Tag Archives: negligence

GUTTING THE UNDERBELLY OF THE BEAST – PART 6

(OP-ED, first posted: September 11, 2018) —

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

In my last episode (Part 5) of this series of posts, I talked about risk aversion and the creation of a paper trail.  In this episode, I cover the “why” this becomes necessary.

DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF A CLAIM

The very first thing I look at (as a title consultant) is the chain of title, especially the warranty or grant deed (proof of ownership), the mortgage (or deed of trust) and any subsequent assignments coming against the chain of title.  All of these documents (in certified form) become the initial evidence in support of any claim I may have against a law firm, a judge or any other party that put that false and misrepresentative information into the public record and then relied on it to steal my property.  After all, in judicial states, where I see most of the atrocities committed, the foreclosure mill attorneys are the ones attaching these documents in their pleadings, as exhibits, or in the alternative, making reference to said exhibits, to be used as evidence to support their complaints to justify the foreclosure.

The pleadings themselves (in original or amended form) also become part of the evidence package in support of my claim, because they contain the language that relies on the false and misrepresentative statements where an assignment was posited or referenced therein as evidence in support of their claim.  This package should include every single document placed within the court docket, including the index sheet … certified copies (and 1 plain copy for review). 

You’re probably asking yourself where the promissory note comes into play here, because judicial states mandate you have to have the original note in order to foreclose. In non-judicial states, possession of the note is not required to foreclose; thus, all foreclosures are assumed to be legal unless otherwise challenged.  This means that if you’re in one of the non-judicial states, you have to institute suit based on the chain of title you have, in order to start the paper trail.  Thus, non-judicial state property owners are at a distinct disadvantage because they must spend the money filing a lawsuit to stop the foreclosure and obtain a temporary restraining order (TRO) and they are limited at best as to what is provable and what isn’t because the other side has not responded to the suit.  You can’t make boisterous claims either, as you will be denied the TRO and that is what you’re seeking to shut down the foreclosure sale.   You see, until the other side responds, they’ve created no paper trail you can assert contains false and misrepresentative statements, which is why I like using a C & E (an acronym for Cancellation & Expungement Complaint) “right out of the gate” if I realize I might not be able to make my mortgage loan payments any more.  Waiting until the 11th hour to file one of these Complaints (in of itself) has been definitely proven to be a waste of time and financial resources.  Filing a wrongful foreclosure action (before the fact) is also a waste of time and financial resources because the foreclosure has not occurred yet (and this is supported by case law).  I mention all of this because your research becomes fundamental as part of creating the paper trail.

Any oral statements made in court have to be supported by some sort of record.  This is why we have court reporters.  Most pro se litigants and uneducated homeowners conveniently forget to retain a court reporter to document everything said in open court to their disadvantage. This means that with no court record, there’s nothing to take up on appeal or challenge because you’ve “stiffed” yourself out of a paper trail.  Besides, having a court reporter has been shown to keep the judge honest.  Don’t think that just because the county can afford to have its own court reporter there means you can simply rely on getting a copy of the transcript from the county’s court reporter.  They are backlogged with work and will take their time getting anything to you, at a time when having a transcript of the proceedings might be timely necessary.  This always works to the homeowner’s disadvantage.  That is deliberate!  Why?  Because the county is using its own court reporter to “cover its own ass” and you can bet stuff will be left out of the record.  Then it’s your word against the county’s.  So, tis better to get your own court reporter!  You need to create your own “timely paper trail” for future use and reference.  This is not a traffic ticket we’re talking about here!

Discovery is vital whether or not you are doing a C & E (which allows you to do discovery of the party executing the assignment and the notary who acknowledged the assignment) or a full-blown complaint to stop the foreclosure.  Discovery responses becomes part of your evidence package … and the “paper trail”!  If you don’t propound discovery on the other side or at least the relevant parties (the ones who created the assignment), you’re on a sinking ship.  All of the discovery (and the responses you get) become part of the paper trail.

