LPS statement “Technical Error” how about “HUMAN Robo-Signors FORGING, FABRICATING ERROR” to many tens-of- thousands (possibly in the miilions) of Assignmnet FRAUD “errors”. Preparing Docs in one state, Executing them in another and Notarizing in another? How about the signatures not matching the people who are signing? What about the folks in Minnesota where most of these were signed?
Jacksonville Business Journal – by Rachel Witkowski Staff reporter
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Tampa is investigating a subsidiary of Lender Processing Services Inc. that processes mortgage documents for lenders.
Jacksonville-based company (NYSE: LPS) stated in its 2009 annual report that the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Middle District of Florida recently began inquiring about the business processes of a subsidiary, DOCX LLC, based in Alpharetta, Ga.
LPS also acknowledged that there was an “error” in DOCX’s business processes and LPS immediately corrected it, according to the annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
“We have representatives speaking with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and we are cooperating with all inquiries made by the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” said Michelle Kersch, LPS’ senior vice president of marketing and corporate communications, in an e-mailed response. “We changed the business process that created the technical error, provided additional training to our employees and corrected documents.”
The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment on its investigation.
Kersch said LPS was contacted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in February. That same month, another investigation by the Clerk of Superior Court in Fulton County, Ga. into DOCX had closed without taking any further action, officials said.
LPS has become a dominant player in the mortgage servicing market since it spun off from Fidelity National Information Services in July, 2008. LPS serviced about 70 percent of the non-performing loan market and 40 percent of foreclosed loans nationwide as of Dec. 31, according to LPS’ latest “mortgage monitor” report.
LPS increased revenue to nearly $2.4 billion in 2009 and recently announcing it will add 350 jobs through 2011. The Jacksonville Economic Development Commission has recommended nearly $3 million in city and state incentives for LPS to add those jobs in Jacksonville.
More to come…
Sample of their work “in-house” Minnesota…not only Alpharetta, GA
Jacksonville Business Journal – by Rachel Witkowski Staff reporter-
Lender Processing Services Inc. recently opened an office in Washington, D.C. in order to attract more government work, the company announced Thursday.
The Jacksonville-based technology and services provider (NYSE: LPS) to the mortgage and real estate industries said having an office in the nation’s capital “gives LPS the ability to quickly respond to the needs of its government clients and to increase its presence by pursuing opportunities with new government partners.”
The company said it is currently has contractual relationships with a number of federal agencies. The D.C. office will provide services including mortgage consulting, technology, portfolio data analytics and risk management as well as due diligence and valuation.
“In today’s challenging economic environment, government agencies need expert support and data to make the most informed decisions, mitigate risks and operate at peak efficiency,” said LPS’ co-chief operating officer, Eric Swenson in the announcement. “LPS’ proven, robust technology solutions and extensive governmental expertise can help agencies quickly adapt to changing market conditions and regulatory requirements for optimal performance.”
Judge Buford in Bankruptcy Court has no problem seeing the real issues. Here he is again stating that MERS has no standing and that MERS is confused as to whether it is acting in is own behalf or as agent for the note holder. He further makes it clear that the loan is not secured by the real property where MERS is the “nominee.” Since MERS admits, indeed advertises it will never make a claim to ownership of the note (otherwise nobody would use their service) there is absolutely no basis under law or equity in any court where it should be allowed to foreclose.
But they have done exactly that. So now that we know all those foreclosures were done illegally not for some procedural reason, but because MERS is not a creditor, what does that do to the hundreds of thousands of foreclosure sales that took place using MERS as “nominee” as the base of the chain. The answer, as anyone with knowledge of property law will tell you, is that the foreclosure sale is void, not voidable.
That in turn means that whoever owned it before the “sale” still owns it. Which of course means in most cases that there are hundreds of thousands of people who were homeowners that still own the property that was “foreclosed.” It also means, if the house is empty that they have the right to re-enter it. So you see, it is on this simple fact and basic black letter law that the entire foreclosure mess is proved to be an illusion. There is no mess. There is just a lot of paper that doesn’t mean anything.
If a Judge signed an order setting the sale date (as opposed to lifting the stay) THEN it is highly probable that in order to regain possession of the house you would need to file a quiet title action and quite possibly an action for damages.
