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
Tony Show full post »
Ladies and Gentlemen,
    The responses against me and Mr. Garfield prove this web site has been taken over by enemies of distressed homeowners.
     The citations warning homeowners that they may be responsible for the
attorney fees of the "pretender lenders" if they stand up and fight, are simply
ways of intimidating homeowners. Everyone knows that when you go into a
fight, you might lose, so you need to way those risks against the benefits that you might win and liberate yourself.
      The Americans of 1776 knew they might lose, but they risked everything
to liberate their country from Tyranny.
      The bloggers who attack me are just Tory Traitors who work for this corrupt money grubbing system of banksters and their cohorts the servicers.
Quote 0 0
John Lewis
Mike H reaches another new low!

"The bloggers who attack me are just Tory Traitors who work for this corrupt money grubbing system of banksters and their cohorts the servicers."

ps. a mssg to the forum administrator -- you need to reconsider and re-post the 'removed thread containing Roper's findings of fact' re mikeh and his cohorts!
Quote 0 0
Bill
Mike H wrote:
Bill,
   I said there is a big difference between a DISCHARGE IN cH 7 and Vacating a judgment. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine comes into play when one tries to
get a State Court judgment VACATED in Federal Court.
  

Your right Mike.  Which is why your argument is total garbage.  The state court found there WAS a VALID LIEN.  That is WHY they ordered the mortgage foreclosed.  There is NO question in bankruptcy as to whether or not the claim was secured.  It was already DECIDED that the claim was secured by the foreclosure order.  If you read the Agard case the bankruptcy court they make it clear that you CAN'T re-litigate issues that were or should have been litigated in the state court.  The bankruptcy court discharged a secured lean for the debtors.  Once they did this the debtors lose the home.  IF they had filed bankruptcy prior to a judgment they could attack the proof of claim (POC) filed by the bank.  Once they have a judgment you can't claim the judgment is flawed in some way.  

Quote:
The Movant argues that U.S. Bank’s status as a secured creditor, which is the basis for its standing in this case, already has been determined by the state court and that determination cannot be revisited here. 

You then go on one of your "wing-nut" rants about a bifurcation of the Note and Mortgage.  It's clear from Carpenter v. Logan that bifurcation can't happen.  

Quote:
The transfer of the note carries with it the security, without any formal assignment or delivery, or even mention of the latter. If not assignable at law, it is clearly so in equity. 

Your whole "story" about this case is garbage.  You just "made it up" just like all of your other arguments.  
Quote 0 0
Bill,
   You are not smart enough to be a Tory Traitor, you are just nuts! The cited case is real and verifiable but you are so dumb, you are incapable of
looking it up and studying it. If you did study it, even a ding bat like you
might learn something. Do you have a real job? Or are you on welfare. You
seem to have lots of time on your hands to make rediculous statements here.
   The other possibility is that you work for the servicers or law enforcement
trying to catch UPL. Whatever it is, you are an IDIOT!
Quote 0 0
Eric

Quote:
Mike H reaches another new low!

 

Kind of like gold hit a high upon Mike H.'s call in January 2008.  See my new

post within the 2008 thread:

 

2007:That was the year that was!

 

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.  Mike H. seems to never be right. 

He is just a swindler who has been trolling the Forum and victimizing

distressed borrowers for years!  What a low life! 

Quote 0 0
Bill
Mike H wrote:
Bill,
   You are not smart enough to be a Tory Traitor, you are just nuts! The cited case is real and verifiable but you are so dumb, you are incapable of
looking it up and studying it. If you did study it, even a ding bat like you
might learn something. Do you have a real job? Or are you on welfare. You
seem to have lots of time on your hands to make rediculous statements here.
   The other possibility is that you work for the servicers or law enforcement
trying to catch UPL. Whatever it is, you are an IDIOT!

You are right Mike, you are the only smart person here.  

P.S. We all already know you conduct a scheme that constitutes and Unauthorized Practice of Law....
Quote 0 0
Eric
Quote:
You are right Mike, you are the only smart person here.
 
This would seem to suggest that ALL Forum participants are idiots!
Quote 0 0
Bill
Eric wrote:
Quote:
You are right Mike, you are the only smart person here.
 
This would seem to suggest that ALL Forum participants are idiots!

