Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah

[wanda robo]

Wanda - I LMAO too. Our government at work!

I've been so engrossed with the gov't, I don't think I told you the news. My daughter passed her Certification Test & she is now a Certified Behavior Technician(I'm so glad she decided to go for Cert 1st then her Master's). She just got offered a full time job (not in her exact field though), but she'll be making $24 p/hr. If she does extra work with children under her Cert., she makes $42 p/hr!!! Imagine that at 24 yrs old!

 

[moretrouble]

Hmm... It looks like Ocwen doesn't want to show the note... The scheduled "meeting" is cancelled! I knew there was an angle on the "transfer to loss mitigation" waiving action on the MSJ for now. The must need some extra time to fabricate a few things. This is SO passive aggressive. I wonder if I can use this against them? Hmm.

Because they don't have the note. Most subprime notes were destroyed after origination and scanning: first to bury evidence of predatory loan, second to be able to sell to multiple trusts (collect multiple proceeds on the same loans). They are trying to figure out to to. Is it worth the trouble to commit forgery. Ask for a forensic exam of the original of the note by an expert.

 

[just_me]

The Bank has been avoiding certain "proofs" for some time. (8 years now) I think this has to do with the attorneys having knowledge of fabrications. Attorneys can lose their license for this and some mills have been caught, so...

 

[just_me]

This also may have had something to do with it. I registered my objections on the matter since the "report" is apparently submitted by counsel in a similar fashion as submitting a proposed order in court ( where you write something for the judge to sign). I have no doubt the mill was controlling the misrepresentations of it. I think I managed to stop the rubber-stamp process.

 

[wanda robo]

wanda joke time:

"the truth will set you free".

The fact of the matter is, the truth has lead us all here, and hasn't set us free.....

 

[moretrouble]

Servicers: More Than One Set of Books

Since we know that most documents presented in foreclosure are inconsistent with other “securitization” documents it is only natural to suspect, assume and then corroborate that there a…

livinglies.me

My comment made the living lies page. My goal is to expose the fraud wherever and whenever I can.

 

[just_me]

Servicers: More Than One Set of Books

Since we know that most documents presented in foreclosure are inconsistent with other “securitization” documents it is only natural to suspect, assume and then corroborate that there a…

livinglies.me

My comment made the living lies page. My goal is to expose the fraud wherever and whenever I can.

I can vouch for the duplicitous accounting. I have proof. I just can't pinpoint whether or not it is skimming or money laundering.

 

[kraftykrab]

Same here....the so-called plaintiff provided a supposed payment history for the loan in question....the payment amount is wrong. The history shows hundreds of dollars in late fees being assessed at the very beginning of the loan, which also makes no sense. There's a fee balance shown of something like negative $1400 at the start of the loan....not one single thing makes sense.....

OK, so question time. Someone please help me out on this one because I don't understand.

Original plaintiff filed suit several years ago and I filed a counter suit against them. That counter suit is still ongoing. Only one defendant was named in that suit--the original plaintiff. So, can anyone please tell me how the supposed new plaintiff---a party completely unrelated to the original plaintiff---can try to get my counter suit dismissed? The law firm, when asked in discovery to name all parties it represents in this litigation, named only the currently named plaintiff and the supposed servicer. They did not name the original plaintiff. So, am I wrong in thinking that something stinks here? How can you try to get my counter suit dismissed when you don't represent the defendant in that counter suit? How can a new plaintiff try to get it dismissed, even if on behalf of the original party, without any evidence of some agreement or POA from that original party that would grant the new plaintiff such authority? Am I wrong here, or does something seem off about this?

 

[wanda robo]

Same here....the so-called plaintiff provided a supposed payment history for the loan in question....the payment amount is wrong. The history shows hundreds of dollars in late fees being assessed at the very beginning of the loan, which also makes no sense. There's a fee balance shown of something like negative $1400 at the start of the loan....not one single thing makes sense.....

