Tag Archives: The Power Hour

July 25, 2024 · 8:02 AM

A lot of people are wondering …

Since I began my postings on CloudedTitlesBlog (way back when), I have always thought that my key objective (as a news junkie) was to get to the real truth of the matter.

I wrote several versions of Clouded Titles because the first edition (254 pp.), which I gave a copy of to a U.S. Magistrate when I met with him during a settlement conference in Kansas City in 2011, just wasn’t getting to the truth enough. Nope. The news would continue to unfold as time went on as to exactly how unscrupulous these banks and their mortgage loan servicers can be. Now, the Mayday Edition is 432 pages in length, full of about as much information as I could put into it to meet the criteria for the truth at a moment in time when it seemed all of the frauds that these entities could commit were actually illegal but being ignored by the U.S. government, who swore, through contract, to protect them.

Government-sponsored entities, or GSE’s (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae), carrying about 60% of the securitized paper debt load. Privately-securitized mortgages, typically funneled through the secondary markets on Wall Street, account for another 48%. The other 2% of mortgages operate as traditional mortgage loans, where, in the old days, you went to the bank, they knew who you were, they knew you had a job, they knew you had good credit and they knew you could repay the loan.

They also knew how much input you contributed to your community. They also held your loan in their bank vault. They did not sell your loan.

Even the 2% now admit that they “sell” some of their “paper”. Few banks in America actually admit they flat out don’t sell your notes and security instruments to “financial institutions” who securitize your loan, and bundle it up with other similarly-situated, graded loans. Once bundled, they convert them into bonds and sell them to investors on Wall Street. That’s the way the game has been played since the flood gates opened in 1999, thanks to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (from 1934, which prevented banking institutions from playing in the securities markets). You can thank Bill Clinton for that.

I can tell you with a certainty that banks who securitized paper mismanaged their accounts and failed to comply with their securitization counterparts in drafting the necessary paperwork to accompany the accounts into securitization portals. This bungling left it up to the servicers, who later in the game, when the real squeeze-play hit the economy in late 2007 and exploded in 2008, started manufacturing documents using third-party document mills and in-house design teams.

All those mortgage loans that have a MIN (Mortgage Identification Number) on them were an indicator that the loans were securitized. Securitization gurus like New York attorney Charles Wallshein started writing about these bungled loans. I’m fascinated every time I read one of his articles and white papers.

ENTER THIRD-PARTY JUNK DEBT POOLS

And just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse, a new kind of “trust” has emerged, post-foreclosure debacle, in late 2015. The securitization pools started dumping their non-performing loans into pools and selling them off to private investors, who put them into junk debt pools and then began using their own in-house servicing units to “make shit up” and start putting homeowners out on the street in the name of some trust out there that they labeled an RMBS Trust. See the following link if you don’t believe me:

FANNIE MAE ANNOUNCES SALE OF NON-PERFORMING LOANS

RMBS: Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

Post-2015, these pools are debt collectors that will lie to the courts and “make shit up” to foreclose on unsuspecting homeowners. They call themselves “trusts” and they get what appear to be legitimate “trustees” to act as “shell covers” for them to make them look legit.

I see a whole new book covering this behavior, however, I don’t see it as voluminous a work as Clouded Titles. But then again, look what happened when I wrote my first edition back in 2010 and the Mayday Edition in 2014 … IT … kept hitting the proverbial fan.

For those of you who are affected by all of these junk debt pools … I will keep feeding the info fire so you can at least know where you stand in all this.

When Fannie Mae sells off these loans (which started in 2018), there is no transfer of anything by assignment in the land records. The mortgage loan servicer’s “design team/third-party doc mills” crank out assignments deeding the property from the servicer directly to the named junk debt pool. Once recorded, if left unchallenged, these recorded documents can become the undisputed key to losing your house. This is why I suggest (because I can’t give legal advice; as a paralegal and researcher) that homeowner do 2 things:

  1. Go to sec.gov and type in the actual trust series of the post-2015 “trust” (i.e., one I’m currently working on a case for: RMAC Trust 2016-CTT) When you discover the search results yield nothing, the security that U.S. Bank claims they’re a trustee for, really isn’t a securitized trust, it’s a third-party junk debt pool of loans purchased from a GSE.
  2. Start drilling down on the assignment that the mortgage loan servicer (in this case, Nationstar) caused to be recorded in your local land records and start researching the parties who executed it.

Your first instinct will be to try to track these people down and haunt them with questions. DON’T!

