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
Show full post »
Irresponsible distraction?

You're getting people on track to a viable defense?

Any Applicability?

When are you gonna come down off your throne and stop being so rude and ugly?  You are not a messiah, regardless of how much you think of yourself.

You are not an attorney.  Neither am I.  However you are working on old thinking that only postpones the foreclosure.  I have chosen to try and find another path, a more substantive one. 

For you to continue to make empty statements without fact or law seems to me to be irresponsible.

I would appreciate all those that emailed Roper in questioning and doubting this path to email me please, that is if there are any.  If I am off track, please explain your thoughts to me. 

I choose not to continue to post on this forum anymore. 

Roper, you can have it.  You are a complete waste of my time.  You really appear to be attempting to block all other thought paths and research. 

Who are you working for?  You don't have a pony in this race.  What is your agenda?

If there is sane discussion regarding Cede and DTCC out there please email me. 

Bob
Quote 0 0
Bill:
 
 I'm still waiting to see any comparable case that you have described as "Ordinary", nor have you seen you discuss the Pleadings made by the German Bank. I think your comments about this being a distraction is not only premature but have caused a confusion about security instruments, ownership, etc.
 
If your trying to make a point, I would suggest you review, the suit again, and do as we have done discussed this with several lawyers.  If you have any comments about the pleadings, or find those "Ordinary" case's that are similar or the same, please post them.  The simple fact is that this case may in one swift blow prevent thousands from even going into foreclosure, once lawyers get this "Classed Up".  Yes that's what I said, "Classed Up".  As we are talking of lawyers are now trying to find a way to class this up into several Class Actions. 
 
 We have not even discussed the "Trading" and or the selling of mortgages within the Pooling and Servicing agreements, that were never recorded by CEDE & CO. but transferred among "Certificate" holders. That is a whole other sorted story, these "Certificate Holders" trading them with themselves. Again, ownership has consequences. That is exactly what this suit is about. 
 
I find this a bit entertaining right now, I have asked Bob to post another case that Im sure you all will find interesting from Houston Texas, Home of Litton Loan, and my good friends at Litton Loan. We will put this one on another thread, and maybe generate the same interest.
 

Quote 0 0
Gary,

I agree with this direction.

Don't let Roper run you and Bob off the forum. 

Have a discussion and challenge him right back.

Demand proof and offer proof.

I don't know if I am the only one that had not heard of CEDE or not but I suspect there is more than just me.

There is one thing I am pretty sure of, we are going to cut the head off
this hydra in a thousand cuts.  There is no silver bullet.

So far, anyway.

The moneyhandlers?  I am convinced there is nothing they wouldn't do to
screw a common everyday worker bee so I want to hear what you guys have to say on this topic.

Dee


Quote 0 0
Now, let's see...  I have NEVER claimed to be an attorney.  To the contrary, I persistently remind folks of this myself, so that there is no misunderstanding.

But that having been said, I HAVE been the president of a mortgage company, I was the teaching assitant in the "Law of Real Estate Finance" Course at the Wharton School for three semesters, I HAVE been the trustee of a trust, and I HAVE been the beneficiary of several trusts.

And while I have NOT attended law school, I the following law courses at Wharton:  Introduction To Law and the Legal Process (mostly Contracts), Corporations, Partnerships and Agency, and the Law of Real Estate Finance.  I made "A"s in all three.  And I audited the Securities Law course at Wharton.

Perhaps this better qualifies me to understand mortgage securities and mortgage trusts than the average message board participant.  But maybe you guys are just a lot smarter than I am!

Having alerted folks to the snake oil being sold in this message thread, I really have little interest in further discussing the case.  I believe that MY TIME is better spent abstracting the other New York cases I have located.

*

I will READILY recognize that I am still a relative newcomer to this message board.  It was here that I found posts by others alerting me to several of the legal issues relating to standing and, in particular, to MERS which were VERY HELPFUL to my initial inquiries and legal research in support of my own foreclosure case.  I do NOT claim to be a pioneer in understanding or identifying the standing issue. 

I am VERY APPRECIATIVE to those whose posts helped me to find useful defensive material.  And it is in that spirit that I seek to also help others through my own contributions to the message board and to the site generally.

I believe that the issues are well enough defined that those reading this message thread OR the cited case are on inquiry and will hopefully approach the matter with an appropriate professional skepticism.  They can make up their own minds.

