Posted on 10/15/2010 1:30:29 PM PDT by triumphant values
Tomorrow, a banknot your bank, but any bankcould evict you from your home. Even if you didnt know the bank was foreclosing. Even if your mortgage is paid off. Even if you never had a mortgage to begin with. Even if the bank doesnt hold a single piece of paper that you signed. And major banks not only know this fact, but have spent millions of dollars to defend it in court. Why? The answer starts with a Jacksonville homeowner named Patrick Jeffs.
In 2007, Deutsche Bank sued Jeffs for his home, which is a necessary step in the process of foreclosing on a homeowner in the state of Florida. Curiously, despite the fact that he immediately hired a law firm to defend his property when he found out about the foreclosure, neither Jeffs nor his attorneys were at the trial. Thats because it had already happened. Deutsche won by default because Jeffs wasnt able to travel backwards in time to attend, even though the trial featured a signed affidavit indicating that he had been served his court summons.
The only problem with the summons Jeffs supposedly received was that it had been conjured out of thin air.
In June of this year, a Florida court ruled that the document was fraudulent, as the person who was supposed to make sure Jeffs was served had mysteriously received a copy of the summons before the lawsuit had even been filed, and Jeffs never even saw the copy. The text of that ruling was posted on various financial news websites in September. The lawyers that Jeffs hired to defend his case say that fraud such as this is not uncommon. Its a widespread problem, and it has cost countless families their homes.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/14/thedc-op-ed-one-nation-under-fraud/#ixzz12ScdUAzp
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
A man named Jeffrey Stephans testified on September 14th that he had signed off on affidavits which he didnt actually examine. Those affidavits were used in thousands of Ally foreclosures, and the properties involved were subsequently bought and sold. The previous homeowners can now sue the banks that foreclosed, and the they were underwater anyway argument isnt holding up in many states, where both civil and criminal penalties are being discussed. By admitting his actions, Stephans instantly invalidated all of the repossessions and sales that were based on those actions. And Stephans said his practices are common in the industry. Theyre so common, in fact, that a term was developed to describe them: robo-signing. This is being performed at law firms that process thousands of documents a day, which have become known as foreclosure mills.
Tammie Lou Kapusta, a former paralegal for one of those mills, testified on September 22nd that she was instructed by the attorneys at the firm to officially notarize hundreds of documents a day with a notary stamp that she wasnt legally allowed to use. When complaints started rolling in about stamp dates that didnt match other dates within the documents, she and all of the other paralegals doing the same thing at the firm were instructed to make the date of the stamp match the other dates, no matter what day it actually was. The documents would then be signed with the name Cheryl Samons by three different people, only one of whom was actually named Cheryl Samons. Kapusta said she drew the line when she was instructed to use random Social Security numbers assigned to people who might not even exist in order to falsify documents regarding each hypothetical persons military status.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/14/thedc-op-ed-one-nation-under-fraud/3/#ixzz12Sdd6wrA
Nothing to see here. Move along...
Is tomorrow ten days so that Obama’s fake pocket veto gets revealed as the billed is actually considered law through his actions?
Hmmm...welcome to the land of the Serfs.
“The federal government recently tried to fix the mortgage mess with HR3808, a bill which would have required every state to recognize electronic recordsthe ones being robo-signed. Word of this legislation spread around the Internet quickly enough that an enormous amount of pressure was put on President Obama to veto it, which he ultimately did. The problem was that he had to. HR3808 was only on his desk because it had passed through the House with a simple voice vote and through the Senate by unanimous consent. Every single Democrat and every single Republican present in the Senate at the time approved of the bill. Which experts in blind rubber-stamping could possibly have been advising senators and representatives to let this legislation sail through Congress?”
Guess I'll have to read all 7 pages of that AGAIN because I don't see an example on the first reading.
Hmmm...welcome to the land of the Serfs.
“The federal government recently tried to fix the mortgage mess with HR3808, a bill which would have required every state to recognize electronic recordsthe ones being robo-signed. Word of this legislation spread around the Internet quickly enough that an enormous amount of pressure was put on President Obama to veto it, which he ultimately did. The problem was that he had to. HR3808 was only on his desk because it had passed through the House with a simple voice vote and through the Senate by unanimous consent. Every single Democrat and every single Republican present in the Senate at the time approved of the bill. Which experts in blind rubber-stamping could possibly have been advising senators and representatives to let this legislation sail through Congress?”
bttt
I didn’t see this either.
I guess Life Lock will use it to sell the new product
‘Home Lock’ protect you property from foreclosure, even if
you don;t have a mortgage:(
Hey, maybe some title insurance co underwrote the article. ;)
So the house that I paid for in full, cash, on the courthouse steps, might not be legally mine? That is, there is a chance the previous owner might be able to legally get it back? Oy vey..
If you bought a foreclosed home, that is correct.
What Obama did will not result in a veto. If he holds onto it without replying while the chambers are not in session, it is a pocket veto. In this case, to prevent him from more recess appointments, they are remaining in session.
Try the bottom of page 2, the Cardosos.
I’m not sure his veto matters. As I understand it state law is critical for property transactions. Some trumped-up federal cure for documents is going to be laughed out of a state court.
Superb article, thanks for posting.
Find out who holds your note. If nobody knows, pay your mortgage into escrow pending resolution. Or consider a writ of adverse possession.
If they tore up your note, stop paying. Maybe send them a lovely Hallmark card to thank them.
Thank you. So, “tomorrow a bank could evict you from your home, even if you never had a mortgage.” The same way a swat team could break in and shoot you, or a drunk run you over. Except that other stuff happens faster!
A bank cannot legally evict you from your home if they don’t hold the mortgage.
But they got us to click on 7 pages, that’s gotta be worth something! :)
But no, they can't legally evict you. After months of trouble and legal fees, you get to live in your house again, it's cool :0)
If that's all you could gather out of 7 pages, then all one can say to you is "happy investing". Good luck.
I’m doing (more than) ok, thanks. And not from reading half-baked internet filler. If you invest based on those — good luck!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.