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

(On the subject of On Topic Excellent and *Helpful* Posts.. )

 

 

William A. Roper wrote:
- - - - - -  ON  - - - - - - - 

 

"There is an old adage in banking, which I will update and paraphrase:

If you owe the bank $50,000 and cannot pay, YOU have a problem.  If you owe the bank $100 million and cannot pay the BANK HAS A PROBLEM.

So it is today with bond guarantors, such as AMBAC and MBIA, who have guaranteed over $1 TRILLION.  The MARKET has a PROBLEM.

But I DIGRESS.

There is a modern corollary to this rule in mortgage banking / mortgage servicing.  If you owe $100,000 on a house that is worth $200,000, YOU have a problem.  If you owe $100,000 on a house that is worth $80,000, the mortgage investor has a problem.

When it comes to LOAN MODIFICATIONS, the mortgage investor and mortgage servicer will usually agree to a modification ONLY when it is IN THEIR INTEREST.  In the FORMER example, where there is $100,000 of equity in the house, they are TOTALLY SECURE.  They CAN and WILL hold YOUR TOES TO THE FIRE and will INSIST on repayment.  If you do NOT PAY IN FULL, they will tack on various trash fees and foreclose, selling the house for MORE THAN the mortgage amount while collecting ALL of their various fees, including attorneys' fees.

In the latter example, the equity in the house is ALREADY NEGATIVE.  They can INVENT as many fees as they like and run up all the attorneys' fees they can, and these additional fees can NEVER be recovered directly through FORECLOSURE.

This is where their "proposals" as to loan modification come in.  You will be ASKED and ENCOURAGED to APPLY FOR a loan modification.  This process will REQUIRE that you DISCLOSE to the mortgage servicer information that will make it EASIER for them to SEIZE your other assets and DESTROY your other credit relationships.  Then, based almost SOLELY upon the net equity in the property and the mortgage investors and servicers' SELF-INTEREST, they will DECIDE whether to agree to a modification.

In MOST instances, they will AGREE ONLY WHEN IT IS IN YOUR ECONOMIC INTEREST TO WALK AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY.  For example, suppose the house is actually now worth $80,000, but property values locally are dropping at a 10% annualized rate AND marketing time for these foreclosed properties is in excess of ONE YEAR.  If the mortgage investor forecloses, the investor CANNOT SELL THE PROPERTY and will face DECLINING VALUE, costs of real estate taxes, costs of maintenance and upkeep including hazard insurance and possible vandalism to the property.  IN SUCH AN INSTANCE, IT IS MORE ECONOMIC FOR THEM TO LEAVE YOU IN THE PROPERTY FOR THE PRESENT TIME.

But BEWARE, they may ask YOU to sign some modification agreement that contains provisions that are all FAVORABLE TO THE MORTGAGE INVESTOR.  OR the mortgage investor GETS YOU TO SIGN, but does NOT SIGN ITSELF.  They then TAKE YOUR MONEY UNTIL THE MARKET STABILIZES AND RECOVERS and then FORECLOSE ANYWAY.

YOU NEED TO GET THE IDEA OUT OF YOUR HEAD THAT YOU ARE DEALING WITH EITHER HONEST OR EVEN HONORABLE PEOPLE!

In many instances, when you have NEGATIVE EQUITY IN A PROPERTY, it is in YOUR ECONOMIC INTEREST TO JUST WALK AWAY.  By this, I do NOT MEAN that you simply abandon your home.  To the contrary, you may be better off STAYING WITHOUT PAYING.  SAVE SOME MONEY and get yourself into a position to find another place to live.  Throwing good money after bad in this situation is NOT always a good idea.

If you have good equity in the property and CANNOT afford the payments, you need to SELL YOUR PROPERTY as quickly as possible, even at a distress price, as you will lose far more equity in FORECLOSURE.  Do NOT expect that a loan modification is forthcoming in the instance that you have plenty of equity.  The mortgage servicer is just dangling this carrot to get you to voluntarily DISCLOSE all of the critical details as to your employment and finances (which might have CHANGED since your original mortgage application).

See various other posts within this discussion thread as to the FOLLY of voluntarily surrendering information to the mortgage servicer regarding your finances!" 

