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
spectre
Ok folks I want to run something by everyone out there with mers on the mortgage. Ok bear with me please but how many can say that there was someone anyone from MERS at the closing table with you?? Hmmm no one was at my closing, So how could the borrower transfer any rights, title or interest in anything to anyone? They can put what ever they want on a peice of paper, does it make it so? I dont think so.  But thats my opion so lets look at what Black's law says about a contract.

A legal relationship consisting of the rights and duties of the contracting parties; a promise or set of promises constituting an agreement between the parties that gives each a legal duty to the other and also the right to seek remedy for the breach of those duties. ITS ESSENTIALS are COMPETENT PARTIES, SUBJECT MATTER, A LEGAL CONSIDERATION, MUTUALITY OF AGREEMENT, and MUTUALITY OF OBLIGATION.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, pg. 322

Hmmm well it seems that there was no one from MERS for me to contract with. So now some of you gurus out there are going to argue this fact, but they can put what ever they want on paper it don't make it so. Ok lets look at the rights that MERS says it has.

“Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Mortgage; but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS, (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns), has the right: to exercise any and all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing or cancelling this Mortgage.”

Hmmmm well how many rights do you see that was given to mers? I can only see one,the right to foreclose and sell the Property. Yep thats it thats all they can do with out the note holders say so. Now your all saying oh bs it says other stuff like "and to take any action required of Lender including,"but not limited to" I say SO! anyone ever heard of Inclusio unis est exclusio alterius? Yes NO?
well we will go back to blacks law.

Inclusio unis est exclusio alterius...
The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is the absolute exclusion of all others. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 763

The rest of what they put down on paper is fluff and nothing more.I could bring up more issues but im not going to right now and this is all my opinions and not legal advice. But its something else to consider in this fight and a good lawyer will understand how to bring up these issues to the court. If this has been brought up before then im sorry I have still to read anything on this issue. I want to hear some feed back on this folks so hit me with your best shot.
Quote 0 0
Black's Law Dictionary 1968:Nominee
    One designated to act for another as his representative in a rather limited sense. It is used sometimes to signify an agent or trustee. It has no connotation however other than that of acting for another in representation of another or as the grantee of another. (Schuh Trading Co. vs commissioner
of Internal Revenue, C.C. A 7, 95 F2nd 404,411.
     In Florida, it has registered with the Department of State, Division of Corporations as a business entity which acts as a Registered Agent for
service of process for the entities it represents.
     Clearly, it is the agent for the original lender for service of process. This
is why it is named as a defendant in many foreclosure actions when it is the
agent for the second mortgage holder.
     The argument is this: if the original lender no longer exists (ie the principal) then the agency must no longer exist either, and MERS becomes a nullity.
      Often times we see MERS assigning a mortgage long after the original
lender ceased to exist. In the opinion of many, such assignments are a nullity,but if no one challenges it, it will be accepted by the judge.
      If challenged, the plaintiff will simply say the Note is a negotiable instrument, so the mortgage automaticly follows the Note even without a
proper assignment. THIS IS WHY YOU MUST CHALLENGE THE ASSUMPTION
THAT THE NOTE IS A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.
      If the Note has a variable interest rate, late charges, prepayment fees
and requires you to look outside the Note itself to calculate the balance owed (ie reference to the security agreement and the Wall Street Journal),
than it is part of a larger contract and requires a valid assignment of the
mortgage to be transferred.) Holly Hill Acres vs Charter Bank 314 So.2nd 209
1975 (a Florida case).
      Very often, the original (pretender) lender was only a "straw man" which
never lent anything other than its name to be used on the loan documents.
This is called "table funding" and is a violation of TILA. The real lender remained hidden for various fraudulent reasons. If the borrower did this,
he/she could be convicted of mortgage fraud, but many "real" lenders substituted a "straw man" as the lender on many loans. Many times these
"straw men" no longer exist and MERS on the mortgage becomes a nullity.
      Many believe that if no proper assignment occurred before the "straw
man" went out of business, the Note at best becomes "unsecured" and
could be elliminated in Ch 7 Bk if the Homestead exemption is large enough.
This is very significant in Florida where the HX is unlimited. To use this argument, file the Ch 7 after the judgment and list it as unsecured and
disputed. This way when the plaintiff files a Motion to lift the stay, you
can argue they have no lien, therefore the Stay should not be lifted.
       If the judgment gets discharged and your property is returned to you,
then you file a Motion for Relief from judgment in State Court. You argue
there never was a valid lien at the inception of the case, and no perfection of a Judgment lien before you filed Ch 7. This has worked on occassion.

