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
As the message line says,  do you all know where is a good forum or support group on line for pro se litigants having to be their own attorney with mortgage fraud or foreclosure fraud cases.

I'm finding other peope like me that can't find a place to go to sound off ideas or ask a technical question.

If you all know, please tell me.
thanx
ken
Quote 0 0
Just ask and you may find your answer right under your nose.

I have found this forum the best everyone is very helpful here. So just ask your questions about your situation and you may find what you are looking for here.

You need to let everyone know what your situation is and you may find your first step.

cmc
Quote 0 0
Bro! You are already there. This is it! It's simple, the plaintiff needs the Note
and the mortgage. Alot of times, the Note got lost! That's your defense!
Sometimes, the mortgage is illegal because the originator had no license to
make mortgage loans in the State where the loan was made. If they have
the Note and a valid chain of title, most of the time they don't need the mortgage unless the property is homesteaded, but that is another big story!
Study this web site and find an honest lawyer as soon as possible! You may
not have enough time to learn all the ins and outs of the procedure, but if
you know the basics (found here), at least you won't be ripped off by an ig-norant lawyer or one working for the other side while you pay him/her!

Always get a Court Reporter so you can reflect on and study what was said.
Quote 0 0
Ken,

I agree with CMC. I will say though if youu think your going to make a change that they will just as easily make you out to be a complete no body if you try to stand up for TRUTH AND HONESTY IN OUR COURTS!

At least in St. Louis I've found it to be this way. I've tried nationally for help. There is none. I've had bankers with various sums of funds to help me out of the mess I'm in. Still do . But they need product. Even if your direct to the cash holder they can't or won't do proper business.

But like CMC said post here. Most of us can be emailed. Be prepared the TRUTH is they've been stealing homes. And the JUDGES ENDORSE IT! At least in St. Louis they do.  I myself have 15 yrs of banking experience. But it does diddly when your surrounded by NO ONe but corrupt inidviduals.
Quote 0 0
Stephen

Pro Se or not, it's the judges you have to worry about.

Quote 0 0
Ken
Well I know you are all about mortgage servicing fraud and I'm not litigating that issue that is why I wondered if you knew another group that deals with like loan orgination fraud for pro se people.

Anyway, here is one of my questions.

When figuring out what to list for damages how do you decide what was paid.  In some causes of action like for TILA, you get what was paid returned to you.

What  I'm wondering is this:

Say the loan was for $300,000.00

Paid for six years.

Last year got behind, foreclosure filed, I filed chapter 13 and paid on plan for about four months and lender got relief from stay cause no equity in home they say and court agreed.

Well, anyway, the lender had run up a whole bunch of late fees, penalties, attorney fees and so on.

So do I add up what was actually paid out of my pocket or do I include all the equity stolen with attorney fees and foreclosure costs?

Ken




cmc wrote:
Just ask and you may find your answer right under your nose.

I have found this forum the best everyone is very helpful here. So just ask your questions about your situation and you may find what you are looking for here.

You need to let everyone know what your situation is and you may find your first step.

cmc
Quote 0 0
Stephen
Be prepared for the Judge to ask you what you're losses were per day.  You're right, that makes no sense whatsoever, but that's what that stupid judge asked me!!!  I told him "You can't calculate it on a per day basis".

Anyway, don't leave out "Emotional Distress".  Assuming the judge doesn't roll your evidence up and beat you over the head with it.  Throw everything in there from the obvious to the car washes you had to pay for after you lost the house.
Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
Yes, servicing fraud is in the name of the group but we aren't limited to that solely.

Folks here are knowledgeable about many areas of the overall mess.

I would suggest you take a look at the National Consumer Law Center website, and also the books they have put out specifically on foreclosure and on TILA. A local library, or law library, should have these. They even have sample complaints that are fairly thorough and well articulated.

Quote 0 0
Ken
How to you come up with a number for emotional distress cause I can honestly say I am surprised I survived the stress and then depression.

And when adding up "actual costs" do you put what the house was worth at the time they stole it, or do you list the equity remaining at the time they stole it?

Ken


Stephen wrote:
Be prepared for the Judge to ask you what you're losses were per day.  You're right, that makes no sense whatsoever, but that's what that stupid judge asked me!!!  I told him "You can't calculate it on a per day basis".

Anyway, don't leave out "Emotional Distress".  Assuming the judge doesn't roll your evidence up and beat you over the head with it.  Throw everything in there from the obvious to the car washes you had to pay for after you lost the house.
Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
Ken,

I'd go with the highest possible numbers you can manage to justify or rationalize in even the slightest ways. Let the burden fall on them to disprove your claims.

Quote 0 0
Big Mac
Mike H wrote:
Bro! You are already there. This is it! It's simple, the plaintiff needs the Note
and the mortgage. Alot of times, the Note got lost! That's your defense!
Sometimes, the mortgage is illegal because the originator had no license to
make mortgage loans in the State where the loan was made. If they have
the Note and a valid chain of title, most of the time they don't need the mortgage unless the property is homesteaded, but that is another big story!
Study this web site and find an honest lawyer as soon as possible! You may
not have enough time to learn all the ins and outs of the procedure, but if
you know the basics (found here), at least you won't be ripped off by an ig-norant lawyer or one working for the other side while you pay him/her!
 
Always get a Court Reporter so you can reflect on and study what was said.



