Tag Archives: REMIC

MIAMI-DADE JUDGE BITCH SLAPS US BANK!

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) — 

It’s not every day a judge gets vile with a plaintiff REMIC trying to foreclose on some unsuspecting homeowner … however; in this case, Judge Beatrice Butchko (of the infamous Buset case, you know, the one she said where HSBC came into court with unclean hands?) did a smack down on U.S. Bank’s attorneys with a show cause order:

Signed-Order-to-Show-Cause

If the infamous Buset case wasn’t enough for you, this case has some serious robosigning underpinnings, thanks to your wonderful friends at Bank of America, N.A.:

ZAYAS ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE

And for those of you C&E fans out there … you’ll be glad to see what’s in the assignment of mortgage that Bank of America contract workers in Simi Valley, California (B of A’s document mill) cranked out, all those famous names, the names you know … Dominique Johnson, Mary Ann Hierman and Srbui Muradyan … and lest we forget L.A. Llanos, who signed the document under penalty of perjury under California law!  Sadly, a Miami-Dade law firm was involved in the manufacture of the assignment.  Can you see the name of the attorney in the upper, left-hand corner of the recorded Instrument?

They even backdated the assignment to March 6, 2010.  But no matter … the REMIC trust was closed on March 30, 2006, so backdating the assignment to March 6, 2010 means nothing. The REMIC’s cut-off date was March 1, 2006.  And let’s talk about the ADVANCES section, shall we?

Anyone researching into MortgageIt knows this entity was fully acquired by Deutsche Bank Structured Products on January 3, 2007, nearly 3 years after MortgageIt went public.  The two would later settle fraud charges under the federal False Claims Act for repeated false certifications to HUD.  In January of 2018, MortgageIT ceased its wholesale lending practices.

Under the ADVANCES section, do you notice that this section is all about the Servicer and NOT the REMIC?  From the looks of these two paragraphs, this REMIC was subprime shit!

And for those of you who think CoreLogic is your friend, think again.  And exactly what happened to the Simi Valley, California document mill, in which a majority of the assignments involved or named CoreLogic within the document?   All of a sudden, it ceased to exist, after reportedly retaining over 40 contract robosigners to affix their signatures to assignments like the one shown in this post, supervised by at least 3 Bank of America employees.  The majority of the Simi Valley garbage was produced between 2012 and 2015.  Anything you see involving the law firm handling the processing of the foreclosure, CoreLogic and Bank of America should be considered suspect and flagged for investigation.

Where’s the Note?

Good question.  There’s no mention of it in the assignment of mortgage.  There are (to date) 181 docket listings for this case, leading up to the judge’s Show Cause Order.

The Note was never assigned.  And we all know that notes are “negotiated” right?   So … we went looking for the October 21, 2005 note in the Court file and voila:

Notice the indorsement-in-blank is undated?  There is no effective date of transfer, nor does it evidence 3 true sales as stated within the REMIC’s own sales pitch (below), needed to occur.  And exactly HOW MANY payments of principal and interest did the servicer make to the certificate holders before it demanded to be reimbursed.  How many credit default swaps were executed as part of the deal that paid out?   How much default insurance was cashed in on?   Certainly the title was screwed up?   How much did the sponsor-seller make off of claiming that the securities were equitable instruments when they were, in fact, nothing but evidence of debt.  This is the problem with Wall Street … fooling investors and the government into believing that this subprime shit actually had value when the trusts were probably empty promises to begin with!

SEC Info – Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Inc – ‘424B5’ on 3:29:06 re: Specialty Underwriting & Re

A lot of “proof” has to go into the pudding, so let’s take a look at the recent Certo case and see if we can glean any juicy details as far as the note is concerned:

Certo v BONY Mellon, 1D17-4421 (Apr 3, 2019)

I know.  It’s information overload.  But it’s current … and in the Certo case, the 1st DCA reversed the circuit court’s ruling of foreclosure.

And how is it that MERS alone was being relied on by people who had little to no idea was MERS was (in the assignment)?  At least one contract worker who said he worked at the BofA document mill said he signed over 225 documents a day as a Vice President of MERS and had no idea who MERS was!  If that’s not f**ked up, I don’t know what is!  But hey, when you put your faith in the American Banking System, you get F**KED!

The author of this post is the authored of Clouded Titles, available at CloudedTitles.com!  The commentary expressed herein is the opinion of the authors and does not constitute legal advice.  If you want legal advice, get an attorney that knows how to properly draft and file a cancellation and expungement action on a recorded assignment,  In Florida, we like F.C.C. § 817.535, which has a civil component to it.

