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
Here's an unusual situation - I think. Let's say a loan was assigned at the closing and the assignment recording fee shows on the HUD-1. And the assignment was later properly recorded. This is the only assignment that occurred since the closing in 1998. However, when the lender presented a copy of the mortgage, allegedly a true copy of the original, it was discovered not to be a true copy. The last page with the signatures had been altered and part of the stamp of the notary (in the middle of the page) is missing. It seems the originals must have been misplaced and they tried to re-create the document. It would be a really bad cut and paste job because anyone can look at the "true" original from the title records and easily tell it was not a copy.

The copy of the note shows as being payable to the assignee, but it also looks suspicious.

The question is: Does it matter if the mortgage and note have been altered if there's concrete proof of a valid assignment? Can a person hang their hat on any of this in defense of a foreclosure in a judicial state?
Quote 0 0
Here are some ideas :

1.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/36763239/Argue-Florida-Assignment-Fraud-to-Judges-1

2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55044658/BK-Vacate-Judgment-LPS-Fraud-Doble-V-Deutsche

3. http://www.scribd.com/doc/36655561/Motion-Vacate-Judgment-Fraud-on-Court-Request-Evidentiary-Hearing

More Court Opinion on fraudulent assignments at
http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/3011893
Quote 0 0
ka
Quote:
Does it matter if the mortgage and note have been altered if there's concrete proof of a valid assignment?  Can a person hang their hat on any of this in defense of a foreclosure in a judicial state?


pat:

The answer probably depends upon both the nature of the alteration as well as the laws of your jurisdiction.

You might want to take a look at Mr. Roper's thread:

Alteration of Instruments
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Alteration-of-Instruments-5057829

 
A key question is whether the alteration is material.

For example, suppose that an instrument is altered after execution by the addition of some reference loan number or some other indicia which does not actually alter the written contract language in any way.

Such an alteration would probably be found not to be material in any state, since the change doesn't actually alter the express intention of the parties.

By contrast, an alteration of the loan amount, maturity date, payment amounts, rate of interest, or some other similar term would usually be a material alteration.

Somewhere in between are other alterations that might implicate the contract language, but which are somewhat less significant.

For example, suppose that the original instrument contained one or more typos and one of the parties subsequently sought to correct these typos or to add a missing word that had been omitted through some mistake such as a poor printing.

Generally, a court will look to the intention of the parties in construcing and interpretting a contract or instrument.  The court will generally infer that parties which have manifested their assent to voluntarily enter into a contractual relationship generally intended that the contract be carried forward and will endeavor to give effect to the parties' intentions.

To the extent that a post execution alteration is minor and is consistent with the parties' intentions, it is unlikely to result in the extinguishment of the instrument.  However, to the extent that a change does violence to the original intention, it could result in the voiding of the instrument.

*

I have seen some cases which seem to show that the forgery of an authentication can void an instrument.  In other places, such a forgery might only preclude the recording of the instrument.  Where the instrument is already recorded, getting the recording tossed due to the belated discovery of an alteration might be problematic.

Also, note that where you have been shown a copy that seems to have been altered, this might or might not reflect the alteration of the original OR the alteration of the original presented for recording.  Make sure you obtain a copy of the instrument as recorded with the Clerk or other recorder.  Compare it carefully to the copy you received at closing and the copy you were furnished.  You may also want to inspect the original and/or to explore this through discovery.

Overall, my suspicion is that this is going to prove to be a fairly minor or weak element of a defense.  But to the extent that there has been a material alteration, I would think that you would want to assert this defense and use it in conjunction with a variety of other defenses which are discussed elsewhere within the Forum and at this site.  At a minimum, this might create a disputed fact issue which could preclude summary judgment or at least delay judgment.
Quote 0 0

Thanks all.

No, the document had not been changed in any material way. The difference is only in the signature and notary area.  My signature is not the same as it appears on the copy I have.

As I mentioned, I do have the title search.  That’s how I found out.  It looks to be a cut and paste job of the signature area only.  We all know our signatures are never exactly the same every time.  And on the mortgage they provided, neither my signature nor the signature of the notary are the same. Also, the signatures are in slightly different places.  On the true copy from the title search, the notary had a stamp of her name and she stamped it below her signature.  On the copy provided by my lender, the stamp of her name is missing completely.  And the notary’s license stamp is in a completely different place.

