Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
William A. Roper, Jr.
Buried within message thread "Major Evidentiary Decision in NC: In re Foreclosure by David A. Simpson" (at http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5216996 , Forum participant "Texas" inserted a very useful post within a stream of other nonsense.  Regrettably, that useful post was overlooked by myself and others as we responded to other useless and absurd posts.

"Texas" identified a new law journal article by Nolan Robinson:

 

"The Case Against Allowing Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) to Initiate Foreclosure Proceedings"

 

by Nolan Robinson
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law


March 21, 2011

Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 4, p. 101, 2011

 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1791896

 

This paper appears to be creditable and merits a read by those with an interest in MERS.  It also merits its own discussion thread.

 

Thank you Texas for sharing this!

Quote 0 0
Constant Lurker
Roper,

Your comments about Texas are way off.  You have absolutely no idea what and how much Texas has contributed to the exposure of MERS.  Perhaps he was on to MERS almost as far back as NYE.  

Your contribution to the site is appreciated.  Explanation of what is incorrect in postings and case law confirming same would be helpful.  Your opinion of Texas is not.  IMHO No offense intended.

Regards,
CL
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Constant Lurker said:
Your comments about Texas are way off. You have absolutely no idea what and how much Texas has contributed to the exposure of MERS. Perhaps he was on to MERS almost as far back as NYE.


CL:

Actually, I am well aware of Texas's identity and his history of foreclosure defense activity (which is VERY recent).  When Texas first became engaged in foreclosure defense, he sent me several largely incoherent and poorly written documents for critique.  I gratuitously and voluntarily shared with him a private critique of his work.

He didn't like my critique and instead of introspectively examining his own work and understanding (rather the point of seeking a critique, right?), I received back a hostile message telling me that I was wrong about everything relating to mortgage foreclosure fraud.

Thereafter, a few weeks later, "Texas" began holding himself out as an "expert".

The rather unbelievably erroneous factual assertions that "Texas" made in another thread about his special expertise (due to his all important consulting in the commercial mortgage backed securities area) shows the shallowness of his understanding.

It is one thing to be ignorant.  It is quite another to set about to hold oneself out as an "expert" through self-aggrandizement while actually both confusing other people and causing foreclosure defendants to squander their best defensive chances for protecting and preserving their home.  The word "charlatan" comes to mind.

Foreclosure defense web sites, including MS Fraud, are sometimes uneven sources of information.  People of widely differing levels of education, skill, knowledge and experience participate.  Even those with minimal knowledge often make very useful contributions by presenting facts or situations that assist in our inquiry and which form the basis for exposition and illumination by others with greater knowledge and understanding.

Even those who occasionally post erroneous information can be helpful, as long as the erroneous information is quickly identified and corrected by the consensus of the Forum.

Purporting to have great expertise or understanding when this is not the case is NOT helpful.  Unquestionably, "Texas" is learning.  Texas is also certainly passionate and engaged.  But "Texas" is NOT an expert.  This is readily apparent both from the character and magnitude of the erroneous information he continues to post together with his characteristic insistence that if we only knew the identities of those foolish enough to take his counsel, we would instantly hail his wisdom.

Further revelation of those relying upon "Texas" would only exhibit just how desparate these folks are to find someone who can furnish the testimony they hope for.  "Texas" DOES have good skills making graphics and makes a reasonably good presentation.  He just doesn't know what he is talking about!

My opinion of Texas is important to protect the unwary from being victimized.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
CL:

I think you are confusing "Texas" with another MS Fraud veteran (also from the State of Texas) who is NOT a blow hard, but whose involvement in exposing mortgage servicing fraud is contemporaneous with Nye's and whose contributions to foreclosure defense are unquestionable.

That individual is not the person posting under the "Texas" screen name. 
Quote 0 0
Texas

As I have completed my task for the day, shall set the record straight. I have never claimed to be a foreclosure defense activist or expert. Secondly, I have never advised, suggested or offered advice on how to use any information in a legal setting and never will.

Roper said: “Actually, I am well aware of Texas's identity and his history of foreclosure defense activity (which is VERY recent).”

“VERY recent,” in excess of a decade and a half, any doubt to that, contact the owner of MSFraud. 

 Roper said:“When Texas first became engaged in foreclosure defense, he sent me several largely incoherent and poorly written documents for critique.  I gratuitously and voluntarily shared with him a private critique of his work.”

True, there was critique with a request to provide case law to support the position, at that time; no case law existed, today, case law is in process of making its way through the courts. Unidentified Indorsee. One such case, noted below.

“NC Court of Appeals handed down its decision in the case of "In the Matter of the Foreclosure by David A. Simpson, P.C., Substitute Trustee, et al" on May 3, 2011.  A copy of the decision is reported at 2011 WL 1645699. (In so holding, the court looked to section 1-201(21) of the UCC for a definition of "holder". That section defines holder as the person in possession of the note that is payable either to bearer or to an "identified person that is the person in possession".  Even though the original of the note was produced at the hearing, possession was deemed insufficient as the allonge endorsement did NOT property identify the transferee of the note.  The court looked to section 3-110, but noted that the comments to that section state that this provision merely determines who can deal with an instrument as holder; it does not determine ownership of the note.”

Roper said: "He didn't like my critique and instead of introspectively examining his own work and understanding (rather the point of seeking a critique, right?), I received back a hostile message telling me that I was wrong about everything relating to mortgage foreclosure fraud."

Roper wrong, hardly, the courts mentality would be better left to Roper’s method of defense as that is the courts current level of understanding.

Roper said: Thereafter, a few weeks later, "Texas" began holding himself out as an "expert".

Have never claimed to be an expert, true, I do concentrate in the commercial arena and I do communicate with a number of learned persons.

Roper said: Unquestionably, "Texas" is learning.

 Learning; will shall let the test of time determine.


Quote 0 0
Hey Texas, I am not taking sides, it's none of my business. I just want to ask you if you know what a Texas rule 12 hearing is. It might be useful to you if you don't. The beauty of it is the attorney has to bring the principle, not paper.

RULE 12. ATTORNEY TO SHOW AUTHORITY

A party in a suit or proceeding pending in a court of this state may, by sworn written motion stating that he believes the suit or proceeding is being prosecuted or defended without authority, cause the attorney to be cited to appear before the court and show his authority to act. The notice of the motion shall be served upon the challenged attorney at least ten days before the hearing on the motion. At the hearing on the motion, the burden of proof shall be upon the challenged attorney to showsufficient authority to prosecute or defend the suit on behalf of the other party. Upon his failure toshow such authority, the court shall refuse to permit the attorney to appear in the cause, and shall strike the pleadings if no person who is authorized to prosecute or defend appears. The motion may be heard and determined at any time before the parties have announced ready for trial, but the trial shall not be unnecessarily continued or delayed for the hearing.

 

I just found this

http://www.legalformsfortexas.com/catalog/images/FLDIV_2230.00.pdf

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...