Tag Archives: security instrument

TEN YEARS LATER … HAS YOUR DEFINITION OF “INSANITY” CHANGED YET?

(OP-ED) — The author of this post posits these comments based on his own observations and none of this should be construed to be legal advice. For the record, the definition of “insanity” is … doing the same thing for the next 10 years you did the last 10 years expecting different results. 

Who would have ever thought that me breaking my foot would steer me down a path of moral concern, that is, America’s foreclosure crisis based on phony documents?

The Beginning of Insanity

It all began in mid-2007, when, quite by accident, I was surfing the county clerk’s website looking for details on my Texas property and discovered repetitive references to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter “MERS”).  I had no idea who MERS was until I started doing further research into this entity only to discover this electronic database had been around since at least 1999.  It didn’t even occur to me that MERS was a brainchild of the banks because at that time, there wasn’t much information out there because the lawsuits that have made the annals of American history were not made manifest yet.

I also had no idea that MERS and the banks were working hand in hand to further their “case wins” in courts by posturing MERS as some sort of legitimate “party” that had the right to foreclose on property.  I only discovered this in 2009 after I started doing serious research into security instruments and all of the accompanying documents that littered the land records across America in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 and the previous redux of securitization, which finally reared its ugly head in a way that most Americans could understand.  It was at that time I started to develop what would later become the Chain of Title Assessment (COTA).  How the documents interrelated to each other became more important than the actual information contained within each document because a pattern of behavior became obvious which was worth doing more research on.  That pattern of behavior was recorded assignments being placed within the land records just prior to a foreclosure being commenced on any given piece of property in America.

By mid-2010, I had a specific pattern identified and was able to develop a COTA checklist based on that pattern of misbehavior.  The pattern was not just a making of the law firm or the trustees attempting to enforce security instruments.  It became obvious later on in the game that the law firms and trustees actually were doing the bidding of the mortgage loan servicers; however, that realization did not come until AFTER Clouded Titles had been published (in December of 2010).  It was not until mid-2012 that things began to surface that would lead me straight to identifying who was behind all of the chicanery that enveloped all 3,041 of our nation’s real property records.  At that point in time, I had already established a working relationship with several Texas Clerks and had lectured to their Clerks’ School, sponsored by the V.G. Young Institute for County Government.  Williamson County Clerk Nancy Rister and Williamson County government were the first to attack MERS and the servicers and third-party document mills head-on in a land record audit, which was formally released in January of 2013.

WILLIAMSON COUNTY REAL PROPERTY RECORDS AUDIT_January 29, 2013

Judging by MERS’s reaction to the audit, I knew we were onto something. MERS went out of its way to try to debunk the 179 pages of damning assertions that the mortgage loan servicers and their third-party document mills were the ones behind all of the false and misrepresentative statements we would soon come to identify in the hundreds of COTAs I would being conducting since Clouded Titles was released.  Reporters kept telling me that MERS claimed it did nothing wrong and my reply was, “Then why is everybody suing them?”

A Big Mistake

The chain of title assessment (COTA) has been referenced as a “chain of title analysis”; however, through whatever name you want to give it, the research that goes into a COTA makes it a report, an investigative piece if you will.  By the time that the mortgage loan servicers agreed with 49 states Attorneys’ General to stop production on fraudulent documents, word had spread not only to the legal community but also the public at large, that this chicanery was widespread. Foreclosure victims became outraged at the thought of being defrauded through the illicit use of the land records.  It was at about that time that the COTA hit the courts.  Reliance on a COTA in a court of law or of equity is a huge mistake as many have discovered.  Proof of that will be made manifest in this post.  By the time homeowners and their attorneys ran screaming into court about the “fraud” in the documents, MERS and the banks had already set case precedent that the contents of the documents could not be challenged because the borrowers were not “third party beneficiaries” to the assignments and therefore had no right to challenge.  In my opinion, this lame excuse of not benefitting from the assignment was a ploy to gain favor with the courts, whose judges went along with the argument because the homeowners’ attorneys had no comeback to the argument.  The big mistake however, was the misuse of the COTA and the laziness of homeowners’ counsel to conduct proper discovery.

Many litigants ran into court with their research and attempted to use it as “evidence” to prove their theories that they were defrauded by and through the use of “fraudulent documents” recorded in the public records. Once such case involving this posts’s author manifested itself in Texas on November 25, 2013, in the same year that the Williamson County Real Property Records Audit was released.  See the case below and pay attention to the references on Page 4, where this author’s name is mentioned:

Brown v BANA_Tex 5th App Dist No 05-12-01382-CV (Nov 25, 2013)

Quoting my name and my book and making references to it is not PROOF as the Appellant soon learned the hard way.

