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
Show full post »
Nan

Quote:
Chuck, I am not sure why you are so rude and condescending. It is painful to get around your meanness but your personal demeanor is not the real issue, as you have to live with the bitterness inside you not me.

Clearly you have given these issues some thought and for that, I do thank you for taking the time to share your insights and understanding. Please do not feel obligated to continue in this discussion as it clearly upsets and frustrates you.

 

You seem not to be getting it.  There are several Forum regulars who are very generous with their time.

 

New visitors appear and ask questions.  The questions are politely answered and good, thoughtful responses are given.  But the answers are often not what the borrower/defendant wants to hear and are contrary to what the borrower has heard from a variety of other sources which are putting out false information to promote scams.

 

The new visitor remains in denial that the theory they are exploring is total rubbish.  The senior participants who have put hundreds or thousands of hours into voluntarily helping people become frustrated and testy.

 

Longstanding Forum members have watched a parade of new participants show up, participate for a while and, when they are in denial and tilting at windmills, almost always lose their house.

 

In the meantime, these regulars have successfully resisted foreclosure for years using very sound legal strategies.

 

The best of the senior participants are better informed than about 99% of licensed lawyers.  They are aware of the outcomes of cases which have never been publicly posted or published.  You ignore their advice at your peril! 

 

You owe Chuck an apology.  He gave you some very sound answers!!  Bill, George Burns and t also gave you some useful counsel.

Quote 0 0
Bill
Nan wrote:

Quote:
Chuck, I am not sure why you are so rude and condescending. It is painful to get around your meanness but your personal demeanor is not the real issue, as you have to live with the bitterness inside you not me.

Clearly you have given these issues some thought and for that, I do thank you for taking the time to share your insights and understanding. Please do not feel obligated to continue in this discussion as it clearly upsets and frustrates you.

 

You seem not to be getting it.  There are several Forum regulars who are very generous with their time.

 

New visitors appear and ask questions.  The questions are politely answered and good, thoughtful responses are given.  But the answers are often not what the borrower/defendant wants to hear and are contrary to what the borrower has heard from a variety of other sources which are putting out false information to promote scams.

 

The new visitor remains in denial that the theory they are exploring is total rubbish.  The senior participants who have put hundreds or thousands of hours into voluntarily helping people become frustrated and testy.

 

Longstanding Forum members have watched a parade of new participants show up, participate for a while and, when they are in denial and tilting at windmills, almost always lose their house.

 

In the meantime, these regulars have successfully resisted foreclosure for years using very sound legal strategies.

 

The best of the senior participants are better informed than about 99% of licensed lawyers.  They are aware of the outcomes of cases which have never been publicly posted or published.  You ignore their advice at your peril! 

 

You owe Chuck an apology.  He gave you some very sound answers!!  Bill, George Burns and t also gave you some useful counsel.


+1

Every day we see people that post some idea that they think is fact by reading different websites.  You read it on the internet so it must be true.  Most of these websites out there are trying to sell something.  After reading a bunch of garbage on these websites, they are SURE they are correct and these unsupported assertions are FACT These sites such as Living Lies NEVER offer any cases that support their position.  Neil Garfield just gives his opinion and assertions that shows WHY YOU NEED TO BUY HIS AUDIT even after the FTC called all these audits a SCAM and there are NO cases to show that his audit has helped ANYONE after selling it for YEARS.

Rather than just dismiss the thoughtful post make by Chuck, is there ANY POSSIBILITY that you are wrong Simonee?  None at all?  You seem to be selectively replying to post because I asked you for AP cases that we should read that support your position but you have not posted any. 

Quote:
I'm not sure what "PROOF" you are referring to but in the White's decision the Court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction BECAUSE the notes were transferred/sold. prior to the Bankruptcy filing.  Do you have a different AP in this case where the Judge ruled differently???

Quote:
I am not in the position to give the specifics at this time.

I still haven't figured out if you and Abby are in cahoots with the swindlers or are just so blinded by "wanting this to be correct" that you refuse to look at the proof right in front of your face.  

Pull your head out of the sand so you can see the freight train coming.
Quote 0 0
Unregistered
Hey Bill,  have you tried looking in the mirror while you're posting here?
You can't verify your accusations either.

Quote 0 0
Bill
Unregistered wrote:
Hey Bill,  have you tried looking in the mirror while you're posting here?
You can't verify your accusations either.


I posted order after order on the first page of this post and in other threads that support my position.  What exactly am I not "verifying"?  I'm not trying to interpret or "guess" what is going to happen.  Everything I posted are black and white orders from the bankruptcy court.