 

- - - - - -  OFF  - - - - - - - 

 

Submitted by Ed Cage  /  972-596-4363


Quote 0 0
Excellent article!

     One indication that foreclosures are meant to benefit investors at the
expense of debtors is the fact that at foreclosure sales, the buyers in
most States must come up with the money almost immediately. This
elliminates the possibility of a fair price for the property since most potential
buyers won't be able to come up with cash at such short notice.

    If we had progressive legislation giving the high bidder 60 days to come
up with the balance after putting up the 5 or 10% deposit, more people
would be able to bid and the property might sell at a fair price, thereby
assuring that the insolvent debtor would at least get a fair price for the
forclosed property and walk away with some cash.

    Unfortunately, the system is set up to encourage equity theft thru
predatory loan servicing. The system needs to be changed!
Quote 0 0
srsd
If you owe the bank $50,000 and cannot pay, YOU have a problem.  If you owe the bank $100 million and cannot pay the BANK HAS A PROBLEM.........
 
so true but the banks should be able to recoup with the houses they have stolen...

 

By the way....I really liked the post Mr. Ed



Quote 0 0

Thanks srsd.

William A. Roper is one of a growing number of excellent posters

in here. I am amazed and delighted at the wealth of solid

information that is currently being posted on the MSF forum.

 

It is important to note that we also suddenly seem to have sharply

curtailed the "Jerry Springer" types who seemed to enjoy arguing

at the expense of damaging the overall credibility of MSF.

 

Ed Cage  |  Plano Texas  |  ecagetx@gmail.com  |  972-596-4363

 


Quote 0 0
This post by Blossom yesterday of JAKE ZAMANSKY'S *superb* article
on the Sub-Prime Crisis and the Ratings Agencies strikes at the
core-heart of just how complacent we all were.  But most especially
Wall Street insider par excellence Mr. Z singles out just how far the
system fell in abandoning all of us.  Not just Wall Street investors
but even Joe and Jane Average who had never owned a single share of
stock were affected to varying degrees.

This historic economic upheaval, the Subprime Mortgage crisis could have
been sharply curtailed had the rating agencies and associated investment
bankers simply done their job.

       This economic catastrophe  is roughly akin to the NFL referees
    misinterpreting every single NFL replay for a period of three full years.

 

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww   January 31, 2008

THANKS BLOSSOM! Ed Cage  |  Plano Texas  |  972-596-4363  |  ecagetx@gmail.com

                           -------------------------------------

JAKE ZAMANSKY'S BLOG

Sub-Prime Crisis and the Ratings Agencies

Back in August, Fortune ran a story that took the ratings agencies to task for their role in the subprime mortgage crisis. A noted investor named Jim Chanos, the head of Kynikos Associates, acknowledged he had a short position in Moody's stock: "If the rating agencies will downgrade only when we can all see the losses, then why do we need the rating agencies?"

If what I read in the Sunday Business Section is true about Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's investigation and the participation of Clayton Holdings, a company based in Connecticut that vetted home loans for many investment banks, then Mr. Chanos is due for a windfall (he's already at least more than doubled his money). Apparently Clayton Holdings has provided extensive documentation to the attorney general's office in exchange for immunity that shows investment banks allegedly knew many of the loans it was packaging for unwitting investors were more risky than was disclosed. Early on in the subprime crisis when I filed the first hedge fund investor arbitration claims against Bear Stearns, we made the similar allegations regarding the firm's failure to disclose risks.

More shocking is the allegation that the investment banks never turned Clayton's due diligence reports over to ratings agencies. Instead, according to the article, "in these disclosures, underwriters typically said that loans that did not meet even lowered lending standards, called exceptions, accounted for a "significant" or "substantial" portion of the loans contained in the securities, but they offered little hard, statistical information that Clayton promised prosecutors it would provide as evidence."

Wall Street's selective disclosure to the ratings agencies is only half the story. My question is, should the ratings agencies even need such information? I thought the ratings agencies did their own due diligence. If this story is accurate, what value-added are the ratings agencies providing if they aren't able to perform their own analysis?

