Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
I am working on a YouTube channel " How to Profit Using Remnants of Sub-prime Loan" pretending I am NRZ and how I use Ocwen and bank trustees to collect. That would generate a lot of hits. People like the word "profit"..
 

arrgy

LoanSafe Member
Just out of curiosity, has had anyone tried and had any success with attacking the Plaintiff's affidavit at MSJ in regards to being a holder of the note (not the mortgage) BEFORE the complaint was filed? I was watching some video with a bank attorney urging their client to make sure that when you go to SJ the affidavit specifically states that you were in possession of it BEFORE you filed the complaint.
Checking over my situation, I just noticed that the Business Record/Internet "I can read a screen" guy who has no personal knowledge of anything, never stipulated that before making his affidavit. The guy claims in his affidavit (a year after filing the complaint) that they possess the note, but never stipulate when they came into possession of it.
Something I will throw into my motion to reconsider, which was never ruled on.
 

Annie Mac

LoanSafe Member
What is the difference? In my case, when they filed, it was the "Original blank unendorsed Note," copy which is in the country recording office. Less than a month before the "hearing," they filed an additional "Original Note," which completely contradicts the original note submitted. No explanation of when, where, or how this new Note appeared or where it had been all this time between. Of course, the second Original Note is signed by a well known robo-signer who has had many court cases heard. That explanation is part of the drama, but way down on the list, due to other toxic topics. That was all five years ago. Go ahead, and put everything into the soup pot. You never know what might work. Let's hope we all live long enough to have our cases heard.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Not only are they using the very thing which is supposed to protect the sanctity of the contract, they use that to defeat the homeowner and then label it. The very thing they have already done, they accuse or at least frame as the homeowner's doing. These are well known tactics for a narcissistic sociopath. It would appear that term is applicable to banks as well. If one commits fraud or breach of contract, then frame it so the homeowner is accused of that very thing. Then, create a maze impossible to unwind of missing documents, new types of lawbreaking the homeowner did which requires force-placed insurance, keep moving the spotlight so no one ever looks at the deeds the bank did to create the very thing they accuse the homeowner of. If the heat gets turned up, rather than risk the discovery of the bank doing fraud, well, sell the thing to another entity or just sit silent for a spell, to confuse the situation even more.
And names; the same names keep popping up. I always knew the connection of Jocelyn Tate, Gregorio Miniano, Barbara Hindman, D. Pekusic was a firecracker but could not place it. Of course, they are behind the curtain, that document has long ago been erased, but the trail is there. Yes, we had a lot of discussion about Jocelyn Tate. Now, many years later I can finally connect what that was about. A rainbow is on the horizon.
Isisis, you continue to be the wise one standing by the well of wisdom holding out cups to us.
I'm glad if that's what I appear to be but what i feel like is someone up against the wall fighting with everything on the line and hoping the law is real and that justice isn't a construct or a fairytale created to keep the masses in line. I guess we all grew up with the idealistic American promise in our minds, the Mr Smith goes to Washington archetype of our country's classless allegiance to truth and justice for all where good triumphs over evil. That fantasy persists, reality notwithstanding, despite all evidence to the contrary. Otherwise why would any of us take on an opponent $50 trillion times more powerful?
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Arrgy,

Depends on the state you're in and the case law that's been created on the issue. If you have time right now your most valuable friend is Google Scholar. Choose your state and federal courts and type the search terms.

More Trouble,

You might want to also work on YouTube shorts, 15 - 60 seconds. They're really showcasing shorts, they're easy to make and they can drive traffic to your channel. People who wouldn't usually click on something about mortgages will see the short and might become interested.
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
I put this foreclosure mill, Malcolm-Cisneros of Irvin, ca out of foreclosure business in Oregon. Before my appeal, they filed over 500 cases collecting millions of dollars in fees. After the fraud is exposed in the Court of Appeals none was filed . Bye , bye crooks.
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Just out of curiosity, has had anyone tried and had any success with attacking the Plaintiff's affidavit at MSJ in regards to being a holder of the note (not the mortgage) BEFORE the complaint was filed? I was watching some video with a bank attorney urging their client to make sure that when you go to SJ the affidavit specifically states that you were in possession of it BEFORE you filed the complaint.
Checking over my situation, I just noticed that the Business Record/Internet "I can read a screen" guy who has no personal knowledge of anything, never stipulated that before making his affidavit. The guy claims in his affidavit (a year after filing the complaint) that they possess the note, but never stipulate when they came into possession of it.
Something I will throw into my motion to reconsider, which was never ruled on.
Important note--not every state has what I call the Florida requirement--that they prove up possession of the "note" prior to filing the suit.
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Just out of curiosity, has had anyone tried and had any success with attacking the Plaintiff's affidavit at MSJ in regards to being a holder of the note (not the mortgage) BEFORE the complaint was filed? I was watching some video with a bank attorney urging their client to make sure that when you go to SJ the affidavit specifically states that you were in possession of it BEFORE you filed the complaint.
Checking over my situation, I just noticed that the Business Record/Internet "I can read a screen" guy who has no personal knowledge of anything, never stipulated that before making his affidavit. The guy claims in his affidavit (a year after filing the complaint) that they possess the note, but never stipulate when they came into possession of it.
Something I will throw into my motion to reconsider, which was never ruled on.
Additionally, it has happened where there was such a requirement in certain states, and cases were dismissed as a result. But since they are used to fabricating documentation anyway, they can just fabricate a new "note" or some allonge and file again anyway, claiming that they now can prove up when they obtained the note. This has happened and will no doubt happen again. That's why it is so important to look at the entire big picture and use as many legit arguments as you can. In my case, they had private conversations with the judge, and even admitted doing so...so when the trial court granted their MSJ I appealed. The COA never got past the issue of the improper conversations, and threw out every judgment of the trial court from those conversations forward. I had appealed the granting of SJ too, on several grounds, but the COA never got that far. When they find that one assignment of error is correct they often stop there.
 

