Tag Archives: The Power Hour

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):

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

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

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:

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

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:

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!

QUESTIONS WE SHOULD BE ASKING

(OP-ED) — The author of this post (Dave Krieger) in the near future, is slated to take over as the permanent talk show host for the nationally-syndicated program called The Power Hour (a 2-hour program that airs from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Central Time). This is slated to happen near the beginning of the 4th quarter of this year. (FYI: We will be having foreclosure defense attorneys on as guests … just in time for the end of the moratorium illegally set by the current “administration” if that’s what you call it!)

CAVEAT AND DISCLAIMER: The contents of this post are based on paralegal level research and are not intended to represent legal advice. The value of the research is intended for educational purposes only.

THE VALUE OF THE LAND RECORDS

Many homeowners who really understand what’s in the county land records (previously discussed in other articles on this blog) “get” the fact that checking these records often is like checking your credit history often by ordering credit reports and looking to see what’s posted there in the trade line items. This author has put together a book on the subject (The Credit Restoration Primer), which goes into detail about how to request and analyze the information contained within your credit report, based on paralegal level research and the advice given to this author by expert attorneys who developed this program, which this author expanded and further expounded on.

The land records provide more than just a modicum of detail about your future as a homeowner. They contain every document in your chain of title that has been legally recorded. There is a difference between the word “filed”, which is used to refer to the act of initiating a lawsuit in a court or law or equity, versus the term “recorded”, which implies a public record that is handed to a Clerk, a Register of Deeds, a Recorder, an Auditor (and the like) and summarily archived in a “book” and “page” in either electronic or hard copy form. Smaller counties in America will have hard copy files (if they’re smart). The bigger counties with larger populations have resorted to digital recording of these documents through the scanning process. The originals and then sent back to the person initiating the recording of the documents.

As you may have noticed, this author used the word “legally” recorded. He did NOT say “lawfully” recorded. In other words, if a document contains false and misrepresentative information, it represents a “stain” against your property’s land record. This “stain” is commonly referred to as a “cloud on title”. A “cloud on title” basically means that there is something that is “blocking” the marketability and vendibility of the property, which means you can’t sell something that has blemishes on it because the prudent buyer that knows his stuff will not purchase something that a title company is going to “gloss over”. The title companies take these recordings at their word … if it’s recorded in the land records … it must be true (whether it is or not).

The land records are your only means of exposing these blemishes. If it’s not recorded, it means nothing in the “official realm”. In the last post, the author reflected that the 3,041 land records that exist in America are tainted with all sorts of shit documents, suspect because of (a) how they were created; (b) who created them; (c) when they were created; and (d) for what purpose were they created.

THE PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR

In the Williamson County Land Record Audit and the Osceola County Forensic Examination of the Land Records, both of these reports showed a suspect pattern of behavior in the manner in which certain documents were created, executed and recorded.

The pattern that developed and was demonstrated throughout both reports exhibited that the propensity to create these trash documents fell on the mortgage loan servicers and the foreclosure mill law firms who represent them in the theft of peoples’ homes. This is why there was a list (in the Osceola County, FL report) of the suspects, both representing mortgage loan servicers and law firms, one of which, the Gilbert Garcia Law Firm, who bitched at the Osceola County Clerk in writing, threatening a defamation suit if he didn’t remove the report from his website (nothing ever came of it). The little twits at that law firm seemed to forget that if they did file suit, the Clerk not only gets his day in Court, he also gets “discovery”, a damning tool that can be used to unearth all sorts of information involving the law firm’s participation in the creation of trash documents.

The problem with most homeowners (and many of their foreclosure defense attorneys who are feeding off their bank accounts) is that they don’t recognize the importance of discovery and how to get it.

I drafted an 11-page lawsuit in Lee County, Florida for an attorney under the direction of her investor client. It was framed as a counterclaim to a foreclosure action in which a trash assignment had been created by a mortgage loan servicer’s 3 employees. I did not name the servicer in the lawsuit. I named the 3 employees in their official capacities. I itemized every single thing they did in creating, executing and notarizing the document that was eventually recorded in the land records, calling them out on all of the “issues” that were present as misrepresented within the document.