Just as the lad who declared that the "Emperor has no cloths" needed no further elaboration or proof, the ABSENCE of ANY substantive issues of USE to defendants is SO READILY APPARENT within the cited pleading that it really doesn't bear any further discussion.  I intend to move to a different thread and post some additional New York case abstracts!  Best of luck with your galactic class action suit! 
Quote 0 0
Snake Oil and time better spent.  Phooey on your superior Knowledge.  Phooey on you owning a mortgage company.  I had part of a mortgage brokerage myself.  Phooey on your attitude. 

You know, if you don't have any facts, you run away.  that's just what you are doing Roper, running away because you can't put up.

You know what they say, if you can't put up.....?

Additional research.   Thanks Dee!

Here is an opinion of a 23 year veteran trader.  See what she claims Cede & Co. to be.

Any cases or comments Roper, or just more amusing empty statements?


From: Lori Livingston
Sent: June 2, 2005
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: File No. 4-500


Although this letter originally was sent to the S.E.C. as my reaction to the DTC press release regarding the changes to Delaware law regarding the elimination of stock certificates, I think it also directly applies to R. Cromwell Coulson's, Chairman and CEO's of Pink Sheets, petition to the SEC to cause the amendment of NASD Rule 3360 and require NASD broker dealers to maintain a record of total "short" positions in all customer and proprietary firm accounts in all publicly traded equity securities as well as report this information to the NASD for public dissemination of the short positions by security.

The text which appears below was sent on May 27th to the S.E.C. as well as Transfer Online's issuer/clients, and the industry professionals who support them, based on my concerns surrounding the continuing trend of the movement of securities from the books and records of the corporations to books and records of the Depository Trust Company ("DTC") which directly connects to the problems brought forth in this petition. I respectfully submit my original letter of May 27th for your review and consideration in your decision making process.

Original text follows:

From: Lori Livingston
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:26 PM
To: chairmanoffice@sec.gov marketreg@sec.gov
Subject: Elimination of Stock Certificates

To whom it may concern:

I am writing in regard to the recent press release from the Depository Trust Company (DTC) and other recent events and rules regarding DTC eligibility and Issuer rights in regard to DTC participation.

As someone who has been in the transfer agent business for 23 years, I am alarmed by recent developments and trends that all work toward a system of increasing positions on the books and records of corporations in the name of Cede & Co. (nominee name for DTC). As the transfer agent for approximately 300 issuers, I am increasingly contacted by these companies as they seek information regarding the stock ownership in their companies and the underlying trading of those shares in the market. Over the years as the amount of shares held at DTC has increased it has become more and more difficult to determine who owns the shares, who is trading them and if the trading is proper. This trend, and the resulting problems I will detail below, continues to increase because a minority of the total number of shareholders are reflected on the books and records of the corporation, most activity takes place behind the wall of ownership that is designated as Cede & Co. and neither the company nor the transfer agent has any access to the underlying information.

While the press release (which I have attached) heralds the movement toward increasing this trend of dematerialization as a triumph and great progress which will save investors millions of dollars, I see this trend from a different perspective and one which is not only alarming to me but to many of the companies that will be effected by these changes. I also disagree as to whether or not it will save shareholders millions of dollars or merely shift the costs through a different route and into different pockets. Additionally, I see this as continuing the trend of increasing costs to corporations, particularly smaller issuers already struggling with the ever increasing price of being a public company, and further decreased shareholder value based on the additional expense paid by the company.

Furthermore, DTC recently managed to put through a rule change (Release No. 34-50758A; File No.S7-24-04) that prohibits a transfer agent from representing any company who seeks to withdraw from the DTC system. This change effectively leaves companies with no voice or choice in the management of their stock and their ability to have any transparency as to what is actually taking place in the market in regard to their stock.

