Fact Check: Robo-witness knows nothing

Are we not yet clear on the distortion of nemo dat? Lay the ground work and pop the $11 Trillion dollar question. “Is this loan encumbered by (a GSE) either Fannie, Freddie and/or the U.S. Treasury?” None of which have appeared before the court or the homeowner in any form since the inception of the loan or their engagement in participation. Deception runs deep as the servicer has, in many cases, stated to the homeowner, “sorry, you can’t get a HAMP modification because you are not a Fannie or Freddie loan” …when in fact it is.

A securitized trust operates from the basis of an electronically transferred “mortgage loan schedule” spreadsheet in a computer file. Not a physical cardboard box of papers. The trust is not a physical store, it’s a computer file.

The attorneys filing the foreclosure for the trust are hired by the servicer(s) who work for usually Fannie or Freddie. The foreclosure attorneys know that the GSEs select and approve the attorneys the servicers hire and that they front for the GSEs. The attorneys hired by the servicer know that the GSEs are intentionally concealed. They also know there are back room rehypothecation agreements with the trusts, and they also know that the trusts may no longer exist or have been paid off.

The reason the trusts are still fronting for the GSEs and/or the Treasury is because the paperwork surrounding the loans and property titles are a mess. And because the fraud on the courts and the debt is so massive that the GSEs and Treasury don’t want the taxpayers, shareholders or Congress to get a grip on the overall debacle.

Reportedly, America has “$11 TRILLION” in MBS debt” – $5 TRILLION is said to be held by the GSEs and the rest by the Treasury. How, when the universe of mortgaged American homeownership is only about 100 million properties – much of which is in “affordable” housing, did the debt become so exorbitant? Do the math.

Livinglies's Weblog

Information is admitted in evidence only after a proper foundation has been laid. If the witness knows nothing about the foundation the evidence should not be admitted as evidence. Appellate courts will usually reverse a trial court’s error in ruling on evidence UNLESS the appellate panel decides that the error would not have made any difference in the outcome. The fundamental fact at the root of all foreclosures is that the homeowner owes a debt to the foreclosing party and has not paid.

In the passage below a witness supposedly employed by US Bank displays a lack of personal knowledge on anything that would contribute to foundation for establishing the standing of the foreclosing party. I have inserted in brackets the significance of each answer of an actual witness in a court proceeding.

Let us help you prepare for deposition or trial: 202-838-6345
Get a consult and TEAR (Title &…

View original post 1,383 more words


What you don’t know could hurt you: Google censoring documents for the Banks?

Good advice.

Livinglies's Weblog

Chung v. CitiMortgage Fraud

By J. Guggenheim

Today, while researching an old CitiMortgage case where an employee committed perjury and CitiMortgage admitted to document fabrication (entitled Sun Ae Chung v. Just Mortgage Inc., Federal Home Loan Mortgage and CitiMortgage) the case disappeared and was no longer available.  This time last year, the case was readily available on three separate links that google immediately located,  but today the case was no longer available with a general google search.  Luckily, years ago I had copied the links, and downloaded the case- or I might never have found it.

This isn’t the first time while researching a lender, especially CitiMortgage and Bank of America, where cases, documents and county records have disappeared from google.  It is evident that the banks are unduly influencing google to remove any document that could adversely impact one of the big banks or assist a homeowner.

At LendingLies…

View original post 163 more words

Don’t get Grinched by opportunistic Servicers

Here is a map where the majority of states allow you to record phone calls with only one party (you) knowing that the call is recorded. https://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/is-it-legal-to-record-the-banks-phone-call-or-conversation/

It’s much easier to write your follow-up letter if you have a recorded conversation to work from – and most attorneys advise to write the servicer a follow up letter, especially when a recording might not be admissible in court. Keep all your correspondence, including statements organized. If you are unorganized in everything else in your life, make your mortgage loan your priority in organization. The correspondence you keep, may save your home.

Livinglies's Weblog

 The servicer convinced the couple that a  “deed in lieu of foreclosure” would provide a fast solution. This option allowed the homeowners to give the servicer a deed to the home, saving them the expense and time of going through the foreclosure process.
In this case, the borrowers were asked to release any claim for a deficiency in return for $3,000 through a “cash for keys” offer to defray the cost of moving.

The couple proceeded to move out by the deadline agreed…

View original post 236 more words

Oh No! Santa May Have To Cancel Christmas!

On the Foreclosure Hour broadcast last Sunday on Honolulu’s KHVH radio, Host and top-rated Foreclosure Defense Attorney, Gary Dubin, received a call from the North Pole. It was from Santa Claus!

