Just me,Thanks Isisis. This foreclosure mill has taken to input additional objections in their response which appear frivolous. (in 5 pages or less they have listed several.) This is especially odd in that in addition to this argument, they are also now claiming that the indorsement is NOT an allonge. They did not provide the Note and have not proven possession. The signature is fraudulent, but I was not incorporating all evidence of signature fraud due to they have to prove standing FIRST.
My first challenge is to request the court allow a response. I have case law on this and it is on my side if I choose to proceed with that route. This may involve an endless loop where I have to repetitiously provide additional evidence. The MSJ was made with a statemtn declaring discovery hade been had and completed. This is one of many odd things in that there was never an order of discovery or a deadline attached to it. They just "declared" that as a fact. I was in process of preparing for trial and this caused me to basically stop the process of my investigation, in order to respond to multiple legal requests... AFTER my legal aid attorney quit. It appears they are seeking technical win on my errors.
A lot of what they have presented is a misinterpretation of (their own) facts or misinterpretation of legal argument. I do know that legal aid was ignoring certain unfounded claims. All of this (request for disco and MSJ), mind you, was initiated after the SOL and after I no longer had legal representation. I also no longer had electronic storage of bank files as these expired after 5 years. So they stated I could not prove payements. Evidence of this is obvious (prejudice) but not declared point by point in my objection to MSJ, on reasoning that, they do not have Note or proven holder status and PETE... and... their records do not show default. (of course no payments have been made since acceleration and no payments are due as Plaintiff seeks property and not payments now - but they argued no payments without admitting they were rejecting them in order to foreclose)
I did not object to the last amended complaint because I did not have notice. Otherwise, I could have stopped this progression, shown laches and prejudice with the delay (amending after 7 yrs post SOL). The judge allowed it as part of "free to amend" rule and this may give me rights to pursue a challenge on appeal (no opp to be heard and object). I did point out, in this case and my answer, that Plaintiff contradicted itself and its new claim negates their original claim of default. IE, This activity is basically a judicial admission that I was NOT in default when Plaintiff filed this complaint. I wasn't even in default on the "alleged default date" they amended, but they are still asserting it and saying I owe payments where they chose to accellerate and refused payments. They are trying like Hell to hold on to the original filing date to evade the SOL (statute of limitations is 6 years). So my argument against "amending" was basically incorporated into my opposition to MSJ. I incorporated parts of the record that show this. They had incorporated all prior complaints, making them admissions, when they amended. This allows me to point out their contradictions.
It is notable that Plaintiff did not object to my judicial notices. These provide evidence of investigation and a pattern and practice of erroneous accounting. In a nutshell, Ocwen REFUSED to correct the account and held that I was in a continous and ongoing default state. This culminated with a forced placed insurance charge that "justified" further claims of non-payment (due to charging fees and incorporating into monthly payment due inbetween billing cycles). After 5 or 6 years, they removed the charge. It is illegal to do so. In my State, a party is not entitled to charge a consumer for insurance not received. I don't want to be foreclosed from taking these issues to trial because of technicalities and assertions of false legal arguments quashing my rights in an MSJ.
I suppose my question, if there is one, is how far do I go in providing evidence where the Plaintiff has not even established their holder status or possession of the Note. After 8 years, they are still arguing their case on a "copy" of the note and a robosigned transfer which could technically be void (not voidable at their option). I have so much evidence of signature fraud and use of copies, these 2 items are a part of that.
Yes, our government at work. It's great to have one you can always count on isn't it?Do you guys know how hard it is to get a package delivered to the DOJ? I'm now on my 9th email from USPS. IT'S PAPER, YOU IDIOTS! Stop scanning it & deliver it, already.
Our taxpayer dollars, hard at work. A freakin package with PAPER in it scanned upteen times.
