Tag Archives: show cause order

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.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

BRUCE JACOBS CATCHES FLAK FROM FLORIDA’S THIRD DCA!

(BREAKING NEWS – OP-ED) —

The statistics are unlike anything I personally have ever seen as a consultant to attorneys on matters of foreclosure, chain of title and the system of things … BUT Miami-Dade foreclosure defense attorney Bruce Jacobs has put himself in the firing line by causing the Third DCA into an apparent retaliation by issuing Jacobs a Show Cause Order as to why he should not be sanctioned for violating not only Florida Appellate Rules of Procedure but Florida Bar Rules as well.  I’ve personally met and talked with Bruce Jacobs, a former Miami-Dade State’s Attorney, a devout follower of Judaism.  There are those in the foreclosure world who think little of him for various reasons, while others think he’s too busy to handle their cases, while yet others believe he is a true fighter for “the little guy”.

Miami’s Daily Business Review (via law.com) just broke a story yesterday (October 4, 2018) of the potential sanction news against Jacobs. After doing a little digging, I found the subject per curium ruling that put Jacobs in the crosshairs of some very pissed off judges.  It all stems from their reversal of the famous HSBC v. Buset case, where Jacobs represented the Busets.  After the 3rd DCA’s reversal, I asked Bruce about their opinion in Buset and he told me succinctly that “This is war! This ain’t over yet!”

In a State where homeowners have had more opportunity to figure out “the system of things” as to how foreclosure courts behave, the statistics you’re about to read, which were contained in a filing with the Florida Supreme Court in the cited case, includes statistical evidence of how Florida’s Third DCA is apparently biased and prejudiced against delinquent homeowners:

Alexander v Bayview Loan Svcg LLC, 3D16-2228 (filed April 20, 2018)

Knowing what I know about phony assignments, I proffer an idea here that squarely puts “the system of things” into motion.  By reading this “Opinion” issued by the Third District Court of Appeals in Florida, see if you can make out the frustration not only felt by Bruce Jacobs but by virtually ALL homeowners who’ve ever been in front of any judge in the Third DCA:

Aquasol Condominium Assn Inc v HSBC Bank USA NA et al, 3D17-0352 (Sep 26, 2018)

Again, Jacobs has locked horns with a nemesis that has a propensity to lie in the manufacture of assignments.  In a case in Hillsborough County, Florida, HSBC’s “document manufacturing” came under serious scrutiny and the recorded document was ordered cancelled and expunged from the Clerk of the Circuit Court’s official records in that county.  The case involving that apparent suspect document is still ongoing and if “the system of things” is allowed to play itself out, one particular foreclosure mill law firm and five of its attorneys could be facing the same consequences as Jacobs is now.  It is problematic that most homeowners let their frustrations get in the way of common sense, but the latest “Opinion” seriously appears to put Jacobs in a very tenuous position, since he’s called out the Third DCA for what he believes they apparently are … biased and prejudiced against homeowners … enough to ignore obvious frauds on their own court systems!

However, it should also be made clear here (IMHO) that “the system of things” as I have described in the 10-part series, “Gutting the Underbelly of the Beast” was not implemented in Buset … was clearly not implemented in Alexander … and was definitely NOT implemented in Aquasol, predicated on what didn’t happen in Buset.  That may be tough for some to get their head around; however, when you see the quotes that Bruce Jacobs included in his brief to the Third DCA, which made them recoil, it’s clear the Opinion they issued was really a Show Cause Order that the media is now going to make a 3-ring circus out of, especially in light of what happened to Pinellas County foreclosure defense attorney Mark Stopa.  It’s obvious that Florida does not like aggressive foreclosure defense attorneys, whose first duty is to “the Court”.   With the advent of a Florida judge testifying (at Stopa’s hearing) that Florida foreclosure court judges are incentivized to clear their dockets and receiving bonus cash rewards for doing so, it is very clear that our courts have allowed their own political agendas to taint “Lady Justice”.

I’ve always said it’s about the assignments.  It’s always about the assignments.  This is why C&E actions are so vitally important:

(1)  They dissect the false and misrepresentative information contained within the assignments that are being relied upon by bank’s counsel in foreclosure proceedings.  This involves deposing robosigners.  HSBC has robosigners.  They defaulted when challenged in a C&E as to what authority they had to execute the document.

(2) They bring to light certain statutory violations. Florida has a civil component to its criminal component in F.C.C. § 817.535, which some attorneys rarely use and if they use it, apparently don’t go far enough in using it. They “drop the ball” by NOT doing a C&E on the document called into question.  This is no different than a pro se homeowner going into court and waving a document around and calling it a fraudulent document.  Same results. The Court says, “Prove it!” … and you have no proof!  So piss off!

(3) They bring to light certain ethical violations. Imagine you’re a foreclosure mill lawyer who’s relying on the false and misrepresentative information contained within an Assignment of Mortgage (or even an Assignment of Deed of Trust, for those of you in non-judicial states that have sought to litigate a matter to stop a foreclosure), and you (a.) failed to exercise due diligence in vetting your evidence; (b.) were purposefully involved in the creation of the fraudulent document; and (c.) new or should have known that the information you proffered to the Court would result in a statutory violation.  There are individual Bar Rules in every State that call out this type of behavior.  These Rules fall under the section labeled “Misconduct”.  On occasion, State Bar Associations and Courts across America have to deal with such matters; however, foreclosure cases are particularly egregious in nature because the ethical violations appear to arise out of statutory violations being promulgated on the Court.

(4) They require a determination as to their validity of the document in question.  In the Hillsborough County matter, HSBC had every opportunity to respond, yet didn’t.  When you look at the C&E’s allegations there, HSBC employees could have been facing felony UPL charges.  Duh!  It’s no wonder they didn’t show up.  The good ‘ol boy network on occasion does “circle the wagons” to protect its own practitioners.  I gotta give ’em credit for their somewhat misplaced allegiance.  They pick and choose who they want to prosecute.  Obviously, the several HSBC employees aren’t in jail, so they’ll keep manufacturing phony documents (like every other mortgage loan servicer has done since they were told not to in 2012).

(5) They require a definitive action by the Court.  When presented with the facts, the judge in the Hillsborough County matter cancelled the document and ordered it expunged from the real property records.  That expungement was not detected by the foreclosure mill law firm.  That expungement created further triable issues of fact.  That expungement, in of itself, created a statutory violation.  That expungement further convoluted the chain of title, impairing that property’s vendibility.

(6) They are the “backbone” of any quiet title action.  Once eliminated, assignments and other documents set the basis for the complaint or counterclaim sounding in quiet title because the “obstacle” that the bank has to contend with is an illicit document, shown to be fraudulent, or in the alternative, proven to be fraudulent, with expert witness trial testimony from an attorney to back it up in subsequent cases.  This posits a very serious scenario for the foreclosure mill law firm.  It posits an even more of an issue for any judge hearing the subsequent quiet title action, because the same unclean hands that created and/or relied on the phony document that was cancelled and expunged through the C&E have now come home to roost.

As long as the homeowners are in a position to control the outcome of their cases, the C&E may become a vital tool to measurably determine the success or failure of their destinies.  Sadly, as vigorous of a defense that any foreclosure defense attorney could throw at the other side, especially in this matter, the C&E wasn’t part of it.  Without a basis in finality, how then can “the system of things” work to impose sanctions on the real violators and unseat judges for agreeing with them?

6 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED