Law Books

MSFraud.org Mortgage Servicing Fraud Forum
Register  |   |   |  Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
Diane

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #36 
I hate to jump into the middle of this, lol...

But I wanted to mention that I have the identical endorsement on an Allonge attached to my Promissory Note with the Laurie Meder and Michele Sjolander stamp shown at the top of this forum.     In response to my QWR's BOA's attorneys and Trustee forwarded copies of my Promissory Note to me (three in total); however, those three did not have the Meder and Sjolander endorsements.    Meder/Sjolander on behalf of Countrywide (out of business since 2008), was added in the past six months.   

On another blog, I saw several discussing magically appearing endorsements.   We've been sharing them via e mail and fax, and the endorsements even share the identical smudge prints around the endorsment; which in my view shows it to be a recent cut and paste job and not actual stamps.    I would think that shows intent to commit fraud.


0
Unregistered
Reply with quote  #37 

Quote:
But I wanted to mention that I have the identical endorsement on an Allonge attached to my Promissory Note with the Laurie Meder and Michele Sjolander stamp shown at the top of this forum. In response to my QWR's BOA's attorneys and Trustee forwarded copies of my Promissory Note to me (three in total); however, those three did not have the Meder and Sjolander endorsements. Meder/Sjolander on behalf of Countrywide (out of business since 2008), was added in the past six months.

On another blog, I saw several discussing magically appearing endorsements. We've been sharing them via e mail and fax, and the endorsements even share the identical smudge prints around the endorsment; which in my view shows it to be a recent cut and paste job and not actual stamps. I would think that shows intent to commit fraud.

 

Diane, unquestionably furnishing various copies of a note with or without indorsements as attachments to pleadings, in response to QWR, in response to discovery requests or otherwise creates a question about the authenticity of the indorsements.  It is also true that servicers and foreclosure mills have upon occasion forged allonges for use in court proceedings.

 

What you are missing, which Mr. Roper has explained in several posts, is that these differences do NOT reflect a lack of timely indorsement on the original OR the belated indorsement of the original.  The promissory note is essentially ALWAYS properly indorsed IN TIME and actually delivered to the mortgage investor's institutional custodian.

 

The breathless pronouncement of various foreclosure defense attorneys are intended for drama and for self-promotion.  These do NOT reflect any discovery of any systemic problem with failure to indorse the note. 

 

The differences in indorsement on the copies can create a nice disputed fact issue precluding summary judgment.  The pleading of forgeries can also be problematic for the plaintiff WHEN THESE COPIES ARE FALSELY AUTHENTICATED UNDER OATH.

 

When either an unindorsed copy or a copy with an anomalous indorsement is simply attached to a pleading without authentication or furnished in UNSWORN responses to discovery requests, you have NO PROOF AT ALL of mischief of a sort that is going to get much traction with the court.

 

On the other hand, attaching the unindorsed copy of the note to the pleadings is a judicial admission that the note was not indorsed at commencement (even though it REALLY WAS).  You probably need to generally be content with that.

 

If you embark upon a wider ranging investigation of the state of the note, including whether it was indorsed at commencement, through discovery, ALL you are likely to succeed in doing is helping the plaintiff FIND its evidence that the note was indorsed all along! 

0
John Lewis
Reply with quote  #38 
Amicusman = Storm bradford??? check out this link and u tell me?

http://www.mortgagebrokerland.com/members/amicusman/?tab=aboutme#aboutme
0
John Lewis
Reply with quote  #39 
Amicusman do you share offices with attorney Jonathon Moseley of Instant Law Partner??

I think that your answer is yes, since you both list the same phone number, 571-346-7527 and the same address 1818 Library Street, ste 500, Reston, VA 20190?