Resist the temptation. MERS and other back-door entities have been known to “hide” these people. The only way you’re going to “get to” the creators and executors of these kinds of documents is to take the matter to court. People I know are doing declaratory relief actions to find out. This is why the book and training kit “The C&E on Steroids!” was put out by myself and California attorney Al West, who understands securitization better than 99% of the attorneys (except for Wallshein, who really gets it)! I have a very limited supply of these kits on the CloudedTitles website. The material was recorded in 2014 in Las Vegas at a hotel workshop we held and it’s still valid today!

The third-party debt pools are using banking entities like U.S. Bank as “shell covers” for their unregistered third-party bundle of loans they bought at a discount from Fannie Mae (and others) and attempting to collect at full face value. The late Neil Garfield wrote about this a long time ago, but it seems to now have come to full fruition the more we dig. Very few foreclosure defense attorneys know this stuff like Charlie Wallshein does. He uncovered the truth in 2021.

Now, I guess I’ll have to pen another research piece on it. Albeit late, but very necessary. This mortgage foreclosure war is far from over. I have another piece of interesting news nobody’s looking at … that I will cover in this new work.

MORE TRUTH: As of July 13, 2024 (the day IT went down in Butler County, PA), I was abruptly cancelled, via a 2-paragraph email, as the host of The Power Hour. I am setting up my own show network now. TheKriegerFiles.com will be one of the hosting sites. Be back in full swing soon!

If you subscribe through my Substack Page, you will get more info on my upcoming events.

Leave a comment

Filed under I'm not posting any more stuff on here!

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 9, 2022 · 4:14 AM

THIS SATURDAY: California Foreclosure Relief – Defense Seminar

(BREAKING NEWS) — With an anticipation of an estimated 300,000 upcoming foreclosures in the Golden State (California), Redondo Beach, California attorney Al West has launched a Foreclosure Relief – Defense Seminar, slated to be held this Saturday, January 28, 2023. See the details below:

The CloudedTitles.com website registration has now been activated. There are still seats available for the upcoming seminar. You can access the Syllabus and the Registration Form below (as well as on the website itself):

fr-ds-lax_january-28-2023Download
foreclosure-relief-defense-seminar-lax-registration-formDownload

Currently, there are 13,539 active foreclosures in the State of California. Currently, there are over 2,800 active foreclosure sales scheduled in the State of California. Many of these foreclosures involve REMICs and their connective mortgage loan servicers (who are really doing the dirty work in an attempt to unjustly enrich themselves). This is not an uncommon scenario and you can anticipate that with the current election cycle behind us (not the “Red Wave” you were expecting) and the challenges thereto, there will be more political infighting as well as a serious uptick in foreclosures across the entire nation as inflation causes mortgage loan defaults and subsequent foreclosures; thus, it’s time to prepare NOW, BEFORE you go into default (or are in anticipation of being in default soon).

The material discussed in this workshop regarding the Homeowners Bill of Rights is specific to the State of California; however, the balance of the material discussed can apply to all 50 states. Based on the low cost of attending this Seminar, you may wish to consider attending. There are only 150 seats available for this event, classroom style. You can look for future discussion of this event on the Republic Broadcasting Network and The Power Hour.

If you wish to reserve a seat in this 1-day event, you should contact Dave Krieger directly at (512) 718-9604 after 1:00 p.m. (CST) Monday-Friday and reserve your seat with a credit card or go to the Clouded Titles website and click on the link to register through the shopping cart. The basis for attendance at this Seminar is first-come, first-served. For those concerned with COVID-19 restrictions, there are none at this workshop (no jabs or masks or social distancing required). There are restaurants in the host hotel and you get a free, made-to-order breakfast with your hotel sleeping room booking. For a more detailed explanation of the event, please read through the attachments on this post before contacting us about attendance arrangements.

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, INVESTOR END-GAME STRATEGIES

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 14, 2022 · 6:23 AM

Uptick In Foreclosures? Fraudulent Transfers?

(BREAKING NEWS) — The author of this post posits the following information for educational purposes only and any information contained herein should not be construed to be the rendering of legal advice. For legal advice, you should consult with an attorney that has won several foreclosure cases. NOTE: There are a lot of attorneys out there that think they can defeat a foreclosure; however, these people simply see a monthly annuity and have figured out a way to stall the inevitable.

Years ago, when this author wrote Clouded Titles (his second work, which followed The Credit Restoration Primer, now in its 5th edition), now in its Mayday Edition, he set up an alert in his Google system settings to detect any reference to the phrase Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

The reason for this is because back in 2007, while doing research on chains of title in his local land records, he discovered the widespread appearance of this electronic database throughout his local public record and this was the start of a 2-year quest into researching the sum, substance and function of what most in the legal profession refer to as MERS. After filling up 4 file drawers full of printed material from various articles, court cases and public records (including his own public record filings), this author decided that since there were no actual books out there describing the chicanery on Wall Street and how MERS was involved in it all, that the public needed to know the truth … and this is how Clouded Titles was born.

