Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II

isisis

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Survivor_IN said:
FYI - The attorney I listed above is actually a graduate of the bootcamp. This attorney is aligned with Dan Law in Ohio. Marc Dan is former OH Attorney General and has been fighting foreclosures since prolly 2008. His practice has expanded to several states and they do federal cases too. I listed him because he is in NJ but since the discussion is rotated on Max's boot camp, well there you go. They have resources to take on cases in multiple jurisdictions like federal. It couldn't hurt to get the free consult. But I think the securitization argument was quashed by the judges and the banks some time ago and that's when MG stopped his training sessions, plus there's other stuff too. It doesn't mean that the argument is not valid if you have the pieces.
Click to expand...
But that's the thing about arguments intended to invalidate securitization. It's like the lights are on but they're not home. Courts seem to have come to a decision on their own that no matter what angle it's argued from they're not going to listen. Whether it's void v. voidable, agency, ratification, note holder, assignment. I liked the IRS angle because they couldn't legally own the loan because it wasn't a lawful transfer and especially liked the concept of letting them know I had documentation that could break the REMIC if they tried to take my home.....

When all of this was coming down and the IRS was considering looking into the issue, they were taking about it on Naked Capitalism, Yves Smith and her fellow geniuses. They seemed to concede that the IRS had no choice but to let it go because if all those trusts were invalid the fallout would cause so much upheaval that the economy would be toast or something like that. Oh, here it is.

IRS Likely to Expand Mortgage Industry Coverup by Whitewashing REMIC Violations | naked capitalism

As established readers know, we've been writing since mid 2010 about the widespread, possibly pervasive, failure of mortgage securitization originators to convey the notes (the borrower IOU) to securitization trusts as stipulated in the deal documents, well before the robo signing scandal broke...
www.nakedcapitalism.com www.nakedcapitalism.com
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Don't get too hung up finding a Max Gardner boot-camp attorney. I talked to one who referred me another one claiming this guy know what he is doing. After spending some time looking over my case, he advised me to file a chapter 13 plan, and resuming my monthly payment, and sign a quit claim deed to the crooks Bank of America, Bank of NY, and in return they leave me alone not enforcing the sale till June 2024.
WTF is this guy thinking? Is he working for me or the banks. I promptly told him to get lost, I wasn't throwing away my 13 years of fighting and surrender. Nobody knows your case better than you, with discovery and learning the court procedures you can do better than most of them, It's your house, not theirs. This guy must have been sleeping in the boot-camp.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
It's frustrating when an alleged foreclosure attorney has no greater plan than bankruptcy. I do agree that the person best capable and with most of the details is going to be the homeowner. Even if someone did say, "hey, I'll represent you for free!" it would take them months of review to come up with an effective, on point, argument that is likely to get quashed by a judge with an interest in morgan stanley retirement funds. In the same vein, bankruptcy may get you some traction on presenting claims against a party with no standing.
 
isisis

isisis

LoanSafe Member
moretrouble said:
Don't get too hung up finding a Max Gardner boot-camp attorney. I talked to one who referred me another one claiming this guy know what he is doing. After spending some time looking over my case, he advised me to file a chapter 13 plan, and resuming my monthly payment, and sign a quit claim deed to the crooks Bank of America, Bank of NY, and in return they leave me alone not enforcing the sale till June 2024.
WTF is this guy thinking? Is he working for me or the banks. I promptly told him to get lost, I wasn't throwing away my 13 years of fighting and surrender. Nobody knows your case better than you, with discovery and learning the court procedures you can do better than most of them, It's your house, not theirs. This guy must have been sleeping in the boot-camp.
Click to expand...
Same is true for just about any attorney. The legal mind seems to function by some sort of organizational shorthand. If a homeowner is fighting foreclosure the reference they quickly pull up is "trying to get a free house with some internet scheme".

The problem is that attorneys are complicit and that makes them resentful because they know that the system is unfair, that the loan contract isn't lawful and they secretly recognize that they should be the first responders. It should be their responsibility to safeguard the law but they're too frightened by the power of the banks. Plus they want to stay on their good side in case they want to refinance.

