About Timothy McCandless Esq.

I am merely an attorney who like so many others is overwhelmed by the onslaught of millions of defaults, modifications, foreclosures, trustees sales, notices to vacate ,unlawful detainers and sheriff’s lockouts.

In California a nonjudicial state a foreclosure can occur on the mere word of a lender without the original note or assignment of the original deed of trust. A then former homeowner can then be evicted by giving notice to vacate constructively (without notice) have a summons “Posted and Mailed” (again no actual notice) a default judgment taken (no trial) and a writ issued and the Sheriff’s instruction to evict issued and enforced.

I am about fighting this process, by 1. providing as much information as possible to allow homeowners to fight this process and 2. by litigation to protect those rights allegedly guaranteed by our constitution.

While I am an attorney the sheer number of cases no individual firm that I know of is capable handling competently. Most all non-profit foreclosure and legal aid service can provide only limited services. We have much to talk about this year as we push forward. By all accounts, the economy, the dollar, the foreclosures, the job situation etc are all getting worse by the minute.

Even if Obama is a magician it will be 2 years before there is a glimmer of hope. The homeowner aid programs are window dressing. Even the Sheila Bair one from FDIC/Indy Mac while well-intentioned does little for most homeowners. The ONLY hope for homeowners and the only hope for our economy is if we face the music and take the free market enthusiasts at their word, to wit: everyone agrees they artificially inflated real estate values and those values are still too high for the market to support. The only reason the “values” are stated so high is that the sellers are still deluding themselves in their asking prices. There is at least another 20% to go. As the Niel Garfield Continuum says, we are only in about the 2nd or 3rd inning of a 9 inning game that might go into overtime.

Loan Mod’s that leave homeowners under water simply will not work. People are not that stupid. It is easier to walk from the house and rent or buy another at real (lower) values.

Thus Litigation against the lender plan is the only viable option — get rid of the note, obligation and mortgage altogether or at least force a modification that will bring the obligation to around 80% of true fair market value. Only a credible threat to the financial services sector pushing foreclosures will result in this relief. The threat comes from understanding and enforcing the basic law applicable to these mortgages — they screwed up and now they want borrowers to sign new paper that clears up their screw up and leaves the borrower in a horrible position.<a href=”www.thestopforeclosureplan.com”> http://www.thestopforeclosureplan.com/Contact.html

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE FINDINGS

1. Recently, the California Legislature found and declared the following in enacting California Civil Code 2923.6 on July 8, 2008:

(a) California is facing an unprecedented threat to its state economy because of skyrocketing residential property foreclosure rates in California. Residential property foreclosures increased sevenfold from 2006 to 2007, in 2007, more than 84,375 properties were lost to foreclosure in California, and 254,824 loans went into default, the first step in the foreclosure process.

(b) High foreclosure rates have adversely affected property values in California, and will have even greater adverse consequences as foreclosure rates continue to rise. According to statistics released by the HOPE NOW Alliance the number of completed California foreclosure sales in 20′07 increased almost threefold from 2002 in the first quarter to 5574 in the fourth quarter of that year. Those same statistics report that 10,556 foreclosure sales, almost double the number for the prior quarter, were completed just in the month of January 2008. More foreclosures means less money for schools, public safety, and other key services.

(c) Under specified circumstances, mortgage lenders and servicers are authorized under their pooling and servicing agreements to modify mortgage loans when the modification is in the best interest of investors. Generally, that modification may be deemed to be in the best interest of investors when the net present value of the income stream of the modified loan is greater than the amount that would be recovered through the disposition of the real property security through a foreclosure sale.

(d) It is essential to the economic health of California for the state to ameliorate the deleterious effects on the state economy and local economies and the California housing market that will result from the continued foreclosures of residential properties in unprecedented numbers by modifying the foreclosure process to require mortgagees, beneficiaries, or authorized agents to contact borrowers and explore options that could avoid foreclosure. These Changes in accessing the state’s foreclosure process are essential to ensure that the process does not exacerbate the current crisis by adding more foreclosures to the glut of foreclosed properties already on the market when a foreclosure could have been avoided. Those additional foreclosures will further destabilize the housing market with significant, corresponding deleterious effects on the local and state economy.

(e) According to a survey released by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) on January 31, 2008, 57 percent of the nation’s late-paying borrowers do not know their lenders may offer alternative to help them avoid foreclosure.

(f) As reflected in recent government and industry-led efforts to help troubled borrowers, the mortgage foreclosure crisis impacts borrowers not only in nontraditional loans, but also many borrowers in conventional loans.

(g) This act is necessary to avoid unnecessary foreclosures of residential properties and thereby provide stability to California’s statewide and regional economies and housing market by requiring early contact and communications between mortgagees, beneficiaries, or authorized agents and specified borrowers to explore options that could avoid foreclosure and by facilitating the modification or restructuring of loans in appropriate circumstances.

2. “Operation Malicious Mortgage’ is a nationwide operation coordinated by the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI to identify, arrest, and prosecute mortgage fraud violators.” San Diego Union Tribune, June 19, 2008.

3. “Home ownership is the foundation of the American Dream. Dangerous mortgages have put millions of families in jeopardy of losing their homes.” CNN Money, December 24, 2007.

4. “Finding ways to avoid preventable foreclosures is a legitimate and important concern of public policy. High rates of delinquency and foreclosure can have substantial spillover effects on the housing market, the financial markets and the broader economy. Therefore, doing what we, can to avoid preventable foreclosures is not just in the interest of the lenders and borrowers. It’s in everybody’s best interest.” Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman, May 9, 2008.

5. “Most of these homeowners could avoid foreclosure if present loan holders would modify the existing loans by lowering the interest rate and making it fixed, capitalizing the arrearages, and forgiving a portion of the loan. The result would benefit lenders, homeowners, and their communities.” CNN Money, id.

6. On behalf of President Bush, Secretary Paulson has encouraged lenders to voluntarily freeze interest rates on adjustable-rate mortgages. Mark Zandl, chief economist for Mood’s commented, “There is no stick in the plan. There are a significant number of investors who would rather see homeowners default and go into foreclosure.” San Diego Union Tribune, id.

7. “Fewer than l%• of homeowners have experienced any help “from the Bush-Paulson plan.” San Diego Union Tribune, id.

8. The loss belongs where it was created — on Wall Street and Main Street Banks that rented their charter to Wall Street operatives who caused an unprecedented collapse of loan underwriting standards and crossing the line into fraud, forgery, and creation of false documentation. Companies SHOULD fail. Banks SHOULD fail. Borrowers CANNOT fail — because they are the backbone of the country and the economy.

9. There are plenty of lenders, investment bankers and money managers who did not play the game and are perfectly healthy. Bailout money should go to the players who played by the rules and are healthy. They are the ONLY ones who can and will lend, thus freeing up, somewhat, the tightening death grip of no credit and thus no commerce.

Lastly I am devoted to fighting this process by 1. Providing as much information, pleadings, discovery, publication of relevant cases as possible to allow homeowners to fight this process 2. Through the judicial process attempt to protect those rights allegedly guaranteed by our Constitution.

How a Foreclosure Defense Attorney Can Help You Save Your Home

Home foreclosure can be a confusing process.  Many homeowners are faced with stress and anxiety when dealing with the thought of loosing their home.  Because of this fear, many families just sit back and let the foreclosure process happen.  The good news is, there are ways to avoid home foreclosure.  Foreclosure defense attorneys of the McCandless Law Firm help families regain their home and get their life back in order.

With the help of the McCandless Law Firm or the  bankruptcy division, homeowners can learn ways to save their home.  There are many different options based on each homeowner’s personal situation.  It is best to discuss all of these options with an attorney before taking any steps.  Below are some ways in which attorneys can help avoid home foreclosure.

1. Your attorney may suggest that you file for bankruptcy.  While not all forms of bankruptcy allow you to keep your home, some do.  If you are in huge financial trouble, this may be a good way to avoid home foreclosure.   Although it takes time and effort, bankruptcy can allow you to get a fresh financial start, including allowing you to keep your home. It is important to talk with an attorney to make sure this is the best choice for your situation.

2. Loan modification is another option to stop home foreclosure.  This is not always a possibility, but for those who can take advantage of this opportunity, it can lower monthly mortgage payments.  An attorney can work with you to see if this is a possibility.  Successful homeowners, who use this method, are able to afford their mortgage payments and keep their home, thanks to lower monthly payments.  Speak with an attorney to learn the processes and see if you qualify.

3. If our attorney suspects your home foreclosure to be illegal, they may want to file a lawsuit against your lender.  Not only may your attorney save your home in the long run, but will make it harder for your home to be possessed because of the open lawsuit.  If foul play is involved in your foreclosure situation, your attorney may be able to avoid foreclosure altogether.

These are some ways in which attorneys can help you stop home foreclosure.  It is important to fight back.  Every day, people watch their homes be taken away from them, when in actuality; they may have been able to stop the foreclosure.  It is best to stay informed and educated on the home foreclosure process.  Consult the McCandless Law Firm to discuss your options, and learn the different ways to fight back.

If you want to learn more about the home foreclosure process and learn ways to keep your home visit www.timothymccandless.com. The Foreclosure Defense Program offers resources on avoiding home foreclosure.  Put up a fight and learn how important foreclosure defense is!

260 Responses to “About Timothy McCandless Esq.”

  1. Mortgage Auditor January 6, 2009 at 9:33 am #

    Timothy,

    I find your blog very informative and appreciate the content you share with your readers. I am a mortgage auditor in Maryland helping distressed borrowers facing foreclosure by examining their loan documents for TILA violations, fraud and predatory lending practices. I am always looking for skilled lawyers who can help my clients and I will place you on my list of attorneys for referral.

    Dean

    http://www.nationalloanaudits.com

    • Tammy August 8, 2009 at 3:33 am #

      I’ve been served with a Writ of Possession and my eviction date is 8/20. I was working with another attorney who was trying to arrange for me purchase the house from the bank since it went back to them at the auction. The house is in my husbands name and I have been approved to purchase it. Now the attorney told me that I can’t because it’s an FHA loan and has to be delivered vacant but I could always buy it back after I move out. I’m also pretty sure they can’t produce the original note. It has changed 3 times and only documented one of those times. They filed a loss note affadavit and now I’ve discovered the Loss Note Defense in regards to the TILA. Since the eviction has already been scheduled do I have any way of filing a motion to stay or extend? I’m certainly willing to pay an attorney. It is a good idea to request a Mortgage Audit (forensic) or am I too late for that too? I really don’t want to lose the house and thought I was going to be able to buy it back until today. I think my attorney didn’t specialize in Foreclosures possibly. Dean are you aware of any cases like this and since you’re in Maryland can you recommend a good attorney? Thank, Tammy

  2. badbizfinder January 26, 2009 at 6:51 am #

    Mr. McCandless,

    We aprreciate your shining the light on corrupt loan modification companies in California. Bad Biz Finder is on the same page.

    Loan modification scams have reached an all-time high in California. And Bad Biz Finder is reporting about it at WordPress. We welcome you to review the blogs at http://www.badbizfinder/wordpress.com.

    There is a trend developing where law firms are “sponsoring” loan modification companies to circumvent The California Foreclosure Consultant Act, Civil Code Section 2945-2945.11. They believe that by asking their customers to sign “law firm retainer fee agreements,” that they are exempt from the Act and don’t have to be licensed by the California Dept. of Real Estate or follow strict guidelines set forth in the Act.

    However, these “law firms” have no attorneys; the work is being performed by foreclosure consultants, and consequently, the law firms are breaking the law by sharing legal fees with non-attorneys since the only revenue to the “law firm” is legal retainer fees.

    It is a gigantic fraud and very complex but we are unraveling it for our most vulnerable consumers today on our blog and since January 9 have had over 1000 hits. We have been tracking about 56 companies since November in Orange County, San Diego County, Los Angeles County, Riverside County and San Bernardino County.

    We made an example of Parsa Law Group and National Loan Modification Center as they were one of the first companies we received complaints about and to date seem to be the most egregious. Beginning this week, we will begin releasing the evidence we have collected on other companies but we wanted to set a foundation of facts prior to that time so consumers could put the scams in 1 of 2 categories:

    1. Loan modification companies not in compliance with The California Foreclosure Consultant Act; or

    2. Loan Modification firms posing as law firms to circumvent The California Foreclosure Consultant Act.

    Bad Biz Finder is a non-profit anonymous consumer advocacy organization based in Fremont, California with chapters all over the state. By the end of February we will have a location in Orange County to handle the overwhelming demand we are facing with this cause.

    We hold true one singular mission: To offer consumers a source of unbiased facts vital to making informed decisions about everyday issues facing them everyday.

    The organization seeks to unearth unethical, illegal and unconscionable practices by individuals, businesses, and organizations and sets the record straight so those who have been harmed have a remedy and those who have not are warned.

    Its roots go back to the 1980s when the founder began to become vocal about the vulnerability of consumers and the companies, individuals and agencies that preyed on this vulnerability. Over the past three decades, Bad Biz Finder has championed hundreds of causes and has been an agent for positive change so that the so-called “little guy,” becomes a giant with purpose and power.

    Since the late 1980s due to the constant and unnerving legal and personal threats against the organization and its volunteers, Bad Biz Finder has moved locations, changed names, added volunteers and consumer rights attorneys to better serve the public. It is for these reasons that it prefers its anonymity and maintains a simple email address badbizfinder@aol.com.

    Bad Biz Finder is self-supporting and asks for nothing in return. Not one day goes by that the organization has not helped scared and hopeless consumers gain footing again, armed with facts that empower them, and for that we are proud.

    We do not accept payment, donations, or gifts. In order for our work to be effective, we must be free of bias and completely objective. We simply ask the people we help to “pay it forward,” and help someone else for free that is in perhaps the same dire straits they once were and pass along our name as a trusted resource.

    Bad Biz Finder

  3. Morgan April 3, 2009 at 10:51 am #

    Please email me and send your contact information. We are looking for an attorney on a annunities case and would like to speak with you asap.

    Morgan

  4. Pamela Zander May 6, 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    Desperate for help. I am facing $250,0000 loss in my home. Sale date is June 1, o9. My #760
    244.6248

  5. Gardener J. Doane May 18, 2009 at 11:40 am #

    what happens if trustee does not publish a notice of sale in the local newspaper in accordance with CA statues 33-808 A(4)

    • timothymccandless May 20, 2009 at 5:02 am #

      THE SALE COULD BE SET ASIDE AND OR STOPPED WITH AN INJUNCTION

      • Elyse Del Francia-Goodwin November 28, 2010 at 9:21 am #

        Tim,
        I have a friend that is trying to reach you as her sale date is in 5 days and she needs your help!
        Please email me your telephone number so she can set an appointment with ytour office in Riverside County.

        Please respond?
        elyse@gte.net

  6. Delia Aguilar May 31, 2009 at 9:32 am #

    Dear Mr. Timothy McCandless:

    Thank you! Thank you!, Thank you! so much for standing up to the Pittsburg Superior Court in the Contra Costa County. The homeowners you represented last Friday, were amazed and impressed on how you stood up and fearlessly faught for their rights.

    This court has been ordering evictions like traffic tickets and treating homeowners as if we are the criminals.

    Again, Thank You Mr. McCandless
    From Contra Costa County, CA

  7. Joe June 8, 2009 at 12:20 am #

    Hi Tim,

    Thanks for the depth of information on this site. I am facing eviction and have to send an answer to the Unlawful Detainer to the Pittsburg Superior Court tomorrow at 3PM (June 8, 2009). I am hopeless. I have my invalid father as a tenant..can he be used as a last resort to get some breathing space before being evicted?

  8. Terry DiSandro June 15, 2009 at 11:55 am #

    Dear Tim,
    I have been talking to a group that is moving to
    educate it’s members to sue their lender for “the
    note”, “the gaap” etc. In my effort to find case law
    I came across your site. What is your opinion of
    someone representing themselves?
    Thanks, Terry

    • timothymccandless June 15, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

      Obviously this is a self serving statement but if you have passion and can spend countless hours researching all the areas of law applicable to your situation and the law in this area is evolving every 6 months. If you could also hire a paralegal to get you through the Civil procedure you could do it but be prepare to devote every waking hour of the day to the task. Also so many people get so devoted to the task they fail to realize that the overwhelming odds are on settlement and representing ones self tends to overlook the possibility of a settlement that would be satisfactory. Bottom line if you represent your self you may get frustrated because the is no one trying to settle the case. One must look at this litigation thing as means to an end. Ask yourself what am i trying to achieve. Get the house a today’s value at an interest rate of 5% or less is a reasonable objective, get you house free and clear of the note maybe not so.

      • CAB-TAB January 28, 2012 at 9:05 am #

        AMEN- Not a self serving statement to follow:

        Amen brother amen, I did go to law school 20+ years ago, shhhh I look young, but never chose to practice law for what you, Mr. McCandeless, are now facing in your legal career.

        This problem, I now am starting to believe was a portion of the 80′s S&L debacle that didn’t get caught, as even in 1985 I, and many around me as well, KNEW- let me repeat that KNEW FOR A FACT- Countrywide was a dog lender and a choice of obvious last resort to get a loan approved.

        “When nothing but fraud will do. Plan to serve the very best and go Countrywide..” lol not me but others.

        I have spent at last guessonanumber figures over 2500 hours “catching up” on the law so that I can/could respond to this problem with some degree of proficiency. I said could as anymore and particularly with judges pension funds on the line have begun to wonder if that isn’t affecting judges decisions at least here in Maine.

        I, with ADD who only needs 2-4 hours of sleep a night to function and well at that, am running out of steam, passion and what not required to go on. But with our home at stake I have no choice but to go on. Thank goodness for the ADD quality that doesn’t allows us to give up on things we believe in once we get started. Of course I have lost 60 pounds and am taking tagamet like it a was drug of choice for the new generation, and I compartmentalize well thank you, but hey what ya gonna do?

        As I told the Appeals court in Boston;

        “A hungry man knows no lock and a hungry man with nothing left to lose faces that death with dignity borne of angels as he has set your demise in his sights my son and it is do or die”,

        I was doing my best patented and soon to be trademarked- joke- “crazy man waving hands in air” routine which is now all over as the other side has now finally taken the bait filed MSJ, at the State level over a missed *snicker* snicker* rule 62 set aside ruling pending appeal mistake * snicker* *snicker* on my part, which is new paper and allows me to move to the Federal court, that I seriously miscounted the days and missed my first chance, which I argued anyway I mean; hey, he has more to do in a day but I don’t have anything BUT him in mine lol.

        There is, I have now learned for sure, something to be said for letting the other side think they are making all the right moves as I can appeal on the state level under rule 60 and continue to sue them in Federal court on removal, with the appeal still out that should be interesting a new removal to Federal court at the same time lol, all on the same damn foreclosure mind you, running at the same time so yeah your plate can get real full real fast lol

        Best wishes and prayers

        Charlton & Twila Butler

  9. TG June 23, 2009 at 4:11 pm #

    THANK YOU SIR, for your education sight, that you for the resources that you provide to homeowners like ourselves. Your information has contributed greatly to our victory against the lender in a UD trail. The law concerning the declaration that you laid out in the trail brief hit the nail on the head. NO POSSESION for the bank! Now we pursue them in the unlimited courts. They tried to fight tooth and nail, they tried to intimidate use because we are pro per, but they found no favor with the judge thanks to your site. You are doing a good work, thank you.