It appears that way.  Mike H. is the ONLY one that posts here that understands how his "theories" like the "death gamble", "quiet title", "bifurcation" ect... work.  All of the attorneys, judges, homeowners, activists, and generally the rest of the country must just be stupid.  

Mike H. is definitely the Marshall Applewhite of "Foreclosure Gate".
Quote 0 0
Matt

Quote:
This Section 9 wording is in my mortgage, as
well.

We should all PRAY for the victims of Neil Garfield's and Mike H.'s swindles and ask our Lord God to protect the borrowers and to smite Neil Garfield and Mike H. as well as their families and make them suffer torment both in this life and in everlasting Hell for what they are doing to borrowers with their Quiet Title scams.  Lord hear our prayers!  Amen.

 

Joe - Your post give me the idea.  I printed out the posts about how Mike H. is swindle everybody so he can steal there mony even though they lose there home.  I show the posts at my prayer group and everybody pray together for Mike to be smite by God and suffer eternal Damnation for what he done.  Two were even foreclosed already and lost there house.  everybody also pray to smite Jerry Sandusky for what he done to the boys!!  We all ask God to answer prayer and for Mike H. and Jerry Sandusky to burn in Hell!  We will pray again next week.  I print out some more today to get our group to add Neil Garfield to prayer, too.  He should burn.

 

Do any body know Mike H.'s wife name so that she can get the smite, too?

Quote 0 0
John Lewis
To Matt:

From the Thread: “A message for Mr. William A. Roper, Jr…..” posted 09/01/11 at 03:26 PM by w4rusty aka John Lewis:

 

“Texas:

 

"God grant us the courage to change the things we can,
The serenity to accept the things we cannot change,
And wisdom, always, to know the difference."

 

by the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr

 

I personally wish no harm to befall anyone…ever. 


Quote 0 0
t

Quote:
Joe - Your post give me the idea.  I printed out the posts about how Mike H. is
swindle everybody so he can steal there mony even though they lose there home. 
I show the posts at my prayer group and everybody pray together for Mike to be
smite by God and suffer eternal Damnation for what he done.  Two were even
foreclosed already and lost there house.  everybody also pray to smite Jerry
Sandusky for what he done to the boys!!  We all ask God to answer prayer and for
Mike H. and Jerry Sandusky to burn in Hell!  We will pray again next week.  I
print out some more today to get our group to add Neil Garfield to prayer, too. 
He should burn.

 

There is certainly an appeal to the idea that Mike H. and Jerry Sandusky might share

a jail cell or an especially HOT place in Hell!

 

Sharing a jail cell, Jerry Sandusky would probably do to Mike H. precisely what

Mike H.  has been doing to distressed borrowers!  There is a certain poetry in that.

Quote 0 0
   Anyone can see by the writings of Mr. T that he is a nut case so I won't
comment further on his drivel.
   What every pro se needs to realize, is that a foreclosure law suit is like a
chess game, the idea is to put the plaintiff in "check mate" and force them to
voluntarily dismiss the case. THE OBJECTIVE IS NOT TO GET THE JUDGE TO DISMISS THE CASE, because in most cases, that is not going to happen.
    In a chess match, judges are present to keep the game honest, but they
are rarely needed to determines who wins, the players come to that conclusion themselves.
    Whether you raise the standing issue early in the game or later in the game, ie in Bankruptcy or on Appeal, it is still a winning gambit which should
force the opposing attorney to throw in the towel. YOU CAN DO IT, I HAVE,
AND I'M NO MONEY GRUBBING, OVERPRICED LAWYER.
     As the Irish say, Sinn Fein, "Ourselves Alone" is all it takes! Don't listen
to these lying, self serving Tory Traitors who want to scare you into submission and keep the current corrupt, lawyer dominated system alive.
     The American Court System belongs to the American people, not a
private club called the bar association which is mainly interested in fleecing
the "gullible" with their "high faluttin BS". Study it and follow the KISS formula, ie KEEP IT SHORT AND SIMPLE and you'll do well. 
Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
Anyone can see by the writings of Mr. T that he is a nut case

so I won't comment further on his drivel.

 

Quote:
Bill,
You are not smart enough to be a Tory Traitor, you are just nuts!

 

So here is swindler Mike H. once again attacking the regular Forum

contributors like Bill and t.