I realize such an incident won’t get me a free house (boo hoo), but I was thinking it will still be fraud upon the court (unclean hands) once it is submitted to the court.   This would be the tenth thing on a long list of egregious acts by the servicer.

I received the copy from my servicer in a response to my QWR.  The complaint has not yet been filed so no discovery yet, but will surely request to see a wet ink copy at that time.

I will read the links everyone sent.  Thanks again.  Please follow up if anyone has further comments.

Happy New Year !!!
Quote 0 0

The issue of fraudulent  assignments often used by homeowner attorneys in Motion to Dimiss; added as Affirmative Defenses in the Answer or use it as defense in Opposition to Bank Motion to Summary Jugdment or Motion to Vacate Judgment.

Then usually Homeowner  get some kind of settlement from Bank  which may be acceptable to homeowner. These settlements details are not recorded .

 

However, at the early stage of the lawsuit, I would not educate the Bank about ANY of their mistakes or fraud. Let they dig their own holes.  I would keep the ammunition secret and bring them out at the right time. That is the reason why we need experienced lawyers.

 

 

 

 

Quote 0 0

Pat,

Why do you send QWR when the lawsuit is not yet filed ? By requesting Wet Ink document before the lawsuit is filed, you are alarming the Bank of your possible defense and their mistakes thus deprive yourself many effective defenses whenever the foreclosure lawsuit will be filed.  

 

There are many legal steps required by law when Banks file foreclosure lawsuit. Let them dig their own holes to bury themselves. I would not wake up the Monster. I know some people did not get the foreclosure lawsuit several months after the day they stop paying mortgage. I would for now spend my time to do foreclosure defense research and look for good lawyer to prepare for the battle.

Quote 0 0
"Why do you send QWR when the lawsuit is not yet filed ? By requesting Wet Ink document before the lawsuit is filed, you are alarming the Bank of your possible defense and their mistakes thus deprive yourself many effective defenses whenever the foreclosure lawsuit will be filed.  

 

There are many legal steps required by law when Banks file foreclosure lawsuit. Let them dig their own holes to bury themselves. I would not wake up the Monster. I know some people did not get the foreclosure lawsuit several months after the day they stop paying mortgage. I would for now spend my time to do foreclosure defense research and look for good lawyer to prepare for the battle."


Actually, I didn't alert them to anything.  They have no clue that I know what I know.  My QWR was focusing on many other servicing issues and was sent a while back.  Asking for the note and mortgage was done just because I could - as a "by the way" kind of thing   In my QWR, I did not ask for a wet ink copy.  I only asked for a copy.  When I sent the QWR, I knew nothing about the altered copies since I got the title search after they responded to my QWR.   "Wet ink" would be saved for after the complaint is filed.  Fact is, had I not sent the QWR and asked for the docs, I wouldn't know what I know now.  So far, sending the QWR (when I did) has been the best move I could have made.


Using a QWR at the proper time has many advantages.  And you can't wait too late to send it because the servicer has 60 business days to respond.  In my case, it gave me much information to use against them.  Wouldn't matter whether the info was discovered now or later.  They can't hide the fraud that was committed that has been proved in the records they gave me.  In fact, had I not sent the QWR, I would not be able to make the CFA claim that I have.  There are a ton of repercussions for not responding to the QWR.


Yes, my focus for the past 12 months has been foreclosure research.  Hence why I am here asking questions. I do plan on getting an attorney since I have RESPA claims and CFA claims that can help cover attorney fees.  However, I do not want to entirely rely on an attorney to find every defense.  I want to be fully involved in my defense.  I have obtained copies of foreclosure filings from alleged foreclosure defense attorneys that were just horrid. They don't know everything.


I'll never forget years ago I relied on an attorney to know his job and do his job properly - only to find out years later, he was only looking out for himself and failed me miserably.

Quote 0 0
ka
Ann:

As I understand Pat's situation, the issue is with possible alteration of the mortgage itself rather than a defect in the purported assisgnment.

*

Pat:

If you have substantial equity in the property, you need to focus on avoiding foreclosure.  If you are upside down on the property and considering a strategic default, these facts could present an interesting situation.

The facts you describe do not really make much sense.  I say this not to dispute or question the facts as you describe them, but rather to point out that most irregularities found in mortgage documents can be explained by some basic premise about something the originating lender or mortgage broker was trying to accomplish.

