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
stillinmyhome Show full post »
Joe wrote:
Quote:
Furthermore, not a single one of my students has ever lost
their home and I've helped over 300 people save their homes.


You are the one claiming to have "helped over 300 people dave their homes". You have repeatedly made various fraudulent claims and when others challenge you to provide case numbers or any other proof, you simply attack these people and never actually provide anything except false claims an arguments.

Show us even a single case number where you prepared some pleadings or responses (or anythign of value) with an outcome other than the borrower losing their home and being ripped off by you. You know you cannot do this!



Borrowers will lose their home 99.99999% of the time, with or without Attorney...this is a FACT!
Quote 0 0
w
+1
Quote 0 0
w
Joe +1

All one has to do is simply ask Mike H to provide the case information that he speaks of --- just one --- and since he, Mike H, has been 'advertising' on this Forum, he has been unable to answer this simple ? - not once!
Quote 0 0
Dear Hungarian,
Pardon me if I disagree with you. It is probably more like
90%.
As for proof, I cite the case of myself 04-ca-001783 in
Hillsborough County.
I am not authorized to give up the personal info on my students, nor am I advertising or soliciting anyones business.
Quote 0 0
?
Are you students attorneys?
Quote 0 0
....
Mike H wrote:
Dear Hungarian,
Pardon me if I disagree with you. It is probably more like
90%.
As for proof, I cite the case of myself 04-ca-001783 in
Hillsborough County.
I am not authorized to give up the personal info on my students, nor am I advertising or soliciting anyones business.


It has to be much higher than 90%. Just basic math would show that if it was 90% (1 out of 10) there would be thousands of homeowners that prevailed in their defense of their home, there would be volumes of case law in every jurisdiction. Most of foreclosures have been and still are handled with a default judgement in judicial states and no opposition is filed.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/06/19/business/19foreclosuregraphic.html?ref=business
Quote 0 0
w
"...." facts why do u always have to respond with facts jeezzzz!
Quote 0 0
Texas
Facts or confirmation.
Quote 0 0
Gwen
Quote:
I was wondering what others thought about the idea of chartering a bus to take victims to Mike Hansen's trial on September 28, 2012? We could share the exprenses and be present to let Judge Levens know about what Mike has done to so many borrowers. Maybe we could even meet with the judge and prosecutor to see what can be done to make him pay. Since the witness list is already set, it is probably too late to get to testify that Mike is a liar and a cheat. But at least we could show that everyone hate Mike H. and that it is best for him to lose his house too like what he done to so many other!!! May be we can also meet with attorney Katherine Renninger to tell her about all his scheme. Those who cannot attend can call Ms. Renninger to tell her what they know about Mike Hansen. Remember to explain this is about Case No. 09-CA-031484 / 292009CA031484A001HC.

We will never get our house back, but may be we can force him to give all the money back!


I heard about this from another board.

Where will the buses be leaving from and how much will the fare be? Will those attending also need to make arrangements for overnight accommodations?

Also, for those victims that cannot attend, can they submit an affidavit directly to the Judge in Mike Hansen's case? He should definitely be made to pay for what he has done!
Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
Of course you can... Check this concept out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae
Quote 0 0
Boyd
Quote:
Of course you can... Check this concept out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae


I think FnDoomed has given an incorrect answer to this question.

Usually, at both a civil and criminal trial a party has the right to cross-examine witnesses. For this reason, it is unusual for affidavit testimony to be admitted into evidence for a full trial. By contrast, in civil summary judgment proceedings, the evidence is usually by affidavit, but summary judgment cannot usually be obtained where there is conflicting fact evidence.

Also, typically in a civil matter, parties would have access to civil discovery, to include depositions where a witness could be examined under oath in advance of trial.

In a criminal proceeding, even a piece of $*#@ like Mike has a Constitutional right to confront witnesses.

If anyone who has been harmed by Mike H. wants to see this slime bucket prosecuted, they can make a criminal complaint possibly in both the place where Mike committed his evil acts, as well as the place where the harm occured. This is sometimes done by affidavit.