It appears Santa may be the victim of a wrongful foreclosure.

Santa told Mr. Dubin that he received a notice from the Bank of the North Pole that there had been a foreclosure and the bank was evicting the Claus family from their 200-year-old home.

Santa sounded quite panicked because the notice said that the bank would be changing the locks at noon on December 25th… on Christmas Day!  Santa didn’t know at this point whether he could leave the North Pole on Christmas Eve to deliver presents and stated he might have to cancel Christmas. Santa pleaded with Gary Dubin for help.

Listen here to the phone call from Santa Claus on the Foreclosure Hour. Continue reading

A Year-End Special: Firsthand Comments and Experiences of Our Listeners Battling Foreclosures Nationwide

A Year-End Special: Firsthand Comments and Experiences of Our Listeners Battling Foreclosures Nationwide

This Sunday’s Show will air in Hawaii at 2:00 p.m. (HST) instead 3:00 p.m., its otherwise regular time. Honolulu KHVH Radio & Internet. The Foreclosure Hour


John and I receive thousands of letters, emails, and voice mail messages annually from our listeners from just about every State and some foreign countries, detailing their personal experiences trying to fend off foreclosures and evictions.

Time limitations naturally permit us to personally respond to only a few.

We thought that we would, therefore, start a new tradition by reading some of those experiences on our year-end show(s) enabling us to respond in that way to more inquiries. Continue reading

Serial Filings That Block a Creditor: Better Not to Obtain More Relief Than You Need

Just a side note: There are more efficient ways to deal with foreclosure rather than use the bankruptcy courts.


In re Ross, 838 F.3d 779 (3rd Cir. 2017)

A debtor filed bankruptcy to block a foreclosure. When he sought to voluntarily dismiss the case, the bankruptcy court granted the request but also enjoined him from filing at any time in the indefinite future. The order was appealed first to the district court and then to the Third Circuit.

View original post 1,085 more words

Why Foreclosing Securitized Trust Plaintiffs Cannot Prove Entitlement To Foreclose

(December 12, 2017, Hawaii) The Foreclosure Hour TODAY at 3 pm (HST) / (5 pm EST) will discuss one of Hawaii’s latest FORECLOSURE APPEAL cases, HSBC Bank USA v. Yamashita, where after a pro-bank decision in the lower circuit court was overturned on appeal.

The Hawaii ICA noted, “[T]he [Hawaii] supreme court then expressed that “[a] foreclosing plaintiff’s burden to prove entitlement to enforce the note overlaps with the requirements of standing in foreclosure actions as ‘standing is concerned with whether the parties have the right to bring suit.'” Continue reading

Reverse mortgages: Evict woman, 92, over 27¢?

Every time that Tom Selleck reverse mortgage runs, we ask each other “doesn’t he have any personal ethics, or is the money he makes from the commercial more important?” Other people must be asking too, because the issue is addressed in the commercial.

Justice League

Actor and pitchman Tom Selleck, among others, has helped persuade more than 1 million seniors in markets like Palm Beach County that reverse mortgages are not “too good to be true.”

But a federal agency overseen by Housing Secretary Ben Carson of Palm Beach Gardens says an insurance program backing reverse mortgages is “losing money and can no longer remain viable in its present form.”

Foreclosures in reverse mortgages climbed to more than 3,600 a month last year, up from less than 500 a month in prior years, according to government data analyzed by nonprofit groups.

A 92-year-old Florida woman with a reverse mortgage faced a foreclosure filing because she owed 27 cents, a legal aid group said.

Read on.

View original post

Wall St. traders secretly used chat rooms to rig Treasury bond prices: suit

Justice League

Wall Street banks secretly shared client information in online chat rooms in order to rig auctions for the $14 trillion US Treasurys market, according to an explosive lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court on Wednesday.

The move wrongly fattened the banks’ profits and picked profits from clients, the suit claims.

The new accusations, leveled by several pension funds and wealthy individual investors, are contained in an expanded class-action suit originally filed in July 2015 — and include an unusual twist: Some of the evidence came from confidential informants and one of the banks sued in the earlier action.

Read on.