 

This is characteristic of swindlers.  When others appear and caution

the victims against being taken in by the swindle, the swindler attacks

and demonizes the persons exposing the fraud seeking to discredit

anyone who exposes the swindle.

 

Mike H.'s attacks, as much as his vacuous and nonsensical

utterances, EXPOSE Mike H. to be the swindler and scam

artist everyone KNOWS HE IS. 

 

As has been pointed out by others, Mike H. is a vile and dispicable

creature who preys on the distress of others.  He certainly deserves

jail time and he certainly WILL burn in Hell.  Of that, we can have

great confidence either with or without the prayers of Joseph and Matt.

 

Anyone contacted by Mike H. should REPORT HIM to the police, to

local district attorneys, to state attorney generals and to state

committees on the unauthorized practice of law.  We really ought

to hurry him along to that jail cell.  Why should his punishment

have to await his death?

Quote 0 0
Now What
BANKRUPTCY COURT MORTGAGE LOAN CHALLENGE

   
      Though the following presentation is proper in bankruptcy court, our judicial system is not receptive of these challenges and if you don't make payments to the bank during the challenge process, you may lose your challenge.  When you have read the below material, come back and read these four documents in the order in which they are presented:

     DelaSalle Opening Brief;
     U.S. Bank Response to DelaSalle Opening Brief;
     DelaSalle Reply to U.S. Bank Brief;
    
Opinion of the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

           There are three ways to challenge a mortgage loan in bankruptcy court:  1) you can respond to the creditors motion for relief from stay; 2) you can object to the creditors proof of claim; and 3) you can file an adversary petition (complaint).

A.   HOW IT WORKS

     You are going to need to understand how it works if you are going to use an objection to a proof of claim as a basis to challenge the mortgage loan.  It may seem daunting at first, but it actually is quite simple and only rests on a few laws.  Here goes:

     11 USC 101(10) defines a creditor as one who holds a "claim".  That federal law states:

     The term “creditor” means—
     (A) entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief 
           concerning the debtor;
     (B) entity that has a claim against the estate of a kind specified in section 348 (d), 502 (f), 502 (g), 502
           (h) or 502 (i) of this title; or
     (C) entity that has a community claim.


     11 USC 501 provides that a creditor "may" file a claim - which means, the creditor does not have to file a claim if it doesn't want to. (We are only talking about secured creditors here - the mortgagee of your mortgage loan.) A secured creditor who doesn't file a claim can "ride-through" the bankruptcy and just wait until the bankruptcy plan terminates before he tries to enforce his lien.  11 USC 501 states in part:
 
     Filing of proofs of claims or interests
     (a) A creditor or an indenture trustee may file a proof of claim....
     (c) If a creditor does not timely file a proof of such creditor’s claim, the debtor or the trustee may file 
          a  proof of such claim....

     The "ride-through" is provided by 11 USC 506(d)(2) which protects the secured creditor who doesn't file a claim.  That federal law states:

     To the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such 
     lien is void, unless—
     (1) such claim was disallowed only under section 502 (b)(5) or 502 (e) of this title; or
     (2) such claim is not an allowed secured claim due only to the failure of any entity to file a proof of
     such
claim under section 501 of this title. (I highlighted the relevant part)
    
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure section 3001 provides that if a creditors proof of claim is properly supported by evidence, then the claim becomes prima facie evidence of the claims validity and amount.  Section 3001 states in part:
 
     Proof of Claim

     (a) Form and content.
     A proof of claim is a written statement setting forth a creditor's claim. A proof of claim shall conform   
     substantially to the appropriate Official Form.

     (b) Who may execute.
     A proof of claim shall be executed by the creditor or the creditor's authorized agent except as provided
     in Rules 3004 and 3005.

     (c) Claim based on a writing.
     When a claim, or an interest in property of the debtor securing the claim, is based on a writing, the
     original or a duplicate shall be filed with the proof of claim. If the writing has been lost or destroyed, a
     statement of the circumstances of the loss or destruction shall be filed with the claim.

     (d) Evidence of perfection of security interest.
     If a security interest in property of the debtor is claimed, the proof of claim shall be accompanied by
     evidence that the security interest has been perfected....

     (f) Evidentiary effect.
     A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with these rules shall constitute prima facie   
     evidence of the validity and amount of the claim....