2. MERS’s Authority to Operate in California The FAC fleetingly alleges that “MERS [is] not registered to do business in California.” FAC ¶ 9. While MERS’s registration status receives no other mention in the complaint, plaintiff’s opposition memorandum purports to support several of plaintiff’s claims with this allegation, and defendant’s reply discusses it on the merits. The court therefore discusses this issue here. The California Corporations Code requires entities that “transact[] intrastate business” in California to acquire a “certificate of qualification” from the California Secretary of State. Cal. Corp. Code § 2105(a). MERS argues that its activities fall within exceptions to the statutory definition of transacting intrastate business, such that these requirement does not apply. See Cal. Corp. Code § 191. It is not clear to the court that MERS’s activity is exempt. Page 23 MERS primarily relies on Cal. Corp. Code § 191(d)(3). Cal. Corp. Code § 191(d) enumerates various actions that do not trigger the registration requirement when performed by “any foreign lending institution.” Because neither the FAC nor the exhibits indicate that MERS is such an institution, MERS cannot protect itself under this exemption at this stage. The statute defines “foreign lending institution” as “including, but not limited to: [i] any foreign banking corporation, [ii] any foreign corporation all of the capital stock of which is owned by one or more foreign banking corporations, [iii] any foreign savings and loan association, [iv] any foreign insurance company or [v] any foreign corporation or association authorized by its charter to invest in loans secured by real and personal property[.]” Cal. Corp. Code § 191(d). Neither any published California decision nor any federal decision has interpreted these terms. Because plaintiff alleges that MERS does not itself invest in loans or lend money, it appears that [i], [iii], and [v] do not apply. MERS does not claim to be an insurance company under [ii]. Finally, it is certainly plausible that not all of MERS’s owners are foreign corporations. At this stage of litigation, the court cannot conclude that MERS falls within any of the five enumerated examples of “foreign lending institutions,” and the court declines to address sua sponte whether MERS otherwise satisfies subsection (d). Corp. Code § 191(d). Neither any published California decision nor any federal decision has interpreted these terms. Because plaintiff alleges that MERS does not itself invest in loans or lend money, it appears that [i], [iii], and [v] do not apply. MERS does not claim to be an insurance company under [ii]. Finally, it is certainly plausible that not all of MERS’s owners are foreign corporations. At this stage of litigation, the court cannot conclude that MERS falls within any of the five enumerated examples of “foreign lending institutions,” and the court declines to address sua sponte whether MERS otherwise satisfies subsection (d). Defendants also invoke a second exemption, Cal. Corp. Code § 191(c)(7). While section 191(c) is not restricted to “lending institutions,” MERS’s acts do not fall into the categories Page 24 enumerated under the section, including subsection (c)(7). Plaintiff alleges that MERS directed the trustee to initiate nonjudicial foreclosure on the property. Section 191(c)(7) provides that “[c]reating evidences of debt or mortgages, liens or security interests on real or personal property” is not intrastate business activity. Although this language is unexplained, directing the trustee to initiate foreclosure proceedings appears to be more than merely creating evidence of a mortgage. This is supported by the fact that a separate statutory section, § 191(d)(3) (which MERS cannot invoke at this time, see supra), exempts “the enforcement of any loans by trustee’s sale, judicial process or deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise.” Interpreting section (c)(7) to include these activities would render (d)(3) surplusage, and such interpretations of California statutes are disfavored under California law. People v. Arias, 45 Cal. 4th 169, 180 (2008), Hughes v. Bd. of Architectural Examiners, 17 Cal. 4th 763, 775 (1998). Accordingly, section 191(c)(7) does not exempt MERS’s activity.[fn12] For these reasons, plaintiff’s argument that MERS has acted Page 25 in violation of Cal. Corp. Code § 2105(a) is plausible, and cannot be rejected at this stage in the litigation. 3. Whether MERS Has Acted UltraVires Plaintiff separately argues that MERS has acted in violation of its own “terms and conditions.” These “terms” allegedly provide that MERS shall serve as mortgagee of record with respect to all such mortgage loans solely as a nominee, in an administrative capacity, for the beneficial owner or owners thereof from time to time. MERS shall have no rights whatsoever to any payments made on account of such mortgage loans, to any servicing rights related to such mortgage loans, or to any mortgaged properties securing such mortgage loans. MERS agrees not to assert any rights (other than rights specified in the Governing Documents) with respect to such mortgage loans or mortgaged properties. References herein to “mortgage(s)” and “mortgagee of record” shall include deed(s) of trust and beneficiary under a deed of trust and any other form of security instrument under applicable state law.” FAC ¶ 10. The FAC does not specify the source of these “terms and conditions.” Plaintiff’s opposition memorandum states that they are taken from MERS’s corporate charter, implying that an action in violation thereof would be ultra vires. Opp’n at 4. Plaintiff then alleges that these terms do not permit MERS to “act as a nominee or beneficiary of any of the Defendants.” FAC ¶ 32. However, the terms explicitly permit MERS to act as nominee. Plaintiff has not alleged a violation of these terms. 4. Defendants’ Authority to Foreclose Another theme underlying many of plaintiff’s claims is that defendants have attempted to foreclose or are foreclosing on the Page 26 property without satisfying the requirements for doing so. Plaintiff argues that foreclosure is barred because no defendant is a person entitled to enforce the deed of trust under the California Commercial Code and because defendants failed to issue a renewed notice of default after the initial trustee’s sale was 4. Defendants’ Authority to Foreclose Another theme underlying many of plaintiff’s claims is that defendants have attempted to foreclose or are foreclosing on the Page 26 property without satisfying the requirements for doing so. Plaintiff argues that foreclosure is barred because no defendant is a person entitled to enforce the deed of trust under the California Commercial Code and because defendants failed to issue a renewed notice of default after the initial trustee’s sale was rescinded.
Most of us are trying to get the info from the banks, which they will not do unless forced. Well, now many of us can walk right in through the back door. FOIA requests! I fought for 7 months to get the bank to cough up the info and it only took 6 days by going through the FDIC. So now I’m in the drivers seat. This damned bank has been lying from day one claiming they are the sole beneficiary of my loan. Now they have committed the fraud and done the crime by illegally selling my home. They are now in deep, deep, trouble.
