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

MEMOS AND MOTIONS THAT MAY SHUT THE FORECLOSURE MILLS  

 
 
In honor of all the national reporting that’s starting to break about all the abuses that are being committed by the foreclosure mills and as part of the continued efforts to support all the good judges out there that really “get it” and who are doing the right thing, I want to share a treasure chest of motions that I have filed over the last several months.

I hear the criticisms of our judges but truth be told, I’ve never had a bad experience in front of a foreclosure judge….when I did my job, prepared my case and had a court reporter present. And while I respect the efforts of homeowners who start the fight pro se, if you want to save your home, if you want the respect of the court and the opposing party, you must hire an experienced foreclosure defense attorney to fight this battle.

I’m posting these Motions and memorandum primarily so that other attorneys from around the state will use them, develop them and argue the issues in front of judges. The issues contained within these documents are very important and frankly they require experienced and committed attorneys to make the arguments correctly.   These documents and the issues presented are tools and like any tool they should only be used by operators who are trained to use them.  Having said that I just hate seeing these coverage attorneys for the foreclosure mills wheeling in their boxes of hundreds of foreclosure cases and throwing this garbage into our courtrooms.  I am appalled that the mills have joined forces and share the same coverage attorneys between all the mills.  Where is the formal and specific authorization for that attorney to represent that client before the court?

How can coverage attorneys represent to the court that, there are no issues of material fact in the hundreds of files that are in his wheelbarrow when those files have been prepped by another law firm?  Why is that attorney not required to file a Notice of Appearance so the court knows what attorney is affirmatively representing to the court the veracity and authenticity of all the facts in his case?

Special thanks to my intrepid law clerk Michael Fuino who is primarily responsible for all the excellent research and drafting contained within these memos and motions.  Hats off to him!  Enough of all of that, here go the goods.

affidavitmotiontostrike

affirmitivedefenses

allongemtd

answernotverifiednotnegotiableetc

objecttofeememorandumfeeaffidavit

Get out there and keep up the fight…

Quote 0 0
ka

I was browsing back through some of Ann's garbage posts.  These are simply too numerous to catalog.  For far too long, senior have been ignoring the systematic harm Ann has been doing.

 

She has been posting garbage for a couple of years now.

 

These sample pleadings by Matt Weidner are SO BAD that they form an independent basis NEVER TO EMPLOY this incompetent attorney!  This guy really is CLUELESS!  It isn't even worth the time necessary to critique them.

 

I am beginning to think that perhaps the best thing that could happen is to archive the many useful posts of Mr. Roper and then to simply declare the Forum to be a TOXIC WASTE SITE.  There are so many garbage posts by Ann over the past two years that someone stumbling on the Forum is probably more likely to find this trash and LOSE THEIR HOME than to find the numerous useful posts by Mr. Roper and others.

Quote 0 0
J
I believe the blather contained in Ann's "Tactical Considerations in fighting foreclsoure" to be the most 'toxic':
   
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Tactical-Considerations-in-fighting-foreclosure-4088663
 
when I first found this site, the 'Thread' above, is one of the first I printed out and actually read ~ now after a year, I now know, what 'garbage' ~what utter garbage~not only bad, but just downright misleading and fruadulent garbage is contained therein.  And, thinking about the 'systematic harm' Ann has propogated to distress homeowners therein !
 
Also, throughout the Thread Ann continuallly gives out her email address for distressed homeowners to contact her ~ I hate to wonder the path she eventually took them down, and, how much money it cost the homeowner!

?how many ended up being either Weidner or Stoppa clients?
 
Ok ~ so how can we help to accomplish the 'archive[ing] [of] the many useful posts of Mr. Roper' and others??? 



 

Quote 0 0
texas
ka said:
"For far too long, senior have been ignoring the systematic harm Ann has been doing."

Nothing has been ignored, if one notices the post you cited: "Ann 08/07/10 at 10:52 PM" is over 18 months old." Maybe the URLlink has not properly posted, but one could get to the documents by doing a little editing on the address bar.

I do not know for fact, but I hopefully presume that what is being filed today is better than what was filed in 2010.

When one realizes, for attorneys that do their job with knowledge, it is usually not the attorney that has failed, but the system.



Quote 0 0
ka

Texas: See the posted transcript from the case Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. v. Hassell, Pinellas FL Case No.2008-018284-CI, which shows that as recently as February 15, 2012, attorney Matt WEIDNER was STILL making the legally incorrect arguments misascribing defenses as affirmative defenses.