     If the creditor's initial proof of claim contains the evidentiary support required by Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure section 3001, then pursuant to 11 USC 502(a), that claim becomes an "allowed claim".  11 USC 502(a) states:

     (a) A claim or interest, proof of which is filed under section 501 of this title, is deemed allowed, unless
     a party in interest, including a creditor of a general partner in a partnership that is a debtor in a case
     under chapter 7 of this title, objects. (Again, I highlighted only the relevant part of the statute that I am 
     talking about)

     When you are in a chapter 11 or chapter 13, you have to make a "plan" that describes how you are going to repay the creditors.  You will make payments to a trustee, and the trustee will pay the creditors.  11 USC 1326(c) states: "Except as otherwise provided in the plan or in the order confirming the plan, the trustee shall make payments to creditors under the plan."

     So the trustee is going to make the payments to the creditors.  But who is a creditor who will be paid by the trustee?  Well, only those creditors who have not chosen to "ride-through" the bankruptcy.  That would be the creditors with an "allowed claim".  Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure section 3021 states:

     Distribution Under Plan

     Except as provided in Rule 3020(e), after a plan is confirmed, distribution shall be made to creditors  
     whose claims have been allowed
, to interest holders whose interests have not been disallowed, and to  
     indenture trustees who have filed claims pursuant to Rule 3003(c)(5) that have been allowed. For
     purposes of this rule, creditors include holders of bonds, debentures, notes, and other debt securities,
     and interest holders include the holders of stock and other equity securities, of record at the time of
     commencement of distribution unless a different time is fixed by the plan or the order confirming the
     plan.

     Now, here is the kicker to the whole thing - remember 11 USC 502, above?  It is a law that sets forth "steps" as to what comes first, then second, then third and fourth - and it specifies very clearly how an allowed claim can lose its status as an allowed claim.  Let's read it carefully here, with my comments in red in the statute:

     11 USC 502. Allowance of claims or interests
     (a) (step 1 - a claim supported with evidence is deemed allowed) A claim or interest, proof of which is
     filed under section 501 of this title, is deemed allowed, (step 2 - the allowed claim loses its status as an
     allowed claim if you object)
unless a party in interest, including a creditor of a general partner in a
     partnership that is a debtor in a case under chapter 7 of this title, objects.  (What's good for the goose is
     good for the gander - your objection can't be a bold assertion, it too must be supported by evidence or
     argument that the claim isn't supported by evidence)


     (Ok, so you objected and supported your objection with evidence or demonstrated the claim was 
     without evidence, so the claim has lost its status as an "allowed claim")

     (b) Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a
     claim is made, the court, after notice (Step 3 - "NOTICE" means the court can't just summarily rule on
     your
objection, but must give you some time - but time for what?)  and a hearing, (Step 4 - AHA! A
     hearing! You get due process - a day in court to argue your position that the claim is not valid.)
shall
     determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing
     of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, (Allow the claim? But why would the court
     allow the claim?  Oh wait, there are nine exceptions coming up in this law where a claim won't be
     allowed - read on.)
except to the extent that—
   
     (1) such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or
     applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured; (This exception
     is most likely your exception.  Here is where the rubber meets the road - where you show the court the
     fraud that occurred, or that the note was never transferred to the bank [the pooling and servicing
     agreement comes in here - don't forget to argue that the UCC provides that parties may contract around
     the UCC and that you are in fact the penultimate party to the pooling and servicing agreement as it's
     your note in there.])
     (2) such claim is for unmatured interest;
     (3) if such claim is for a tax assessed against property of the estate, such claim exceeds the value of the
     interest of the estate in such property;
     (4) if such claim is for services of an insider or attorney of the debtor, such claim exceeds the
     reasonable value of such services;
     (5) such claim is for a debt that is unmatured on the date of the filing of the petition and that is
     excepted from discharge under section 523 (a)(5) of this title;
     (6) if such claim is the claim of a lessor for damages resulting from the termination of a lease of real
     property, such claim exceeds—
        (A) the rent reserved by such lease, without acceleration, for the greater of one year, or 15 percent,
        not to exceed three years, of the remaining term of such lease, following the earlier of—
           (i) the date of the filing of the petition; and
           (ii) the date on which such lessor repossessed, or the lessee surrendered, the leased property; plus
        (B) any unpaid rent due under such lease, without acceleration, on the earlier of such dates;
     (7) if such claim is the claim of an employee for damages resulting from the termination of an    
     employment contract, such claim exceeds—
       (A) the compensation provided by such contract, without acceleration, for one year following the
       earlier of—
           (i) the date of the filing of the petition; or
           (ii) the date on which the employer directed the employee to terminate, or such employee
           terminated, performance under such contract; plus
       (B) any unpaid compensation due under such contract, without acceleration, on the earlier of such
       dates;
     (8) such claim results from a reduction, due to late payment, in the amount of an otherwise applicable
     credit available to the debtor in connection with an employment tax on wages, salaries, or
     commissions earned from the debtor; or
     (9) proof of such claim is not timely filed, except to the extent tardily filed as permitted under
     paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 726 (a) of this title or under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
     Procedure, except that a claim of a governmental unit shall be timely filed if it is filed before 180 days
     after the date of the order for relief or such later time as the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure
     may provide, and except that in a case under chapter 13, a claim of a governmental unit for a tax with
     respect to a return filed under section 1308 shall be timely if the claim is filed on or before the date
     that is 60 days after the date on which such return was filed as required.

