Jump to content



Photo

Can they not really foreclose?


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#11 Traderlex

Traderlex

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 104 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 12:35 PM

B)

I pay my bills because I agreed to. I signed, agreed and entered a verbal and written contract. I think its sad and a sign of the times that this sense of morals is eluding more and more people. If and when I can't pay I'll walk away, and I'd be ashamed to expect others to pay for me because I found a loophole!



You pay your bill because you can!

This moralizing about people caught in the system of usury misses the bigger point and the real threat to our freedom.

Sure, a lot of the people in trouble are the "Proximate cause of their own injury", but as the system unwinds many more will be caught who "did everything right" or a least as they were taught to do.

None of this changes the fact that the borrowers are victims of a massive fraud, they were not lent "Money" they were lent credit, credit that did not exist until they signed the note. What is missed by most all is that the original loan amount was created out of thin air but the interest that must be repaid was not created.

It is mathematically impossible for these loans to be paid back in the aggregate, the money does not exist to pay them back with.

The system has been designed this way so there is a gradual unseen transfer of wealth from the productive working people to the parasitic bankers.

"Capital compounded at 6% doubles itself in money value in only twelve years, and at 5% in little more than fourteen years. The fantastic results of this process were illustrated by the late Frank A. Vanderlip in a Saturday Evening Post story of January, 1933. He pointed out that if the rich Medici family in Italy just six hundred years ago has set aside at 5% compound interest an investment fund equal to $100,000, its 1933 value would be $517,100,000,000,000,000 (five hundred and seventeen quadrillions). The original sum could have been represented by a globe of gold about nine inches in diameter, and the final figure would be 46 million times the existing monetary gold stock of the world."
"The Battle for Investment Survival"-Gerald M. Loeb

This is the scourge Andrew Jackson was fighting against.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
"To be a money master, you must first be a self-master." J. P. Morgan

#12 opinionated

opinionated

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 4,937 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 12:40 PM

No GS I wouldnt be shocked! I am shocked that its accepted by those of us who pay there ways! Im shocked they are publicly flogged! Change is, has came all right! Hail OBAMA... Its a welfare nation, and a nation who has accepted some throw morals out the window. And the ones still with them, who believe... Are afraid to say WTF!!! Flog'em...

Edited by opinionated, 23 September 2009 - 12:40 PM.


#13 MaryAM

MaryAM

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,200 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 02:34 PM

[quote name='goldswinger' date='Sep 23 2009, 12:56 AM' post='484041']
There's a story about a landmark ruling that may prevent foreclosure of thousands of mortgages. Does this make sense? and what are the implications of this Kansas ruling for banks across the US?

Thanks for any replies.

GS.

I have been watching the Ohio ruling (Fall 2007) and was told that the Judges opinion was up held in the courts regarding Deutsche bank. The fact is that the original note (the document you signed ) very often can't be found. No one knows where it went. Legally, as I understand it from some of my lawyer friends, unless the lien holder is recorded on your deed, and they physically hold the mortgage paper with your signature and a have legal transfer of that paper to the new owner, with an entry on the deed that the previous lien holder was paid in full upon transfer of the property, no one owns the property. Now the idiot that thought they were investing in a debt obligation, in fact did one thing only - THEY PAID OFF A BUNCH OF HOUSES.
Mary Anne

#14 Traderlex

Traderlex

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 104 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 03:30 PM

From a site called Mortgage Servicing Fraud

Your client’s defense against foreclosure is incomplete unless you file the Omnibus Motion to Cancel the Mortgage-Now ! If the mortgage was converted into a security, the conversion rendered the mortgage unenforceable. Don’t simply delay foreclosure; end it by cancelling the mortgage.

“Cancel the Mortgage-Now! ” will become the new rallying cry to defeat mortgage foreclosure.

Documentary Clearing House, LLC. (“DCH”) introduces the Omnibus Motion for sale as a legal form to practitioners to be used in cases where the mortgage has been converted into a security. More than 80% of all mortgages have been converted into a security on the secondary mortgage market.

DCH spared neither time nor expense. It enlisted the finest legal minds and legal resources to produce a comprehensive set of affirmative defenses to stop foreclosure. Most clients could not afford to retain the legal team or spend the time or the money to mount this comprehensive assault on foreclosure of a securitized mortgage. DCH now can provide you with this forensic tour de force to stop foreclosure.