I’ve been fighting OneWest Bank since August of last year here in Colorado. In Colorado they have nonjudicial foreclosures and the laws as so totally banker-biased it’s insane. All the bank has to do is go to the public trustee with a note from an attorney who “certifies” that the bank is the owner of the loan. What they don’t tell you is the bank has to go before a judge and get an order for sale in a 120 hearing. Most only find out about it at the last minute and don’t even show up because the only issue discussed is whether a default has occurred or not.
I discovered however that if you raise the question of whether the foreclosing party is a true party in interest or not, the court has to hear that as well. I raised that issue and demanded the bank produce the original documents and endorsements or assignements. The judge only ordered them to produce originals, which they did.
Long story short, I managed to hold them off for seven months after hiring an attorney. I found a bankruptcy case from CA in 2008 in which IndyMac produced original documents and ended up having to admit they didn’t own them. I had a letter from OneWest that only stated they purchased servicing rights. I had admissions from the bank’s attorney that there were no endorsements. And at the last minute I discovered the FDIC issued a press release in response to a YouTube video that went viral over the sweetheart deal OneWest did with the FDIC. The FDIC stated in their press release that OneWest only owned 7% of the loans they service. I presented all this to the judge but he ended up ignoring it all and gave OneWest an order to sell my home, which they did on the 4th.
About a week before the sale I went directly to the FDIC and filed a FOIA request for any and all records indicating ownership rights and servicing rights related to my loans and gave them my loan numbers. I managed to get the info in about 6 days. I got PROOF from the FDIC that OneWest did not own my loan. Fredie Mac did. And the info came directly from OneWest systems. And just last Friday I got a letter from IndyMac Mortgage services, obviously in compliance with the FOIA request that Freddie Mac owned the loan. So I now have a confession from OneWest themselves that they have been lying all along! I have a motion in to have the sale set aside and once that’s done I’m going to sue the hell out of them and their attorneys in Federal court.
So I found a wonderful little back door to the proof most of us need. If the FDIC is involved, you can do a FOIA request for the info. I don’t know if it applies to all banks since they are all involved in the FDIC. You all should try it to see.
Most of us are trying to get the info from the banks, which they will not do unless forced. Well, now many of us can walk right in through the back door. FOIA requests! I fought for 7 months to get the bank to cough up the info and it only took 6 days by going through the FDIC. So now I’m in the drivers seat. This damned bank has been lying from day one claiming they are the sole beneficiary of my loan. Now they have committed the fraud and done the crime by illegally selling my home. They are now in deep, deep, trouble.
GRAN IMPORTANCIA!! IMPORTÂNCIA DE ALTA!! HAUTE IMPORTANCE!!
MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS
Action Date: March 12, 2010
Location: WEST Palm Beach, FL
CALL FOR MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENTS & AFFIDAVITS – March 12, 2010 – Researchers at Fraud Digest are comparing the job titles on Mortgage Assignments and Affidavits of the individuals listed below. If you have any Mortgage Assignment or Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgment in a Foreclosure action signed by any of the following individuals, please scan the document(s) and send it as a pdf. attachment to szymoniak@mac.com. This request is for research regarding mortgage-related documents. The individuals named below are not accused of wrong-doing or fraudulent activity: Christina Allen; Scott Anderson; Brent Bagley; China Brown; Eric Friedman; Linda Green; Ely Harless; Korell Harp; Laura Hescott; Erica Johnson-Seck; Dennis Kirkpatrick; Topako Love; Jessica Ohde; Keri Selman; Kathy Smith; Roger Stotts; Eric Tate; Tywanna Thomas; Linda Thoresen.
First, Lynn Szymoniak ESQ. presented “Compare these Titles & Signatures” & “Too Many Jobs”…Now the next of many of compare these signatures & titles series. “Officers of Way, Way too many banks”…Part Deux “The Twilight Zone”.
How can you be an OFFICER of all these banks and Why is your signature never signed the same??? Minnesota? LPS? Bueller? …anyone?…Bueller?
These “Black Deeds”, collectively, are proof that the notaries, witnesses, and signatories on each and every like assignment of mortgage is suspect at best; created as purely fabricated malarkey at worst. Professionals are starting to surmise that all of these mortgage assignments magically produced, presto-chango, to ram another foreclosure through “the system” are not credible evidence upon which the transfer of property, dispensation of justice, and the roof over a family’s head should rest.
And, then, here ya’ go: another colleague found a mortgage assignment back-dated four years in order to assign property two years hence. Being no math whiz, would someone please clarify if that is a net back-dating of two years? Perhaps it’s a cumulative formula, adding the 4 years to 2 years, makes the “off dating” 6 years? I dunno! How’s that really work? Sounds like an episode of Beat The Clock!
This is no mere document failure! Please. Call it what it is: foreclosures upon millions of families, evicted from their homes by financial entities with no more rights to take those homes than have you or I. When faced with this fact, the financial entities are creating, fabricating (aka MAKING UP) the “evidence” to prove that they have the
right to take a family’s home and throw them with all their worldly
possessions into the street! Where are the investors who really put up the money for these home loans? They must be singing the blues to see some interloper foreclose a million times over and keep the proceeds from the post-foreclosure sale. Welcome to America! Waive to the Statue of Liberty on your way in. Breathe in that democratic process air we’ve prided ourselves on for lo these 233 years.