     If you judge has a hard time with this concept, she may say that 11 USC 502(c) says she can impose a sum that you pay into a blocked account pending the courts approval of a plan.  But that misreads the law, which states:

     11 USC 502(c):
     There shall be estimated for purpose of allowance under this section— (allowance refers to claims
     allowed - not claims that are not allowed!)

     (1) any contingent or unliquidated claim, the fixing or liquidation of which, as the case may be, would
     unduly delay the administration of the case; or (you indicated the debt was unsecured and disputed
     when you put the mortgage loan on schedule F and marked it as disputed - it is not contingent or
     unliquidated.)

     (2) any right to payment arising from a right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance.

     In order to read the above law as allowing the judge to require payments into a blocked account for sums that the creditor says it ought to be paid for the mortgage loan, the judge would have to be saying that the nine exceptions aren't really exceptions - or that the nine exceptions have exceptions. 

     So if you do your objection right, you will have an argument that the bank lacks both standing (constitutional and prudential standing) and that its claims lost their "allowed" status when you filed your objection.  So, if the claim is not allowed, you can't pay it in the plan - so why would you even create a plan with a payment to a creditor that you are not allowed to pay by law? You can't.  So that debt comes out of the plan - you get a hearing and if you win, two things happen.  The decision is res judicata and you can use it against that bank anytime later in any other court to stop them dead cold (think quiet title), and
remember 11 USC 506(d)(2)?  Well, let me state it again:

     11 USC 506(d)(2)
     To the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such 
     lien is void
, unless—
     (1) such claim was disallowed only under section 502 (b)(5) or 502 (e) of this title; or
     (2) such claim is not an allowed secured claim due only to the failure of any entity to file a proof of
     such
claim under section 501 of this title. (I highlighted the relevant part)
    

     And, that, you can take to the bank!  George Gingo

B.  
TECHNICALITIES OF CHALLENGE TO PROOF OF CLAIM

     Here is how to initially challenge a bank's claimed right to enforce a mortgage loan in the bankruptcy court:

Step 1:  Create a list of all parties that were involved in the collection of your mortgage since the date you signed the note and Deed of Trust. This includes the lender (originator) of your loan, all servicers that have contacted you, the trustee(s) that have contacted you - everyone.  Get their addresses and phone numbers and put those on your list too.  If they had special account numbers for you, put that on the list. 

Step 2:  You will file a chapter 11 or chapter 13 bankruptcy (most people will do a chapter 13). {Note: Normally you can't challenge a mortgage loan in a chapter 7 case.  But, if you were to cut a deal with the trustee where you did the work, you may be able to do it through the trustee.  Also, there are several cases on appeal at this time in different jurisdictions regarding whether you can take action in a chapter 7 to challenge a note.)

Step 3:  When you fill out the schedules on your bankruptcy petition, you will list everyone on Step 1 on Schedule F, and mark the box "disputed".  "Schedule F" says its an unsecured debt.  A lot of bankruptcy lawyers have problems with this because they think the debt is secured.  Well, it may be secured to the State of California as an escheated mortgage loan, but it sure isn't secured to the wrong bank - and that's what you are saying - everyone listed is the wrong bank to be enforcing the mortgage loan.  The "wrong bank" is nothing more than a thief.  If you don't have enough evidence to support your position, serve a Qualified Written Request and Debt Verification Demand on the Servicer.  Samples are available on the HOME page.