Go away donkey.
Quote 0 0
cmc
Every time Bill posts something, it is the "Fact". He backs it up. When he asks someone for the facts, they seem to leave the forum. And let's not mention that now some of these "Trolls" can leave a reply as unregistered. They don't even have the courage to sign in.

cmc
Quote 0 0
First, I am not selectively responding to the posts. If you read my response I shared that

"You have pointed out some holes/flaws in my line of thinking and I need to process what you wrote. As well as read what you recommended I read.  When I do...I will respond."

Reading the links and processing the information DOES take some time.   I came in here to have a discussion and to hear the good, bad the ugly of my thinking - why this needs to include personal attacks is confusing.  Nan is incorrect in that the answers are "politely" answered (as far as Chuck goes) as his reponses are peppered with insults.  If he is so right then why the need to be insulting with the information?  Clearly he is frustrated with my responses so I don't want him to feel obligated to answer. 

I would prefer a discussion with the different opinions absent the insults.  It is my understanding that is what this forum is for - a safe place to ask questions and debate without concern for being taken on a ride with a wingnut theory.  instead is appears to lead to attacks; the bitterness is palpable and distracting.  




Quote 0 0
Bill, have you read the Missal Report on the NC BK?  In that report he discusses a monthly report that was distributed through out New Century.  This monthly report contained an attached excel spreadsheet that gave the "precise reason for the loan being rejected on a loan level basis".  Reasons that were cited for the kick outs:

Tila/RESPA violations
Faulty appaisals with missing certificates, valuation issues, etc.
Missing documents including: Hud-1 Settlement Statements, missing Truth in lending disclosures, copy of promissory notes, missing RESPA disclosures etc.
Non arm length transactions

The list goes on.

     This was not for every loan; but these reports identified specific problematic loans.  In 2005 anywhere from 25 to 40% of the kick backs were for fautly appraisals (a growing concern through 2007 for NCM) and the kick backs represented anywhere from 4 to 8% of the total loans done for the month.  (And igornes the loans that were sent on because the investor had hit their limit of kick outs for the month)
     There are excerpts from manager emails telling employees that paperwork issues subjected NCM to "predatory lending claims, state and federal violations, etc."
     These were not for ALL of the borrowers; but THOSE specifically identified borrowers have potential claims and were known to NCM prior and during their BK and required only a review of the debtors books/records, just as Missal did.
     Absent from the Missal report and from the BK was how did NCM handle these problematic loans?  Did they go back and fix them?
     I also find it interesting that the Court accepted the WSJ as an acceptable forum - given their reader profile is that of a mid level manager earning 190k plus with a net worth of 2.1 million.  That does not exactly fit the profile of the perceived "subprime borrower".
Quote 0 0
Unregistered
Every 'registered' nic on this forum is as anonymous as is unregistered. 
It's laughable when one so called 'registered' nic calls another a troll for
being unregistered.
The point is this, there are about 4 or 5 so called 'registered' nics on this
forum who routinely attack and insult, as well as slander, those who come
here to read, learn, and ask questions.  And maybe  this socalled 'registered'
Mr.Roper has quit posting is because maybe the site administrator ask him to.
Maybe he was lawyering without a license.
It's no surprise to see the aggregate population of this forum become
ever decreasing.  The site admin might consider some monitors for the ilk
who take it on their own to be attack dogs.

Quote 0 0
cmc

There was a "TIME" when we were able to have some conversation without any interruptions. Everyone had their opinion (with facts). Some of us wanted to learn or understand something. That has all changed. We are loosing some very knowledgeable people. I haven't seen a handful of old participants for some time now... Moose, Equitable One, Ed Cage, Nye Lavelle, Arky Girl, Mr. Roper, and I am sorry if I missed someone ( I know I have, sorry). Now I know why. I am not very happy with this forum right now. It's getting out of hand. And not too interesting any more.

Quote 0 0
Bill
cmc wrote:

There was a "TIME" when we were able to have some conversation without any interruptions. Everyone had their opinion (with facts). Some of us wanted to learn or understand something. That has all changed. We are loosing some very knowledgeable people. I haven't seen a handful of old participants for some time now... Moose, Equitable One, Ed Cage, Nye Lavelle, Arky Girl, Mr. Roper, and I am sorry if I missed someone ( I know I have, sorry). Now I know why. I am not very happy with this forum right now. It's getting out of hand. And not too interesting any more.


+1

Time to move to another forum.  I already have one in mind.
Quote 0 0
Bert

The phenomenon discussed immediately above would seem to reflect a sort of "Gresham's law" as to message board participation.  The bad participants (scammers and swindlers) drive out the good.

 

Remarkably, the Forum has exhibited less evidence of being subject to Godwin's Law:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis. 

 

Although a Forum search currently yields thirty five posts mentioning Hitler, most of these are not accusations or comparisons of participants to Hitler.  Swindler seems to be a far more favored description, used in over one hundred posts to date.