There are millions upon millions of families being evicted onto the streets, many with no alternative housing options. It’s not so easy to find a job in the best of circumstances today. Ever tried to find and/or hold down a job without a fixed address? How ’bout the children, in the middle of their school year? What about the beloved pets of foreclosure, fully members of the newly homeless family? Ever tried to find emergency shelter or housing with a deeply loved animal or two? What of the elderly who do not have the remaining lifespan to recover from the terrible financial and personal blow and may face their remaining “golden years” begging for scarce, dwindling social-net resources. What of the disabled, those of us living in America who, without dramatic rescue, are too ill and infirm to ever hope to again live independently under cover.
I may or may not return here to add more…………I’m too distraught to continue writing of my country’s egregious willful complicity in these relentless evictions and property confiscation. My heart and soul start to rupture past the point of repair when I think of how America is treating it’s citizenry, including the weakest of us all; based on a million-fold fraudulent transactions from mortgage origination well past post-foreclosure sale.
Let’s move on in a more wickedly delicious track, shall we?
Two unrelated, remorseful individuals have come forward, whispering to us colleagues with tales of the inner workings and “business practices” of document creation “mills” which may or may not be operating under the direction of foreclosure mill law firm. Permission from the parties has been extracted to publish this post.
Apparently, that same fear, hopelessness, and rage which descend upon one who is evicted from the only home they know to face a bleak and uncertain future……….. Yes, THAT fear, hopelessness and rage! Well, that same emotional response seems to have hit hard on a few past and/or current employees of certain companies which may have been involved in dubious, questionable “business practices”.
A crisis of conscience? Fear of criminal charges? Facing foreclosure themselves? Relative evicted? Family member tenet unexpectedly “trashed out”? Seeing the futility of working out a loan mod? One of the signatories (or employers thereof) who frantically googles the same names over and over and over in a mad search for what is known, what is published?
Could it be one or more of these signatories, while working for a “document solutions” company, have been “transferring property and assets” valued in the multi-billions and ostensibly owned by the top financial institutions in the world? Ron Mehig? Bethany Hood? Linda Green? From New House Title? Cheryl Hodge? Korrell Harp? From Law Offices of David Stern? Scott Anderson? Lori Brown? Barbara Hindman? Lori Brown? Whitney K. Cook? Melissa Flanagan? Lillana Morcan? Liquenda Allotey? Christina Trowbridge? Raquel Smith? Branden Kiel? Beth Cottrell? Twanna Thomas? From DocX? Winona Church? Nancy Reyes? William W. Huffman? Jill Arnold? Shameca Harrison? Kari Marx? Renee Hertzler? Mark Biscof? From LPS? Lorraine Brown?
Who knows? I’m not one to force another to reveal their personal motivations. I enjoy the privacy afforded me by the hard bones of my skull. I often keep my thoughts to myself and extend to others the same respect.
Action Date: March 9, 2010 Location: West Palm Beach, FL
ON MARCH 9, 2010, researchers for Fraud Digest easily found at least 10 Assignments, for combined loan amounts well over $2 million, with the Assignment Effective Date listed as 9/9/9999. These were all prepared by Docx, LLC in Alpharetta, Georgia, a subsidiary of Lender Processing Services in Jacksonville, FL. These are the same “document preparers/officers of too many banks” that prepared and filed Assignments where the grantor or grantee was listed as “Bogus Assignee for Intervening ASMTS” and also the same people who listed the grantor or grantee as “A Bad Bene.” All of these documents are witnessed and notarized (by other Docx employees). Fraud Digest researchers are now attempting to quantify the number of Assignments (in the hundreds or more likely thousands) where MERS is stated to be the original mortgagee. If the assignment is not effective until 9/9/9999, many homeowners will be able to stay in their homes a VERY long time. Each of these assignments effective in 9999 was to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Assn.
When speaking in generalities, it’s difficult for folks to understand what lawyer, judges and informed consumers are ranting about when we scream, “THE BANKS, LENDERS AND FORECLOSURE MILLS ARE COMMITTING FRAUD!”
I attach here a deposition transcript of Angela Melissa Nolan, a robo signer at Chase Home Finance. In the deposition, she describes in detail some of the corporate processes in place that purport to give pretender lenders the evidentiary basis to pursue foreclosure cases….I’ve called these people “Robo Signers” because prior depositions indicated they don’t read anything…they just sign. This deposition reveals another form of “Robo Signer”, a computer generated document, complete with a “real” signature scanned in…..and the rabbit hole just gets deeper and deeper.
C’mon take a few minutes to watch the video…I tell you it’s exactly what’s happening here!
In the past ten years, hundreds of thousands of residential mortgages were bundled together (often in groups of about 5,000 mortgages), and investors were offered the opportunity to buy shares of each bundle. This process is called securitization.