     
Quote 0 0
Moose
Again Mike H. blathers on about mythology then says it has worked, yet he still cannot provide any case cites to support the goofy theories.

Moose




Quote 0 0
Moose
spectre - you're even more confused than Mike H. Try that "includes" line of un-reasoning with the IRS as hundreds of hapless tax-protestors have and see how fast you're foreclosed on.

Moose


Quote 0 0
Bill
Mike H,

You forgot to add in the "Death-Gamble" and to quickly be looking for a place to rent when you decide to make these arguments.
Quote 0 0
spectre
Moose wrote:
spectre - you're even more confused than Mike H. Try that "includes" line of un-reasoning with the IRS as hundreds of hapless tax-protestors have and see how fast you're foreclosed on. Moose


Moose Im assuming your a lawyer because your pounding the table.
No where did i say anything about tax or the irs thats a complete diffrent issue. But i tell you what i'll do there mr moose why dont you come on over in skype and you and i can discuss this matter
Quote 0 0
Angelo
Mike H.

Where is the praise the lord, book of genesis, and all that good stuff????
Quote 0 0
Moose
spectre wrote:
Moose wrote:
spectre - you're even more confused than Mike H. Try that "includes" line of un-reasoning with the IRS as hundreds of hapless tax-protestors have and see how fast you're foreclosed on. Moose


Moose Im assuming your a lawyer because your pounding the table.
No where did i say anything about tax or the irs thats a complete diffrent issue. But i tell you what i'll do there mr moose why dont you come on over in skype and you and i can discuss this matter


There is nothing to discuss. I suggest you go back to a more appropriate forum where legal mythology is fawned over by the confused sycophants of the various sovereign/patriot movements.

Moose

Quote 0 0
spectre
Moose wrote:
spectre wrote:
Moose wrote:
spectre - you're even more confused than Mike H. Try that "includes" line of un-reasoning with the IRS as hundreds of hapless tax-protestors have and see how fast you're foreclosed on. Moose
Moose Im assuming your a lawyer because your pounding the table. No where did i say anything about tax or the irs thats a complete diffrent issue. But i tell you what i'll do there mr moose why dont you come on over in skype and you and i can discuss this matter
There is nothing to discuss. I suggest you go back to a more appropriate forum where legal mythology is fawned over by the confused sycophants of the various sovereign/patriot movements. Moose


Ha Ha You dont disappoint me moose thats exactly what i expect a lawyer to say. But what is interesting is how you refer to a legal maxim as "legal mythology". Im guessing that its safe to assume that you believe other maxims such as In Rem or In Personam,Ex Post Facto or Pro Bono Publico are also "legal mythology". Even if you do not know or understand the meaning you can bet the judges do. And if an issue is not raised then the court can not rule on it.
Quote 0 0
Moose,

What is going on here???? Where did some of these prople come from??? What happened to the old timers???

Once upon a time, we used to have some structure here. Everyone helped eachother and we all learned from you guys. I am living proof.

Lately, these new people that are on here are;;; I don't know what they are.

Anyway, they need to go back into the threads and start reading. They need to go back to the begining and start reading. Because that is what this forum is all about.

Where is Mr. Roper, Nye, arkygirl, etc.????

I don't post on this forum everyday.. But I read it everyday as if it were my morning paper....

Good to still see you on here Moose...

cmc
Quote 0 0
Moose,
    I have a question for you. How many foreclosure actions have you actually defended?
    I have been involved in defending over 150 cases in Florida, beginning
with my own in 2004, case # 04-ca-001783 in Hillsborough county. I won
that case pro se. When I say I won, I do not mean I got a "free house".
To me "winning" means you stop the foreclosure and wind up with a significant "cram down" of the principal and the servicer is forced to clean
up your credit report.
    I am  a former College instructor who lost his job in 2009 so I have occupied myself helping others save their homes from foreclosure. Without
meaning to brag, I must tell you the truth, I am very good at it. For ethical
reasons, I can not reveal the personal information of the "students" I have
taught and you know quite well that is the truth.

