Tag Archives: security instrument

AMERICAN FORECLOSURES … DIVIDED WE FALL

(OP-ED) — The author of this post puts forward this information for the purposes of education and enlightenment and not for the purposes of rendering legal advice. 

THE MORATORIUMS ARE GOING AWAY SOON

If you’re a homeowner who has been affected by the coronavirus to the point of losing a paycheck and not being able to make your mortgage payments, you’ve probably been living off your credit cards during this “lockdown”.  The anticipation that you’re going to start hearing from your mortgage loan servicers (if you haven’t already) is growing to the point of panic and anxiety knowing that you’ve been given a reprieve for so long but that point in time is coming to an end and you’re going to have to face the music.

I for one do not believe that the 2-month lockdown warrants the same type of foreclosure activity that took place between 2009-2014 as a result of the 2008 financial crisis, despite the fact that the nation’s economy has suffered a serious upset by the pandemic.  The difference between what happened in March and what happened in 2008 was that the secondary markets were quietly imploding and didn’t hit us until the actual collapse of Bear-Stearns and Lehman Brothers started a tidal wave of Chapter 11 filings in the subprime lending markets.  We saw this one developing and began to prepare (for some, like me, you saw it coming in February and started accumulating whatever cash and supplies you needed), which included but was not limited to, hoarding toilet paper and hand sanitizer.  The fact the pandemic was hidden from most Americans for better than two weeks only shortened our preparation time.

Many Americans ignored the warnings of the viral component’s ability to spread … hence, Spring Break.  This was only one of the catalysts.  Two separate cruise ships on both coasts (San Francisco and Miami) were already affecting dozens of passengers, one of which I knew from a non-profit organization that she and I were both a part of.  She was dead upon arrival into the Port of Miami.  When it’s someone you know, it hits home rather quickly, sometimes too close to home.  But at least we knew the ships (full of sick and dying) were headed straight at us.  We at least had time to prepare and mobilize our resources.  This isn’t something that was intended to cripple our morality.  The virus seemed intentionally let loose to cripple our economy and thus, our modes of survival.

POLITICS ASIDE?  NOT!

This entire crisis has been manipulated by the medical community, including but not limited to, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the President’s adviser.  Be mindful of the fact that Dr. Fauci (who I equate to Dr. Josef Mengele of Nazi fame) has served previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat (before you start raring up your emotions at little old Libertarian me for daring to question what’s really going on here).

Both the Republican and Democrats have taken advantage of this crisis.  Both sides of the aisle debated and passed legislation to benefit their own constituents.  Both sides of the aisle debated and passed legislation to benefit Wall Street.  Both sides of the aisle debated and passed legislation that gave most of us (but not all) some sort of stipend (dole) as a means of attempting to support those who the government considers “law-abiding taxpayers”.  Both sides of the aisle used the pandemic as a means of either gaining political control or upending the other side’s political control.  Don’t you just hate it when that happens?  And over 100,000 people are dead in America just so both sides can point fingers at each other with accusatory tones.  But also remember, Fauci has told this President (as well as past Presidents) what might happen with the pandemic and what protocols should be followed, whether the protocols (or the informational data used to formulate those protocols) was accurate or not.

Both sides of the aisle have not come up with a remedy (other than a moratorium on government-backed GSE foreclosures) to stop the tsunami of foreclosures that we could have faced if the moratoriums were not extended by the State’s governors to include all mortgage loans, which included evictions.  Now we’re faced with our own set of politics … a national network of mortgage loan servicers, collectively using “the system” to play out unfortunate scenarios against afflicted Americans who still haven’t formulated a PLAN B as to how they intend on dealing with the aftermath of this “planned economic strike” against America.  Everyone of course is pointing a finger at the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and blaming that entity for our troubles when in fact, the troubles were seriously exacerbated by our very own government in the way it doled out the money.  Again, the trickle down effect impressed not one taxpayer to the point that they thought someone did them a serious favor.

In other words, how long did that $1,200 check last each person already financially affected by the loss of employment.  When the moratorium gets lifted, those who are still struggling could become the first casualties of the second foreclosure epidemic.  I don’t consider any of this at all funny.  In fact, it’s disgusting that America has allowed itself to become embroiled in public debate over police brutality vis a vis the media, who hates Trump and wants your country to be turned into a socialistic state. The media has become so left-liberal it’s sickening.  You can’t turn on any channel and get the truth because politics has (and is) playing itself out at every turn of events.