Each such bundle of residential mortgages was given a name, such as “Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006 OPT-2.” The name indicates information about the particular trust such as the year it was created (2006) and its contents (with OPT indicating that the loans in that particular trust were originally made by Option One Mortgage). Each such bundle/trust has a Cut Off Date identified in the trust documents (specifically, in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement). The Cut Off Date is the date on which all mortgage loans in the trust must be identified. In short, a final list of all of the mortgages in the bundle is set out. Each trust also has a Closing Date which is the date that the individual mortgages are transferred to the Trust Custodian, who must certify that for each mortgage, the custodian has a mortgage note endorsed in blank and proof that the ownership of the note has been transferred. This proof is most often an Assignment of Mortgage. Most trusts included the following or equivalent language regarding the Assignments: “Assignments of the Mortgage Loans to the Trustee (or its nominee) will not be recorded in any jurisdiction, but will be delivered to the Trustee in recordable form, so that they can be recorded in the event recordation is necessary in connection with the servicing of a Mortgage Loan.”
Title insurance companies issued policies guaranteeing that the trust had clear title to the mortgages.
When widespread defaults occurred, Trustees discovered that the laws regarding Mortgage Assignments varied significantly from state to state. Many issues regarding such Assignments were simply unresolved. One of the most significant issues was whether Mortgage Assignments could be back-dated or have retroactive effective dates. This issue arose because Trustees and their lawyers discovered in the foreclosure process that the Assignments could not actually be located, or that certain states did not allow blank Assignments.
To solve the problem of the missing Assignments, new Assignments were made and recorded. Because the question of retroactive Assignments had not been 2 resolved, most of these Assignments did not set forth the actual date that the Assignment took place. The Assignments were signed and notarized as if the transfer took place many years after the actual transfer date.
The Assignments were prepared by specially selected law firms and companies that specialized in providing “mortgage default services” to banks and mortgage companies. In jurisdictions with a high rate of mortgage defaults, over 80% of the filed Mortgage Assignments in the last three years were prepared and filed by the same five or six law firms and default processing companies.
In many states, two such Assignments were prepared and filed. The first was prepared in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems as “nominee” for the particular bank or mortgage company. When MERS authority to file foreclosures and Assignments was challenged in most jurisdictions, with varying results, a non-MERS Assignment was prepared as well.
In all of these cases, the Assignment was prepared to conceal the actual date that the property was acquired by the Trust. An examination of the Assignments filed showing the grantee as the Trust – such as “Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006 – OPT 2” – shows that most of these Assignments were prepared and filed in 2008 and 2009, when, in reality, the mortgages and notes were actually assigned – albeit defectively – prior to the closing date of the Trust. While the exact closing date can only be determined by looking at the trust documents, any Trust that includes the year in 2006 in its title most likely closed in 2006.
If a Mortgage Assignment is dated, notarized and filed in a year after the year set forth in the name of the grantee trust on the Assignment, it is actually an Assignment specially, and in many cases, fraudulently, made to facilitate foreclosures.
These Specially-Made Assignments have created havoc in the courts. In many cases, the Specially-made Assignments are dated After the foreclosure action has been initiated, making it appear that the Trust somehow magically knew prior to the assignment that it would acquire the defaulting property several months after the foreclosure action was initiated.
Repeatedly, courts have asked Trustees to explain why they were acquiring nonperforming loans and whether such acquisition was a violation of the trustee’s fiduciary duty to the Trust. No Trustee has ever come forth and explained that the Trust actually acquired the loan years before the Assignment. As a result, there are many decisions with observations similar to this observation made by Judge Arthur M. Schack of Kings County, New York, in HSBC Bank v. Valentin, 21Misc. 3d 1124 [A]:
Further, according to plaintiff’s application, the default of defendants Valentin and Ruiz began with the nonpayment of principal and interest due on January 1, 2007. Yet, four months later, plaintiff HSBC was willing to take an assignment of the instant nonperforming loan. The Court wonders why HSBC would purchase a nonperforming loan, four months in arrears?
And in Deautsche Bank National Trust Co. V. Harris, Judge ARTHUR M. SCHACK Kings, New York, Index No. 39192/2007 (05 FEB 2008):
Further, the Court requires an explanation from an officer of plaintiff DEUTSCHE BANK as to why, in the middle of our national sub-prime mortgage financial crisis, DEUTSCHE BANK would purchase a non-performing loan from INDYMAC…
In Massachusetts in October, 2009, Land Court Judge Keith Long reaffirmed a March, 2009, ruling that a lender cannot begin foreclosure proceedings before the lender has filed and recorded the Assignment, stating:
The blank mortgage assignments they possessed transferred nothing…in Massachusetts, a mortgage is a conveyance of land. Nothing is conveyed unless and until it is various agreements between the securitization entities stating that each had a right to an an assignment and they are certainly not in recordable form. U.S. Bank National Association v. Ibanez, Massachusetts Land Court Misc. Case No. 384283, consolidated with two other cases.
Many authors expect the Massachusetts Supreme Court to reverse the Ibanez decision, but the uncertainty itself, as in the case of the MERS challenges, caused lenders to flood recording offices with new Assignments.
In cases where the Trust failed to get a valid Assignment, the problem is complicated by the bankruptcy of the major loan originators, including American Home Mortgage, Option One Mortgage, and Countrywide Home Loans.
When these big mortgage companies filed for bankruptcy, they did not disclose the mortgages already sold to the trusts as assets, because the transfers occurred months and years prior to the bankruptcy filing. Years later, when the Assignments were required for foreclosures, a bankruptcy court’s permission was needed to Assign billions of dollars in mortgages. Most likely in fear that a Bankruptcy Judge would not rubber stamp such a request, no such permission has ever been sought.
