Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II

[moretrouble]

Also, when I started defending my purported foreclosure (debt collection in disguise), I used to be so upset because I could not believe how corrupt the judges were and how low these crooked attorneys stooped for a few dollars. Now I realize it's not to my (and our) benefits to get upset. Don't let them affect your emotion, just laugh at them and have fun fighting them in court.

 

[isisis]

I've been trying to come up with a good nickname for opposing counsel... I like shyster.

WORDS RELATED TO CROOKED LAWYER
Word of the day
shyster
noun unscrupulous lawyer; swindler

• ambulance chaser
• cheater
• chiseler
• crooked lawyer
• mouthpiece
• pettifogger
• scammer
• trickster
• unethical lawyer
• quibbler

While I can't point to any controlling authority on this I'm fairly sure the most accurate descriptive term would be buttheads.

 

[moretrouble]

By reading the Phoenix SF v U S Bank and Phoenix SF v. Bank of New York cases, I learnt about:

champerty

www.law.cornell.edu

This is one way to get around res judicata issue. NewRes funding servicing advances with servicer advance bonds paying down the defaulted loans' balances hoping to collect the differences between the balances with accrued interests and the paid down balances is champerty. Another law suit with appeals would tie them up for years.
On my way to submit my NOA.

 

[isisis]

As anticipated the settlement offer sucked. All the high interest arrears, charges, fees etc plus the loan balance were capitalized so that the total payments were double what they would have been if they hadn't breached the loan contract. The attitude changed though instead of trying to sell me on the features of the modification it was one of censure. As though I had been a very naughty borrower and this was what I got. What they got out of it was a lot more money and this was a good thing, fair and just. It was like they are unquestionably entitled to cause me harm and benefit from doing so. Like I was foolish for imagining that they could not be prevented from enriching themselves at my expense if they chose. Like the rules simply weren't applicable to them and what made me think otherwise?

It was the strangest thing. It finally hit home the arrogance of the banks. It was a watershed moment. They didn't convince me they were right but how strongly they believe in their legal immunity and in our invisibility.

I rejected their offer.

 

[kraftykrab]

As anticipated the settlement offer sucked. All the high interest arrears, charges, fees etc plus the loan balance were capitalized so that the total payments were double what they would have been if they hadn't breached the loan contract. The attitude changed though instead of trying to sell me on the features of the modification it was one of censure. As though I had been a very naughty borrower and this was what I got. What they got out of it was a lot more money and this was a good thing, fair and just. It was like they are unquestionably entitled to cause me harm and benefit from doing so. Like I was foolish for imagining that they could not be prevented from enriching themselves at my expense if they chose. Like the rules simply weren't applicable to them and what made me think otherwise?

It was the strangest thing. It finally hit home the arrogance of the banks. It was a watershed moment. They didn't convince me they were right but how strongly they believe in their legal immunity and in our invisibility.

I rejected their offer.

Keep in mind that they wont ever admit their error, or their client's error. Their job in representing their client is to convince you that this is the best you're ever gonna be able to get. I'm glad you don't fall for it. They will lie, they will ignore every truth....nearly 11 years in on this, the second case these clown attorneys filed against us, and they still tell the court that none of their client's wrong actions actually took place. THEY provided 100% of the documentation that proves their client acted improperly, and they cannot refute one word of our claims with as much as a single piece of admissible evidence, but they still carry on the lie.

And they are permitted to do so in the name of "representing their client".

Got the transcript yesterday from the August hearing. At the end of it, the attorney stated that they reserve the right to file a new MSJ. That was a completely unnecessary comment--no one needs to reserve that right before the court, they would simply just file a new one. Seems to me that her only purpose in saying that was to somehow try to intimidate me. It didn't work. Shortly after that, I got an email from that same lawyer, telling me that they would be moving for full trial ASAP instead of MSJ. Why? Simple--they cannot overcome the fatal flaws in their case to win MSJ. So once they realized this, they changed their tune. She offered me a settlement option where her client would pay me a "to be determined amount of money" if I would consent to judgment in their favor. LOL nope. THEY know they blew their case. WE know they blew their case. THE JUDGE ruled against them on purpose because HE knows they blew their case. But I'm supposed to roll over for them and play dead AFTER they just lost their MSJ? Not a chance.