Depositions are a must!  These are taken using a court reporter who writes down every single word that is spoken and many of them use video cameras (which is allowed) to take taped statements, which is even more intimidating.  I find that going after the creator of the document, the executor of the document and the notary who acknowledged the document are vital to creating a proper paper trail (not so much the creator of the document, unless you’re trying to solidify that the law firm or servicer was involved in a civil conspiracy with the agents who executed the assignment).  You’re only talking a minimum of TWO DEPOSITIONS here … the executor of the assignment and the notary who acknowledged it.  What authority did they have to execute the document?  Where is the notary’s bond?  Is there even a bond?  Can we attack the notary’s commission even though there is no bonding requirement?  YOU BET!  Attacking a notary’s bond (if there is one to go after) can be a source of cash flow to support your court fight. You can bet the other side will object to everything you ask for because they don’t want anything said on the record that can be used against them in court.

In all matters related to your case, PHONE CALLS DO NOT WORK!  You cannot take phone calls into court!  DO NOT CALL THE NOTARY!  Do not contact the notary by mail!  If you’re sending them a subpoena to appear at a deposition … their deposition … you do it through a process server … which is also a legitimate part of your paper trail!   I have people who have contacted me who do exactly what I just suggested NOT TO DO.  They scare the notary into hiding.  When it does come time to serve them with a subpoena, they can’t be found.  Duh!  And these people actually think they’re doing the right thing?  Seriously?  What part of desperation is incorporated into stupidity?  This is where you have to put your emotions aside and start thinking “common sense”.

THE EXPERT WITNESS AFFIDAVIT AND LIVE COURT TESTIMONY

I’m talking “expert witness attorney” here, not your average forensic loan or securitization auditor (who thinks they’re an expert witness).  Why an attorney for an expert witness?  Allow me to re-arrange your brain’s priorities through the following three reasons:

REASON #1: Litigation Consultant … your expert witness attorney can also serve as a litigation consultant to help you frame some damning discovery centered around statutory violations!  This is important because using the stuff I mentioned previously in The Quiet Title War Manual has nothing to do whether or not you can challenge assignments because you’re not a third-party beneficiary.  That is a bullshit banking argument that has nothing to do with the statute in question!  The statutes speak directly to the recording of documents known to contain false and misrepresentative information!  Separate the two distinctions in your mind because the borrower’s name is in the assignment; the borrower is a party to securitization (if that’s an issue) and because the document involves misrepresentations that may include “MERS” (in whatever form), which claim that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. had something to do with negotiating the instrument (the note), which runs contrary to what’s in the assignment, generally.

REASON #2: Personal Knowledge of the Facts … this happens when the expert witness attorney reviews all of your documents.  He can testify as to their factual basis AND render a legal opinion … BOTH under oath and under penalty of perjury as a lawyer!  This is way different than having a so-called “expert” that’s NOT an attorney testify as to anything factual … they can’t give legal opinions; otherwise, in doing so, their testimony could be impeached or effectively diluted under cross examination. Not only that … because the attorney who serves as your expert witness is sitting in the court (prior to giving his testimony), he actually gleans personal knowledge listening to the other side’s attorney further the false and misrepresentative information to the court … for which the damage is immediate (see In re Wilson, U.S. Bkpt Ct E.D. La No 07-11862, Memorandum of Law in Support of the United States Trustee’s Motion for Sanctions against Lender Processing Services, Inc. and the Boles Law Firm), which says:

“Untruthful statements made in bankruptcy proceedings undermine the integrity of the bankruptcy process. The bankruptcy system relies on the candor and accuracy of information presented by all parties, creditors and debtors alike. To ensure candor before this Court and to protect the integrity of the bankruptcy system, this Court should impose on Fidelity and Boles monetary sanctions and other non-monetary relief as this Court deems appropriate pursuant to its inherent authority to sanction abusive litigants coming before the Court, and pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a).”  And from the following footnote, No. 16):

“Rule 9011 provides a 20 day “safe harbor” in which a party may withdraw the challenged written representations, unless they are contained in the bankruptcy petition. If the challenged paper is withdrawn, it would not be considered by the court in its decision making process. However, there can be no safe harbor for untruthful statements made in open court, because the harm that results is likely to be immediate.”