DEFUNDING POLICE DEPARTMENTS?  DOES YOUR PERSONAL SAFETY MATTER?

Both George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks had much in common.  Both were black.  Both were convicted felons.  Both served time in prison.  Both were in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Both allegedly were involved in the commission of a crime (Floyd for passing a counterfeit $20 and Brooks for being intoxicated at the wheel of a running motor vehicle) for which they were placed under arrest.  Both died at the hands of police officers who were white.  Both were exemplified as poster children by the left and the media.  Both gave anarchists impetus to riot and commit destructive acts.

Now that you see the facts, do the cops need sensitivity training or does the public need sensitivity training?  After all, a young, white woman was captured on video burning down the Atlanta Wendy’s restaurant where Brooks was fatally shot during the riots that followed.  While it is relatively easy for white people to all of a sudden think a black person set fire to the restaurant, the video shows otherwise.  The video shows that there are people with no morals living among us that are out to prove a point … that anarchy is acceptable as a means of protest … even if it involves arson, which is a felony.  The other part of the problem, which my wife was quick to point out over coffee this morning, was that folks stood by videoing the act with their cameras so they could post it on social media because everyone is into sensationalism now.  So, does committing a crime for the purposes of sensationalism make it okay?  Why didn’t the people doing the video taping with their cameras stop the woman from burning down the Wendy’s?   Where did our morals go?   And the left want to defund police departments over the acts of bad actors?  I think not.

The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights provide for the general welfare and safety of ALL Americans, not just the Black Lives Matter folks.  The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants ALL of us a certain number of freedoms (self-expression and the right to assemble peaceably).  However, your liberty and freedoms ends where another person’s liberty and freedom begins.  When you violate the Constitution by committing a crime outside of the boundaries of what the Amendments are designed to protect, then the system has measures in place to deal with the offender.  The system did not afford those protections to Floyd and Brooks because of the actions of a few white officers.  Whether they will be granted immunity is anyone’s guess.  According to a friend of mine in Texas (who is a police officer), there are some who you cannot give a gun and a badge to because they’re more dangerous than those they were sworn to protect.

Many police departments are not funded well enough.  As my co-host on City Spotlight – Special Edition (on kdwradio.com), R. J. Malloy stated, “This isn’t Andy of Mayberry.”  There isn’t an issue over the fact Deputy Barney Fife only had one bullet in his gun, other than for his own well-being in not shooting himself in the foot. The issue is what protection Sheriff Andy or Barney Fife could (or would) do in the event the citizens of Mayberry’s personal protections were in jeopardy.  What police departments don’t need is tanks and military style Humvees.  What police departments do need is officers who are equipped with the means to protect and serve those citizens they were hired to protect and serve.  Anything short of that would represent a disservice to their respective communities, sensitivity training or not.

And here I thought the parental saying (from way back when) of, “Two wrongs don’t make a right” still applied to today’s community standards.  When the police can’t respond, or refuse to respond (as what is happening in Atlanta right now), sometimes referred to as the “Blue Flu” (officers calling in sick as a means of protest), then the level of personal protections afforded under the Constitution are eroded.  This gives way to those without moral scruples to commit further acts of violence.  I sometimes believe these people do these heinous things because they have a bone to pick with authority.  I think it would be best that police would be stripped of their qualified immunity from prosecution if they went “past the point of no return” once the person arrested was restrained or incapacitated, armed or not.  In Brooks’ case, the cop was videotaped kicking Brooks after putting two slugs in his back and was quoted as saying, “I got him!”   What’s that’s supposed to mean coming from a white cop with a bald head (skinhead)?

Despite the fact we can all agree that prejudice has no place in a decent, moral society, it still exists and is being driven deeper and deeper into the hearts and minds of those who feel they are being oppressed.  That includes those who feel that they’re being deprived of their Constitutional guarantees to safety and security.  Police officers should be held to a higher standard, especially when it comes to those they swore an oath to protect and serve, despite the color of their skin.  The bigger problem here is that with society melding into multiculturalism, it will soon devolve.  I predict there will be another spate of White Flight as American society continues to devolve.