  10. EP June 25, 2009 at 9:03 am #

    I did not have any success in court. The judge at the UD trial did not “hear” me to he ordered the writ of possession to the bank, BUT I already have filed a Wrongful foreclosure and quite title. I need to use this my advantage, but I am not sure how to maneuver… any insight would be tremendous. I must have something in place my 7/10 or the sheriff will come knocking…

  11. Denise June 25, 2009 at 4:15 pm #

    Dear Tim I so desperately need some help, we have a case of lender, tila, fraud,broker,wrongful foreclosure and sale,identity thief by lender,insurance fraud,appraiser fraud, please email me with your involement to cases? do you advise or take clients. please let me know thank you

  12. Jimmy July 9, 2009 at 10:43 am #

    Hi Tim

    I live in California, and the sale date on my house is July 27, 09. Homeq is my mortage holder, I did a loan mod in Aug of o8, but due to the economy I still can’t make my payments, I had a company did a forisic loan audit and it have quit a few TILA violations, but this company dont have a attorney, so they simply give the file back to me and say good luck, Homeq have a policy of not doing 2 loan mods in one year, since we are in July already is there anything I can do to stay in my house, file a lawsuit? please advise me if possible.

  13. TG July 19, 2009 at 9:13 am #

    Hi Tim

    Please share your thoughts concerning this incident. We won a UD trial last month, yesterday we found a letter in our door from a debt collector NCCI. It wasnt post marked just in an envelope. In the envelope was a hardship letter from the servicing company who serviced the loan Wilshire out of Oregon. The letter doesnt have any contact information for NCCI just Wilshire. Why are they attempting to get us to complete paperwork and they already completed the sale, the property is currently in the name of the supposed beneficiary? Why are they trying to collect a debt after the property has been sold back to the supposed beneficiary, doesn’t this violate the anti deficiency statute? Please help me to make sense of this if you can. I can only imagine the amount of call you get during a day, because of the amount of fraud concerning the wrongful foreclosure we are taking them to civil court. We fought the ud trial pro per but we are considering receiving the assistance of legal counsel for the next round. I have been on Garfield’s site about lawyers who get it, no offense but some just plain dont get it, or are to busy to care about the details, but I believe the homeowner has some degree of responsibility to to be actively involved in their case. If you know of any attorneys that get it. Please email the names to me. Thank you for your time.

  14. Leslie Marks July 28, 2009 at 7:44 pm #

    WOW. I have been fighting my lenders since 2006. I am not an attorney, so it has been a long hard fight. Thank God a friend sent me this blog. In 2006 no attorney would help me. I have become a paralegal since then and now I work with attorneys to help others and gain paralegal experience. My lender was New Century now in Chap. 11. New Century transferred my mortgage to OCWEN on the SAME DAY it filed Chap. 11 April 2, 2007. In the meantime I sued Ocwen and put a lis pendens on my property. I am still in my home and not in forclosure, but I believe I am at a point where an attorney may need to step in and close the deal. I won a small amount against New century’s employee who defrauded me. I recently filed an adversay in Delaware. After reviewing this site, I am hoping my complaint is not too defective. I do not expect a favorable ruling so I am preparing to appeal it. There is so much obvious corruption I almost feel like giving up. But this is ONE house these thieves ain’t getting. I was in Federal Court in SF. I recently filed Chapter 13 so the same benefits New Century is getting under the law, will be available to me as well. I will keep reviewing the good information here, and spread the word to those who truly want to help homeowners who have been duped, hookwinked, bamboozled and defrauded. Kudos. (there are tears in my eyes) Nite.

  15. Leslie Marks July 29, 2009 at 9:57 pm #

    Mr. McCandless, you have NO IDEA the amount of time I spend doing legal research tring to represent myself. But I am not in forclosure. However, my Lender illegally transferred my property the day it filed Chap 11, while in active litigation with me in federal court, and outside of its then counsel of record. I believe Free and Clear is an option for me. What do you think. Please respond.

    • timothymccandless July 31, 2009 at 6:26 am #

      Oh I have a very good idea. I’ve been doing this for 19 years and still spend every waking moment trying to discover new ways the pretender lenders are trying to stick it to the consumer and the American taxpayer and getting away with it. As to getting your house free and clear I don’t think that is achievable unless the lender were to default in a quiet title action. Hopefully you can settle with your lender at something you feel is equitable.

  16. timothymccandless July 31, 2009 at 6:07 am #

    A template is ok… but really each hardship is unique and to say you should follow a template would be bad advise you can find “examples” if you go to the search portion of this site and enter “hardship”

  17. Tammy August 7, 2009 at 5:35 pm #

    I’ve been served with a Writ of Possession and my eviction date is 8/20. I was working with another attorney who was trying to arrange for me purchase the house from the bank since it went back to them at the auction. The house is in my husbands name and I have been approved to purchase it. Now the attorney told me that I can’t because it’s an FHA loan and has to be delivered vacant but I could always buy it back after I move out. I’m also pretty sure they can’t produce the original note. It has changed 3 times and only documented one of those times. They filed a loss note affadavit and now I’ve discovered the Loss Note Defense in regards to the TILA. Since the eviction has already been scheduled do I have any way of filing a motion to stay or extend? I’m certainly willing to pay an attorney. It is a good idea to request a Mortgage Audit (forensic) or am I too late for that too? I really don’t want to lose the house and thought I was going to be able to buy it back until today. I think my attorney didn’t specialize in Foreclosures possibly. Thanks, Tammy

  18. Leslie Marks August 24, 2009 at 9:08 am #

    Tim are you aware that sub prime banks were allowed an exemption to California Civil Code Section 2923.52(a) the Moritorioum on Forclosures? All the subprime big boys are on the list. what a crock.

    http://www.corp.ca.gov/FSD/CFP/pdf/ExemptList.pdf Check it out.

  19. Leslie Marks August 26, 2009 at 5:55 pm #

    Tim there is NOTHING equitable. However, I will keep you posted. I got AHEAD of the foreclosure, not behind it. I am in Delaware in an adversary against New Century now and I am in the the NORTHERN district with my own chapter 13. All my research has paid off. In my case – because I did not wait till the last minute to save my house. Remember i am not in foreclosre, and I have NOT paid mortgage since 2006. Ocwen has FAILED to service my long since they fraudulently acquired it. New Century no longer is licened to do mortgages in Cali. I won $25,000 against the NC employee who defrauded me. The property value is so low, it would be more feasible for them to give me my property than to amass the litigation fees I am more than capable of making them rack up. I am sick of this crap Tim. Read your blog, there is no relief for the consumer. I may not be able to help the world but i hope that winning my case will encourge other NOT to walk but fight for their properties.

    • Liz in Cal October 13, 2009 at 10:30 am #

      Leslie since you have had your share of research and fighting with the lender; would you mind giving me a call. I am not sure how to proceed with my next step. The attorney stated the mod is the best they can offer at 2% step in interest for 5 years and each year the payment increases; the interest was put on the back end making our new loan balance 680K (our house is only worth about 438K (this is how much the lender would get if that if they were to foreclose). We haven’t signed anything. and the california laws are confusing to say the least; what will work (Produce the note, go back to lender and request a better mod according to ca civil code 2923.6; can we buy back our home at current market price? Please help, want to save our home.

  20. Alicia September 11, 2009 at 10:19 am #

    Hello,

    I am behind on my home 7months, am i able to obtain a modifcation? or should I just walk away

    Alicia

  21. Michael P September 30, 2009 at 4:15 pm #

    Hello Timothy,

    I have come acrossed your site and can only wish that I found it long ago..
    My home was auctioned, and it went back to the beneficiary.
    There was clearly 200k in equity available with a opening and closing bid of 131k..
    I have some issues with the way that the auction was held and subjects surrounding this topic..
    I believe they tried to serve me a UD yesterday and from what I read i need to stay in posession of the house to make something work.. I heard from a friend of the benficiary that he has a buyer and plans to sign papers anyday, what can I file with the courts myself while I get the money together for professional representation.. ??
    Thank you for response and all info,
    Mike

  22. Kelli Garner October 2, 2009 at 9:50 pm #

    Thats very good to know… thanks

  23. Joe October 7, 2009 at 11:24 am #

    Timothy, regarding California Civil Code 2923.6, if a lender was mandated by that law to accept the homeowners modification (provided the offer shows the NPV of the income stream of the modified loan to be greater than the amount that would be recovered through the sale of the property), is the lender mandated to forgive the deficit balance, or will the deficit balance be deemed as an unsecured debt that is pursuable by the lender. Under 2923.6, is the lender also mandated to waiver the 1099C on the deficit or will the IRS still add the deficit balance as borrowed income to the homeowner, increasing the homeowners personal federal tax liability?

    • timothymccandless October 7, 2009 at 2:55 pm #

      This area is in a state of flux. The Federal courts a declaring that the Federal Banks cannot be regulated by state…State court Judges are declaring the will not intervene in a contract that is clear on its face. Best approach 2923.5 and attack the procedure 90% are not complying… they have taken a calculated risk… to comply it would cost toooo much plus they make more from insurance the feds etc. by foreclosing so you must attack the procedure….

  24. Lolina Porter October 13, 2009 at 11:45 am #

    Dear Mr. McCandless,

    I would like to call you but I could not find your phone number here, I was forced to enter into this Repayment Plan of my tenant occupied mortgage with Aurora Loan Services just for them not to Foreclose my home. However, during the conversation I had with the negotiator, he said that Repayment plan of $1,876 per month for 9 months will bring me back to my regular monthly payment of $569.00 per month. To my surprise, I received a Repayment Plan agreement that states same repayment plan per month, but at the end of 9 months I still need to pay them $10,585.66. I was cornered and did not know what to do, because in my opinion, I do not owe them that much money. I signed it anyhow just to stop my foreclosure which they set for Oct 1, 2009. Today, it is against my conscience to pay them $1,876 on or before 15th of October just because of this OVER CHARGES. I have filed my complaint against the OTS before I signed the Repayment Plan.

    Please advise, I do not know what to do. I live here in Glendale, CA and my tenant occupied property is in TN. My husband just had a stroke on July 10, 2009. We have been hit hardest financial due to medical reasons. Prior to this my previous tenant did not pay me $14,800 in rents which my property management hid from me. I had to go to court to property evict the tenant in May.

    Please help, should I pay the repayment plan this month? Or hire an attorney to help me file a complaint against Aurora Loan Services. They need to be corrected. They are not very helpful at all. I just finished my 4 month forbearance agreement with them as they promised me when I completed they would do a loan modification on my property. They asked me to send my updated financials but since I was in the hospital with my husband most of July and August, I did not submit the paperwork on time, which they close my case and set a foreclosure date on my property.

    Please help.

    Thank you in advance,

    Lolina Porter
    Cell: 818-571-9092

  25. Nicki Tompkins October 21, 2009 at 4:30 pm #

    Dear Timothy,

    We have Demanded the Original Promissory Note, filed Rescission documents which removed us from the sales and are looking for a final solution to end the foreclosure since they have already been paid by our signature. Any help you can offer in South Carolina would be most appreciative.

  26. David October 22, 2009 at 3:34 am #

    Hi Tim,

    Interesting Question. With all this straw man and MERS stuff going on, if i keep making payments on my house, at the end of it all, how can they assure me a marketable deed in the end ? My mortgage was sold off my original bank unknown where it is or what state, but if its been securitized, how do I know i will ever have a marketable title. Even if in practice i can sell teh house, could this line of reasoning be used to sue the bank to get costs back out of the property and roll back the original purchase?

  27. Bandara Roy November 4, 2009 at 7:48 am #

    Are there any legitimate loan modification consultants in California? I live in the SF Bay area and am desperate to find folks. A couple of attorneys said that they are exempt from SB 94 because they break up the process into different stages. Is this legitimate? Please help. Thanks.

    bandara

    • timothymccandless November 4, 2009 at 8:01 am #

      SB 94 prevented the payment for modification services. Therefore the only services an attorney can offer is litigation. I personally am litigating the issues presented by civil code 2923.5 which are the mandates of modification before a foreclosure can be deemed legitimate. I have an office in Rancho Cucamonga and in Northern California in Martinez the northern Office Number is 925-957-9797 Southern 909-941-8300

      • ALI June 18, 2010 at 1:02 pm #

        Mr MC Candeless,
        I need you to represent me at my next hearing? Please…

  28. Debbie November 7, 2009 at 8:19 pm #

    Can you refer me to a licensed atty in Wyoming?
    I just received the Foreclosure Sale Notice and it’s from “MERS as nominee for” (Lender).

  29. MARVIN TAALIB November 22, 2009 at 4:05 pm #

    HELLO TIM…..

    I’M FACING AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER HEARING SCHECULED FOR 30 NOV 09, I HAVE FILED PREDATORY LENDER CLAIMS WITH COUNTRY WIDE B OF A, CAL ATTORNEY GENERAL AND DEPT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS ALL ON 18 SEPT 09, STILL WAITING FOR REPSPONSE…..AFTER READING YOUR BLOG I WOULD LIKE TO CONSOLDATE THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER WITH A LAWSUIT CAN YOU POINT IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO HAVE THE LEGAL DOCS DONE…..PLEASE CALL OR EMAIL….
    MY # IS 909-503-2900 THANKS

  30. AINC November 25, 2009 at 9:25 am #

    Great site.

  31. JM December 1, 2009 at 6:29 pm #

    I detected that Cal. Civ. Code §2924f contradicts California Statutes 33-808 thru -810 regarding Notice of Sale. Going by California Statutes 33-808 thru 810, Notice of Sale in my foreclosure did not conform. Going by Cal. Civ. Code §2924f, it does conform. Which is correct or takes precedence?

    • timothymccandless December 2, 2009 at 1:45 pm #

      California Statutes 33-808 thru -810 regarding Notice of Sale I believe this could be Arizona Rivised statute so…. if you propeerty is in Arizona then … if California 2924 applies

      • JM December 4, 2009 at 1:04 am #

        Thank you! Also, it’s interesting, a former UCLA law professor told me that those statutes may be used if they were CA Statutes at one time and were written over.

  32. JM December 3, 2009 at 11:39 pm #

    Am facing UNLAWFUL DETAINER, filing answer tomorrow, and will attach exhibit RESCISSION OF TRUSTEE’S DEED for summary judgment dismissal with prejudice against “bank” plus release of property to surety. But also read UD is about right of possession, not title. Will I still have to file Federal Quiet Title or Quo Warranto?

  33. Raja December 22, 2009 at 10:50 pm #

    Mr.Timothy Sir, I am fighting Pro Se since last o2 years and repelled their two foreclosures and got injunction from state courts 06 months ago.
    1. Now the opposing counsel is filing the motion to substitute in place of the servicer who tried two illegal foreclosure attempts.(By doing this they have proved my point which I raised in the Bankruptcy-7(Standing Issue) they acted ultra virus.
    2. I have more than 50 documents which have different signatures of the VP of the Bank and notaries also have different signatures(the signature of the same person are not identical)
    3. In Bankruptcy the Judge decided the case in favor of a fictional party which never existed when 02 foreclosure were attempted. I filed appeal against Bankruptcy that they erred in deciding the case without any hearing and I did challenged them. (motion to object relief from stay, motion to compel) but the bankruptcy judge did not take notice of my motions.
    4. Loan was refinanced,and was rescinded in time,they ignored the rescission notice and QWR and by operation of law rescission was self imposed.
    5. Since they fail to response of my QWR and as per “default Clauses of QWR” I filed the “CERTIFICATE OF SATISFACTION WITH AFFIDAVIT OF NON COMPLIANCE” more than 09 months ago and they did not challenged that too.
    6. I objected all the players including the Trustee and this was also recorded in the land records
    7. There are two big law firms representing these thieves.
    8. I have also filed a suit against them in the Circuit Court.
    9. A few days before the opposing counsel sent me a letter regarding moving a motion against me for rule 11 sanctions, if I did not amended my motion. I informed him that I will not amend my motions and will go till the last.( I have been requesting the Bankruptcy court to put sanctions on the Bank’s conduct and on the attorneys too who acting as a vehicle in this fraud game)
    10. How should I take his threat and please advise (they have sold my loan more than 47 times in different pass through series, and I have that proof from SEC with my loan # on it)
    Sir kindly advise in this regard. I am in Virginia which is a non judicial state( I have kept my wife as reserve for bankruptcy if need be & I only filed chapter-7)

    Thanks and Be Safe

  34. darren December 25, 2009 at 9:00 pm #

    have there been any successful cases, federal or state, that a private party has sued their lender or mortgage company for illegally foreclosing, say for failing to produce the original note?

    I know of that jury in Galveston, Texas, has awarded $11.5 million to a customer of Ocwen Financial Corp.

    any other cases that can be reviewed??

  35. Darlene Siddons December 31, 2009 at 10:26 am #

    hi there….

    i just faxed you a copy of my NOD…. i don’t have a fax machine so i used freeFax and couldn’t put on there my sale date like you requested… it is 2/8/2010

    thanks
    darlene

  36. salvador December 31, 2009 at 11:50 pm #

    Hi Thimoty getting the property free and clear is possible, I do have copies of friends notes that show an endorsement from the bank CFO, pay to the order of the bank, they have made the mistake of sending me they copy of the original that they want to hide, the copies that they send when you do a Qualified Written Request is the copy when alleged borrower signed Note at escrow, but they do make mistakes and I did get few copies of the note when they endorse the Note and they deposit as a cash deposit, if we fight for the original Note wet ink they won’t produce it and if they do the note will have that special endorsement and that voids the original note because is considered that note was paid in full of that the note has been modified making it void/null, please contact me to join forces i’m not an attorney or lawyer we have to play the same tricks they do to us to win!!!!!

  37. KATHLEEN January 2, 2010 at 11:25 am #

    Hi Tim!
    PLEASE email me and let me know if you are taking new cases or if you can refer me to a really good attorney.
    We paid a modification company $4490 to do a home loan modification and found out they were a scam and stole our money.
    We’ve talked to our bank and they’ve agreed to redo our loan at 2% for 40 years but our home is worth more than $100,000 Less than what we owe on it. That’s on our 1ST.
    We have a 2ND on our home for $65,000, which we have found that they never had us sign the HUD1 respa. We’ve been told that, with a good attorney, that we can have our 2ND totally eliminated.
    PLEASE EMAIL ME!!!!!

  38. Darrell Sturgill January 9, 2010 at 2:57 am #

    even once these experts have verified that your notice of default shows mistakes and discrepancies, they then tell you that if you don’t have thousands to spend on your case , you are sol. it is very disheartning and discouraging.

    does anyone know of competent representation that will start a case w/ a smaller down payment instead of thousands ?

    Darrell

  39. JM January 11, 2010 at 11:28 am #

    Yes. Timothy McCandless.

  40. Larry S apple valley January 26, 2010 at 3:07 pm #

    THANKS TIMOTHY FOR ALL OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE LAWSUIT AGAINST MY LENDER , THE MINUTE THAT I MENTION YOUR NAME AND FACTS ABOUT THE LAWSUIT I FINNALLY WAS PUT IN TOUCH WITH UPPER MANAGMENT THAT COULD PROVIDE ME WITH THE ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS. AS OF TODAY THEY HAVE GIVEN ME A NEW LOWER INTEREST RATE AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT NOT JUST A 3 MONTH PLAN AS THEY FIRST OFFERED AND THANKS TO YOU I SAVE MY HOME FROM FORECLOUSER. P.S KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK

  41. Larry SANCHEZ apple valley January 26, 2010 at 3:12 pm #

    HELLO TIMOTHY I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT THE SECORD MORTGAGE WITH
    MY LENDER THE SAME AS THE FIRST HAS AGREED TO INTEREST ONLY PAYMENTS
    FOR 5 YEARS @ 3% int only.

