Discovery you can’t afford to miss: the SEC!

(OP-ED) — The opinions expressed herein reflect those of the author and should not necessarily be construed as legal advice; however, the material has been vetted by an attorney who loves the thought process behind what is expressed here.

While everyone is getting the “rope-a-dope” from the banks and their mortgage loan servicers, no one’s looking to the enforcement arm of Wall Street … the revolving door into the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“USSEC”). The author will abbreviate this agency, who is supposed to enforce violations of securities laws; however, seemingly, apparently hasn’t been doing so to the extent that We the People need them to.

The author of this post held off posting this article for the sake of clarification, insomuch that jumping the gun and sending the readers of this post on a wild goose chase for nothing would have been totally discrediting and thus, non-productive. Now that clarification has been achieved, it’s no holds barred.

The author devised a set of discovery, which was then turned into more productive aspects of a means to an end. That discovery revolves around the USSEC, who has the goods you’re looking for if you happen to be facing a REMIC trust, which most of you are since most of your loans were securitized.

This concept and thought process involves a two-pronged attack on the USSEC. Here’s step one:

If you’ll visit sec.gov, you’ll notice the search box in the upper, right-hand corner of the website.

Type in ONLY the REMIC trust’s “Series Number” (for example 2004-NC3, which I will reference in this post as the example). Do NOT type in the entire trust’s name and gobbledygook as you’ll end up with non-descript stuff you can’t use. Once the actual REMIC’s name appears below the search box, make a note of the “CIK” number by whatever means possible because this information will become part of your discovery request.

Rule #1: You cannot serve discovery on a non-party to a lawsuit!

Don’t even try it. You will be wasting your time and money. Instead, the attorney the author spoke with zeroed in on the fact that if you make the USSEC a third-party defendant in your case, the courts will most likely throw them out (dismiss them from your suit) at the first opportunity, much to the objections of the mortgage loan servicer (who’s bring the foreclosure against you trying to reimburse its own coffers), who will then figure out what you’re trying to get at. Thus, the attorney suggests getting a subpoena issued straightaway against the USSEC, asking for certified copies of information directly related to the REMIC trust you’re dealing with. Here’s where the concept attempts to get results:

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the 424(b)(5) Prospectus for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on April 12, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on May 3, 2004, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of April 16, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on June 2, 2004, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of May 25, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on July 1, 2004, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of June 25, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on August 3, 2004, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of July 26, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on August 27, 2004, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of August 25, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on September 28, 2004, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of September 27, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on November 1, 2004, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of October 25, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on November 29, 2004, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of November 26, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K, also known as Current Report for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 3, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of December 27, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K/A, also known as Current Report – amendment, and all amendments thereto for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 12, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of November 26, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K/A, also known as Current Report – amendment, and all amendments thereto for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 12, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of October 25, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K/A, also known as Current Report – amendment, and all amendments thereto for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 12, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of August 25, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K/A, also known as Current Report – amendment, and all amendments thereto for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 12, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of September 27, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K/A, also known as Current Report – amendment, and all amendments thereto for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 12, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of July 26, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K/A, also known as Current Report – amendment, and all amendments thereto for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 12, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of June 25, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the Form 8-K/A, also known as Current Report – amendment, and all amendments thereto for 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 12, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of May 25, 2004.

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the SEC Form 15-15D, known as Suspension of Duty to Report [Section 13 and 15(d)] of 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on January 26, 2005.  

Submit a complete and true certified copy of the 10-K, known as Annual Report [Section 13 and 15(d), not S-K Item 405] of 2004-NC3, filed with the USSEC on March 31, 2005, as shown on the Edgar Entity Landing Page with a Reporting Date of March 7, 2005.

EXPLANATION OF WHAT’S BEEN REQUESTED THUS FAR …

From the pull-down menu at sec.gov (when you’ve retrieved the REMIC’s files), print and save the list of all of the documents that have been filed with the USSEC on that particular REMIC. This should not be considered as over broad and burdensome to the USSEC since all of these files are contained within the USSEC’s database. They can easily be retrieved and the fee for sending it all to you is $4.00 in postage.