Mike is right, always get a Court Reporter.
Quote 0 0
Stephen
I had a court reporter.  So what?  They work for the judge.  In San Diego, even though the court reporter is paid by the taxpayer, you have to purchase the transcript from them.  I tried numerous times to get the transcript of my trial and he kept raising the price until I couldn't afford it.

Court reporters aren't independent.
Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
You can hire an independent court reporter. It is expensive, but it can be done.
Quote 0 0
Save your money

 

Ken wrote:
Well I know you are all about mortgage servicing fraud and I'm not litigating that issue that is why I wondered if you knew another group that deals with like loan orgination fraud for pro se people.

Anyway, here is one of my questions.

When figuring out what to list for damages how do you decide what was paid.  In some causes of action like for TILA, you get what was paid returned to you.

What  I'm wondering is this:

Say the loan was for $300,000.00

Paid for six years.

Last year got behind, foreclosure filed, I filed chapter 13 and paid on plan for about four months and lender got relief from stay cause no equity in home they say and court agreed.

Well, anyway, the lender had run up a whole bunch of late fees, penalties, attorney fees and so on.

So do I add up what was actually paid out of my pocket or do I include all the equity stolen with attorney fees and foreclosure costs?

Ken




cmc wrote:
Just ask and you may find your answer right under your nose.

I have found this forum the best everyone is very helpful here. So just ask your questions about your situation and you may find what you are looking for here.

You need to let everyone know what your situation is and you may find your first step.

cmc

 

Ken there is little doubt in my mind you were likely taken advantage of to some degree. That’s the way mortgage fraud works at both the lending and servicing levels. But I need to tell you a few things that you may not want to hear:

* The reason virtually all judges don’t like pro se litigants is because the Judge is then quite unfairly put in the position of doing the work and research a hired attorney would otherwise normally perform. Pro se litigants almost always mean more work for the Judge and a higher likelihood of trial errors. (A chance of a reversal as well) HOWEVER without exception Judges in every state give stern warnings to Pro Se litigants as to the hazards they face and the extreme disadvantages they will encounter before, during and after their trial if they chose represent themselves.

* You have already been through several important formal legal barriers none of which helped your position: Foreclosure, Bankruptcy Chapter 13, Falling behind on payments, and the Court ruling in favor of the lender with regard to a “Relief from Stay” ruling. Ken each step of the way your ultimate fate was likely structured in a one-sided ironclad legally air tight fashion. Take a look at your bankruptcy and your extension of payments agreements. These were documents containing RELEASES you agreed to and signed!!

* As for your question, “So do I add up what was actually paid out of my pocket or do I include all the equity stolen with attorney fees and foreclosure costs?” The answer put bluntly is that you are wasting your time on this angle based on what I’ve read. Same goes for your “stress” angle. These things can be litigated okay but in your case based on the 4 legal barriers you have already been through; it’s a dreadful waste of time, money and even more deeply frustrating stress followed by a good stiff dose of lost hope.  

* Your cost to pursue this truly miserable case in lost time away from earning productive wages (which were instead pumped into travel time, considerable research, and time in Court) will be your greatest “expense.” Next comes about $1,500 in court costs and filing fees and a “Court Reporter” which few pro se litigants can justify.

* YOU ALSO EXPOSE YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY TO CROSS ACTION.

Quote 0 0
Know the Facts

(excerpt from pro se filed response)
CAUSE NO. 096 239885 09 (Tarrant County Texas, 96th District Court)

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee in trust for the benefit of the Certificateholders for Argent securities Inc. 2006-W4. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 Application for Order for Foreclosure

1. General Denial - Defendant hereby enters a general denial as permitted by Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and requests that Plaintiff be required to prove by sworn affidavit and by a preponderance of evidence: a.) that their allegations are truthful representations; b.) that their action has merit; c.) that they are the true and lawful party in interest - the holder in due course of a valid debt obligation signed by Defendant Geoffrey Anson Wilner; d.) that their alleged evidence is not a product of or prelude to fraud, e.) and that they have legal standing to lawfully invoke the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

2. Plaintiff lacks standing to invoke TRCP 735 to foreclose - Defendant hereby disputes the application of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 735, by the plaintiffs. Defendant alleges that there exists a genuine attempt by the plaintiffs to deceive. Defendant is supplying all the necessary Facts below (no.3 through 39 with detailed explanation of each offense) to prove the following: In an attempt to collect a non valid debt obligation, the plaintiffs committed irreparable fraud by [a] not filing the required notice of assignments as required by the Texas Property Code. (See attached exhibit M – Required Assignments chart - see details below) [b] manufacturing and filing a fraudulent notice of assignment and furnishing it as proof to the defendant of their rights as holder or holder in due course with rights to enforce (See attached exhibit P - package received from Codilis & Stawiarski, P.C. 8/20/09 - see details below). [c] deliberately withholding that same notice of assignment from this court to manipulate and deceive in an attempt to conceal from this court a fraudulent act (See attached exhibit T - package received from Codilis & Stawiarski, P.C. 9/9/09 - see details below). [d] not complying with the Fair trade Collections and Practices Act rules and regulations by not supplying the appropriate information to satisfy the dispute letter (See attached exhibit R - complaint to FTC and exhibit I - Why the Original chart - see details below). [e] violating Florida Statutes – Notary Public laws by creating a fraudulent document and filing it with Tarrant County land records office (See attached exhibit N - complaint to Florida notary section - see details below). [f] disregarding the rules and  regulations of their Pooling and Servicing Agreement s and Prospectuses by filing inaccurate reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (see details below) [g] ignoring The Securities Act of 1933 (see details below). [h] violating Texas Business and Commerce codes (see details below). [i] violating Texas Property codes (see details below). Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant foreclosure - despite clear and convincing evidence that Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought. That as a result of the plaintiffs fraudulent actions and inactions they have no standing to evoke the jurisdiction of this court and that they will never be able to obtain the jurisdiction of this court, therefore this Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case at hand and should dismiss this case with prejudice.