 

Perhaps someone with a greater interest in Mr. WEIDNER and the Hassell case can pull the pleadings to determine whether Mr. WEIDNER used the HORRID defensive pleadings he shares (and Ann seems to distribute on his behalf) as the basis for the defense of the Hassells.

 

If he used the horrid posted pleadings as well as making the horrible and legally incorrect arguments, I would certainly hope that the Hassells will bring a malpractice action against him!

 

It is really very alarming that this buffoon spends so much time posting instead of actually reading and studying the law!  He loses EASY CASES which could be readily WON by a competent attorney making the CORRECT arguments.  Several Forum participants have SUCCEEDED, including ON APPEAL, in cases such as this one.

Quote 0 0
texas
I do not endorse attorneys nor do I criticize attorneys.

People do not realize many an attorney rely upon old case law, regardless of which side of the fence they "lie". It is tough making new case law. As Professor Levitin stated in testimony before a Senate Hearing, case law is lacking.

Here not only is there a need to know legal procedures, which takes time, there is a need, learn in precise detail the methods and means that placed the people of this and other countries into such servitude.

Before one criticizes another, one who criticizes must be learned to the Nth degree.

I have great respect for the owner of MSFraud for what he has accomplished and what he will accomplish. For those who wish to know the methods and means, try visiting http://www.ourlemon.com and then return here to and listen to those that make suggestions as to application.

Bottom line, find a very learned competent attorney and know more that he, and pursue your own course of action. If not learned, help them learn the Nth side as for they already know the procedural side of the courts.

Quote 0 0
Unregisteredforever
Maybe the nics who are attacking Ann need to have good look at what their
true agenda is.

Quote 0 0
not a 'unregisteredforeve
Unregisteredforever, oh wisest ONE, please what is our 'true agenda'?

Does anyone else here, other then the smartess ONE of all Ann, give out our email addresses?  anyone else provide links directly to foreclosure defense attorneys, without being asked? and more importantly oh 'UNREGISTEREDFOREVER' WHO ELSE BESIDE ANN HAS EVER DELETED NOT ONLY THEIR OWN POST ON THIS FORUM, BUT, HAS ALSO DELETED ENTIRE THREADS THAT SHE HAD ZERO TO DO WITH? (well, actually, they did have something to do with her -- calling her what she is A FRAUD!  Cheers!

Quote 0 0
Unregistered

Thank you for reposting helpful M. Weidner posts & pleadings. Save me research time.

Quote 0 0
unreg_1

quote: "Thank you for reposting helful M. Weidner posts & pleadings. Save me research time."

In conjunction with the above Weidner posts etc .. please review the following thread:

"we all know that you don't need assignments of mortgage for standing."
 
take the time to read the Weidner transcript, digest the material, so as to put yourself in the position to make an informed decision as to the 'hel[p]ful[ness] of Weidner's posts and pleadings.

Quote 0 0
Incredulous

It is really quite remarkable that Matt Weidner continues to post various transcripts of hearings in which he is a participant, makes the WRONG ARGUMENTS and then gets shot down by the judge.

 

It seems only Weidner himself and a small posse of fools (who seem to be his cult or paid shills and/or employees) believe his nonsense that it is the judge who is making the mistakes in these cases.  All other FLorida attorneys with IQs above room temperature who didn't sleep through law school can read his pleadings, read the transcripts and readily see that HE LOSES THE CASES BECAUSE HE IS INCOMPETENT! 

 

It makes you wonder whether he used to post his college and law school failing exams along with critical comments about how unfair it was that the teacher had failed him, never realizing that he failed because he is an IDIOT and hadn't bothered to read or understand the material. 

Quote 0 0
Homeless

Quote:
Thank you for reposting helful M. Weidner posts & pleadings. Save me research time.
 

 

Thank you Anh for posting legally incorrect "model pleadings" of inept and incompetent lawyers to help the banks bring about speedier foreclosures.  You are the foreclosure mills best friend! 

Quote 0 0
Really Unregistered

Quote:
Thank you for reposting helful M. Weidner posts & pleadings. Save me research time.

 

 

This post is from a person who has registered under the name "Unregistered" both assuring that every single post is deceitful (coming from a person who is falsely holding himself out to be Unregistered, while actually registered) and also frustrating the posts of every other Unregistered person, who can no longer post as "Unregistered", since this has now been registered.

 

Very clever!

 

Of course, it is unsurprising that a person who seeks to disrupt the Forum would be a fan of Anh's! 