Quote 0 0
rk
Quote:
Quote:
I do not think I am confused by this there seems to be a lot of cases exploring the whole “indorsement” issue. A made to order Note can only be transferred through negotiation with indorsement and delivery. If the indorsement was done years later, by a party with no authority – then the initial sale was never consummated.




There are volumes of cases on negotiation and indorsement. You just haven't read the volumes or the cases!



You already have the principle screwed up in the second sentence. You say "A made to order Note can only be transferred through negotiation with indorsement and delivery." This is NOT TRUE. It would be correct to say "A made to order Note can only be negotiated through indorsement and delivery."



A note can be transferred by delivery alone. See §3-203:



http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-203



A transferee can be entitled to enforce the instrument. See §3-301. particularly (ii):



http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-301



The transferee can also be entitled to the unqualified right to indorsement.



It is unclear what this means within the context of the corporate extinction of the payee. You seem to think this would extinguish the right of enforcement. I highly doubt it means that. More likely a court court order an equitable indorsement where this serves the ends of justice. Still the transferee would need to prove an entitlement, which might be at least challenging given the record-keeping issues and poor legal scholarship by the foreclosure mills.



Your statement that if the indorsement wasn't timely made that this would void the sale is also simply nonsense and shows that you have no core understanding of the issues or the law.



It has been noted repeatedly by Mr. Roper that ownership and holdership are distinct concepts. He is correct about this. ka and t have also posted about this. There is nothing mysterious about this. It is mainstream law taught in every law school in the U.S.



If New Century sold the ownership of the notes the NC Capital, then NC Capital owned the notes. A condition of sale might have been the valid negotiation of the notes, but like any other contractual condition, failure to complete the negotiation would NOT void the sale. To the contrary, it might only make the sale voidable.



Even so, it would be voidable only to the parties in privity to the contract, namely New Century and NC Capital.



Courts everywhere are committed both Constitutionally and by state statute and case law to preserve the sanctity of valid contracts and to carry out the intention of the parties.



If the parties intended to sell the notes and intended for the notes to be negotiated by indorsement, if the indorsement wasn't done properly, usually a party to the contract to seek to enforce the contract and order that the indorsement and delivery be made as contemplated.



Your notion that you can sit on the sidelines, read someone else's contract and then blow a whistle to decide whether the contract is being executed to YOUR satisfaction and simply declared the contract to be VOID is beyond absurd.



Parties to an agreement can elect to alter its terms, to waive various provisions or to cancel the contract. It is up to the parties, subject to the language of the instrument itself and the laws of the jurisdiction. You do NOT get a vote on the outcome as to someone else's contract.



YOU ARE WAY OFF INTO WINGNUT LAND!




Quote:
Now what I am wondering Chuck, is you said that the transfer is done by indorsement and delivery; but to have a “holder” status doesn’t the party ALSO have to take the Note in “good faith” with no known defect or claim against the Note? And if so, if NCM was using fraudulent appraisals and they sold it to an affiliate that knew of and condoned the fraudulent appraisals, then didn’t they take it knowing there was a potential claim against the Note?Just wondering.I am just starting to explore this.




I never said transfer was by indorsement and delivery. This is YOUR bastardization and misstatement of the law. This sentence again reflect your ignorance and your failure to read and understand what has already been posted.



Negotiation is by indorsement and delivery. Transfer is by delivery alone.



You once again confuse the status of holder, which entitles a party to a right of enforcement, with holder in due course, a status which confers immunity against select defenses.



RE-READ WHAT MR. ROPER HAS POSTED ABOUT TIS!



Next you are off talking about "fraudulent appraisals". I have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER IN THIS TOPIC AS IT IS MERELY A PRE-TEXT FOR SWINDLERS.



THERE ARE NO DEFENSES READILY AVAILABLE TO AVERAGE BORROWERS ON THIS BASIS. IT IS A SCAM, A SWINDLE, A CON. I HAVE NO INTEREST IN DISCUSSING IT FURTHER. READ EXISTING POSTS BY MR. ROPER, KA, T AND OTHERS.



If the purchaser KNEW that NC was procuring fraudulent appraisals, sure, one might make out a case for collusive fraud. This would still be subject to the statute of limitations. And now you have TWO proof thresholds, not one. You will bear the burden of proof in proving the existence of a fraud and also you will separately have to prove that the purchaser KNEW ABOUT and PARTICIPATED IN the fraud.



Good luck with that! Your fixation with these issues seems to show that you are NOT actually seriously interested in succeeding in a foreclosure defense and your unwillingness to devote time to actually school yourself up on the law assures that you will FAIL.



You need to WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. All I see are rants that show that you have been deceived, confused and have very poor judgment in assessing alternatives. That makes you a great mark for swindlers. It does NOT make me want to invest any further time in trying to help you!



Bye!
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...