In this particular example, the pull-down menu, which was printed out in full, contained 19 documents, all of which became part of the request for production under subpoena.

You can either ask for all of these documents (that are contained within the USSEC’s files on the REMIC, which in this case was 19) outside of a lawsuit if you wish to get an advance look-see at everything. That’s an option if you don’t want to subpoena the records from the USSEC. However, there’s more to the story than what we’ve covered so far. This is where the subpoena comes in with the double whammy. A lot depends on the timing of the request and whether you’re attacking the servicer ahead of the foreclosure. You’ll want to depose someone with direct, first-hand knowledge of the REMIC you’re going after.

And here’s step two:

Get the court clerk to issue a subpoena to the USSEC to get them to produce someone with relevant knowledge of the documents that can verify and validate any violations of the governing regulations of the REMIC trust. (Again, this is framed as a suggestion and not given as legal advice!)

Inside of the subpoena, you can demand the USSEC check ALL of its records and produce whatever it has, in certified form, for the following (and this is just a sample):

Submit complete and true certified copies, if any you have in your possession or control, of all notes, memoranda and agreements for any certificateholder settlements known to the USSEC for  2004-NC3. 

Submit complete and true certified copies, if any you have in your possession or control, of all known litigation filed by any certificateholder, known to the USSEC for  2004-NC3. 

Submit complete and true certified copies, if any you have in your possession or control, of all known USSEC-related prosecutorial actions taken against 2004-NC3. 

Submit complete and true certified copies, if any you have in your possession or control, of the mortgage loan documents which name the Plaintiffs as the Borrowers that demonstrated that the trustee of 2004-NC3 received the documents described on Page S-75 of the 2004-NC3’s 424(b)(5) Prospectus according to the stated governing regulations. 

Submit a complete and true certified copy, if any you have in your possession or control, of any document that demonstrates the negotiation or transfer of the Plaintiff’s mortgage loan and all related documents therein, which specifically identify the date these mortgage loan documents, including all assignments of mortgage (or deed of trust) thereto, that were documented as part of the transfer from the Depositor to the REMIC trust by the trust’s Cut-Off Date.

You’ll want to review all of the trust’s “FILED” documents first, because the Amendments inside of those REMICs may reveal changes in the number of certificate holders receiving the 8-K’s and 10-K’s and may further reveal the actual “condition” of the REMIC before and after it closed. You’ll need this information for the next step.

Rule #2: You cannot depose a non-party to the suit without relevant cause!

This is a great way to get the mortgage loan servicer’s attention because if the REMIC trust settled out with all of the certificate holders, then the mortgage loan servicer, the real party bringing the foreclosure, has no standing because it can’t prove concrete injury-in-fact required under Spokeo v. Robins. Thus, it has no standing to pursue a foreclosure. And it’s going to fight you tooth and nail to keep its position in the suit because it wants to steal your property.

Don’t expect the mortgage loan servicer and its attorneys to sit idly by while you depose someone with knowledge of the particular REMIC trust. They’ll have their attorneys in the deposition, so you’ll have to craft your questions in such a way so as to expose the bad behavior on the part of the servicer’s employees when it comes to having the USSEC deponent examine the recorded assignment(s), specifically for:

  1. Who prepared the assignment? (Was it the law firm or the servicer’s employees?)
  2. Who executed the assignment? (Was it someone who wasn’t really who they said they were?)
  3. When was the assignment executed? (Well after the Cut-Off Date of the REMIC trust?)
  4. When was the assignment recorded? (Well after the Closing Date of the REMIC trust?)
  5. What do the governing regulations for this particular REMIC state about Assignment of the Mortgage Loans? (Is it obvious to the USSEC deponent that the regulations were violated?)
  6. Has the USSEC ever been notified by anyone to investigate this particular REMIC trust?
  7. Does the USSEC have any records of whether or not a credit default swap counterparty paid the certificate holders in full?
  8. Does the USSEC have any records of whether or not any default insurance policies paid the certificate holders in full?
  9. Does the USSEC have any records of whether or not there were any settlements wherein the certificate holders were paid in full or in part; thus settling any future payments due to them?
  10. Has the USSEC ever investigated this REMIC for any securities violations or irregularities?