In the civil trial, it would be very unusual for a judge to allow a person to testify by affidavit, especially over the objection of one party. Also, it is unclear what the relevance would be in a civil foreclosure proceeding. The issue in Mike's foreclosure case is going to be whether the plaintiff is the holder of a note in which Mike is the maker, whether the note is secured by valid mortgage and whether Mike is in default.

Whether Mike makes his living engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, ripping off distressed borrowers isn't going to be any more relevant than whether another distressed borrower is a drug dealer or a rapist.

Those with criminal complaints about Mike should file their complaints with prosecutors. Those who are victims of unauthorized practice of law should notify the Florida and your local UPL enforcement authorities. Those who have been defrauded may also want to consult an attorney to see whether you have a viable civil cause of action. But realize that this dirtbag probably doesn't have two nickels to pay you back even if you got a judgment against him.

The very best advice is to ignore this fool and avoid beign victimized!
Quote 0 0
Boyd doesn't want anybody getting "scammed" by an "unlicensed"
person like me. He wants you to save up your pennies and dimes
so you can get "properly" scammed by someone with a "license"
to scam you, certified by your local bar association.
CPL (corrupt practice of law) and IPL (incompetent practice
of law) are the real problems in America, not certified teachers
like myself who share my knowledge with the public for free.
Do I have all the answers to the mortgage servicing fraud problem? The answer is no, but I have been in the trenches on
the front lines and I have won quite a few battles, both personally and by helping my "students".
In my opinion, the Courts belong to the American people and
not the Bar Association. If you can't afford a lawyer, you should
not give up. Educate yourself anyway you can and get help anywhere you can, even if it means contacting a "layman".
If your roof is leaking, you have two choices, hire a licensed
contractor or pick up a book on roofing, read it and do it yourself. It's the same with law, not everyone can afford one of
these pontificating blowhards who think their "caca" smells
sweeter than everyone else.
Quote 0 0
Boyd
Quote:
If your roof is leaking, you have two choices, hire a licensed contractor or pick up a book on roofing, read it and do it yourself. It's the same with law, not everyone can afford one of these pontificating blowhards who think their "caca" smells
sweeter than everyone else.


If you have a cardiac problem, you have four choices.

You can go to see a a cardiologist.

You can go to see another physician, who will refer you to a cardiologist, knowing well that failure to refer you would be actionable malpractice.

You can go see a witch doctor like Mike H.

Or you can read a good book on cardiology and attempt to perform a coronary artery bypass on yourself without anesthesia using ordinary kitchen utensils.

I am not aware of any survivors of the last avenue. Of those who choose the third avenue, those who survive or make a miraculous recovery (unassisted by what the witch doctor does) will be championed as proof of the witch doctor's ability and prowess and the failures will be quietly buried in unmarked graves.

*

Mike H. also glosses over one of the most compelling reasons that distressed borrowers needs an attorney (and not one of the incompetents championed by these foreclosure defense sites).

If the distressed borrower does a really terrific job at trial making the evidentiary arguments discussed by Mr. Roper, then the plaintiff's evidence is excluded. The well represented borrower can then win the case, simply by absenting himself or herself from trial. The unrepresented borrower must necessarily attend trial to avoid losing by default. The unrepresented borrower will simply be called to the stand to prove up all of the material which was excluded upon the disqualification of the plaintiff's witness(es).

Thus, when a matter actually goes to trial, the represented borrower has a small chance of winning. Except for the most egregious of fact patterns where a defendant can win a case based upon judicial admissions and discovery, the unrepresented borrower will almost always lose, even when making Mr. Roper's excellent defensive arguments.
Quote 0 0
Rick
Quote:
If you have a cardiac problem, you have four choices.

You can go to see a a cardiologist.

You can go to see another physician, who will refer you to a cardiologist, knowing well that failure to refer you would be actionable malpractice.

You can go see a witch doctor like Mike H.

Or you can read a good book on cardiology and attempt to perform a coronary artery bypass on yourself without anesthesia using ordinary kitchen utensils.

I am not aware of any survivors of the last avenue. Of those who choose the third avenue, those who survive or make a miraculous recovery (unassisted by what the witch doctor does) will be championed as proof of the witch doctor's ability and prowess and the failures will be quietly buried in unmarked graves.


