Author: dmedstrom

Reverse Engineering and Failure Analysis - Reverse Engineering Wall Street

Will the Niday & Brandrup Rulings Change How Foreclosures Are Conducted In Oregon? Not Likely!

mers-shareholdersWill the Niday & Brandrup Rulings Change How Foreclosures Are Conducted In Oregon? Not Likely!

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

This blog post was posted to the Querin Law LLC website (www.q-law.com).  Click the link below to read the post.

Will The Niday & Brandrup Rulings Change How Foreclosures Are Conducted In Oregon? Not Likely!

Posted on June 23, 2013 by Phil Querin

Occupy Leader Bratton Held on $250,000 Bail

Neil_GarfieldOccupy Leader Bratton Held on $250,000 Bail

By Neil F. Garfield
Livinglies.wordpress.com

Occupy Leader Bratton Held on $250,000 Bail

Posted on June 23, 2013 by Neil Garfield

In my judgment, based upon the scant facts and documents supplied to me this far, there is no doubt that Bratton DID own the property and probably still does if the law is applied properly.

I know of cases where probable cause was found for Murder and the bail was set less than that. The calls and emails keep coming in and I can’t say that I have a total picture of what was really going on here. But, based upon what I have the current story is this:

Bratton is one of the leaders in the Occupy movement. It may be true that the Occupy movement has been put on a watch list or even the terrorist list which might account for the high bail. I have not been able to confirm that. But it seems that some inference of that sort was used in getting bail set at a quarter of a million dollars. If so, the government is confusing (intentionally or otherwise) the Occupy movement which is a political movement within the system allowed and encouraged by the U.S. Government — with the sovereign citizen movement for which I have taken a lot of heat.

Continue reading “Occupy Leader Bratton Held on $250,000 Bail”

Modern Day Rosa Parks Jailed as Domestic Terrorist: God-Fearing Woman Exposes Foreclosure Fraud

Edstrom_MortgageSecuritization_POSTER_17_x_22_v4_1Modern Day Rosa Parks Jailed as Domestic Terrorist: God-Fearing Woman Exposes Foreclosure Fraud

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

From Charles Koppa

Modern Day Rosa Parks Jailed As Domestic Terrorist:

God-Fearing Woman Exposes Foreclosure Fraud

Who:              Family and Friends of Barbara Bratton, Homeowners’ Rights Advocate

What:             Pre-Preliminary Conference (Court Hearing)

When:            Monday, June 24, 2014, 8:30 a.m.

Where:          Dept. S22, San Bernardino Superior Court

351 N. Arrowhead, San Bernardino, CA. 92415 Map

Ignoring well-documented cases of fraud and abuse that continue to plague the home mortgage industry, the City of Ontario Police Department has instead set its sights on Barbara Bratton, 55, jailed as a domestic terrorist for challenging the validity of property records used to foreclose on her loan.  A pre-preliminary conference is set for Monday, June 24 at 8:30am in San Bernardino Superior Court, 351 N. Arrowhead, San Bernardino, CA 92415.  Homeowners’ rights advocates will be on hand to show support.

Background:

Barbara Bratton, a life-long resident of Ontario, California and an outstanding community member, was the victim of an illegal foreclosure on her family home of 40 years.  Since 2008 she has conducted a tireless and well-documented campaign to expose the land title fraud on her home.  An important piece in this complex case came last year, when a Lending Processing Services (LPS) executive pled guilty to filing more than a million fraudulent property documents in county recorder’s offices across the country.  The fraud on the Bratton home was linked to the suit.  Yet the LPS scheme masked a more insidious crime: the securitization of nearly all home loans since 1996, making it impossible to determine who, if anyone, actually owns the note on a home.

Continue reading “Modern Day Rosa Parks Jailed as Domestic Terrorist: God-Fearing Woman Exposes Foreclosure Fraud”

Failure to Allege Lack of Default

Edstrom_MortgageSecuritization_POSTER_17_x_22_v4_1Failure to Allege Lack of Default

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

One of the main reasons many cases do not make it to daylight is because of the failure to allege lack of default.  Despite many lawyers knowing that this is the case, and that there is no default, many still fail to make the allegation.  On what basis can a lawyer allege lack of default for a homeowner facing foreclosure?