FACTS

Plaintiff lacks standing as they are not holder in due course with rights to enforce.

3. Plaintiffs are claiming defendant’s indebtedness through a promissory note allegedly held by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee in trust for the benefit of the Certificateholders for Argent securities Inc. 2006-W4. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and are threatening to foreclosure on the defendant ’s property and primary residence. See attached exhibit A

4. A plaintiff “bears the burden of demonstrating standing and must plead its components with specificity.” Coyne, 183 F. 3d at 494; Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982). Should Plaintiffs fail to prove this condition precedent, this Court ha s no discretionary function but to stop them at the gate and dismiss the action.

5. Proof of Signatures and Status as Holder in Due Course - Defendant claims Plaintiffs are without legal authority to enforce foreclosure and so challenges the validity of the Defendant’s signature on the alleged debt obligation Pursuant to the Texas Business and Commerce Code Sections 3.308 (a) “Proof of Signatures and Status as Holder in Due Course“ and 3.401 (a) (1) “Signature” relating relevant to the validity of the defendant’s signature on the alleged debt obligation being brought before this court; defendant does admit that he signed a debt obligation but the alleged debt obligation in question brought before this court is not the same debt obligation that the defendant entered into. See attached exhibit L

6. The alleged debt obligation in question, as identified by Codilis & Stawiarski, P.C. and being brought before this court by the plaintiffs, stating that American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. and Option One Mortgage Company and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee in trust for the benefit of the Certificateholders for Argent securities Inc. 2006-W4. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company are proper parties entitled to payments, is fraudulent, misleading and patently false. See attached exhibits A and C /D206085073 - Deed of Trust

7. Defendant denies that any obligation is owed to either Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee in trust for the benefit of the Certificateholders for Argent securities Inc. 2006-W4. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 or Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. Validity of Fraudulently Created Documents

8. As noted in the transcript of the MEETING OF THE TASK FORCE ON JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE RULES November 7, 2007, (note pages 27, 28 and 33), as found on the
Supreme Court of Texas web site (http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/jfrtf/pdf/110707transcript.pdf), makes issue with, addresses and discloses the same fraudulent practices, Defendant alleges are taking place in this instant case. See attached exhibit G

9. Defendant has therefore been required to expend time and effort to defend an action that has no legal basis to support it. A Broken Chain of Assignments renders the “Deed of Trust” Void and Unenforceable under UCC 3-201, 3-204 & 3-302 and as such no triggering of the foreclosure clause in the “Deed of Trust” is possible.

The Prospectus

10. Prospectus Definitions : Trustee/Owner/Holder - As defined by the Argent securities Inc. 2006-W4. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 Prospectus ; (1) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee is of Trustee status for the benefit of the Certificateholders, (2) the Certificateholders were the reputed Owner of this alleged instrument (3) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Custodian for the benefit of the Certificateholders was the reputed Holder of the alleged debt obligation in question. See attached
exhibit F.

11. Prospectus Definitions : Separate Entities - As defined by the Argent securities Inc. 2006- W4 Asset-Backed Pass- Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 Prospectus , Argent Mortgage Co. (originator) and Argent Securities Inc. (depositor), are two separate entities, as well as Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Argent securities Inc. 2006-W4. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Custodian for Argent securities Inc. 2006-W4. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4, are two separate entities.

The Pooling and Servicing Agreement

12. Conveyance of Mortgage Loans and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement - Further, the Argent securities Inc. 2006-W4. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 Pooling and Servicing Agreement Section 2.01 “Conveyance of Mortgage Loans”, defines the process and provides the forms for enforcing foreclosure, by the Master Servicer, with very specific rules for
recording assignments “in the appropriate public office for real property records”, from the Custodian to the Trustee and no such filings were recorded.

13. Validity of Unrecorded Instrument and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement - And pursuant to Argent securities Inc. 2006-W4 Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 Pooling and Servicing Agreement Section 2.01 “Conveyance of Mortgage Loans”, the Master Servicer is required to record all notices of assignment to any of the above, and by failing to record such notices of assignment in Tarrant County to the alleged debt obligation in question, have created a “defective chain of assignments”, with blatant disregard of the Texas property Code Sec.13.001 (a) “Validity of Unrecorded Instrument”, as verified with a recent title search. See attached exhibits C,
E, F and D


15. Validity of Unrecorded Instrume nt and Texas Law - Texas Property Code Section 13.001 (a) “Validity of Unrecorded Instrument” requires that each notice of assignment to the debt obligation in question referenced within the original deed of trust filed in Tarrant County records office # D206085073 on March, 26, 2006, be acknowledged, sworn to, or proved and filed for record as required by law. Research however, indicates that a notice of assignment from Argent Mortgage Co. to Argent Securities Inc. of the alleged debt obligation in question, should have been recorded in Tarrant County somewhere on or before the Argent securities Inc. 2006-W4. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 “cutoff date”, April 1, 2006, and no such records were found, as evidenced with the title search thereby exposing a blatant violation of this code. This fact along with all the above mentioned facts renders the alleged debt obligation in question, referenced within the original deed of trust filed with Tarrant County records office # D206085073 on March, 26, 2006, null and void. See attached exhibits C, H and M.