In lieu of valid Assignments, Trusts continue to rely on Assignments specially made by their own law firms and mortgage default service companies. Eventually, these fraudulent Assignments are being discovered by Courts, and the foreclosing trusts required to prove that they own the Mortgage and Note in the foreclosure action without reliance on Assignments that misrepresent the date of the actual transfer to the Trust the authority of the signers of the bankrupt original lenders. For thousands of homeowners, this realization has come too late.
Kennedy was on the board of directors since February 2006 and was president and CEO of the company (NYSE: FIS) until it acquired Metavante Technologies Inc. Oct. 1. Frank Martire, who was chairman and CEO of Milwaukee-based Metavante before the acquisition, became president, CEO and director of FIS after the deal closed. Kennedy then became executive vice chairman of the board.
“It has been a privilege to work with the highly talented board members, management team and employees of FIS,” Kennedy said. “The new leadership team is off to a strong start, and I have great confidence in the future of this company.”
The announcement released by FIS stated Kennedy resigned effective immediately “in order to devote more time to outside interests.”
Former Fidelity National Information Services president and CEO Lee Kennedy will retire as executive vice chairman and director of FIS, effective immediately, “in order to devote more time to outside interests.”
Fidelity National (NYSE: FIS), which acquired Brown Deer-based Metavante Technologies Inc. in October 2009, made the announcement Monday. Kennedy was 58 as of the latest FIS proxy statement.
Kennedy joined the FIS board in February 2006 and served as president and CEO until the acquisition of Metavante Technologies. Metavante CEO Frank Martire became CEO of the merged company, renamed FIS, and relocated to FIS headquarters in Jacksonville, Fla.
I warned these banks in 2007, “give the People a loan modification before they discover that you defrauded them, because woe be onto you when they find out”. Anyway, I figured out that was on to something so to buy time to think strategy, I demanded that my mortgage go from the $3,833.54 to $1,200 per month. The judge agreed and ordered that the mortgage payments was going to be $1,200 a month, and he also wiped out the $20,000 plus mortgage in arrears. This was too easy, they were willing to cater to me just to keep my brethren from feasting. The judge then ordered that I was to begin mortgage payments of $1,200 a month, but not to pay it to the lender, but to the court’s registry. My claims were still pending, even though I was paying the mortgage, I could still pursue my claims of mortgage fraud against the banks. But I saw the trap! The day I sign any papers accepting this payment modification, I the day that the case is SETTLED, and the banks would get away with robbery. The judge also gave me a stern warning, “Mr. Muckle, I am going to tell you this and please listen to me carefully”.. then he looked me into my dark brown cold eyes with is tender and sincere big blue ones, and said, ever so sincerely and meaningfully, “Mr. Muckle, do not win the battle and lose the war”. He really was looking out for mines and my children’s best interest. But as his mouth opened up and uttered those words, all I could really hear him saying to me was, “ Mr. Muckle, why settle for a battle when you can win the war?” Fight them my brother, I have your back!”.( Lol, I swear, that’s what heard). But to secure the order and bind me, the judge ordered in writing, “If the plaintiff do not begin to pay the money into the court’s registry as ordered, the defendant SHALL foreclose on the Plaintiff’s property and sell it” Huh! …continue HERE
Attached here is the latest example of a Pinellas County Circuit Court judge applying the law and sticking up for the rights of homeowners and consumers. The pattern in Pinellas County, Florida is becoming clear…..the judges here “get it” and are not afraid to issue correct legal decisions–despite the fact that the consequences for banks and their bad behavior is going to be significant.
Read the decision and contact me with questions….these favorable decisions should be cited early and often!
Washington, D.C., February 24, 2010: Although only bankers are aware of it, there is a second wave of economic disaster starting to build up that will make the earlier one pale into insignificance. Let us start out with MERS, shall we?
MERS = Mortgage Electronic Registration Inc.holds approximately 60 million American mortgages and is a Delaware corporation whose sole shareholder is Mers Corp. MersCorp and its specified members have agreed to include the MERS corporate name on any mortgage that was executed in conjunction with any mortgage loan made by any member of MersCorp. Thus in place of the original lender being named as the mortgagee on the mortgage that is supposed to secure their loan, MERS is named as the “nominee” for the lender who actually loaned the money to the borrower. In other words MERS is really nothing more than a name that is used on the mortgage instrument in place of the actual lender. MERS’ primary function, therefore, is to act as a document custodian. MERS was created solely to simplify the process of transferring mortgages by avoiding the need to re-record liens – and pay county recorder filing fees – each time a loan is assigned. Instead, servicers record loans only once and MERS’ electronic system monitors transfers and facilitates the trading of notes. It has very conservatively estimated that as of February, 2010, over half of all new residential mortgage loans in the United States are registered with MERS and recorded in county recording offices in MERS’ name
MersCorp was created in the early 1990’s by the former C.E.O.’s of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Indy Mac, Countrywide, Stewart Title Insurance and the American Land Title Association. The executives of these companies lined their pockets with billions of dollars of unearned bonuses and free stock by creating so-called mortgage backed securities using bogus mortgage loans to unqualified borrowers thereby creating a huge false demand for residential homes and thereby falsely inflating the value of those homes. MERS marketing claims that its “paperless systems fit within the legal framework of the laws of all fifty states” are now being vetted by courts and legal commentators throughout the country.