Their job is to always overstate their position because if they can tire us out or wear us down, they can still get a win. The same defects that forced the judge to deny their MSJ still exist. They cannot overcome those unless they had a time machine. The issue that the judge seized upon to deny their MSJ is their conflicting claims regarding whether or not the note had been lost. The judge pointed to a letter that their pretender servicer sent me this past March in which they state that the note had never been lost. At hearing, this lawyer actually claimed it was a "little error", a "little typo". But their prior named servicer stated not only that the note wasnt lost, they also said they had the original in their possession and could present it for trial if needed. And then, this lawyer herself said they had the note in their possession when she tried the first MSJ in 2017. I put all of this into my MSJ and all she could muster was a new affidavit from the currently named servicer saying their March letter was in error. She didnt even attempt to counter her own judicial admission in 2017 or Caliber's repeated claims that they had the note. That's because she cannot provide anything to show to the contrary.

Remember this--if there's one party making the claim, it could be a simple error. But the more times that claim is made, and the more parties that make it, its far less likely that it's a "simple typo". The judge actually called it a big error. And when I tried to reiterate at that moment that this wasnt the only example of them claiming the note wasnt lost, he waved me off and didnt allow me to point that out. Still, he didn't need the extra reminder. And if this were to go to a full trial, they couldnt overcome it there either.

But don't tell them that. It would interfere with their lying to pretend they are in a position of advantage in all of this mess.

 

[moretrouble]

Just make sure you're having fun fighting the crooks. I am, I look at it as mental exercise like reading or learning a new language to keep me away from dementia. Submitted my NOA yesterday, now just sit back and let the ball roll, ready to file chapter 13, Deja vu. Talked to another bk atty, seems like nobody wants to take on my case. Probably have to do it myself. Best to you all.

 

[Survivor_IN]

We have new judges here whom don't have the requisite knowledge on dirty counsel and because they are new, they agree with the "last word." Opposing counsel has certain deceptive psychological tricks to obtain rulings that appear to be little more than interrupting, talking louder, getting his argument down in duplication and finally having the "last word." Same tactic with the robomil on filings. Once I make a point or they have an adverse ruling, they amend and give themselves the "last word." I swear I think they believe these repetitive statements or actions (including misinterpretation of my arguments) give them the desired preponderance of evidence. The case file is now in the thousands of pages.

 

[kraftykrab]

We have new judges here whom don't have the requisite knowledge on dirty counsel and because they are new, they agree with the "last word." Opposing counsel has certain deceptive psychological tricks to obtain rulings that appear to be little more than interrupting, talking louder, getting his argument down in duplication and finally having the "last word." Same tactic with the robomil on filings. Once I make a point or they have an adverse ruling, they amend and give themselves the "last word." I swear I think they believe these repetitive statements or actions (including misinterpretation of my arguments) give them the desired preponderance of evidence. The case file is now in the thousands of pages.

In my case, the attorney is so wrapped up in emotional conclusive arguments that she cannot even see her own errors--or at least, she's trying to overcome those errors by reiterating things that are not relevant. Even in this most recent hearing, it was all about how we had not paid her client. We don't owe her client anything because her client is not the party entitled to enforce anything. It woudl be like Visa suing you because you didn't pay your Mastercard account....the fact of payment or non-payment is ONLY relevant when the party trying to collect is the party with proper standing that's entitled to collect that account. These clowns identified at least six different account numbers...then, instead of working out all the details and proving their claim as to which account is which, they go to "they have not paid anything in years". She repeatedly pointed out at the hearing which months and years they didnt get any payment. Perhaps if they didnt spend so much time lying to us about who the real owner is, etc etc, we would not be in this position to start with?? But remember, none of that matters. Why should they care about actual standing and lawful rights to enforce?? lol

And it's not only the new judges' lack of knowledge about dirty lawyers--in fact, new judges used to be lawyers, so I'm fairly certain that they know about that....every lawyer, even those who aren't dirty themselves, would most likely know about the ones that are dirty. It's actually more about lack of experience on the bench still. Our judge is relatively new, I think he's been a judge for about 3 years or so now. I believe he has good intentions to do the job properly, but he's got 8 cases where his ruling was appealed or a writ applied for, and 7 of those were overturned. Maybe he's just learning the ropes. He could have done what prior judges did and just rubber-stamp their MSJ, but he actually looked at the substance of at least some of what was filed.