I receive calls from companies seeking information as they watch millions of shares trade in a single day, who watch their share price decrease in value and who have no access to information regarding who is behind the trading of these shares, or if in fact the trades are at all legitimate. As the system now operates, most companies have a large percentage of shares on their books registered to Cede & Co. This position usually represents a majority of the outstanding stock in any given company. Underlying this position is a system at DTC which is reflected in a Position Listing Report and this report represents the brokers and clearing firms that hold positions in any given security on DTC's books and records for the beneficial owners (Non Objecting Beneficial Owners NOBOs and Objecting Beneficial Owners OBOs) or shareholders. The trades that take place on a daily basis move between these brokers and clearing firms electronically; however, the Issuer (nor their transfer agent) has any access to this data unless they order and pay for the lists. This is not only expensive for the company, but it also does not tell them anything about who actually owns the stock. For that information they must go to yet another party and that is ADP.

ADP is engaged by the brokers to keep track of the NOBOs and OBOs and to send the shareholders in Street Name reports and communications from the Issuer. Their other vital function is to serve as proxy tabulator for the shareholders who hold their shares in broker accounts. This is a critical function for the public company and one which they are required to perform by law. Given the importance of shareholder voting and communication one would assume that the same requirements placed on transfer agents as to accuracy and reporting would be placed on ADP and Cede & Co. as they usually hold or service the majority of the shares owned in any given company. I have found; however, that when presented with the tabulation reports from ADP the share totals they report sometimes exceed the total number of shares outstanding for the company. Let me restate this because it is a very important part of my concern about a system that is more and more headed in the direction of increased control by DTC. The shares presented by ADP, that are the shares voted by the brokers on behalf of the shareholders for whom they hold accounts, EXCEED when added to the shareholders of record the total number of shares outstanding. As the final judge and inspector of elections I would naturally inquire as to how the number of shares could be higher than the total shares that exist for a company and to my surprise I am told by ADP that they only vote what is reported by the brokers. It becomes the responsibility of the company, and further the transfer agent, to reconcile the numbers so that an annual meeting can be conducted that reflects numbers of share voted that makes any sense.

Where are these extra shares coming from? Why are there no controls on the number of shares held in the nominee name Cede & Co. vs. the ownership on the books and records of the brokers and why is the company not privy to any information unless it pays whatever fees it is told it must pay by the organizations that control the data? There have been a great deal of new regulatory levels of reporting put on companies (i.e. Sarbanes- Oxley Act compliance), but from where I am positioned in the marketplace that does not address what is a far greater problem for issuers shareholders and the integrity of the markets, and that is, who are their shareholders and how are their shares trading?

I will close at this point with a request to the SEC that in the rush to move to dematerialization someone look at the existing system and the inequities that exist in the market based on a companies complete ignorance and inability to know what is actually going on with the shares of their companies and the problems we face in the future as we move toward a system where the brokers, DTC and ADP have more information and control than the shareholders, the transfer agents and the issuers. In fact, as the system is evolving, DTC is de facto becoming the largest transfer agent in the industry even though it is an organization formed by and working for the interests of the brokerage community. If, ultimately, the S.E.C. is in place to protect investors then this issue can not be ignored because in the end when the market is completely under the control of the brokers and the organizations that represent them then the market can neither be transparent nor fair.

I thank you for your time in reading this communication.

Lori Livingston
President & CEO
Transfer Online, Inc
http://www.transferonline.com


Quote 0 0
What do you perceive Lori Livingston's letter to have to do with Mortgage Servicing fraud?
 
What do you perceive Lori Livingston's letter to have to do with foreclosures faced by ANY MS Fraud Message board participant?
 
How would anyone use Ms. Lori Livingston's letter to defend against a foreclosure?

Quote 0 0
JAX FL
Mr. Schmidt,

I'm open to what you have to say.  Your topic does take a new path and might be placed in the category of conspiracy theory, never the less this forum is for ALL, and I thank you for the new perspective you have provided to us, please continue to post any and all info that will get us one step closer to finding out who really is behind this historic heist......
Quote 0 0
Bill,
 there is no one silver bullet here, there are just "Causes's of Action", Several years ago I said this was going to be a "Death by a thousand cuts"   Now instead of cuts, we maybe able to that "Chunks of flesh" at a time using this case, and a number of others coming down the litigation trail. As Bob and several other's have done for years is here to point out different causes's of action that both individuals and "Class" members may choose to use, or not use, I recalled when I first mentioned "Forced Place Insurance" as a fraud, violating surplus lines laws in nearly every state, and being used as a tool to keep individuals in a constant "Default" status.  When we finally got come class actions going, some listened, others did not. But the information was correct.  And there were people on this board that said that the insurance was legal, and they could do that, it was not until Bob got the first MASTER COPY from Litton Loan, that we were able to break it open, and show how Litton used forced place insurance as such a tool.  It was funny in my case, that after I sold my home, Litton claims to have not billed me, yet it showed up a number of times on a number of pay off's, and Litton Claimed not to be the Agent or Broker, yet they set the premium, and did all the mailings, etc. 
 
