JP Morgan Chase and McCarthy & Holthus – Destroying America, One House at a Time

JP Morgan Chase and McCarthy & Holthus – Destroying America, One House at a Time

By Martin Andelman
Mandelman Matters
http://mandelman.ml-implode.com

Homeowner Suffers Horrific Injustice at the Hands of JPMorgan Chase

http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2011/03/homeowner-suffers-horrific-injustice-at-the-hands-of-jpmorgan-chase

For over two years I’ve had a front row seat for the foreclosure crisis, the by-product of our government’s complete mishandling of the worst economic downturn in seventy years.

During that time I’ve been exposed to some pretty horrific things… people living in their cars with a child sleeping in the trunk… the eviction of an 89 year-old couple… I’ve gotten to know what that fear sounds like and feels like… the fear of losing one’s home while the country talks about you as being nothing more than an “irresponsible borrower,” someone who never should have bought your home in the first place, even though you may have lived in it for 30 years.

What I saw this past week, however, was something new for me… I’d heard of things like this happening before, written about them, even. But, I had never seen anything like it, up close and personal.

As a warning… this story is not for the squeamish. If you’re pregnant, or have heart disease, or just want to go on pretending that your country is still a place of which you’re proud… it’s better that you click off now… because this one isn’t going to make you laugh.

Continue reading “JP Morgan Chase and McCarthy & Holthus – Destroying America, One House at a Time”

Securitization Workshop for Attorneys March 19th 2011 in San Francisco

Securitization Workshop for Attorneys March 19th 2011 in San Francisco

By Daniel Edstrom

Join us for our 3rd Securitization Workshop for Attorneys being held in San Francisco on March 19th, 2011. Visit the event website for more information: http://securedocumentresearch.eventbrite.com

This workshop has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) by the State Bar of California. Total credit hours approved are 6.75 hours.

Description of event:

SECURITIZATION WORKSHOP FOR ATTORNEYS
March 19th, 2011 – in San Francisco, CALIFORNIA

Continue reading “Securitization Workshop for Attorneys March 19th 2011 in San Francisco”

L Randall Wray – MERS is Toast – RIP

L Randall Wray – MERS is Toast – RIP

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

If you have MERS on your loan, banks messed up big time and get no “do over” – congratulations on owning your house free and clear (once you wrestle it free of the big banks that is). So says L Randall Wray, who is the Professor of Economics and Research Director of the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, University of Missouri–Kansas City. Read his entire article here: http://www.benzinga.com/news/11/02/867233/new-yorks-us-bankruptcy-court-rules-merss-business-model-is-illegal

Congratulations to the mega banks and companies that are MERS shareholders:

MERS has no agency – New York Bankruptcy Court: in re Agard

The following is a New York Bankruptcy motion for relief from stay ruling from February 10th, 2011

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

—————————————————————–x

In re:

Case No. 810-77338-reg

FERREL L. AGARD,

Chapter 7

Debtor.

—————————————————————–x

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Before the Court is a motion (the “Motion”) seeking relief from the automatic stay

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2), to foreclose on a secured interest in the Debtor’s real

property located in Westbury, New York (the “Property”). The movant is Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc. (“Select Portfolio” or “Movant”), as servicer for U.S. Bank National Association,

as Trustee for First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF12, Mortgage Pass-Through

Certificates, Series 2006-FF12 (“U.S. Bank”). The Debtor filed limited opposition to the Motion

contesting the Movant’s standing to seek relief from stay. The Debtor argues that the only

interest U.S. Bank holds in the underlying mortgage was received by way of an assignment from

the Mortgage Electronic Registration System a/k/a MERS, as a “nominee” for the original

lender. The Debtor’s argument raises a fundamental question as to whether MERS had the legal

authority to assign a valid and enforceable interest in the subject mortgage. Because U.S. Bank’s

rights can be no greater than the rights as transferred by its assignor – MERS – the Debtor argues

that the Movant, acting on behalf of U.S. Bank, has failed to establish that it holds an

enforceable right against the Property.1 The Movant’s initial response to the Debtor’s opposition was that

MERS’s authority to assign the mortgage to U.S. Bank is derived from the mortgage itself which

allegedly grants to MERS its status as both “nominee” of the mortgagee and “mortgagee of

record.” The Movant later supplemented its papers taking the position that U.S. Bank is a

creditor with standing to seek relief from stay by virtue of a judgment of foreclosure and sale

entered in its favor by the state court prior to the filing of the bankruptcy. The Movant argues

that the judgment of foreclosure is a final adjudication as to U.S. Bank’s status as a secured

creditor and therefore the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits this Court from looking behind the

judgment and questioning whether U.S. Bank has proper standing before this Court by virtue of a

valid assignment of the mortgage from MERS.
Continue reading “MERS has no agency – New York Bankruptcy Court: in re Agard”

Ben Ezra Order to Show Cause Why Ben Ezra & Katz Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court on Feb 11, 2011

Ben Ezra Order to Show Cause Why Ben Ezra & Katz Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court on Feb 11, 2011

From LivingLies, which posted it from 4ClosureFraud.org …

How is this for some timing.