Quote 0 0
Ann
Hi,
Just drop by  for a short visit between tequilla and snokerling   

Registered,

Thanks for defending me. Here is a good tip for you : Read this news article below and then do research on how this attorney  Lynn Szymoniak won 18 millions dollars settlement by uncovering the robo-signing scandal. I think she is friend of Matt Weidner. Maybe you will win couple of millions dollars settlement by uncovering other Banks' frauds. It seems there are many of Bank frauds going on. When you get your millions, please invite me for a tequilla shot on your new yatch !

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57397490-10391709/whistleblower-facing-foreclosure-wins-$18-million/


For poster named Homeless,

Why didn't you use , ka , t and other expert posters advices and legal analysis to learn to defend your case so you wouldn't be homeless ? They claim their posts save homes ...

With Rocket Docket Courts  coming soon speeding cases , these expert advisors may need to review their strategies recommending  dragging out  cases for Florida.

Thanks Mark Stopa Esq. Matt Weidner Esq., Lisa Epstein, George and others Activists for helping Florida Homeowners defeat the (Un)Fairforeclosure Act  SB 1890,  sponsored by the Banks trying to turn Florida to Non judicial state so they can take people homes quicker.  You have been fighting these unfair foreclosure bills sponsor by Banks  since 2010. Those who critize you must be either work for the Banks or unsympathizers for the distressed Homeowners.

http://4closurefraud.org/2012/02/17/video-of-our-2012-rally-in-tally-kick-off-with-maia-shaffer-of-the-mortgage-justice-group-florida-state-rep-darren-soto-and-attorney-matt-weidner/

http://4closurefraud.org/2012/03/10/victory-sb-1890-sb-670-hb-213-the-florida-unfair-foreclosure-act-is-dead-congrats-everyone/


See ya...

Quote 0 0
J

These are the words of Weidner during a court hearing, you decide for yourselves, 

 

p 170 line 5 - 175 line 7

 

THE COURT: Thank you. The Court is

6 going to look first at the affirmative

7 defenses of everything and the first is

8 regarding the assignment issue and that is

9 a document that's not a requirement of --

10 is not in evidence but it's marked for ID

11 only, and the defense would have asked that

12 the Court find that because the assignment

13 is dated after this lawsuit was filed that,

14 in fact, would somehow indicate the

15 endorsement was not valid.

16 The only testimony the Court had

17 regarding the endorsement came from the

18 plaintiff's witness who indicated under

19 oath that the endorsement was on the

20 original note when she saw the document and

21 she said that that was before the date that

22 the lawsuit was filed. The Court will rely

23 upon that testimony. Of course that will

24 be one of your issues for appeal.

25 The second issue of affirmative

1 defense is that the -- for the voracity and

2 the authenticity of any possible

3 endorsement, and once again the Court's

4 only testimony that they heard regarding

5 endorsement was from the plaintiff's

6 witness. So that went undecided. I

7 understand I think that the defendant wants

8 the assignment to rebut the endorsement,

9 however, there's no evidence to that effect

10 in this case.

11 As to affirmative defense number

12 ten, the Court, which still has pending

13 before the Court, and that is the demand

14 notice to the borrower, the Court has

15 testimony from the plaintiff that the

16 demand letter was sent to the address of

17 1426 75th Circle, St. Petersburg, Florida

18 33702. The Court has the testimony from

19 Mr. Hassell that he did not receive the

20 letter that was sent September 3, 2008.

21 The Court finds that the requirement is not

22 that the defendant received the letter.

23 The requirement under the law is that under

24 this contract that the plaintiff or the

25 plaintiff's predecessor made with the

skip p 172

 
173
1. ....... And again, based upon the

2 testimony the Court heard today from the

3 plaintiff's two witnesses and based mainly

4 on the Riggs case, which is a Fourth DCA

5 and it is not a Second District Court

6 opinion, it's not mine, his word, however

7 it has some very similar qualities, in that

8 case a mortgage loan servicing company

9 brought the original mortgage note too, as

10 did the plaintiff here, and that court

11 found that the possession of that note was

12 sufficient under the UCC to establish that

13 it was a holder of the note and that it was

14 entitled to enforce its terms. And this

15 Court made the same finding and ruling out

16 of a motion for directed verdict earlier

17 today.

18 The Court finds that the plaintiff,

19 because they had possession of this note,

20 the Court finds that they had authority and

21 were entitled to enforce it and the Court

22 finds that it is a negotiable instrument

23 and, of course, the Second District agrees

24 and we'll probably have another trial.