During the time span from the time this case came out, Clouded Titles had been on the market for three years and had expanded from its 254-page original version to 432 pages (not the Mayday Edition, which is the revised final version). I knew that judges and attorneys were aware of it … and not just because of its consistent use in the courts.  By that time, the Circuit Clerk of Osceola County, Florida, Armando Ramirez, was introduced to the book and was encouraged by the public to make contact with the author, which led to the commissioning of another land record investigation, which was conducted roughly 90 days AFTER the mortgage loan servicers vowed in writing never to launder the land records with fraudulent documents again, as shown below:

OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION

The author of this post, once this document was made public, was attacked by the media in what appeared to be political retribution against the Clerk of the Circuit Court (Ramirez), who was again elected to his Clerk’s post in a majority vote the following election cycle.  However, this time, MERS did not play a role in the politicizing and demonizing of the report, which had an attorney opinion letter attached to it like the Williamson County report did.  Instead, the media and foreclosure mill law firms jumped into the fray, slamming the Clerk for spending county money on a report that they maliciously called a “foreclosure audit”.  Again, misuse of the COTA.  The Report issued to the Clerk was just that … a Report outlining the abuses that continued in his own land records from June 1, 2012 to June 1, 2014, well after the mortgage loan servicers agreed to stop putting false and misrepresentative documents in the land records, where they still appear to be continuing on through today!

The Bigger Mistake

What’s even worse is that a lot of wannabe “investigators” who claimed that their research was solid proof did not pass muster in other cases.  As I will demonstrate in the upcoming Chain Of Title Assessment Workshop, to be held online on the Clouded Titles website starting on February 1, 2020, this author has been pontificating all through the ages that Chain of Title Assessments (COTAs) are NOT EVIDENCE in court, despite the ignorance of litigants and their attorneys.  In this workshop, the author will cite a U.S. Supreme Court case that clearly identifies a COTA as research developed from multiple sources and compiled into a report, which this author has constantly maintained is to be used for case development and not as evidence in of itself.  But given the desperation of homeowners, along with the mistakes made by these alleged “foreclosure rescue services” that claim the COTA is their Holy Grail in order to make a buck, these assessments are STILL NOT EVIDENCE in court, as the most recent case out of Idaho demonstrates:

Losee v Deutsche Bank Natl Trust Co, Sup Ct Idaho No 45721 (Nov 29, 2019)

Do you see the date on this case?  It was just issued the day before this author published this post! 

What in the hell are these people thinking?  If I have maintained that a 1943 United States Supreme Court ruling by this nation’s highest court mandates that COTAs cannot be relied on as evidence, why are these wannabe investigators and their litigants ignoring it?

Previously, much to my chagrin, I’ve warned attorneys NOT to waive my COTAs around in court.  One of them did in a Houston federal court and got screamed at by the judge.  This is where the joke about “judges screaming my name and it wasn’t during sex” evolved from. (“Who’s Dave Krieger????!!!!!!!!)

One other attorney in Michigan was forced to let a judge see the COTA (by the judge’s own insistence) because the attorney kept referring to the document while making arguments in court.  Once the judge read the document (assumedly during his lunch break), he got an education, even though it was still NOT being offered as evidence, and ordered the parties to settle the case as he stated, “neither one of you are going to like the way I rule on this one!”   In the end, the bank got the house back and the homeowners got their money back and then some.  This still does not mean that the COTA is evidence unless the material within the COTA is vetted and relied upon by expert witnesses or utilized to craft discovery to go after the underbelly of the other side’s arguments.

I beg of you … please do not continue to misuse these reports.  These reports are meant as investigative research and proper discovery must be utilized to vet the research.  Simply walking into court and waving these reports around screaming “Fraud This!” and “Fraud That!” will get you nowhere.

To get a real idea of HOW TO do a Chain of Title Assessment (COTA) on your own, where you can get a real education, I am offering the first online COTA Workshop on Saturday, February 1st (2020), in 4, 2-part segments, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.  Here’s the schedule of the online classes:

Sessions 1 and 2, Saturday, February 1, 2020; 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. (EST)

Sessions 3 and 4, Saturday, February 8, 2020; 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. (EST)

Sessions 5 and 6, Saturday, February 15, 2020; 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. (EST)

Sessions 7 and 8, Saturday, February 22, 2020; 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. (EST)

I have revised the COTA to take the purpose of the workshop out of the “business model mode” and craft it into the “consumer mode” for the purposes of giving you a basic education into the realm of document identification and research.  Click the following link to leave your email address in the blank space provided and the Registration Form will be emailed to you.  Once you are enrolled in all four sessions, you will be able to access the online workshop presentation (as it will be recorded for future use) on the Clouded Titles website!

The Definition of Insanity Needs to Change in Your World!

I can tell you with a certainty that mine has!  In fact, I use COTA research to make money in my real estate investing.  Had homeowners going through foreclosure been thinking about Plan B instead of trying to fight the inevitable losing court battle ratios, America might have had better case law than what it has now.  With the banks creating as much negative case law against homeowners and as tilted as the system is against borrowers who don’t pay their mortgage payments, it’s time to change your mindset and use the COTA to your advantage.  My workshop strategies have now shifted into the realm of COTA use to make money to survive instead of defending your home in a losing battle.

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, 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

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