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
MSF Administrator
This is the latest update to the HUML case out of El Paso, Texas.

Initially, the banks were represented by three attorneys from the Dallas foreclosure-mill Brice, Vander Linden & Wernick, P.C. Two months ago in a mass exit, all three attorneys quit the firm.

Defendants have now hired the international law firm Locke Lord. By now, the legal fees probably exceed the ~$100.000.00 value of the home; an indication that the case isn't about the house.

Since Mr. Roman is alleging CRIMINAL activity, Defendants need this case to go away and are pushing for dismissal. Defendants have resorted to writing nasty insults to the homeowner to hopefully improve their chances.

Below is attorney Roman's response:

Case 3:12-cv-00245-DCG Document 32 Filed 10/10/12 Page 1 of 4

CAUSE NO. 3:12-CV-00245-DCG






COMES NOW plaintiff Bea Huml complaining of CITIMORTGAGE, INC. and

Plaintiff Bea Huml reflected at length before deciding to file this "Response to
Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss". The
Defendant's latest filing (Document 31) is more concerned about volleying unwarranted
personal attacks and casting aspersions against Plaintiff Huml and her motives rather
than relying on any legal rationale. This response addresses those attacks and

I. First, contrary to what is alleged, Plaintiff was making her mortgage payments
when the Defendants stole her home using robosigned documents and false affidavits in
the foreclosure process.

The last portion of that statement deserves repeating: These Defendants stole Plaintiff's home.

Defendants and their counsel are well-versed in what constitutes "illegal
affidavits" and "robosigned documents". Defense counsel are frequent speakers across
the country in this regard. In deed, they are authors of expert, scholarly articles such as
"The In-House Legal Professional's Guide to Drafting Affidavits That Stand up To
Scrutiny", Thomas Cunningham, Esq., Lock, Lord Bissel/& Liddel/law firm.

Conclusion: Legal disputes such as these should be decided by a jury trial.

II. Second, the Plaintiff has riot benefitted greatly from her delay in this case. Quite
the contrary. The challenge was conveyed early on (and continues) to Defendants and
their counsel to summarily dispose of this matter in a jury trial. But even the most casual
observer will agree that the Defendants and their counsel have employed every legal
gimmick and tactic to see that this matter does not see the inside of a courtroom or is
heard by a jury. The only delay tactics being employed here are, in fact, by Defendants
and their counsel. These delay tactics are comprised of an endless series of motions to
dismiss (and briefs in support), motions seeking dismissal for failure to timely respond
(and briefs in support}... ad nauseum.

Now, the Defendants bravely and boldly assert that... she simply does not want to
litigate in this Court any further", "Plaintiff should be required to fully litigate her case
now....., "Such gamesmanship should not be allowed" and "To the extent Plaintiff has
claims she wishes to litigate, she should do so now.

If both parties can agree on anything, we certainly agree on this.

Conclusion: Legal disputes such as these should be decided by a jury trial.

III. Last, it is true Plaintiff desires to file suit against EI Paso County, Texas and the
Defendant's "go-to" robosigners, Chester Levings (8 different signatures), Cecelia
Rodriguez (3 signatures) and robosigner extraordinaire, Beverly Mitrisin (7 different
signatures). Nothing in the U.S. Constitution - or any law anywhere - precludes her from
doing so provided she has a viable, good faith cause of action. This is not forum or
jurisdiction shopping. It is, therefore, quite out-of-character and patently offensive that
statements such as "Plaintiff cannot avoid federal court" comes from a high caliber,
boutique law firms such as those involved here. These statements reek of the unbridled
arrogance not uncommon to the Defendants and their lot.

In point of fact, the Defendant's motivation for removing this case to federal court
was to avoid the mandate of an "insignificant and irrelevant" state court judge. This judge
had the courage to order robosigners and their co-conspirators to appear and answer to
their illegal actions in court. The worst kept secret in the mortgage industry is that these,
and countless other defendants, cannot afford to have the true extent of their crimes and
scourge exposed. Whether or not any of the perpetrators of these illegal documents will
be placed in handcuffs and prosecuted remains to be seen.

Now, regarding the Plaintiffs 'rent-free lifestyle", let one thing be clear. Plaintiffs
life-style has no bearing on the ongoing, wholesale criminal enterprise of the mortgage
foreclosure industry as they exponentially perpetuate the tsunami of illegal foreclosures
across the country - and become enormously wealthy while they do it. Discussion of the
Plaintiff's "rent-free lifestyle" is simply a poorly contrived attempt to divert attention from
the problem.

Conclusion: Legal disputes such as these should be determined by a jury trial.

However, one need not listen to our arguments. Simply read the news: "Yet
Another Bank': One week after New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman
filed a civil case against JPMorgan Chase alleging fraud in how Bear Stearns
packaged and sold mortgage-backed securities, Wells Fargo finds itself being
sued by the government for nearly a decade's worth of "reckless" mortgage ,
lending. U.S. prosecutors (not affiliated with Schneiderman's mortgage task force,
though he has promised more suits are on the way) are seeking "hundreds of
millions of dollars" in civil damages from the bank on behalf of the Federal
Housing Administration, alleging Wells "made false certifications" about the
condition of their mortgage loans so that the government agency would insure
them. FHA then had to foot the bill when the bank's alleged "mortgage factory" -
Dealbook's interpretation of the complaint - output went belly up. "Yet another
major bank has engaged in a longstanding and reckless trifecta of deficient
training, deficient underwriting and deficient disclosure, all while relying on the
convenient backstop of government insurance," United States attorney in
Manhattan Preet Bharara said in a (perhaps obvious) statement (Wall Street
Journal, October, 2012).        

Plaintiff Huml and countless others hope and pray that a Texas United States attorney will take similar criminal action against these and other Defendants.

Conclusion: But until then, the only appropriate remedy is to have legal disputes such as
these decided by a jury trial.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Richard A. Roman


I hereby certify that on October 10th 2012 a true and correct copy of the foregoing
instrument has been forwarded to the attention of opposing counsel via the CMI ECF
electronic filing system. ,

Richard A. Roman. Esq.
Quote 0 0
Administrator, I have some potentially helpful information regarding Freddie Mac.

I may even contact the lawyer. I'm in a battle with them as well but have much more on them.

Here just one piece of the puzzle. What the Plan Trustee is saying is that Freddie Mac was the recipient of fraudulent loans and because they didn't speak up they allowed the fraud to continue long after it should have been stopped.
Quote 0 0
MSF Administrator
Thanks Sharon. We forwarded your post to Richard. We will send you an email also.
Quote 0 0
I just found out some information from Bloomberg that I find disturbing. Apparently if a note has been either purchased or securitized or guaranteed by Fannie, Freddie or Ginnie than Bloomberg receives the information on the securitized trust from third parties like the loan originator or the servicer. The GSE's are not forthcoming with what they have. In other words they are not transparent. This is likely the reason notes are being multiple pledged to multiple securitized trusts. At some point the banks realized they could get away with it because Fannie and Freddie especially were so secretive. What may have started as competitive behavior by the siblings turned into the worst nightmare facing our country since the Great Depression. A finacial crisis so great in fact we may not emerge from it and if and when we do we will be a third world country.

Someone should start a company called because it will be a rude awaking when state workers including judges figure out that their pensions are heavily invested in these mortgage backed securities that are worthless because the loans in the pools have been multiple and triple pledged.
Quote 0 0
I think you are right
If you are a wower,please read
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...