Thanks to the “alerts” set up in the Google search system, this author is able to monitor perceived upticks in the foreclosure markets, based on what is happening throughout the U.S. and the notices posted in various newspapers’ legal sections throughout the country.

What the author of this post has also noticed is that because the economy is stagnating, people are without incomes. As a result, the propensity to commit crimes against property by filing documents that purport to transfer title into the name of the perpetrator so the property could be listed and sold through nefarious means is also on the rise. Once the property is sold, the foreclosure starts. The author has seen evidence of an uptick in this area as well.

This is why it’s a good idea to check up on your public records involving your property every 3 months, just like you would check up on your credit reports to make sure they’re accurately being reported. County Clerks are paid to assist you in looking up your records if you don’t know how to do it. Many of the databases are online, so they are easily traceable via the county’s search engine. When you conduct a search, you need to be especially aware of any “assignments” of not only mortgages (or deeds of trust) that have been recorded in the public record that transfer an interest in any loan taken out against the property or to detect the insidious crime of property theft by fraudulent deed transfer.

If you suspect you’ve been “taken” in such a manner, the first thing you should do is to go to the County Clerk’s (Recorder, Register of Deeds, Auditor, etc.) office and obtain a certified copy of the suspect document. The second thing you should do is to take that suspect document to your county sheriff and file a formal criminal complaint against the party or parties allegedly effectuating the transfer.

Part of the problem with fraudulent transfers and assignments however, is that the goings-on behind the scenes within law enforcement appears well above the pay grade of the detectives working in the crimes against property unit. This was evidenced in the follow-up meeting with Osceola County, Florida detectives in 2015 (along with the County Attorney, who was obviously “in on it” with them), who couldn’t find any evidence of wrongdoing in the Report this author spent five months working on … and instead, chose to “shoot the messenger” instead. The County Attorney then proceeded to inquire who the forensic team members were that gleaned the public record looking for suspect documents. The information was not required to be provided under the Open Records Act laws, thus, the County Attorney came away from the meeting empty-handed. The detectives however, wanted to know who certified all of the 17 banker’s boxes of suspect documents delivered to the States’ Attorney in Florida’s 9th Circuit, who saw the files and the report as a “political hot potato” and wanted nothing to do with them. Law enforcement in Osceola County, Florida then began to harass and surveil a known member of the forensic team who lived in the county and who was an outspoken critic of the illicit foreclosures taking place in his county. A family member of the forensic team’s liaison was tasered and arrested as he was walking onto his front porch at 3:00 a.m. after being out with his cousin, was not drunk and was not disrespectful or disorderly against the arresting deputies (who were surveilling the home). The charges were eventually dropped. This is just one scenario that happens when one “tries to do the right thing”.

This presents us with another known problem with law enforcement: corruption. Unless your county sheriff is a “constitutional sheriff”, don’t expect your complaint or any potential investigation to go anywhere, especially after having researched the campaign donors to your local district attorney in the last election. This author would encourage you to research CSPOA.org and become a member and get the information necessary to further your campaign in either getting the sheriff on board or finding ways to get him/her ousted from public office.

This author also reminds you (at this juncture) that county sheriffs are bonded. Without a bond (due to forfeiture), they can’t hold office as a sheriff. This is why counties have Risk Managers. A Risk Manager is another word for “damage control”. This individual gets more crap thrown at them from both consumers and county officials as a result of their positions. This is why it’s become harder to find competent people willing to undertake the honest task of “doing the right thing” and getting consumers the information on who the agent is for the bond, along with their address, phone # and policy number.

If the county’s risk manager refuses to give you that information, send an Open Records Act Request under state statutes and demand the information. Once obtained, you may wish to consider filing a complaint against the bond of the individual that failed to do their constitutional duty to protect your rights under the law.

NOTE: This procedure can also be used against school boards as well (that treat parents like domestic terrorists for speaking out at school board meetings); however, that’s not the subject matter of this article so this author won’t dwell on that scenario at this time.

In closing, a genuine foreclosure has to be treated differently. This author would encourage the use of a Qualified Written Request (QWR) under RESPA § 6. Do not ask for originals of any documents because it’s highly likely they don’t exist. Ask for copies of the note and mortgage (or deed of trust); ask for all information contained in your collateral file; ask for copies of your escrow statements and pay histories. Space out your requests (don’t ask for all of it at once). Request it in two or three certified letters to the servicer’s specific QWR address. You might be surprised to learn that mortgage loan servicer error was responsible for the initiation of the foreclosure to begin with.