Step 4:  Once the bankruptcy is filed, wait a week or ten days.  If an entity on the list in Step 1 has filed a proof of claim, you will now file an "Objection" to that proof of claim along with a "Memorandum of Law" in support of it. 

Step 5: After 10 days, if any entity on your list in Step 1 didn't file a proof of claim, well you now need to file a proof of claim for that entity.  Your bankruptcy court has a form - sometimes it's an internet form - for filing a proof of claim.  Once you file that proof of claim, you then need to file an "Objection" to that proof of claim, along with a "Memorandum of Law" in support of it.

Step 6:  The Court will rule on the objection.  If you win, that ruling is res judicata for all purposes. 

Quote 0 0
ka

Now What,

 

Why are you posting this unsourced material here in this particular thread

on Quiet Title?

 

IT DOESN'T BELONG HERE!

 

This seems like the classic tactic employed by the swindlers.  When

caught in their web of deceit and lies, CHANGE THE SUBJECT!

 

The issue is NOT whether the posted material is interesting or even helpful.
Rather, the issue is that this material DOES NOT BELONG WITHIN THIS
THREAD, which was started by someone purporting to be "Tony", but which

actually seems likely to have been initiated by well known and notorious

swindler Mike H. to jump start solicitation of new victims for his debt

elimination scam.

 

Moreover, posting material from other web sites without attribution is

both discourteous and likely to be a U.S. Copyright violation.

 

For the benefit of those interested in this topic, the material seems to have

been taken from this page of the web site of Florida law firm Gingo & Orth:

 

http://gingolaw.com/BANKRUPTCY.aspx

 

While the material might be interesting and worth discussing, since

it doesn't belong here and appears to have been posted merely to

distract Forum participants from the collective posts of many who

have continued to expose the swindles and frauds perpetrated by

the likes of Mike H., I would encourage others to refrain from

discussing this material within this thread.

 

If someone wants to re-post the material with a question or comment within

another thread, I am not opposed to discussing the material, but it seems

to me that we owe Mr. George Gingo's firm the courtesy to identify the

source of original material posted at the Forum.

Quote 0 0
t

Quote:
Now What,

Why are you posting this unsourced material here in
this particular thread
on Quiet Title?

IT DOESN'T BELONG HERE!

+++

Quote 0 0
So from what I've read on this post, don't do a quiet title first?

Go for bankruptcy to show that the servicer isn't the right person to foreclose, THEN do a quiet title suit?  

Am I reading this correctly?  
Quote 0 0
I'm late to the game so I don't know who "Mr. William A. Roper, Jr." is. 

What did he say?  Why did he say Mr. Garfield is a fraud?  (just asking, don't flame!) 


Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
I'm late to the game so I don't know who "Mr. William A. Roper, Jr." is.

What did he say?  Why did he say Mr. Garfield is a fraud?
 
Mr. Roper is a longstanding Forum participant who no longer posts here.
 
He is a former mortgage banking professional who is a leading expert
on mortgage foreclosure fruad nationally.
 
His posts speak for themselves.  Browse through older topical posts or
use the search feature.
Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
So from what I've read on this post, don't do a quiet title first?

 

Go for bankruptcy to show that the servicer isn't the right person

to foreclose, THEN do a quiet title suit?

 

Am I reading this correctly?

 
No, you are not reading this correctly.
 
This would be a horrible oversimplification of a complex topic.
 
Whether a borrower should fight a foreclosure through bankruptcy
or employ other defenses is fact dependent and also depends upon
the laws of the jurisdiction where a foreclosure is initiated.
 
By contrast bringing a Quiet Title action is almost never actually a
viable foreclosure defense anywhere, before or after bankruptcy. 
Instead, this is simply a gimmick developed by several swindlers
operating so called debt elimination scams.
 
These swindlers promote a variety of false strategies that have in common
only that they are designed for the personal profit of the swindlers
who profit from the ignorance of distressed borrowers, often unnecessarily
causing the loss of the borrowers' homes and destroying the
borrowers' already troubled finances.
 