Defective Notary and The Foreclosure Mill

16. He’s Just a Notary - The notice of assignment # D209045468recorded in Tarrant County on February 19, 2009 from Argent Mortgage Co. to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Argent securities Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 (See attached exhibit O), in violation of Florida Notary laws, states that Brian Bly is the “VICE PRESIDENT of CITI RESIDENTIAL LENDING” is fraudulent. Evidence however has revealed in fact that Brian Bly is registered with the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations under Notary ID #1194546, Notary commission # DD691055, and lists Bryan Bly's current office address as the same as Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc., 2100 Alt 19 North, Palm Harbor, FL 34683. See attached exhibit J - Assignment Fraud.

17. The Foreclosure Mill - Bryan Bly has signed many other county record filings exposing some of Bryan Bly’s other bogus titles as well as his service as a Notary Public for Nationwide Title Clearing Inc. in violation of Florida Notary laws. Some of these other filings and a news publication describing this process are incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. See attached exhibits J and O.

18. Person Entitled to Enforce Instrument and Limited Power of Attorney - The Limited Power of Attorney assignment # D207376789 recorded in Tarrant County on October 22, 2007 (See attached exhibit K), as used and noted within the notice of assignment # D209045468 recorded in Tarrant County on February 19, 2009 from Argent Mortgage Co. to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Argent securities Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006- W4 (See attached exhibit O), does not give Brian Bly, Option One Mortgage Company or Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. the legal authority to execute any action or the right to file documentation that would affect the defendant’s right of ownership as noted in the Deed of Trust filed with Tarrant County records office # D206085073 on March, 26, 2006, and pursuant to the Business and Commerce Code Sec. 3.301 “Person Entitled to Enforce Instrument ”, therefore is not a "Person entitled to enforce” the alleged debt obligation in question. See attached exhibits J, O and K.

19. Nationwide Title Clearing Inc. - Brian Bly’s true place of employment at that time is Nationwide Title Clearing Inc., as a Notary Public, and the Limited Power of Attorney assignment #D207376789 recorded in Tarrant County on October 22, 2007, as defined within, fails to transfer power or title. Therefore the statement above is misleading, deceptive and fraudulent. See attached exhibit J

20. Lies and Deceit - On the notice of assignment # D209045468 recorded in Tarrant County on February 19, 2009 from Argent Mortgage to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Argent securities Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 (See attached exhibit O), Bobbie Jo Stoltd (Florida State Notary Public, Commission # DD731909, indicated therein), states and swears that Brian Bly is “personally known to me to be the VICE PRESIDENT of CITI RESIDENTIAL LENDING INC., AS ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC”. See attached exhibits J, O and K.

21. Fraudulent Filing and Florida Law - Bobbie Jo Stoltd, pursuant to Title X, Chapter 117.05 (5) “Use of notary commission” and 117.105 “False or fraudulent acknowledgments” of the Florida Statutes, by notarizing notice of assignment # D209045468 recorded in Tarrant County on February 19, 2009 from Argent Mortgage to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Argent securities Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 (See attached exhibit O), may be found guilty of a felony of the third degree in the State of Florida. See attached exhibits J, O and K.

22. A formal complaint to the Florida Governor’s Office Notary Section has been filed. See attached exhibit N.

23. Fraudulent Filing of Financing Statement and Texas Law - Under the Texas Business and Commerce code Sec. 9.5185 (a) (2) “Fraudulent Filing” and the Texas Penal Code Sec. 37.101 (a) (2) “Fraudulent Filing of Financing Statement”, by notarizing notice of assignment # D209045468 recorded in Tarrant County on February 19, 2009 from Argent Mortgage to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Argent securities Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006- W4 (See attached exhibit O), Bobbie Jo Stoltd may be found guilty of a felony of the third degree in the State of Texas, thereby rendering the notice of assignment # D209045468 defective, invalid and void. See attached exhibits J, O and K.

24. Transfer of Instrument; Rights Acquired by Transfer - The fraudulent act of creating an unlawful document, such as the one created by the hands of Bryan Bly, has rendered this notice of assignment, # D209045468 (See attached exhibit O), defective and pursuant to the Texas Business and Commerce Code Sec. 3.203 (b) “Transfer of Instrument; Rights Acquired by Transfer”, the transferee, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Argent securities Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4, cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course and therefore does not have the rights to enforce. See attached exhibits J and O.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