Boyd is pretty funny, but he really tells it like it is!
Quote 0 0
Fred
Quote:


Quote:

I was wondering what others thought about the idea of chartering a bus to take victims to Mike Hansen's trial on September 28, 2012? We could share the exprenses and be present to let Judge Levens know about what Mike has done to so many borrowers. Maybe we could even meet with the judge and prosecutor to see what can be done to make him pay. Since the witness list is already set, it is probably too late to get to testify that Mike is a liar and a cheat. But at least we could show that everyone hate Mike H. and that it is best for him to lose his house too like what he done to so many other!!! May be we can also meet with attorney Katherine Renninger to tell her about all his scheme. Those who cannot attend can call Ms. Renninger to tell her what they know about Mike Hansen. Remember to explain this is about Case No. 09-CA-031484 / 292009CA031484A001HC.

We will never get our house back, but may be we can force him to give all the money back!


I heard about this from another board.

Where will the buses be leaving from and how much will the fare be? Will those attending also need to make arrangements for overnight accommodations?

Also, for those victims that cannot attend, can they submit an affidavit directly to the Judge in Mike Hansen's case? He should definitely be made to pay for what he has done!


Can anyone who signed up for the bus trip and attended Mike H.'s trial in Tampa on September 28 give us an update on the disposition of the foreclosure case of this lying rat b@stard? Also, does anyone know an address at which Mike could be served with process for a fraud lawsuit?
Quote 0 0
To Fred,
The only lier is you. I won my case and no one showed up because I have never victimized anyone.
You should really reread the ten commandments and stop your
sinful behavior of telling lies about people you don't know.
Quote 0 0
Floyd
Quote:
To Fred,
The only lier is you. I won my case and no one showed up because I have never victimized anyone.
You should really reread the ten commandments and stop your
sinful behavior of telling lies about people you don't know.


No doubt Mike H. will be posting the order as proof as to the outcome. It is interesting after all of the various braggadocio by Mike H. that he neglected to mention the outcome of the case prior to Fred's post. Fred seemed only to be asking what happened. But now that Mike H. has claimed that he has "won" his case, let's see the proof!

I am certainly unimpressed by Mike's Bible thumping, particularly given Mike's clear lack of ethics and dishonesty in persistently posting false and misleading material here at the Forum.

P.S. -- It is also interesting that Mike accuses Fred of being a lier, as in outlier or someone who lies in bed to fall asleep rather than accusing him of being a liar. I would be willing to speculate that Mike is correct that Fred may occasionally be found in a reclining position, but we all know that Mike H. is the liar-in-chief here at the Forum!
Quote 0 0
Floyd
Quote:
. . . this lying rat b@stard?


Fred is to be congratulated on his colorful description of this man, but I would have probably described him as a cold blooded reptile or snake rather than a warm blooded rodent. To describe Mike as a rat is an insult to rodents everywhere!

Mike's questionable parentage seems likely to be correctly noted.
Quote 0 0
Floyd is just angry because I went up against one of his "bar certified" buddies and whipped his - - -!
It was easy, all I did was tell the truth, while my opponent
lied through his teeth and tried to use intimidation to win his
case. Unfortunately for him, I don't cave in to these kind of
tactics that they always use on pro se litigants.
When a lawyer has a weak case, the first thing it will do is
try to "pull rank" on the pro se and try to dazzle him/her with
B.S. and threats. NEVER CAVE IN TO THREATS IF YOU WANT TO WIN.
Quote 0 0
f
Quote:
Fred is to be congratulated on his colorful description of this man, but I would have probably described him as a cold blooded reptile or snake rather than a warm blooded rodent. To describe Mike as a rat is an insult to rodents everywhere!


Reptile, snake or rodent seems kind of a toss up. Certainly no friend of distressed borrowers. Whenever Mike is in the room, you should keep your back to the wall and one hand on your wallet. For all his religious rants, he will get what is coming to him in the afterlife for what he has done!
Quote 0 0
f
Quote:
Floyd is just angry because I went up against one of his "bar certified" buddies and whipped his - - -!