0
Fred
Reply with quote  #40 

John it is probably better to post the information you cite from the other page before it is removed or altered:

 

About Amicusman

Full Name:  Storm

User Type:  Other
Phone Number:  (571) 346-7527
City:  Reston
State:  Virginia
Company Name:  Mortgage Fraud Examiners
0
Diane

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #41 
Unregistered, thanks for the information.    Actually, the note itself was signed and endorsed to Wells Fargo by the mortgage company.   Then there is a big stamp over it saying CANCELLED.      On seperate sheet of paper, which the Trustee did not even have attached to the Promissory Note is an endorsement to HSBC Mortgage Corporation.    Then an endorsement to Countrywide Bank, N.A. and now the newly appearing endorsement to Countrywide Home Loans, then an endorsement in blank.

This is the most confusing mess I've ever seen.    But of course, I'm sure it is intended that way.       

0
Unregistered
Reply with quote  #42 
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Lewis
Amicusman = Storm bradford??? check out this link and u tell me?

http://www.mortgagebrokerland.com/members/amicusman/?tab=aboutme#aboutme

Quote:
Amicusman do you share offices with attorney Jonathon Moseley of Instant Law Partner??

I think that your answer is yes, since you both list the same phone number, 571-346-7527 and the same address 1818 Library Street, ste 500, Reston, VA 20190?


Your almost there John.

Amicusman =  Norman "Storm" Bradford = CEO Mortgage Fraud Examiner

If you look at Bill's post # 37 on this thread you will find out THERE IS NO office space at Suite 500.  This is a virtual office space (see the link Bill posted).  


0
malibu
Reply with quote  #43 

Mark Stopa ESq..Thank you for encouraging story. Knowing that their are people out there to help us layman in this our most dire time is refreshing. It is great to hear the the good stories.. it gives us all the hope we need to finish the fight.. Ann regardless of what they say you are as always my breath of fresh air. Thank you. 

0
John Lewis
Reply with quote  #44 

I, for one hate to correct a very knowledgeable Texas, however, in this circumstance ~(actually I don't think he will disagree with me)~ William A. Roper Jr. not only "try[ied] to help homeowners", BUT HAS HELP HOMEOWNERS!, especially because it is recognized by many, and I quote Texas:

 

"William A. Roper Jr. said what was needed to be said, and still resides intact."  without rebuttal....PERIOD!!!

ps: Mr. William A. Roper Jr. not only gave freely of his own time and resources, but asked for nothing in return! NOTHING EVER!

 

?I ask, can any of his dis tractors, say the same???????

 

pss: I have never ever have had any contact whatsoever, written, verbal, email etc with Mr. William A. Roper Jr. 

0
texas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #45 
John Lewis
No offense taken. Appropriate correction noted.

0
andre
Reply with quote  #46 
what can a pro si litigant do if he has both 1st and 2nd mortgage disallowed in a chapter 13 bk based on standing, and after shortly dismissed due to other reasons at confirmation meeting arose by the trustee 

1 petitioner had point out on original allonge produced by council to the court that the purported allonge was to be a bearer instrument accompanied with a declaration stating it was a blank endorsement.

2. the original ALLONGE presented that  day in court was endorsed to jp morgan which had no claim submitted

3. the next hearing the lawyer brought in the original allonge voided and added a new endorsement on the bottom of the original note

4. a trust  US bank 2004 series is trying to foreclose on a note that was indorsed twice to jp morgan  and crossed out twice.
 
 5 it is recorded that the deed of trust belongs to US trust 2004 series, and Jp morgan does not have any county recordings pertaining to the house or any expressed interest for that matter
 
what should i do with my case? in orange county ca
0
SteveK
Reply with quote  #47 
Quote:
what can a pro si litigant do if he has both 1st and 2nd mortgage disallowed in a chapter 13 bk based on standing, and after shortly dismissed due to other reasons at confirmation meeting arose by the trustee

1 petitioner had point out on original allonge produced by council to the court that the purported allonge was to be a bearer instrument accompanied with a declaration stating it was a blank endorsement.

2. the original ALLONGE presented that day in court was endorsed to jp morgan which had no claim submitted

3. the next hearing the lawyer brought in the original allonge voided and added a new endorsement on the bottom of the original note

4. a trust US bank 2004 series is trying to foreclose on a note that was indorsed twice to jp morgan and crossed out twice.