Later on in The New York Times story, Raymond W. McDaniel Jr., the CEO of Moody's says of the investment bank's reports: "Both the completeness and veracity was deteriorating." My question to Mr. McDaniel is how could Moody's possibly award ratings to securities based on incomplete information?

Ordinarily we would just let market forces deal with such failure. However firms like Moody's, Standard & Poors, and Fitch are granted special competitive advantages because they are part of a select group of eight companies designated as Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (or "NRSRO"). Based on their record, the government should not be protecting them. If there was more competition the ratings might be more predictive and less expensive. Maybe if investors had gotten their hands on Clayton's reports they would have never invested in the first place.

The fact is ratings agencies have become lagging indicators. Mr. Chanos knows this better than anyone. He was an early short-seller of Enron after investigating the firm and finding accounting irregularities. It wasn't until mid-October of 2001 that three credit-rating agencies started to warn investors of Enron's deteriorating condition, and not until Nov. 28, just days before Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, that they lowered their debt ratings below "investment grade."

If the only service ratings agencies provide is assigning some combination of the first four letters in the alphabet to a security, then maybe they can be replaced by a smart preschooler.

Labels: Clayton Holdings, Jim Chanos, Moody's, Standard and Poors

posted by Jacob H. Zamansky at 1/29/2008 04:06:00 PM

 

For more see: http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/01/mortgage-due-diligence-firm-granted.html

Quote 0 0
I hope we all recognize the *superb* non-legal help that is available in MSF at
no charge by a multitude of quite competent posters. I’d rattle off a few names
so that newcomers could appreciate the A+ advice in here but I began that
process once and one person chided me for “butt-kissing.” However the
conflicting nit-wit advice that once was a factor in here has recently sharply
subsided and consequently it’s no longer a major factor.

 

Back to the point at hand.. William A. Roper doesn’t brag about it but he is a
graduate of the elite Wharton School of Business. His recent two posts today
are on topic and helpful to those who may not understand the importance of
timely Discovery and exactly what a Summary Judgment motion means.

 

Submitted by Ed Cage  |  1804 Cross Bend, Plano Texas  |  ecagetx@gmail.com  |  972-596-4363
 
- - - -  ON:  - - - -  

William A. Roper, Jr.

Today at 01:36 AM

#8


Julie:

You will recall that I suggested at the OUTSET that the KEY TO VICTORY is DISCOVERY!

Your attorney never contacted me.  Hopefully, you now already have some discovery under way.  If you do NOT have discovery under way, you have created a problem for yourself.

The essence of a summary judgment motion is that the plaintiff (or the moving defendant) alleges by motion that there are essentially NO MATERIAL MATTERS IN DISPUTE.  The question for the court is whether there exist DISPUTED FACT ISSUES that require court determination.

Most foreclosures in Ohio are resolved by default judgment.  The defendant simply FAILS TO ANSWER.  When the defendant DOES ANSWER, the NEXT THING that the plaintiff does is file a motion for summary judgment.  The plaintiff is going to WEAR YOU DOWN and FINANCIALLY EXHAUST YOU.  The summary judgment motion and hearing is an opportunity for them to FORCE YOU TO PAY YOUR LAWYER TO ANSWER THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION and to PAY FOR A COURT APPEARANCE.  The mortgage servicer will continue to apply pressure.  Discovery AGAINST YOU is coming next, if the summary judgment motion is UNSUCESSFUL.  You will be paying your LAST DOLLARS to ANSWER DISCOVERY, being perpetually on the defensive if you fail to take charge. 

When you have ANSWERED and have discovery UNDER WAY, you can point to the outstanding discovery as a reason as to WHY the summary judgment motion is premature and may not be heard.  If you are NOT ENGAGED IN DISCOVERY, this would seem to mean that you think that you already have the evidence you need to go to trial.

So failing to conduct discovery not only DEPRIVES YOU of the evidence you need to WIN, but it also SPEEDS the matter to summary judgment hearing and/or trial.  By contrast, when you actually conduct effective discovery, it tends to stop the plaintiff's case DEAD IN ITS TRACKS.  This is because the plaintiff initially rushes to court WITHOUT the requisite evidence.  So when you serve discovery, they have to STOP and begin document fabrication and think up various LIES to plead and present by affidavit.