NOTE: A QWR is not discovery. A QWR is what this author would be doing if he found out every time that his mortgage loan had been transferred or sold. A QWR response can be used to custom-tailor litigation against the servicer and its employees. Above all, remember that the public record may contain damning information in the form of assignments that can be used to help custom-tailor a QWR request. QWR requests from subsequent servicers can also reveal missing documents that were never transferred to the new servicer in the collateral loan file.

Dave Krieger is a nationally-syndicated talk show host on The Power Hour, heard Monday-Friday from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 Central Time; on AM and FM stations across the U.S. and on 7.490 mHz on the shortwave band worldwide. He also consults with attorneys and homeowners on foreclosure cases.

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 5, 2022 · 3:15 AM

The FDCPA, Debt Collection and Bona Fide Errors

(BREAKING NEWS) — The author of this post is a paralegal and consultant to attorneys regarding real property, foreclosure and consumer issues. The concepts contained within this post are for educational and research purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. In the event one should find this material useful, it is highly recommended that one consult with an attorney who is not only well versed in these matters, but with an attorney who has a winning track record on debt collection issues, like the cases discussed herein.

Every so often, a debt collection case comes across my desk that contains multiple plaintiffs and thus warrants attention, especially because the federal appellate circuit reversed and remanded the cases back to the district courts from whence they came because the panel agreed that the federal district court erred in its 16-page ruling on particular facets of the cases in chief.

This particular case centers around what is termed “bona fide error” caused by the debt collector and/or its attorney(s). See the case below:

ewing-v-med-1-solutions-llc-7th-app-cir-no-21-1299-feb-2-2022Download

In this particular case, both Plaintiffs decisions were rendered by judges within the same division of the same district … the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division (including the Chief Judge). The cases were merged because of their similarities in arguments. Both cases were argued before the 7th Appellate Circuit Court of Appeals on December 14, 2021 and the ruling was issued on February 2, 2022. The backgrounds in each case are pretty self-explanatory.

In Ewing’s case, it took the debt collector two years to acknowledge that the alleged debtor disputed the debt collection claim. When Ewing looked at her credit report and saw the alleged debt was misrepresented, she decided that the misrepresentation of the debt under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) was violated by the debt collector and filed suit. In Ewing’s case, as typical, the federal district judge ruled for the debt collector, who claimed that the error was unintentional, thus invoking the bona fide error as its affirmative defense.

In Webster’s case, she discovered an error on her credit report she did not believed she owed. Through counsel, a dispute notice was faxed to the debt collector. However, the dispute notice was faxed to a number the attorney thought was a viable fax number, which turned out not to be the case because the debt collector, on its own volition, decided to remove the fax number from its website and stopped checking its inbox for new disputes. Webster sued because the debt collector misrepresented the fact her account was in dispute, which in turn harmed her credit score. The debt collector of course, claimed it was excused from 15 U.S.C. 1692k(c) because of a bone fide error as its affirmative defense.

Both cases involved negative reporting by each debt collector on the consumer’s credit bureau reports, which was part of the issue discussed in both cases because each had a “published injury” (misrepresentation of the actual facts of the matter).

Significantly, both debt collectors raised a “standing issue” argument. Both claimed there was not sufficient enough of a “concrete injury in fact” (as outlined within the U.S Supreme Court) and alleged there was no case or controversy for the court to rule on.

The appellate court discussed the issue of what constitutes “a concrete injury”, bringing to bear several U.S. Supreme Court issues, including Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which this author brought forward to some degree in his FDCPA book (see the website for details by clicking this link). While the nation’s highest court generally rules within very narrow margins, the discussions within this case are quite lengthy in explaining the various “harms” and whether they constitute an injury in fact, a requirement for any federally-based debt collection action, whether tangible or intangible.

The cases then turned on the key issue here of “bona fide defense”, citing multiple cases, including the infamous Jerman v. Carlisle case (cited within). As the cases drew to their conclusions, the appellate court determined that the errors in both instances could have been avoided if reasonable procedures had been in place and thus disclosed and identified by the parties as reasonable. Such was not the case in either instance according to what this paralegal read (see Pages 15 and 16 of the ruling for the double whammy on both debt collectors).