 

[moretrouble]

Article on Article III standing in state court.

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=kjeanrl

Clearly, the sub-prime trusts' reports to the certificate holders (especially mine) show no "injury in fact"; therefore, the trustees (Bank of New York in my case), do not meet Article III standing requirement.
The Federal question is: Does Federal law allow an entity who does not meet Article III standing to enforce the security instrument?
I know in the state court, you just forge the note and somehow convince a judge to grant a judgment!!! what about the Federal court?

Also , looks like I have to do everything myself again. After reading my memorandum to the Challenge the attorneys ran away from my case as fast as they can. Nobody wants to be Mark Stopa or Durbin. It's probably easier for me to learn court procedure than explaining to the attys about securitization and call rights exploitation.

 

[kraftykrab]

Article on Article III standing in state court.

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=kjeanrl

Clearly, the sub-prime trusts' reports to the certificate holders (especially mine) show no "injury in fact"; therefore, the trustees (Bank of New York in my case), do not meet Article III standing requirement.
The Federal question is: Does Federal law allow an entity who does not meet Article III standing to enforce the security instrument?
I know in the state court, you just forge the note and somehow convince a judge to grant a judgment!!! what about the Federal court?

Also , looks like I have to do everything myself again. After reading my memorandum to the Challenge the attorneys ran away from my case as fast as they can. Nobody wants to be Mark Stopa or Durbin. It's probably easier for me to learn court procedure than explaining to the attys about securitization and call rights exploitation.

Keep in mind that Article III is federal rules, not state court rules. Not all states have the same in their civil procedure. State courts are considered to be courts of general jurisdiction, while federal courts have limited jurisdiction. The requirements of standing can be quite different.

For example, in my state, if the plaintiff in a foreclosure case sells the loan off during the proceedings, that party is still permitted to stay in the suit and act as the plaintiff despite no longer having any standing whatsoever. They are only required to substitute in the new party as plaintiff if ordered by the court to do so. Imagine this--you could get sued for foreclosure by a party that has no standing, and even if you argue that they have no standing, the plaintiff could simply file an ex parte motion to sub in the new party....and the case continues. There should be a standard--there's supposed to be anyway--where the plaintiff must have standing when they file the suit but it isnt always the case. So, you can be sued by a "place holder" party....who has no actual standing but is just "holding the spot" for the so-called real party in interest. And our state courts by and large allow it to happen. A fake plaintiff with no standing can thus sue you, see the suit all the way through to judgment, and then sub in the "real" party after judgment so the "real" party can enforce the judgment that was obtained by a party which suffered no injury and never had standing. Sounds legit though, right??

 

[moretrouble]

Keep in mind that Article III is federal rules, not state court rules. Not all states have the same in their civil procedure. State courts are considered to be courts of general jurisdiction, while federal courts have limited jurisdiction. The requirements of standing can be quite different.

For example, in my state, if the plaintiff in a foreclosure case sells the loan off during the proceedings, that party is still permitted to stay in the suit and act as the plaintiff despite no longer having any standing whatsoever. They are only required to substitute in the new party as plaintiff if ordered by the court to do so. Imagine this--you could get sued for foreclosure by a party that has no standing, and even if you argue that they have no standing, the plaintiff could simply file an ex parte motion to sub in the new party....and the case continues. There should be a standard--there's supposed to be anyway--where the plaintiff must have standing when they file the suit but it isnt always the case. So, you can be sued by a "place holder" party....who has no actual standing but is just "holding the spot" for the so-called real party in interest. And our state courts by and large allow it to happen. A fake plaintiff with no standing can thus sue you, see the suit all the way through to judgment, and then sub in the "real" party after judgment so the "real" party can enforce the judgment that was obtained by a party which suffered no injury and never had standing. Sounds legit though, right??