UPHOLDING RIGHTS INCLUDES THOSE FACING FORECLOSURE

When it comes to foreclosure, we all have to have a game plan.  In 2008, when the financial markets collapsed under the weight of the failing securities debacle, it set the stage for multiple infractions against homeowners.  The biggest divisive scheme was the creation of notes out of thin air (the notes that had been shredded after they were uploaded as originals into the MERS System®).  It is common knowledge, as well as arguendo amongst those in the mortgage world, that the notes, along with their accompanying mortgages and deeds of trust, were shredded because paper proof of a contract was replaced by an electronic system of record keeping.  Many believe the originals were archived, yet there is no finite evidentiary proof of that.  What shows up in courts across the country in foreclosure cases I’ve reviewed are “copies” of original mortgages and deeds of trust that were pulled down off of the MERS System®, as well as the notes that the mortgage loan servicers now claim to be “originals”.

What we are seeing (and I talking about the collective group of investigative analysts looking into this documentation) is copies of notes being manufactured from copies pulled from the MERS System® and doctored up to look like originals.  The banks and their servicers and document manufacturing plants have gotten very good at reproducing notes to look like originals.  This is why certain individuals, knowing their notes might be shredded, filled in the “o’s” with ink on their promissory nOtes. Anyone reproducing a copy of a note trying to make it look like an original would have missed the filling in of the “O” in “nOte” which would be a dead giveaway of document manufacturing.  However, 99.9% of borrowers did NOT do that at the closing table.  The gullible are always the first to fall.  The gullible wanted the keys to the house, no matter what eventual price they would pay later.  The gullible constituted some 97-98% of  those who vacated their homes as soon as they were served with foreclosure documents because they had no Plan B and were never prepared to have to deal with foreclosure.

I was just speaking with an investor this morning who told me that the average homeowner or attorney could keep a foreclosure at bay for at least two years and keep either the homeowner in the home or rental income flowing for two more years.  So how’s that possible?  I discussed that in my video post on the Clouded Titles YouTube Channel.

In the physical realm, you have certain rights to life, liberty and property.  When you enter into a contract with a mortgage lender, you give up some of those rights in exchange for having a lien placed against your property by and through a security instrument, which is either in the form of a mortgage or deed of trust (Security Deed in Georgia; Installment Contract in Montana).  Most people do not realize that the balance of those rights allow you to examine and litigate certain inequities that may exist as the result of the foreclosure; however, most Americans are just too quick to give up and run away, rather than stand and fight. This is what happened after the 2008 financial collapse.  In today’s times however, abandoning your property puts you at higher risk because of the potential of coming into contact with the dreaded “virus” and succumbing to it.  If I told you that you could stay in your home for two more years just by taking a stand against the mortgage loan servicer, wouldn’t you be the least bit interested?

This is why I’m doing an online Foreclosure Defense 101 Workshop at the end of July.  It may be my last “due diligence” effort at attempting to help those afflicted by foreclosure.  I have made numerous attempts in the past to consult with attorneys behind the scenes and at trial, some successfully; however, the number of folks who wish to take what I have to say seriously aren’t listening.  So, you might ask yourself … why is Krieger even bothering to help these people save themselves from financial ruin?

I take the attitude that “might does not necessarily make right” … and just because you’re a well-funded mortgage loan servicer, that does not take away the homeowner’s right to protest against the foreclosure, both in and out of court.  I’m going to use this opportunity to bring attorneys into the mix to discuss Rules of Evidence and Rules of Civil Procedure.  These two areas are where homeowners are easily defeated.  It is in these two areas that homeowners can stay in their homes for 2 years or longer.

Your rights to litigate are not restricted by the contract you signed at the closing table.  You have every right to initiate a suit and defend a suit (depending on which state you live in and depending on which process you’re engaging in … judicial or non-judicial).  By taking simple, inexpensive steps, you can create a Plan B for yourselves by taking the initiative to respond or act.  It is your decision to learn the tactics or not learn the tactics.  My suggestions in this online workshop are based on research, but I’m going to let a couple of legal professionals share some of these strategies with you in the 4-hour block we’re devoting to educating you on foreclosure defense.  We will be recording this session for purchase and playback on the Clouded Titles website; however, the difference between attending the online live event and downloading a recorded event is that you don’t get to ask questions and get answers right away.  You have every opportunity to fight back and the financial risk to you attending this event online is low compared to the information you are given.  I told you in my blog post about the two-year window that attorneys can carve out for you so you can make alternative plans. As part of the webinar, I’m going to share written details with you in PDF format that will help guide you through your educational “learning curve” about how attorneys can drag a foreclosure case on for more than two years!

Again, you are known by the paths you take and the choices you make whether a homeowner or an investor.  Stay tuned for more posts on this.

Leave a comment

Filed under OP-ED, Securitization Issues

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