25. Validation of debts - Defendant responded to plaintiffs’ “NOTICE OF ACCELERATION”, with requests to “view the alleged original paper promissory note with all assignments and allonges showing a complete chain of assignments” and to identify the true owner and holder of the alleged debt instrument. Plaintiffs’ reply is in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, § 809 (b) “Validation of debts” – 15 USC 1692g, by their failure to include the information requested. (See attached Exhibits B, I and P) Plaintiffs are in possession of Defendant’s second
letter informing them of their non compliance. (See attached Exhibit Q) 26. Furnishing certain deceptive forms and Federal Rules - Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and in violation of § 812 “Furnishing certain deceptive forms” – 15 USC 1692j, the notice of assignment # D209045468 recorded in Tarrant County on February 19, 2009 from Argent Mortgage to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Argent securities Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 (see attached exhibit O), is being used to create the false belief that a lawful act is being executed by persons to collect a non-valid debt, as it was provided by the plaintiffs in response to the defendants original request seeking to “view the alleged original paper promissory note with all assignments and allonges showing a complete chain of assignments” and to identify the true owner and holder of the alleged debt instrument. See attached exhibits B, I and P …

27. A formal complaint to the Federal Trade Commission has been filed and acknowledged. See attached exhibit R.

The Texas Government Code Fraud upon the court

28. Fraudulent Document or Instrument - Defendant alleges Plaintiffs have intentionally failed to submit relevant foundational evidence to this court in an attempt to cover up the truth and to fraudulently invoke the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. The notice of assignment #D209045468 recorded in Tarrant County on February 19, 2009 from Argent Mortgage to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Argent securities Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 (See attached exhibit O), in violation of the Texas Government Code Sec. 51.901 “Fraudulent Document or Instrument” (c) (2) (A), (B) and (C), was included in the plaintiffs letter dated 08/20/2009 (See attached exhibit P). That letter was sent in reply to the defendants’ dispute letter dated 06/11/2009 (See attached exhibit B) as an attempt to mislead the defendant to believe the plaintiffs have rights to enforce the note as holder or holder in due course. That same fraudulent notice of assignment is not in the pleading that was submitted and filed with Tarrant County by the plaintiffs as CAUSE NO. 096 239885 09 APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR FORECLOSURE. See attached exhibit T.

29. Pooling and Servicing Agreement and Conveyance of Mortgage Loans - As defined by the Argent securities Inc. 2006-W4 Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 Pooling and Servicing Agreement, SEC. 2.01 “Conveyance of Mortgage Loans”, only the Depositor, “Argent Securities Inc.”, was authorized to assign instruments to the Trust’s Trustee, and Argent Mortgage Co. was no longer the holder or owner of the alleged debt obligation in question; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Custodian for the benefit of the Certificateholders for the Argent securities Inc. 2006-W4. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 became the reputed holder and the Certificateholders became the reputed owner of the alleged debt obligation in question on or before its official “cut off date” of April 1, 2006. See attached exhibits E, F and D.

The Securities Act of 1933 - TITLE 15 - CHAPTER 2A - SUBCHAPTER III

30. Evidence of recording of indenture and The Securities Act of 1933 -

Under the Securities Act of 1933 - TITLE 15 - CHAPTER 2A - SUBCHAPTER III - Sec. 77ccc “Definitions ”:

(7) The term "indenture" means any mortgage, deed of trust, trust or other indenture, or similar instrument or agreement (including any supplement or amendment to any of the foregoing), under which securities are outstanding or are to be issued, whether or not any property, real or personal, is, or is to be, pledged, mortgaged, assigned, or conveyed thereunder.

Under the Securities Act of 1933 - TITLE 15 - CHAPTER 2A - SUBCHAPTER III - Sec. 77nnn “Evidence of recording of indenture”:

(b) “Evidence of recording of indenture” - If the indenture to be qualified is or is to be secured by the mortgage or pledge of property, the obligor upon the indenture securities shall furnish to the indenture trustee - (1) promptly after the execution and delivery of the indenture, an opinion of counsel (who may be of counsel for such obligor) either stating that in the opinion of such counsel the indenture has been properly recorded and filed so as to make effective the lien intended to be created thereby, and reciting the details of such action, or stating that in the opinion of such
counsel no such action is necessary to make such lien effective; and (2) at least annually after the execution and delivery of the indenture, an opinion of counsel (who may be of counsel for such obligor) either stating that in the opinion of such counsel such action has been taken with respect to the recording, filing, re-recording, and refiling of the indenture as is necessary to maintain the lien of such indenture, and reciting the details of such action, or stating that in the opinion of such counsel no such action is necessary to maintain such lien. In clear violation of the above, as evidenced with the title search, there was no opinion of counsel; no recording, and there was no filing at the Tarrant County land records office of the alleged debt obligation. (Exhibit C).

31. Person Entitled to Enforce Instrument and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement - As defined by the Business and Commerce Code Sec. 3.301 “Person Entitled to Enforce Instrument”, notice of assignment # D209045468 recorded in Tarrant County on February 19, 2009 from Argent Mortgage Co. to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Argent securities Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 (See attached exhibit O), is defective, as only Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Custodian for the benefit of the Certificateholders for the Argent securities Inc. 2006-W4. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4, as defined by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement within, was the reputed holder of the alleged debt obligation in question, and as such was the only entity authorized to assign instruments to the Trust’s Trustee, as Argent Mortgage Co. was not the holder of the alleged debt obligation in question. See attached exhibits E, F and D.

