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 »
John Lewis wrote:

 

Re: PaulR

 

 

A? for you PaulR:  please define ur definition of “legal thoroughness” as it applies to any of “Acesful” posts to date?




Sorry, I'm not going to play your game.  Apparently there's more than one horse's ass around here.  Do you need a definition of "horse's ass" as it applies here?
Quote 0 0
George Burns
PaulR

It seems that you might not have read the various posts by acesful on the other threads.

It is not a matter or legal thoroughness or even accuracy but one of credibility.

He  was going to file an action, then he was going to file a Motion to Dismiss etc rather than filing an Answer to a Complaint. A contradiction. Filing an action is done by a Plaintiff, whereas answering is done by a Defendant. You can't be both in the same case.

Then he was going to write a letter and maintained that position even after being corrected. This eliminates  a "legal thoroughness" defense.

Then it turns out that the house is his mother's and part of her estate still currently in Probate Court. That raises the question of Who is the Defendant?

It also raises the question of his ability to represent her and/or her estate. It probably has not yet been noticed by the Court, but it will. Then there is the issue of what the Probate Court will have to say.

There were many other questionable things and contradictions, but addressing them serves no additional purpose.

My reason for even posting a response to any of this was specifically to warn any readers who might be taking advice or making any decisions based on reading any of his posts. It has nothing to do with knowledge or legal thoroughness.
Quote 0 0
I believe that everyone reading this website understand that the info and ideas posted here are for informative and educational purposes only. As each case is different  and it is not recommended to post too much personal info here (The Dark Side may strolling the Internet), the ideas and "advice" are very general. Do your own research and search attorney advice before doing any legal steps.

However, this website provides a lot of up dated info and research case which has been very useful to many people. The website also provide a forum where people who are in distressful foreclosure situation can get some kind of moral comfort. So please be patient and tolerant to each other.The foreclosure defense is a long and exhaustive fight, any ideas and comfortive words are extremely helpful.

Two years ago I was a lost soul in the foreclosure defense matters and this site has been a comforting place to be .  I miss Mr. Roper and many other persons who used to post here. What's happened ?Where are they ?
Quote 0 0
Hi ALL

Please folks. I mean no disrespect to anyone on this board.

I have been pouring over case law and reading blogs. I take Black Law's 9th dictionary to bed with me every night. Please remember I am a man of limited means and of limited intelligence. I am trying to defend my home against a huge law firm. I only came here seeking knowledge. If I offended anyone I am truly sorry. If I have used improper legal terminologies and or insulted any ones intelligence with my ignorance of those terminologies then again I am truly sorry. I will do my due diligence any try harder to articulate my situation.

Please have some patience's with me. I have never had to deal in any legal matters.

Again I truly apologize to everyone, especially Mr. George Burns.

Please help me in my fight.

Best regards,

Acesfull
Quote 0 0

George Burns wrote:
PaulR

It seems that you might not have read the various posts by acesful on the other threads.

It is not a matter or legal thoroughness or even accuracy but one of credibility.

He  was going to file an action, then he was going to file a Motion to Dismiss etc rather than filing an Answer to a Complaint. A contradiction. Filing an action is done by a Plaintiff, whereas answering is done by a Defendant. You can't be both in the same case.

Then he was going to write a letter and maintained that position even after being corrected. This eliminates  a "legal thoroughness" defense.

Then it turns out that the house is his mother's and part of her estate still currently in Probate Court. That raises the question of Who is the Defendant?

It also raises the question of his ability to represent her and/or her estate. It probably has not yet been noticed by the Court, but it will. Then there is the issue of what the Probate Court will have to say.

There were many other questionable things and contradictions, but addressing them serves no additional purpose.

My reason for even posting a response to any of this was specifically to warn any readers who might be taking advice or making any decisions based on reading any of his posts. It has nothing to do with knowledge or legal thoroughness.
George, again no disrespect, but I believe you have my case and situation confused with derrick richards.

Please see my post in NY V Raftogianis for a clearer picture of my case.

 

Thank you for your time and your replies.

 

Best regards

Quote 0 0
George Burns
acesfull

I owe you a partial apology.

I really did cross some of your things with someone else, but I am not sure iit was Derrick Richards.

My apology is partial because of that crossing but both of you are guilty of the same confused and sometimes contradictory postings.

Next time I will have to watch the timing of my medications better.
Quote 0 0
Hi George Burns,

A partial apologize is Fully accepted. If you get some extra time. Please read my post in the Bank of NY v Raftogianis.

This case will give you some background into how I am proceeding with my foreclosure case.

The case will be held in NJ presided over by the same Judge that made the land mark decision in the above referenced case in terms of STANDING.

I fully intend to study this case and will be applying the same strategies as the attorney in this case.

Next week I will be off to the court house to try to get a copy of the case.
From the complaint straight thru to Judge Todd's treaties on the subject of Standing.  I will copy every page if need be. This case is going to help me win my case. I am certain of it.

George, thank you again, sorry we got off on the wrong foot.
Your a great contributor to this board and I appreciate the time and effort you give to this site.

TIA.

Best regards

Acesfull
Quote 0 0
George Burns wrote:
acesfull

I owe you a partial apology.

I really did cross some of your things with someone else, but I am not sure iit was Derrick Richards.

My apology is partial because of that crossing but both of you are guilty of the same confused and sometimes contradictory postings.

Next time I will have to watch the timing of my medications better.


Wow.....Shameful of you to Start in about the confusing/contradicting postings!! People come here for HELP and get BLACK BALLED just for asking for a little HELP/INSIGHT!?!?!
Quote 0 0

I am a first time poster - I admire your knowledge and would like your input if you would be so kind.

 

Question – please respond – slightly off topic (sorry)!

Can a loan that has been Charged off by Litton on 4/2010 still remain in Fremont Home Loan Trust 2005-E?

New servicer Ocwen sent a response letter to my QWR and they state the loan was charged off by Litton on 4/2010 but, I am still liable for the repayment of the debt.
I have reviewed the PSA and this loan was in default during the first two years of the trust and many years after too. Is it possible for such a loan to remain in the trust?
I am directed to ask my servicer who holds my deed but is it possible my servicer is WRONG?

In the same response letter Ocwen states – (because I requested this information in my QWR) – “the beneficial holder of the loan is HSBC Bank USA NA as Trustee under the pooling and servicing agreement dated as of Dec. 1, 2005, Fremont Home Loan 2005-E”.

I have a loan mod from Fremont dated 2007 on the loan mod, it is Fremont and not HSBC listed as the “Lender” so this would mean the loan was not in the trust by 2007 – RIGHT?

Is it at all possible a loan discharged by the servicer could still remain in the trust?

Is it time to get a lawyer? I have the loan numbers assigned to both of my loans in the trust – I think the first has been removed at some point too – I live in GA and get foreclosure sale notices published and then canceled and have been delinquent for 10 months at times.

If not in the trust – then Ocwen who is servicing for HSBC would have no reason to service this loan?

PS the loan was in default when transfered to Litton and also when transfered to Ocwen – so per FDCPA rules the mortgage servicers are acting as a debt collector and can be fined if they have no claim to foreclose on my property – right?

Any insight would be greatly appreciated!!!

Thanks to all and I enjoy reading the post and comments!!! VERY INFORMATIVE!

Jen in GA!

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...