In other words (and this is just a smattering of all of the questions to be asked of your USSEC deponent) … you’re trying to get the USSEC deponent’s attention to the fact that he/she can testify as to the fact that none of the governing regulations for the REMIC were complied with and that under New York Trust Law, they are void. Any question relevant to violations of the REMIC’s governing regulations would require a statement from the USSEC deponent that could be inferred to be a conclusion of law and the other side will object, but the comment will still go on the record, where the judge can see it.

This is a direct way to get someone in authority to see the assignments as fraudulent and to initiate a potential investigation, both civil and criminal, which may force the mortgage loan servicer to back off rather than run the risk of an exposed criminal prosecution.

You want the judge to see the REMIC for what it is and what the servicer is actually trying to do. Because most judges think they’re pensions are tied to these REMICs, to discover that the REMIC has been closed and the certificate holders paid would mean that the servicer (who has no contract with you) can triple-dip by stealing your home and that the judge doesn’t have to worry about his pension is going to be affected by making the proper ruling and kicking the mortgage loan servicer out of court.

If the investors (certificate holders) settled the case with the REMIC and accepted payment in full, how then can they come into court and claim they were financially harmed? They can’t … that’s the point. They’d have to prove they were damaged and if they got an insurance settlement and were paid in full, they weren’t damaged; thus, the mortgage loan servicer would be potentially committing fraud on the court to attempt to introduce evidence to the contrary.

Remember, in order to issue a subpoena, you have to file suit. You can use the SEC’s own forms to request all of the documents contained in the REMIC’s file for the shipping fee and they will send them certified (outside of the litigation); however, that takes time and doing it outside of litigation means the court has no control over the outcome of the request for anything from the USSEC. The fees for deposing a single party or entity these days is $3,000 – $5,000 depending on where the deposition takes place. However, if you’re trying to protect a million dollar property, no stone should be left unturned.

Again, this isn’t legal advice. It’s just plain common sense.

1 Comment

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

Winning an FCRA case on the back end of a foreclosure … on appeal in the 9th Circuit

(BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED)– The author of this post is a paralegal and consultant to attorneys on foreclosure defense and consumer issues. The case posited above is for your educational benefit only and any commentary presented here does not portend to convey any legal advise whatsoever.

The U.S. District Courts never cease to amaze this author given the blatant facts and allegations presented by the Plaintiff (Gross) in his FCRA case against CitiMortgage, Inc. The lower court justices nearly always rule for the banks no matter what. Could it be because the federal judges are vested in these banks and are conflicted out? This is why Judicial Watch puts out a list of financial records (those that have been obtained) of the federal court system’s judges’ for all to see and review (at the following link): https://www.judicialwatch.org/judge . And the cause and effect situation expressed here is exactly why we have appellate courts. The downside to this equation is the amount of money the Plaintiff had to spend litigating it before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

CASE NOTES

Understand that Gross (the Plaintiff) lost his home to foreclosure and to add insult to injury, Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. (as the second lien holder in a deed of trust state) used the three major credit bureaus as a punching bag against Gross, tagging his credit reports with erroneous, derogatory trade line items showing Gross being multiple times delinquent when in fact, the second mortgage was extinguished in the foreclosure under Arizona law. Gross challenged Citi’s behavior after disputing it with the three credit bureaus, all of which supported Citi’s continued erroneous reporting of derogatory information on Gross’s credit reports. The lower court dismissed all other defendants from the suit except Citi and then ruled in Citi’s favor. Gross then appealed the matter to the Ninth Circuit.

This 13-page ruling goes into great detail on the purpose of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and what it allows a consumer to do in the way of litigation. The author found this case useful in providing enough detail to overcome a 12(b)(6) dismissal in the way that prima facie evidence is discovered or provided at the onset of the case. The case was reversed and remanded back for a jury trial. Thus, the U.S. District Court judge in this case (Roslyn O. Silver) is going to have to deal with it the way it should have been done in the first place.