Be sure to scrutinize not only every key provision of the loan, but also the boilerplate language of the contract itself.  Make certain that both are identicial in every respect.

I say this because two reasons to forge a signature and do a new notary page are (a) to ALTER the basic terms of the mortgage essentially using a bait and switch and (b) to correct a major defect in the instrument presented to the borrower for signature.  Of course, the reasonable thing to do in the latter case would be to re-present the instrument for the signature of the borrower.

Forging signatures onto an identical security instrument makes far less sense.

There are also two other possible explanations at least somewhat more consistent with the facts you recite.  First, the signature page may have simply been lost or misplaced following the closing.  When this was discovered in some basic document review, the missing signature page could have then been forged.  This seems to me to be the most logical theory which fits the facts as described.

Second, there could have been some other defect in the signature page, particularly the notarization, of a nature that precluded any recording of the document.  This seems inconsistent with what you are describing as the copy in your possession which seems to contain a valid authentication.  If the signature was proper and the authentication was actually valid, there would be no reason to substitute a forgery for a valid original.  You might try to get some expert, such as Mr. Roper to take a look at the instruments.

Slightly departing from the facts you recite, suppose that the original had been signed but not notarized.  The notary, often an employee of the title company, might have been reluctant to belatedly add the missing notarization.  The correct procedure would have been to obtain a new signature from the borrower.  In such a case, the Lender might have simply forged both the borrower's signature and the missing authentication and then sent this forward for recording.  The original page with the missing or defective authentication might have still been retained and preserved.

This latter situation seems particularly bizarre, but bear in mind that it is the disposition of the original rather than the recorded copy that is probably determinative of alteration.  In most jurisdictions, a proper authentication is not required for the instrument to be effective.  But a proper authentication IS necessary almost everywhere to entitle the document to be recorded.

Since alteration of the original could void the instrument, if there was an irregularity which precluded the recording of the instrument, the forgery could have been orchestrated solely to obtain the recording, in which case the original might still exist and could be brought forward in a foreclosure.

Again, this all ay be academic if you remain current and avoid default.

*

Generally, lenders do not have to prove the validity of the signature of a negotiable instrument (promissory note) under the UCC.  A valid authentication is usually taken as prima facia proof of the execution of the mortgage security instrument or deed of trust almost everywhere.

If you find yourself in court and take the position that you didn't execute that particular instrument, but that you executed another which was identical, I think that the Judge is going to simply get bored.  By contrast, if you alleged that you had never executed the instrument at all or that you had executed another different instrument, this might be a sufficient basis to create a major dispute.

Alleging that you didn't execute any instrument, would be unsound when this is untrue.  Bear in mind that the plaintiff will have other documents bearing your signature, evidence of the monies advanced, etc.

If there was some material difference between the instrument you really executed and the instrument brought forward by the plaintiff, then this could form the basis for some avoidance.  It is unclear to me what would happen if it could be proven that the instrument furnished was a forgery, where the proof was the introduction of a true copy of the actual instrument.

The outcome would probably depend upon both the peculiarities of the case law of a particulr jurisdiction, as well as the skill of your attorney.

Bear in mind that unless similar mischief was found with the promissory note, even a voiding of the mortgage would usually not effect a discharge of the debt evidenced by the promissory note, though it could yield the note unsecured.  The value of this would vary widely depending upon the existence of homestead laws in your jurisdiction, assertion of the homestead declaration, as well as nature and amounts of exempt property in a bankruptcy setting.

Ann's point about taking care not to take the plaintiff to school is also well stated.  You need to play your cards close to your vest.

Depending upon the nature of any modification you might negotiate, you might be required to execute new instruments which would reaffirm and ratify the existence of both the debt and the mortgage security.  This might prove to be unwise if the defect was really substantive.
Quote 0 0
ka, I have no idea why they did what they did.  But I want to know eventually.

I agree it makes no sense.   Given the true copy of the mortgage is allegedly on record, easy to obtain, and easy to compare, it's perplexing.  But lots of moves these servicers make are nonsensical and based on default judgments.

As mentioned in my previous post, this servicer has a history of doing things beneath the belt. 

It is indeed an identical security agreement.  My loan is FHA so the agreement is boilerplate. Even more crazy, right?