Cancel the Mortgage-Now! is a facial assault on securitized mortgages. It asserts that any mortgage converted into a security is unenforceable because the plaintiff lacks standing and the complaint fails to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The mortgage is unenforceable because the plaintiff lacks standing to foreclose on behalf of the certificate holders, the mortgage has been converted into an instrument not enforceable by foreclosure and the debtor/mortgagor did not consent to conversion of the mortgage.

If the Omnibus Motion prevails across the country, the magnitude of the consequences is will be stunning. It will result in the invalidation of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of mortgages and compel the Federal Government to step in and reform and regulate the secondary mortgage market, a promise made by this Administration but not kept. It places the financial mess created in the secondary mortgage market right back in the laps of those who made the mess. The Omnibus Motion reconnects those who undertook and profited from the securitization of mortgages with the financial losses resulting from the collapse of the secondary mortgage market. Filing the Omnibus Motion in defense against foreclosure serves a greater public good. It establishes a future rationale to hold the leading financial institutions that sold trash-an unenforceable mortgage- for cash accountable to mortgage debtors who were lent money upon terms they could not afford and investors who were sold certificates secured by unenforceable mortgages.

The Omnibus Motion consists of a five page Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and a 26 page Memorandum of Points and Authorities. The Omnibus Motion contains six arguments stating that the mortgage is unenforceable. Each argument is thoroughly researched and comes with exhaustive citations of authority. Four allege a failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted, and two allege lack of standing.

The arguments produced in the Omnibus Motion had to meet three criteria:

1. The argument had to be Dispositive to achieve a final judgment, i.e. dismissal with prejudice in favor of defendant.
2. The argument had to be Determinable as a Matter of Law not fact. No need for proof of facts in dispute or discovery to obtain judgment.
3. The argument had to be Generic. It had to apply to all cases where a mortgage had been securitized. It could not turn upon the facts specific to a single case.

Documentary Clearing House invested nine months in the conduct of exhaustive research and analysis to produce the Omnibus Motion. Such a protracted undertaking is beyond the financial means of most defendants facing foreclosure. Accordingly, this product is intended to provide a resource to litigating counsel which would, under normal circumstances, be unavailable because of constraints of time and cost. DCH hopes to cause widespread dissemination of this Omnibus Motion. Each purchaser will be asked to sign a licensing agreement whereby the purchaser agrees that use, republication and reproduction of the Omnibus Motion will be limited to the purchaser, either a single practitioner or a law firm, and the client’s of the purchaser. Purchasers are not authorized to publish or otherwise disseminate the motion for the use of other persons.

The Omnibus Motion is designed to be used in Florida although it can easily be adapted for use in other jurisdictions. It is expected that mortgage cancellation by securitization will ultimately need to be argued before the Supreme Court.

The initial price of the Omnibus Motion is $599.00 for a single practitioner and $799.00 for a law firm. Payment is to be made by credit card or Paypal. The Omnibus Motion is available for download in PDF Format or Word. A hard copy is available by mail upon request for a slight additional charge.

cancelthemortgagenow.com

Source: http://cancelthemort...?...c&Itemid=11
"To be a money master, you must first be a self-master." J. P. Morgan

#15 Traderlex

Traderlex

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 104 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 03:58 PM

Does this make sense?


No.

what are the implications of this Kansas ruling for banks across the US?


None.

It's very simple. If you run into a judge who wants all of the documents in front of him, you have to go to the trouble and expense to produce them. They exist. You dig them up. End of story. The result is that the debtor loses, he doesn't walk away with a free house.


Here's a link to a case in FL filed in June where Judges are being sued for not requiring "all of the documents in front of him" Dixon and Goldberg V. Judges

Kind of funny, when I pasted the filing in to TT some of the notation in the document produced Sunglasses Smileys! :lol:

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, M.D. FLORIDA
GREGORY are. DIXON AND MARIA GOLDBERG,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE HONORABLE LEE E. HAWORTH, CHIEF CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE FOR THE TWELFTH
CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, THE HONORABLE HARRY M. RAPKIN, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE FOR
THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA AND THE HONORABLE PAUL LOGAN,
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE FOR THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA,
Defendants.
________________________________________/
No.
June 2, 2009.
Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief Seeking a Temporary restraining Order, Preliminary
Hearing and Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby sues the Honorable Chief Judge
Lee E. Haworth (“Judge Haworth”), in his official capacity as Chief Circuit Court Judge for the
Twelfth Judicial Circuit of Florida, the Honorable Harry M. Rapkin, Circuit Court Judge for the
Twelfth Judicial Circuit of Florida and the Honorable Paul Logan, Circuit Court Judge for the
Twelfth Judicial Circuit of Florida and allege as follows:
1. In this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiffs seek to vindicate their Fifth
Amendment rights as applied to the State of Florida under the 14th Amendment. The
defendant judges willingly, wittingly and by their own admission engaged in a course of
judicial conduct to accelerate foreclosure in uncontested cases by relying upon defective
pleadings and deficient supporting documentation which fail to show that the plaintiff
bringing foreclosure was either the mortgage creditor or acting on behalf of the mortgage
creditor. Instead, defendants intentionally rely upon documentation they believe to be
incomplete or incorrect to render judgment. In uncontested cases, the Court intentionally
ignores deficient and defective documents whose deficiencies would be apparent from a
cursory inspection of the documents. The Court also admits it fails to compel plaintiffs’
counsel in foreclosure to comply with court orders regarding the submission of
documents. The Court has stated that its conduct has been necessitated by a lack of funds.
Such judicial acts are unconscionable and unconstitutional
2. This course of conduct by the 12th Circuit denies a defendant in an uncontested
foreclosure action an effective hearing, disregards plaintiff’s lack of standing, overlooks
plaintiff’s failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted and
unlawfully compels a defendant to defend against another party not entitled to sue. The decision
Case 8:09-cv-01017-JSM-EAJ Document 1 Filed 06/02/2009 Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 4
of the court not to examine pleadings and related documents of record prior to rendering
summary judgment is non-feascence, a dereliction of judicial duty and a deprivation of due
process of law.
3. Defendant Chief Judge Haworth has admitted that the Court relies upon defective documentation
and has had widespread non-compliance by attorneys for plaintiff in foreclosure cases with court
administrative orders regarding conciliation and documentary submission requirements. Chief
Judge Haworth has said that budget cuts have forced layoffs and prevent the Court from doing its
job properly. He also says he does not want to impose further documentary burdens on
“foreclosure mills’ because they already fail to comply with existing requirements.
4. The court’s practice of ignoring deficient and defective documentation upon which it relies to
issue summary judgment violates the Court’s duty to verify documents as prescribed by Section
702 of the Florida Statutes.
5. The 12th Circuit District Court lacks the legal authority to compel a party to defend against
another party not entitled to sue. A court is without legal authority to compel a defendant to
defend where there is no genuine case or controversy, as when there is no standing. Wrongfully to
compel a defendant to defend against a claim is a denial of due process. Where a court
deliberately and consistently as a matter of policy turns a blind eye to lack of standing, a
defendant in foreclosure is deprived of property without due process of law.
6. The conduct of the Court is unconscionable, violates traditional requirements of equity and
deprives Plaintiffs of their rights.
7. The Court has acted to accelerate the rate of improperly documented, uncontested cases by
instituting a “rocket docket” where the Court intends to adjudicate 250 cases in one day.
8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) providing
for original jurisdiction in suits authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Furthermore, jurisdiction
is available under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
9. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(B). The claims arose and the
defendant resides in this District.
10. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65(B) provides that a temporary restraining order
may be issued without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party's attorney
only if (1) it clearly appears from the specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified
complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the
applicant before the adverse party or that party's attorney can be heard in opposition, and
(2) the applicant's attorney certifies to the court, in writing the efforts, if any, which have
been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not
be required. FRCP Rule 65(B). Counsel is serving copies of this filing upon defendants as
soon as such copies have been stamped by the Clerk. Immediate action is needed to
provide plaintiffs with some opportunity to explore alternate dispute resolutions and