32. Holder in Due Course and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement - As defined by the Business and Commerce Code Sec. 3.302 (a) (1) “Holder in Due Course”, the notice of assignment #D209045468 recorded in Tarrant County on February 19, 2009 from Argent Mortgage Co. to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Argent securities Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 (See attached exhibit O), is defective, as only Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Custodian for the benefit of the Certificateholders for the Argent
securities Inc. 2006-W4. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4, as defined by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement within, was the reputed holder of the alleged debt obligation in question, and as such was the only entity authorized to assign instruments to the Trust’s Trustee, and Argent Mortgage Co. was not the holder in due course of the alleged debt obligation in question and therefore did not have the rights to enforce. See attached exhibits E, F and D.

33. The assignment of the mortgage, without an assignment of the debt, is a nullity - As there were no legitimate notice of assignments filed in the Tarrant County land records office of the
alleged debt obligation in question to the Deed of Trust (# D206085073 recorded March, 26, 2006 in Tarrant County) (See attached exhibit C) to record the conveyances involved in the creation and subsequent marketing of the Argent securities Inc. 2006-W4. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4, a separation of the note and the mortgage resulted, thereby rendering said Deed of Trust a nullity. In Kirby v. Williams, 230 F.2d 330 (United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit) February 10, 1956. Rehearing Denied April 24, 1956 states: The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity." Van Burkleo v. Southwestern, Tex. Civ. App., 39 S.W. 1085, 1087; Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. 441 (1850) 49 U.S. 441: The assignment of the mortgage, without an assignment of the debt, is a nullity.

34. Presentment - The Texas Business and Commerce Code Sec. 3.501 (b) (2) (A) and (B) “Presentment” requires exhibition of the instrument for the purpose of enforcement (produce the original ink signed note), and as the plaintiffs were not the holder in due course of the alleged debt obligation in question and did not have the rights to enforce, presentation of a copy of the alleged debt obligation is a blatant violation, and thereby should be deemed inadmissible as evidence.

35. Customary Procedure - Introduction of a copy of the alleged debt obligation in question rather than the original ink-signed paper promissory note by the plaintiffs, using the excuse that it is of customary procedure, is inadmissible. In United States of America v. Hibernia National Bank, 841 F.2d 592 96 A.L.R.Fed. 895, 5 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1392, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. April 5, 1988. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied May 9, 1988, the court stated: “Hibernia's reliance on commercial custom is misplaced. Commercial custom does not apply where the U.C.C. provides otherwise”.

36. Unclean Hands Doctrine - If said alleged debt obligation did exist and was presented to this court by the plaintiffs, then the Unclean Hands Doctrine would be used as a defense, as the plaintiffs are guilty of deliberately withholding a fraudulent notice of assignment from this court to conceal their criminal involvement in its fraudulent creation and use in an attempt to effect owner, holder or holder in due course status for the purpose of collecting a debt that the they do not have rights to.

37. Plaintiffs Codilis& Stawiarski, P.C. and American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee in trust for the benefit of the Certificateholders for Argent securities Inc. 2006-W4. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company also have acted in a manner that is unlawful, oppressive, tainted with fraud and absent of evidence of vital facts.

38. Necessity of immediate relief to preserve assets , as set forth in the se complaints, without the assistance of this Court, the defendant will suffer immediate irreparable and substantial harm and injury as a result of the deliberate fraudulent actions of the Plaintiffs.

39. Due to the above mentioned facts, plaintiffs Codilis& Stawiarski, P.C. and American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. and Option One Mortgage Company and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee in trust for the benefit of the Certificateholders for Argent securities Inc. 2006-W4. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W4 and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company or Deutsche and Bank National Trust Company as any other entity, do not have and never had standing to bring action before this court nor the authority to evoke the
jurisdiction of this court.

================================
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that Plaintiffs be denied their request to foreclose. As the plaintiffs have failed to establish the authority of this court and as a result of the fraud that they have committed, they will never be able to obtain the jurisdiction of this court. Therefore this Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case at hand and at a minimum should dismiss this case with prejudice. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court permanently restrain Plaintiffs and any other relief this Court deems equitable and just.
================================
ATTACHED EXHIBITS
A. Codilis & Stawiarski Acceleration Letter
B. letter to Codilis & Stawiarski - dispute
C. title search
D. record assignments (chart)
E. pooling and servicing agreement excerpts
F. prospectus excerpts
G. MEETING OF THE TASK FORCE ON JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE RULES
H. original enote (chart)
I. why the original (chart)
J. assignment fraud (other assignments - Brian Bly and Bobbie Jo Stoltd signatures etc.)
K. limited power of attorney D207376789
L. signature (chart)
M. required assignments (chart)
N. complaint to Florida notary section
O. notice of assignment D209045468 - Argent Deutsche
P. letter (package) received from Codilis 8/20/09
Q. letter to Codilis 09/10/09
R. complaint to FTC
S. Fraud or Fraudulent (chart)
T. letter (package) received from Codilis 9/9/09
U. CD with prospectus and pooling and servicing agreement in full, all exhibits in .pdf
=================================
Respectfully submitted by:
__________________________________________
Geoffrey Anson Wilner - Defendant, pro se
6311 Avanti Dr.
Arlington, Texas
76001
817 467 7478
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a correct copy of the foregoing was served on the following counsel of record on September ___, 2009, via certified mail, return receipt.
_________________________________
Geoffrey Anson Wilner Codilis & Stawiarski, P.C.
6311 Avanti Dr. 650 N. Sam Houston Parkway, East
Arlington, Texas Suite 450
76001 Houston, Texas
817 467 7478 77060
Defendant, pro se ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Quote 0 0
Big Mac
I agreed that it was a good idea to have a  court reporter, I feel it is ''better'' to have a Good and Trusting Attorney ''IF'' you can find one.