To all of the C&E students who recently attended the Las Vegas workshop … see if you can spot the targets in the Assignment of Mortgage in this article!  How many in-state and out-0f-state defendants and/or deponents can you identify?   Put that show cause order date on your calendar.  I’ll be interested to see what Judge Butchko does to these morons.

It’s funny that they can come into court and assert stuff.  Then, when asked to prove it up through discovery, they refuse to give us the goods that we can use to eviscerate them.  Lest we also forget … what about this piece?: U_S_BANK_Brochure_Borrower-is-a-party_9-13

All of this stuff leaves us with a lot of questions, right?    But it appears Judge Butchko isn’t leaving a lot to chance.  She appears to have closed a lot of loopholes versus the outcome in the Buset case, where she determined HSBC came to court with unclean hands.  It won’t be the first time.

If Deutsche Bank subsumed MortgageIT in 2007, how did this REMIC, with US Bank as its Trustee, end up with the Note and Mortgage in 2010, long after the REMIC closed?

See IRC § 860(g) and New York Estates Powers & Trusts § 7-2.4.

Bruce Jacobs certainly has his hands full again, right?

To be continued.

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

STARING AT DOUBLE D’S ???

(OP-ED) — The author of this post issues the following warning:  Make sure that you vet whoever it is you’re going to associate with in life, especially in the pursuit of fighting corrupt banks and those who may claim they have a “silver bullet”.   There are lots of naysayers and gainsayers occupying the Internet these days.  Thus, surfing the Internet looking for answers to foreclosure dilemmas and jumping at the first thing that sounds plausible to you is risky!

The Internet is a dangerous place … full of information and disinformation!

It has come to my attention that certain entities out there have taken somewhat of a liking to the cancellation and expungement actions discussed in the recent Las Vegas workshop, covered by this author and Al West, Esq.  The reason Al West teaches this stuff is because he’s done it before.  He has eliminated both deeds of trust and assignments from land records in California.  Since then, there has been an evolution of the cancellation and expungement action, one that has certainly been overlooked by attorneys elsewhere, because they can’t make a big return off of doing “sniper approach” tactics.  Nope.  They want to file 20-count lawsuits because that racks up tens of thousands of dollars in fees for them.  This is part of the reason why the justice system has failed America … use of the “shotgun approach”.

So they take to the Internet, take an approach to the C&E and “embellish” it to their own tastes, whether it comports with what we taught (or not).  There’s nothing worse than filing a C&E and not sticking to the point and letting the other side’s servicer or lender come in and ruin things by changing the judge’s mind, even though the law says otherwise.

Damn every judge that won’t follow the law!   I hope they all rot in hell! 

As Al West explained in the C&E Workshop, judges are all worried about their pensions which are invested in these REMIC trusts.  Thus, any time something that looks “legitimately suspect” comes before them, they look into the end result and what it might mean for them before they issue a ruling against the party filing the C&E. If you bring up the note, you deserve to lose, because the note has nothing to do with the false statements made on the assignments and other title documents, including releases of lien and even notices of lis pendens!

Discussing the implications of foul play in an assignment is one thing.  Telling a judge the note has something to do with the false statements in an assignment is quite another.

Anyone who wants to make securitization the focal point of their argument in a C&E is putting their cases at risk as well.  This document does not talk about who has what endorsement on what note.  The documents filed in the land records serve as constructive notice, no matter how long they’ve been there!  Notes are only used as SUPPORTING EVIDENCE!

Thank you Patriots! 

And I’m not talking about the football team either ….  I’m talking about those well-meaning individuals out there that want to pro se, pro per, sui juris, su-eeee, su-eeee (how you call a pig) whatever that screwed up the land records filing false liens against judges, county officials and people with whom they have an axe to grind.  THOSE are the folks that caused the “two-edged sword” legislation to come into fruition because they filed documents into the land records that were clearly criminal, causing every state legislature to pass laws prohibiting the recording of such documents (that contain false information).  What’s good for the goose, then, is good for the gander. Those who got in trouble for it went to jail, unless they were a mortgage loan servicer or its employees.  Then, they just flat out used falsely-stated information in an assignment to simply “steal the house”!  They’re proud of it too!