But as I first stated, I believe it is an issue of them not having the wet ink copy. Since 95% of foreclosures in my state go uncontested, they only stand a 5% chance of getting caught.  And even less chance if that particular fact isn't questioned.

If in court, I would never lie about having signed the original mortgage.  That's not my goal in any way - never occurred to me and even sounds foolish.  But there must be some reason why they put together that document and I want to know why.  For if it could never affect anything, then why was it done?

In the end, my goal is to have enough irons in the fire to cause them to settle for something very reasonable.  Not trying to get a free house.  Nice thought, but irrational.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.  Gives me more thought.    :-)



Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
But as I first stated, I believe it is an issue of them not having the wet ink copy. Since 95% of foreclosures in my state go uncontested, they only stand a 5% chance of getting caught. And even less chance if that particular fact isn't questioned.

The belief that the mortgage investor lacks a "wet ink copy" is a MYTH.  In reality, this essentially NEVER HAPPENS.

The wet ink original is in the vaults of the institutional custodian.  The servicer does not have the wet ink original, the institutional custodian does.

If you are proceeding on the theory that the mortgage investor will be unable to produce the wet ink original at trial, then you are in for a rude awakening and an almost certain loss.

*

One thin about your description in the facts is unclear to me.  Are you relating that you have a copy of the original instrument from the closing and that this copy in your possession differs from that found within the public records and the copy given to you from the QWR?  Or are you asserting that you obtained a copy from the public records and this recorded copy differs from the copy given to you via QWR?

Note that the original instrument is sent to the clerk or recorder for recording.  At securitization, this original instrument would have then been delivered to the institutional trustee, which would in turn entrust the instrument to the institutional custodian.

The servicer does not have the original, but would usually have a digital copy scanned from a copy of the original followign closing and prior to securitization.

If the recorded instrument shows signs of mischief as to the signature and authentication page, this is one matter.  If the copy furnished to you as a result of the QWR is altered, this is quite another.

Do you still have the copy given to you at closing and is this the basis of comparison?

If you believe that you have some advantage as a consequence of the provision of an altered copy via QWR only, then, in my view you have nothing at all.  It is certainly possible that if you default and they attach a copy of the instrument from the servicers' files to the complaint, this could create a bit of an opening.  However in my experience it is far more common for the foreclosure mill law firm to obtain a copy of the security instrument from a title abstract company, which will furnish the foreclosure mill the very same instrument that you obtained from the registry/recorder.

So the altered or anomolous copy you received via QWR is most likely to be nothing more than a distraction. 

Embrace of the belief that the mortgage investor cannot produce an original wet ink signature or BOTH the note and the mortgage security instrument would seem to me to be a certain prescription for disaster.  I have worked with a number of foreclosure defendants, including many that bought into this Internet myth/false paradigm.  I have yet to see or hear of a single instance nationally where the mortgage investor was unable to produce the wet ink signature of both the note and mortgage.

The idea that the original instruments have been lost or destroyed forms the basis of a number of debt elimination swindles and debt modification scams, nothing more.  It has been repeated and reposted often enough that there are many well meaning people in teh foreclosure defense community who believe this to be true.

Those borrowers with whom I am acquainted who have based their defense on this nonsense have ALL lost their homes.  Those borrowers who rely upon sound defenses are mostly still in their homes, some after as many as four years.  Take your pick.  You can choose to be a winner or a loser.
Quote 0 0
ka, I really do appreciate your responses.  Not attempting to get into a fuss here.  Things are tough enough as is.

Just searching for info.

Nowhere did I ever claim I have all my eggs in the basket of wet ink documents.  95% of my defense is based on other claims that are far more succinct and applicable to a meaningful defense. I mentioned above that this altered document thing was a by-product of the info I obtained via my QWR.  It is and never was my target.

I do know about custodians.  I also have read the entire lender origination and servicing agreement.  It's real clear where the wet ink docs "should" be. I also have case law in my state where if a legitimate issue is raised about the note, mortgage, or assignment, the judge can order the wet ink docs be presented to the court.