  42. Darrell Parker February 1, 2010 at 9:48 am #

    Mr. McCandless – I have been working with a loan modificaiton company, Guidance Mortgage Relief, since Jan 2009 in an attempt to get my Mortgage company, Wells Fargo, to modify my FHA loan. I made my initial request for modification in August of 2008 after I lost my job (at a mortgage lender no less). WF has refused to comply with the Calif. legislation or the HAMP Act, despite their BS press releases; is this not reasonable justification for litigation both by me as a consumer and by the State’s Attorney or District Attorney?
    Also do you have a “Fill In The Blanks” template that can be used to file against a Mortgage Lender? Do I need to file against the trustee listed in the foreclosure proceedings paperwork? Do I need to include the investor, if I can determine who they are, in the litigation?
    Have you heard anything about a Loan Modification company in Los Angeles called Guidance Mortgage Relief? I paid them ahead of time, before information came out to the contrary.

    Thank you

  43. Michael Scott February 4, 2010 at 8:34 am #

    HEllo Timothy and Others,
    I know this may be alot to ask but please any insight will be very appreciated.
    I had found this site and Neils site after my property was stolen out from under me which had at least 200k in equity in todays market. My girlfriends house house was in foreclosure just as mine and with the informaion posted and the way two different companies processed foreclosures i found a few errors that would have defenitely got the Auction reversed. I contacted Carlos Negrete from Neils list and he agreed that this could be reversed.. I could not get the $7500.00 that Mr. Negrete was charging me and attempted to seek out sate assistance and 2 months later was right were i begun.. now its been 4 months post Auction.
    HERE IS MY ISSUE…
    AT THE top of this page in PARAGRAPH 2 is exactly what happened to me.
    I maintaned posession for 2 months and knew that there was a UD about to be served. I patiently awaited the UD and i moved back to O.C. to my girlfriends housewhich was right next to the Beneficiarys home.. They knew were i was everyday all day and they filed a series of papers and were able to claim they made 3 attempts to serve the UD at the property and then were approved to serve my UD by mail.. The court date happened and i found out 2 days later.. The Beneficiary and there Attorney knew i was waiting for the UD so i could file against the property. This is what i have been up against lying, sneaky people..
    I was told ny a mutual friend that they either sold property to a 40 year long friend of theres or just transfered title to make it more difficult to get property back..

    What can i do ???? i am trying to find out if escrow closed..
    Will someone call me please.. i am in So Cal. prop is in Riverside.
    Thank You

  44. EDGAR L. FIGUEROA February 24, 2010 at 10:38 am #

    Atty. Tim:

    I am one of the U1st Clients inquiring about any developments regarding the class suit, i’ve been trying to call the numbers on the emails sent to us but was not able to talk to anybody on the phone numbers provided.
    Is there any way we could still refund the monies we/ve paid to United 1st. ?

  45. EDGAR L. FIGUEROA February 24, 2010 at 10:45 am #

    Please give us info. regarding the U1st class suit, I have been evicted from the property (164 West 220th Street,Unit 1, Carson,CA 90745) in September’2009.

    Was there any action done regading these cases I believe there are about 2,000 U1st clients that were mislead by the claims of U1st and Focus2000, they have disappeared and until now we are still waiting if they were legally dealt with, any news if they were charged with any suits?

  46. C.M. Willis March 7, 2010 at 8:06 am #

    Timothy, a question concerning ethics. Can a foreclosure factory owned by a law firm have that law firm defend them in Superior Court? ex: According to the NEVADA secretary of state, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION is a California corp. owned (principal board members) by McCarty and Holtus, the principals of McCarty & Holtus law firm. McCarty & Holtus are defending Quality in a wrongful foreclosure suit where I am the plaintiff (pro per). I understand that in Nevada this is not-permissable. How about California??

    • elizabeth mcdaniel November 16, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

      I was looking through the blogs, and I saw where that company you mentioned from California. Well they do evictions, there real jerks and their located in San Diego,Ca. on 4th avenue,92101

  47. randy March 12, 2010 at 11:55 am #

    if a deed of trust sets out the Trustee (Old Republic) and nominee/beneficiary as mers and without any further acknowledged/recorded Substitution of Trustee executed by the Lender, can an entirely different entity bring the Trustee’s sale as Agent for the Agent of the Beneficary, who is essentially only a nominal beneficary???? here it was LSI Title Company for Quality Loan Service Corp., as Agent for Beneficary, which was MERS in the Deed of Trust- is this legal?

    • ron miller April 19, 2011 at 6:33 pm #

      Hi Randy I am in the same boat with LSI title similar stuff different names except for LSI title. If you get info, please send me an email.

      Check out this guy… he just won a case in san francisco on appeal and he has a lot of good stuff on his website. Also, his not crazy like some.

      http://mikerooneylaw.com

  48. Marlene Balmaseda March 31, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    Dear Mr. MCandless:

    Our property is in California. Our first is with Aurora Home Loan – (a Negative Am loan). Tried to modify the loans for the last 2 1/2 years, including paying an attorney $4,500, and nothing came from it. We also have a second with Chase. The first with Aurora has a balance of $695K. The second w/ Chase $189K. We are currently in default and NOD was filed – then a substitution of trustee. I know by reading your blog that the Aurora has violated Civ. Code. 2924, etc. re: the NOD. However, instead of fighting this foreclosure, we would like to offer a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure. Question: Can we negotiate this Deed in Lieu with Aurora so that no deficiency is sought after? and most importantly, what would happen with the second of Chase? Last question: What would your office charge to negotiate such a deal?

    • truth hurts January 6, 2011 at 9:38 am #

      Next time, buy a house within your means.

      • Luis April 18, 2011 at 10:49 pm #

        How do you know it wasn’t? You must be glad Wall St is destroying this country.

  49. Timothy Jones April 20, 2010 at 9:58 pm #

    Hi Tim. I have a sale date of 5-10-10 and B of A seems to mean Big A$% Holes right now. I just had a forensic done and they found 4 Tila and Respa violations. What do I do with this report. I have just won a case by default against BofA for their violation of the settlement made with the attorney generals office. They didn’t bother to show up so I won by default. Working with NACA but BofA is ignoring them also. Their arrogance is only matched by their ignorance of the law. I need someone who knows the law and will put our needs as a priority. Tim

  50. Victoria July 16, 2010 at 3:09 am #

    Is it true that when the lender sells the note, stamps the note pay to the order of and without recourse, that the obligation is discharged according to the UCC? You exchanged your PN (asset) for the house. But once they stamped it, they changed it into a negotiable instrument but didn’t tell you about it. Your done with that part of the transaction. You have the house and they can monetize the note as they do over and over.

    And also is it true, that when you signed the deed of trust “for a loan received” you NEVER received the loan? You made the payments as agreed for a loan you never received. So, that’s why the PN and the deed of trust are not together as they should be if it really was one transaction and not two disguised as one. Just curious.

  51. LEE July 22, 2010 at 6:05 pm #

    Hello Tim
    What can i do please read below

    Bank of America
    Fidelity National Title
    TD Servicing Company

    Re: Wrongful Foreclosure and Fraud

    Property Address: 4930 Colusa Dr. Oceanside Ca 92056 Loan Number 4703319

    I, Arnold Gaston, am seeking compensation for the fraud and wrongful foreclosure that LaSalle Bank N.A Trustee for MLMI Trust Series 2007-HE3, Wilshire Credit Corp, T.D. Servicing Co. and Fidelity National Title does. On Nov 12, 2007, I received letters from Wilshire stating that they would like to help me stay in my home and with instructions to send in requested documents. On Feb 15, 2008, I receivee a letter from Wilshire stating they received the requested documents as of Dec 10, 2007, also requesting additional documents which I sent next day air to Wilshire and received confirmation via phone that it was received. On March 18, 2008, I received an in house forbearance agreement for my second, but not my first. I contacted Wilshire and was told that the correct agreement is on its way. After filing BK to try and resolve the issue with the correct agreement I was told they can’t help me while I am in BK so I allowed my BK to be dismissed in reliance that the correct agreement would come just to have my Home foreclosed upon in May of 2008. After my home was foreclosed upon, Wilshire offered to sell me back the property without agreeing to delete the negative marks on my credit report making it impossible to acquire financing. The parties mentioned above then executed a writ of possession putting me out of my home.

    Attached are the fraudulent documents recorded against said property in said county that allowed them to proceed with their willful wrongful fraudulent actions:

    NOTICE OF DEFAULT shows Mers as beneficiary in which they lack standing.

    SUB OF TRUSTEE reflects Laura Hescott’s signature is fraud , the first page of the recording reflects that she is the attorney in fact for LaSalle Bank N.A Trustee for MLMI Trust Series 2007-HE3, but the notary acknowledgement shows her as the attorney in fact for LaSalle Bank N.A Trustee for MLMI Trust Series 2006-HE3. Also California Civil Code 2934a clearly states that a separate document be executed and recorded for properties secured by a series of notes in which it was not in this case. Please review Laura Hescott’s signature on page one of the sub of trustee and the other signatures from her on other instruments attached.

    ASSIGMENT OF THE DEED OF TRUST was executed on 11/23/2007 and recorded on Feb 15, 2008, and notarized by Melissa Tomlin who’s signature doesn’t match what she has on file in Oregon in July 2007. Also the Notice of Default was recorded on Nov 14, 2007, which means it lacks the authority to foreclose per the assignment.

    I am seeking compensation for attorney fees I have expended in fighting the wrongful foreclosure, unlawful detainer, and writ of execution and damages of $2.5 million for the loss of my home, emotional distress, and damaged credit I incurred from the above activities. This offer is subject to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998.

    Arnold Gaston
    July 16, 2010
    Cfsloansclose@gmail.com

  52. Gustavo Cuenca July 25, 2010 at 9:45 am #

    U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF LXS 2006-4N as a foreclosure case against me and my wife in Florida.(02/15/2008)

    “MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,INC MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for lender and lender’s successors and assigns.MERS is the mortgagee under this Security Instruments”(art.C in mortgage documents).

    “Lender” in AEGIS WHOLESALE CORP. (art.D. of mortgage doc.)

    1)The mortgage was bought for COUNTRYWIDE (now B of A).

    2) I found serious violations in an forencic audit that I ordered to my loan doc.
    (GFE not provided within 3 days of application,Finance charge error greater than $ 100 of total credit extended,Violations of Federal Statutes,Missing Mortgage Broker Agreement Disclosures,etc).

    3)MERS now appear as Defendants in the foreclosure documents

    4) I have an Adjustable rate note.

    I’m not a Lawyer but all this not smell to good for me and I need help FROM a REAL GOOD LAWYER AS LOOK YOU ARE.

    Please contact me is you think that this is a case for you.

    Thank you

    Gustavo Cuenca 954 9140804 Florida.

  53. LAURIE MENDOZA August 1, 2010 at 10:59 am #

    hi mr. mccandless,
    i just happen to run across this from sacramento superior court tentative rulings. sometimes i think we as american people run up against brick walls when it comes to our judicial system. so frustrating.
    sincerely
    laurie mendoza

    Item 12 2010-00077807-CU-OR

    Maria Santos vs. OneWest Bank F.S.B. Successor
    Nature of Proceeding:
    Filed By:
    Motion for Preliminary Injunction
    Martin, Hiram
    Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and finding of contempt is denied.
    The motion was not timely served on Deutsch Bank as it was served by mail 17
    days before the hearing. Both the moving papers and reply papers violate CRC rule
    3.113(d).
    The requests of defendants Deutsch Bank and Regional for judicial notice is
    granted.
    Trustee Regional Service Corporation is not in contempt of the May 21, 2010
    TRO. Regional mistakenly recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale on May 25, 2010.
    Regional’ s attorney communicated with plaintiff’s attorney and assured him that the
    Notice of Sale would be void and no sale would occur unless a new Notice of Sale is
    recorded. Regional’ s attorney confirmed that there would be no sale set to occur prior
    to the July 28, 2010 hearing. The sale was then noticed for August 3, 2010.
    MERS assigned its interest to Deutsch Bank in February 17, 2010. The
    assignment was recorded on May 25, 2010. This is not a violation of the TRO. In any
    event, the TRO was obtained before Deutsch Bank was named as a defendant.
    Plaintiff’s contention that neither MERS nor Deutsch Bank has standing is
    without merit. Mortgage Electronic Systems is a corporation organized under Delaware
    law. Plaintiff has confused it with a copycat MERS (System with no “s”). MERS is not
    obliged to register with the state before it can assign its interest to Deutsch Bank.
    Likewise Deutsch Bank can accept an assignment and begin non-judicial foreclosure
    for the same reasons. That is, this does not constitute the transaction of intrastate
    business. Derakhshan v Mortgage Elect. Registration Sys., Inc. 2009 U.S.. Dist..
    LEXIS 63176 *19-20 (C.D.Cal 2009). Corporations Code section 191.
    Inexplicably, plaintiff continues to maintain her meritless arguments on standing
    in her reply.
    Plaintiff’s contention that the Assignment dated February 17, 2010 but not
    recorded until May 25, 2010 was backdated and there must be some impropriety is
    pure speculation.
    Plaintiff also contends that the substitution of Trustee, Regional Service is
    improper and Regional cannot conduct the foreclosure proceedings. Regional was
    substituted as trustee for Fidelity Title on February 17, 2010 but the substitution was
    recorded later on May 25, 2010. The fact that it was recorded after Notice of Default
    was recorded, does not make the substitution invalid. The Notice of Default states that
    Regional is “either the duly appointed Trustee, the substitute Trustee or acting as
    agent for the Beneficiary.”
    Plaintiff’s “possession of the note” argument is not a valid defense. No court has
    accepted such an application of the Commercial Code. Article 3 of the Uniform
    Commercial Code governs negotiable instruments, not non-judicial foreclosures.
    Deutsch Bank has not violated Civil Code sections 2923.5 and 2923.6 Section
    2923.5 expresses a legislative intent that certain types of loans be modified if possible.
    In section 2923.6 a loan modification plan may be offered if it is consistent with the
    lender’s contractual or other authority. Neither section creates a private right of action.
    In any event, the Notice Default states that borrower was contacted in compliance with
    the Code. Furthermore, plaintiff is admittedly in default and has not tendered payment
    of the amount owed.
    Plaintiff’s contention regarding fraud at the inception of the loan is without merit.
    Neither Deutsch Bank nor Regional were involved in the loan origination process.
    For all the above reasons, plaintiff has not shown a likelihood she will prevail on
    the merits.
    The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC
    Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

  54. stevecarney August 2, 2010 at 7:46 pm #

    Tim: Im a Foreclosure Defense Consultant for
    http://www.freedomlegalplans.com

    We help people nation wide fight the loan Mods and Banks.

    Call me at 754 245 0165/ I can help

  55. LAURIE MENDOZA August 2, 2010 at 10:43 pm #

    dear mr. mccandless,
    today i was granted a trial by jury in unlawful detainer court. the trial was moved from carol miller justice center, where all unlawful detainer hearings are held to the downtown court house where trial by jury is held. instead of having a hearing that would take 15 minutes before a commissioner now i have a chance to go before a judge who i’m hoping understands the laws and have a jury that will take more than 15 minutes to decided my fate. the trial begins on august 16th. i have alot of work preparing for this. is there anything you would like to give as far as words of advice. i truely know and im not asking you to obligate yourself. i just would like to hear about the pitfalls and how to avoid them. im hoping this might set some kind of presidence for others who are going through this. im hoping this might set a presidence for people to push there rights. i feel if i go before a jury i will get a fair verdict even if it is that im guilty of unlawful detainer. im truely hoping i will hear from you as i know you have words of wisdom and i’m all ears.
    thank you
    sincerely
    laurie mendoza

  56. Ruth DeAmicis September 13, 2010 at 9:08 pm #

    Hello Timothy and Associates,

    We had our Unlawful Detainer “Removed” officially to Federal court on grounds of “Federal Question and Diversity of Jurisdiction”. It was accepted and we have been given a court date 60 days after our UD hearing. What is so great about this is that it bought us 60 days and beyond. Federal court will listen to issues of title, contract, Constitutionality, and all the issues needing to be addressed in a foreclosure that most state courts are not ruling in favor of homeowners. UD courts are “eviction” courts that are concerned with property possession, and do not listen to issues of title or Constitutionality, etc. We believed we would have a better chance in Federal court. Anything is better that UD court!

    Timothy, I would like to speak with you or your partener in So Cal, so please email me and I’ll send you my phone no. again. You should already have it as I have already spoken with your partener around a month ago. Our case has taken a different course in the last month, thus the reason to speak with you again.

    Thank you so Much for your time…and thank you for all that you do to assist people to fight to keep the banks from stealing their homes!

    ~Ruth~

    • Marco October 2, 2012 at 10:59 pm #

      Hi what happened here? I’m in UD Court. Your attentiveness is of a finesse lost by many. I have my PSA from the SEC, and identified my loan. Thank you

      • Paul Eggli October 4, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

        Marco,
        In my opinion nobody is bringing up the best defense ever to stop an unlawful detainer action. Write me.
        Paul peggli@cox.net

  57. Tony Z October 6, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    Timothy,

    I’m not sure if you can help or answer any questions but I will ask anyway.

    My mother applied for a MHA with Bank Of America in June 2009. She did this because in 2005 she refinanced through Countrywide and agreed to a ARM. Her monthly payments were going to go up in January 2010 so this is why she applied for the MHA, hoping to avoid any problems.

    I won’t go into the nightmare and anguish this process has been but have a few questions.

    First of all, my mother has been paying her mortgage each month. But on July 6th, 2010 she received a ‘Notice Of Intent To Accelerate’ from BOA, stating her loan is in serious default and that she needed to pay $1805.58 on or by July 30th, 2010 or foreclosure proceedings could follow. The $1805.58 almost triples her monthly payment.

    I have been assisting her with BOA since August, as she can no longer deal with these…people. I didn’t learn about the ‘Notice Of Intent To Accelerate’ letter until last week.

    But since that letter, she recently received a letter and forms from BOA stating that they were concerned about foreclosure on the property and offered her forms for ‘In Deed Of Lieu’. She also began receiving calls and a letter from REDC Default Solutions regarding impending foreclosure and the option of ‘In Deed Of Lieu’. Let me remind you again, my mother’s loan was not in default, her payments were current.

    I tried to find out what the $1805.58 amount was for and kept getting the run around from BOA, transfered from department to department as usual, dropped calls, put on hold. After four hours of this I was told that the letter was a mistake, it was an error, that my mother should just forget about it.

    What if she had somehow come up with the $1805.58 or signed ‘In Deed Of Lieu’ paperwork out of fear that they were actually going to proceed with foreclosure even though she was current on all payments.

    They didn’t inform her of the mistake or error, they won’t say where they got the $1805.58 figure from. This reeks of extortion. It is like they were hoping she would some how come up with this extra amount of money or be frightened enough to give her house away.

    Anyway, we are still in limbo over her MHA application, we were just assigned another negotiator. But can you tell me if we have any legal recourse for the above? I understand no harm was done, but this to me was again, extortion. I would also like any advice or tips about dealing with the HAMP process with BOA. I hope you can help us out here or lead us in the right direction!