That's just my2 cents.





Quote 0 0
Dear Tex,
     What you did is a masterpiece, but my view is you have a better chance
of winning if you follow the "KISS" formula, you know, KEEP IT SHORT AND SIMPLE!
     A forclosure is an "equity" case. The plaintiff has to prove it has "equity"
in the property. This is done with a mortgage or a deed of trust. I always
check to see if the lender had a license to make mortgage loans. Very often
they forgot to get one! That wipes out the equity issue.
     Next you look at the Note, ie the debt. Does the entity foreclosing have
lawful title to the Note, if not, then they have no standing to file suit (neither
in a court of law, nor in a court of equity.)
      I love it when I see a Mers case, ie where the Note and the mortgage
went to two separate entities. Mers got the mortgage, but doesn't have the
Note, that means the mortgage is a nullity! The Note passed through many
entities and the servicer doesn't have it. Again the servicer has no standing.
It's amazing to me how many people don't fight the foreclosure so it goes through with all these defects. Since I won my own case, I have wiped out
two foreclosure actions as a paralegal where I just showed the pro se what to do. I have others where the whole action was brought to a standstill as
the plaintiff's lawyers try to figure out how to salvage an unsalvagable case!
My point is, there is no need to impress the Judge with alot of stuff which he
/she isn't going to read anyway. Each one has a thousand cases to deal with. Being human, they hate all the "lawyereese" they have to put up with.
They like it when the defendant is straight up and points out the real problems with the plaintiff's paperwork. They are surprised and delighted to
see someone following the "KISS" formula!
Quote 0 0

Yes, the judges don't care and won't listen, especially if you are a pro se litigant.  You will need representation in the courtroom.  Here in Wisconsin, the county judge doesn't want to hear anything other than whether or not you paid.  period.  Standing?  who cares.  Bad servicing?  should have mailed your payment sooner.  they don't lose my payment.  Take them to Federal Court via a bankruptcy and maybe you will get a judge smart enough to understand.

Quote 0 0
    Going into bankruptcy is an admission that you are broke. It is a last resort when going into State court has not worked out.
    As far as Judges not following the law, ie not requiring a valid mortgage and note before allowing a foreclosure, such behavior on their part is a criminal offense. It can also be appealed to a higher court.
     When you get your summons and complaint, you have twenty days to put in your response. If the paperwork is not correct, you file a MOTION TO DISMISS  based on whatever the defect is.
     A mortgage case is an EQUITY CASE, which means the plaintiff is trying to prove he/she/it has equity in your property and has a right to foreclose on the Note (the debt). Many fly-by-night lenders never bothered to get licensed in the State where the loan was made, as a result the mortgage is
unlawful and there is no right to be in EQUITY (foreclosure court).
     The Note might be valid, even when the Mortgage isn't, so you could get
sued in a LAW court and have a money judgement against you, followed by a
sheriff sale of whatever you own.However if the plaintiff can not prove ownership of the Note, which is often the case, then he/she/it has no standing to be suing you. This should result in dismissal w/o prejudice. If the Note is never found, you're home free. JUDGES MUST FOLLOW THE LAW!
      a NOTE on "Homestead laws". Many States have antiquated laws, written when gold was $20/oz. A $10,000 exemption back then would be a
$500,000 exemption in todays depreciated dollars. This might be a valid defense if the mortgage is no good, but a money judgement is entered. It would be a possible defense against a Sheriff sale. Something to consider!
Quote 0 0
I have had 40 years in the mortgage business that is directly related to the origination, servicing, sale of portfolios, securitizations, asset management, foreclosure, bankruptcy and have a comprehensive understanding of mortgage servicing technique.  It has been my mission over the past four years, since 2005 to represent those mortgagors who could not defend themselves against loan originators and servicers  and who could not hire and attorney to represent them and I have not charged for my services during this period. 

I am currently involved in assisting a  pro se client who has just won his right to a new trial after a msj was ruled against him.  This trial is to begin after January, 2009.  Now they are in my backyard and we will get a chance to win this case.  The primary suit is a result of the servicers and lenders failing to follow applicable law and then attempting to foreclose.

I no longer am actively working with individuals but if anyone needs critical assistance, do not fail to contact me.  I am not an attorney but have consulted with various class action suit attorneys in the past. 
Quote 0 0
Yes, go to www . livinglies dot wordpress . com and you will find a huge resource for your foreclosure questions.  I am an avid reader and poster on the site that has thousands of followers at this time.  The tides are turning in America's courtrooms.  The "Blame the Borrower" mantra has run its course.  Take a look.  It's kind of confusing at first because there are multiple threads running at once.  Each new posting generates a slew of conversation.    If you are new to foreclosure defense and securitization, you have a lot of catching up to do.  Good luck, and remember, you are not alone. 
Quote 0 0
Texas
For Mike H

I agree the KISS method is the best way to go.
There was and still is a reason for all the precise detail.
The court has not yet ruled but we are watching and waiting for the decision.
Ruling taking longer than anyone figured or will the court ever rule, that is the question.