Again, I obtained my copy of the mortgage from my own title search.  My docs from closing are useless as they are not signed by anyone.  They are merely printed copies. Since I am only talking about signatures and the notary, and not alleging any terms were changed, they are not helpful for this purpose.
Quote 0 0
ka
Quote:
I do know about custodians. I also have read the entire lender origination and servicing agreement. It's real clear where the wet ink docs "should" be. I also have case law in my state where if a legitimate issue is raised about the note, mortgage, or assignment, the judge can order the wet ink docs be presented to the court.


Once again, I CAUTION YOU against ANY IDEA that the purported mortgage investor would be unable to produce the original wet ink signature if ordered to do so.  THIS IS A DEAD END!

I have read literally thousands of decisions at both the trial and appellate level over the past five years and am UNAWARE of a single instance where a plaintiff was unable to produce an "original wet ink instrument" when ordered to do so.  The MYTH that the lener could NOT produce a wet ink original started with some paranoid delusions and then was seized upon by swindlers who have used this as a foundation to steal literally millions from distressed borrowers who believe this hokum.

Pressing for an order for the production of the "wet ink signature" is very often precisely the OPPOSITE of what a thoughtful defendant should do and will very often result in a LOSS OF THE CASE.  The reason is that very often there are serious evidentiary deficiencies with the witnesses used to prove up copies.  If you ATTACK these evidentiary deficiencies, you can often have evidence EXCLUDED.  Originals are self authenticating.  If you press for the production of the originals, and these are produced, presto YOU LOSE.

If you are more thoughtful and strategic about your defensive case, you let the plaintiff take shortcuts, ask careful and well thought out discovery questions and use the plaintiff's evidence against them.  In this way, you eviscerate the plaintiff's case and can WIN.

Pressing for the originals is the fastest way to LOSE YOUR CASE. 

Look through posts within this Forum showing cases where a defendant has prevailed.  THE PATTERN IS VERY CLEAR!
Quote 0 0
ka
Quote:
It's real clear where the wet ink docs "should" be.


This sentence is a source of particular ALARM.  It suggests that you have bought into the FALSE PARADIGM that the documents were not delivered to the institutional custodian.

This is simply NONSENSE!

There is not a single deposition which actually supports this MYTH.  Search far and wide.  You will find NO CASES and NO EVIDENCE that the documents are anywhere other than the place that the securitization documents assure that they will be found.

Instead, when you find assertions that the documents are likely to be MISSING, you will find that this is almost uniformly an indication that you have stumbled upon a web site operated by a swindler who is engaged in sales of useless materials as part of a debt elimination scam.  Anyone asserting that the documents are missing from the vaults of the institutional custodian is NOT YOUR FRIEND.  Such a person is merely another predator seeking to rip you off.
Quote 0 0
In your effort to assist ka, your posts have become off-topic, conclusionary and almost violent.  No need to be verbally belligerent to share info.

"Stumbled upon scam websites?"  Jeez.

Quote 0 0
t
Quote:
In your effort to assist ka, your posts have become off-topic, conclusionary and almost violent.  No need to be verbally belligerent to share info.


ka is correct to be harsh pat.  Here at the Forum, we have seen hundreds lose their homes to this drivel about lenders being unable to produce wet ink documents.  There is simply no evidence whatsoever that this has ever been the case.

Your post at least implicitly gives further credence to the nonsense and someone reading this thread might very well think that there was some reason to believe that there was some possible legitimacy to the discredited theory.

You should research the many other useful threads here before biting the hand that feeds you.  ka is correct that only swindlers are pushing this theory.  This includes several so called foreclosure defense websites that have been victimizing borrowers for several years.

ka has given you good and thoughtful answers and you owe ka an apology!
Quote 0 0
t
ka is quoting almost verbatim from some of Mr. Roper's older posts:

Personal Knowledge, Hearsay, Conclusory Averments and the Best Evidence Rule

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Personal-Knowledge-Hearsay-Conclusory-Averments-and-the-Best-Evidence-Rule-4903945

 

MERS Should Have Done & Did

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/MERS-Should-Have-Done-amp-Did-5014355

 

Remedies for a Wrongful Foreclosure
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Remedies-for-a-Wrongful-Foreclosure-5045486


Mr. Roper exposed the debt elimination swindles in several other posts at the Forum, but the site administrators took these down.

Mr. Roper has openly challenged these swindlers for several years and they have never been able to produce any evidence that documents were ever actually missing from the vaults of the institutional custodian.  The swindlers repeatedly attacked Mr. Roper, but time has shown that he was right all along.
Quote 0 0
John
Be wear wat ka say pat!!!!  ka lik Mr. Roper!!