If someone is recommending to you a Quiet Title action, this person is
likely to be either a swindler or a victim of these swindlers who hasn't
yet discovered that he has been swindled.
Quote 0 0
To Joelle,
     Whether you enter BK first or do a Quiet Title first is usually dictated by
your situation. Most people wait for the foreclosure to begin before they start to fight, so they have to either win it in State Court or BK Court before
they even have a chance to do a QT. After winning in either court, most are
reluctant to begin a new battle so they just leave the "lien" in place, even
though it is unenforcible and clouds the title to the property.
      For those in good financial condition with a strong QT case and a homestead exemption, iniating a QT might be a good idea. I would always
escrow the payments in case you lose. ( I recommend that for those who
are fighting foreclosure also. That way you have some cash to fund a negotiated settlement with a "cram down".) If you do a QT, it will probably
end up in Federal Court, so you'll need a lawyer and most lawyers don't want
to handle them. I quess it requires doing something different and they don't
like a challenge. It shouldn't be that way because a QT is just like a foreclosure defense only now you are the plaintiff instead of the defendant.
In spite of that, lawyers don't like them but hopefully that will change, since
the whole country is mired in title problems, what with MERS.
Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
To Joelle,
Whether you enter BK first or do a Quiet Title first is
usually dictated by your situation. Most people wait for

the foreclosure to begin before they start to fight, so

they have to either win it in State Court or BK Court

before they even have a chance to do a QT. After winning

in either court, most are reluctant to begin a new battle

so they just leave the "lien" in place, even though it is

unenforcible and clouds the title to the property.


For those in good financial condition with a strong QT case
and a homestead exemption, iniating a QT might be a good

idea.  I would always escrow the payments in case you

lose. ( I recommend that for those who are fighting

foreclosure also. That way you have some cash to fund a
negotiated settlement with a "cram down".) If you do a QT,

it will probably end up in Federal Court, so you'll need a lawyer

and most lawyers don't want to handle them. I quess it requires

doing something different and they don't like a challenge. It

shouldn't be that way because a QT is just like a foreclosure

defense only now you are the plaintiff instead of the defendant.
In spite of that, lawyers don't like them but hopefully that will
change, since the whole country is mired in title problems, what

with MERS. 

 

Joelle,

 

It is essential that you understand that Mike H. is a notorious

swindler who has been victimizing Forum participants for a number

of years.  The "Quiet Title" defense is one of several debt elimination

scams.  IT DOES NOT WORK.  It is merely a pretext for swindlers like

Mike H. to PEDDLE various training aids, documents and legal services

(even though Mike is NOT an attorney and is actively engaged in the

illegal unauthorized practice of law), which have no value and can

cause great harm to a borrower.

 

Mike has cost borrowers hundreds of thousands of dollars and caused

the loss of many homes.

 

Mike posts to the Forum using a variety of aliases.

 

BEFORE YOU EVER CONSIDER ONE WORD THAT THIS SNAKE SAYS,

I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO SCROLL BACK AND READ THROUGH THE

VARIOUS POSTS.  CHECK OTHER THREADS AS WELL.

 

MIKE HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY CHALLENGED TO IDENTIFY EVEN A 

SINGLE CASE WHERE A BORROWER ACTUALLY PREVAILED USING HIS

WINGNUT LEGAL THEORIES.  THIS, HE CANNOT DO.

 

Mr. Roper posted an expose about this swindler some months ago

which was very enlightening.  Mr. Roper showed that Mike H. was

operating in concert with a number of other known swindlers.

 

If you are contacted by Mike and he offers to sell you anything or

to perform legal work for you, I would encourage you to forward any

such messages to law enforcement officials as well as officials charged

with enforcing unauthorized practice of law statutes in your state. 

Quote 0 0
t

Those interested in the subject of this thread might also want

to read the posts in these other threads, especially posts by

Mr. Roper:

 

Quiet Title

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Quiet-Title-4759497

 

Quite Title Action

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Quite-Title-Action-5138534

 

Exploratory quiet titles ?

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Exploratory-quiet-titles-5348408

 

Quiet Title vs Declaratory Judgment

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Quiet-Title-vs-Declaratory-Judgment-5401104

 

MERS Loses Quiet Title Appeal in Texas: MERS v. Groves

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/MERS-Loses-Quiet-Title-Appeal-in-Texas-MERS-v.-Groves-5200583

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...