The Note and Security Instrument

The note is not the obligation but evidence of the obligation (for proof of this, in many cases the security instrument refers to the note as the evidence of the obligation).  Lawyers usually describe the obligation arising when one party accepts money from another party.  The note usually describes who the parties are that are obligated in the section titled OBLIGATIONS OF PERSONS UNDER THIS NOTE.  This section of the note states:

If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fully and personally obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note, including the promise to pay the full amount owed.  Any person who is a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note is also obligated to do these things.  Any person who takes over these obligations, including the obligations of a guarantor, surety or endorser of this note, is also obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note.  The Note Holder may enforce its rights under this Note against each person individually or against all of us together.  This means that any one of us may be required to pay all of the amounts owed under this Note.

Continue reading “Failure to Allege Lack of Default”

SEC Corroborates Livinglies Position on Third Party Payment While Texas BKR Judge Disallows Assignments After Cut-Off Date


SEC Corroborates Livinglies Position on Third Party Payment While Texas BKR Judge Disallows Assignments After Cut-Off Date

By Neil Garfield
Garfield Gwaltney Kelley and White | LivingLies

Maybe this should have been divided into three articles:

  1. Saldivar: Texas BKR Judge finds Assignment Void not voidable. It never happened.
  2. Erobobo: NY Judge rules ownership of note is burden of the banks. Not standing but rather capacity to sue without injury.
  3. SEC Orders Credit Suisse to disgorge illegal profits back to investors. Principal balances of borrowers may be reduced. Defaults might not exist because notices contain demands that include money held by banks that should have been paid to investors.

But these decisions are so interrelated and their effect so far-reaching that it seems to me that if you read only one of them you might head off in the wrong direction. Pay careful attention to the Court’s admonition in Erobobo that these defenses can be waived unless timely raised. Use the logic of these decisions and you will find more and more judges listening with increasing care. The turning point is arriving and foreclosures — past, present and future — might finally get the review and remedies that are required in a nation of laws.

Continue reading “SEC Corroborates Livinglies Position on Third Party Payment While Texas BKR Judge Disallows Assignments After Cut-Off Date”

CandyLand

Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker video discussing the Securitization diagram created by our own Dan Edstrom from DTC Systems.

Niday v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, et al – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 2


Niday v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, et al – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 2

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Two Oregon Supreme Court Rulings came out yesterday relating to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.  The first was Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co. (June 6, 2013), and the subject of this post, which is Niday v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, et al. (June 6, 2013).

Note the following quotes from this ruling:

That is so because, on the present record, MERS’ involvement in the appointment of the current trustee casts doubt on the trustee’s status.

and

But, appointments of a successor trustee may only be made by the trust deed beneficiary, ORS 86.790(3), and, as discussed, MERS is not, and never has been, the beneficiary of the trust deed for purposes of the OTDA.

The ruling is listed in part as follows:

          En Banc

          On review from the Court of Appeals.*

         Argued and submitted on January 8, 2013.

         Gregory A. Chaimov, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, argued the cause for
petitioner on review Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. With him on the
brief were Frederick B. Burnside and Kevin H. Kono.

         W. Jeffrey Barnes, pro hac vice, W. J. Barnes, PA, Beverly Hills, argued the cause
for respondent on review. With him on the brief was Elizabeth Lemoine, Makler
Lemoine & Goldberg, PC, Portland.

         Hope A. Del Carlo, Portland, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Oregon Trial
Lawyers Association.
         Rolf C. Moan, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed a brief on behalf of
amicus curiae State of Oregon.

BREWER, J.

         The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the circuit
court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings.

         Kistler, J., concurred in part and specially concurred in part and wrote an opinion
in which Balmer, C.J. joined.
         *Appeal from Clackamas County Circuit Court, Henry C. Breithaupt, Judge. 251
Or App 278, 284 P3d 1157 (2012).

Continue reading “Niday v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, et al – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 2”

Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co. – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 1


Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co. – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 1

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Oregon Supreme Court was asked four questions, and answered as follows:

We accepted the district court’s certification and allowed the parties in the federal cases to
present their views. We answer those questions — in two instances as reframed — as
follows:

(1) “No.” For purposes of ORS 86.735(1), the “beneficiary” is the lender to whom the obligation that the trust deed secures is owed or the lender’s successor in interest. Thus, an entity like MERS, which is not a lender, may not be a trust deed’s “beneficiary,” unless it is a lender’s successor in interest.

(2) We reframe the second question as follows:
Is MERS eligible to serve as beneficiary under the Oregon Trust DeedAct where the trust deed provides that MERS “holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests”?

Continue reading “Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co. – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 1”

Underwater Properties

Underwater Properties

By Jim Macklin
Secure Document Research

Underwater Properties

Continue reading “Underwater Properties”