OK, so question time. Someone please help me out on this one because I don't understand.

Original plaintiff filed suit several years ago and I filed a counter suit against them. That counter suit is still ongoing. Only one defendant was named in that suit--the original plaintiff. So, can anyone please tell me how the supposed new plaintiff---a party completely unrelated to the original plaintiff---can try to get my counter suit dismissed? The law firm, when asked in discovery to name all parties it represents in this litigation, named only the currently named plaintiff and the supposed servicer. They did not name the original plaintiff. So, am I wrong in thinking that something stinks here? How can you try to get my counter suit dismissed when you don't represent the defendant in that counter suit? How can a new plaintiff try to get it dismissed, even if on behalf of the original party, without any evidence of some agreement or POA from that original party that would grant the new plaintiff such authority? Am I wrong here, or does something seem off about this?

This is a little confusing. I'm thinking maybe once the Plaintiff was substituted, you should have amended your Answer to change the counter claim into a third party complaint. Just thinking out loud.....

 

[kraftykrab]

This is a little confusing. I'm thinking maybe once the Plaintiff was substituted, you should have amended your Answer to change the counter claim into a third party complaint. Just thinking out loud.....

At that point it was not necessary because the claim was already pending before the court. Their action of changing the named plaintiff did not have any effect on my counter suit. I did check at that time.

Big issue is that we now have this law firm attempting to represent a party that by its own admission it no longer represents.

 

[Shteeeven]

Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002. Corporate fraud act of 2002. This might be useful to someone . Eileen foster has some pretty interesting things to say.

Sarbanes–Oxley Act - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[kraftykrab]

This is a little confusing. I'm thinking maybe once the Plaintiff was substituted, you should have amended your Answer to change the counter claim into a third party complaint. Just thinking out loud.....

The basic idea is that they have been caught talking out both sides of the same mouth, lol.

On one hand, they claim that their "new" plaintiff succeeds the old one in all aspects. But we know that's not the case when the old one is so specifically named in a counter claim. On the other hand, they have done a lot of things in this case that are obviously designed to take advantage of the average pro se that won't know any better. So today's going to be interesting. The basic argument they will likely try to use is to say that I did not provide enough in my answer to show any issue of dispute exists. But I sure did....including their own documentation showing all sorts of problems with their claims. So it's up to the judge to decide. And if the judge does not follow the rule of law today, then I'll file a supervisory writ application and go back to the COA on it.

 

[just_me]

Good luck today Krafty. I think you have grounds for dismissal. Make a complaint to the Bar sounds good too. Let us know what happens.

 

[just_me]

Same here....There's a fee balance shown of something like negative $1400 at the start of the loan....not one single thing makes sense.....

That's an interesting number. I found a similar amount in my origination docs. On mine, it appears the lender rolled an illegal amount into an escrow buffer. Maybe your "lender" started your escrow with a negative? Mine actually made up for the lie about the tax payment in closing. After one year it was effectively seized when taxes were adjusted. (I'm still paying interest on the amount mind you) I remember arguing on it when my escrow went up cause I had a buffer to counter. Yours, on the other hand, as a starting negative, would also affect your escrow around the year mark if/when it is recalc'd as a shortage. Whoever wrote your loan likely knew you would be surprised on an upwardly adjusted escrow and financial hardship. They just didn't care or willfully wanted you to fail. That's my best guess. It could also be a broker kickback. It's generally a rabbit hole putting certain proofs together cause they knew what they were doing at closing and are disinterested in the paper trail.