(I just told you the Expert Witness Attorney would be there to hear all of the “immediate” misrepresentations.)  This is an actual case where Wells Fargo Bank got hit with a $1.3-million sanction!

This is an attorney, namely, the Bankruptcy Trustee, reporting misconduct! He is telling the other side (through his memorandum, they’ve been given fair warning to recant what they’ve placed into the court record).   If you didn’t catch that so far … let me make sure to clarify this in the following “reason”:

REASON #3: Rule 8.3 – Reporting Professional Misconduct … this is a mandated state bar rule (how many foreclosure defense attorneys actually follow it?)

(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.

The foregoing mandates (which is what “shall” means, not “may”) are put there to hold attorneys accountable to report misconduct. What forensic loan auditor or securitization auditor is mandated by the Bar’s own rules to to this?  Come on, think?  Where’s the mandate?

(long pause, heavy sigh)  Come up with one yet? Didn’t think so.

This means that when the expert witness comes into personal knowledge of the facts that the other side’s lawyer has committed felony perjury by making false and misrepresentative statements in open court, he has a mandated duty (for which the State Bar must listen) to report the other lawyer’s misconduct!

This also means that if the judge hearing your case doesn’t give a shit and let’s this scumbag attorney for the bank say whatever he wants and get away with it and hands your property over to the bank AFTER your expert witness attorney advises (through a legal opinion) that the other side’s lawyer, in both pleadings and exhibits and oral statements made, has committed misconduct, not only is the judge exposed and now at risk, but the county he is employed by may also be “on the hook”.

At least bankruptcy judges have the decency to “do the right thing”.  I recently noted the results of the Sundquist ruling in California.  Sundquist-Memo-Opinion

A lot of this depends on how “stacked” your paper trail is and what evidence of misconduct you were able to actually PROVE (not just assert).

EXPOSED RISK FACTORS 

BTW, for those of you “Patriots” out there … a majority of the judges’ oaths of office I’ve seen were actually recorded in the public record in the county they serve in!  This is important to recognize the WHY you’d want a certified copy of their oath of office.   THE PAPER TRAIL!   It’s proof he/she (as a judge) is serving IN THAT COUNTY!

Most counties are self-insured.  The county has either a County Executive or Risk Manager who handles their claims because of something an employee did wrong.  Who would think to tag a judge?   After all, aren’t the judges bonded?   What happens if the bond is attacked, challenged and successfully revoked?   The judge can’t sit on the bench, right?  He will probably be placed on administrative leave while the county investigates what happened.  But that’s not all the county has to worry about.

As a result of the trial or hearing (whether it be evidentiary or just one of those 5-minute “rocket docket” style pieces of crap), there are two other complaints that must be reported … a complaint on the lawyer to the State Bar that can discipline him … and a complaint on the judge to the appropriate judicial authority.  More paper trail to show the County … to give them fair warning that they need to step up or face the consequences!

ALL OF THIS HAS TO BE DONE BY THE EXPERT WITNESS ATTORNEY … WHO IS MANDATED TO “PULL THE TRIGGER”!   PRO SE LITIGANTS (who think they know more than the expert witness attorney) WILL ONLY F**K THIS UP IF THEY TRY TO DO IT THEMSELVES (calling into the county or the bar or the judicial review board and whining about their silly little issues, or filing crap judicial misconduct complaints, which is how the major insurance players in this game will view their cheap efforts to avoid having to pay for an expert witness attorney).  I put this part in the back end of this post as a caveat, because it’s the expert witness attorney who has the “big stick of dynamite with the short fuse” … NOT YOU! 

It gets better … stay tuned for another round of insight into the insurance game in the next segment! The title companies are also in this up to their ears (among other places)!

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

GUTTING THE UNDERBELLY OF THE BEAST – PART 4

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

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

WHY INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE “RISK AVERSE”

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

SCHEDULE “B”

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

“BEAN COUNTERS”

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

AGENCY, NEXUS AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY

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

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

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

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

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

NEGLIGENCE

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

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

ENTITY REPRESENTATION

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

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

1 Comment

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