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
annoyed
I received in the mail today an illegal court filing from the Plaintiff's attorney that states - "Notice of Filing Loan Documents" that this court document was Certified by the Plaintiff's Attorney - that this document was Certifed and mailed on August 29 2013 - there is no way on this planet this was signed on August 29th/ certified by the Plaintiff's attorney on August 29th and DELIVERED to my mailbox on August 29th.
Quote 0 0
Rod
Quote:
I received in the mail today an illegal court filing from the Plaintiff's attorney that states - "Notice of Filing Loan Documents" that this court document was Certified by the Plaintiff's Attorney - that this document was Certifed and mailed on August 29 2013 - there is no way on this planet this was signed on August 29th/ certified by the Plaintiff's attorney on August 29th and DELIVERED to my mailbox on August 29th.

I am not quite sure what you are upset about. While you are certainly correct that the averment seems to be an impossibility, you cannot possibly have been harmed or prejudiced by this.

More commonly, the crooked foreclosure mill attorneys file documents with the court with a certificate of service that says they mailed the filing to the defendant the same day and then hold the mail for two to three days to keep the defendant from getting the filing in a timely way.

That is usually, you would get a filing dated, say August 15 with a certificate of service showing that it was mailed to you on August 15, but you wouldn't actually receive it until August 22 (or later) because it wasn't really mailed that day.

You seem to be getting exercised because the plaintiff go confused and dated the filing in the future rather than holding your mail and minimizing your opportunity to respond.

Practice some deep breathing or meditation. There is a lot to be angry about as to misconduct by crooked foreclosure mill lawyers and the criminal banks. Unless you can explain precisely how you think you were prejudiced by this misconduct, I would suggest that you give the outrage a little rest. Focusing on b.s. like this is how pro se litigants lose their cases!

Quote 0 0
Raven
Demand a signed affidavit.
Quote 0 0
texas
Rod sounds like he is speaking as counsel for a bank.
Quote 0 0
Marvin
Quote:
More commonly, the crooked foreclosure mill attorneys file documents with the court with a certificate of service that says they mailed the filing to the defendant the same day and then hold the mail for two to three days to keep the defendant from getting the filing in a timely way.

Quote:
Rod sounds like he is speaking as counsel for a bank.

Uh, right, Texas.

Texas, you sound like you are speaking as the apologist in chief for the scam artists! Every time someone posts something truthful here, you and the other scam artists attack the person and accuse them of working for a bank.

How about a little real, thoughtful analysis? Can anyone identify an advantage to the bank or the foreclosure mill in post dating rather than antedating court filings? As Rod points out, such post dating may reflect dishonesty, but hardly reflects prejudice to the borrower.

It really seems as though you have started believing your own b.s.!
Quote 0 0
texas

Marvin, if there is BS, why not provide details as to why it is BS so the people can learn from it. To make a claim it is BS you cirriculm vitae which is unknown would need to support such statement. Will you provide you position to make such a claim?

Scam artists as well as a illegal operating bank will suck the last dollar from anyone, so to say I support scam artist's is the BS.

Everyone has a constitutional right to speak and say as they wish, but proof, in an old analogy, is in the pudding.

Quote 0 0
Laura
Quote:
Marvin, if there is BS, why not provide details as to why it is BS so the people can learn from it. To make a claim it is BS you cirriculm vitae which is unknown would need to support such statement. Will you provide you position to make such a claim?

Scam artists as well as a illegal operating bank will suck the last dollar from anyone, so to say I support scam artist's is the BS.

Everyone has a constitutional right to speak and say as they wish, but proof, in an old analogy, is in the pudding.

Texas lets face it, Rod already explained why the original premise was false. You didn't engage or refute Rod's reasoning but instead made the false argument that Rod was acting on behalf of a bank. As Marvin points out, this is the scam artist's refrain. Whenever an argument is made which cannot be refuted with reason or evidence, they accuse the proponent of the argument of working on behalf of a bank and make ad hominem attacks against that person.

You have again shown yourself to be a blowhard who posts just to hear himself spout rather than a thoughtful person who can reason through an argument. If you don't want to be exposed as an apologist for the scam artists, then you ought to stop apologizing for the scams!

To add to Rod's analysis, as if it wasn't already totally persuasive, consider that antedating (backdating) a check might be a criminal offense in many places, particularly if the antedated check was used to assert or claim accounting treatment in a prior accounting or tax period. (See statutes on the creation of a false business record.) By contrast, post dating a check, though of uneven legal effect, for the purposes of making the check negotiable only at a future date, involves no misrepresentation at all.

Rod's point is dead on. Annoyed cannot show any harm or prejudice arising out of the false future dating of the court filings. This is not to excuse or justify them. The law firms are wrong to do this. But given the absence of harm, Annoyed is going to simply expend unnecessary energy and dissipate the court's good will by trying to make an issue of it. One needs to pick one's fights. Here there is a fight that cannot be won. Moreover, as shown in another different thread, Annoyed has already completely lost the war, too.

Annoyed is flailing around trying to find some issue to gain traction when the core problem was letting the bank obtain a default judgment. This isn't worth any further discussion. You really ought to think about what you are writing before you post such garbage.
Quote 0 0
texas
Laura, a lawyers duty is to present truth to the court.
Quote 0 0
....
texas wrote:
Laura, a lawyers duty is to present truth to the court.


Texas is going to be WRONG on this one. If someone was going to start a defense based on the premise that the Plaintiff's lawyer has a "duty" to "present truth" to the court is going to quickly lose. To the contrary, defenses, foreclosure or otherwise, are based on the premise that what the Plaintiff's counsel alleges is UNTRUE/INCORRECT. While each state will have some form of rules of professional conduct, no where does it say they have a "duty" to "present truth" to the court. If this was the case, there would be an endless line of attorney discipline cases.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...