You will recall that I also offered to take a look at the pleadings and evidence in your case.  IN EVERY INSTANCE THAT A PERSON WHO IS A DEFENDANT IN MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE LITIGATION HAS SHOWN ME PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE, I HAVE FOUND EVIDENCE OF PLEADING OR EVIDENTIARY DEFECTS AND IN MOST CASES ALSO EVIDENCE OF DOCUMENT FABRICATION.

Nye LaValle is making you a similar offer.  YOU OUGHT TO TAKE HIM UP ON IT. 

Most lawyers (other than the mortgage servicers' lawyers working for foreclosure mills) are NOT engaged in foreclosure defense on a day to day basis.  Most are UNFAMILIAR with the promissory notes and mortgages, deeds of trust and/or other mortgage security instruments, assignments, etc.

The attorneys may be familiar with local pleading and practice, but they can look over your documents and NEVER SEE the GLARING DEFECTS.

You had a VERY GOOD CASE.  Based upon the facts you originally sketched out, it seemed to me that you had the VERY BEST CASE of anyone with whom I have interacted on this site.  In fact YOUR CASE WAS SO GOOD, that I thought that you had an outside chance of having your mortgage EXTINGUISHED COMPLETELY by proper pleading of the clean hands doctrine.

If you have failed to conduct discovery, you are probably GOING TO LOSE.  YOU NEED TO MANAGE YOUR LITIGATION AND MANAGE YOUR LAWYER.  The discovery is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN if you do not insist upon it.  It really doesn't matter HOW GOOD your attorney is if you have to go to trial without any evidence!

William A. Roper, Jr.

Today at 01:45 AM

#9


Julie:

Summary Judgment is typically decided based upon affidavits and discovery responses.  WITHOUT DISCOVERY, it is the affidavit(s) of the servicer and YOUR affidavit (if ANY) that will determine the case.  The mortgage servicer will CONTRACT to a professional perjurer to produce a FALSE affidavit.  The person signing the mortgage servicer's affidavit will be OUT OF STATE and the identity of this person will be left somewhat obfuscated or unclear to assure that there cannot be a perjury prosecution.  You will have already been painted as a deadbeat by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer.  The plaintiff's lawyer (foreclosure mill) will also have been generous campaign contributors of the judge.

Although IF your affidavit raises a genuine FACT ISSUE, the summary judgment SHOULD BE DEFEATED, in practice you will find that the plaintiff's nebulous affidavit will be given MORE WEIGHT.  Even without prevailing OVERALL, the plaintiff might still obtain a PARTIAL summary judgment -- a determination of SOME OF THE FACTS IN THE CASE which are NOT shown to be in dispute.

 

 

Quote 0 0

Wowsers where did all these great posts come from?

 

As the walls cave in on mortgage servicing fraud and related industries

across the country we also seem to have a wealth of well written well

researched articles and posts in MSF.

 

Here's yet another gem from super savvy Ms. Blossom. Nothing

seems to get by her watchful eye!  

 

Kudos and sincere thanks from all of us Blossom.

.

Ed Cage  |  1804 Cross Bend, Plano Texas  |  ecagetx@gmail.com  |  972-596-4363

 

- - - -  ON:  - - - -

Today at 03:33 PM by Blossom  

#1


Shorting subprime? What the heck? Bear has been doing this for years even disclosing some of it on their 10k's before hiding it off balance.  Now if judical prosecutors could tie these shorts to EMC or other accomplice servicers engaged in  'manufacturing defaults' for CDS profit they'd really have the goods on them with a prime motive for MSF.  'Manufactured Defaults' + Credit Default Swaps = nice profits.....plus no risk if you're the one rigging the game!  No surprise that with no investors left to sell this toxic waste to, no more lucrative fees, Bear has to resort to its 'old' ways.


 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=axJ6xqVDze_8&refer=news

 

Bear Stearns Is 'Short' Subprime Mortgages $1 Billion (Update1)
By Bradley Keoun

Feb. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Bear Stearns Cos., the U.S. securities firm that posted its first-ever loss last quarter on mortgage writedowns, has more than $1 billion of trades that profit if subprime home loans and bonds continue to deteriorate.