5 it is recorded that the deed of trust belongs to US trust 2004 series, and Jp morgan does not have any county recordings pertaining to the house or any expressed interest for that matter

what should i do with my case? in orange county ca

Your facts reflect why it is critically important (a) to have an exceptionally capable bankruptcy attorney and (b) to comply with every detailed requirement of the bankruptcy code.

When a claim is disallowed in bankruptcy, you are about as close as it gets to success. The key to actually succeeding is to keep the bankruptcy ALIVE. For this reason, when you beat the lender on the claim, the lender will go over your filing, the facts and the bankruptcy law and find a basis to get the bankruptcy dismissed.

When the bankruptcy case is dismissed, you are totally back at square one, but with one strike against you, since you already filed for bankruptcy.

In non-judicial foreclosure states this is all the worse, because you have only two possible avenues. One is to file again for bankruptcy, which may not be possible depending upon the facts giving rise to the dismissal.

The second is to bring a wrongful foreclosure case as a plaintiff. Despite posts by many scam artists promising that if you pay them $$$ that you can win, prevailing in a wrongful foreclosure case in California is exceptionally difficult.

------

Also, you completely misapprehend the facts as to what happened before with the allonge. One reason that you are confused about this is that the scam artists have been misrepresenting the character of the mischief to promote their scams.

Mr. Roper, who used to post at this site explained exactly what is happening in old posts dating back six years now. His is the only true explanation of the mischief. Everything else being posted at most so-called foreclosure defense sites is simply false information being posted to promote the scams.

Usually, the lenders (servicers) and their foreclosure mill law firms were being exceptionally lazy in pursuing claims because no one ever bothered to challenge them. They would typically take a copy of the note made at closing from the bank's imaging system and then forge an allonge purporting to indorse the note to the claimant/plaintiff, etc. This was done to explain the absence of an indorsement.

Almost all of the allonges used in foreclosure are forgeries.

But this doesn't mean that the note wasn't indorsed. In fact, the note in the bank's vaults was usually indorsed all along.

Thus, when the bank presents that copy of the note and the forged allonge in a U.S. Bankruptcy Court proceeding, if the borrower challenges the negotiation, the lender has a problem. If they bring forward the real note, it has a different indorsement, giving the appearance that it was indorsed later.

This is terrific for borrowers, because it can be used to succeed in the proof of claim or motion for relief of stay proceeding. When the bank's claim is denied in bankruptcy, that is about as good as it gets!

The trouble is that if your bankruptcy case is discharged, this gives you almost no traction at all in resisting a subsequent foreclosure, especially in non-judicial foreclosure states.

Usually, the lender simply changes law firms. This allows the attorneys at the new firm to shrug their shoulders and tell any judge, "We don't know how that happened, your Honor. We were representing the creditor in that proceeding. But here we have the note, properly indorsed, and our client is the holder with a right of enforcement. We are entitled to foreclose as a matter of law."

Thus, while in Bankruptcy Court, you had the creditor at a complete standstill, once out of Bankruptcy Court, they usually just roll right over you.

If you have an exceptionally valuable property and good cash flow and can afford to hire a hyper competent attorney, you might be able to stretch out the foreclosure, but you probably are not going to win.

There are hundreds of bottom feeders that will encourage you to file a wrongful foreclosure or a quiet title action and which will take your money. But NONE of these will ever have actually succeeded in winning in any action other than the Bankruptcy setting you describe where you won and then lost again by the dismissal.

Foreclosure defense is not easy, especially in California. Carefully weigh your options and consider the advisability of throwing good money after bad. Assess every dollar you spend against how many dollars in value you are getting by staying in your home an additional n number of days or weeks. Do not expect to prevail and get to keep the house.
0
aprioremailer

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #48 
Homeowners' association in Reston, Virginia
 
Address1818 Library St # 300, Reston, VA 20190
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Law Books