Angelo,
    Thank you for reminding everyone to read Genesis. You forgot to mention
the "ten commandments". My view is that before you do battle with "Satan"
and his offspring, you have to get yourself "right" with the "Creator". Confess
your sins, make a pledge to do better in the future and if you do it with a
"pure heart", the Creator will send the "Holy Spirit" as your Counselor. With
him on your side, you won't need an "attorner" (ie one who changes the
ownership of things). HE will show you what you need to do to win your case.
     Before you talk to a lawyer, it helps to read Mathew 23 and find out what
our Lord had to say about the "scribes and pharisees", the lawyers and Judges of His day. Then you will be prepared.
Quote 0 0
Moose
Mike H wrote:
... For ethical
reasons, I can not reveal the personal information of the "students" I have
taught and you know quite well that is the truth.


Nonsense. Court records are public documents and recent decisions and rulings are widely publicized and useful to those looking for help. Even well-written filings can be valuable while a case is in progress, but based on what you've posted here, anything filed espousing your kinds of theories would be viewed as ridiculous even if the court gave due consideration to the party's pro se status.

Mike, it's people like you the courts refer to when they see legal nonsense and write:

"... it appears the defendant is relying on a set of poorly considered theories one might find on the Internet ..." or

"The Complaint filed by Plaintiff is so vague and ambiguous that no reasonable person could frame a responsive pleading to the same." or

"Plaintiff’s references that have no applicability in a civil action demonstrate that he subscribes to a frivolous legal theory." or

"These theories have been consistently rejected by the courts as frivolous ..." or

"Under the most liberal reading of Plaintiff’s Complaint and Amended Complaint, the Court can discern no cognizable set of facts or legal theory upon which relief can be granted." or

"In these lengthy papers, the Plaintiffs attempt to state a number of claims or causes of action, the sufficiency of which is not presently before the Court." or

"Plaintiff's complaint is styled as an action to quiet title, but plaintiff cites law inapplicable and irrelevant to a quiet title action, ..." or

"It is nearly impossible to determine from plaintiff's complaint the nature of the legal theories on which she intends to rely, the relief she is seeking, or even the underlying factual basis for the suit." or

"The complaint seems to borrow its disjointed reasoning from an ever growing number of Internet sources."

Those are from actual court documents and there are dozens more along the same lines.

Judges, especially those already prone to see borrowers in trouble as deadbeats, see the kinds of ideas Mike H. wants you to try as a misguided attempt to pull a fast one on the court.

You take his advice at your own peril - he has no skin in the game at all and there's nothing you can to to recover your losses from him.

And no, I'm not an attorney and this, again, is not legal advice.

Moose





Quote 0 0
Texas
Regarding, where are the old timers?

This senior old timer is watching, much of what I can say has been said, not saying the legal strategy does not change, daily attention needs to be paid.

Notice to those few that try to con the many, this senior does notice! And, it appears as some of the juniors/seniors do a damn good job calling the ball. Hat Tip!

Mr. Mike H, ethical violation in teaching, the dogs would howl on that boner. Public part of my teachings can be found at: http://www.scribd.com/alviec .

Would not want to be on Moose's call it like he sees it list...



Quote 0 0
Bill

Moose wrote:
Mike H wrote:
... For ethical
reasons, I can not reveal the personal information of the "students" I have
taught and you know quite well that is the truth.


Nonsense. Court records are public documents and recent decisions and rulings are widely publicized and useful to those looking for help. Even well-written filings can be valuable while a case is in progress, but based on what you've posted here, anything filed espousing your kinds of theories would be viewed as ridiculous even if the court gave due consideration to the party's pro se status.