As always, Mike makes bold and unverifiable claims and furnishes no evidence. Always a fraud!
Quote 0 0
Floyd,
The only proof you need is that I still own the property. I
proved my case.
I would recommend Floridians check out foreclosure pro se.com
for ideas on how to defend. It has great artwork with pictures
of Fred and Floyd.(Hint=oink, oink!)
Quote 0 0
Tom
Quote:
Floyd,
The only proof you need is that I still own the property. I
proved my case.
I would recommend Floridians check out foreclosure pro se.com
for ideas on how to defend. It has great artwork with pictures
of Fred and Floyd.(Hint=oink, oink!)


You have never proven anything other than that you are a lying dirtbag. It is absolutely disgraceful that the site administrator allows you to continue to victimize visitors and to post links to other sites operated by scam operators and swindlers.

This site was once a valuable resource, but now is just another pit of raw sewage due to the unrelenting posts of scam artists like Mike H.
Quote 0 0
Tom,
The lieing dirtbag is you. You haven't got the guts to post
your email address whereas I do post mine and I can prove my
claims. Who have you ever helped, I'll bet the answer is zero
because you and your defamatory ilk are all zeros, but in a free
country you have the right to post your garbage along with uber
BS artist Roper.
What you and your ilk need to do is clean all the garbage out
of your brains so you can think straight. Start by reading Genesis and continue from there, especially the Ten Commandments
and the one that says "Thou shalt not bear false witness". The
wages of sin is death!
Quote 0 0
....
Mike H wrote:
Tom,
The lieing dirtbag is you. You haven\\\\\\\'t got the guts to post
your email address whereas I do post mine and I can prove my
claims. Who have you ever helped, I\\\\\\\'ll bet the answer is zero
because you and your defamatory ilk are all zeros, but in a free
country you have the right to post your garbage along with uber
BS artist Roper.
What you and your ilk need to do is clean all the garbage out
of your brains so you can think straight. Start by reading Genesis and continue from there, especially the Ten Commandments
and the one that says \\\\\\\"Thou shalt not bear false witness\\\\\\\". The
wages of sin is death!


I have never seen you post cases that prove your claims. Maybe you could repost them??? Especially the death gamble.
Quote 0 0
Many people have "table funded" loans where the originator
was supposed to be on the loan documents (and probably was)
but the servicer, for its own fraudulent reasons, changed the
name of the lender on the loan documents to a "bankruptcy remote"
"strawman" so it could sell the loan multiple times on the secondary loan market to gullible investors.
The way to discover this, is to look at your loan closing
documents to find out who the "true" lender was. If you look
at the HUD addendum to the loan application, you will find the
true lender in box 15. The initial servicer is in box 16.
Also look for who got the "yield spread premium" (also known
as "service release premium"). THIS IS THE TRUE LENDER WHICH
SHOULD BE ON THE LOAN DOCUMENTS. Normally, in a "table funded"
loan, the true lender will endorse the Note and assign the
mortgage over to the entity that supplied the lender with the
funds to fund the loan.
Besides charging the borrower front end "points" for doing the
loan, the originator will often obtain a "back end" profit by
immediately "selling" the loan on the secondary market. So for example, lets say the originator loans $100k at 6%. The Note