The ``short'' positions on subprime mortgage securities increased from $600 million at the end of November, Chief Financial Officer Sam Molinaro said today at an investor conference in Naples, Florida. The company also reduced its holdings of so-called collateralized debt obligations and underlying bonds, Molinaro said.

The sinking value of assets tied to mortgages led to Bear Stearns's fourth-quarter loss of $854 million, and Molinaro said today that one of the firm's biggest mistakes was ``not being conservative enough and bearish enough on the subprime market.'' The firm has reversed ``long'' subprime trades that stood at $1 billion at the end of August, Molinaro said.

``There's definitely a lot of short plays out there,'' said Mark Adelson, a founding member of Adelson & Jacob Consulting in Long Island City, New York. Some subprime bonds ``could easily be bad enough that they don't pay off a penny,'' said Adelson, a former Nomura Holdings Inc. mortgage analyst.

In an interview after Molinaro's remarks, Bear Stearns spokesman Russell Sherman said the New York-based firm's subprime trades are a ``hedge'' against potential losses on investments in higher-rated mortgages, he said.

Offsetting Positions

``We are using short positions to offset other long positions in our mortgage inventory,'' he said. He didn't provide details on specific trades.

The company, the fifth-largest U.S. securities firm by market value, dropped 46 percent in New York trading last year, more than any Wall Street rival, leading James ``Jimmy'' Cayne to hand the chief executive officer role to Alan Schwartz last month.

Bear Stearns fell $2.23, or 2.7 percent, to $80.80 in composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange at 1:57 p.m.

Last year's performance by Bear Stearns contrasts with that of hedge fund manager John Paulson's Paulson & Co., which made $2.7 billion in fees in the first nine months of September by betting against subprime-mortgage bonds as more borrowers fell behind on monthly payments.

Two Bear Stearns hedge funds that invested in securities tied to mortgages collapsed in July, prompting investors to shun the debt. Bear Stearns had to bail out the funds and take possession of many of the securities.

Less Exposure

``We have significantly reduced our exposures'' to the subprime mortgage market and CDOs, Molinaro said.

The world's largest banks and securities firms have reported at least $146 billion of writedowns and credit losses stemming from the ensuing credit-market contraction, according to Bloomberg data.

About 30 percent of Bear Stearns's fixed-income revenue comes from mortgages and related securities, according to estimates from Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. analyst Brad Hintz. The company's $1.9 billion mortgage writedown wiped out revenue in the three months ended Nov. 30.

Adelson said he would pay more attention to Bear Stearns's strategy shift if it were coming from Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Chairman Warren Buffett.

``I think of Warren Buffett as a guy who's almost always right, and at this stage of the game I don't think of Bear that way,'' Adelson said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Bradley Keoun in New York at bkeoun@bloomberg.net .

Last Updated: February 8, 2008 14:20 EST

Quote 0 0

I am not an attorney and nothing I say should be taken as legal advice.

.

In this fine post/response by Jackson (below) he's responding to perhaps
the single least definitive and broadly worded cry for help well after the fact

I have ever seen.  It was posted by someone who goes by the moniker

"O-"  In all the posts I have ever seen I have never seen a less specific

plea for help on a completely unspecified "complaint" that appears to take
in virtually everybody.

 

I seldom recommend an attorney because almost all of those posting for

help in this forum obviously have chosen not to use an attorney for some
reason, (Usually lack of funds.)  But I have never seen a request for help

that seems to cry out after every sentence,

      "I can't afford an attorney, I want push-button answers, and I

      want to complain about damn near everybody after the fact." 

      That's my take anyway.

 

Given that premise, I think the response below by Jackson deserves an A+

but my feeling is that Ms. "O-" will likely not fulfill the primary requisite
recommendation: 

      Get an attorney.  

.

Ed Cage  |  1804 Cross Bend, Plano Texas  |  ecagetx@gmail.com  |  972-596-4363

.
.

------------- Jackson ON: --------------

First, you need an attorney.

However, there is a wealth of information from the Bank Fraud Victim Center.  While much of it is unrelated to mortgage servicing fraud, if you are a victim of predatory servicing - you are more likely than not a victim of predatory lending as well.