    Thank You!
    Tony Z

  58. anthony fike October 16, 2010 at 10:21 am #

    In 2005 i purchased a home in riverside ca. Whitin 9 mo.i found undisclosed damage in the home which caused health issues to a family member. A lawsuit insued, and my home was part of the evidence.My lender was countrywide and at first with the lawsuit they placed a forwbearance on my loans, and i paid less than half the monthly payment.When the lawsuit was in full swing 2006-2007, they applied a full forebearance.When BofA took over Countrywides mortgages, Bank of America foreclosed On my home which had been vacantsince Oct.of 2005 until it was auctioned off and sold in june of 2010. When Bank of America foreclosed my home was still in the lawsuit in Riverside Superior court under judge bernard swartz as part of the evidence. I did not use the word HONORABLE, because he LIED about a childs compromise, no compromise, no ruling. My ? is, is what BofA did legal.

    A. Fike 909-630-9009

  59. Brandie Wallace December 11, 2010 at 9:47 am #

    Hello-
    I am fighting the Bank that foreclosed on my property in 2008, the original Bank was IndyMac, then OneWest was trying to take my property, now I have Deutsche Bank trying to take my house. Deutsche Bank has filed a Corrective Deed Upon Sale on June 18, 2010, which is 18 months after foreclosure and after OneWest admitted to not having perfected title. Is there any law that I can use against them? All I have right now is that they are not in compliance with Civil Code 2924. Please help. Thank you.

    Brandie

  60. becky mcaughey December 25, 2010 at 7:14 am #

    Besides foeclosing on my home and selling it 2 weeeks before the date I was given in writing, to cure the default, (I had the money, and have proof), they did not credit 3 mos. of payments which I also have proof of. This began in 2009 and we were evicted March of 2010. No one can help please, anyone?

  61. Phil January 13, 2011 at 1:33 am #

    I need help! Today is 01/13/11 I have a sale date on 01/18/11. Is there anything I can do to stop it? Besides BK. My loan amount is 1.4M so I would have to file for Chapter 11 which is too expensive for me. I have exhausted most of my funds trying to save my home from Trustee Sale. I got scammed a couple of times.

  62. timothymccandless January 28, 2011 at 6:21 pm #

    Hello,
    I would like to thank you for all the information you have on your website. I was able to use one of your links to file my exparte application and complaint(not done very well, but without being able to use some of your information and templates, it would have been way worse)
    Anyway, I have had the exparte for TRO and Prelim continued twice due to a problem getting my proof of service returned to me on time. But as the first judge stated “on the merits of my case it appears I may prevail” . Then on the second hearing, the Judge did get a call after I had left the building from council L. Bowman who stated that they would be filing objection, but would not be foreclosuing on the property before the next hearing.
    I spent 2.5 year reading your site, and doing all that I could to get information from BAC/CW. And in Oct 2009 I received a “certified copy of a Note, a page with an endorsement in blank(looks nothing like the other pages) and a Hud-1, also included was a DT and application. Well, the Note with that strange looking paper, no way is it the back of the note, the DT and riders were missing all of my initials on the bottom of each page. The hud-1 was missing borrowers signatures and a forged escrow officers signature, and the app was also missing borrowers signature. So I sent a few more letters out, filed some complaints with the AG and I got another set of the same documents, and a letter from the mortgage fraud department of BofA..I sent a reply and low and behold, they recorded the second NOD on me. I did scrap of enough money to have a lawyer in Fresno look over the documents. She found 5 different applications, 3 hud-1′s 3 or 4 GFW/TIL all different. None of the letters from CW- BAC- bofA and recon trust match. The sub-trustee/assignment of DT recorded 2 weeks after the NOD list BONY Mellon that the DT is being assigned to. But I have the Blank Corporate Assignment that was to go into the mortgage loan file with the trustee…they gave it to me in the loan docs. And in 2005 BONY Mellon had not even merged yet. So I guess they just want to by non preforming loans??
    Anyway, I will be looking for more information on your site to help answer the banks objections. I know they will be able to knock me on my butt, but I have to at least try. When I thought it was me in the wrong back in 2007, I offered 2 short sales(even went into escrow), deed -in-lieu and was refused. Then CW offered a loan mod, sent me the forms but they stated in the letter that was because I had a stay due to my BK…I was not in BK, then they wanted my deceased husbands signature…they had the death cert. Then I started getting calls from council for Impac Funding (orig of loan) wanting information about my loan docs due to a lawsuit against impac in the state of WA where my docs were handled. That is went I began to think that something was really wrong with my docs…and thanks to your site I stayed on a mission(a lot of letters and complaints) to get information about my docs. I was just floored with I seen that note and DT….even on 4 different pages of the closing docs stated that they had to be initialed, and they were!
    Thanks again
    Oh…I not well written court case is in merced county CV001556..with the exhibits of those docs.

  63. Abby in CA February 24, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    what is the california law on ‘assignments in blank’ are not legal or allowed

    where can I find the law

  64. tjs April 21, 2011 at 3:58 am #

    MY PROPERTY IN FL HAS NEVER HAD A BANK LOAN ON IT WAS PAID CASH FOR ABOUT 50 YEARS AGO.WAS WILLED TO ME IN 2007.THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO MY PROPERTY WENT INTO FORECLOSURE THE BANK ALSO FORECLOSED ON MY PROPERTY TOO.I FOUND OUT ABOUT THE FORECLOSURE WHEN I HAD A BUYER FOR IT.LOST THE SALE BECAUSE OF BANKS WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE ON MY PROPERTY.BANK SAID WE MADE A MISTAKE.HERE I AM ONE YEAR LATER AND STILL HAVENT GOT MY PROPERTY BACK.BANK HAS IGNORED ALL PAPER WORK THAT HAS BEEN SENT.I AM NOW GOING TO FILE A MOTION TO INTERVENE ON THE HOUSE THAT IS IN FORECLOSURE.MY QUESTION TO YOU IS ISNT THE BANK LIABLE FOR THE LOST OF THE SALE OF MY PROPERTY AND WHAT IS A RESONABLE TIME IN FL FOR MY CASE TO BE HEARD.THANK YOU

  65. Kevin McKnelly July 14, 2011 at 5:36 pm #

    7/14/11: Friend of mine was given notice the other day that the house had been sold to Fannie Mae. The notice of Trustee sale was not posted on her property, and possibly no notice was given in paper. No trustee was assigned, only communication was from lender. Does client have any recourse at this point to delay being moved out because they didn’t play by the rules?

  66. Abby in CA July 18, 2011 at 10:10 am #

    Please sign this online petition- it only takes less than a minute:
    We need to get our State AG to investigate

    http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-ag-kamala-harris-to-investigate-get-an-injunction

    thanks

  67. laurie mendoza July 23, 2011 at 3:24 pm #

    DEAR MR. McCANDLESS,

    COULD YOU SHED SOME LIGHT ON POSITIVE EQUITY FORECLOSURE and MAYBE GIVE SOME SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT TO DO IN THIS KIND OF MATTER? DOES CALIFORNIA HAVE ANY KIND OF LAW REGARDING POSITIVE EQUITY FORECLOSURE? THIS WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN A TAX SALE. ON THE 1099A SENT TO ME BY THE BANK CLEARLY STATES THAT THE HOUSE IS WORTH MORE THAN THE UNPAID PRINCIPAL BALANCE OF THE MORTGAGE. THERE IS ABOUT $30,000.00 PROCEEDS FOLLOWING THE FORECLOSURE SALE.

    THANKYOU
    LAURIE MENDOZA
    ldmendoza2003@yahoo.com

  68. Abby in CA July 24, 2011 at 11:19 am #

    NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE, HOME123 CORPORATION– THEIR BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE JUST FILED THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT IN DELAWARE FOR PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2011. STILL 35 MILLION IN CASH

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/60800461/NEW-CENTURY-BANKRUPTCY-TRUSTEE-FINANCIAL-REPORT-FOR-PERIOD-ENDING-6-30-2011

    SEE A LAWYER ABOUT FILING AN AP IN THEIR BKR IF YOU ARE A VICTIM OF THEIR PREDATORY OR FRAUDULENT LENDING

  69. Abby in CA July 24, 2011 at 11:21 am #

    TUESDAY’S AGENDA – NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE & HOME123 CORPORATION- FOR THEIR BANKRUPTCY IN DELAWARE FOR 7-26-2011

    SOME PRO SE’S UP THERE FIGHTING AND ONE IS SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/60728756/NEW-CENTURY-BANKRUPTCY-COURT-AGENDA-FOR-7-26-2011-SOME-PRO-SE-S-SCHEDULED-FOR-ORAL-ARGUMENTS

    SEE THERE ARE PRO SE’S UP THERE FIGHTING THESE COMPANIES IN BANKRUPTCY COURT

    SEVERAL PRO SE’S GOT $$ SETTLEMENTS BUT DISCOVERED NEW EVIDENCE SO ARE ATTEMPTING TO REOPEN THEIR CASES

    WAMU PEOPLE CAN DO SAME

  70. Abby in CA July 24, 2011 at 11:23 am #

    HERE IS A CALIFORNIA RECORDER’S MANUAL AND REFERENCE HANDBOOK- PROPERTY RECORDS ETC.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/60797976/CALIFORNIA-RECORDER-S-MANUAL-AND-REFERENCE-GUIDE

  71. laurie mendoza July 24, 2011 at 7:21 pm #

    TO ABBY IN CALIFORNIA:

    I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE CALIFORNIA RECORDERS INFO. GREAT STUFF.

    SINCERELY,
    LAURIE MENDOZA

  72. Abby in CA July 31, 2011 at 5:41 pm #

    BIG BIG WIN FOR CALIFORNIA PRO SE HOMEOWNER—-IT IS FOR PUBLICATION TOO!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/61310288/WIN-WIN-WINFOR-PRO-SE-HOMEOWNER-IN-COURT-ONLY-THE-SECURITIES-TRUST-CAN-BRING-AN-ACTION-NOT-THE-SECURITIES-TRUSTEE

  73. Abby in CA July 31, 2011 at 5:44 pm #

    EMAIL ME AT CARRA2009@GMAIL.COM IF ANYONE WANTS A COPY OF
    THE UD JUDGES BENCH GUIDE FOR CA.

    PUT IN SUBJECT LINE ‘REQUEST FOR UD JUDGE BENCH GUIDE’

    COULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU ARE FIGHTING A UD OR UNLAWFUL DETAINER IN CALIF.
    (THAT IS EVICTION)

    IT DOES HAVE SOME IMPORTANT CASE CITATIONS IN IT. BEST IF YOU GET AN ATTORNEY. NO GUARANTEES ON USE OF GUIDE AS JUDGES MAKE THE DECISIONS.

  74. Abby in CA August 18, 2011 at 11:35 am #

    BREAKING NEWS AUG 18 2011–CALIFORNIA AG KAMALA HARRIS GOES AFTER LAWYERS AND LAW FIRMS- MASS JOINDER- TRO & ASSET FREEZE–SEE LIST OF NAMES AND FIRMS HERE. HER ANNOUNCEMENT JUST FINISHED. APPARENTLY HOMEOWNERS IN 17 STATES WERE TARGETED.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/62590406/HOT-STUFF-AUG-18-2011-CALIFORNIA-AG-KAMALA-HARRIS-SUES-LAW-FIRMS-FOR-MASS-JOINDER-SCAM-FORECLOSURES

  75. Abby in CA August 18, 2011 at 11:37 am #

    HERE IS CALIFORNIA AG KAMALA HARRIS CONSUMER ALERT—PAY ATTENTION- AUG 2011

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/62594546/CONSUMER-ALERT-FOR-CALIFORNIANS-ISSUED-BY-OUR-STATE-AG-KAMALA-HARRIS

  76. Abby in CA August 18, 2011 at 11:38 am #

    PRESS RELEASE ISSUED BY KAMALA HARRIS THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA – AUG 18 2011 – RE THE LAWSUIT & TRO AGAINST CERTAIN LAWYERS AND LAW FIRMS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/62592596/CALIFORNIA-AG-GOES-AFTER-LAWYERS-AUG-18-2011-HERE-IS-PRESS-RELEASE-THEY-VE-BEEN-CALLED-CON-ARTISTS

  77. Charlton Butler September 1, 2011 at 12:07 am #

    Dear Timoth,
    I filed this th other day aginst my lender whom it would appear are cupable for fraud. What really gets me is that the Banks and the communities that they serve….lol that they, the Banks serve lolol oh yeah that’s a good one, are, it seems, willing to take a home illegally rather than prosecute the guilty for their crimes. Seems the defenceless homeowners are easier to defeat in court than a Bank with all that defence money spent on attorneys. It’s not the best but I never practiced law and am 20 years behind in the law so I had to catch up. But I think I have defeated their case for ridding me of all my evidence and having this Federal case tried in a State Court lol. Go figure.

    Email charltonbutler@aol.com

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    For the District of Maine

    TD BANK N.A. f/k/a
    FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK N.A. Et al
    Plaintiff,
    v.

    TWILA A. WOLF (Butler)
    Defendants,
    CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR.
    Defendant-Intervenor,
    And/or
    MAINE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY,
    CITY OF BANGOR, Et al
    Possible Parties-In-Interest
    And/or Plaintiffs
    LVNV FUNDING LLC.
    Possible Parties-In-Interest

    Case No.: 1:11-CV-00255-DBH

    1. TITLE TO REAL ESTATE INVOLVED
    2. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

    Judge/Magistrate: Magistrate
    Hon. Margaret J. Kravchuk
    Date Action filed: July 5th 2011 (Defendants Notice of Removal)
    Date set for trial: Unknown

    (DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE,)
    (AND VARIOUS MOTIONS AND OBJECTIONS OF OPPOSING COUNSEL)
    (WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW)

    Title to 44 Patten Street Bangor, Maine is involved as recorded in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds.

    Now come Defendants Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf and Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1441 et seq.1446 et seq. 1331 et seq. 1336 et seq. 18 U.S.C. 371, 18 U.S.C. 63 § 1341, 18 U.S.C. 63 § 1343, 18 U.S.C. 63 § 1344, 18 U.S.C. 63 § 1348, 18 U.S.C. 63 § 1349, 18 U.S.C. § 4, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17(b)(2), 8 and 9(b) with response to order to show cause issued by this Honorable Court and response to various motions and objections of opposing counsel with incorporated memorandum of law.

    Defendants state that at this time in consideration of F.R.C.P. 17(b)(2), Which states in TD Bank N.A.’s “Capacity to sue and to be sued” that the deciding factor in the choice of court and law is the law the business in question was incorporated under. In TD Bank N.A.’s case that would be Federal law as they are a Federally Chartered Bank and thrive on this fact when a case is involved where they can avoid state jurisdiction by claiming they are a Federally Chartered bank and are covered under federal not state law. It would seem then that no true and legal complaint has been submitted to the court.

    Defendants are unsure at this point exactly how the court would like them to proceed as it would appear that opposing counsel deliberately filed this matter in the wrong court in an effort to evade the scrutiny and jurisdiction of the District Courts. Therefore any Statute of Limitations and other motions and objections of opposing counsel would not in fact be valid as they have not proceeded in the correct court under the correct law to begin. Thus no Foreclosure has been initiated against Defendants. Defendants feel that jurisdiction is firmly established in any suit Defendants bring against Plaintiffs or any suit brought by Plaintiffs against Defendants in the future.

