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
Sharon
The cover story on Mortgage Servicing Fraud grabbed my attention.  I would like to know more about the symbol and what it means.  Was it confirmed in court that it meant the fraud by Ocwen was intentional from the very beginning?  Ocwen was the debt collector in our foreclosure. 

Is there anything besides the testimony of the former Ocwen employee I can use as judicial notice? 

Sharon
Quote 0 0
Sharon
Did you know that Erbey used to work for GE as a president? 

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12083751/1/bill-erbey-made-23b-off-your-underwater-mortgage.html 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-27/billionaire-erbey-fails-to-halt-ocwen-slide-on-probe-mortgages.html
Sharon
Quote 0 0
iknow
Sharon wrote:
Is there anything besides the testimony of the former Ocwen employee I can use as judicial notice? 



You can't get testimony in with judicial notice. 
"Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before."

-Mae West
Quote 0 0
Sharon
iknow wrote:
Sharon wrote:
Is there anything besides the testimony of the former Ocwen employee I can use as judicial notice? 



You can't get testimony in with judicial notice. 


I just did a judicial notice.  I was asking if the case the moderator cited had anything I could use to get in the record regarding Ocwen.  I know what it is and how to use it.  I was hoping there was something I could use.  I wouldn't know unless I see it. 

You're not too helpful you know or iknow because your answers indicate that you don't know. 
Sharon
Quote 0 0
iknow
Sharon wrote:
iknow wrote:
Sharon wrote:
Is there anything besides the testimony of the former Ocwen employee I can use as judicial notice? 



You can't get testimony in with judicial notice. 


I just did a judicial notice.  I was asking if the case the moderator cited had anything I could use to get in the record regarding Ocwen.  I know what it is and how to use it.  I was hoping there was something I could use.  I wouldn't know unless I see it. 

You're not too helpful you know or iknow because your answers indicate that you don't know. 


I was simply pointing out the obvious. 

"Is there anything besides the testimony of the former Ocwen employee I can use as judicial notice?" 

It is not proper for the court to take judicial notice of the testimony of a former Ocwen employee.

Perhaps you did know this, and just made an incorrect statement by mistake.  If you think you can ask the court to take judicial notice of something that is not a readily ascertainable, commonly known, undisputed fact, you should read up a little more on judicial notice.

I am uncertain why my choice of screen names bothers you.  "I know" can certainly be taken in many different contexts. 

One thing I do know, is that I'm still in my house.  How about you Sharon?
  

"Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before."

-Mae West
Quote 0 0
Sharon
Here you go iknow.  I didn't submit the recent Ocwen Consent Order as a Request for Judicial Notice but did include it as an Exhibit. That would be something one could submit as a judicial notice.  It is a fact that Ocwen screws homeowners at every stage of the foreclosure and servicing process. 

Let me rephrase for iknow's sake.  I will take anything you have damaging to Ocwen so that if I can use it as evidence or for a judicial notice I will.  Happy now iknow?

I live in Colorado where do you live iknow.  In Colorado all they need to foreclose is a signature of a lawyer, nothing else. 


West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

judicial notice n. the authority of a judge to accept as facts certain matters which are of common knowledge from sources which guarantee accuracy or are a matter of official record, without the need for evidence establishing the fact. Examples of matters given judicial notice are public and court records, tides, times of sunset and sunrise, government rain fall and temperature records, known historic events, or the fact that ice melts in the sun. (See: evidence)


Judicial Notice

 

A doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal action.

When a court takes judicial notice of a certain fact, it obviates the need for parties to prove the fact in court. Ordinarily, facts that relate to a case must be presented to the judge or jury through testimony or tangible evidence. However, if each fact in a case had to be proved through such presentation, the simplest case would take weeks to complete. To avoid burdening the judicial system, all legislatures have approved court rules that allow a court to recognize facts that constitute common knowledge without requiring proof from the parties.

On the federal trial court level, judicial notice is recognized in rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence for U.S. District Courts and Magistrates. Rule 201 provides, in part, that "[a] judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."

Under rule 201 a trial court must take judicial notice of a well-known fact at the request of one of the parties, if the court is provided with information supporting the fact. A court also has the option to take judicial notice at its discretion, without a request from a party.

Rule 201 further provides that a court may take judicial notice at any time during a proceeding. If a party objects to the taking of judicial notice, the court must give that party an opportunity to be heard on the issue. In a civil jury trial, the court must inform the jury that it must accept the judicially noticed facts in the case as conclusively proved. In a criminal trial by jury, the court must instruct the jury "that it may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed." All states have statutes that are virtually identical to rule 201.

