Posted on 10/15/2010 1:30:29 PM PDT by triumphant values
A man named Jeffrey Stephans testified on September 14th that he had signed off on affidavits which he didn’t 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 isn’t 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. They’re 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 wasn’t legally allowed to use. When complaints started rolling in about stamp dates that didn’t 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 person’s 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 records—the 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 records—the 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.