The link below includes a sample motion to reopen a foreclosure.  There is also a sample TILA complaint there along with defenses to a foreclosure action.

http://mortgage-home-loan-bank-fraud.com/legal/sample_legal_docs.htm

Another useful chart from the same site.

Foreclosure Filing Schedule:

 

You receive a Summons and Complaint...

(The plaintiff--bank, lender or other creditor--starts the foreclosure by having a marshal serve the defendant--owner or borrower--with a Summons and Complaint.)

Within 2 days of the Return Date on the Summons...

File an Appearance

Within 15 days of the Return Date on the Summons...

File and send an Answer.  Be sure to put a certification of service at the end of your answer, and that you have sent your Answer to everyone who has Appeared in the case.  You will need to sign the certification separately from your signature on the Answer.

If you choose foreclosure by sale, file a Motion for Foreclosure by Sale  

OR
 

Within 25 days of the Return Date on the Summons...

Apply to the court if you think you are eligible for protection based on temporary unemployment or underemployment

 

Quote 0 0

Quote:

Given that premise, I think the response below by Jackson deserves an A+

but my feeling is that Ms. "O-" will likely not fulfill the primary requisite
recommendation: 

      Get an attorney.  

 

Several issues here, Ed, of equal importance. The issue of finding competent legal representation for an MSF victim is simply not as easy as "get an attorney". True that today it is easier than it was a few years ago but it is still a significant challenge.

 

1.) Few attorneys have developed the language or knowledge to properly handle MSF cases. Fortunately that is changing - albeit slowly.

 

2.) MSF victims largely do not have the language or knowledge to properly convey what has been done to them to an attorney. Of course, as "least sophisticated debtor" they shouldn't be required to. Hell, none of us here should have to know 90% of what we know in order to be able to purchase, live in, and successfully make monthly payments on our mortgages. When I started out with this, I'd walk into an attorney's office with my canceled checks in one hand and monthly statements in the other and say, "I don't know what is wrong, but I know that something IS wrong. Help me fix it." I did that about 130x before I began to develop the language to properly convey what was happening with my loan. After that it only took another 20 or so law firms to find one that I could afford. Which brings me to #3.

 

3.) By the time most MSF victims realize that they need legal counsel, they're already hemorrhaging financially due to trying to "do the right thing" in keeping up with a servicer's bogus fees. At that point (at any point really) how many "average Americans" have an extra $20-30k that they can instantly pull out of their butts for legal retainers?

 

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that not retaining legal counsel isn’t really a choice that the majority of Mortgage Servicing fraud victims can make. I’m sure, given the opportunity to actually choose between having competent legal counsel and taking their case pro se, MSF victims would gladly choose to have legal counsel. Unfortunately, justice is increasingly becoming a luxury in this country only for those that can afford it.

 
 

Quote:
While much of it is unrelated to mortgage servicing fraud, if you are a victim of predatory servicing - you are more likely than not a victim of predatory lending as well.

I have to disagree with this statement as well. I’ve seen figures that say, if I remember correctly, roughly 80% of all loans written are securitized. While a good portion of them, especially given the current crisis, may have origination issues, predatory lending (an origination issue) and mortgage servicing fraud (a securitization issue) are two separate and distinct problems. You can most definitely have one without the other. Predatory lending potentially affects a far smaller demographic than mortgage servicing fraud. If that 80% number is at all accurate, then 80% of all loans written have a mortgage servicer handling the loan. If 80% of all loans written had predatory lending issues then far more people would be out of their homes and far more lenders and brokers would be imploding than the numbers we have already witnessed.

Regardless, once you start lumping Mortgage Servicing Fraud in with Predatory Lending, I guarantee that Mortgage Servicing Fraud will become lost in the buzzword. Which is exactly what the industry would love to see happen. Investigations are already picking up on issues with CDOs and SIVs and everything else. It’s only a matter of time before the light bulb goes on in those cases and investigators start looking at the actions of the servicers. Of course, that light bulb may come on that much quicker with the help of one or two well placed phone calls or e-mails from knowledgeable Mortgage Servicing Fraud victims.
 
