in.  Most of America has been so conditioned to live off the government (via entitlements) and trust it implicitly that most Americans have been conditioned to believe that “the world owes me a living” and that “if I complain to the government, the government will step in and save me”.  This is false conditioning.  Complaining to any government agency about your foreclosure is a colossal waste of time!  This conditioning was by design, based on deceit by some very powerful oligarchs who have made themselves gods, thinking that their rationale is better than the average Americans’ and that they should be entitled (self-entitlement works in strange ways when you have lots of money) to make decisions for everyone else, including letting the banks run America. When you start to believe that the world owes you a living, then you can easily fall into the trap (when seduced into this false belief) of, “the bank screwed me, so I deserve a free house!”  That is not only illogical in thought, but the courts in this country, who feed off of entitlement, can spot an attitude of entitlement a mile away and shut it down!  Entitlement does not fuel the unthinkable, but it does fuel ego and pride … and pride goeth before a fall. Being entitled means you know everything.  That too is dangerous.  Ego has also hurt the banks in playing their “numbers game” too; however, the banks make up for it through the numbers of homes they’ve “stolen”, making them a more powerful legal adversary.

Fighting based on empowerment is the most desired aspect of fighting “the good fight”!  Knowledge is power and wisdom is knowledge applied.  Knowing WHEN to apply knowledge is what wins battles (Sun Tsu, The Art of War).  Knowing WHEN the enemy is weakest and where their weakest points are to begin with puts the homeowner in a condition of empowerment.  Even Tige Johnson, a transactional lawyer out of Chicago who has lectured at my workshops, has even stated that when homeowners are fully aware of the facts in their case and what the law says, they make very empowered clients.  Employing “rage” as a “fuel” to empower you to search is the greatest attribute, because it’s what drives you to succeed no matter what.  Rage alone, without empowerment, spells doom for every homeowner who wants to fight “the good fight”.

Answer #3 … the average homeowner who litigates a foreclosure can delay a foreclosure for up to 2 years! 

Ahhhh!  The naysayers and the gainsayers will chastise me for creating false hope; however, the foreclosure defense attorneys have figured out a gameplan that will delay a foreclosure for 2 years or longer and in doing so, “buys” their client time.  Time for what?  To sit on their laurels and enjoy the scenery?  Those who are embroiled in litigation MUST stay on top of it.  There is no time to dawdle or take a vacation to the Bahamas just because you’ve forced the alleged “lender” to prove its case. By the tone of your response to the foreclosure notice, whether in a deed of trust or mortgage state, the foreclosure mill law firms can measure how much of a fight is necessary to accomplish their mission.  They want to win.  They want to help their client get your home.  Many of them will engage in misleading tactics designed to throw you off point.  Many of them will commit deceitful acts and make false representations to the court.  This is all part of their game.  It also keeps the foreclosure mills in business longer because there’s no more income stream to them once the foreclosure is over and they’ve won.  And you wonder why the foreclosure mills aren’t coming after me?  It’s because through my efforts, they stay in business because I’ve empowered homeowners to fight “the good fight”!  Think about the logistical financial issues posited to the banks and their attorneys.  As Tige Johnson has stated (in my workshops), “I’m here to make the banks bleed green.”  Thus, it costs the banks to fight your “good fight” too!  This is something to consider.

In a deed of trust state, by law, most states do not allow for anything past the taking of the security, which means that once the foreclosure is complete, there is no deficiency judgment.

However, in order to keep the foreclosure hounds at bay, you have to initiate a lawsuit in the proper court, because deed of trust states do not provide for your “day in court”.   You have to “create” your day in court by filing a claim against the lender or its alleged representative.  Once that suit is filed, you also have to ask the court to stop the foreclosure sale by granting a temporary restraining order (TRO).  Simply filing a lis pendens only “gums up the title”.  It does NOT stop a foreclosure.  I had to get that through my head when I started helping homeowners fight “the good fight”.  As I teach in my Foreclosure Defense Workshop (along with attorneys who lecture at them that are well versed in this subject matter), you have to follow rules of civil procedure and rules of evidence to the letter, which means you have your work cut out for you unless you have the resources to retain counsel to represent you.