Mr. Roper say no about the quite title.

Herb and Rapha say give Mike H. the paymint ever mons.  Mike will help any bodie as long as you pay him money.  When you pay him all after he re vele the secrit stratedgie to make the quite title!!

Mr grafld say all docs gone!!!  Jus pay to Mike H. a do not lisen to ka.  Also special do not lisen to Mr Roper!  Never!!
Quote 0 0
Bill
I didn't comment because ka gave a correct, in-depth, response, but Pat seems to be wasting a LOT of time on what HE interprets as a discrepancy in a signature page that really doesn't lead to much of an argument at all.

Quote:

I realize such an incident won’t get me a free house (boo hoo), but I was thinking it will still be fraud upon the court (unclean hands) once it is submitted to the court.   This would be the tenth thing on a long list of egregious acts by the servicer


If you read the cases in your jurisdiction an incorrect copy of a document attached to a pleading is NOT going to be fraud upon the court.  Fraud upon the court is NOT because an attorney makes a mistake.  The judge was an attorney.  He knows they have Para-Legals.  He knows they rely on Para-Legals.   Because an attorney makes a "mistake" and attaches the wrong copy of something to a pleading is NOT even fraud, let alone fraud upon the court. 

For example, You make the discrepancy argument and the opposing attorney tells the Judge "It should have been a correct copy but it wasn't.  I went to the County Recorder's office and got a certified copy for the Court"  where does that leave ANY of your arguments?  Even worse, what are you going to say when the judge looks you in the face and asks if you executed a mortgage?  THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A WET SIGNATURE MORTGAGE TO ENFORCE THE MORTGAGE.  THEY JUST NEED TO PROVE THEY HAVE A NOTE SECURED BY A MORTGAGE AND A CERTIFIED COPY FROM THE RECORDER'S OFFICE WILL DO THAT JUST FINE.

You DID execute a mortgage.  When you executed and delivered the mortgage it is a valid mortgage.  Unless you find something significant "changed" I don't think you have an argument at all. 

This is further exasperated by the fact the mortgage follows the note.  Just about ALL jurisdictions follow this logic. 

Quote:

The question is: Does it matter if the mortgage and note have been altered if there's concrete proof of a valid assignment? Can a person hang their hat on any of this in defense of a foreclosure in a judicial state?



If there is a valid copy of the mortgage recorded, there is "concrete proof of a valid assignment", you are really just wasting your time with any "mortgage" related argument at all.  The mortgage follows the note.  Even without an assignment of the mortgage the note holder has an equitable right to enforce the mortgage.  With a "concrete assignment" (which I have NEVER seen proof of in a foreclosure) there is NO question the note holder can enforce the mortgage.  ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE MOOT.
 
Quote:
In your effort to assist ka, your posts have become off-topic, conclusionary and almost violent.  No need to be verbally belligerent to share info.

"Stumbled upon scam websites?"  Jeez.


 
You are "reaching" too hard and far to make an argument where there is NOT going to be one.  You also seem to be in DENIAL about these "holes" in your arguments.  Ka gave you very to the point, in-depth, responses.  I don't see how he became "off-topic, conclusionary, and almost violent".  Many Pro Se homeowners put on "blinders" when they think they have a can't lose argument and they finally come off when they are looking for a place to rent.  Take off the "Beer Goggles" before it's too late.


Quote 0 0
ka
Quote:
In your effort to assist ka, your posts have become off-topic, conclusionary and almost violent. No need to be verbally belligerent to share info.

 
Pat:
 
Perhaps you will find the ever helpful posts by John as well as his counsellors Herb and Rapha to be more helpful as well as less violent and verbally beligerant!  John certainly seems to be an articulate, scholarly and congenial fellow, though he seems to dislike myself and Mr. Roper.
 
You certainly seem not to need my further advice, since you are smarter than the rest of us.
 
Best of luck to you!
 
P.S. -- You may be reasonably assured that Mike H. will be contacting you soon so that you can give him all your money.  Be sure to ask him about his 100 cent guaranty!
Quote 0 0
t

I would further note that after trying to extend the perpetration of the myth that securitization paperwork is missing, Pat persistently includes an e-mail link in each post.