because of the imminence of summary judgment as shown in the 12th Circuit’s docket.
Exhibit 1.
11. LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS. The facts in issue will not be contested.
The continuation of the abusive conditions in the 12th Circuit regarding uncontested cases
is unconstitutional and unconscionable. The issue here is one of law. Chief Justice
Haworth has said that the Court does not owe a higher degree of protection or compliance
with due process to defendants who do not defend themselves. The Plaintiff will almost
certainly prevail at any hearing on the merits of its claims. The Court’s legal position is
indefensible.
12. IRREPARABLE INJURY. The plaintiffs are unable to defend themselves in this case. All
Case 8:09-cv-01017-JSM-EAJ Document 1 Filed 06/02/2009 Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 4
are in foreclosure proceedings, No affirmative defenses have been raised or can likely be
anticipated. Each case is slated to go to default judgment. Each defendant will suffer the
loss of a home. Such a loss is incalculable in terms of pain, suffering, embarrassment and
humiliation. The trepidation of loss of a home at any time is a painful hardship every day
for the plaintiffs.
13. BALANCING OF HARM. Defendants can correct the problem by revising the summary
judgment checklist and instituting a cursory inspection of documents. This can be
accomplished easily and quickly. Injunctive relief will force the defendants to revise the
judicial checklist to assure that the party seeking foreclosure has submitted evidence
demonstrating that party’s legal entitlement to foreclose. It will also compel the Court to
employ or otherwise obtain the services of clerks to collect, assemble and inspect
pleadings for sufficiency and completeness. It will allow the creation of a record upon
which a court can properly grant summary judgment to a plaintiff legally entitled to
foreclose. The problem is essentially one of clerical record collection and verification. It
need not involve a significant amount of a judge’s time. Once the documentary problem
has been corrected, accelerated adjudications of uncontested cases will again take place.
However, it will no longer be necessary to violate the due process rights of the debtors in
order to efficiently manage the caseload of the Court. Finally, the harm to the defendant,
if they lose their homes in violation of their due process rights, can never again be
remedied or corrected. Once the house is gone, the house is gone, and another American
family is homeless.
The Defendants simply cannot be harmed by the issuance of an injunction because the
relief the Plaintiff seeks is merely to force the Defendants to comply with the law. Thus,
the issuance of a TRO will merely ensure the Defendants do not continue to violate the
law.
14. PUBLIC INTEREST. The facts of this case demonstrate a foreclosure process in disarray
with dereliction of judicial responsibilities by the Court and widespread disregard of
Court orders by attorneys. Such conduct by a court left unchecked erodes public
confidence in the fairness and efficacy of our judicial system. Public trust and confidence
will not be reposed in a judicial system which fails to meet its obligation to protect
defendants and control the foreclosure process. It is in the highest public interest to have
our courts governed by laws and not by men. All too often, expedience trumps principal
and the end is used to justify the means.
The public interest will be served by temporarily enjoining foreclosure in the 12th Circuit
until the system can be modified to accord with lawful procedure. Unconstitutional
procedures do not serve the public interest even if such procedures effectively unclog an
over burdened docket. Foreclosure should not be a first recourse but as a last resort.
Accordingly, the temporary delay occasioned by a temporary injunction will promote
recourse to alternate dispute resolution. Finally, the issuance of injunctive relief against
the 12th Circuit may cause the Florida Supreme Court Task Force On Residential
Mortgage Foreclosure Cases to consider the problems faced by the 12th Circuit and
institute needed reforms upon a state-wide basis.
15. Under our adversarial system of justice, a defendant is expected and required to defend himself
or herself. Also, lawyers are considered officers of the court in which they appear. It is normal
Case 8:09-cv-01017-JSM-EAJ Document 1 Filed 06/02/2009 Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 4
and appropriate for a court to rely upon representations and certifications by counsel appearing
before a court regarding pleadings and documents. However, the unusual facts of this case carve
out an exception to these norms of practice and procedure. The 12th Circuit cannot rely upon these
principles and precedents to ignore and avoid correction of problems relating to defective and
deficient documentation and failure of plaintiff’s counsel to comply with the orders of the Court
relating to documentary submission requirements. According due process to defendants in
uncontested foreclosure cases constitutes a countervailing and overriding requirement of law.
For these and other reasons as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum in
Support, and other reasons as may be developed at the preliminary hearing, plaintiffs
respectfully request this Court grant their motion enjoining the Defendants from continuing
foreclosure proceedings in uncontested cases using deficient and defective documents until the
12th Circuit Court has acted to correct the problem.
Date: June 2, 2009
Richard F. Kessler,
Counsel for Plaintiff by Special Appearance and for the Limited Purpose of these Proceedings
4902 Sabal Lake Circle
Sarasota FL 34238
941-924-5608
richardfkessler@verizon.net
"To be a money master, you must first be a self-master." J. P. Morgan