THE COTA

Unless you understand how your title documents come into play in the land record (which I why I started out doing Chain Of Title Assessments), you won’t have a clue WHY your chain of title is screwed up.  The interrelation of the land records has everything to do with the outcome of the C&E and a judge has to be educated well enough in the process to understand that there are issues with a document that cannot be ignored, which is why we have expert witness attorneys who will testify on behalf of the claimant, in an effort to sustain the integrity of the court, to save the judge from being tossed into prison under state statute, for aiding and abetting felony perjury!

Do you feel as if you’re in the middle of a freaking carnival?

There’s a dog and pony show jumping on our bandwagon at every turn … and we don’t even have a bandwagon!  So why do lawyers say that homeowners love the simplicity of a C&E?  Because lawyers can’t make any money doing them.  Or so they think.  Had they come to the workshop, like some lawyers did, they would have learned that in certain instances, there are methods for securing additional funds to bolster the war chest that are out there and available to attorneys (ripe for the picking).  In the alternative, case law has taught us a few ways to take an individual’s confession and turn it into gold.

Yet, the carnies are out there!   You know, those carnival barkers!  Yelling at everyone to come and see the greatest show on earth???  It’s like going to the circus and you’re the main attraction.   And you look up at the trapeze artist … all in glitter … and wonder … will she fall?   Do you ever feel like you’re swinging in the wind like her?

The C&E workshop video set is almost complete!  We’ll have it available on the Clouded Titles website soon!  Get educated, then get ugly!

Oh …

And those Double D’s you were staring at?

They stand for DUE DILIGENCE!

 

11 Comments

Filed under OP-ED, Securitization Issues, workshop

DEFEATING DIVERSITY IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) — The author of this post is the author of Clouded Titles, The Quiet Title War Manual, The C & E on Steroids!, The FDCPA, Debt Collection & Foreclosures, The Credit Restoration Primer, End Game Strategies, Beyond End Game Strategies and host of The Krieger Files.  The opinions expressed herein are that of the author and should not be construed as legal advice.  For legal advice, seek competent counsel that clearly understands what constitutes diversity jurisdiction.

Even in its most liberal stature, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has again, redefined and re-explained that REMIC trusts can end up costing you lots of money in litigation, fighting a losing battle in federal court by re-constituting an opinion of what constitutes diversity jurisdiction.  See the link below to the 17-page ruling:

Demarest v HSBC Bank USA NA, 9th App Cir No 17-56432 (Apr 8, 2019)

You’ll readily notice in the caption on Page 1 that HSBC and MERS were “incorrectly sued”, which would indicate to me they were sued in the wrong name, as indicated in the caption.

Part of the problem here is that the trustee was also sued (Western Progressive, LLC) and the trustee was also out-of-state as to its “headquarters”, which put all of the Defendants, coupled with the $75,000 required for complete diversity jurisdiction, squarely in federal court.

Again, Hawaii Attorney Gary Victor Dubin, who is again in the crosshairs of the Hawaii Bar (thanks to the banks and their attorneys who don’t like lawyers who beat them in court), likens being in federal court to suicide, which he has succinctly stated that it (suicide) is better than being in federal court.  Yet, a lot of people end up becoming victims within the federal system because of improper and incomplete pleadings.   Couple that with WHO you sue and the numbers of removed cases rise exponentially.

Why sue MERS?

This entity is the “bastard child” of MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., which is now owned by Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (which also owns the New York Stock Exchange).  This newly-acquired entity has the backing of Wall Street.  The ownership of MERS may have changed, but the stupidity of the courts in relying on every tenet of MERS’s flawed business model incorporated within the “MERS® System”, has caused nothing but utter conflict among the state courts and federal circuit courts.

Like MERS says or intimates in its pleadings (among some of the third-person, schizophrenic quotations from its collective counsel and others), “We didn’t do anything wrong!”  “We want to be all things to all people!”  “We are the God of Securitization!”  (sic)  “We are everyone’s beneficiary that names us in their mortgages and deeds of trust!”  “We can be a nominee (agent) and beneficiary at the same time!”  “We can do anything we want, because we’re MERS!”  “We can remove you to federal court because we know your pleadings lack sufficiency and we can get them dismissed!”  “We can be in multiple states at any given moment and the federal judges will do what we say because we own them!” (that’s what they think, seriously).

Knowing you’re dealing with such a filthy, stinking rich entity that kowtows to Wall Street, why in bloody hell would you name them in anything?  Do you seriously have deep pockets?