And this is why we have appellate courts (because the district courts have a propensity to misinterpret the law as it is written, in this case, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. What most folks don’t realize when initiating these suits, are the following takeaways:

  1. A person filing an FDCPA suit has to have a legitimate “injury-in-fact”, whether tangible or intangible, that can easily be interpreted by the court;
  2. The injury-in-fact must be “concrete, particularized and actual or imminent” in order to stick;
  3. When examining case law, especially regarding the FDCPA, understand that these suits are normally brought in U.S. District Court in the district in which the Plaintiff resides because cases in controversy (many times) cross state lines;
  4. That an attorney bringing these claims needs to fully understand the principles discussed within the cited cases in this instance, which is why this author decided to bring this case forward for further discussion;
  5. There was no evidence that any state-based claims were brought forward in either instance, because the Plaintiffs’ attorneys knew that the debt collectors were out of state; thus, both claims were federal matters; and
  6. As noted in cases like Jerman, this author constantly sees the application of the bona fide error defense used affirmatively by debt collectors whenever possible because of the narrow ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court “walks a fine line” in the district courts, where district and circuit judges (like those judges in foreclosure cases) in most instances, rule on behalf of the defendant debt collector (bank, alleged lender) a majority of the time, which requires an appeal.

Despite the fact appeals can be costly, they are more effective in setting good case law, which is why this author chose to post THIS case to enhance one’s “learning curve” when it comes to understanding and recognizing when one has a case versus when one doesn’t.

As a footnote, one should be prepared to litigate this case to its final conclusion; thus, cases like this, which can turn on a dime, are not for the faint of heart and those without the budget to do so.

Listen to Dave Krieger on The Power Hour, Monday-Friday from 11:00 a.m – 1:00 p.m. Central Time.

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, Other Relevant Issues

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 9, 2022 · 11:36 AM

And this is why we have appellate courts …

(BREAKING NEWS) — The author of this post is a paralegal, author, national talk show host and consultant to attorneys on consumer law issues and foreclosure defense. This post is for educational purposes only and is not intended to pontificate legal advice.

Join Dave Krieger on The Power Hour, Monday – Friday, 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. (Central Time), simply by clicking this link: The Power Hour (The shows are archived in case you missed them!) This show is broadcast nationally on radio stations across the country and on WWCR (shortwave) worldwide as well as live-streamed on the website link.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed and remanded a RESPA-related case back to the District Court for the Western District of New York in a case involving Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC’s (NOTE: Ocwen has been purchased by PHH Mortgage of New Jersey.) alleged failure to record the homeowner’s mortgage instruments and its actions in losing key mortgage documents. The district court found for Ocwen in its summary judgment motion, stating that the Plaintiff’s asserted “errors” did not fall within Regulation X’s “catch-all provision”. The appellate court disagreed and reversed the lower court’s decision and sent the case back for further proceedings as directed by the appellate court.

This case involved an alleged defaulted loan and a subsequent loan modification. The homeowner, Kim Naimoli, sued Ocwen because Ocwen denied her loan modification because of its own failure to record the mortgage documents.

Takeways?

Of note here is that Ocwen failed to record the mortgage. What lien right does it have it the mortgage document isn’t publicly recorded? There is no specific notice to the world, is there?

The mortgage at issue was originally secured in favor of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., which should raise red flags to most consumers because of the way IndyMac securitized its paper.

As usual, the mortgage loan servicers play handball with the borrower’s documents inside of a loan modification and thus, Ocwen never sent the documents to Naimoli for re-execution. This is problematic for any loan servicer because any lender knows that if the mortgage documents don’t represent a perfected interest, it leaves potential legal loopholes for the homeowner to slip through.

Ocwen denied Naimoli her loan mod because of its own alleged errors and the district court (which these days has become more politicized than not) ruled in favor of Ocwen, claiming that errors in the evolution of loss mitigation options are not covered under RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; Regulation X)’s catch-all provision and Naimoli appealed.

The Second Circuit clearly explain why Naimoli’s complaint was covered under Regulation X. This is why we have appellate courts. The CFPB also stepped in and filed an amicus brief, which contradicted Ocwen’s claim. No matter, the district court looked past all that and ruled in favor of the lender (servicer; “We can’t hurt the banks!”)

This is a great case to review when it comes to challenging screw-ups under RESPA. See below:

naimoli-v-ocwen-loan-svcg-llc-2nd-app-cir-no-20-1683-jan-7-2022Download

In other news, the rate of foreclosures seems to be holding steady at the moment … not to the level of the massive amount of foreclosures that occurred between 2009 and 2015. This would indicate that the federal government’s bail-out plans for consumers might have worked in some cases, but not so much in others, especially those not on the dole from D.C.

For more updates, listen to Dave Krieger on The Power Hour.

Leave a comment

Filed under I'm not posting any more stuff on here!

Tagged as , , , ,