Also consider the subject matter. People become attorneys because they have brains that can sort through tons of info, categorize and apply it appropriately and make big bucks but it takes up so much bandwidth there's not a lot of room left. Even if there was they aren't the innovators or designers that want to see the flaws in the system and make improvements. They're very much invested in the status quo even if that means the perpetuation of a system that's oppressive.

Oh, and they also resent us personally because they're still paying off the student loans that were supposed to give them access to legal power and instead they've got us pulling the same info off Google.
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
I have access to Bloomberg terminal for a short time, to look up your loan, if it's securitized into a trust. By locating my loan in the trust, I found out the reported balance is much lower than what they claim. A scheme to profit from the master servicer Ocwen (PHH now) and NewRez (whole mezzanine class bond holder, Rithm now). Also use it in your court case. PM me if you need to look up something.
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
isisis said:
Same is true for just about any attorney. The legal mind seems to function by some sort of organizational shorthand. If a homeowner is fighting foreclosure the reference they quickly pull up is "trying to get a free house with some internet scheme".

The problem is that attorneys are complicit and that makes them resentful because they know that the system is unfair, that the loan contract isn't lawful and they secretly recognize that they should be the first responders. It should be their responsibility to safeguard the law but they're too frightened by the power of the banks. Plus they want to stay on their good side in case they want to refinance.

Also consider the subject matter. People become attorneys because they have brains that can sort through tons of info, categorize and apply it appropriately and make big bucks but it takes up so much bandwidth there's not a lot of room left. Even if there was they aren't the innovators or designers that want to see the flaws in the system and make improvements. They're very much invested in the status quo even if that means the perpetuation of a system that's oppressive.

Oh, and they also resent us personally because they're still paying off the student loans that were supposed to give them access to legal power and instead they've got us pulling the same info off Google.
Click to expand...
They are too lazy even to look up Google. I can't believe all these attorneys supposed to be experts in bk law but know nothing about the ResCap bk case with19 billion dollar claim. As the result of the ResCap case, only ResCap Liquidating Trust can foreclose on me not Bank of New York trustee of a Residential Mortgage trust. Misrepresentation and fraud. Kaa-Chiing..
 
J

Javagold

LoanSafe Member
moretrouble said:
I have access to Bloomberg terminal for a short time, to look up your loan, if it's securitized into a trust. By locating my loan in the trust, I found out the reported balance is much lower than what they claim. A scheme to profit from the master servicer Ocwen (PHH now) and NewRez (whole mezzanine class bond holder, Rithm now). Also use it in your court case. PM me if you need to look up something.
Click to expand...
PM sent …
 
isisis

isisis

LoanSafe Member
moretrouble said:
I have access to Bloomberg terminal for a short time, to look up your loan, if it's securitized into a trust. By locating my loan in the trust, I found out the reported balance is much lower than what they claim. A scheme to profit from the master servicer Ocwen (PHH now) and NewRez (whole mezzanine class bond holder, Rithm now). Also use it in your court case. PM me if you need to look up something.
Click to expand...
If you still havert access and the time could you check out CWABS 2006 SD2?
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
I can relate to being "ganged up on" MT.
Weird how attorneys who have never made an appearance get court supplied notice. I just don't have time to file complaints for practicing law without a license in my State. Maybe I should make the time? lol
 
K

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
In responding to their opposition to a writ application, I'm just dumbfounded by the way they so easily contradict...well....themselves...in the same document. How in the world does someone go to college, then spend 3 more years in law school...And still, you cannot do better than to contradict yourself within one document? And the lies....geez....the lies...

First, they claim that I "made up" a definition for something in the wording of a certain law. Then, when discussing in more detail, they stated that I didn't provide any definition for that same thing.