#16 Traderlex

Traderlex

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 104 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 04:09 PM

Court puts legal cloud over foreclosure sales

By Jerry Kronenberg | Tuesday, June 9, 2009 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Real Estate

A Springfield judge’s ruling has thrown the entire Massachusetts foreclosure market into disarray by bolstering
claims that lenders improperly seized thousands of Bay State homes.
Experts say Land Court Judge Richard Long’s recent decision to void two Springfield-area foreclosures over
procedural flaws has gummed up resale of foreclosed homes across the state.
“It’s just stopped everything,” said North Andover broker Linda Kody, who specializes in reselling foreclosed
properties for banks.
Kody said Long’s ruling, first reported yesterday by industry publication Banker & Tradesman, has halted at
least 12 of her resale deals.
Would-be buyers can’t get title insurance on homes with “clouded” ownership, Kody said, and banks, in turn,
generally won’t OK mortgages without title coverage.
Long ruled that due to faulty paperwork, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo Bank don’t really own the Greater
Springfield homes that each foreclosed upon separately in 2007.
The judge found that the banks held foreclosure auctions even though both lacked documents at the time
proving that they really owned the homeowners’ mortgages. That “clouded” each property’s title, discouraging
any third party from bidding on the homes, Long ruled.
“None of this is the fault of the (homeowner), yet the (consumer) suffers due to fewer or no bids in competition
with the foreclosing institution,” the judge wrote in his decision.
Experts say paperwork flaws are common in foreclosures these days, as mortgages often changed hands over
and over again during the 1998-2005 housing boom. Any missing paperwork can call into question whether a
bank really owned a loan it foreclosed upon.
Lawyer Gary Klein, who’s filed a federal class-action lawsuit aimed at undoing some 2,000 Bay State
foreclosures on such grounds, said Long’s ruling strengthens his case. “Lenders simply stopped following the
law for their own convenience,” Klein said.

Article URL: http://www.bostonher...ticleid=1177684
"To be a money master, you must first be a self-master." J. P. Morgan

#17 Traderlex

Traderlex

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 104 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 04:13 PM

"[a] bank that was not the mortgagee when suit was filed cannot cure its lack of standing by subsequently obtaining an interest in the mortgage." "Thus, Wells Fargo Bank lacked standing to bring a foreclosure action against Jordan. As such, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of WFB because WFB was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We sustain Jordan's first assignment of error, reverse summary judgment, and order the trial court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice."

Wells Fargo v. Jordan
"To be a money master, you must first be a self-master." J. P. Morgan

#18 jack

jack

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 907 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 05:37 PM

When maryAM started posting this topic several months ago I had me a lil think. The FF I came up with seemed too kooky and paranoid to post at the time but now Ill give it a go. If securitized mortgages cant be enforced,ownership is hard to prove, and values keep falling there will be large tracts of housing where no taxes are being paid. Property taxes will have to rise. Municipal, even state governments will become open and vulnerable to the following pitch. Municipalities CAN take a house for unpaid taxes. Large new entities will encourage them to do so. These new entities will take a huge chunk of American Housing. The municipalities will GIVE it to them for the promised taxes which will be at a much lower rate than other resident tax payers. The new entities will have new "inventive " public private structures, big lobby budgets, and the desire and means to keep property values very low. This is a residential version of a game that large industry has played on smaller towns in northern canada for at least 60 years. There are probably more examples. IF this were to play out, home ownership by individuals would become a rarer privilege than it is now.

Edited by jack, 23 September 2009 - 05:44 PM.


#19 ...

...

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 510 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 06:53 PM

they were not lent "Money" they were lent credit


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Despite all of the fractional-reserve banking myths extant on the internet, any judge is still going to enforce any note signed in return for money loaned.

#20 Traderlex

Traderlex

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 104 posts

Posted 23 September 2009 - 07:18 PM

they were not lent "Money" they were lent credit


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Despite all of the fractional-reserve banking myths extant on the internet, any judge is still going to enforce any note signed in return for money loaned.



So it's a myth that banks create fiat money and lend at usury. :o Learn something new everyday.

The point of this thread is that in many of these proceedings they can't produce a signed note, and even if they could they still may not have legal standing because a proper transfer of the note never took place to the new Mortgagee.

It's still a giant game of musical chairs and the Bankers rigged it so they are supposed to end up with the last chair.

Let Them Eat Cake...seems to be the attitude of some here who still have a chair in the game.
"To be a money master, you must first be a self-master." J. P. Morgan