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
I check the Justia docket often for suits against Ocwen (who cannot be sued often enough for everything it claims [cos who really knows if Ocwen is truthful, lol] to own IMHO). Someone is finally starting to "get it". They are adding the trusts to their suits, oh joy!

Maybe someone has been reading And connecting the sometimes seemingly unrelated dots that we post here.....NOTHING is unrelated in this mess. While there is no "magic bullet" yet knowledge can help anyone to file a better lawsuit and leaving room for those "John and Jane Does" who may be discovered later is good policy.

I am seeing filings like this now (both these listed cases are in TX where Ocwen has taken a well-deserved (again, MHO) beating in the past):

September 13, 2007
Robert Armstrong;
Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota NA, Unknown Holders and/or Owners of Residual Interest in Securitization of the AMRESCO Residential Securities Corporation Mortgage Loan Trust 1998-3, Randy Daniel, Sandy Dasigenis

September 12, 2007
Plaintiff: Theresa M. Traina;
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, U.S. Bank, N.A., Unknown Holders and/or Owners of Residual Interest in Securitization of the New Century Home Equity Loan Trust, Kenneth Strickland, Baxter & Schwartz, P.C.

Anyway, you can check Justia for suits against your favorite pet servicer, too.

Quote 0 0
4 justice now

You are spot on as usual. If these law firms don't start to wise up and change their strategy and tactics, and do it very soon, they may win, but it will be a hollow victory. After all it's rather difficult to collect a judgment when there's nothing F left and the criminals have skipped. I would say this particularly applies to the class action firms, I mean after all, everyone knows the plaintiffs are going to get majorly screwed again anyway. So why not take a more aggressive tack and charge the scumbags them with every f'n thing possible. Damn, anyone who's got an IQ above two digits knows they have broken about every law possible and then some. I would say to any named plaintiffs.. tell your representation to get with it or plan on being discharged and/or sued for incompetence. I should do the know, tell them to get real, get off their lazy assess or just get the f out of the way...Well what do you think?

Please go ahead and chime in: Arkygirl, Gary, Mike, Dee, Stephen, Nye, ME2, Anon, Ann, Blossom,  Bob and Gumshoe and all the others I've grown to trust here.

My Opinion on the subject only
Quote 0 0
One thing that people in general, and MSF victims specifically, seem to not be comfortable with is that your attorney works FOR you meaning that they are employed BY you. That being the case, if your attorney is not doing their absolute best to represent you and protect your legal interests there is no fault or shame in seeking out one that WILL properly represent you.

Pssssst...Hey AG, pull my case on Justia when you have a chance...See what it says
Quote 0 0
One word . . . .  C O M P L I C I T Y . . . What a tangled web! Adding the trusts to Plaintiff suits is a smart move.  I just think a larger net is called for.  Saw this other night while trying to figure out if all these new upstart companies servicing the default servicing industry would be considered accomplices along with the other usual MSF aiders and abettors, if MSF was proven in a court of law and acknowledged by the court.  Seems the playing field radically changes its characteristics in federal criminal prosecutions.  Would be nice to see default diservicers and I. banksters get the criminal prosecution they deserve.  May as well dream on.................. 
Accomplice ~ From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offence. For example, in a bank robbery, the person who points the gun at the teller and asks for the money is guilty of armed robbery. However, anyone else directly involved in the commission of the crime, such as the lookout or the getaway car driver, is an accomplice, even though in the absence of an underlying offence keeping a lookout or driving a car would not be an offence.

An accomplice differs from an accessory in that an accomplice is present at the actual crime, and could be prosecuted even if the main criminal is not charged or convicted. An accessory is generally not present at the actual crime, and may be subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal.

In older sources, an accomplice was often referred to as an abettor. This term is not in active use, having been replaced by accomplice.

At law, an accomplice has the same degree of guilt as the person he or she is assisting, is subject to prosecution for the same crime, and faces the same criminal penalties. As such, the three accomplices to the bank robbery above can also be found guilty of armed robbery even though only one stole the money.

The fairness of the doctrine that the accomplice is as guilty as the primary offender has been discussed many times, particularly in cases of capital crimes.

Aiding and Abetting under U.S. Law

Courts often refer to aiding and abetting as an alternate theory of liability rather than a separate crime. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2, aiding and abetting liability is available in all federal criminal prosecutions; however, the availability and extent of civil aiding and abetting liability varies from statute to statute. Where available, aiding and abetting liability generally requires three elements: 1) an underlying violation by a principal; 2) knowledge of that violation and/or the intent to facilitate the violation; and 3) assistance to the principal in the violation. As indicated by the Supreme Court, “In order to aid and abet another to commit a crime it is necessary that a defendant 'in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed.” Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 618 (1949) quoting Judge Learned Hand in U.S. v. Peoni 100 F.2d 401, 402 (2d. Cir. 1938).

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...