Quote 0 0
  Neil Garfield made a good point at the seminar in Clearwater today. He said
that delay benefits the plaintiff (ie the foreclosing pretender lender). He advocates doing everything possible to force the issue as soon as possible.
(ie like compelling production of the Note and the assignment of mortgage).
   My own experience bears out what he said. In my first foreclosure experience it took US Bank three years to come up with the original Note
and they forced New Century Mortgage to buy it back from the Trust because the mortgage assignment was done incorrectly. Had I forced the
issue, I probably could have gotten the case dismissed much sooner than
I did. Then I could have done an action to clear title and wiped out the
Note and the mortgage completely. As it was, by me allowing the delay, they
were able to salvage their case and I had to negotiate a settlement instead
of getting my property back free and clear!
   It's alot like the speedy trial statutes in criminal law. The defendant almost
always loses when he/she gives up the right to a speedy trial because the
prosecutor has more time to work on their case.
   So when the pretender lender does not have the Note and a proper assignment, one needs to push hard for a hearing on the MOTION TO DISMISS as soon as possible!
Quote 0 0
Pro Se is not the way....

Some attorneys are starting to get it.

1- Find one that has been to April, Max or Neal's training or other State Bar extra credit training regarding foreclosure defense.

2- Ask this attorney if they will work for a small amount down and "X amount" per month. IF THE "X AMOUNT" PER MONTH IS FAR LESS THAN RENTING A SHACK EVERY MONTH, DO AS MARCI KAPTUR (D-OH) SAYS - YOU SQUAT IN YOUR HOME! SUE THEM!

3- Also, ask if your (potential) attorney BELIEVES in your case. They must also advise you of all the pro's and con's.  If he /she fails to look at your loan docs and ask a bunch of questions regarding your loan origination, underwriting and appraisal, if they don't comment regarding a trust which may be involved, if they can't relate the current judicial trends around the country and your state.... RUN AWAY!!!

4- Keep looking - the great foreclosure defense attorneys are out there and growing in numbers. They should be (or should be becoming) experts in Real Estate law, Contract law,  Finance law and Securities law.

5- THEY SHOULD ALSO BE GOOD PEOPLE.

6- Prepare to research your tail off and assist and at times, guide your new attorney!

7- Get involved with other homeowners and swap information, contacts, and hope.This will make you feel a lot better! Think of what you will learn....

BTW, I think "save your money" above, is most likely an associate to the banking industry or opposing counsel for the banksters or default processing mills.... (wink)

Time is starting to be on your side and courts are starting to get it, as well. Even the media is changing. It will soon be election time and the spineless and otherwise congresspeople will be pandering for your vote and they will temporarily forget about their Wall Street lobby and bankster buddies...

My case was dismissed 2 weeks ago after 2 and 1/2 years of nerve-racking stress.. And if they come back, I am 100 times more ready (and waiting) this time! I now can handle the stress because I am now more confident.. :-)

I also now work with attorneys who get it! This should become a new career for the warrior homeowners who can't find work! The next boom is the LITIGATION BOOM!

Rob Harrington  
(PS - I am not an attorney. Consult with a qualified attorney regarding your individual case. I am not offering legal advice and anything I state is merely my opinion as a homeowner and should not be construed as the practice of law.)

Quote 0 0
I am bumping this message for "TEXAS".  Has anyone ever find out the outcome of this case?    CAUSE NO. 096 239885 09 (Tarrant County Texas, 96th District Court)



Thanks in advance for any info. 

-TEX2 
Quote 0 0
Sara
I too find it disheartening that judges don't want to get to the rock bottom of what is REALLY happening.  Don't they see what all the foreclosures are doing to their own communities and local governments?

I know there are some people who have lost jobs and don't have enough income to actually pay on their fixed rate mortgages.  There are also those who have to choose between health care or feeding a family and paying a overinflated mortgage.  We can sympathize with them. 

The number of these people in foreclosure is small compared with the people who are illegally foreclosed on though.

And no, blaming the borrower isn't the answer.  That is the lender's answer though!

S
Quote 0 0
TEXAS
Pro Se wins!!! ...

Pro se Pleading and Court's Order of DENIAL
Quote 0 0
My Florida Foreclosure Defense Lawyer is Mr. Dillon Graham Esq. Tel 305-445-9185. He is defending my home and he is doing excellent job. I was ready to defend my house pro se then I found him. He is an experienced litigator and he attended many foreclosure defense seminars. Mr. Graham fee is reasonable and affordable. He will give you 1 hour free consultation.

Quote 0 0
Ann did your councel do a Forensic Loan audit? And if so who or what progam did they use. Looking to have one done. Thanks
Quote 0 0
I have a question...
Do you think that this is Modification fraud, I signed a mortgage/ note in 2002, started to fall behind in 2004 and 1st mortgage started to foreclose.  I filed chap 13 to stay the foreclosure and during my chap 13 didnt make many payments to my first mortgage.  We worked out a deal to modify the loan if they got relief from the BK, which they did.  So in 2008 we modified the mortgage and the modification papers said that Bank of NY mellon were the ones on the top of the modification.  Now fell behind again in aug/2009 and they started foreclosure proceedings, and in the summons and complaint that the mortgage was assigned to Bank of NY mellon on dec/2009.  But i thought they were the ones who modified my mortgage in 2008.  Whats up with all of this? can I resind the modification? are these tila and respa violations?
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...