In a mortgage state, by law, most states provide for deficiency judgments (post-sale) and attorney’s fees, which means this has to be taken into consideration before you fight “the good fight”.

Many times, a straight forward “Answer” that is timely filed with the court and appropriately served on the foreclosure mill law firm representing your alleged “lender” adds an additional 30-60 days to your “fight”.  Simply put, ANSWER the damned complaint, point for point.  However, just because you’ve filed an Answer to their complaint (in a mortgage state) does NOT mean you get to sit back and relax.  Your fight is just beginning.  Many reading this post have kept the lenders at bay for 8 years or longer!  Whatever made you think you can’t do the same?  Would having an extra 8 years of time give you time to get your financial affairs straightened out to the point where you can strategically leave the suit and enter into a new financial realm you created during that time frame?  Many smart homeowners have figured out that if they can “buy time”, they can re-strategize their financial position and move on! Sadly however, most homeowners aren’t that smart when it comes to litigation, which is why I hold workshops.

Answer #4 … opening the door to “empowerment” by doing your homework! 

Over the years, I have learned that every alleged “lender” (generally through its mortgage loan servicer) creates at least one “assignment” and causes it to be recorded in the land records in the county your home is located in.  Many of these assignments are created just prior to a foreclosure action, which becomes suspect as to its legitimacy.  You can bet that the assignment was “designed” to “manufacture standing” so the lender’s representative can complete the foreclosure without question from the court.  It’s like “manufacturing evidence”, which can be used to the lender’s advantage … or in many cases by you … to the lender’s disadvantage.

Starting with evaluating your chain of title may prove to be the key to discovering the strategies you need to fight “the good fight”. Filing bankruptcy to stall the inevitable is the “cheap way out”, that will hurt your credit more than the foreclosure itself (by more than 300 points), which is why I’m not quick to even think that way.  Unless you have a defined strategy involving an adversarial proceeding, along with a huge mountain of unsecured debt with no way to pay it back, I would never consider filing bankruptcy.  Filing bankruptcy is not empowering anything.  Filing bankruptcy is giving up in a feeble attempt to “stop the bleeding”.  Even if you stop the bleeding, the damage has been done and there will still be a scar, a scar you will live with for ten (10) years (even if you are successful in removing the bankruptcy from your credit reports).

In order to become MORE successful in your efforts, you need to plan a strategy,which includes an exit strategy in case things don’t go as planned. These days, I’m seeing a lot more investors using “end game strategies” (which I also teach at workshops) because they are “calculated” and their financial weight can be measured.  The average homeowner however will find themselves in a different scenario because as I stated before, the “war chest” simply doesn’t exist in most cases.

Thus, once you obtain your entire chain of title, you can look for clues as to how to unwind your dilemma or in the alternative, find the most efficient and affordable way to restructure your life and move on.  The “devil is in the details” and most of the time, the evidence found within the promissory note does NOT match up to what the recorded assignment says.  The other side will twist the truth to prove its case; or in the alternative, throw in stumbling blocks to increase the cost of your litigation in an attempt to discourage you from fighting further and to resort to settling when settling may not be an option when you know the truth and have figured out ways to prove it.

I’ve been involved in numerous cases throughout my years of involvement in the world of foreclosures, which is why I’m called in to consult attorneys on various cases and conduct chain of title assessments (COTAs) for homeowners, which saves them time and money because the attorney can get to the real issues faster, which saves the attorney time as a benefit to the homeowner, especially where time is of the essence.  I can genuinely live with myself in what I’ve been doing, which is to educate homeowners using the research I’ve conducted since 2007.  Whether the research pans out for the homeowner depends on how the homeowner chooses to fight “the good fight”, which is why I’ve developed workshops that teach foreclosure defense.

In closing, I also warn of using “rage” as your guide when it comes to picking your litigation strategies.  You have to have a level head in order to evaluate what strategies are going to work best.  Suing everyone over everything is a sure way to stretch your finances to the limit.  While I believe that walking away (strategic default) from a future problem (home foreclosure) has been used not only by myself but by multitudes of others as well, knowing the truth about the matter may have changed the strategy I’d planned as well as the case outcome.  How then can you make an honest decision without a level head, a true set of facts and multiple strategies with which you can cloak yourself in empowerment?

5 Comments

Filed under OP-ED, workshop

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