Additionally, posting a "foreclosure filing schedule" like that is extremely dangerous and potentially crippling to any Mortgage Servicing Fraud victim that doesn't' live in the state and possibly county for which that schedule applies. foreclosure procedures differ widely from state to state and, in some cases, county to county from what I'm told. An MSF victim in Kitsap county could potentially be screwed right out of the gate if that "schedule" applies to Miami-Dade county 3000 miles away and they decide to follow it.

Quote 0 0
Ed Cage

Thanks for your as usual solid input Mike. I do agree with

everything you said.

 

I will also acknowledge that while I didn't author this quote,

 

“While much of it is unrelated to mortgage servicing fraud, if you are a victim of predatory servicing - you are more likely than not a victim of predatory lending as well.”

 

I'm quite certain you are correct in your observation that the

corrupt mortgage industry would love to lump lending and

servicing in the same boat.  Dubious lending practices (highly

subjective) are much more difficult to clearly define to a third

party.  Conversely dirty tricks in mortgage serving are a bit

more difficult to camouflage.  But I don’t feel the author made

an error of any real substance.

 

We always appreciate your input Mike!

Ed

Quote 0 0

Wasn't trying to pin that quote on you, Ed...Sorry if it came across like that ...

Quote 0 0
O -

Feeling the need  to put people down for asking for help, Ed?

Quote 0 0
O-

Ed Cage follows the same policies that you will find in U.S. foreign policy.

1) Ed wants to run the show completely and is convinced that he, and only he (along with a few others Ed is in cahoots with) is capable of "running" things here. Ed decides who and what is valuable to readers.

2) Ed demands compliance with his policies or he will publicly target and "bomb" you. If you comply, he will "reward" you with his public kudos. (Whoopee, and who cares??!!)

3) Ed states that his goal is to rid the board of "problematic and argumentative" posters while at the same time constantly poking them in the eye with his sharp "barb" stick, thus encouraging the very fights he claims to be trying to stop.

4) The "blowback" is that many of us have just stopped visiting this board very often. The Ed Cage No-variety Show is boring and dull and I have pretty much changed the channel. I come by occasionally to see who Ed is trying to irritate at any given time. Today it appears to be you, O-. Tomorrow or later today it will undoubtedly be me.

Ed bands with filthy minded people who will privately bomb you if you ask the wrong questions with nasty e-mail swear bombs. None of it matters; this board has been infiltrated and taken over. I think its days are numbered because so many have left.

The advice here is predictable now..."Get a lawyer". While that is sound advice, many people used to come here to try to find out what was happening to them before deciding what to do next. People find it hard to believe that they can be making all their payments and still be losing their homes and we used to discuss those things here, but no more. We used to try to offer some sort of moral support here for people caught in a situation they did not understand, but that is outlawed now, too. The only thing to do is get a lawyer after which you or your lawyer will be contacted by  the secret cabal operating in the underground here. Whether the cabal is successful, who knows....

"Get a lawyer" or change the channel seem to be the only options left here, O-. Just don't let these self-appointed "rulers" here get you down in any way. For some reason they seem to think their opinions matter to us. They are self-indulgent and egotistical people who are great in their own minds and no place else.

Switching off again......


Quote 0 0
BISHOP
Arky girl,

As you know, I have supported your responses and given kudos to you on many occassions.

I am not a member of the secret cabal. If anything, I am a persona non grata as many of my posts are edited out.

I suppose the editors could justify their eliminations by stating that my rantings typically revolved about the judiciary's unwillingness to grant the pro se defendant the relief required by law and judicial precedent. So, while my rantings were "of topic" they also were a derivative of the larger problem faced by victims of mortgage servicing fraud, that of a judiciary aiding and abetting commissions of these crimes with no justification for doing so.

However, the most realistic and practical solution is to get a lawyer because of the willingness of the part of the presiding judges to do great injustice to the pro se defendant by denying him the relief required while simultaneously ignoring indisputable evidence that the defendant was not in default.

We miss your posts and while I agree with your basic complaint that only a select few seem to be able to post whatever they want, your posts have always been helpful if not brilliant.

So, where are you visiting now as I'd like to visit the sites you now post on.
Quote 0 0
Stephen

Moderator:  Off topic

Quote 0 0
Fed UP
Well now Arkygirl I don't necessarily agree with this statement, I did agree with everything else you had to say tho

and sorry, I haven't mastered the "quote" process yet 

"None of it matters; this board has been infiltrated and taken over. I think its days are numbered because so many have left." 