25 This case of Riggs also had balance

175

1 under Florida Statute 90902(8). And once

2 again, the Riggs case also differentiates

3 from the case of the BAC Funding blank

4 endorsement which was a different

5 situation. And so there is a

6 differentiation between the BAC case and

7 the Riggs case.

 

p 174

 

12 I agree that the testimony

13 uncontroverted that the blank endorsement

14 bears no date.
 
p 175

12 foreclosure. The balance due is

13 uncontroverted here. The plaintiff witness

14 testified that and the defense did not

15 testify that these figures were incorrect.

16 So the Court will grant final judgment to

17 the plaintiff in the amount --

 http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/03/a-most-disappointing-foreclosure-trial-transcript-with-a-devastating-conclusion/
Quote 0 0
J

These are the words of Weidner during a court hearing, you decide for yourselves, 

 

p 170 line 5 - 175 line 7

 

THE COURT: Thank you. The Court is

6 going to look first at the affirmative

7 defenses of everything and the first is

8 regarding the assignment issue and that is

9 a document that's not a requirement of --

10 is not in evidence but it's marked for ID

11 only, and the defense would have asked that

12 the Court find that because the assignment

13 is dated after this lawsuit was filed that,

14 in fact, would somehow indicate the

15 endorsement was not valid.

16 The only testimony the Court had

17 regarding the endorsement came from the

18 plaintiff's witness who indicated under

19 oath that the endorsement was on the

20 original note when she saw the document and

21 she said that that was before the date that

22 the lawsuit was filed. The Court will rely

23 upon that testimony. Of course that will

24 be one of your issues for appeal.

25 The second issue of affirmative

1 defense is that the -- for the voracity and

2 the authenticity of any possible

3 endorsement, and once again the Court's

4 only testimony that they heard regarding

5 endorsement was from the plaintiff's

6 witness. So that went undecided. I

7 understand I think that the defendant wants

8 the assignment to rebut the endorsement,

9 however, there's no evidence to that effect

10 in this case.

11 As to affirmative defense number

12 ten, the Court, which still has pending

13 before the Court, and that is the demand

14 notice to the borrower, the Court has

15 testimony from the plaintiff that the

16 demand letter was sent to the address of

17 1426 75th Circle, St. Petersburg, Florida

18 33702. The Court has the testimony from

19 Mr. Hassell that he did not receive the

20 letter that was sent September 3, 2008.

21 The Court finds that the requirement is not

22 that the defendant received the letter.

23 The requirement under the law is that under

24 this contract that the plaintiff or the

25 plaintiff's predecessor made with the

skip p 172

 
173
1. ....... And again, based upon the

2 testimony the Court heard today from the

3 plaintiff's two witnesses and based mainly

4 on the Riggs case, which is a Fourth DCA

5 and it is not a Second District Court

6 opinion, it's not mine, his word, however

7 it has some very similar qualities, in that

8 case a mortgage loan servicing company

9 brought the original mortgage note too, as

10 did the plaintiff here, and that court

11 found that the possession of that note was

12 sufficient under the UCC to establish that

13 it was a holder of the note and that it was

14 entitled to enforce its terms. And this

15 Court made the same finding and ruling out

16 of a motion for directed verdict earlier

17 today.

18 The Court finds that the plaintiff,

19 because they had possession of this note,

20 the Court finds that they had authority and

21 were entitled to enforce it and the Court

22 finds that it is a negotiable instrument

23 and, of course, the Second District agrees

24 and we'll probably have another trial.

25 This case of Riggs also had balance

175

1 under Florida Statute 90902(8). And once

2 again, the Riggs case also differentiates

3 from the case of the BAC Funding blank

4 endorsement which was a different

5 situation. And so there is a

6 differentiation between the BAC case and

7 the Riggs case.

 

p 174

 

12 I agree that the testimony

13 uncontroverted that the blank endorsement

14 bears no date.
 
p 175

12 foreclosure. The balance due is

13 uncontroverted here. The plaintiff witness

14 testified that and the defense did not

15 testify that these figures were incorrect.

16 So the Court will grant final judgment to

17 the plaintiff in the amount --

 http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/03/a-most-disappointing-foreclosure-trial-transcript-with-a-devastating-conclusion/
Quote 0 0
J

sorry for the 2x posting not sure what happened.

Quote 0 0
J
No comment other than, compare the Weidner Transcript above to the following, then you decide who the attorney is or isn't:

hilltrialPART1)2-7-12(1)

Scridb filter
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...