You’re dealing with a multi-billion-dollar-a-year company here.   Here are some facts you should face:

  1. You signed the mortgage (or deed of trust).  No one held a gun to your head.  You could have walked away from the closing, but you didn’t.
  2. You could have read the entire agreement, asked questions; and when you didn’t get sufficient answers, you could have put off the closing until you got clarification, but you didn’t.
  3. You had no idea that the closing agent and the entity that agent represented knew (or should have known) WHERE the funds were coming from; how the funds were getting to the escrow account that was wiring your funds to the closing agent; and all of the details regarding the validity of the “lender” and “mortgagee of record”.
  4. You had no idea what the acronym “MIN” meant … nor had you any idea of the 18-digit number following that acronym.
  5. You had no idea your loan was being securitized through a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) on Wall Street.
  6. You had no idea that your home loan was being funded by investors unknown to you.

Yet, you got hoodwinked into signing your life away to a life of potential PTFD (Post-Traumatic Foreclosure Disorder), should you fail to make your monthly mortgage payments!

What constitutes diversity jurisdiction?

In order to be able to remove a lawsuit to federal court (which is a court of limited jurisdiction), two things have to occur:

  1. The Plaintiff is a resident of State “A”, while the Defendant(s) are known to be residents of State “B”.
  2. The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.

Gee … I wonder what would happen if the homeowner showed the caption as:

Joan Demarest and the Registered Holders of Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-HE2 … as joint petitioners … with NO defendants listed … and asked for a declaratory judgment ruling on the merits of WHO got screwed in this deal?  Where’s the controversy then?  (you attorneys can chime in here)

In order to have justiciable controversy (the makings of a proper lawsuit that a court can claim jurisdiction to rule on), you have to have a Plaintiff and a Defendant(s).  If you have “joint petitioners” and NO defendants, how can there be a “controversy” if both joint petitioners agree on the same thing?  Despite the fact that the certificate holders are from all over the world, some of them (To Be Determined) may be in the state you’re residing in (State “A”).   If there’s no State “B”, then why list DOES 1-10, inclusive, like this case did?    I actually litigated a case (while out of state) through the mail, with a co-party, as joint petitioners, and got my ruling from a court in Missouri!  Does that surprise you?

Diversity FAILS if … 

  1. There is no amount in controversy (which is what you have in a declaratory relief case, like a cancellation and expungement action (C&E) over a bogus document in the land records; and
  2. You aren’t naming out-of-state defendants until the in-state defendants respond and lock the case up in state court.

Does this make any legal sense to you?

This is part of what we taught in the C&E Workshop in Las Vegas April 6th and 7th. 

America’s land records are a “crime scene”!

MERS’s flawed business model helped make it that way.  Over 80-million homeowners who unknowingly borrowed investor money through securitized mortgages did the rest of the damage.  It was “intentional” on MERS’s part.   It was ‘unintentional” on the homeowners’ part.

Despite the fact you can beat diversity, certain entities will remove the case to federal court anyway, just to F**K with you and your pocketbook!  MERS is one of those entities.

There is a right way and a wrong way to approach this scenario.  What Joan Demarest did in her case was the wrong way.

The “trustee” is a necessary party in Deed of Trust states!

You should know that if you name the trustee in your lawsuit, it’s likely that the trustee is “headquartered” out-of-state.   The trustee (in this case) was declared by the 9th Circuit panel to be a “real party to the controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction when he possess certain customary powers to hold, manage, and dispose of assets for the benefit of others”.

This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 27, 2016.  You would think that by then, anyone involved in this case could have figured out what the “end result” could be … but NO!  We have attorneys out there that like to use the “shotgun approach” instead of the “sniper approach”.  This is why California Attorney Al West and I put together “The C & E on Steroids!”   It’s a sniper approach to cleaning up the “crime scene”.   If you clean up the “crime scene”, then what evidence is there that a crime occurred?  What evidence is there that a party has standing to foreclose when the intended “consequence” of an assignment is declared void, cancelled and expunged from the land records?

This is why we found instructional appellate case law to support our research and methodology for doing these types of “sniper approach” end game strategies.  Everyone wants an “end game”.  Getting to that point is why people run into trouble having their dirty laundry removed to federal court where it’s likely to get dismissed on a 12(b)(6) motion.  And the foreclosure happens anyway, because “we’re too pissed to think straight!”

Watch the movie “American Sniper”.  Then, liken that mindset to your approach.  Knowing WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHY you need to “take out” a target makes all the difference in the world.

Look for The C & E on Steroids!, along with the DVD training video kit, available in early May, only on CloudedTitles.com!

Sniper training at your fingertips!