    Further Defendants, contrary to what seems to be the common assumption amongst those adjudicating this matter or better said those involved in this matter against the Defendants, are not trying to get a free house from anyone. Defendants ask all involved what part of FRAUD do they not understand; Defendants are the victims of fraud at the hands of Plaintiffs and in being defrauded by the Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs in turn defrauded the Federal Government in the process. Defendant’s state that this assumption that Defendants only want a free house, on the part of the court and Plaintiff’s counsel, is neither the point nor by law a question of or for these proceedings.
    Defendants also state that opposing counsel, doing due diligence as required by law and professional rule, as well as being emailed the particulars of this case and the fraud committed in the acquisition of this mortgage contract in question. Plaintiffs and their counsel are aware of these facts stated by Defendants and that counsel for the Plaintiffs is attempting to obfuscate the facts of this case from the court, obstruct justice and the proper legal function of the courts in dispensing justice and committing further felonies in the process of their efforts to hide their and their clients violations of the law and their attempt to fraudulently foreclose against the Defendants property.
    “Under our Constitution no court, state or federal, may serve as an accomplice in the willful transgression of `the Laws of the United States,’ laws by which `the Judges in every State [are] bound . . . .’” United States v. Peltier, 422, U.S. 531 (1975)
    This would seem what the Plaintiffs, through counsel, are trying to achieve in this court with the submission of questionable, at best, forged at worst, documentation filed to date and the fact that due diligence would disclose to a blind man the falsity of the contract(s) in question and their violations of law.
    Defendants have tried to deal with opposing counsel in good faith only to be rebuked. At this juncture, Defendants should, as of August 26th, have sufficient funds to rectify and cure this default and will continue to contribute to this fund as a testament to their good faith in this matter. But as this was not a problem started by Defendants but by the negligent and unconstitutional actions of a Federal Governmental entity the Social Security Administration (Herein after known as “SSA”), and opposing counsels clients, and the city of Bangor’s, actions prior to and after closing. SSA’s actions were fixed once but since that rectification, from an illegal action they took in 2009, has once again, due to SSA negligence and incompetency, and consequently the reason we have all been brought together, put Defendants before SSA’s administrative court to have SSA admit their mistake in 2010 when they again cut off Defendants funds, illegally, and have them refund withheld monies and income returns that should have come to Defendants. Defendants are declaring that they will not be curing this alleged default because as the record will prove, and a jury will agree, there is no default to cure. Therefore with this in mind Defendants are still making answer the courts order to show cause and answer opposing counsel’s objections and motions to strike etc. in case the court should direct that this foreclosure case should proceed anew from this court. Or dismiss outright for fraud upon the court.
    Therefore Defendants state, contend and assert Pursuant to Public Law, Chapter 402 LD 1418, item 1, Defendant’s feel that mediation as a mandatory requirement by the State of Maine seeking to protect the citizens of Maine from possible fraudulent foreclosure, such as this one, and to have the parties meet and see if there is anything that can be done to resolve the issue. Defendants tried but were refused the right to speak and to have the fraud committed against them dealt with and a true accounting of their payments made. Defendants, without success, tried not to involve court resources and this should not be held against them as it relates to statute of limitations and/or other limits and time restraints.
    Defendants with all good faith entered into mediation that was apparently just a wasting of time to evade jurisdiction of the District Court by the Plaintiffs as Plaintiffs through counsel in violation of state and federal law that they enter mediation in good faith failed to do so. Defendant was denied the ability to speak or to have their concerns, as afforded by federal and state statute and state rule of civil procedure rule 93, heard and/or recognized and dealt with in total disregard for the Defendants rights. Defendants feel this in conjunction with other facts herein, should adequately explain why almost a year has transpired before Defendants sought to remove this matter to Federal court and that the threshold has been crossed into federal jurisdiction. Defendant’s feel that their efforts to not clog the courts with the refuse of litigation, such as that which this case represents, should not be held against them along with the preceding and such as:
    Defendants are not attorneys and as a matter of law are afforded wide latitude in matters before the court and stress they desire counsel but seem unable, as yet, to acquire an attorney nor have they been able to compel their Federally appointed attorneys Pine Tree Legal Aid particularly the individuals Nan Heald Director of Pine Tree Legal Aid, associates Frank D’Alessandro and Judd Esty-Kendall. Judd Esty-Kendall in particularly over all as Esty-Kendall was first appointed by the Federal Government and has repetitiously failed to comply with his obligations to act on Defendants behalf in this matter of a foreclosure action brought by Plaintiff’s counsel as a direct result of the Federal case Martinez v Astrue CASE NO. 08-CV-4735 CW.
    Defendants were depending on afore mentioned counsel who subsequently abandoned them despite having been appointed by the Federal Government to resolve all issues arising from and/or out of and/or pertaining to and as relates to the settling of the case of Martinez v Astrue, CASE NO. 08-CV-4735 CW and Ms. Wolf now Butler’s, problems created by that case. Ms. Wolf n/k/a Butler was caught up, as were several other tens of thousands of other people, in that situation and was appointed counsel by the Federal Government to settle the matter for Defendant and that would include under the basic concepts of law “arising from”, “out of” matters such as this foreclosure having arisen out of that case.
    Judd Esty-Kendall, Defendant Twila A Wolf n/k/a Butler’s government appointed attorney, took care of the first foreclosure that was initiated against his client. This same attorney, for some reason, felt no such compulsion when less than a month later the Social Security Administration, arising out of the settlement so far initiated by her Attorney at the time and for this matter, cut his client’s money off again. He refused, when three months later TD Bank N.A. started foreclosure proceedings again, to assist her in the matter of this foreclosure citing no money or time to deal with the problem. He did continue to work on having Social Security reinstate her money and what they have withheld to date returned to her. He has ignored the federal mandated appointment and payment for and thus the requirement he defend Ms. Butler in this foreclosure matter. One would assume that all things being the same that this would have been included in this matter but you cannot make a person do their job.
    So since Judd Esty-Kendall having refused to do his job and his superior, at Pine Tree Legal Aid, Nan Heald, having complied with this decision by sending an attorney, from the Portland office, who was hostile towards Defendants Ms. Wolf n/k/a Butler and Mr. Butler from the beginning and abandoned them when Defendants would not sign a new contract with Plaintiffs that was higher in payments and did not take into account all monies having been paid to the servicers of these loans and that these loans were not the loan (singular) that Defendant signed in the first place.
    After trying to limit, illegally I might add, their requirement to defend; sending Frank D’Alessandro was an admission by Nan Heald of that debt to Ms. Wolf now Butler; Defendant’s attorney(s) would not listen nor would they ask any questions to clarify the issues Defendants brought up concerning a clear case of fraud. Defendant’s legal counsel patently ignored them and continuously failed to advocate for their rights under state law let alone their rights under the constitution in mediation or what was supposed to pass for mediation. Defendant’s attorney then had the court agree with the abandonment of Pine Tree Legal Aids client on the basis of a disagreement over how to proceed. What question can there be when Defendants counsel is looking at the legal evidence to make their case? or would be if counsel would have looked. When you boil it all down and take into account attitude in the completion of a task then you cannot trust a job that was done grudgingly and with such rancor. So being abandoned we were left to defend ourselves. In Defendants motion to extend time due to medical needs and the need to hire legal counsel. Defendants are legally afforded the right to acquire and/or hire the counsel of their choosing. In U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 05-352 (6/26/06)
    “The Court held that the denial of a defendant’s right to hire the counsel of his choice is a structural error for which harmless error analysis does not apply. Thus, whenever a defendant is wrongfully denied the right to hire the counsel of his own choosing, reversal is required.”
    While Defendants are not permitted to bring criminal charges they contend that their civil case could have derived from, and thus is original jurisdiction established again, the result of a criminal case having been brought by the Federal District Attorney’s office and something the Federal District Attorney could still do. Defendant’s civil case is partially made on the back of the various criminal statutes broken to make their case period let alone for Federal jurisdiction.
    Whether Plaintiffs their co-conspirators and/or partners in equity past and/or present are prosecuted criminally is not within the authority of Defendants. Instead Defendants must make the case, by a preponderance of evidence, that Federal Law(s) was/were broken pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 8, simple statement of the facts so as to reasonably alert the opposing counsel of the subject and nature of the complaint being made against their client(s), while also complying with the heightened requirements of rule 8 and 8’’s partner when fraud is the subject of the charge, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 9(b), as required in case’s, where a charge of fraud is being made, and therefore must be made with specificity and particularity and in this case is almost every other sentence.
    Only after, loosely I might add, so called mediation, and this mentioned in response to opposing counsels arguments as relates to any and all Statute of Limitation arguments, did Defendants realize what the elements of the case were exactly. Until this foreclosure action Defendants were unaware of the crime(s) perpetrated against them, and wasn’t till just before filing their notice of removal, and thus the reason for that notice, that they realized and understood and were able to ascertain, having only been their own counsel for a short time after being abandoned, that
    (a) Defendants were deprived of their constitutional rights “under color of law” I.E. the mediators denial of Defendants right to speak and have the law and the rules of court apply to them and opposing counsels agreement with this deprivation of Defendants civil rights under color of law by the agreement of his silence and/or by the berating of Defendants along the same grounds as mediators error(s);
    (b) the case as described, is indeed one for the Federal Courts in fact F.R.C.P. 17(b)(2) states this case as a matter of law should have originated in the District Courts.
    Money, as Defendants are aware and understand, to fund the “New Neighbors Program” of the Maine State Housing Authority was obtained through Federal Community Development Block Grants, one amongst a bevy of programs to stabilize urban areas and neighborhoods, in an effort to control and rehabilitate areas suffering from urban blight or another Federal program like it. The “New Neighbors Program” was a pilot or test program of the Maine State Housing Authority (Herein after known as “MSHA”) with the cities of Portland, Lewiston and Bangor Maine participating and what has since become an everyday offering of MSHA to date.
    The loan program participant’s loans would be insured, as far as Defendants currently are to understand and believe as relates to first mortgages generated by the program, by the Federal Government Entity Fannie Mae who would be insuring the lender against loss through loans taken under the auspices of MSHA’s “New Neighbor Program.” That the guarantee of insurance on these loans was made upon certain conditions being met. One of which would be to follow the guidelines set out by the organization authorized to manage the State’s end of the Federally funded program concerning urban blighted areas, rehabilitation and mortgage loans; and to comply with all state and federal laws and regulations. Another would be to deliver the product advertised and sold to the customer also conditions required by state and federal law none of these three things, at the very least of what should have been done, were achieved.
    The program was then, and still is, being backed by the Governments good name the mortgages generated by this program, at the time, were then insured by Fannie Mae, securitized and placed into tranches of Mortgage Backed Securities funds, at least one loan if not both were securitized. Therefore as a securities matter alone shows sufficient cause for Federal Jurisdiction as Securities, as in securities fraud, and Banking Regulation, as in regulations violated as concerns Federally chartered banks, are the Federal Courts prerogatives.
    All real value, was taken out of the house by the parties of whom owed a fiduciary duty to Defendant Wolf n/k/a Butler, a self-imposed fiduciary duty but nevertheless a fiduciary duty and a great example of what good human resource training tries to make sure doesn’t occur in Banking.
    The Plaintiffs by way of a scheme, legal definition of this and more to follow, of phony rehabilitation projects, projects completed so poorly that they might as well not have been done at all having had in the Defendants case, to repair all the work done by the contractors hired by plaintiffs, this so as to qualify for the Governments program through MSHA. This done on homes owned by certain individuals and then the unloading, in blighted areas of the city, those same properties by sale to individuals with mental and physical disabilities; point in fact preying on those factors and others as a profile of their victims; with loans made by a cohort in local banking all of which was facilitated by the Community Development Department of and with The City of Bangor’s approval. On that approval rehab money was lent and permanent home mortgages created. This to everyone’s advantage but for that of the buyer(s) of said properties for whom, for all intent and purposes, were buying junk and defrauded in the deal. Therein were/was buyer(s) defrauded and thus when the Plaintiffs defrauded the Defendants they defrauded the federal government as well specifics and examples to follow.
    The funds were not loaned out by contract and dispersed under and abiding to the underwriting rules, the law and the terms the Federal Government acting through MSHA, The City of Bangor and as Defendants agreed to. Nor in fact was the federally insured loan Defendants were promised, as financing for the purchase of the property in question, as Defendants are just discovering, ever delivered on. This promise about the loan made by TJ Martzial at The City of Bangor’s Community Development Department, by the Representative of MSHA and Robert Brayson of TD Bank N.A. all who Defendant T Butler was introduced to by Linda and Darrell Sproul and whom helped talk, along with those mentioned already, her into buying the property she lives in now. That the loan as promised by these people and as stated by the same people and Barry Cohen, at closing, as being what she received, Defendants state that that loan was never delivered and that instead there appears to be a case of fraud and forgery instead being represented as that which she agreed to be bound by.
    Instead of a single fixed rate mortgage Defendant was given a package of several loans and is presented as being that which represents what Defendant signed and agreed to be bound by. It is Defendants contention and sworn statement that these documents do not represent what she signed and agreed to be bound by and further said contract, the package of 3 loans, was materially altered after the fact and closing by the City of Bangor, without the Defendants consent or knowledge, and therefore the purported Note and Mortgage contract(s) in dispute are, as a matter of law, twice a nullity. Now twice a fraud upon the court as well and as fraud upon the court has no Statute of Limitations prosecution would be timely.
    As this is a case involving the Government, a victim of the conspiracy used to defraud Defendants, Defendants contend Plaintiffs defrauded the Federal Government as well as and in addition to Defendants. As people will have had to plan and work out the details of an audit controls fraud such as this and therefore amongst others are a violation of Federal laws:
    Conspiracy, by definition ongoing, to defraud the United States Government 18 U.S.C. 371 would be a basis for Federal Jurisdiction.
    The mails were used in order to complete the scheme, and therefore fall under the Mail Fraud statute 18 U.S.C. 63 § 1341,
    Additionally charges of Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. 63 § 1343 could be levied as MSHA’s website was and continues to be utilized to sell this program.
    Bank Fraud 18 U.S.C. 63 § 1344 those involved derived or attempted to derive economic gain from or obtained the assets of the Bank or other party E.g. Defendants, without the legal means to make effective legal transfer.
    Securities and Commodities Fraud 18 U.S.C. 63 § 1348, as, relates to the securities that were derived from the fraudulently obtained mortgages. As no contract is formed in the commission of a crime, as that would obviously be favoring the guilty for their ingenuity, therefore it is true then that no true accurate and legally binding securitized mortgage contract was or could have ever been delivered to whatever trust it was sold into or Bank asset column it was added to.
    Attempt and Conspiracy 18 U.S.C. 63 § 1349 all you have to do is try. Actual damage(s) or completion of the scheme is not required. (Emphasis added)
    18 U.S.C. § 1346 (2006) “Definition of ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ For these purposes, the term ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.”
    To obtain a conviction for a mail or wire fraud offense, the government must show beyond a reasonable doubt, civilly Defendants need only prove by the preponderance of evidence, that
    (1) the defendant was involved in a scheme or artifice to defraud which includes a material deception;
    (2) with the intent to defraud;
    (3) while using the mail, private commercial carriers, and/or wires in furtherance of that scheme;
    (4) that did result or would have resulted in the loss of money or property or the deprivation of honest services.

    Defendants, in a civil matter, must only show these things were accomplished by the preponderance of evidence to the degree required for the Courts to find for Federal jurisdiction as pertains to a civil action brought by the Plaintiffs against Defendants and the courts order to show cause. One example of the use of the mail in furtherance of the scheme is Defendants exhibit TDBNOFFR received by mail, hereto a copy of appended, and therein begs the question(s).
    (1) How did an offer of two loans not one, evidenced here as refused in writing, turn up as asserted by Plaintiff’s counsel in their clients complaint as being representative of the agreement Defendants made and agreed to be bound by?
    (2) These loans were not in Defendants best interest financial or otherwise.
    (a) Why would she agree to be so onerously bound by or better yet
    (i) why would those in a Fiduciary duty to Defendant advise Defendant to do something so antithetical to her best interest financially or otherwise such as this obviously inequitable arrangement that due to further alterations made by the city has made the loan(s) in question negatively amortizing? As well as a nullity.
    (3) Defendant Twila A Wolf n/k/a Butler asserts she only signed for one loan at an interest rate of 4.5%, and was reminded by TJ Martzial on more than one occasion Years after closing told Defendant Twila A. Wolf n/k/a Butler what a good loan she had, this when a loan company sought info on her loan so as to refinance her mortgage. TJ Martzial called Defendant Twila A Wolf n/k/a Butler, showing he clearly felt he had some control over the actions of Defendant and was watching his crime for cracks in its façade, a clear sign of a consciousness of guilt, and asked what did she think she was doing?, and to remind her what a good loan she had, it being only 4.5% interest for her home loan and as always discussed in the singular form.
    (4) Why is it so hard for anyone to understand these accusations? That the loans as presented by Plaintiffs are not the loan, as explained by and/or as presented by Barry Cohen, of Cohen & Cohen, at closing.
    (5) Another question would be why would the monthly billing and statement letter each month on the fictitious accounts created in this fraudulent deception upon the Defendants not be considered as an action in the continuation and completion of their fraud upon the Government, this Honorable Court and Defendants?
    “defendants filling out false affidavits of honorable military servitude during times of rebellion in order to obtain transferable property rights under a federal homestead act.” Using affidavits to obtain valuable land claims from the government was found to be a scheme or artifice to defraud.
    Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 314 (1895).

    Defendant’s would assert that the two matters are similar and but for subject, false affidavits of military service for property and in this case false affidavits and contracts for property, exactly the same evidenced by the false documentation that has been presented by the Plaintiffs. First to the Superior Court of Maine and now to the Federal District Courts as well as they assert before the Federal Court that said documents are all in good order, proper and legal when they are nothing of the sort.

    How could the documents be real Defendants ask?, Defendants state they are not and declare fraud, Defendants don’t even know that these people, TD Bank N.A., have the right to collect payments let alone foreclose, as evidenced by the forged signature of Defendant on the HUD-1 Settlement sheet that this and the corresponding note and mortgage contracts in question are based on and thus the subject of Plaintiffs complaint and Defendants case for Federal Jurisdiction as well their case period.

    Defendants couldn’t get Plaintiffs to address this matter, in that joke called mediation, as is allowed by rule 93 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure and State and Federal Law. Mediation failed Defendants state and assert due to the Plaintiffs and the Mediator Robert Lingley’s actions. Mr. Lingley as the mediator, with opposing counsel’s apparent approval, deprived Defendants of their constitutional right to free speech and to due process and it would seem with opposing counsel’s silence on the matter and therefore tacit if not outright support and agreement with the mediator’s actions. This in defiance of his, David McConnell’s legal obligation to say or do something to stop or prevent; same as the rules for the Mediator; a crime from being committed and to thwart a deprivation of Defendants civil rights under color of law 42 U.S.C. § 1983, instead Plaintiffs, through counsel, helped with the denial of plaintiffs constitutional rights to due process with silence to the mediators errors and begs the question was the mediator involved directly with Plaintiff’s counsel?

    It cannot be said that a person’s rights were more than merely, as in as if from a distance with no ability to effect, observed if all that is allowed is that the person must watch helplessly themselves lose in court by being denied a proper legal voice to use in their defense. It is the same situation with Defendant-Intervenor Charlton A. Butler in this matter. In addition to Rule 17(b)(2) then.

    WHEREFORE Plaintiffs Motion to Remand should be denied.
    Regarding opposing counsel’s arguments concerning Defendants Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Exhibits pursuant to Rule 201(b). Defendants do not understand why the Plaintiffs have a problem with the documents submitted for Judicial Notice. Defendants would assume that Plaintiff’s counsel must think the court is blind to miss the fact that it is an MSHA document, as admitted to by opposing counsel, Defendants suggest opposing counsel read F.R.C.P. 201(b)(2) the second part of rule 201(b) that counsel must have missed.
    It is pointedly noted by Defendants that the word “either” seems, to Defendants at least, to be extremely confusing to Plaintiffs and their counsel since Plaintiffs and their counsel could not seem to understand that word, as it applied to the contract in question, and their choices as regards their security interest and the loan in question. Example; you can do either this OR (emphasis added) that but by definition of the sentence you cannot do both or confuse the separate rules of either rule with the other rule. They just seem incapable of understanding some of the very basics of the English language that Defendants would assume that, like Defendants, that English is their first language.
    A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (emphasis added) (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. (Emphasis added)
    Defendants would think, strike that it is a no brainer, that opposing counsel could ask, no should ask, their client, MSHA, for a copy of the “New Neighbors Program Processing Guide” as they have already admitted to it being a MSHA document.

    Point in fact MSHA had these, “New Neighbors Program Processing Guide”, handed out to participants in the Fannie Mae New Homeowners learning Program required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (herein after known as “HUD”) for the “New Neighbors Program” as required by the. MSHA and HUD, then, should, as a matter of rule in their case and just good business period, have a copy to compare to.

    There shouldn’t be any question that opposing counsels own clients’ would be considered “sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Opposing counsel’s argument is without substantive merit and an example of Plaintiffs and opposing counsel’s consciousness of guilt. They don’t deny the documents outright, a much easier thing to do than their current argument, because they know them to be valid. All around this argument is not understood by Defendants as being even close to appropriate or accurate but as per the past with Plaintiffs and their counsel yet another waste of Defendants health finances, and as with the Court as well, time.

    Conversely the same theorem applies to the City of Bangor as well; as opposing counsel must have missed the business card for the Director of the City of Bangor’s Community Development Department attached to the front of the document referred to as “Program Highlights.” But as Defendants have pointed this out to opposing counsel already then, they, it would be considered a reasonable demand, can ask the City of Bangor’s solicitor Norman S. Hietmann or Paul Niklas Heitmann’s assistant solicitor for the City of Bangor for a copy. I believe, and know from experience that standard operating procedure in most offices, if not all offices let alone a city government office, is to document everything and to keep a copy. The city should have a copy of a document, and Defendants ask the court to under oath ask the City of Bangor if this is not the case with them as well. They, the City of Bangor must have a copy, should they be called into court to defend their supported programs or actions, E.g. liability, or just to refer to when others fail to comply with the programs directives and rules or when they, the City of Bangor, wishes to instruct city personnel in how to comply with a programs rules of which they are promoting or running. I don’t think the city’s reputation is in question…..yet. though their apparent cover up, it seems, for now, TJ Martzials’ activities and liability incurring actions, as those actions appear to Defendants, by refusing to meet with Defendants prior to this response from Defendants to the court for almost a month. From the time Defendants learned who was representing the City, the City solicitors have refused to respond to Defendants inquires and their requests for a meeting.
    Update. The assistant city solicitor, Paul Niklas today, August 26th 2011, finally returned my call, seems both he and his boss were out of town all this time and indicated his refusal to my offer to sit down and review the evidence against the City of Bangor their employee, whom they are strictly liable for, and that maybe they didn’t want to back that employee and his accomplices. The City of Bangor, by and through counsel Norman S Hietmann II and Paul Niklas, indicated that that they will be supporting and backing the criminal enterprise, and the current cover up in motion now before the court, of their employee and his friends and accomplices in this scheme to defraud so many.
    That my offer to sit down review the evidence and find a way to not hold the city liable for their employee’s actions this if they would only not back that employee, seemed a reasonable request to Defendants at the time but apparently not, and his criminal enterprise along with his associates, accomplices etc. in this matter now before the court as I did not want to have the city pay so much to be so wrong and the situation created by the rogue actions of one of their employees. Defendants say, so be it, as you say; may it be. See you in court.
    Once again it is hard to understand the argument of opposing counsel as the very easy proof they claim there is a lack of is either A. their client or B. attached to the front of the document in question, and Defendants refuse to believe that the City of Bangor would not be considered “sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Thus these documents are the very definition of easy to check and are easy to verify and therefore opposing counsel’s argument of the inapplicability of rule 201(b) is invalid, improper and without merit.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Objection to the taking of judicial notice of Defendants exhibits should be denied.
    In regards to opposing counsel’s arguments objecting to intervention by Charlton A. Butler Jr. and the representation of Mr. Butler’s rights before the court by Mr. Butler. Opposing counsel’s argument that Mrs. Butler, f/k/a Wolf, by representing her rights in this matter pro se has also, by some unknown magical extension of the law, represented lawfully and competently Mr. Butlers rights before the court. While Mrs. Butler’s f/k/a Wolf’s rights are being represented by her, and while those rights are the same rights as Defendant-Intervenor Charlton A. Butler they, nevertheless, are not Ms. Butler’s rights but Mr. Butler’s rights and his and his alone to represent and/or speak for or about before the court. Opposing counsel asks Defendant-Intervenor Charlton A. Butler Jr. to explain what difference or why there is any difference between Mrs. Butler’s rights represented by her and why Mr. Butler’s rights require him to wax eloquent on them. This being the area that opposing counsel has focused on as the area Defendant-Intervenor Charlton Butler failed to prove in his motion to intervene. It’s as if opposing counsel is saying that just because two peoples rights are the same that by representing one person’s rights you represent everyone’s’ rights in similar cases. While this may be true when an attorney represents a corporation or a person Defendants state there is no such rule or statute available as relates to those representing themselves before the court pro se.
    No one, but an attorney or Mr. Butler, may represent, speak for, on or about his rights in a court of law, state or federal or any matter of and/or for those courts pursuant to:
    Rule 82.1 “Only members of the bar of this Court may appear as counsel in civil cases. Only individuals who are parties in civil cases may represent themselves. All other non-attorneys are not permitted to represent a party before this Court. Individuals representing themselves are responsible for performing all duties imposed upon counsel by these Rules and all other applicable federal rules of procedure. All parties other than individuals must be represented by counsel.” This would be as I tell the children, the end of the discussion.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs objection to the intervention of Charlton A. Butler Jr. should be denied.