As soon as the attorney for the investor FILED the counterclaim and started pushing for depositions of the 3 defendant employees of the mortgage loan servicer … ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW THEY WANT TO SETTLE! Why?

We collectively “hit a nerve”!

Maybe it was because we were making the right assertions in the lawsuit and attaching the Florida Criminal Code to those assertions, directing the judge to order the Clerk of the Circuit Court to produce a certified copy of the trash document and to turn it over to the State’s Attorney for further investigation. Do you think that the servicer wanted their employees to testify in a deposition? Not likely. Why? Because they would have spilled the beans on the entire operation in order to save their own asses from criminal prosecution, that’s why!

This is one way this author discovered that the pattern of behavior in the land record examinations was true. If the mortgage loan servicer didn’t have a nexus with the law firm (the servicers are the real parties retaining the law firms, not the alleged “lenders”) in initiating foreclosures, the law firm would not have acted the way it did (in the Florida case), trying to stop the depositions of the servicer’s employees. As I told John Healey (the Fort Bend County, TX D.A.), “It only takes one prosecution of a robosigner and all those who conspired with them to ‘send a message’ to the rest of these scumbags.”

Seriously, look at what happened when Las Vegas notary Tracy Lawrence testified before a grand jury about the thousands of default and sale notices she signed her boss’s name to and then notarized those same documents under the direction of her “bosses”. She ended up dead. Think about the means by which the banking, servicing and title companies operate and understand how “complex” things could get the more they are challenged as to the patterns of behavior exposed in these two land record reports … and how they can “reach out and touch someone”. Lawrence died of a 3-drug cocktail, which was found in her toxicology report (… “worst case of suicide I ever saw”). Why a cocktail? Because most women kill themselves by overdosing on something and this story would be “plausible” to investigators, who ruled it a suicide rather than what most of us probably think really happened. Think Marilyn Monroe.

Again, I must remind the readers that these are “reports”, not indictments. And, yes, this author has had numerous conversations with attorneys all across the country who have read these reports and have reached out to him to discuss the reports’ contents and the similarities they possess to the cases these attorneys are working on.

THE “RED MEAT” OF THE MATTER

By this time, you’re chomping at the bit to discover the line of questioning this author might have in mind, right?

If the author were the homeowner, he would first want to know:

  1. In a Qualified Written Request to the mortgage loan servicer under RESPA § 6:

(a.) the name of the alleged current holder of the note with the right to enforce it; and

(b.) do they have a copy of the note and mortgage or deed of trust they can send with their response?

COMMENT: Everyone shoots themselves in the foot by asking 50 questions in a voluminous request right up front instead of spacing out their requests … and the other mistake is … they don’t send it certified, return receipt requested to the servicer’s QWR address (they do have one)! The longer you can drag out a QWR, the longer it takes to get a foreclosure accomplished. I’ve seen at least 9 QWR requests in one case and it took the servicer nearly 3 years to answer all of them before they could even proceed with the foreclosure!

2. Research the assignment. This is where a subscription to “Been Verified” or use of a private investigator can really be of benefit to case development. Research every name, address and phone number on it. Identify each party and their location. This will tell you the “WHO” that is involved in your scenario. Research their backgrounds. If a law firm is mentioned anywhere on the assignment, such as “Prepared by” or “After recording, return to”, you can bet the law firm involved in the case (or retained at arm’s length by the law firm coming after you in foreclosure court) is behind the creation and manufacture of the document. The law firm (generally local, sometimes) can be tied to the pattern and thus, now you have suspects in your case development as to “WHAT” each knew and “HOW” they participated in the creation of the trash document(s). Sometimes, multiple assignments pop up in rapid succession and this should also send out warning alarms. DO NOT CONTACT THE TARGETS, DAMMIT! You’ll tip them off as to your intentions and suddenly (as has happened in some cases) … they disappear and you can’t depose them because they’re in hiding! Why does this author say that? Because people have called up the robosigners and the notaries and then they wonder why their cases are falling apart. Stupid is as stupid does.