Last night Fannie Mae announced they are dumping this firm and today we get this…

CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY,
PLAINTIFF,

VS.

EDUARDO GONZALEZ DELREAL
ETAL,
DEFENDANTS,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY BEN-EZRA & KATZ SHOULD NOT BE
HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT ON FEBRUARY 11, 2011 AT 9:00A.M.

From the order to show cause…

Counsel for the Plaintiff, Ben-Ezra & Katz were properly noticed to appear for hearing on January 21, 2011 and failed to do so. The Court attempted to contact Ben-Ezra & Katz to address this matter during hearing, but was unable to get anyone on the telephone.

In the instant Case, Plaintiff filed an action of foreclosure on Defendant’s property located at 1301 SW 2601 h Terrace, Homestead, FL 33032.

Continue reading “Ben Ezra Order to Show Cause Why Ben Ezra & Katz Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court on Feb 11, 2011”

Irreconcilable Differences… I want a Mortgage Divorce!

Irreconcilable Differences… I want a Mortgage Divorce!

By James Macklin
Secure Document Research

Promissory Note Terms Vs. PSA/Prosectus Terms

When we are handed a voluminous stack of documents at the closing table for our mortgage transaction, a Borrower is expected to make a decision based upon the duty and care that the party who drafted these “investment contracts” has placed into them. However, none of us at the closing table has any idea what most of the words, phrases, and legal terminologies actually means… especially those affecting our rights as a consumer and as a real property owner.
Within the typical language of a Pooling and Servicing Agreement executed by the players of the securitization financing, there are countless references to the “interests” of the asset being conveyed, or, your Note and Deed. Interests are a finicky word of art used. The word simply means this: the asset, along with all of its’ benefits and liabilities. These are the “interests” being conveyed with the sale, set-over, transfer, conveyance, etc. So, under the terms of the Note we signed, look to the section titled: “Who is obligated under the Note” (usually sec. nine (9)). Here you will find that myriad entities may be, and probably are, also obligated under this same Note. These are the terms you have agreed to and bargained for. But the banking intermediaries would have us believe otherwise, as exhibited in the PSA under such language as: “The Depositor, Sponsor/Seller, Swap Counterparty, Master Servicer, Trustee do not intend for any obligation of themselves or their agents or employees to arise as a result of this Agreement”. This is contradictive to the terms and conditions that we have agreed to. Because the intervening assignments are a functional necessity to the bankruptcy remoteness of these assets, the specific substance of the PSA must be followed, including the mandate for the indorsement of each intervening assignment, along with the recordation of those assignment in the proper land title records office within the State of jurisdiction.
Let’s go back to the language of the “Who is Obligated” section of our Note. Notice that anyone who endorses the instrument is also obligated under the Note. Does this create an unknown Obligor at closing? If an un-named Beneficiary is the result of the unilateral agreement known as a Promissory Note”, how do we have the understanding necessary to execute such a critical document? It is the contention of this author, supported by the very agreements signed under oath and filed for record with the SEC, that “interests” and “obligations” are synonomous within the four corners of the agreement we signed…and the agreements signed by the intermediaries. A court of competent jurisdiction shall be posed these foundational questions very soon, and often. Are we a party to these agreements known as PSA/Prospectus? If we do a simple word search on each of these and look for references to: Borrower, Mortgagor, Obligor, we find these terms are typically used in excess of 60-75 times. Yet we were never disclosed the terms and conditions of the actual “loan” transaction as it truly was executed, and the rights, duties and responsibilities of the intermediaries. These are material disclosures relative to fees, expenses and various credit enhancements which are attributed to the Borrowers’ payment stream.
A divorce from this menagerie of deceit is not only appropriate, but a right that is being tried in many courtrooms. I believe that the judiciary will be tested on many platforms and small but visceral victories shall carry the day.

Daniel Pennell Explains why MERS is Completely out of Control

Daniel Pennell Explains why MERS is Completely out of Control

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Daniel Pennell has the following qualifications:

PMP
LSSGB
Certified Lean Six Sigma (Process & Quality Control)
Certified Technical Program & Risk Manager
Former investment advisor and insurance broker
16 Years designing and automating & business processes in regulated environments
- Florida State Supreme Court
- Florida 20th & 6th Judicial Circuits
- Chubb Insurance
- Pharmacia
- Other State, Federal and Fortune 500 clients