View original post

Foreclosure: Debtor Who Fails to Pay Has an Uphill Battle Finding a Remedy Based on Procedural Defects

confidence gameIt appears the homeowners were victims of a nationwide predatory mortgage lending scheme, a complex confidence game – as most homeowners were, that led the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to file suit against Bank of America, et. al., its former and current subsidiaries and partners, on October 24, 2012. USA v. BofA, et. al., USDC Southern District of NY, 12 Civ. 1422 (JSR) (Oct. 2012). Due to the nature of the DOJ case, documents were originally sealed, some were released, though many remain sealed today. The overall DOJ case did not completely resolve until May 23, 2016. The case publicly unleashed the secret that prime and subprime loans by large mortgage companies such as Countrywide and New Century Mortgage Corporation (“NC”) sold and pledged their procured loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored enterprises (“GSE”):

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchase single-family residential mortgages from lenders” (DOJ Intervenor Complaint, ¶18). “GSEs buy single-family mortgages from mortgage companies and other financial institutions [. . .] then either hold the loans in their investment portfolios or bundle them into mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) that they sell to investors.” (DOJ Intervenor Complaint, ¶27)” (emphasis added).

See also the book RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner.

fraudulent concealmentIn most cases, the issues are really “fraud on the court” and “fraudulent concealment.” The wrongful fabricated assignments were supposed to have been removed from the land records offices according to the National Mortgage Settlement and several other federal agency consent orders. National Mortgage Complaint (NMS), Case 1:12-cv-00361-RMC filed on March 14, 2012, in the USDC for the District of Columbia. The Consent Judgment had a Settlement Term Sheet (“NMS Consent Order”) filed on April 4, 2012, and specifically identified the terms under which the banks and servicers must comply.

The real interesting issues that are just now surfacing include the intentional concealment of Fannie or Freddie (GSE) as the “Real Party in Interest.” They stay hidden until after the bank sale and somehow magically appear as a buyer. GSEs buy originating loans – not defaulted bad debt. So, something appears really fishy when a GSE, or GSE/Treasury troll gets involved AFTER a foreclosure sale.

It appears from the inception, FANNIE/FREDDIE’S ROLES WERE INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED. Pursuant to Fannie’s 2008 Servicing Guidelines:

Fannie Mae is at all times the owner of the mortgage note, whether the note is in Fannie Mae’s portfolio or whether owned as trustee, for example, as trustee for an MBS trust. In addition, Fannie Mae at all times has possession of and is the holder of the mortgage note, except in the limited circumstances expressly described below” (emphasis added).

Failure to disclose all parties of interest upon filing the Complaint is an omission so material in nature that not only does it void the judgments, in this case it is intentional fraud on the Court. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., [322 U.S. 238 (1944)] (This motion asks this Court to utilize its “historic power of equity to set aside [a] fraudulently begotten judgment[]” in order to uphold the “preservation of the integrity of the judicial process”).

Fannie & Freddie (GSEs) had servicing guidelines during this period of time that required servicers to conceal them as the real party of interest as the GSE’s known debt was out of control.

fannie denied concealmentOver the years the GSEs changed their policies because the courts have rejected the notion that an action could be brought in the name of a servicer. See In re Viencek, 273 B.R. 354, 357, 59 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2002) (requiring that servicing agent amend a proof of claim to identify the owner of the claim), In re Kang Jin Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 at 767, (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008) (finding that servicer was not the real party in interest), Bank of New York v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 280 [2d Dept 2011], (“The foreclosure of a mortgage cannot be pursued by one who has no demonstrated right to the debt”).

When researching home loans on the GSEs’ database, loans in GSE securitization pools will not show up on their website “loan search.” Again, this is another example of hiding debt. MERS® System, for example, was created to specifically track investors and ownership, allowing GSEs and banks to remove debt-related assets from their accounting, while still tracking the asset.

Who does this hurt? ANSWER: GSE investors, taxpayers, homeowners, and probably the judges that have mutual funds that contain GSE (MBS) shares, for example, Vanguard, PIMCO.

bailout barofskyBTW – Homeowners have wanted to pay and more often than not were induced by the government HAMP program that advertised calling the servicer for a modification. That program was a scam – see the book BAILOUT by Neil Barofsky, Chapter 8, Foaming the runway. Once homeowners were sucked into the default process the majority had a difficult time getting back into a payment program. The homeowners were not allowed to make payments – it appears the banks, GSEs and Treasury wanted foreclosures rather than long term payment programs because liquidity is essential.

This is research – this is not legal advice. Contact an attorney to see if you have an alternative action. Closely research and dissect your documents. Ask if, for example, a Rule 60(b) and/or FRCP 60(d)(3) is an option.


Turner v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (In re Turner), 859 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2017) –

The debtors brought multiple claims following foreclosure of their residence. After the bankruptcy court dismissed the claims in a decision that was affirmed by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the debtors appealed to the 9th Circuit.

View original post 909 more words