Mike, it's people like you the courts refer to when they see legal nonsense and write:

"... it appears the defendant is relying on a set of poorly considered theories one might find on the Internet ..." or

"The Complaint filed by Plaintiff is so vague and ambiguous that no reasonable person could frame a responsive pleading to the same." or

"Plaintiff’s references that have no applicability in a civil action demonstrate that he subscribes to a frivolous legal theory." or

"These theories have been consistently rejected by the courts as frivolous ..." or

"Under the most liberal reading of Plaintiff’s Complaint and Amended Complaint, the Court can discern no cognizable set of facts or legal theory upon which relief can be granted." or

"In these lengthy papers, the Plaintiffs attempt to state a number of claims or causes of action, the sufficiency of which is not presently before the Court." or

"Plaintiff's complaint is styled as an action to quiet title, but plaintiff cites law inapplicable and irrelevant to a quiet title action, ..." or

"It is nearly impossible to determine from plaintiff's complaint the nature of the legal theories on which she intends to rely, the relief she is seeking, or even the underlying factual basis for the suit." or

"The complaint seems to borrow its disjointed reasoning from an ever growing number of Internet sources."

Those are from actual court documents and there are dozens more along the same lines.

Judges, especially those already prone to see borrowers in trouble as deadbeats, see the kinds of ideas Mike H. wants you to try as a misguided attempt to pull a fast one on the court.

You take his advice at your own peril - he has no skin in the game at all and there's nothing you can to to recover your losses from him.

And no, I'm not an attorney and this, again, is not legal advice.

Moose






Moose did call it right.  EVEN IF there was some harm that could come as a result of posting ANY of the 150 cases that are PUBLIC RECORD, he could easily just edit out names and case numbers and post the pleadings of all his GREAT work so we can all share the SECRETS that only Mike H. and his students know.  What Mike H. posts gets more ridiculous every day. 
Quote 0 0
    OK, for all you pro se's out there, here is a pro se case from US District
Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando where the pro se won. To view the
case and all the pleadings, you need to sign up for PACER which allows you
to access all filings in Federal Court.
    The case is Virani Vs Homefield Financial Inc. case #6:09-cv-00511-ACC-DAB.
     I hope you will all study this case, it illustrates many of the points I have
been trying to make. It should satisfy Moose, Texas, Bill, Angelo and all the
others who have been on my back to put up or shut up. Enjoy!
     For those of you who are knew to this area of foreclosure defense, I
recommend the web site foreclosure pro se.com. Even though it mainly
talks about Florida, there are some basic facts in there every pro se needs
to know whether you find an attorney or you try to defend it yourself.
     To avoid being defrauded by an attorney, you need to know the basics
so you can at least talk intelligently with an attorney.
Quote 0 0
Texas
Directing people to Pacer, hmmm. Doesn't impress me. Now you want people to purchase subscription to Pacer.

Also "pro se.com" does not resolve out.

One of the plaintiff's "Alina A. Virani", well Mike H, shall I contact her to get a reference for you or the non-resolving url, many do know her??? Even I do!!!



Quote 0 0
Bill

Mike H wrote:
    OK, for all you pro se's out there, here is a pro se case from US District
Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando where the pro se won. To view the
case and all the pleadings, you need to sign up for PACER which allows you
to access all filings in Federal Court.
    The case is Virani Vs Homefield Financial Inc. case #6:09-cv-00511-ACC-DAB.
     I hope you will all study this case, it illustrates many of the points I have
been trying to make. It should satisfy Moose, Texas, Bill, Angelo and all the
others who have been on my back to put up or shut up. Enjoy!
     For those of you who are knew to this area of foreclosure defense, I
recommend the web site foreclosure pro se.com. Even though it mainly
talks about Florida, there are some basic facts in there every pro se needs
to know whether you find an attorney or you try to defend it yourself.
     To avoid being defrauded by an attorney, you need to know the basics
so you can at least talk intelligently with an attorney.


I don't see how someone getting a default judgment against someone and dismissing their claim against everyone else illustrates the validity of any of the garbage you post here.  Because someone writes a complaint and there is NO DECISION on any of the merits of their case, supports your "Death Gamble" in what way?  How does this support anything they averred in their complaint in any way? 

Your posting more garbage as usual. 