Free tip, boys and girls....scrutinize EVERY case law cite they try to rely on. Because every single example they are trying to use against my writ app is very cleary distinguishable from our present case. They cite several cases where a representative of the original creditor provided an affidavit discussing original documents they actually saw with their own eyes....and claim that it's the same thing as an affiant from a now fourth company, a servicer, not even the alleged current creditor, testifying in their affidavit that the not-even-complete copy of the alleged note is a "true and correct" copy of the original....that they also claim was lost over a decade ago....that this affiant could not possibly have ever seen with her own eyes. How can you certify under oath that something is true and correct to an original you never once laid eyes on? Complete trash.

I won't go into much more detail for now but this "effort" on their part is so bad it's not worth the waste of paper it took to print it out. She complains that I relied on a case that was a suit to collect on a promissory note, but it wasn't a mortgage....yet, she relied on citing cases where the plaintiff sued to collect on credit card debt.....on an auto lease default....you gotta be kidding me with this nonsense. Not too bright, this whole hypocritical attempt. Just wow.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
Yes. These (lender) arguments are complete trash and one can easily distinguish the differences between that case and this case. It's important to do so! They know their citations really don't apply but the quote they find appears plausible and if you don't argue against it... then they win. Mind you, this is why certain cases are "non-published." The court knows it was not argued completely or there is a flaw in reasoning or missing element that applies to this case. I got accused of having legal help when I did this. lol.

Another point to remember, is when disputing a factual or legal claim of your opponent use the "even if this actually is true" proposition. For example, even if the lender's note is authentic, the note was not presented prior to or at the inception of the case.

I've been in this long enough to know when they are presenting "bunk" to the court. You know they are losing and have little else when they start accusing you of "ridiculous" claims. It's all they got! They have no support or opposing argument where they should have citations or additional evidence to refute you. It does not matter if they contradict themselves. They argue for the sake of the word count falsely believing their voluminous repetition is a "preponderance" of evidence. They don't care if their argument is materially flawed. Beware of the flawed interpretations of their citations and evidence!!!


kraftykrab said:
In responding to their opposition to a writ application, I'm just dumbfounded by the way they so easily contradict...well....themselves...in the same document. How in the world does someone go to college, then spend 3 more years in law school...And still, you cannot do better than to contradict yourself within one document? And the lies....geez....the lies...

First, they claim that I "made up" a definition for something in the wording of a certain law. Then, when discussing in more detail, they stated that I didn't provide any definition for that

Free tip, boys and girls....scrutinize EVERY case law cite they try to rely on. Because every single example they are trying to use against my writ app is very cleary distinguishable from our present case. They cite several cases where a representative of the original creditor provided an affidavit discussing original documents they actually saw with their own eyes....and claim that it's the same thing as an affiant from a now fourth company, a servicer, not even the alleged current creditor, testifying in their affidavit that the not-even-complete copy of the alleged note is a "true and correct" copy of the original....that they also claim was lost over a decade ago....that this affiant could not possibly have ever seen with her own eyes. How can you certify under oath that something is true and correct to an original you never once laid eyes on? Complete trash.

I won't go into much more detail for now but this "effort" on their part is so bad it's not worth the waste of paper it took to print it out. She complains that I relied on a case that was a suit to collect on a promissory note, but it wasn't a mortgage....yet, she relied on citing cases where the plaintiff sued to collect on credit card debt.....on an auto lease default....you gotta be kidding me with this nonsense. Not too bright, this whole hypocritical attempt. Just wow.
Click to expand...
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Survivor_IN said:
Worthy of bookmarking! Great overall citations.
IE How to overcome a state judgment's res judica (claim preclusion.)
Click to expand...
The above mentioned case cited this:

Margolis v. Nazareth Fair Grounds & Farmers Market, Inc., 249 F.2d 221 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Margolis v. Nazareth Fair Grounds & Farmers Market, Inc., 249 F.2d 221, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
I plan to file chapter 13 next week. I knew of 2 pro ses whose houses got sold at sheriff's auctions because they either they did not know about chapter 13 or unwilling to file to stop the sales. Not me, last time I filed bought me 13 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top