I'm back  LOL !  I'm not going away again either. 

The key to this is a strategy that we employed in the past, if you completely ignore them, eventually (because they can not get a rise out of you), they will go away and go someplace else where they can cause infighting.  We've all been in this for too long to let that happen. 

Also, Mike, I read all of what you had to say and 100% agree.  MSF is so very different from the lending process and are in no way the same. 

And also correct by the time a consumer finds out what is going on they are in a huge amount of financial trouble.  The key has always been consumer education, however, I've found that some consumers refuse to be educated before it is too late.  Had I not learned what I did with my 2000 mortgage having been a paralegal for 20 years, I would have been totally cooked with my 2 subsequent mortgages. 

Oh, on the subject "get an attorney", they are few and far between.  Having worked for attorneys for 20+ years, they are a lazy bunch for the most part.  You need to find the "rare" one who is eager to break new ground, to venture where no one has ever ventured before to do the research, etc., to get the job done.  Auto accident, medical malpractice, divorce, worker's compensation, corporate, probate, bankruptcy, those are all easy for an attorney.  There are forms all done up already, they hand the file to a paralegal or legal secretary "do the work" and poof!  its done while they get the big bucks. 

I would encourage and invite anyone and everyone to post on this website.  the people who own and manage this website have invested too much time and too much money in an effort to help and educate our fellow victims to have it disappear because of people such as Ed Cage and his band of bashers. 

Just my 5 cents (inflation you know

Karen

Quote 0 0
arkygirl
Mr. Cage has an annoying habit of picking out someone who does not follow his "advice" verbatim and singling them out for ridicule. Or maybe he just does not like their writing style. If Ed Cage cannot figure it out, it is met with derision and disdain.

He has done this before, so many here with ideas just as good or even better treat him with deference and kowtow to him. "Sorry, Mr. Cage" accompanied by a head bow. "Didn't mean to offend you, Mr. Cage" along with a knee bend.

Bullsnot on that. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and its about time that Mr. Cage learns that his unrelenting nastiness will eventually be fed right back to him. If not by me, by someone else in due time.

As for the secret cabal, it exists here but not necessarily with the blessing of the site operators. It is made up of some "heroes" who seem to get their jollies from "helping" people. Fine and dandy. Let them rock and roll. I didn't accuse anyone; the cabal members know who they are. Anyone who doesn't belong may not know about it.

The paste below is what I am responding to. I don't think this post was made here originally and it was deliberately copied here for Ed Cage's amusement so he could put O- down in not one, but TWO, different forums. That is just mean and sadistic. It is NOT helpful in any way. This just drips meanness. If someone cannot afford an attorney they should not be publicly ridiculed for that state, not even by the great Ed Cage. It would be more helpful to encourage O- to seek some pro bono counsel or even Legal Aid rather than make fun.

I have no quarrel with anyone else responding here and the post was meant to encourage O- not to let this get her down.

"It was posted by someone who goes by the moniker

"O-"  In all the posts I have ever seen I have never seen a less specific

plea for help on a completely unspecified "complaint" that appears to take
in virtually everybody.

 

I seldom recommend an attorney because almost all of those posting for

help in this forum obviously have chosen not to use an attorney for some
reason, (Usually lack of funds.)  But I have never seen a request for help

that seems to cry out after every sentence,

      "I can't afford an attorney, I want push-button answers, and I

      want to complain about damn near everybody after the fact." 

      That's my take anyway.

 

Given that premise, I think the response below by Jackson deserves an A+

but my feeling is that Ms. "O-" will likely not fulfill the primary requisite
recommendation: 

      Get an attorney. "




Quote 0 0

William A. Roper posted:

http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&skipauth=true

(Explains everything you need to know about subprime sans MS Fraud)

 

_   _   _   OFF   _   _   _

 

This is *excellent* Bill!  It does need to be viewed full screen but it

is clear, concise, accurate and quite humorous.  Readers please take

a moment to view this terrific slide show above posted by WAR.

 

Mr Ed

Quote 0 0
O -

Thanks Arky

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...