Show a case where your "theories" were successful.  Oh, wait, there are none.
Quote 0 0
Since Mike H. has decided to use my case as an example that confirms his theories, I need to respond.  First and foremost, this case was mainly a TILA rescission case.  There were also causes of action based on RESPA (failure to respond to 3 QWRs) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (adverse reporting while not responding to valid QWRs) violations.  I also included causes of action for unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy and fraud.  I struggled with the civil conspiracy and fraud allegations.  However, I survived 2 rounds of 12(b) motions to dismiss filed by MERS, SPS, and U.S. Bank.  

Because there was also a foreclosure action, SPS and U.S. Bank were successful in convincing the court to abstain on all causes of action against them.  Long story short, we reached a settlement and I dismissed all the parties with the exception of the originator.  In order to obtain a default final judgement, I had to prove my case to the court.  The judge ruled that I had proven my case and granted the final judgment.

I do not know what theories Mike H. thinks my case supports but it has nothing to do with a "death gamble."  It was a straightforward TILA rescission.
Quote 0 0
Angelo
OOOPPPPSSSSSS, Guess Mike H. didn't know that this person(Alina) is a common visitor of the site.   Just goes to show you that this guy is a fraud, and he is getting his kicks coming on here and stirring up the pot, and getting people off the real issues.

What really bothers the crap out of me is that MSF took down posts, from veteran bloggers, who's postings have helped thousands.  Now they now longer post here because of this clown!!!

Great job MSF, very bad mistake. 
Quote 0 0
   Of course the fact Homefield was out of business and no longer existed had no part in your "default final judgment" victory, right?
   Whether you like it or not, you proved the "death gamble" theory. I'll
say it again, "mort-gage" in French translates as "death gamble" in English,
because that is the fundamental nature of the contract which goes back
1000 years to the Norman French conquest of England.
    The borrower puts up the deed, the lender puts up the cash, which ever
"dies" first, loses! In your case the originator Homefield "died" and therefore
defaulted, so you won your case. Of course, I don't take anything away from
the great work you did. Obviously, you attended a Neil Garfield seminar!
     My question to you, were you able to Quiet Title and if so, what did you
do? How did you go about it? Inquiring minds want to know!
Quote 0 0
Texas
Angelo, I know the owner of MSFraud personally. The only posts that were taken down needed to be taken down.

Mike H, your last posting, it seems you ask more questions than providing answers. These kinds of post should be taken down, but violation is not sufficient to warrant that consideration.

Quote 0 0
Bill
Alina,

Just so you know I was in no way bashing your case.  I think you did great.  Mike H has constantly been asked for cases that support his junk "theories" but there are none.  He is a liar and scam artist.  He is now claims up to 150 cases that used his garbage but can't post any cases.  What a joke. 

I am curious about the judgment you received.  Is there a way to collect?  Is the current note holder in any way liable for the amount owed?
Quote 0 0
@Mike H. - No, I never took a seminar from Neil Garfield although I have read his blog from time to time.  I have even posted on his blog but this was some time ago.  I have not started on a quiet title action yet.  

As for your assertions that I received a default final judgment because Homefield is dead, I received a final judgment because I proved that the loan was chock full of TILA violations.  It helped that Homefield never filed a responsive pleading, however, as I mentioned before, I survived two 12(b) motions to dismiss filed by the servicer and the trustee.   

@Bill - Homefield is dissolved - they never went into bankruptcy.  I am in contact with attorneys who also have default judgments against them to figure out how to collect.  Homefield basically just disappeared - talk about a fly by night company.  The current noteholder was liable and that was the reason for the settlement.  In addition, the servicer compounded their liability by not responding to three QWRs and adversely reporting to the credit bureaus.

I would not recommend anyone to go it alone (pro se).  By way of background, I have over 21 years experience as a paralegal and have written appellate briefs.  Additionally, I felt comfortable with the federal causes of action after I researched them extensively.  I do not feel comfortable with causes of action related to securitizations or NY trust law although I have researched that as well.  

I want to emphasize that each case is different and there is no magic bullet.  Everyone should have their case reviewed by an attorney and stick to the basics.  I do not and will not give any one legal advice.

Finally, I would urge everyone to read William A. Roper's posts.  His analyses of cases is extraordinary.  One item that he continually emphasizes is that you have to become intimately acquainted with your state's code of civil procedure and case law.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...