AUTHOR’S COMMENTARY

The author specifically wrote a book called The Credit Restoration Primer (now in its 5th Edition) for a reason. It is still highly likely that 85% of information being reported on a consumer’s credit report is erroneous and disputable under the law. This is why the author also included all of the dispute letters he used to rid his credit file of unwanted and erroneous information so as to further his future exploits.

It is sad that the banks and third-party debt collectors continue to beat up on consumers like they do, given the fact America is facing a “social credit scoring system” if the current powers that be continue to push their liberal, leftist, Marxist policies. Italy is already in the process of implementing such a system and this will not bode well for those under its iron fist.

Given the current scenarios, it would be wise to check on your credit reports often (pull them twice a year) and make sure that all negative information is disputed, especially if it’s erroneous. In Gross’s case, he was trying to get another mortgage and Citi’s erroneous and derogatory information plagued any attempts by him to “move forward” after the loss of his property. While this case certainly serves as a learning curve, it also presents a sad history of how the banks continually screw consumers at every turn, when “we” all just want to “get ahead in life”.

On another note, according to recent reports, GenZ’ers are getting themselves into a lot of credit card debt, all this in the face of not wanting to work and live at home with their parents. This author could only wonder what mommy and daddy would say when the dunning phone calls start coming during the dinner hour about junior’s delinquent credit card bills. With the rising cost of homeownership and rising mortgage interest rates, this stupid reliance on credit cards to finance these impudent pups’ spending habits are likely to implode and wreak future havoc on American society. No pot to piss in and yet they all vote for politicians that give them handouts from a government that was not designed to give handouts.

The author is a nationally-syndicated talk show host on The Power Hour. See him live at the Clay Clark’s Reawaken America Tour in Myrtle Beach, SC by clicking on this link!

1 Comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

Quiet Title Actions, Multiple Scenarios and Suspected Court Overreach

(BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED) — The author of this post is a paralegal and trial consultant to attorneys on chain of title issues. The article is designed to educate and is not to be construed as legal advice or to attempt to draw any legal conclusions of law.

A Supreme Court of Iowa case came into my inbox this morning and after reading its 14 pages, it became a relevant topic for discussion here.

In this suit, the tax deed holder (ACC Holdings LLC), twice tried to sue the owner of record (Rooney). The Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure only allow for two “bites at the apple” (IRCP 1.943) and the second voluntary dismissal operated as an “adjudication on the merits” (in other words, by dismissing its own case twice, it blocked the Plaintiff from suing a third time by creating case law, based on a third filing of the same claim). One would begin to wonder exactly what the attorneys for the Plaintiffs were thinking.

You can read the case file here:

A lot of different ideas came to mind.

First, the property owner could have set up a payment plan with the County Treasurer to pay his past due tax bills, but didn’t.

Second, even failing to set up a payment plan, when the homeowner’s property went up for tax deed sale, the homeowner even had a 90-day chance to redeem the property; yet, he didn’t do that either. Most folks would look upon this guy as a tax cheat who should get his comeuppance.

Needless to say, the investor/Plaintiff obtained a tax deed. Anyone playing this game (like the author) knows that you have to quiet the title in order to make the property marketable. Instead, the Plaintiff served the homeowner with a notice to quit, followed up by a small claims court forcible detainer action, alleging the homeowner was a tenant at sufferance after the issuance of a valid tax deed.

This time, the homeowner fought back by moving to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim based on the small claims division not having jurisdiction over tax deed actions. The fact the homeowner fought back caused the investor/Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss its action, but not before filing its second action in district court (instead of small claims court). The mistake the Plaintiff made was using the same, previously-dated, notice to quit that had accompanied the first petition and after seeing the mistake, voluntarily dismissed the second forcible detainer action, which triggered the Rule of Civil Procedure, making a third action moot.