After the Insurance was exposed it went to the "Original note and Morgtage's"  we still in that fight, but the courts are now agreeing with what we concluded years ago, ago about producing the "Original Notes and Mortgages".
 
The pattern and practices for forced place insurance, BPO FEE's, and numerous other fee's and costs, is also now being addressed in numerous court actions.  The question of "Legal Fee's being referred" and how they pay for litigation is a very hot topic also, when we discovered years ago, of Litton and Others making payments to law firms and calling it Referral Fee's, why $9,999.00?  We now know why, in a recent class action filed in Houston!  Two tier billing system and referral fee's!  Section 8 violations for referrals, that were filed on thousands of Bankruptcy cases across the country.  Bill, we have moved in many directions, but always have concluded "Ownership" a significant issue.  Now the banks and institutions do not want to be identified as an "Owner" because it has legal consequences.  And, gives past, present and future victims of MS Fraud, some hope for actions against the "Owners" of the notes and mortgages whom were foreclosed upon, past and present, and may, just may prevent future ones from occurring.
 
I recall when we could not find one attorney that understood what was going on, now their are hundreds, and many hundreds more moving into this field, and entire bar groups are being formed for the defense of victims.  Where their was few,now their are many, but still not enough, but the lawyers are coming! More each year for us to turn to.   We have the attention of the largest class action firms in the country. When we started it was hard to even get a phone call back.  Now they are calling for information and thoughts.  When I started, Litton Loan was owned by CBASS, and MGIC/RADIAN owned and controlled CBASS.  The merger of MGIC/RADIAN was called off, CBASS sold off Sherman Capital, Litton Loan was sold to Goldman, and both stocks of MGIC and RADIAN have fallen to near bankruptcy. If it had not been for the FEDERAL RESERVE!  Bailing them both out, now their are FBI/SEC investigations into MGIC, and class actions against CBASS and RADIAN.  This has been accomplished by the "Death of a thousand cuts!"  MGIC stock was at $70  a share just a little over a year ago, its now $12, and has been down to $9 a share!  Bill I'm pointing out that we all are having an impact.  But like science thoughts and ideas expressed should be able to challenged and tested, not vague statements, and generalizations of commentary. 
Quote 0 0
Uncle Buck
OK-

     I asked the questions below in a post yesterday, and there has been a lot more acrimony in a couple of directions; the feelings (hurt or otherwise) being discussed do not interest me, but the facts do! Perhaps the folks who feel this can help me, can help explain it to me, so I can explain it to my attorney, who in turn can explain it to a judge, so that it might stop my f/c... PLEASE!!!

OK-

     I see that there appears to be some confusion, and perhaps a bit of acrimony that is related to the post and the posters. I do not want to add to the hurt feelings, so I just have some questions that may or may not clear this up for some of us.

     I read the case. It looks like a securities-type case at first glance. However, some posters surely feel much more strongly, which is great! So----How would I, as someone who has a note supposedly owned by Bank of America use this case to have a f/c dismissed? The fact that Cede is or is not the holder of certificates for the owners (i.e. investors), means what to my efforts? Can we say with some authority that BofA is NOT the owner/holder despite their assertions that they are? If so, how? Can we show that the assignments are fraudulent? If so, how?

     If what it appears you are suggesting is true, and CEDE is the owner/holder of perhaps trillions of dollars of mortgage loans, then it would appear that nearly every active f/c case of a securitized loan throughout the country should be overturned due to the issue of standing. If true, this is staggering!!

     Just to make it clear here, I WANT this to be true, I am just confused.... So, walk me through how I tell a judge (and my attorney) how there is no standing for BofA to f/c on my home, and that my case should be tossed!

     This could be the proverbial silver bullet to stop my problem. I just don't know (or see) how I can use this case to do it. Can you please help me understand? No personal attacks, no hurt feelings, I just need some help to understand.

Uncle Buck
Quote 0 0
skeptic

Ok Gary.  So can you answer Roper's questions?  How does the case relate to anything?