You got it. My Notice of Appeal is in the system. The scam is documented in the court records.

 

[isisis]

Just make sure you're having fun fighting the crooks. I am, I look at it as mental exercise like reading or learning a new language to keep me away from dementia. Submitted my NOA yesterday, now just sit back and let the ball roll, ready to file chapter 13, Deja vu. Talked to another bk atty, seems like nobody wants to take on my case. Probably have to do it myself. Best to you all.

More Trouble,

As I expect you know, BK attorneys come in a couple types. There's the garden variety that guide you through all the irksome schedules and paperwork and help you develop a repayment plan. Then there's the less common kind that is willing to sue banks, does adversary proceedings even FDCPA sometimes. There was a more specialized variety that was familiar with securitization and trained in the Max Gardener Boot camp. At least there used to be though last I heard Max was sick so whether that's still happening I don't know.

Did you ask the attorneys you spoke with about filing the payments since the cleanup call as unsecured? I'm curious because I'd been thinking about using a similar technique but using the date of my servicer's breach of the loan contract as the point at which the debt became unsecured as the consideration failed.

 

[Survivor_IN]

Yes Krafty, that appears to be the way of the robomil... hiding the name of the real party in interest. I certainly don't believe this is true in all cases and especially not true in my case. A party has a right to the name and identity of the person suing them, at least in my state court. The fact that robomils have evaded this consequence does not mean it is right or correct rule and interpretation of law. If you look, this is addressed in state court. How can an unidentified party declare harm? How can one defend against an unidentified party where their identity is crucial to standing? Nahhh. don't answer...

 

[moretrouble]

More Trouble,

As I expect you know, BK attorneys come in a couple types. There's the garden variety that guide you through all the irksome schedules and paperwork and help you develop a repayment plan. Then there's the less common kind that is willing to sue banks, does adversary proceedings even FDCPA sometimes. There was a more specialized variety that was familiar with securitization and trained in the Max Gardener Boot camp. At least there used to be though last I heard Max was sick so whether that's still happening I don't know.

Did you ask the attorneys you spoke with about filing the payments since the cleanup call as unsecured? I'm curious because I'd been thinking about using a similar technique but using the date of my servicer's breach of the loan contract as the point at which the debt became unsecured as the consideration failed.

The attorneys I talked to are typical cookie-cutter type, filling in the forms, dividing the arreage into 3 or 5 years, no contesting the claim. They are not willing to do what I plan, not with what I am willing to pay. I told the opposing foreclosure attorney that I will file chapter 13 one week before the sale. I plan to specify my balance at default as unsecured, challenge the authorities of the individual who will file the claim, autenciticy of the note, balance of my loan in the trust vs claim amount, Etc… basically the same stuff that the state court ignores. You can file chapter 13 every 6 months between dismissals, and you don’t have to go thru it, the bk trustee will motion for dismissal if you don’t have a viable plan, that takes months. With the tort complaint in the state court, wrongful foreclosure in the federal court, and appeal, you can delay for a long time, and drive them crazy. I am using the Trump’s strategy.

 

[Javagold]

I filed for BK for Fraudclosure protection in January 2022. Of course my attorney refused to challenge the debt as adversarial and/or unsecured. It bought us about a year and make a long story short I was able to get a last second modification….

now where it’s gets very interesting is the Servicer was Rushmore Loan Management who got bought out by Mr. Cooper aka Nationstar and changed their name now as a new Servicer to Rushmore Servicing as of September 2023.

and where it’s gets even more interesting is the first letter I get from Rushmore Servicing aka Mr. Cooper aka Nationstar stating my investor/creditor is US Bank NA Trustee for XYZ Trust. During my BK13 the credoctor/investor was claimed to be US Bank NA Trustee for ABC Trust.