 

This was the MO of Mike H. and several of his confederates.  They make various posts under several pretexts, sometimes pretending to be a distressed borrower with a quesiton, including an e-mail link.  Thereafter, they seek to "befriend" Forum participants before trying to coax distressed borrowers into various swindles.  They do this by both direct solicitations and through false representations that they have succeeded in obtaining a "free house" using purported debt elimination scams, including quiet title.

 

That Pat quickly attacked ka after ka's informative posts is also characteristic of Mike H.'s Chris Dix's corrupt and deceptive practices in perpetrating fraud.  Why would Pat be offended at mention of swindles if Pat was on the level? 

 

It appears to me that the trolls are back, trying to hijack Forum threads and use the Forum to prey on distressed borrowers.

Quote 0 0
Bill
t wrote:
I would further note that after trying to extend the perpetration of the myth that securitization paperwork is missing, Pat persistently includes an e-mail link in each post.

This was the MO of Mike H. and several of his confederates.  They make various posts under several pretexts, sometimes pretending to be a distressed borrower with a quesiton, including an e-mail link.  Thereafter, they seek to "befriend" Forum participants before trying to coax distressed borrowers into various swindles.  They do this by both direct solicitations and through false representations that they have succeeded in obtaining a "free house" using purported debt elimination scams, including quiet title.

That Pat quickly attacked ka after ka's informative posts is also characteristic of Mike H.'s Chris Dix's corrupt and deceptive practices in perpetrating fraud.  Why would Pat be offended at mention of swindles if Pat was on the level? 
 
It appears to me that the trolls are back, trying to hijack Forum threads and use the Forum to prey on distressed borrowers.


+1
Quote 0 0
There have been several of these trolls back on the threads......
Thankfully there are some of us who catch on to decipher the difference!!!


To the long time posters please don't let the trolls ruin the much great info that has been already givin use your search feature cause every thing you could possibly need..... Is already here just takes time to dig!
& NOT THE WINGNUT THEORIES EITHER!
Quote 0 0

Quote from Mr. Roper:

 

... I believe that your theory that the plaintiff does NOT HAVE the promissory note is probably ultimately erroneous. Moreover, I believe that most of the "produce the note" strategies advocated by others are VERY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

If you were to have immediately interposed a defense based upon a produce the note strategy, the plaintiff just goes to the vaults of the institutional custodian and obtains the original promissory note. THEN YOU LOSE.

By contrast, a BETTER STRATEGY is to allow the plaintiff to wrap its arms around its own defective evidence, an often UNINDORSED COPY of the promissory note and a forged assignment. Let then bring in a perjured affidavit. Basically, you WANT them to plead the forged and perjured evidence rather than quickly wisening up and getting truthful evidence. Only AFTER they are committed, do you want to show the falsity of this evidence!

 

Unquote

Quote 0 0
ka

Ann:

 

Amen!

 

In corresponding with various REAL and longstanding Forum participants, I have found that there are a number who have successfully employed Mr. ROPER's suggested strategies to forestall foreclosures for periods ranging from one to five years.  These folks uniformly praise the well thought out strategies.  Borrowers who are bright, conscientious and meticulous do pretty well.

 

In corresponding with those who have embraced the produce the note strategies advocated by the swindlers, I haven't yet found a single borrower that ever got past one year.  Despite repeated assertions that Mike H. has some guaranteed strategy to obtain Quiet Title, no one has ever been able to identify a single case in which Mike has done anything other than rip off the borrower through his unauthorized practice of law, while the borrower LOSES their home.

 

I hear from this latter constituency that they lost because of crooked and corrupt judges, forged and fabricated evidence, all sorts of alibis.  But EVERYONE has uniformly LOST.  The bottom line is that of the group that sings Mike H.'s praises and advocates produce the note or Quiet Title strategies, one can find nothing but guillible, homeless zealots who are waiting for the revelation of the "secret strategy", to be ultimately revealed by Mike, possilby to coincide with the Rapture and end of the earth.  This is convenient for Mike, since he has already spent the money given to him by the gullible and the secret strategy is merely part of the swindle.

 

Quote 0 0
t
Pat sure disappeared quickly once the words scam and swindle appeared!

Proposed New Years' Resolution:

In 2012, the Forum should have 90% fewer trolls working for the swindlers!
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...