Quote 0 0
Without knowing your particular case, the use of discovery would be the only way to show the chain of Possession/ and or custody/ownership, this needs to be shown. 
 
From A-B-C-D, with clear dates being shown of ownership, custody, or possession.  If your note/mortgage is in foreclosure, and in a Security instrument, such as a Pooling and Servicing agreements, THAT WERE REGISTERED UNDER CEDE & CO.  All changes should have been recorded.  For your own case I have no idea if this information would or could not have any value unless your mortgage or note were contained within any of the registered securities contained within the "Sealed" documents and named defendants or the 100 "John Doe's" If it were in fact part of this, and the German bank is saying it is "Owner of your note" This case would then demonstrate that it was not the owner.That must be determined first.
 
 However your lawyer should be asking for the "Original Notes and Mortgage to be produced, along with a clear chain.  These securities agreements are swapped, traded and exchanged for both "value" and no value" between parties.  But in the pleadings, Doutsche Bank claims its not the owner of these agreements!  I believe in paragraph 8 of the pleadings. And clearly states CEDE & CO. is 100% owner/holder.  But without many further details of your particular case I don't have an answer, discovery is critical to individual case's.  As for "Assignments" I have seen many that have been "Backdated" and even have seen "Forged" signatures, as in my own case, and Bob's with New Century through Litton Loan.
 
To answer some questions quickly, any records that may exist of transfer of mortgages/notes, should have been recorded by CEDE & CO.  It should be a quick source to track who the trust or mortgages is registered to, and any internal or external transfers from or within the Pooling and Servicing agreement.  Like it Bob's case, we know his mortgage and note were just changed to a person Allender, and has remained within the Trust, but this is also a major complaint about CEDE&CO, is that many transfers, and assignments were never recorded by CEDE&CO.  And may have had significently contributed to the Credit problems that exist today. 
 
This case has a much greater interest to mortgage note holders contained within these pools within the suit its self.  As like Litton Loan, Agents and Officers were the signers of the securities agreements, that's a link that can not be broken, and shows they had knowledge of what was occurring within these agreements.  Similar to those that were transferred from New Century to Doutsche Bank, and then foreclosed up by Litton Loan.  The same case was being made with New Century, changing documents and records, purporting to be the owners and holders of the note, when in fact they were not.
 
 
Quote 0 0
Unkle Buck and Skeptic and Jax Fla,

Please note that Roper has not produced any case law or fact to his humorous postings.  If he can't understand the Livingston post then bless him and good luck to him.  He needs to find another arena to play in. 

Please refer to my previous Article 8 post for you and your attorney to review and understand.

UB, there is so much I don't know about your issue.  First stating that I am not an attorney, I would ask that you email me a brief outline of your case.  What state, are you behind, what fraud did they use, when is the foreclosure, have they proved or attempted to prove ownership, etc.

In my case, the opposing counsel is just making unsubstantiated statements without proof in law or in fact.  Sound familiar Roper.  You need to make this clear to the judge, you need to make them show supporting documents, which they probably cannot.

Skeptic,  the case relates to Deutsche Bank only claiming trustee status and being the securities intermediary.  DB does not claim ownership as it does in foreclosures.  DB also states that Cede & Co. is 100% owner of the outstanding aggregate principal and that Cede & Co. is the payee (#8).  Note that while Roper has claimed that this is ordinary, he has yet to provide any other case like this and he has yet to support his ridiculous statements with any law or fact.  Call him out, I have produced law and fact.

I can't make it any clearer.  You're going to have to familiarize yourself with Article 8 regarding securitizations and Revised Article 9 regarding beneficial holder as opposed to holder in due course.

Email me if this isn't the answer you are looking for.  Let me know how I might be able to help.   

This took us years to get to and a lot of research and reading and rereading to understand the laws.  I did not say that this was simple.  Remember, trillion and multibillion dollar companies are behind this.  You're gonna have to do some homework.  I'll try to assist in direction. 

Bob
Quote 0 0
4 justice now
Bob & Gary:


I very much appreciate your efforts. I have the utmost respect for you both. This is mostly due to the fact that I have never had any doubt about your motivation here. It's obvious to me that you simply want to help those who have been victimized as you both have been.  

R,

4J
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...