    Defendants hereby respond to opposing counsels Motion to Strike, saying:
    1. The Defendant’s Notice of Removal contains statements which the Plaintiff’s apparently do not like and have moved to have these stricken from Defendants notice of removal and Defendants sworn basis for removal. Claiming that they are redundant, immaterial, impertinent and scandalous.
    2. None of the statements referred to by Defendants are scandalous. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, at page 1334, defines “scandal” as:
    Defamatory reports or rumors; aspersion or slanderous talk, uttered recklessly or maliciously. Scandalous matter may be ordered stricken from the pleadings by a motion to strike. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). See also Defamation.
    The Florida case of Wolfson v. Kirk, 273 So.2d 774 (4 D.C.A., 1973), provides:
    Defamation (libel and slander) may generally be defined as the unprivileged publication of false statements.., page 776.
    Since there is nothing false about Plaintiff’s statements, the allegations are not scandalous.
    2. The offending portions of Defendants arguments are all obviously material to the cause of action under The authority of Harrison v. Perea, 168 U.S. 311 (1897), which states at page 319 “(a)ll matter not material to the suit is regarded as impertinent.” Since the several offending portions of the Defendants arguments are material to the cause of action, none of them should be stricken as impertinent.
    3. Perhaps there are causes of action where the details provided by Defendants are unnecessary and so might be redundant. However, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, has ruled in Oladeinde v. City of Birmingharn, 963 F.2d 1481 (11th Cir. 1992):
    In pleading a section 1983 action, some factual detail is necessary, especially if we are able to see that the allegedly violated right was clearly established when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred. We also stress that this heightened Rule 8 requirement – as the law of the circuit – must be applied by the district courts. . . page 1485.
    Defendants are thus required to plead with much greater factual detail when bringing federal civil rights actions. The details provided by Defendants Twila A. Butler and Defendant-Intervenor Charlton A. Butler Jr. are necessary to meet this heightened standard and so are not unnecessary or redundant.
    4. The materiality of the portions of the Complaint to which the Defendants object have been shown to have an essential relationship to the cause of action in accord with the Oladeinde case (supra), and also under White v. Florida Highway Patrol, 928 F.Supp. 1153 (M.D.FIa 1996). In addition to Lucas v Cannon, 848 F.Supp. 168 (M.D.Fla.1994). In a civil rights action, more than mere conclusory allegations are required; a complaint will be dismissed where allegations are vague and conclusory. In 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions against individuals, factual details must be provided that demonstrate a violation of a clearly established right. Oladeinde v. City of Birmingham, 963 F.2d 1481 (11th Cir.1992). Thus there is no reason to strike any of Defendants pleading on the basis of being immaterial.
    5. Defendants have avoided the name-calling, threats of violence and general disorder and lack of comportment often seen in foreclosure cases where the parties outright become socially unacceptable in behavior. Quotations and statements are meant to comply with pleading requirements in effect in this circuit.
    Defendants do state for the record in what should be obvious to all with common sense.
    (a) Plaintiffs must stop acting scandalously or any report of their behavior by anyone let alone Defendants will, by definition of most of society, be scandalous and thus complaints such as these are a waste of the courts time and a complete disregard for the Defendants time, health and finances.
    (b) As to redundancy Defendants feel that they must not have said it enough times or described the matter in enough scandalous detail. If opposing counsel had gotten the point they would not be wasting the Courts time having Defendants respond to Plaintiffs arguments about a subject far from moot and that only as is proper as required by rule 9(b) and only makes apparent that felonies have been committed and that Defendants civil rights have been denied them under color of law 42 U.S.C. 1983.
    (c) Contrary to opposing counsels argument otherwise. Defendants are making claim of a constitutional violation based on the actions, words and silence of Stephanie Williams, David McConnell and Robert Lingley, agent of the state, and the denial of Defendants rights by the mediator whom opposing counsel in silence agreed with and in fact supported with that silence when obligated to do otherwise by law and ABA Model Rule.
    (d) Defendants have only described in detail, as required by law and rule, in specificity and with particularity events surrounding this matter sufficient for the Courts understanding according to the Court’s requirements.

    WHEREFORE, the Motion to Strike should be denied.

    Defendants assert and state that the City of Bangor by and/or through their employees in Bangor have decided that being informed of a felony committed against the United States Government the fine and/or both 3 year penalty for failing to report said felony does not apply to them.
    Defendants then feel that they must therefore enjoin them in their forthcoming suit against TD Bank N.A., MSHA. Pine Tree Legal Aid Frank D’Alessandro of Pine Tree Legal Aid, Nan Heald, director of Pine Tree Legal Aid, Judd Esty-Kendall of Pine Tree Legal Aid and Robert Lingley in his capacity as a Director on the Board of Pine Tree Legal Aid and in his capacity as mediator and an agent of the state by way of the State of Maine Superior Court.
    Lingley who, by the way, should have not been running mediation for Defendants but for some reason, Lingley, took it upon himself to take this case from a fellow named Zachery. Defendants make an official request of the court to authorize the Federal District Attorney’s office to investigate these claims and review the Defendants evidence and file appropriate indictments.
    Defendants would assert that the following statutes apply to the Plaintiffs, their counsel, the City of Bangor and their counsel and the Federal District Attorney’s office and any and all of their employees, agents, or assigns and all mentioned herein. Defendants assert this provides further argument and proof to statements so far made herein and as these statutes apply to the preceding mentioned and forthcoming.

    18 U.S.C. § 4
    Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. There can really be no argument that anyone doing due diligence, as required by law and rule of profession, can see that more than a few felonies had been committed.

    18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a crime to:
    (1) knowingly and willfully;
    (2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation;
    (3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States.
    The lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is “within the jurisdiction” of the federal bureaucracy.
    Though the falsehood must be “material” this requirement is met if the statement has the “natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decision making body to which it is addressed.” United States v. Gaudin , 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). (In other words, it is not necessary to show that a particular lie ever really influenced anyone.) Defendants would suggest it is absolutely assured that the lies would influence a court in the taking of Defendants property illegally.

    Although the individual(s) must know that their statement is false at the time it’s made, in order to be guilty of this crime and Defendants state and contend this is the case that due diligence requirements demand and would and did make apparent the crimes of Plaintiffs and now counsel for them as well as the City of Bangor and the federal District attorney’s office, it is not required to know that lying to the government is a crime or even that the matter being lied about is “within the jurisdiction” of the government or one of its agencies. United States v. Yermian , 468 U.S. 63, 69 (1984).

    What exactly did opposing counsel and the rest involved with this fraudulent foreclosure think they were doing but lying when they submitted documentation known, and putting to rest any doubt by the court of this fact, these folks amongst others were informed of such by email and Defendants would ask the court to demand the emails from opposing counsel, MSHA Stephanie Roux and anyone and everyone else these emails that were circulated amongst parties discussing emails sent by Defendant-Intervenor Charlton A. Butler Jr. notifying them all that a felony had been committed and another felony or two or three or more was/were being committed, currently, by those already mentioned, now.

    Defendants further argue that Under U.S. federal Law, anyone who engages in fraudulent activity and uses telephones, telegraph and/or the Postal Service to discuss or either send or receive correspondence or documents in furtherance of the fraud, can be prosecuted for felony mail fraud and/or wire fraud; and if two or more persons act in collusion to defraud, U.S. federal conspiracy statutes also apply as Defendant has stated already.

    A conflict of interest occurs when a person or organization acts on behalf of another individual or organization; and has, or appears to have, a hidden bias or self-interest in the activity undertaken; and the hidden bias or self-interest is actually or potentially adverse to the interests of the individual or organization being represented; and the hidden bias or self-interest is not made known to the individual or organization being represented Defendants contend that there were many conflicts of interest between the City of Bangor and the Defendants and that there were those whom were unknown to Defendant to have any interest in the property but of that as a friend to Defendants when in truth they had a personal, financial and business monetary interest, unbeknownst to Defendants, in the sale of the property located at 44 Patten Street Bangor Maine amongst others.
    When a person’s conflict of interest results in economic or financial loss to the individual or organization on whose behalf the person is acting, then fraud has occurred. Conflict of interest can exist on its own, or can be an intricate part of other frauds such as bribery and illegal gratuities. Conflict of interest laws apply to government employees and those doing business with government. In the non-public sector, conflict of interest may not be a prosecutable offense, although the criminal results of such conflict would be.
    (i) Bribery and illegal gratuities are examples of conflict of interest resulting in fraud.
    (ii) Conflict of interest can also occur and result in fraud without the presence of bribery and illegal gratuities. This happens when an individual or organization acting on behalf of another individual or organization has a hidden financial interest in the outcome of an event or transaction.
    The typical example is that of a company official or employee, or an immediate relative of an official or employee, who has a hidden financial interest (stock or direct ownership) in a vendor doing business with the company.
    If the official or employee is in a position to influence the amount of business the vendor does with the company, then a conflict of interest exists. If that conflict of interest results in unnecessary orders being made and filled, or paying higher than fair market prices for goods and/or services, then fraud has occurred.
    This is because the involved individuals will benefit financially through higher valuation of stock or direct distribution of proceeds from doing business with the company. The victims here are those who expect company officials and employees to, rather than in self-interest, act in the best interests of the company and/or their client(s) to whom they have pledged a fiduciary duty and/or as their relationship with their client and/or occupation, as a matter of law, demands or creates said duty for the purpose of their job function(s). The present loss is dollars needlessly spent on overpriced or unnecessary goods and services while future loss could and/or would, depending on the crime committed, deprive the victim(s) of real property without the basis to affect a legal transfer of said property and/or asset(s).
    (iii) Conflict of interest can also exist and result in fraud when an organization has a hidden interest or benefit, as is the case in Defendants arguments, from the outcome of an event or transaction. In a government environment, for example, this more subtle type of conflict of interest could occur if government officials, acting on behalf of the government, either alone or in conspiracy with providers of services, obtain state and federal funds and use those funds for other than intended program purposes. In this instance, the government agency, in acting as the conduit of state and federal funds, has a hidden self-interest that is actually or potentially adverse to the interests of the state and federal government. An example of this would be the following situation:
    Example: An agency official directs the owner of a company doing business under contract with the agency to provide the agency with equipment and contractor staff that will be used to perform work for the agency that is unrelated to the terms and conditions of the contract, and unrelated to the federal program under which the contract is funded. This favor and benefit creates a conflict of interest because there is no longer an arms-length relationship between the agency, which acts on behalf of the government, and the contractor.
    When seeking payment;
    (a) If the contractor intentionally bills the hours for non-contract work as having been expended on contract related activity,
    (b) then the contractor has committed fraud.
    (c) If the fraudulent billing occurs with the knowledge of the agency official;
    (d) and/or the agency official instructs lower level staff to approve the bill for payment from agency accounts;
    (e) and the agency in turn files a claim for reimbursement with the federal government,
    (f) which the federal government, in good faith, pays,
    (g) then the agency official has also committed fraud under federal law.
    The example given is a fraudulent act resulting from conflict of interest because the actions of self-interest by the contractor and the official acting on behalf of the agency are hidden from the state and federal governments, and constitutes obtaining state and federal funds under false pretense (see False Statements and False Claims, below). The victims are the state and the federal government, from which the funds were obtained, and the loss is the funds illegally obtained.
    Defendant’s state, assert and contend that Plaintiff’s, counsel for plaintiffs, the City of Bangor and representatives of TD Bank N.A. MSHA and their servicers, agents assigns accomplices and partners have made many false statements and claims. A false statement fraud and false claims fraud occur whenever anyone knowingly and willfully falsifies a material fact or makes a false or fictitious representation or files a false or fictitious claim that results in or could possibly result in economic or financial loss to the party to whom the false representation has been made as it concerns both victims. The Defendants, as conduit, for the fraud and/or defrauding of the other victim, in this action brought by Plaintiff’s counsel, the United States Government.

    Examples of False Statements and False Claims:
    (a) An employee prepares and submits a monthly payroll time report, and intentionally falsifies the document by not reporting unpaid leave taken while the supervisor was away on business. As a result, the employee is paid for the time not worked. The same principle applies to an employee who falsifies a travel voucher by reporting expenses that were not incurred. The victim is the employer, and the loss is the money wrongfully paid to the employee.
    (b) A senior company official disagrees with a court decision for which all legal remedies have been exhausted, and which the company must therefore comply with. The decision has a significant financial impact on operations. The senior official knowingly and intentionally continues practices that the court decision has prohibited. The failure to comply with the ruling results in the chief operating officer filing false statements, reports and vouchers with the government. The victims are those who rely on accurate reporting to the government, and the loss is funds illegally obtained or expended; or economic or property losses incurred because of the improper reporting.
    (c) A company performs contract work for a government agency. Under the direction of company managers and staff charge time to a government program that reimburses 75% of incurred costs, instead of charging the time to the actual government program that they worked on, which only reimburses 50% of incurred costs. The employees recognize that the wrong program is being charged for their time, but are unaware of the differing reimbursement percentages. When the employees question their instructions, the company managers tell them not to worry since both programs are paid from government funds, and the cross-charging doesn’t really matter. The government is subsequently fraudulently mischarged as a result. The company managers have engaged in fraudulent activity that results in false statements, false claims, and probably mail fraud. Under U.S. law, the employees who filed the false time reports are guilty of conspiracy to defraud. Though the employees neither benefited from the mischarging, nor were aware that the mischarging was illegal, they are also parties to false statements, false claims, mail fraud and conspiracy statutes. The employees knew they were improperly charging their time, and by falsely preparing the time documents, the employees concealed the fraud. Whether they knew that the mischarging was illegal is not a consideration. As a result of the employees’ actions, when the government was billed for reimbursement, the company managers were able to defraud the government of costs that should have been borne by the company.
    Defendants contend that what they are complaining of and about is not new and/or that strange anymore. Nor is it an isolated event but, instead, has become commonplace and a sad commentary on the state of morals in this country and the demise of the rule of law and the financial market today as a whole evidenced by:

    Mortgage fraud may be perpetrated by one or more participants in a loan transaction, including the borrower; a loan officer who originates the mortgage; a real estate agent, appraiser, a title or escrow representative or attorney; or by multiple parties as in the example of the fraud ring described above. Dishonest and un-reputable stakeholders may encourage and assist borrowers in committing fraud because most participants are typically compensated only when a transaction closes. 1 In Defendants case the felonious actions were of such a nature that only those on the other side of the table from Defendant would have had the access and authority to alter or circumvent safeguards in the financing process. The process was, in fact, subject to security and access restrictions that completely placed Defendants out of the sphere of influence to influence the outcome of the loan currently in dispute and thus association with these thieves was as their victim in this transaction and nothing more.

    During 2003 The Money Program of the BBC in the UK uncovered systemic mortgage fraud throughout HBOS. The Money Program found that during the investigation brokers advised the undercover researchers to lie on applications for self-certified mortgages from, among others, The Royal Bank of Scotland, The Mortgage Business and Birmingham Midshires Building Society. 2

    In 2004, the FBI warned that mortgage fraud was becoming so rampant that the resulting “epidemic” of crimes could trigger a massive financial crisis. According to a December 2005 press release from the FBI, “mortgage fraud is one of the fastest growing white collar crimes in the United States”. 3 White collar, meaning, in this case, the Bank employee(s) in a traditional White collar job of banking, attorney, company management, company president etc. and not a Blue collar worker making application for a loan under a state and federally sponsored program for the handicapped, mentally ill and the working poor.

    The number of FBI agents assigned to mortgage-related crimes increased by 50 percent between 2007 and 2008. 4 In June 2008, The FBI stated that its mortgage fraud caseload has doubled in the past three years to more than 1,400 pending cases. 5 Between March 1st and June 18th 2008, 406 people were arrested for mortgage fraud in an FBI sting across the country. People arrested include buyers, sellers and others across the wide-ranging mortgage industry. 6

    In May 2009, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, or FERA, Pub.L. 111-21, 123 Stat. 1617, S. 386, public law in the United States, was enacted. The law takes a number of steps to enhance criminal enforcement of federal fraud laws, especially regarding financial institutions, mortgage fraud, and securities fraud or commodities fraud.

    Significant to note, Section 3 of the Act authorized additional funding to detect and prosecute fraud at various federal agencies, specifically:

    (a) $165,000,000 to the Department of Justice,
    (b) $30,000,000 each to the Postal Inspection Service and the Office of the Inspector General at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD/OIG)
    (c) $20,000,000 to the Secret Service
    (d) $21,000,000 to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
    These authorizations were made for the federal fiscal years beginning October 1, 2009 – 2011, after which point they expire, and are in addition to the previously authorized budgets for these agencies. 7

    Defendants expect that a budget excuse, as basis for failing to prosecute these offenders of common decency and rule of law in this country. That with the proceeds of FERA there should not be an excuse to not prosecuting the criminals here. Defendants will, in great detail, be further defining these events in Defendants amended answer.

    Defendants for the record have not filed an answer besides the answer to summons that agreed to mediation per State mandate and denial of the debt in whole or in part, as stated on the document itself and hereby reserve the right and leave to file an amended answer in the future.

    Defendants are still seeking legal counsel to represent their rights before this court and still ask for 30 days, excluding weekends and holidays, to seek said counsel while tolling all Statutes of Limitations and waiving time requirements for responses to the Court and opposing counsels motions, petitions objections Etc. As would be afforded those of a “protected class of people” who by Legislative act, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, are afforded access as they require to not only buildings and bathrooms or extra time to complete exams public schools, Universities and Colleges but also to the very foundation of our system of justice, and consequently a real aspect of afore mentioned act contemplated by legislators as well as the founders of this country, access to the courts as well as access to a bathroom is meaningless compared to access to the court on terms that any individual regardless of their handicap can meet.