The most common judicially noticed facts include the location of streets, buildings, and geographic areas; periods of time; business customs; historical events; and federal, state, and International Law. Legislatures also maintain statutes that give courts the power to recognize certain facts in specific situations. For example, in Idaho any document affixed with the official seal of the state Public Utilities commission must be judicially noticed by all courts (Idaho Code § 61-209 [1996]). In Hawaii, when a commercial vehicle is cited for violating vehicle equipment regulations, a trial court must take judicial notice of the driver's subordinate position if the driver works for a company that owns the vehicle (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291-37 [1995]).

The danger of judicial notice is that, if abused, it can deprive the fact finder of the opportunity to decide a contestable fact in a case. In Walker v. Halliburton Services, 654 So. 2d 365 (La. App. 1995), Johnny Walker fell from a tank truck approximately ten feet to a concrete floor. Walker sought Workers' Compensation benefits for his injuries, and his claim was denied by the Office of Workers' Compensation.

At the application hearing, the hearing officer stated that it was her experience that a soft-tissue injury heals in six weeks. She then took judicial notice of the fact that a soft-tissue injury heals in six weeks—preventing Walker from contesting that proposition—and disallowed Walker's claim. On appeal the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, reversed the decision and ordered the payment of workers' compensation benefits. According to the court, it was a clear error of law for the hearing officer to take judicial notice of such intricate medical knowledge.

Sharon
Quote 0 0
Jimbo2014
Sharon, I agreee
Quote 0 0
Sharon
Jimbo2014 wrote:
Sharon, I agreee


Thank you.  Jimbo2014.
Sharon
Quote 0 0
texas
Sharon said: "The most common judicially noticed facts include the location of streets, buildings, and geographic areas; periods of time; business customs; historical events; and federal, state, and International Law."

Consider just this portion: "
business customs", would not such business customs need to be in compliance to "all applicable law"?
Quote 0 0
Sharon
texas wrote:
Sharon said: "The most common judicially noticed facts include the location of streets, buildings, and geographic areas; periods of time; business customs; historical events; and federal, state, and International Law."

Consider just this portion: "
business customs", would not such business customs need to be in compliance to "all applicable law"?


Texas I find your posts so vague that I can never figure out what you are asking or the point you are trying to make.  I didn't say what you quoted above, it was a quote from the link that I provided to legal dictionary's website for the definition of judicial notice

Consider this as an example.  You are being crossexamined by the defendant's attorney and you say someone robbed your house on such and such a day and you tell the court it was a beautiful sunny day the day you were robbed and you are 100% sure it is the man/woman sitting at the defense table.  Next the smart defense lawyer gets the weather report from the local news channel on the day you testify you were robbed and it was rainy on that day, all day; you would find yourself not to be a credible witness and your testimony might get thrown out or the jury might not believe your testimony.   Was that your point?  I have no idea what you are asking.

Thanks.
Sharon
Quote 0 0
texas
Sharon

Consider just this portion: "business customs", >>>> would not such business customs need to be in compliance to "all applicable law"?
Quote 0 0
texas
Sharon, as to your rainy dry day, weather events are sometimes localized, where the weather station nearest reports rain while under clear skies, I would consider retrieving weather data from a local airport in closer proximity that provides a clear representative of weather events not at the reporting station opposing counsel relied upon, due diligence upfront would not allowed this type of error to occur.
Quote 0 0
Sharon
texas wrote:
Sharon, as to your rainy dry day, weather events are sometimes localized, where the weather station nearest reports rain while under clear skies, I would consider retrieving weather data from a local airport in closer proximity that provides a clear representative of weather events not at the reporting station opposing counsel relied upon, due diligence upfront would not allowed this type of error to occur.


OMG it's an example for Pete's sake.  Drop it will you?  Why does everything have to be so argumentative on this forum?  Of course if it were me or my attorney they would do due diligence before accusing a witness.  I'm a former federal auditor for Christ's sake. 

Tell me Texas if I gave the example in Jurisdictionary would you find fault with that?  Are we never ever able to make a point on this forum? 

I think this forum is useless for me.  Why is it we can't have civil discussions on here? You're not a lawyer are you? 
Sharon
Quote 0 0
JJ
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by texas
Sharon said: "The most common judicially noticed facts include the location of streets, buildings, and geographic areas; periods of time; business customs; historical events; and federal, state, and International Law."

Consider just this portion: "
business customs", would not such business customs need to be in compliance to "all applicable law"?


Texas I find your posts so vague that I can never figure out what you are asking or the point you are trying to make. I didn't say what you quoted above, it was a quote from the link that I provided to legal dictionary's website for the definition of judicial notice.


Sharon, slow down a bit and re-read Texas' original post.  I believe he was only highlighting the portion of the definition of judicial notice that he thought to be applicable to the prior point you were making to iknow.

