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
bobbief
For those posters on MSFraud who think because robosigning is a losing prospect
in todays courts, think allowing ANY fraud to stand is the way to go, please read
the following.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=199823

Because some fraud is allowed to stand in court does not mean it's okay, and it
certainly in the end leaves that particular piece of property with a clouded title.
The above link shows just how much fraud is included in any current transaction
of private property, and going back as much as 20 years ago.  When fraud is used
in any transaction it means no matter the time that goes by, that transaction is tainted
forever until that specific fraud is cured.
Hopefully in the future the courts will recognize no matter the size of the fraud
committed, it should not ever be allowed to stand.

Quote 0 0
Bill

bobbief wrote:
For those posters on MSFraud who think because robosigning is a losing prospect
in todays courts, think allowing ANY fraud to stand is the way to go, please read
the following.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=199823

Because some fraud is allowed to stand in court does not mean it's okay, and it
certainly in the end leaves that particular piece of property with a clouded title.
The above link shows just how much fraud is included in any current transaction
of private property, and going back as much as 20 years ago.  When fraud is used
in any transaction it means no matter the time that goes by, that transaction is tainted
forever until that specific fraud is cured.
Hopefully in the future the courts will recognize no matter the size of the fraud
committed, it should not ever be allowed to stand.


I don't think robo-signing is a losing prospect in today's courts.  To the contrary, I think it's one of the most robust defenses a homeowner has.  Because 99% of foreclosures are brought NOT by the bank that is the note holder (allegedly) but by the Servicer most of the time without the note holder's knowledge, there is very little a Servicer can "swear" to under oath.  Because of securitization and sometimes changes of trustee, many times the trustee is very limited in what they can "swear" to under oath.  This is further exasperated by the fact that many sub-prime lenders are out of business.  There is no one from the originator that can "swear" under oath about facts.

IF all these parties are available (good luck with that) and WILLING to sign affidavits it would take SEVERAL affidavits executed by the party with PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE to PROVE the facts necessary to support a foreclosure. 

An affidavit from the servicer that goes beyond the scope of payments is just legally insufficient.  There is NO way for them to have PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the delivery of the note while they are in Florida and the note is delivered in NY. 

We all know the problems with the MERS officers. 

THE PROBLEM IS NOT ATTACKING THE ROBO-SIGNERS.  IT IS HOW TO ATTACK THE ROB-SIGNERS.

Because someone is a know robo-signer does NOT invalidate anything they execute.  You would HAVE to depose the person that executed the documents in question to see if they properly executed the documents in YOUR case.  This is VERY expensive.  The depositions conducted that have begun to surface over the last few years are the REASON we know about robo-signing and a lot of the problems with MERS as well as MERS inner workings.  You CAN'T have a robo-signer WITHOUT that individual ADMITTING under oath they did NOT have personal knowledge or the authority to execute a document. 

Some of the forward thinking judges in NY have found by their OWN investigation a lot of problems with things like signatures that vary greatly from document to document.  They have begun to ask questions on their own about these signatures.  A defendant that goes to court with a variety of signatures from the same person will NOT be successful unless, again, they deposed the signer to see IF they really signed the document. 

The same would apply to attacking a notary.

The bottom line is...To use these defenses, you need to have the money and pay for a deposition.  Many times you might have to do more than one.  These are not cheap and the average Pro Se defendant would have very little success trying to do a deposition on their own. 

Homeowners that collect signatures, cases, ect.. about robo-signers are going to be VERY disappointed when they get very little mileage out of this in court.  There are RULES about what is evidence and how it can be used.  Without a deposition, all of this information (not evidence) is useless, and the homeowner wasted a LOT of time and focus.

This DOES NOT mean you cannot attack the affiant for a lack of personal knowledge when it is evident on the face of the affidavit.  Homeowners SHOULD be attacking EVERYTHING and questioning EVERYTHING but suggesting that there is some question because someone was found in a different case to be a know robo-signer just isn't going to go very far.

The court system is NOT rigged, there are rules that must be followed.

I'm not an attorney, this isn't legal advice.
Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
The above link shows just how much fraud is included in any current
transaction of private property, and going back as much as 20 years ago.

 

The link shows nothing of the sort.  It merely proposes a legislative remedy mandating some better practices.

 

If you think that this advocacy post actually illuminates the underlying merits and dynamics of robo-signing, then you need either a reading comprehension test or a drug test.

 

It is an interesting post and an interesting proposal.  However, it does not support your assertions.

 

Moreover, do you really believe that some fraudulent conveyance anywhere in a chain of title, no matter how old should void your right to the quiet enjoyment and use of your property?  For centuries, society has recognized that the right to be secure in one's title to real property is of paramount importance both to property and to commerce.

 

Who would ever build an expensive improvement on real property if the owner could not be secure in his title?

 

It is this principal that underpins statutes which vest and secure title in an owner in occupancy after a term of years.

 

There is no question that the people who conceived and executed the MERS scheme belong in jail.  There are a lot of subprime originators and fraudulent servicers that belong in jail, as well.  What we do not need is legislation that creates additional clouds to title rather than settling and resolving title disputes.

Quote 0 0
bobbief
Most kind of you ka, to be able to ascertain what a poster needs from a remote
pov. Who are you...god?
Maybe you need to be taking a sympathetic pill of some sort, or take some reading
lessons yourself.
And that link certainly does cover my original post.  Did you actually read the
whole thing?

Quote 0 0
George Burns
bobbief

Where in the linked article does it show or address "just how much fraud is included in any current transaction of private property, and going back as much as 20 years ago."???

Please show us where you read such a thing.
Quote 0 0
bobbief
The law being advocated cover all of the problem areas that have been discussed
here and elsewhere. That is why it's being pushed over on the Market Ticker.

Quote 0 0
John Lewis

WHAT? "..the Market Ticker"

Quote 0 0
Gary
The link to the In Re Jessup case posted by sirrowan within the thread "Is it just me or did the judge really fail here?" shows precisely how ineffective attacks on robosigned assignments can be.

Bill's analysis is spot on.

When you catch a robo-signer robo-signing affidavits, you have something based upon lack of personal knowledge, perjury, etc.  When you catch a robo-signer robo-signing assignments, you usually have almost nothing at all, when the plaintiff effectively pleads and proves ratification.

Only in a handful of courtrooms, like those in Brooklyn, NY, are the robo-signing arguments given much weight at all.
Quote 0 0
t
Quote:
Who are you...god?


I just noticed that bobbief accused ka of being a deity even before Ann picked up the refrain.

How come no one ever prays to humble t?

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...