So first thing i do of course is look up this XYZ Trust. AND WOULDNT YOU KNOW. XYZ bought all the NPLs from ABC Trust in 2021. Almost a full year BEFORE my BK13 !!!

It’s time for me to get back to work and start asking lots of tough and important questions …..

 

[moretrouble]

I filled chapter 13 back in 2010 to stop the 1st non judicial sale. Initially, bank of a filed a claim naming a recovery trust for Residential Funding as creditor but later withdrew the claim. If anybody look up my old docket now, there is no claim. I plan to challenge and object to any claim because any transfer to the current trust should be void because my mortgage was discharged in a prior chapter 7. I am anxious to find out Who is going to file the claim and what version of the note will be used ? Why the new claim is different from the old claim? No attorney will do that except myself.

newRez bought all the npl From Rescap and try to collect.

 

[isisis]

I filed for BK for Fraudclosure protection in January 2022. Of course my attorney refused to challenge the debt as adversarial and/or unsecured. It bought us about a year and make a long story short I was able to get a last second modification….

now where it’s gets very interesting is the Servicer was Rushmore Loan Management who got bought out by Mr. Cooper aka Nationstar and changed their name now as a new Servicer to Rushmore Servicing as of September 2023.

and where it’s gets even more interesting is the first letter I get from Rushmore Servicing aka Mr. Cooper aka Nationstar stating my investor/creditor is US Bank NA Trustee for XYZ Trust. During my BK13 the credoctor/investor was claimed to be US Bank NA Trustee for ABC Trust.

So first thing i do of course is look up this XYZ Trust. AND WOULDNT YOU KNOW. XYZ bought all the NPLs from ABC Trust in 2021. Almost a full year BEFORE my BK13 !!!

It’s time for me to get back to work and start asking lots of tough and important questions …..

As I recall federal REMIC regulations prohibit a trust from acquiring a loan in Bankruptcy. It's considered a defective obligation and subject to 100% taxation. Though my securitization knowledge is a bit rusty since it's not something we can challenge in California.

 

[Survivor_IN]

I think being subject to 100% taxation would be a way to verify that the trust is not a trust when it comes to identifying the entity suing. In other words, while you can't challenge this act "between the parties" you can use this knowledge as a verification to the court that the entity suing you is not the correct party in interest as it is an impossibility for such trust to exist.

 

[Survivor_IN]

Hey Elle

In 2019, flavor of the month Plaintiff came back for another bite of the apple with an Amended Complaint. How this is even legal, is beyond my comprehension. How the statue of limitations does not apply in these cases is, yet again, beyond my comprehension.
I
I
HI ELLE
Maybe consider using Statute of Limitations for notes per your State's UCC and also there CFPB, you would have to amend your answer to the complaint or answer their next amended complaint with either Statute of Limitations or Laches. I'm still searching but somewhere it used to be they had to notify you of the fact that the debt was time-barred. But that may be just credit cards, yet it might get you traction on amending or such addition to your defense/claim.
§ 1006.26 Collection of time-barred debts.
Regulation F

(a) Definitions. For purposes of this section:

(1) Statute of limitations means the period prescribed by applicable law for bringing a legal action against the consumer to collect a debt.

(2) Time-barred debt means a debt for which the applicable statute of limitations has expired.

(b) Legal actions and threats of legal actions prohibited. A debt collector must not bring or threaten to bring a legal action against a consumer to collect a time-barred debt. This paragraph (b) does not apply to proofs of claim filed in connection with a bankruptcy proceeding.

 

[moretrouble]

In re Wells, 407 B.R. 873 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read In re Wells, 407 B.R. 873, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

I logged in PACER and studied the court documents in this case. Highly recommend if you can not find an attorney to carry out your strategy and have to file pro se. This case has most of the documents that you will need including notice of appeal and removing to the U. S. District court. I will continue to look up other cases and let you guy know. I plan to file listing my originator Ameriquest (now defunct) as secured creditor, and original balance as secured balance, and the inflated balance from the servicer as unsecured, claim of zero, and also the trust balance from Bank of new york as unsecured and claim of zero. It will be interesting how this will play out in court.