Annie Mac

LoanSafe Member
KraftyKrab,

Private conversations with the judge can occur in the courtroom as well as in the judge's chambers. How did you learn of this? Or learn enough to make it stick? Even the conversations between litigating attorneys have been suspicious and toxic in my experience. The good ol boys club bonded via "justice."
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
KraftyKrab,

Private conversations with the judge can occur in the courtroom as well as in the judge's chambers. How did you learn of this? Or learn enough to make it stick? Even the conversations between litigating attorneys have been suspicious and toxic in my experience. The good ol boys club bonded via "justice."
I had filed a motion to dismiss. The judge's clerk contacted the opposing attorney and had discussion regarding my motion---ex parte communications are only permitted in my state for emergency or scheduling issues, not to discuss a party's intentions regarding motions that I file. The judge's staff readily admitted that they had had those conversations and even told me that opposing counsel had sent a letter to the judge. In my state, any written communication like this is to be promptly and completely shared with all parties....this happened around 5 years ago and I still don't know what was in that letter.

When I filed motion for sanctions, the attorney even admitted in their written response that the communications had taken place, but claimed that there was nothing done wrong, even though the law says what it says. In the end, predictably, the motion for sanctions was denied without explanation.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Important note--not every state has what I call the Florida requirement--that they prove up possession of the "note" prior to filing the suit.
As I recall being a holder before commencing foreclosure proceedings is a requirement under TILA though from what I've heard only a few states bother to make that a requirement or else not enough borrowers challenge it.
 

arrgy

LoanSafe Member
I think I have thrown everything but the kitchen sick at this reconsideration.

1. Discovery never completed
2. Plaintiff's affidavit was objected to and never ruled on
3. None of the Affirmative Defenses were ruled upon
4. The Plaintiff is a Holder, not a Holder in Due Course and is subject to any claims made against the original Lender
5. Plaintiff never proved they actually owned the note at filing of foreclosure. Plaintiff never even stated that they bought the note from HUD in a DASP sale. The Trust never stated where they got the note from.
6. The Note and Modification is Void due to Alteration of the Note (somehow the note is no longer FHA) OR if it is still FHA conditions precedent was NOT followed
7. The note and mortgage should be declared void since the assignment of the mortgage and transfer of the note to HUD from Wells was done in violation of Federal and State Law, in violation of the terms of the note and mortgage, and in violation of a State Supreme Court Order
8. The contractual obligations were breeched by the Plaintiff in failing to perform its duties and lack of consideration
9. Since the Plaintiff is using a mortgage modification which is no longer in existence as it basis for amount due, that amount is not correct. Plaintiff never stated how much they paid for the note.

I'm exhausted, and have until Friday to file.
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Good news :

"
Wells Fargo intends to extend foreclosure protections on loans it owns until the end of the year, CNBC reported. The bank said that with very specific exceptions, all foreclosure-related activity on occupied properties and all evictions are being halted through the end of 2021. A Wells Fargo spokesperson told CNBC that the bank supports the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s proposed rule that would prevent lenders from even starting foreclosure proceedings until 2022."

Wells Fargo !!! Are they still fabricating notes and allonges?
 

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
Just out of curiosity, has had anyone tried and had any success with attacking the Plaintiff's affidavit at MSJ in regards to being a holder of the note (not the mortgage) BEFORE the complaint was filed? I was watching some video with a bank attorney urging their client to make sure that when you go to SJ the affidavit specifically states that you were in possession of it BEFORE you filed the complaint.
Checking over my situation, I just noticed that the Business Record/Internet "I can read a screen" guy who has no personal knowledge of anything, never stipulated that before making his affidavit. The guy claims in his affidavit (a year after filing the complaint) that they possess the note, but never stipulate when they came into possession of it.
Something I will throw into my motion to reconsider, which was never ruled on.
Yes, I've seen it investigating my own case. There was some caselaw on it, I beleive in the Midwest States with regards to Mary MacGuire affidavit several years ago. (I might be wrong on the specific name but that was the person I was researching at the time.) The affiant does not qualify for the "business records exemptions" and is "hearsay." (They are simply swearing - hearsay without anything backing it up.) There were several pieces of caselaw on it, but most of these cases (where homeowner is correct) don't make it to appeals and it is not searchable. Yes, I also have this on current case. I don't believe it will hold water. Sorry don't have the example handy. Many examples of requiring to be holder at inception of foreclosure now.
 

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
This basically goes to standing to foreclose. Why banks now swearing on it, they're just covering bases and it will work if there is no objection. It's part of the latest foreclosure "template" design by the robomills, esp Ocwen and friends.
 
Top