I agree that his posts are sometimes difficult to fully digest and assimilate, but there usually is a point.  I believe he was comparing the business customs portion of the definition with your wanting to obtain the testimony of an Ocwen employee, who may have testified as to the business customs of his former employer.  Thus, you may be able to ask the court to take judicial notice of the testimony if it could be classified as business customs.   And, if these business customs were not in compliance to all applicable law, this could substantiate your argument of fraud, unclean hands, etc...(Correct me if I am wrong Texas)

What I am wondering is... could the testimony be considered a court record and judicially noticed for that reason?

And, does it meet this criteria...

Quote:
On the federal trial court level, judicial notice is recognized in rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence for U.S. District Courts and Magistrates. Rule 201 provides, in part, that "[a] judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."


Florida statutes allow a number of items to be judicially noticed, including court records of any other state's jurisdiction.  It appears, after a cursory review of your Colorado statutes, what may be judicially noticed is much more narrow.
Quote 0 0
texas
Correct JJ
Quote 0 0
Sharon

Quote:
On the federal trial court level, judicial notice is recognized in rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence for U.S. District Courts and Magistrates. Rule 201 provides, in part, that "[a] judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."


Florida statutes allow a number of items to be judicially noticed, including court records of any other state's jurisdiction.  It appears, after a cursory review of your Colorado statutes, what may be judicially noticed is much more narrow.


Thanks JJ.  I'm not in Colorado State court but I do know that the Federal court must look to Colorado State law when deciding on non-federal issues.  I mentioned nothing about submitting testimony although I do have it from the Davis trial.  What I said related to the most recent post on Ocwen,  I asked if there was something I could use regarding the post.  If one could prove that they were set up to be a fraud machine from the beginning from a order of the court well that would be nice to submit if and when one has the opportunity to do so. 

That was it.  Here's the article.

http://www.msfraud.org/ocwen-federal-bank-and-the-quadrature-of-the-circle_2-14.html
Sharon
Quote 0 0
JJ
Ahhh, I see.  Very interesting article and hypothesis, of course we'll never know the truth of it.  So as to its usefullness for anything other than entertainment, I don't see one.

Quote:
If one could prove that they were set up to be a fraud machine from the beginning from a order of the court well that would be nice to submit if and when one has the opportunity to do so.


That would win many a case for many a homeowner. 

One thing I am wondering is... Who is Joseph Dale Robertson and what, if any, connection does he have to Ocwen?
Quote 0 0
Sharon
JJ wrote:
Ahhh, I see.  Very interesting article and hypothesis, of course we'll never know the truth of it.  So as to its usefullness for anything other than entertainment, I don't see one.

Quote:
If one could prove that they were set up to be a fraud machine from the beginning from a order of the court well that would be nice to submit if and when one has the opportunity to do so.


That would win many a case for many a homeowner. 

One thing I am wondering is... Who is Joseph Dale Robertson and what, if any, connection does he have to Ocwen?


I have no idea who he is JJ. 

But on your other points, I am fighting for a day in court with two pharmaceutical companies GE and Bayer and likely will never get justice because I can't even get a diagnosis.  If you think the banks are bad at least they aren't poisoning with impunity.  That is what we have in this country, poisoning the patient population with impunity.  If you go to the doctors you literally take your own life in your hands.  And for the most part you have no recourse.  So families are devastated until every last cent is gone.  The government then picks up the tab but it is usually too little too late. 

Recently there was a trial in which GE's product Omniscan was found liable for causing an often-times fatal disease called nephrogenic systemic fibrosis.  Over 300 million bolus doses of gadolinium based contrasting agents have been administered worldwide and GE's product had 30% of the market.  All of them are toxic and at least 1% of the gadolinium in its free toxic state is retained.  During the trial in "Decker v. GEHC" it came out that GE's predecessor told one of the original researchers to burn the data.  This was before it was approved by the FDA.  And still the product is being injected into people without regard to the harm it is causing. The FDA even though from all appearances was lied to has done nothing about taking it off the market.  

So yes things like this come out and still nothing gets done.   It's why I asked.

Another abusive industry is insurance, worker's comp., long-term disability and liability insurance.  They have committed to never paying a claim unless they absolutely have to and will litigate to the highest level of our courts and now the latest tactic by Liberty Mutual is to accuse the insured of insurance fraud like they tried to recently in this case. 

 http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/10/04/Y0QxGU0oOWVvk8xEw2j4FK/story.html

Although this is a story where you laugh because Liberty Mutual's game backfired on them it happens all the time, usually to innocent, injured insured that can't fight back and the case isn't worth it for a lawyer to take it.  I know of a case where they denied benefits to an MD while in the hospital. 

So in conclusion very incriminating evidence does get out but even when it does we see that it is not acted on by those that should be regulating. 


Sharon
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...