    Plaintiffs motion for a more definite statement will follow in Defendants First Amended Answer to come, within a reasonable time frame, when this court rules as to Federal Jurisdiction. Defendants will not respond to an obvious fishing expedition, by opposing counsel, so as to have Defendants lay their case out before Plaintiffs and their counsel before Defendants are, indeed, willing to do so.

    This before discovery has even ended and that area, discovery, being the prerogative of Defendants as to exactly when, they, feel that, they, are ready to present in toto their case. Defendants are the sole arbiter, albeit at the courts final arbitration lest abuse on the courts resources were to ensue, enough documentation to support what physical evidence they currently possess to finally put their case before the court and jury.
    Defendants ask the court to agree that at this time [that] to demand the Defendants reveal the totality of their case would be prejudicial and destructive to Defendants case and would therefore appeal to the court to put off a more definite statement, motioned for by opposing counsel, until Defendants have made a defensive claim and/or counter-suit or an outright action and demand for relief complaint.
    As it is, currently, the case is confusing at best, since Defendants are not truly sure whether a foreclosure has indeed been legally, lawfully and properly constitutionally initiated against them or not, as what has been initiated, thus far, was filed in the wrong court, against Defendants by Plaintiffs in their complaint filed in the Maine State Superior court, Penobscot County Maine.
    This, it would appear, without regard for the fact that a state court would be the court one would file a complaint for foreclosure in involving private parties and a State Chartered Bank not a Federally Chartered one as TD Bank N.A.
    Thus Defendants repeat their request for the courts order forestalling opposing counsels motion for more definite statement by a reasonable amount of time and in consideration of the health, finances and handicaps Defendants face in mounting a defense to the Plaintiffs affront to the rule of law and moral decency.

    It is the Defendants contention and assertion that if the handicapped, E.g. Defendants, cannot obtain counsel then to in turn hold Defendants to a schedule it’s understood they, by reason of their handicap(s), cannot achieve then denial of access to the courts has transpired. For if truth is what we seek and justice for all is what we claim we believe in, fight and die for then what’s a little more time amongst adversaries?

    Defendants pray this honorable court issue an order demanding the presence of Nan Heald, director of Pine Tree Legal Aid, Frank D’Alessandro, Judd Esty Kendall associates of Pine Tree Legal Aid, Robert Lingley Chairman of the Board for the board of directors of Pine Tree Legal Aid and Maine State Superior Court agent, and/or employee of said, acting as mediator for the mediation arm of the Maine State Superior Court to explain, when appointed, directly or by referral, as per settlement agreement made in the Martinez v Astrue se

  78. EDIE September 1, 2011 at 11:22 am #

    I need info for yours TELEPHONE office ASAP THANKS

  79. Abby in CA September 3, 2011 at 11:15 am #

    ALL 3 CREDIT BUREAUS SUED

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/63881788/ALL-3-CREDIT-BUREAUS-SUED-2011

  80. Abby in CA September 3, 2011 at 11:17 am #

    US GOVT SUES BOTH BANK OF AMERICA AND COUNTRYWIDE-FHFA-FILED SEPT 2 2011-READ BOTH LAWSUITS HERE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/63879937/US-GOVT-SUES-BANK-OF-AMERICA-AND-ALSO-COUNTRYWIDE-READ-BOTH-LAWSUITS-HERE-FHFA-SEPT-2011

  81. Abby in CA September 3, 2011 at 11:20 am #

    US GOVT SUES BOTH JPMORGAN CHASE AND DEUTSCHE BANK-READ BOTH LAWSUITS HERE- BY FHFA-SEPT 2 2011

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/63879410/US-GOVT-SUES-BOTH-JPMORGAN-CHASE-AND-DEUTSCHE-BANK-TWO-LAWSUITS-BY-FHFA-SEPT-2011

    THIS POSTER ALSO HAS THE OTHER LAWSUITS FILED AS UBS, GOLDMAN SACHS, MORGAN STANLEY, MERRILL LYNCH, BARCLAYS, ALLY, GE, RBS, SG AMERICAS, CITIGROUP AND HSBS

    SEARCH IN 83JJMACK IN SCRIBD FOR THE OTHERS

  82. Abby in CA September 3, 2011 at 12:23 pm #

    HOMEOWNER-BORROWER SURVIVES MOTION TO DISMISS!! PUBLISHING NOTICE IN only 2 NEWSPAPERS IS NOT ENOUGH- RULES THE JUDGE -READ HIS MEMORANDUM HERE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/63364425/HOMEOWNER-BORROWER-SURVIVES-MOTION-TO-DISMISS-PUBLISHING-NOTICE-IN-only-2-NEWSPAPERS-IS-NOT-ENOUGH-RULES-THE-JUDGE-READ-HIS-MEMORANDUM-HERE

  83. Abby in CA September 5, 2011 at 2:07 pm #

    here is the breakout of how much each bank or wall street firm is being sued for

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/64011267/WOW-WOW-US-GOVT-SUES-BIG-BANKS-AND-SECURITIES-FIRMS-FOR-196-BILLION-SEE-LIST-AND-BREAKDOWN-OF-AMOUNTS-BY-INSTITUTION-LINKS-TO-LAWSUITS

  84. Abby in CA September 5, 2011 at 5:26 pm #

    NEWEST FLORIDA RICO CASE FILED BY JEFF BARNES AGAINST CHASE AND CHASE HOME FINANCE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/64025125/FLORIDA-RICO-LAWSUIT-AGAINST-CHASE-AND-CHASE-HOME-FINANCE-JEFF-BARNES

  85. Abby in CA September 25, 2011 at 2:59 pm #

    SF BAY AREA IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA—PROTESTS PLANNED THIS WEEK 9/26/2011

    PLEASE POST THIS WHEREVER YOU CAN. EVEN THE PROTESTS ON WALL STREET ARE NOT GETTING ANY MEDIA COVERAGE!! IF ANYONE CAN HELP WITH THAT, PLEASE DO

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/66312466/CALL-TO-ACTION-PROTESTS-PLANNED-FOR-NORTHERN-CALIFORNIA-SF-BAY-AREA-THIS-WEEK-SEPT-26TH-2011-STOP-THE-BANK-S-RACKETEERING-STOP-FORECLOSURES

    INCLUDED IS A SPANISH VERSION OF THE FLYER

    TWEET, FACEBOOK, EMAIL, CRAIGS LIST, FAX OR PHONE==PLEASE HELP SPREAD THE WORD

  86. Abby in CA September 27, 2011 at 10:12 am #

    BRAND NEW REPORT BY FHFA 9-27-2011 ON EVALUATION OF FHFA OVERSIGHT OF FREDDIE MAC REPURCHASE SETTLEMENT WITH BANK OF AMERICA

    ‘Freddie Mac used a flawed analysis when it accepted $1.35 billion from Bank of America to settle claims that the bank misled it about loans purchased during the mortgage boom, according to an oversight report scheduled for release on Tuesday.’

    READ NEW FHFA REPORT AND STORY HERE:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/66563185/READ-HERE-BRAND-NEW-RELEASE-BY-THE-FHFA-Freddie-Mac-Protecting-Banks-Not-Homeowners-SEPT-2011

  87. Abby in CA September 28, 2011 at 12:11 am #

    HOMEOWNERS ARE SITTING ON TICKING TIME BOMBS—

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/66642522/HOMEOWNERS-SITTING-ON-TICKING-TIME-BOMBS-VICTIM-HOMEOWNERS-BLAST-THE-NEW-CENTURY-LIQUIDATING-TRUST-WHICH-IS-ATTEMPTING-TO-DENY-THEY-ARE-CREDITORS-A

    NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123 CORPORATION ARE IN BANKRUPTCY SINCE APRIL 2, 2007. 3 FORMER PRO SE’S FINALLY FOUND AN ATTORNEY AND HE HAS FILED THIS RESPONSE TO THE NEW CENTURY LIQUIDATING TRUST’S OBJECTION TO LATE FILED PROOF OF CLAIM.

    THIS IS SUCH A LARGE BANKRUPTCY THAT THERE ARE OVER 10,00O DOCKET ENTRIES AND OVER 4000 CLAIMS.

    THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE ALAN JACOBS RETAINED A LAW FIRM HAHN & HESSEN TO
    REPRESENT HIM IN THIS BANKRUPTCY.
    —THE HOMEOWNERS
    2 OTHER PRO SE’S WITHOUT AN LEGAL REPRESENTATION SETTLED FOR CASH IN 2010 IN AMOUNTS OVER 60K.

    2 OF THE ABOVE HOMEOWNER VICTIMS ARE IN MEDIATION WHICH WAS ORDERED BY THE JUDGE IN THE MATTER.

    THERE ARE NOW EVEN MORE HOMEOWNER VICTIMS FILING CLAIMS AGAINST THE NEW CENTURY LIQUIDATING TRUST.

    THIS FILING DISCUSSES THE ‘MISSAL REPORT’ WHICH SHOULD BE MANDATORY READING FOR ANY HOMEOWNER VICTIM.

  88. Abby in CA October 3, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

    the latest article by Attorney Lynn Szymoniak who was on cbs 60 minutes and interviewed by Scott Pelley in April of 2011

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/67360074/ATTY-SZYMONIAK-S-following-the-Money-the-Beneficiaries-of-Fraudulent-Mortgage-Assignments-SZYMONIAK-ON-60-MINUTES

  89. Abby in CA October 3, 2011 at 3:20 pm #

    FHA MAY DENY INSURANCE CLAIMS OF BANKS, COSTING THEM BILLIONS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/67346233/FHA-MAY-DENY-INSURANCE-CLAIMS-BY-BANKS-COSTING-THEM-BILLIONS

  90. Abby in CA October 27, 2011 at 12:13 pm #

    CALIFORNIANS NOW HAVE HOPE–LETTER FROM US CONGRESSMAN COMMENDING KAMALA HARRIS, OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR NOT SETTLING WITH BANKS AND FOR INVESTIGATING LENDING AND FORECLOSURE ABUSES.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/70559647/CONGRESSIONAL-LETTER-TO-CALIFORNIA-AG-KAMALA-HARRIS-COMMENDING-HER-FOR-NOT-SETTLING-WITH-BIG-BANKS-DEFENDING-HOMEOWNERS
    AND A PRESS RELEASE 10-27-2011
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/70563995/Justice-For-Homeowners-Congressman-George-Miller-Press-Release-10-27-2011

  91. Abby in CA October 27, 2011 at 12:51 pm #

    Nye Lavalle rips MERS Janis Smith a new one!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/70569598/Nye-Lavalle-Rips-MERS-Janis-Smith-A-New-One-regarding-the-DE-AG-Lawsuit-against-Mers-Oct-2011

  92. Abby in CA October 27, 2011 at 12:53 pm #

    Read This Homeowner’s Oral Args up in Delaware Bankruptcy Court —it begins after some routine Omnibus matters—-

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/69423026/RED-HERRINGS-MOLES-A-FEISTY-ORAL-ARGUMENT-BY-HOMEOWNER-TRANSCRIPT

  93. Abby in CA October 28, 2011 at 6:52 am #

    ACTION ALERT–PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION AND HELP CALIFORNIANS —AND PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS PETITION

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/70662342/ACTION-ALERT-CALIFORNIANS-NEED-HELP-ASK-OUR-AG-TO-HALT-FORECLOSURES-UNTIL-INVESTIGATION-COMPLETE-PLEASE-SIGN-PETITION-AND-DISTRIBUTE

  94. william k. black October 28, 2011 at 9:58 pm #

    Do the law say play a benifiary trick on a person ? How can u be a owner of banco tesa ,and didn’t get serve a copy of the terms and conditions ? How would u no u own it with no paper work , how would u no when too call 911 on the trustee when they breaking the law on the contract , with no copy of the contract , its all a joke with no sense , I say why are they pulling the leg of the owner of these banks ? Why . Show me the law saying all of thise can be done . If u can’t show me all of this is the right to a benifiary , then give him-( quit tittle) asap , the owner of banco santander . From 1999 -2001 . Its ether corp fraud or not , which one is it ? Its ether city hall and sec of state corp fraud , or irs owner I’d fraud , or its not . Irs ss-4 ,fraud , for the benifiary or not .

  95. Abby in CA November 12, 2011 at 9:54 am #

    BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE’S ATTORNEYS ARE PREJUDICED AGAINST PRO SE HOMEOWNERS WHO HAVE FILED CLAIMS UP IN THE DE BKR COURT

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/72423859/BANKRUPTCY-TRUSTEE-S-LAW-FIRM-PREJUDICED-AGAINST-HOMEOWNERS

  96. Abby in CA November 12, 2011 at 10:00 am #

    EVICTION NOTICE TO OCCUPY OAKLAND -11.11.2011

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/72486611/EVICTION-NOTICE-TO-OCCUPY-OAKLAND-NOV-11-2011

  97. Abby in Ca November 23, 2011 at 8:00 am #

    INDYMAC, CEO MICHAEL PERRY- SEC WELLS SUBMISSION – FOIA

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/73579205/CEO-MICHAEL-PERRY-OF-INDYMAC-FOIA-WELLS-SUBMISSION

  98. Paul Eggli November 24, 2011 at 11:28 am #

    Timothy,
    I have read a bunch of your posts and have signed up for your blog posts. Your materials are very helpful and insightfull. Thank YOu!
    I am assisting a friend who on 10/13/2011, had a Notice of Default filed on a property he owns in Santa Barbara. I referred him to you yesterday, and suggested that he get in touch with you right away. He lost six other properties as well in the past two years, and from the records that I have reviewed for him, all six foreclosures were done unlawfully and contrarty to the provisions in the Deeds of Trusts.

    I have not seen you address this angle in any of your posts, and this angle concerns contract law:
    The foreclosure provisions in the Deed of Trust are the law which control any actions which anybody might take to foreclose under the Deed of Trust. It must be this way! A private contract/ agreement always superseedes a public law when a private contract/ agreement is formed. It does not matter if California Civil Code section 2924 states that a trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or any of their
    authorized agents may file a Notice of Default to commence a foreclosure action if the Deed gives this right to the Lender only!
    The provisions agreed upon in the Deed must prevail!!! Am I correct?

    The Deed that I am looking at here is a a standard Caif. single family Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac Uniform Instrument with Mers. In the recitals, on page 3 and 4, it says this:
    “Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument.”
    I assert that there is no law or custom which makes it necessary for MERS to foreclose and sell the properties contrary to the other provisions in Clause 22 of the Deeds which gave the Lender the exclusive power to cause the Trustee to foreclose. I assert that this recital clause does not give MERS the authority to decide and declare that all sums secured by the Deeds are immediately due and payable contrary to the provisions in Clause 22 giving the Lender that authority. Because MERS is not the holder in due course of the Promissory Note, they have no authority in California law nor in any provision granted in the Deed to make any decisions on behalf of the owner(s) of the Notes as to acceleration, or as to electing to cause the Trust Property to be sold.
    Furthermore, it should be noted that this recital clause does not make any provision for any successor or assign of MERS to assume the right to foreclose and sell the trust property. The Deed only gave MERS a limited right to foreclose, and that is predicated upon there being a law or custom which MERS must comply with forcing them to foreclose. There is no such law nor custom forcing them to foreclose, becuse foreclosure is an optional act- and in this Deed, that act is reserved to the Lender only.
    In this case with my friend, MERS assingned their beneficial interest in the Deed to BAC Home Loans Servicing, and as far as i can tell, BAC, (now Bank of America) received absolutely no rights or beneficial interest whatsoever by being named the Bendficiary of the Deed. The Deed contains no provision whatsoever for an assingee of MERS to take any action whatsoever, especially not to usurp the agreement between the borrower and the Lender which gave the Lender power to order the Trustee to foreclose. It is the Trustee’s fiduciary duty to ensure that only the Lender be allowed to tell them to foreclose.
    In this case, B of A sent correspondence this summer that a Wells Fargo REMIC is the creditor of this debt. I assert that this REMIC has no power to foreclose, as no one person is the holder of the note, and as such, they are up a creek!

    I await your response!
    Paul

  99. Abby in Ca November 29, 2011 at 10:45 am #

    AFFADAVIT FROM JOHN O’BRIEN, REGISTER OF DEEDS IN MA – RE: STEVE NAGY OF NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123 CORP.

    (NOTE Steve Nagy left those companys in Dec. of 2007–information obtained from discovery in the DE bankruptcy case for New Century)

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/74173393/NEW-CENTURY-MORTGAGE-HOME123-CORP-S-STEVE-NAGY-KNOWN-ROBO-SIGNER-OR-SURROGATE-SIGNER-AFFADAVIT-FROM-JOHN-O-BRIEN-OF-MA-REGISTER-OF-DEEDS

    • Paul Eggli December 3, 2011 at 9:42 am #

      Abigail,

      Check out California Penal Code Section 115. It says,
      “(a) Every person who knowingly procures or offers any false or
      forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public
      office within this state, which instrument, if genuine, might be
      filed, registered, or recorded under any law of this state or of the
      United States, is guilty of a felony.”
      (b) Each instrument which is procured or offered to be filed,
      registered, or recorded in violation of subdivision (a) shall
      constitute a separate violation of this section.
      (c) Except in unusual cases where the interests of justice would
      best be served if probation is granted, probation shall not be
      granted to, nor shall the execution or imposition of sentence be
      suspended for, any of the following persons:
      (1) Any person with a prior conviction under this section who is
      again convicted of a violation of this section in a separate
      proceeding.
      (2) Any person who is convicted of more than one violation of this
      section in a single proceeding, with intent to defraud another, and
      where the violations resulted in a cumulative financial loss
      exceeding one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).
      (d) For purposes of prosecution under this section, each act of
      procurement or of offering a false or forged instrument to be filed,
      registered, or recorded shall be considered a separately punishable
      offense.

      And section 115.5:

      (a) Every person who files any false or forged document or
      instrument with the county recorder which affects title to, places an
      encumbrance on, or places an interest secured by a mortgage or deed
      of trust on, real property consisting of a single-family residence
      containing not more than four dwelling units, with knowledge that the
      document is false or forged, is punishable, in addition to any other
      punishment, by a fine not exceeding seventy-five thousand dollars
      ($75,000).
      (b) Every person who makes a false sworn statement to a notary
      public, with knowledge that the statement is false, to induce the
      notary public to perform an improper notarial act on an instrument or
      document affecting title to, or placing an encumbrance on, real
      property consisting of a single-family residence containing not more
      than four dwelling units is guilty of a felony.

      Go after a notary’s bond:
      Calif. Gov. code 8212.
      “Every person appointed a notary public shall execute an
      official bond in the sum of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000). The
      bond shall be in the form of a bond executed by an admitted surety
      insurer and not a deposit in lieu of bond.”

      See section 8213 too.

      Then there is 8214:
      “For the official misconduct or neglect of a notary public,
      the notary public and the sureties on the notary public’s official
      bond are liable in a civil action to the persons injured thereby for
      all the damages sustained.”

      See section 8214 and 8214.15
      8214.2. (a) A notary public who knowingly and willfully with intent
      to defraud performs any notarial act in relation to a deed of trust
      on real property consisting of a single-family residence containing
      not more than four dwelling units, with knowledge that the deed of
      trust contains any false statements or is forged, in whole or in
      part, is guilty of a felony.
      (b) The penalty provided by this section is not an exclusive
      remedy and does not affect any other relief or remedy provided by
      law

      Keep reading in this chapter for more on notary misconduct. If we can’t get the Sec. of State to act, perhaps a local peace officer would act. See 8228.