The MERS paperless system is the type of crooked rip-off scheme that is has been seen for generations past in the crooked financial world. In this present case, MERS was created in the boardrooms of the most powerful and controlling members of the American financial institutions. This gigantic scheme completely ignored long standing law of commerce relating to mortgage lending and did so for its own personal gain. That the inevitable collapse of the crooked mortgage swindles would lead to terrible national repercussions was a matter of little or no interest to the upper levels of America’s banking and financial world because the only interest of these entities was to grab the money of suckers, keep it in the form of ficticious bonuses, real estate and very large accounts in foreign banks. The effect of this system has led to catastrophic meltdown on both the American and global economy.
MERS, as has clearly been proven in many civil cases, does not hold any promissory notes of any kind. A party must have possession of a promissory note in order to have standing to enforce and/or otherwise collect a debt that is owed to another party. Given this clear-cut legal definition, MERS does not have legal standing to enforce or collect on the over 60 million mortgages it controls and no member of MERS has any standing in an American civil court.
MERS has been taken to civil courts across the country and charged with a lack of standing in reposession issues. When the mortgage debacle initially, and inevitably, began, MERS always routinely brought actions against defaulting mortgage holders purporting to represent the owners of the defaulted mortgages but once the courts discovered that MERS was only a front organization that did not hold any deed nor was aware of who or what agencies might hold a deed, they have routinely been denied in their attempts to force foreclosure. In the past, persons alleging they were officials of MERS in foreclosure motions, purported to be the holders of the mortgage, when, in fact, they not only were not the holder of the mortgage but, under a court order, could not produce the identity of the actual holder. These so-called MERS officers have usually been just employees of entities who are servicing the loan for the actual lender. MERS, it is now widely acknowledged by the courts, has no legal right to foreclose or otherwise collect debt which are evidenced by promissory notes held by someone else.
The American media routinely identifies MERS as a mortgage lender, creditor, and mortgage company, when in point of fact MERS has never loaned so much as a dollar to anyone, is not a creditor and is not a mortgage company. MERS is merely a name that is printed on mortgages, purporting to give MERS some sort of legal status, in the matter of a loan made by a completely different and almost always,a totally unknown entity.
The infamous collapse of the American housing bubble originated, in the main, with one Angelo Mozilo, CEO of the later failed Countrywide Mortgage.
Mozilo started working in his father’s butcher shop, in the Bronx, when he was ten years old. He graduated from Fordham in 1960, and that year he met David Loeb. In 1968, Mozilo and Loeb created a new mortgage company, Countrywide, together. Mozilo believed the company should make special efforts to lower the barrier for minorities and others who had been excluded from homeownership. Loeb died in 2003
In 1996, Countrywide created a new subsidiary for subprime loans.
Countrywide Financial’s former management
Angelo R. Mozilo, cofounder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer
David S. Loeb, cofounder, President and Chairman from 1969 to 2000
David Sambol, president, chief operating officer, director
Eric P. Sieracki, chief financial officer, executive managing director
Jack Schakett, executive managing director, chief operating officer
Kevin Bartlett, executive managing director, chief investment officer
Andrew Gissinger, executive managing director, chief production officer, Countrywide Home Loans[14]
Sandor E. Samuels, executive managing director, chief legal officer and assistant secretary
Ranjit Kripalani, executive managing director and president, Capital Markets
Laura K. Milleman, senior managing director, chief accounting officer
Timothy H. Wennes, senior managing director, president and chief operating officer, Countrywide Bank FSB
Anne D. McCallion, senior managing director, chief of financial operations and planning
Steve Bailey, senior managing director of loan administration, Countrywide Home Loans
The standard Countrywide procedure was to openly solicit persons who either had no credit or could not obtain it, and, by the use of false credit reports drawn up in their offices, arrange mortgages. The new home owners were barely able to meet the minimum interest only payments and when, as always happens, the mortgage payments are increased to far, far more than could be paid, defaults and repossessions were inevitable. Countrywide sold these mortgages to lower-tier banks which in turn, put them together in packages and sold them to the large American banks. These so-called “bundled mortgages” were quickly sold these major banking houses to many foreign investors with the comments that when the payments increased, so also would the income from the original mortgage. In 1996, Countrywide created a new subsidiary for subprime loans.
At one point in time, Countrywide Financial Corporation was regarded with awe in the business world. In 2003, Fortune observed that Countrywide was expected to write $400 billion in home loans and earn $1.9 billion. Countrywide’s chairman and C.E.O., Angelo Mozilo, did rather well himself. In 2003, he received nearly $33 million in compensation. By that same year, Wall Street had become addicted to home loans, which bankers used to create immensely lucrative mortgage-backed securities and, later, collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.s—and Countrywide was their biggest supplier. Under Mozilo’s leadership, Countrywide’s growth had been astonishing.
He was aiming to achieve a market share—thirty to forty per cent—that was far greater than anyone in the financial-services industry had ever attained. For several years, Countrywide continued to thrive. Then, inevitably, in 2007, subprime defaults began to rocket upwards , forcing the top American bankers to abandoned the mortgage-backed securities they had previously prized. It was obvious to them that the fraudulent mortgages engendered by Countrywide had been highly suceessful as a marketing program but it was obvious to eveyone concerned, at all levels, that the mortgages based entirely on false and misleading credit information were bound to eventually default. In August of 2007, the top American bankers cut off. Countrywide’s short-term funding, which seriously hindered its ability to operate, and in just a few months following this abandonment, Mozilo was forced to choose between bankruptcy or selling out to the best bidder.