Third, rather than read the Rules of Civil Procedure, the investor/Plaintiff filed a third action for forcible detainer in the district court with a new 3-day notice to quit attached. The homeowner, whose attorney knew what was going on with the IRCP, filed an answer asserting 3 defenses. As usual, no matter how many valid arguments a homeowner might posit, the district court judge doesn’t care and awarded the homeowner’s property to the investor/Plaintiff. The homeowner appealed and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions, but not without a gob of explanation.

Fourth, a lot of analysis (worth the read) went into the rendering of this opinion. There are some genuine “nuggets” in the analysis that any homeowner looking at quiet title/tax deed issues should examine.

Fifth … and most shockingly … the Iowa Supreme Court sua sponte, took it upon themselves to bring up the discussion of a quiet title action in the form of a question. If this isn’t a “tip-off” to the investor/Plaintiff, what is? However, Pages 10 – 14 had more “teeth” in it for the investor/Plaintiff’s attorneys to chew on. You can bet they won’t make the same mistake twice after reading the Court’s ruling, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s case with prejudice.

Sixth, NOW … the Plaintiff’s attorneys can use this case material as a reference to bring a quiet title action, wherein the Court even ruled that the Plaintiff could bring such an action. By legally posturing the entire case for the Plaintiff, one must ask whether or not the Court exceeded its judicial boundaries by “stepping outside” of the case to submit its own remedy which benefitted the Plaintiff in its future endeavors to evict the homeowner (who claimed he had a disability).

Disability or no disability, one could have made a deal with the taxing authorities to make payments on the tax debt, even at the rate of $100 a month. Now, due to the Court’s “extended ruling” sua sponte, the disabled homeowner is soon going to be kicked to the curb with all of his possessions. Given this Court’s nature as well as the nature of the lower courts, don’t be surprised if the Plaintiff’s attorneys don’t ask the homeowner to pay attorney’s fees when they prevail in court, using the Supreme Court’s template as their basis to quiet title.

Sadly, one must also consider why the homeowner decided to fight (and retain counsel) instead of paying his taxes (which would have been considerably less expensive). Part of the problem with many homeowners is the misguided effort to fight the wrong battle. It would have been better to pay the taxes than pay an attorney and lose the home anyway.

One must also ask … is it worth taking the matter to the Supreme Court of the United States and asking the nation’s highest “conservative” Court whether the Supreme Court of Iowa’s extended ruling violated the civil rights of the Defendant homeowner for educating the Plaintiff’s attorneys in how to obtain the Property? Nope. This homeowner couldn’t afford it anyway. It’s over $15,000 just to file the damned case in the U.S. Supreme Court and there’s no guarantee the Court will hear the case anyway.

And this is why these scenarios are put forth. Homeowners in trouble generally do not pay their hazard insurance or property taxes. That’s the first sign they’re in financial straits. And this is one way that the investors are going to grab up properties to rehab them and turn them into rental properties, which brings to the forefront this author’s key argument that this nation is being turned into a nation of renters because of the lack of homeowners’ financial education.

It is for this reason the author wrote the book Clouded Titles.

1 Comment

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

So you think you’re in default, eh?

(Op-Ed) — The author of this post is a paralegal that serves as a title consultant to trial attorneys in foreclosure matters and thus, this article is not intended to render legal advice, nor to be construed as such. It is intended for educational purposes only and is not guaranteed to produce any given legal outcome.

The author of this post will try to keep things simple without passing judgment.

There is no doubt here that we are collectively living in troubled times. The rash of foreclosures continues now that the eviction moratoriums have been lifted for the most part. Those who did not undertake a loan modification or request a forbearance (that was actually granted) are probably feeling the sting of communication by the mortgage loan servicers in their mailing out of late notices on unpaid and delinquent mortgage loans.

According to the terms of the mortgage or deed of trust (depending on which “state” you’re in), there is a specific section on Default. Understand that it’s the mortgage loan servicer’s obligation to collect the mortgage loan debt and route payments to the “lender”, no matter WHO that lender might be.

The problem with defaults, loan modifications and the like is that so many of the loans out there today are securitized through the MERS® System. Since the MERS® System was taken over by the same company that owns the New York Stock Exchange, the information coming out of this entity is scarce to non-existent.