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, Securitization Issues, workshop

U.S. SUPREME COURT SLAMS OBDUSKEY’S DOOR SHUT!

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) — The author of this post is a consultant to attorneys on chain of title matters and issues involving “the system of things”.  Please read the attached ruling and take from it what is necessary for your educational benefit.

While this ruling was not expected to be a total slam dunk of “per curiam” nature, it sent a hard message to U.S. consumers regarding the collection of a debt versus the enforcement of a security interest.  Obduskey brought suit in the 10th Circuit on matters involving the FDCPA (debt collection) against a law firm that was simply enforcing a security interest.

See the High Court’s ruling here: Obduskey v McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 586 U.S. ___ (2019)

It’s a 12-page ruling (with syllabus).  It didn’t take long after oral arguments to come with this diatribe either, which brings me back to another major issue …

HOW is a trustee in a non-judicial setting supposed to enforce a security instrument?  Foreclose on it.

A trustee cannot enforce a security instrument if the chain of title documents are NOT in order.  In other words, if the opinion says the foreclosure mill law firms can simply declare they’re enforcing security instruments, when the end result will be to foreclose and sell the property to pay a sum certain (a debt), then this is all about “language” and our understanding of it.  If we can’t use the FDCPA to back our claims, as of this ruling, then there is only one other strategy left to resort to: attack on the chain of title!

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE CHAIN OF TITLE

You signed a security instrument at closing.  No one held a gun to your head.  In non-judicial states, foreclosure is conducted by enforcing the security instrument and the promissory note you signed is irrelevant.  Whoever has the authority to enforce the deed of trust is empowered to do so.

The problem is … in the process of “patting themselves on the back”, the non-judicial “trustees” attempting to enforce the security instrument had to rely on the instrument itself … playing through the chain of title … through potential suspect bogus assignments … in an effort to “give” themselves authority to foreclose which would normally be considered ultra vires (without authority).

One such case that Al West and I will be teaching at the upcoming Foreclosure Defense Workshop in Las Vegas (April 6-7, 2019), is a case out of California that has great instructional value … a case that went sideways for the REMIC … a case where the foreclosure was declared “unlawful” by the appellate court … AND REVERSED!

More importantly, the assignment was attacked!  The superior court judge (of course, as expected) tossed the whole matter out, forcing the homeowner to appeal him.  The appellate court ruled that the ASSIGNMENT WAS VOID!  As a result of the assignment being VOID (NOT VOIDABLE), the case was remanded as REVERSED as to the foreclosure; REVERSED as to the chain of title assignment attack; and REVERSED as to slander of title, because all of the issues weren’t presented properly and thus, weren’t addressed properly by the lower court.  The instructional value of this case is huge: Gauna v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA

We will be addressing the specific issues necessary to attack the assignment at the upcoming workshop!  We still have seats available.  And just when you thought there was no end in sight, we get an instructional unpublished opinion that validates the Cancellation & Expungement Actions that Al West has been using the past several years to wipe out security instruments!  Now you get to see Al West share this information in a live event in Las Vegas (in a 2-day power-packed informational workshop).

In fact, several attorneys from around the country are attending.  What does that tell you?   Maybe you should be there too?

See the attached Registration Form for details: FDW REGISTRATION FORM_LAS VEGAS_2019

Want to see a schedule of what’s being taught, click this link: FDW 2019 WORKSHOP_LAS VEGAS_SYLLABUS

The new book is out … and will only be available to workshop attendees:

We are NOT selling this book online, because it contains information that (by itself) would be like giving a baby a stick of dynamite with a short fuse!

If you think we can’t use this material to potentially get foreclosure mill attorneys disbarred, think again!

If you think we can’t use this material to attack notaries in a more effective manner, think again!

There are very few seats left at this workshop … we are almost sold out!  We cannot expand the room to accommodate more attendees.  You have little time to waste.  We will allow you to bring your attorney to the event at the “COUPLES RATE”.  Contact us through the CLOUDED TITLES website email link (click on the TITLE) for more information about space availability!

We will show you WHY this attack plan (on steroids) works and why it has worked in the past (when properly litigated)!

THIS STUFF WORKS IN ALL 50 STATES!  

WE DO NOT USE IT IN FEDERAL COURT!

WE SHOW YOU HOW TO KEEP IT OUT OF FEDERAL COURT!

WE SHOW YOU WHY JUDGES WILL HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT!

See you there!

1 Comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, Securitization Issues, workshop

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