and mortgage will show the originator as the lender.
Next, the originator will often sell that "obligation" to
their "warehouse" source of funding for let's say $102K, thus
making a "yield spread premium" (ie service release premium)
of $2,000. This is shown as "POC", ie paid outside closing.
Now the Note should be properly endorsed and the mortgage
properly assigned to the "ware house" source of funding. They
call it "yield spread premium" because now the effective interest
rate is 6K on 102K=5.88% instead of 6%.
If the lender shown on the loan documents is not the same as
the lender shown on the Hud documents, what it means is that the
note is a phony. If the mortgage also has this "phony" lender on
it, it means the lien was never perfected in the name of the
true lender, so no mortgage exists. Therefore, no foreclosure is
possible.
Most of the time, the true lender was licensed but the "phony"
lender shown on the "phony" loan documents was not licensed. This
is a "dead" give away that "mortgage servicing fraud" occurred
with your loan. Very often, you will never discover this unless
you go into foreclosure or you do a Quiet Title action instead.
Quote 0 0
Doyle
Quote:
Many people have "table funded" loans where the originator
was supposed to be on the loan documents (and probably was)
but the servicer, for its own fraudulent reasons, changed the
name of the lender on the loan documents to a "bankruptcy remote"
"strawman" so it could sell the loan multiple times on the secondary loan market to gullible investors.
The way to discover this, is to look at your loan closing
documents to find out who the "true" lender was. If you look
at the HUD addendum to the loan application, you will find the
true lender in box 15. The initial servicer is in box 16.
Also look for who got the "yield spread premium" (also known
as "service release premium"). THIS IS THE TRUE LENDER WHICH
SHOULD BE ON THE LOAN DOCUMENTS. Normally, in a "table funded"
loan, the true lender will endorse the Note and assign the
mortgage over to the entity that supplied the lender with the
funds to fund the loan.
Besides charging the borrower front end "points" for doing the
loan, the originator will often obtain a "back end" profit by
immediately "selling" the loan on the secondary market. So for example, lets say the originator loans $100k at 6%. The Note
and mortgage will show the originator as the lender.
Next, the originator will often sell that "obligation" to
their "warehouse" source of funding for let's say $102K, thus
making a "yield spread premium" (ie service release premium)
of $2,000. This is shown as "POC", ie paid outside closing.
Now the Note should be properly endorsed and the mortgage
properly assigned to the "ware house" source of funding. They
call it "yield spread premium" because now the effective interest
rate is 6K on 102K=5.88% instead of 6%.
If the lender shown on the loan documents is not the same as
the lender shown on the Hud documents, what it means is that the
note is a phony. If the mortgage also has this "phony" lender on
it, it means the lien was never perfected in the name of the
true lender, so no mortgage exists. Therefore, no foreclosure is
possible.
Most of the time, the true lender was licensed but the "phony"
lender shown on the "phony" loan documents was not licensed. This
is a "dead" give away that "mortgage servicing fraud" occurred
with your loan. Very often, you will never discover this unless
you go into foreclosure or you do a Quiet Title action instead.