Generally, if you miss a payment, the servicer is going to notify you by certified mail. You may have to sign for the letter. The biggest mistake that homeowners make is ignoring these letters, when in fact, this could be the very start of a long, drawn-out process where you can obtain a lot of useful and vital information that your attorney could use in a foreclosure defense posture, without having to pay gobs in legal fees.

What is a QWR?

That process is called a Qualified Written Request (QWR) under RESPA (the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) § 6. You can easily research this section of the law and discover that RESPA allows you to send a QWR to the servicer’s bona fide QWR address and ask the servicer to send you specific information, which is discussed below.

The author is going to include a sample QWR from the National Consumer Law Center; however, it comes with a caveat. If you want to delay the foreclosure while gathering evidence, it is suggested by many attorneys that you only request two or three documents at a time and just keep the requests coming. As soon as you get the set of documents you asked for, have another letter drafted, ready to go with another 3 to 4 document requests under the same set of statutes. This prolongs the servicer taking any action against you, while you set out to discover (rather than go through objectionable discovery in court against the servicer who’s trying to steal your home) all of the documents necessary to build a sustainable case.

Several homeowners this author has talked to have utilized QWR’s to stop foreclosures. It was only when their attorneys told them it wasn’t doing any good to continue sending them … and the homeowners quit sending QWRs … that all of a sudden, the servicers foreclosed on them.

Why send a QWR?

Sending the servicer (at their official QWR address, not their main address) a QWR is a great way to get information from the lender’s mortgage loan servicer. Nine times out of ten, it’s the mortgage loan servicer that retains the law firm to foreclose and it’s the mortgage loan servicer whose employees falsify the assignments they use to create standing to steal your home.

Secondly, when asking intially, the following documents are key to asking for follow-up questions:

  1. An unredacted copy of the mortgage or deed of trust
  2. A copy of the note, showing all indorsements and allonges proving custody of the note
  3. A copy of the complete pay history of the loan, including escrows

Do NOT ask for the original note because it’s highly likely the servicer doesn’t have it. If your loan was securitized, it’s also highly likely, given what Judge Jennifer Bailey in Florida was told by the Florida Mortgage Bankers Association (in 2009), that your note was shredded after it was uploaded into the MERS® System.

For those of you doubting Thomases out there, read page 4 of the foregoing letter to the judge … understand that the word “eliminated” is just what it is. The banks got rid of the original loan paperwork because they converted the note into a security. They converted a debt instrument into an equity instrument, which makes no sense at all. The foregoing letter was included as an exhibit in the Osceola County Forensic Examination conducted by the author and his team and attorney Allen D. West, Esq., released to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Osceola County, Florida on December 30, 2014. Since then, subsequent Clerks have kept the examination report on the county’s website.

This is why asking to see the original note is ludicrous because it doesn’t exist in its purest form.

This is why you want to identify WHO the players are in your chain of title and compare what you get from the mortgage loan servicer’s collateral file with all of the other evidence you are able to obtain from a QWR versus the actual discovery within an expensive lawsuit (right out of the gate).

Day 91

Don’t be fooled by mortgage loan servicers whose employees ask you to be 90 days late on your mortgage loan before they’ll grant you a loan modification. On Day 91, the mortgage loan servicer and the trustee will file for insurance claims on the REMIC and get paid in full for the missing mortgage loan payments not made by the borrowers. If the investors in the REMIC are made whole with a payout by the insurance carriers, then who’s in default? The REMIC has no standing to pursue a foreclosure!

Once you’ve been able to ascertain the “players” in the sandbox, it will make things a lot simpler to identify the culprits and pursue some serious litigation against them.

Listen to Dave Krieger on The Power Hour, 11 a.m. – 1 p.m., Monday – Friday (Central Time) and don’t forget to watch his speech, streaming live on The Power Hour (thepowerhour.com) on Saturday, May 14, 2022, live from Clay Clark’s Reawaken America Tour at the Carolina Opry in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina at 11:15 a.m. Eastern Time.

Leave a comment

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

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