In January, 2008, Bank of America announced that it would buy the company for a fraction of what Countrywide was worth at its peak. Mozilo was subsequently named a defendant in more than a hundred civil lawsuits and a target of a criminal investigation. On June 4th, 2007 the S.E.C., in a civil suit, charged Mozilo, David Sambol, and Eric Sieracki with securities fraud; Mozilo was also charged with insider trading. The complaint formalized a public indictment of Mozilo as an icon of corporate malfeasance and greed.
In essence, not only bad credit risks were used to create and sell mortgages on American homes that were essentially worthless. By grouping all of these together and selling them abroad, the banks all made huge profits. When the kissing had to stop, there were two major groups holding the financial bag. The first were the investors and the second were, not those with weak credit, but those who had excellent credit and who were able, and willing to pay off their mortgages.
Unfortunately, just as no one knows who owns the title to any home in order to foreclose, when the legitimate mortgage holder finally pays off his mortgage, or tries to sell his house, a clear title to said house or property cannot ever be found so, in essence, the innocent mortgage payer can never own or sell his house. This is a terrible economic time bomb quietly ticking away under the feet of the Bank of America and if, and when, it explodes, another bank is but a fond memory.
Readers wishing to find out if their title is secure should write to www.ChinkintheArmor.net, leave a comment on any article and ask for contact information for legal advice.
Whenever I get any mail from anyone I make it a point to save the envelope! Since all outgoing mail postage stamps are “created” by Pitney Bowes machines in-house (foreclosing law firms)…dates can simply be omitted, NO DATE and might have gone “Lost in the Mail” or take a long…long…long…long…time to arrive to you. Oh NO! WE JUST GOT FORECLOSED without any warning! I know when this is coming because I check my file but those of you who don’t …Take a look at what I mean before you end up in the streets. I am not certain what Pitney Bowes guidelines are but this might be wrong for anyone to do.
Not only are they post dating the assignments but the material inside the envelopes might be dated months before you get it …thanks to this new tactic!
WHO Would have thunk? This is why some are in the poe house…Some of do have morals.
The Short Sales and Bank Fraud story continues to gain traction. After CNBC aired the story we brought them, dozens of other media outlets, bloggers and authorities have contacted me to discuss this topic.
Here is the story of how this fraud initially
came to our attention, along with the evidence
to back it up.
Last year, I was contacted by an experienced real estate agent in our network who negotiates many short sales. She had recorded a conversation between her and a supervisor in the loss-mitigation department at a major national lender, who she felt was trying to get her to do something illegal.
Here is the audio of that recording, along with the transcript. The names have been removed at the request of the agent to prevent backlash from the bank.
Another “BOGUS” scenario of todays reality. Watch this video and listen with disgust how they describe how one tries… yes tries to survive in todays world! Heartless souls you are to make this ridiculous video. They speak of people living in tents, make use of abandoned homes etc…Obviously Senator Mike Bennett needs to stop by this blog to witness what really is happening to the “proud happy family” who once did live there to begin with!
QUIT TREATING US LIKE GARBAGE!
How about making good use of these homes and put homeless people in there! It’s obvious the mighty $$$$ are behind this scam, They fraudulantly sell these homes for half after they foreclose…So why not just cut the priciple in HALF??? Yup Something sure is not RIGHT.
IT SURE DIDN’T STOP YOU FROM
TRESPASSING EITHER!
By ROBERT NAPPER – rnapper@bradenton.com Buzz up!
MANATEE — A mounting crisis created by the record number of foreclosures in Manatee County has hit Jeannette Traylor right where she lives: An abandoned foreclosed home has brought blight, crime and fear into her neighborhood.
For Traylor, it is becoming harder and harder each day to remember what the home used to be: a quaint three-bedroom, two-bath house nestled in a Northwest Bradenton neighborhood filled with similar homes and families living the quiet life. But the home at 5504 Fourth Ave. NW now stands out.
Lets connect this Pyramid: Erica Johnson-Seck, Roger Stotts, Dennis Kirkpatrick. The Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A. seem to have the same players by “virtue” hereof?
“WALLSTREET is our AMERICAN TERRORTIST”
What these people have done is no different than the 9/11 acts, they did not use planes
they used our homes to destroy us financially! They are killing us s..l..o…w..l..y!
This time the government is rewarding their behavior!
WE WILL NEVER FORGET 9/11
But…I thought he is an Attorney in Fact for IndyMac above? But Now VP for MERS?
COMPARE HIS SIGNATURES
I EVEN HAVE THEM SIGNING onbehalf of the FDIC!
They are in my stash will post when I find em’.
All three together as Attorney In Fact for OnesWest
Below is a sale that happened in DC all in 1 single day! I am still trying to understand it all.
HHHmmm more investigating….
So there you have it..I can show plenty more but it will take many years truthfully to put all the documents they signed all in one room!
I EVEN HAVE THEM SIGNING onbehalf of the FDIC! 
Recent Comments