You Know You Are Going To Lose When …
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Posted by Neil F. Garfield on livinglies.wordpress.com on 3/31/2012 (http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/you-know-you-are-losing-when/). Study this until you have it committed items 1 through 10 to memory.
Taking a line from Jeff Foxworthy, I have compiled the following guidelines of how to know when you are going to lose against the thieving bank seeking to steal your property. You might call it, “You know your screwed when…”
Note: The premise of this article is taken from various points made on this blog and others. The main point is that the obligation to repay the loan arose when the money transaction took place. When money exchanged hands it is presumed that the expectation was that it would be repaid. So the only defenses that exist and the only two defenses that will get the judge’s attention are PAYMENT and WAIVER. Failing to address these issues head on right at the beginning of the first pleading and the first hearing, will most likely lead to failure in the case. Read the appellate decisions that are in favor of the banks and servicers; they all start with a recitation of “facts” that are not true but which nonetheless are taken as true because the borrower failed to put them in issue as contested facts.
Start with the origination documents. If you don’t know whether they have merely reproduced the note and mortgage, then deny it and make them prove it. They could be fabricated from whole cloth. Continue reading “You Know You Are Going To Lose When …” »
Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Against Deutsche On Two Different Cases – On the Same Day
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
From 4closurefraud.org - Attorney Phillip Taylor takes the foreclosure fight in Oklahoma to the Oklahoma Supreme Court and gets handed two favorable rulings on the same day.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company vs. Byram quote:
CONCLUSION
¶11 It is a fundamental precept of the law to expect a foreclosing party to actually be in possession of its claimed interest in the note, and have the proper supporting documentation in hand when filing suit, showing the history of the note, so that the defendant is duly apprised of the rights of the plaintiff. This is accomplished by showing the party is a holder of the instrument or a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-309 or 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-418. Likewise, for the homeowners, absent adjudication on the underlying indebtedness, the dismissal cannot cancel their obligation arising from an authenticated note, or insulate them from foreclosure proceedings based on proven delinquency. See, U.S. Bank National Association v. Kimball 27 A.3d 1087, 75 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 100, 2011 VT 81 (VT 2011); and Indymac Bank, F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski, 78 A.D.3d 895, 912 N.Y.S.2d 239 (2010).
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS Continue reading “Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Against Deutsche On Two Different Cases – On the Same Day” »
Why Did the Banks Need to Falsify and Forge Fabricated Documents?
The investors who purchased David Stern’s foreclosure mill have taken the extraordinary step of announcing publicly that they had been duped into buying a “criminal enterprise.” Obviously they didn’t want to get caught up in the dragnet of prosecutors looking for convictions. Nobody would spend $60 million like these investors did and then announce to the world that not only was it worthless, it was worse than worthless. It turns out that once they owned it they discovered that the entire enterprise was based upon criminal and other illegal or improper acts. It will soon be obvious that virtually all the foreclosure mills operated identically to Stern because they were owned and operated by the same people.
Those criminal acts were all about pushing foreclosures through the system. The end result of foreclosure is that somebody gets the house upon entry of a “credit bid” which is to say that they don’t pay cash, they just submit a “bid” based upon the fact that the property was the collateral for money that was due them. Since Stern was not taking the homes, and it is obvious that others were taking the homes, the question is why did they need to go through all those gyrations and subject themselves to prison time if the mortgages were legitimate? Continue reading “Why Did the Banks Need to Falsify and Forge Fabricated Documents?” »
Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
The following was just posted on Neil Garfield’s blog, livinglies.wordpress.com. It is reposted here with the following comments. These are fabricated documents placed into the title record at the county recorders. In non-judicial states these documents do not need to be recorded to foreclose as those foreclosing can instead file a judicial foreclosure and prove their claim. Because they have no claim and cannot prove it, they knowingly, willingly and without any regard for the consequences, choose to corrupt the land title records instead. To read about this choice, read the Hooker vs. BofA ruling from a Federal District Court judge out of Oregon: Hooker-v-BofA_and_MERS - Congratulations to Oregon Attorney James Stout for his work on this case.
From Neil Garfield and Lynn Szymoniak (see Lynn Szymoniak in action on 60 Minutes here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20049744-10391709.html)
EDITOR’S NOTE (Neil Garfield): We know the foreclosures were gross misrepresentations of fact to the Courts, to the Borrowers and to the Investors. This article shows the crossover between the MegaBanks — sharing and diluting the responsibility for these fabrications as they went along. If you are talking about one big bank you are talking about all the megabanks. Continue reading “Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent” »