3. Develop a list of unanswered questions for each deponent (the people you will depose). Understand that the minimum cost to depose someone starts at $3,000. You need to be careful about picking your targets.

COMMENT: A lot of this information is available in The C&E on Steroids! training kit, which has a training manual and 13 hours of DVD material covered by myself and California attorney Al West (including sample pleadings).

4. Your target is assumed to have valuable information useful to your case. Mortgage loan servicers often show up claiming to represent the REMIC trust. They are not paid by the REMIC. They are not REMIC employees. They are paid by the servicers. They are trained in mock trial courts to be “convincing” so they pass muster in court in their phony testimony. (You’re probably wondering how this author knows those mock trial courts exist, right?) Think about it. How could the servicers’ employees be so “skilled” at answering and rebutting questions asked during cross examination if they weren’t educated? Understand WHO you’re dealing with here. Deposing a REMIC is futile because by the time the case gets to you and your home, that REMIC is closed and long gone. Sending correspondence to the REMIC is also futile. If they’re closed they can’t answer, right?

5. You need to discover whether you’re dealing with a “trust” or a “pretend trust”. There is a difference. Some of these “pretend trusts” are junk debt pools whose employees manufactured the assignments with the intent to claim standing in court to foreclose. Assume the foreclosure judge doesn’t care about the assignments. This is why we file C&E’s BEFORE the foreclosure, to tie off documents before a judge who isn’t handling foreclosures. We want them thrown out so a foreclosure judge can’t proceed against us! This is the value of declaratory relief. If you wait until your foreclosure is in motion, it’s likely your judge will merge your suit into the foreclosure and toss your claim against the document the other side is using to steal your home! Timing is everything. Discovery is necessary to find out WHO you’re dealing with here.

6. If you are dealing with a REMIC, you need to obtain a copy of the 424(b)(5) Prospectus (not the FWP). In it, you will find the ADVANCES section. You may also find a section entitled, “The Credit Risk Manager”. If you are fortunate enough to have THAT party named in your prospectus … these people monitor the activities of the mortgage loan servicers dealing with the REMIC and they’ve got troves of information and should be considered a primary target for deposition and production of documents. They should be able to tell you whether or not and how long the advances were paid to the certificate holders, who are assumedly in court claiming they’ve been damaged, when in fact, they’ve been paid all along or have been made whole through the default payouts described in my last article after DAY 91.

7. You’ll need to investigate DAY 91 and what happened then. Asking questions relevant to the insurance payouts, credit default swap payouts, title insurance payouts and PMI/LPMI/MIP payouts, etc. could put a “feather in your cap” in demonstrating to the court that the real party in interest isn’t present in the courtroom. If you follow the money trail, you’ll expose mounds of information that was as useful in the Buffington case in Arizona against U.S. Bank.

You’ll notice the Court only threw out one of the causes of action … the one for FRAUD. This should send a message to you … a clear one … because 99.9% of litigants go into court screaming “Fraud!” WRONG! You don’t have enough evidence to prove that, so get that shit out of your head right now! Until you’re done with discovery, or your case proceeds to the point where the true evidence emerges in the case to actually ask the court to amend your complaint to include “Fraud”, “Conspiracy” and “RICO”, DON’T LEAD WITH THAT! By doing so, you’ve just added about $5000-$10000 to your legal bills. Duh. If you had that kind of money, you wouldn’t be in foreclosure in the first place!

And don’t let your attorney plead FRAUD either! He’s doing that because he doesn’t know any better. He was trained in law school to plead “shotgun style”, like the spaghetti noodle theory … throw shit at a wall and see what sticks. In this day and age, judges don’t appreciate that. It’s a great way to posture yourself in a negative light before the court. The way this author sees things (after having been in trial court with attorneys on numerous foreclosure cases), the judge is already against you when you walk into court. Why make things worse?

The idea here is “wise as serpents, harmless as doves.”