Everything just posted by Mike H. is utter garbage. He clearly knows nothing either about the law or about mortgage banking.

This post is clearly intended simply to confuse and deceive in support of his debt elimination scams! Perhaps now that the Florida Attorney General has finally began focusing attention on these scams, Mike will get the justice that has been long coming to him.

Mr. Roper explained the role of warehousing lenders in posts long ago. Clearly, Mike H. has either not taken the trouble to read these or has simply used some of Mr. Roper's learned vocabulary to spice up his scams.

The warehousing lender advances money for the closing as a loan to the mortgage lender. The promissory note is indorsed in blank and negotiated to the warehousing lender as a pledge for this loan. This is not a loan sale. Rather the note is simply pledged as collateral for the amounts advanced by the warehousing lender with the note delivered to the warehousing lender as security post-closing.

There is nothing illegal or irregular about this. It is done in respect of almost 100% of the loans made in the U.S.

Since the warehousing lender is not buying the loan, but only advancing the originator the funds to fund the loan, there is no need to identify the warehousing lender on any lending paperwork. There is nothing about this arrangement that would render the note or the mortgage security instrument either void or even voidable.

Mike creates this fiction to entice distressed borrowers to buy into his scams.

Mike, your game is up! The quiet title swindle in Florida is coming to an end. You are going to end up behind bars where you belong for all the harm you have caused distressed borrowers!
Quote 0 0
No Doyle (or whatever your real name is)!
The point is that the servicers will use a phony note, which
is not in the name of the true "originator" of the loan, in order
to prove their case that they own the "obligation". Almost always,this phony Note is endorsed in "blank", so you can spot it
right away as a phony.
The real Note, in the name of the true lender, had to have a
special endorsement naming the warehouse lender and it also needed to be accompanied by an assignment of the mortgage to the
warehouse lender.
If your hero Roper said anything different, he is either mistaken, trying to deceive, or just plain stupid. Personally,
I think it is the latter, since anyone following his advice
on most things, will lose every time.
Why don't you post your email address so the State Attorney
can track you down, you pontificating blowhard. Read the ten
commandments and stop sinning. The wages of sin is death!
Quote 0 0
Adam
Quote:
No Doyle (or whatever your real name is)!
The point is that the servicers will use a phony note, which
is not in the name of the true "originator" of the loan, in order
to prove their case that they own the "obligation". Almost always,this phony Note is endorsed in "blank", so you can spot it
right away as a phony.
The real Note, in the name of the true lender, had to have a
special endorsement naming the warehouse lender and it also needed to be accompanied by an assignment of the mortgage to the
warehouse lender.
If your hero Roper said anything different, he is either mistaken, trying to deceive, or just plain stupid. Personally,
I think it is the latter, since anyone following his advice
on most things, will lose every time.
Why don't you post your email address so the State Attorney
can track you down, you pontificating blowhard. Read the ten
commandments and stop sinning. The wages of sin is death!


Mike must realize that the authorities are closing in on him and his scams! His posts are becoming increasingly irrational and hostile. See also Roland's recent post:

Palm Beach Post Turns Attention To Quiet Title Scams and Swindles
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Palm-Beach-Post-Turns-Attention-To-Quiet-Title-Scams-and-Swindles-6038708

The idea that an indorsement in blank would identify a note as fraudulent is totally specious. Mr. Roper posted about the ancient history of blank indorsements in 2010:

On the Ancient Origins of Blank Indorsement
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/On-the-Ancient-Origins-of-Blank-Indorsement-5026533

Mr. Roper and others have also clearly explained that when a person indorses a check -- a negotiable instrument covered by the very same Article of the UCC as promissory notes -- the indorsement is usually in blank.

That is, if Mike H. simply signs his name "Mike H." on a check made out to him as payee, leaving off any other words, the what is implied by this indorsement is "Pay To _________".

To make a specific or special indorsement, Mike H. would have to instead have written:

"Pay To Doyle

/s/ Mike H."

The very idea that indorsing an instrument in blank would either void the instrument or prove it to be a forgery is so fallacious as to be proof that Mike H. is a scam artist! The UCC expressly allows for blank indorsements and this is the most common form of indorsement as to either checks or promissory notes as anyone in the banking industry or even ordinary commerce can attest.

Mr. Roper also explained that negotiation is a separate transaction than the original note. The maker of the instrument is not usually a party to this negotiation.

The only way that an indorsement could possibly void the instrument would be if the indorsee somehow altered the instrument in some material way to the detriment of the maker. See Mr. Roper's post:

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

Mr. Roper always backed up his posts with [u]statutes and cases. Mike H. just makes $hit up and posts it. He cannot be bothered with the law or whether anything he posts has any validity. That isn't the point of his posts. His posts serve solely as a pretext for marketing his scams.[/b]

Essentially everyone at the Forum knows this. Everyone knows that Mike victimizes distressed borrowers who are gullible enough to believe his b.s.
Quote 0 0
This will be my last post on this thread, since it is getting too long.
The point is that one needs to make sure that the lender shown
on the Note and mortgage is the real lender. Quite often, the
obligation went to "A" whereas the Note and mortgage went to, say "B". This means the lien was never perfected in the name of the true lender so no foreclosure is possible.
In table funded loans, every warehouse provider I have studied requires a special endorsement on the Note from the originator to the warehouse lender and an assignment of the
mortgage to the warehouse lender. Suntrust is a good example.
A "blank endorsement" will usually occur on the Note when
it is a "phony" created by the servicer in the name of a phony
lender.
Once in a while though, because the originator screwed up
the loan documents, it might not be able to sell the loan on
the secondary market, nor to the warehouse lender. In this case,
it might have to "hypothicate" the Note for a discounted amount
to whatever entity is willing to make a loan against it. In this
case, it might be endorsed in "blank" legitimately so it can
be returned to the originator when it pays back the loan.
Quote 0 0
Harry
Quote:
This will be my last post on this thread, since it is getting too long.


Why don't you just do everybody a favor and make it the last post on this site! Everyone here except for strangers knows that you are a fraud and a scam artist. Why don't you prey upon distressed borrowers from a different site while you await your own arrest and prosecution?
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...