They abuse the presumptions the law affords them. They abused the note authenticity by printing the note themseves, abused the validity of the indorsements by freely applied them to establish the chain of title, abuse the representation by using the trustee as plaintiff. The judges know it too. Then note and indorsements are presumed to be authentic unless you challenge and provide proof. I provided proofs that the indorsements on my notes were applied AFTER the indorsers left the companies and had no authority to indorse them. Furthermore, the allonge was white paper while the note was brown, clearly not ataached till 2015 when the allongue was created. It did not matter, the bank greased the judge, foreclosure approved. I want to find out whether the appeal court and the supreme court are also corrupted like the trial court by appealing and file petition if I lose the appeal. The house does not matter, the principle is. Went camping for 5 days, lived in a van like a nomad and and loved it.Speak of the devil... I just got the response to my opposition to MSJ. They are saying I have no right to dispute the fraudulent signatures because I'm not a party to the transfer. I beg to differ, especially since this fraudulent act affects the title to *my* property! Yes, it looks like I'm going there.
Maybe it's that not all 150 million people had their data breached significantly or to the extent that they were damaged. Just guessing here, don't know how that stuff works.Seriously, I'm getting tired of this. A new settlement. Do the math. A little over $6 for each person that's info was breached.
Maybe it's that not all 150 million people had their data breached significantly or to the extent that they were damaged. Just guessing here, don't know how that stuff works.
From my experience the FTC has been the ONLY government agency that did jack and did it without political grandstanding.
The one action they took in which I was a third party beneficiary I received a substantial amount of money and it was helpful to me in the early days when I was trying to understand how mortgage loans work and how regulators could step in. It was from the action they took against Countrywide for overcharging borrowers in default and Chapter 13. They even got all charged up and labeled the conduct egregious. Then breached the notion that the creditor could violate the loan contract and it could warrant the remedy of rescission. But that reasonable concept unfortunately didn't trickle down into the court system.
The numbers, the affected and the info seems to be changing daily & it all depends on which agency website you access. You're absolutely right, I don't want anyone to be discouraged from getting restitution.
Equifax breach - basic claim up to $125 back for 2017 hack - or free credit monitoring or document up to $20k lossesUpdate to post: Check eligibility here: https://eligibility.equifaxbreachsettlement.com/en/eligibility File a claim here: https://www.equifaxbreachsettlement.com/file-a-claim edit 8/8/19: It may ...slickdeals.net
Apparently it's more than a couple of dollars. It may be worth filling out the form for a apart of the settlement.
I put in my identity theft complaint through the FTC. Tip: Please have your complaint ready for the menus you have to navigate. Also, there is a word limit, so copy your edited version (you may have to whittle it down) before you send it. They give you roughly a page worth of words.You just gave me a great idea! I never went to the FTC-it's worth a shot.
I'm curious on one point. If a Plaintiff does NOT respond to a Defendent's claims and counter claims (in their response to an initial complaint for which they have x days to respond) does this mean they can still do so- or not- as part of their MSJ? I'm not sure if I should have objected to this or not. This goes back to the Plaintiff MSJ point where they "declared" discovery was over, where no new discovery was had since their "permission to amend." Thanks.
They filed these answers with their Motion for Summary. Had I known I could have filed default because they didn't answer then I would have. What they did put in MSJ is somewhat vague too, basically saying I haven't presented my case (true but I only just updated my argument with their amendments).I'm not sure if I understand what's going on. If they didn't file an Answer to your Counter Claims and the time to Answer has expired, then they're in default & you could file a Motion for a Default Judgment.
Generally speaking, when you file a claim or counter claim, they have X number of days to answer. The procedure is a bit different from state to state but what you're looking for is a default judgment at that point. If they never actually filed an answer, your next move would have been to check your state's RCP and see what it says about the procedure for getting a default in your favor. Usually, you would file a motion for default judgment since they never filed an answer to your claim/counter claim.I'm curious on one point. If a Plaintiff does NOT respond to a Defendent's claims and counter claims (in their response to an initial complaint for which they have x days to respond) does this mean they can still do so- or not- as part of their MSJ? I'm not sure if I should have objected to this or not. This goes back to the Plaintiff MSJ point where they "declared" discovery was over, where no new discovery was had since their "permission to amend." Thanks.
Thanks! I did not recognize that was an option. (They actually did something similar to me when getting an amendment.)Generally speaking, when you file a claim or counter claim, they have X number of days to answer. The procedure is a bit different from state to state but what you're looking for is a default judgment at that point. If they never actually filed an answer, your next move would have been to check your state's RCP and see what it says about the procedure for getting a default in your favor. Usually, you would file a motion for default judgment since they never filed an answer to your claim/counter claim.