IDENTIFYING SERVICERS

By looking at the complaints or recorded documents and looking at the “WHOs” in the document and tracing their employment, you’ll easily find out WHO the robosigners work for. Any robosigner or notary in California has to keep a journal with thumb prints and signatures in them. Bet they won’t have those when you request Production of Documents and call them on it. I love deposing notaries, even if they no longer have commissions. Notaries can be your best friend in a deposition (and not beforehand).

Once you’ve identified the servicers, go back into the REMIC documents (if a REMIC is involved) and look at the Servicers that are named in the REMIC prospectus. Research each one and you’ll probably find multiple assignments and transfers of the collateral files, where stuff can go missing or be falsely duplicated. You’ll want to get at that collateral file, but QWR’s will only give you limited discovery in advance. You’ll need to target the collateral file in the Request for Production. That’s how the author would do it if he were the victim here.

Again, this isn’t legal advice. It’s just the means to be able to get a judge to ask the other side’s lawyer who he’s really representing, so you can tell the court you have no contract with the mortgage loan servicer … so why are they there instead of the REMIC? Most people don’t get that far because they’re not forward thinking. They’re so tied up in emotional knots they can’t think straight. They just want to lash out and then wonder why they end up homeless and living in a tent city (or worse, with relatives).

You can also build a case against the mortgage loan servicer when they don’t respond to your QWR requests (either at all or in an untimely manner). The author would suggest you look up the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act § 6 and thoroughly read that BEFORE engaging in your research quest. Understand that there are statute of limitations on many things involving your case. Identify what those are and avoid challenging areas where the court is likely to toss your claims. It’s another waste of money.

ONCE YOU GET TO THE SERVICER, YOU CAN EXPOSE THE LAW FIRM

In the Carrsow-Franklin case in New York, Wells Fargo’s robosigning behaviors were exposed by New York bankruptcy attorney Linda Tirelli. The use of MERS in a lot of these documents can also work in your favor, even though MERS is now hiding behind the same bunch that owns the New York Stock Exchange.

You’ll find the use of MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) shows up in all REMIC-related cases. If MERS is involved, you can bet your loan was securitized into the secondary mortgage markets.

And don’t sue MERS … you’re throwing money away again. They have very good hiding places that will cost you millions of dollars to find … if you get my drift. And you don’t have millions of dollars to spend; otherwise, you wouldn’t be in the foreclosure mess you’re in, right?

Some folks have amended their foreclosure complaints to include the law firm involved in the processing of the documents because it localizes their cases and keeps them in state court instead of getting thrown into the federal realm, where litigation costs are exponential and the banks’ attorneys have an edge. The local law firm suing you can be especially vulnerable if the law firm’s employees were involved in the direct manufacture and robosigning and notarizing of the documents. Surprisingly, many of the law firms involved in the National Default Exchange (NDEX; a national network of foreclosure mills) are directly involved in processing trash documents. Research those networks and what you find may surprise you, especially when you discover what “servicing platforms” they used (Vendorscape, Servicelink, etc.) and what discoverable information you can get from that.

If the law firm was directly involved in “doing the dirty”, now the State Bar can get involved … if you get my drift.

RESEARCH THE JUDGE!

Assume all of them are bought and paid for by the banks! That way, you’ll know who you’re dealing with. Research their political campaigns and who donated to them (betcha never heard that angle before). It’s a great way to get them to recuse themselves from your case, especially if the mortgage loan servicer or law firm that’s trying to foreclose on you donated to the judge’s campaign.

judicialwatch.org/judge and therobingroom.com are great tools to explore the way federal judges rule and to look up their declared financial records. You might find a conflict of interest. One such case in Florida opened up a can of worms when the homeowner discovered that one of the federal judge’s law clerks worked for a former foreclosure mill that litigated against the homeowner in the lower courts! Talk about conflict of interest!

For state judges, you’ll have to do more digging, which is the subject of another article.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

As a closing note, if you have to educate your attorney on discovery and how to read a prospectus and understand securitization, you need to find another attorney who you don’t have to spend money to educate. Avoid attorneys with big egos and attorneys who make promises that “you’ve got a great case”; otherwise, you’ll be bent over a screwed again in the end … if you get my drift.

2 Comments

Filed under OP-ED, Securitization Issues