Mr. Pennell goes on to give a professional analysis of the Frankenstein (MERS) process. Which can only be described as completely out of control. It is of significance to note that the very entities that created and brought forth Frankenstein are governed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. It is just as important to note that Frankenstein is NOT governed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, nor governed by federal, state or county land recordation laws. The OCC requires that national banks have “effective risk management procedures and internal controls to conduct the activities safely and soundly.” It is apparent to everyone except OCC that this is not and has not been the case (i.e. rampant industry standards of notary violations, no personal knowledge, forgery, perjury, etc). It is also apparent that the national banks are using other entities such as Frankenstein and foreclosure mills such as the Stern Law Firm and Dolan Media (NDEx West) to perpetuate these activities. Dolan Media specifically states to their investors they are proudly not involved in the robo-signing fiasco (notary violations, no personal knowledge, forgery, etc). If Mr. Pennell did an analysis of the shoddy work done by Dolan Media he would find that they give Frankenstein a run for its money. What I want to emphasize though is that Frankenstein, because of the very nature of its work, is required to have “effective risk management procedures and internal controls to conduct activities safely and soundly.” But this was the OPPOSITE of the INTENT of the parties when they created this monster in their laboratories. I can still hear the echos of their diabolical laughter. As a side note, see Fred Smith explain why Frankenstein (MERS) was involved: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/fred-smith-explains-why-mers-was-involved-multiple-securitizations/

Continue reading “Daniel Pennell Explains why MERS is Completely out of Control”

Failure to Allege Lack of Default

Failure to Allege Lack of Default

by Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

I came across the following on Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16055101289176414591&q=Restatement+(Third)+Of+Property+(Mortgages)+%C2%A7+5.4&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5):

A. Failure to Allege Lack of Default

First, Nevada law is clear that “[a]n action for the tort of wrongful foreclosure will lie if the trustor or mortgagor can establish at the time the power of sale was exercised or the foreclosure occurred, no breach of condition or failure of performance existed on the mortgagor or trustor’s part which would have authorized the foreclosure or exercise of the power of sale.” Ernestburg v. Mortgage Investors Group, No. 2:08-cv-01304-RCJ-RJJ, 2009 WL 160241, at *6 (D. Nev. Jan. 22, 2009) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The plaintiff must establish that they were not “in default when the power of sale was exercised.” Id. (citing Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 662 P.2d 610, 623 (Nev. 1983)). Furthermore, a claim for wrongful foreclosure does not arise until the power of sale is exercised. Collins, 662 P.2d at 623.

Continue reading “Failure to Allege Lack of Default”

The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 2

The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 2

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

New Note added on 1/22/2012 thanks to Simonee. California Probate Code does not seem to apply based on this California Supreme Court decision: Monterey S.P. Partnership v. W. L. Bangham, Inc. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 454 , 261 Cal.Rptr. 587; 777 P.2d 623 (download here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Monterey_SP_Partnership_vs_WL_Bangham.pdf)

This is a continuation from The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1 (http://dtc-systems.net/2011/01/wrong-remedy-wrong-time-part-1/).

It turns out that if you want to modify the Trust created by your Deed of Trust, or if you want to determine if the trust exists, you need to petition the court under California Probate Code 17200. If you are not in California, but are in a Deed of Trust state, your state probably has similar probate laws.

In order to petition the court, California Probate Code 17200 has the following provision:

“(a) Except as provided in Section 15800, a trustee or beneficiary of a trust may petition the court under this chapter concerning the internal affairs of the trust or to determine the existence of the trust.”

Right off the bat we find that only a trustee or a beneficiary has the ability to petition the court under 17200. If no trustee is specified, the default trustee is the trustor (the parties that executed the note – i.e. the homeowners). The beneficiaries can easily substitute in a new trustee if that occurs. But what if Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is named as the beneficiary? Consider California Mortgage and Deed of Trust Practice § 1.39 (3d ed Cal CEB 2008) § 1.39 (1) the Beneficiary Must Be Obligee: The beneficiary must be an obligee of the secured obligation (usually the payee of a note), because otherwise the deed of trust in its favor is meaningless. Watkins v Bryant (1891) 91 C 492, 27 P 775; Nagle v Macy (1858) 9 C 426. See §§ 1.8-1.19 on the need for an obligation. The deed of trust is merely an incident of the obligation and has no existence apart from it. Goodfellow v Goodfellow (1933) 219 C 548, 27 P2d 898; Adler v Sargent (1895) 109 C 42, 41 P 799; Turner v Gosden (1932) 121 CA 20, 8 P2d 505. The holder of the note, however, can enforce the deed of trust whether or not named as beneficiary or mortgagee. CC § 2936; see § 1.23.

Continue reading “The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 2”

Support Cameron/Baxter Films in support of Foreclosure Defense!

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

HELP KICKSTART the Foreclosure Crisis film “COPS ‘n ROBBERS vs THE PEOPLE: the Death and Rebirth of the American Dream”. Taking the High Road. This is a movie of the People, by the People, for the People. Join our Kickstarter.com backer community and INSPIRE AMERICA to its higher conscience! VALENTINE’S DAY DEADLINE. FEB. 14! http://kck.st/hLX9W5