 

[kraftykrab]

That's an interesting number. I found a similar amount in my origination docs. On mine, it appears the lender rolled an illegal amount into an escrow buffer. Maybe your "lender" started your escrow with a negative? Mine actually made up for the lie about the tax payment in closing. After one year it was effectively seized when taxes were adjusted. (I'm still paying interest on the amount mind you) I remember arguing on it when my escrow went up cause I had a buffer to counter. Yours, on the other hand, as a starting negative, would also affect your escrow around the year mark if/when it is recalc'd as a shortage. Whoever wrote your loan likely knew you would be surprised on an upwardly adjusted escrow and financial hardship. They just didn't care or willfully wanted you to fail. That's my best guess. It could also be a broker kickback. It's generally a rabbit hole putting certain proofs together cause they knew what they were doing at closing and are disinterested in the paper trail.

There's just one problem......the loan does not have an escrow. No property taxes here and insurance was separate back then. So I am at a loss to explain this.

 

[moretrouble]

Another way to attack them is using:
"Fraud on the court"

bulloch v. united states, 763 f.2d 1115, 1121 (10th cir. 1985)

Fraud on the Court by an Officer of the Court And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal" Public Notice | Perjury | Judge

Fraud on the Court by an Officer of the Court And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal" Public Notice Who is an "officer of the court"? Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980): A judge is an officer of...

www.scribd.com

Fraud on the court has no statute of limitations

 

[kraftykrab]

Another way to attack them is using:
"Fraud on the court"

bulloch v. united states, 763 f.2d 1115, 1121 (10th cir. 1985)

Fraud on the Court by an Officer of the Court And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal" Public Notice | Perjury | Judge

Fraud on the Court by an Officer of the Court And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal" Public Notice Who is an "officer of the court"? Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980): A judge is an officer of...

www.scribd.com

Fraud on the court has no statute of limitations

A rather interesting caveat is that in 49 states, the mere appearance of bias or impropriety is sufficient to disqualify a judge from a case. Only Louisiana--ironically, my state--requires proof thereof. In LA, a judge CANNOT be recused based on only the appearance of something wrong.

 

[wanda robo]

LMAO, OHM, "FHA loans are incredibly crappy". You said this on a different thread. Welcome to my world, my friend.
LMAO again, because if you thought my filings are emotional, then you've never seen how emotional I can be. I meant it when I told you I toned it down.
As you've pointed out a class action is in order. That's my ace in the whole, so to speak. I have no desire to put a Federal Agency "out of business" so to speak, and quite frankly I think I can. So I sit like A nasty spider & wait to see how the judge rules.
The threat of a class action will come if I survive the MTD. Trust me, I have attorneys in mind, but I don't want to go down that road.
You see, the gov't is wasting your money, as well as mine, in defending a case that they have no defense against.They are wasting our hard earned money, that we pay taxes on, in defending cases where they have no defense.
That's what this is all about, my friend. The next time you read my pleading(God willing) don't think about me, think about how you are a taxpaying citizen.


This is important because I don't think anyone of us realize that "WE THE PEOPLE" are the ones that pay our taxes, expect respect, demand justice, believe in the US Constitution, justice. We have all been denied justice, so why not just go for it? Again, I have nothing to lose, I've lost my home, so I will keep fighting(not that I EVER stopped fighting).

 

[moretrouble]

For litigants in Oregon, I run across this case:
National Mortgage Co. v. Robert C. Wyatt

Even if you fail at the Court of Appeals level, after reconsideration, and petition with the State Supreme Court denied and the mill will file for a writs of execution to sell the house you can still file a motion to set aside the writs, then appeal on the denial of the motion. Those actions could take a couple of years, even before you need to file complaint against the mill.

 

[just_me]

Ocwen attorneys are head-butting me on discovery. Any references to handling this would be appreciated. Most notably they characterize requests as not relevant to claims. Welp. Maybe not relevant to *your* claims but certainly relevant to mine! Also, they keep filing these objections (with their misinterpretations) to the court, where the matters are (per court rules) between the parties and not supposed to be filed. How can anyone say that an amortization schedule of the loan is not relevant? Well, one that doesn't have proof of their accounting. Third party provider supoeanas ignored too. I haven't formulated the request for production motion yet, just got another frivolous objection and repetitive low info docs.