      “The Secretary of State or a peace officer, as defined in
      Sections 830.1, 830.2, and 830.3 of the Penal Code, possessing
      reasonable suspicion and acting in his or her official capacity and
      within his or her authority, may enforce the provisions of this
      chapter through the examination of a notary public’s books, records,
      letters, contracts, and other pertinent documents relating to the
      official acts of the notary public.”

      If you could get the SOS to annul a Notary’s license (not the right term) retroactively to when it is first determined that the notary performed an illegal act, then every signature that the notary acknowledged after that date would have no force and effect of law.

      Hope that this gives you some more ammunition to go after these felons!

      Paul Eggli peggli@cox.net

  100. Abby in CA December 6, 2011 at 12:32 pm #

    TWO POWERFUL WESTERN STATES ATTORNEY GENERALS ANNOUNCE ALLIANCE FOR INVESTIGATION INTO LOAN ORIGINATIONS, ILLEGALNOTARY ACTS, ROBO-SIGNING ETC

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/74932232/TWO-POWERFUL-ATTORNEY-GENERALS-ANNOUNCE-ALLIANCE-ON-INVESTIGATIONS-INTO-FRAUD-ROBO-SIGNING-ILLEGAL-NOTARY-ACTS-LOAN-ORIGINATION-DEC-6-2011

  101. Abby in CA December 15, 2011 at 10:59 am #

    Max’s tips on how to spot mortgage fraud documents

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/75799016/Max-Gardner-s-65-Tips-FOR-FAKE-MORTGAGE-DOCUMENTS

  102. Abby in CA December 15, 2011 at 2:12 pm #

    12-15-11 California Congressmen write letter to Obama in support of AG Kamala Harris for not joining multi state settlement (foreclosure) with big banks

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/75812809/12-15-11-California-Congressmen-Write-to-President-Obama-in-support-of-AG-Kamala-Harris-not-going-along-with-multi-state-setllement

  103. Abby in CA December 17, 2011 at 11:28 am #

    IMPORTANT CALIFORNIA APPEAL DECISION- 2923.5 MUST BE COMPLIED WITH

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/75943496/Bardasian-v-Superior-Court-Santa-Clara-Partner-s-Mortgage-Corp-2011-Cal-App-4th

  104. Abby in CA December 27, 2011 at 9:11 am #

    WATCH MR RAJA TALK ABOUT HOW HIS SIGNATURE ON A MORTGAGE LOAN TURNED INTO $92 MILLION OF FRAUDULENT TRIPLE A RATED BONDS SOLD TO INVESTORS!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/76593304/HOW-ONE-MAN-S-SIGNATURE-ON-HOME-LOAN-TURNED-INTO-FRAUDULENT-92-MILLION-WORTH-OF-BONDS-WITH-TRIPLE-A-RATINGS

  105. Abby in CA December 28, 2011 at 10:37 am #

    NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123 CORPORATION VICTIMS OF PREDATORY LOANS. UPDATE. THEY ARE STILL IN BANKRUPTCY IN DELAWARE WITH $30 MILLION IN CASH.

    MORE AND MORE HOMEOWNER/BORROWERS WHO HAD PREDATORY LOANS ORIGINATED BY THESE COMPANIES ARE FILING CLAIMS AND ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS UP IN THEIR BANKRUPTCY. THE JUDGE AND THE BKR TRUSTEE HAVE STATED REPEATEDLY THAT THEY ARE AFRAID OF THE ‘FLOODGATES’ OPENING WITH HOMEOWNER/BORROWER FILING LAWSUITS WITHIN THE BANKRUPTCY (AND CLAIMS). THE BKR TRUSTEE, THROUGH HIS ATTORNEYS WHO GET BETWEEN 100k-300k PER MONTH TO REPRESENT HIM, HAS INDICATED HE INTENDS TO HAVE THE BKR COMPLETE IN 2012.

    NO HOMEOWNER/BORROWERS WERE EVER NOTIFIED OF THEIR DECLARING BANKRUPTCY ON 4-2-2007 AND MANY ARE JUST NOW LEARNING THIS. CONSULT AN ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE IF YOU CAN FILE A CLAIM AND/OR LAWSUIT UP THERE.

    HERE, THE JUDGE UP IN DELAWARE HAS AGAIN ISSUED A STAY ON A PRO SE HOMEOWNER/BORROWER’S ADVERSARY PROCEEDING. SHE IS NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO DO DISCOVERY. THAT JUDGE DID THE SAME THING TO ANOTHER PRO SE HOMEOWNER/BORROWER.

    (NOTE TO WAMU PEOPLE–YOU MAY BE ABLE TO DO SAME, SO CONSULT AN ATTORNEY TO SEE IF YOU CAN FILE CLAIM AND/OR LAWSUIT)

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/76666231/12-2011-NEW-CENTURY-MORTGAGE-BANKRUPTCY-JUDGE-DOES-IT-AGAIN-STAYS-A-SECOND-PRO-SE-s-ADVERSARY-PROCEEDING-PREVENTS-DISCOVERY

  106. Abby in CA December 28, 2011 at 7:22 pm #

    FINANCIAL FRAUD ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE (USDOJ-ERIC HOLDER)

    EASY ONLINE REPORTING!! GO HERE CLICK ON THE GREEN BUTTON ‘REPORT FRAUD’

    http://www.stopfraud.gov/

  107. Avoid Foreclosures In St George January 3, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    That is very attention-grabbing, You are a very skilled blogger. I have joined your feed and sit up for looking for extra of your wonderful post. Also, I’ve shared your web site in my social networks

  108. Abby in CA January 5, 2012 at 2:39 am #

    OCCUPY THE ROSE PARADE PHOTOS HERE–ORDERLY-JAN 2012
    IN PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/77215946/OCCUPY-THE-ROSE-PARADE-PHOTOS-HERE-ORDERLY-MARCH-JAN-2012

  109. Abby in CA January 5, 2012 at 3:37 am #

    IF YOU HAD ANY OF THESE NOTARIES ON YOUR ASSIGNMENTS-TAKE ACTION

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/77218523/If-You-Had-Any-of-These-Notaries-on-Your-Documents

  110. Abby in CA January 6, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    LONA V CITIBANK –CALIFORNIA APPEAL DECISION

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/77359122/Lona-v-Citibank-California-Appeal-Decision-FORECLOSURE-TRUSTEE-SALE

  111. Abby in CA January 7, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

    CALIFORNIA APPEAL DECISION—IF THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT HAS THE TERMINOLOGY ‘IF ANY’ THEN IT’S VOID!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/77521475/CALIFORNIA-APPEAL-DECISION-Anolik-vs-EMC-THE-NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT-IS-VOID-IF-THE-TERM-IF-ANY-IS-USED

  112. Abby in CA January 17, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

    CLASS ACTION AGAINST CHASE FOR BANKRUPTCY FRAUD–PHOTOSHOPPED DOCUMENTS, FRAUD

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/78575176/READ-COMPLAINT-HERE-CLASS-ACTION-AGAINST-CHASE-Accused-of-Brazen-Bankruptcy-Fraud-CHASE-HOME-FINANCE-PHOTOSHOP

  113. Abby in CA January 23, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

    call to action—call Kamala Harris today—Obama putting pressure on AGs to settle—

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79039854/CALL-TO-ACTION-JANUARY-23-2012-OBAMA-PUTTING-PRESSURE-ON-Attorney-General-Kamala-Harris-TO-SETTLE

  114. Abby in CA January 23, 2012 at 4:03 pm #

    when calling the California AG in above Call to Action…press 6 listen then press 7 and it will allow you to leave message for her to oppose any blanket foreclosure settlement until all investigations are completed.

    Obama is putting pressure on all AGs to settle so he can win re-election.

  115. Abby in CA January 24, 2012 at 3:50 pm #

    Jan 24, 2012 OCC Acting Comptroller Walsh’s speech to the American Securtization Forum

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79265865/JAN-24-2012-ACTING-OCC-COMPTROLLER-WALSH-S-SPEECH-TO-AMERICAN-SECURITZATION-FORUM

  116. Abby in CA January 25, 2012 at 9:55 am #

    Is Schneiderman selling out? Did the White House get to him?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79363312/Is-Schneiderman-Selling-Out-Will-there-be-any-meaningful-investigations

  117. Abby in CA January 25, 2012 at 10:12 am #

    Occupy Davos build igloos –what is Davos?–a place in Switzerland where about 2600 world leaders and finance folks are meeting at the World Economic Forum. Hotel rooms run $500 so the OCCUPY folks are staying in their own built igloos.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79364915/Occupy-Davos-Protesters-Build-Igloos

  118. Abby in CA January 26, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    Michelle Salcido v Aurora Loan Services

    Cal Western is foreclosure trustee. Federal District Court in California

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79518739/Michelle-Salcido-v-Aurora-Loan-Services-Decision-Filed-1-17-2012-Judge-H-Matz

    Accordingly, Plaintiff has adequately stated a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure, but only against Cal–Western.

    The tender rule is not absolute, however, and “tender may not be required where it would be inequitable to do so.” Onofrio v. Rice, 55 Cal.App.4th 413, 424, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 (1997)

  119. Abby in CA January 27, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

    STEPS ON HOW TO WRITE COMPLAINT AND ASK FOR INVESTIGATION INTO YOUR MORTGAGE LOAN ORIGINATION AND SECURITIZATION FRAUD FORECLOSURE ISSUES.- NEW INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79626467/TAKE-ACTION-NOW-How-to-Get-Your-Loan-Origination-Fraud-Securitization-Issues-Related-to-Your-Foreclosure-to-the-New-Fraud-Task-Force

    ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT TO NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123 CORPORATION VICTIMS. ALSO WAMU, COUNTRYWIDE ETC.

    EVEN IF YOUR ORIGINAL ‘LENDER’ IS DEFUNCT—-DO IT

  120. Abby in CA January 28, 2012 at 11:39 am #

    Bloomberg
    Proposed Mortgage Deal Said to Be Limited to Foreclosures

    Lorraine Woellert, ©2012 Bloomberg News

    Saturday, January 28, 2012

    (Updates with exclusions starting in third paragraph.)

    Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) — A proposed multistate settlement to resolve probes of flawed foreclosure practices won’t release banks from criminal liability, according to a person briefed on the talks.

    Any final agreement will be narrowly focused to release banks from claims related only to documentation errors and other so-called robo-signing conduct, said the person, who declined to be identified because the talks are ongoing.

    U.S. regulators including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Department of Housing and Urban Development would be free to pursue cases related to securities fraud, loan origination and other practices, the person said.

    Banks wouldn’t be released from tax or fair-lending claims. They also wouldn’t be freed from liability related to Merscorp Inc., a registry for real estate deeds and liens that acts as a proxy for banks that pool and sell mortgages.

    Claims by state pension funds, including those related to their purchases of mortgage-backed securities, also wouldn’t be affected by a final settlement, the person said.

    Streamline Investigations

    In a separate announcement today, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said a new multiagency mortgage unit will help streamline investigations into mortgage-backed securities and the subprime lending collapse.

    Federal regulators and attorneys general from all 50 states have been investigating foreclosure practices for more than a year after the discovery that banks, faced with a flood of loan defaults, used flawed documents in seizing homes.

    Attorneys general disagree over the scope of a final accord, which could be worth $25 billion in aid to homeowners if all states join in. Yesterday, California Attorney General Kamala Harris called the latest proposal “inadequate.”

    Banks have used the robo-signing talks to push for a broader release of liability, including protection from claims related to the sale of mortgage-backed securities to investors including pension funds.

    Under the draft agreement still being negotiated, banks would get credit for helping borrowers refinance into less- expensive loans and forgiving mortgage debt on homes that have fallen in value. Banks also would agree to improve their foreclosure practices.

    Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said in October that the settlement, under negotiation for since April, wouldn’t prevent state and local officials from pursuing other claims, including those related to packaging mortgages securities.

    Harris and others, including New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, are conducting their own investigations into bank practices related to mortgage lending and securitization.

    The nation’s largest mortgage lenders and servicers, including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Ally Financial Inc., are participating in the negotiations.

    –With assistance from David McLaughlin in New York. Editors: Gregory Mott, Maura Reynolds

    To contact the reporter on this story: Lorraine Woellert in Washington at lwoellert@bloomberg.net

    To contact the editor responsible for this story: Maura Reynolds at mreynolds34@bloomberg.net

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/27/bloomberg_articlesLYGVL007SXKX01-LYH04.DTL#ixzz1kmcoPQRl

  121. myles January 29, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    A heads up to bankcruptcy consumers and attorneys: Google the new changes in Proof of Claim form 10. The new form requires the banksters to identify themselves as merely servicers and not the real party in interest or lender. More importantly, it requires that they sign under penalty of perjuryl, and threatens them with 5 years in prison.
    So naturally, the banksters are ignoring the new form and filing the new form, which is illegal, but they’ll just say they didni’t notice.

    SO—make sure you scrutinize every claim and be ready to challenge every claim. You must report every violation to the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee regional office. Or you can report it to a nonprofit like the national consumer law center (www.nclc.org) or to http://www.publiccounsel.org) and they will compile the violatons and report them.
    Most attorneys are scared to challenge proofs of claim because they lack the resources or don’t want to rock relationships. But if you want to be a lawyer and serve your clients, you must, else you are just a high paid clerk.

  122. Abby in CA January 31, 2012 at 9:28 am #

    DO NOT LET WASHINGTON DC TAKE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AWAY- USE THIS WORD TEMPLATE TO PRESERVE YOUR RIGHTS TO FIGHT ROBO-SIGNING AND DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79983969/FORECLOSURE-VICTIMS-CALL-TO-ACTI

    FEEL FREE TO MODIFY THE TEMPLATE. IT ALSO LISTS KEY FAX NUMBERS FOR WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES

    YOU MAY NEED TO REVISE AND ADD YOUR US CONGRESSMAN AND REPS

    YOU CAN USE RINGCENTRAL FOR FAX SERVICES $9.99 PER MONTH, NO CONTRACT. YOU SET UP FAX NUMBERS ONCE AND THEN USE OVER AND OVER AGAIN

  123. Abby in CA February 4, 2012 at 8:44 am #

    EXCELLENT EXCELLENT REPORT——

    CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL REPORT ON ‘EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES OF MORTGAGE IRREGULARITIES FOR FINANCIAL STABILITY AND FORECLOSURE MITIGATION.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80479311/WORSE-CASE-OR-BEST-CASE-Examining-the-Consequences-of-Mortgage-Irregularities-for-Financial-Stability-and-Foreclosure-Mitigation-Congressional-Overs

  124. Abby in CA February 4, 2012 at 9:21 am #

    feb 3 2012–OCCUPY LA’s Letter to Kamala Harris urging her to not settle and to place a moratorium on foreclosures

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80482362/Occupy-LA-s-Letter-to-Kamala-Harris-Feb-3-2012

  125. Abby in CA February 4, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    podcast–california attorney wins free house before ninth circuit court of appeal

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80497167/Attorney-Wins-Free-House-Before-Ninth-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-PODCAST

  126. Abby in CA February 5, 2012 at 5:21 pm #

    WHAT?? NEW CENTURY BRINGING IN $$ AND THEY HAVE BEEN IN BANKRUPTCY FOR OVER 4 YEARS NOW.

    CHECK OUT THEIR LATEST FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80589022/NEW-CENTURY-TRUST-RAKING-IN-THE-MONEY-IN-THEIR-BANKRUPTCY-QTRLY-REPORT-ENDING-12-31-2011

    THERE ARE 15 HOMEOWNER/BORROWERS UP IN THEIR BANKRUPTCY FIGHTING. CONSULT AN ATTORNEY TO SEE IF YOU SHOULD FILE A CLAIM, AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING OR WHAT STEPS YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE.

    TWO PRO SE’S EACH GOT BETWEEN 60k-80k UP THERE IN THAT BKR AS PART OF SETTLEMENT.

    THAT COURT WILL DO NOTHING TO STOP ANY FORECLOSURE OR EVICTION, BUT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET OTHER RELIEF. CONSULT AN ATTORNEY.

  127. Abby in CA February 6, 2012 at 9:17 pm #

    NEW-ACTION PLAN TO STOP FORECLOSURES-COMMUNITY BASED

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80735841/Action-Plan-to-Stop-Foreclosures

  128. Abby in CA February 9, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

    AG Kamala Harris’ Youtube announcement of Foreclosure Settlement for California

  129. Abby in CA February 9, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    STATE BY STATE LIST OF AMOUNTS OF THE FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/81116415/2-9-2012-AG-Foreclosure-Settlement-Amounts-BY-STATE

  130. Abby in CA February 12, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

    please sign this petition. thank you

    http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-ag-kamala-harris-to-investigate-get-an-injunction

  131. Abby in CA February 15, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    A real who-done-it!! Did Goldman Sachs subvert…..

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/81750333/A-Real-Who-Done-It-Did-Goldman-Sachs-Subvert-New-Century-Mortgage-Causing-it-s-collapse

  132. Abby in CA February 15, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

    If you are doing the OCC free foreclosure review, you now have til July 31, 2012 to ….

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/81710589/YOU-HAVE-TIL-JULY-31-2012-FOR-THE-FREE-OCC-FORECLOSURE-REVIEW

  133. Abby in CA February 20, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

    here is the Phil Ting Report ==Foreclosure Irregularities===Feb 2012

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/82242361/Phil-Ting-Report-2012-FORECLOSURE-IRREGULARITIES-EXPOSED-IN-AUDIT-IN-CALIFORNIA

    Correct recorded documents essential!! Here is the Youtube video ————–

  134. Abby in CA February 22, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

    Tammy Freeman v. Quicken Loans -Oral Args Transcript at the US Supreme Court re: RESPA

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/82506786/Tammy-Freeman-v-Quicken-Loans-US-Supreme-Court-Oral-Argument-Transcript-of-2-21-2012-Case-10-1042-Re-RESPA

  135. Abby in CA February 29, 2012 at 8:22 am #

    AFFIDAVIT OF DANIELLE STERLING–SHE DID NOT ENDORSE THE NOTE–IN JUNK V CITI

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/83109881/Affidavit-of-Danielle-Sterling-she-DID-NOT-ENDORSE-THE-NOTE-JUNK-V-CITI

    NOT HER!! BUT SOMEBODY USED HER SIGNATURE

  136. Abby in CA February 29, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    CALIFORNIA AG KAMALA HARRIS PRESS RELEASE 2-29-2012 ANNOUNCING HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/83231093/2-29-2012-Press-Release-Kamala-Harris-Homeowner-Bill-of-Rights

  137. ABBY IN CA March 2, 2012 at 3:05 pm #

    BRAND NEW OCCUPY PROTESTS AT THE CRIME SCENES–COUNTY RECORDER’S OFFICES ACROSS CALIFORNIA–MARCH 12 2012

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/83566790/OCCUPY-THE-CRIME-SCENE-ALAMEDA-COUNTY-RECORDER-AND-AT-THE-CONTRA-COSTA-COUNTY-RECORDER-AND-ACROSS-THE-STATE-OF-CALIFORNIA

  138. ABBY IN CA March 5, 2012 at 7:44 am #

    CONGRESS PASSES ANTI-OCCUPY LAW-FELONY

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/83937301/CONGRESS-PASSES-ANIT-OCCUPY-LAW-MAKING-IT-A-FELONY-MARCH-2012

  139. ABBY IN CA March 8, 2012 at 10:05 am #

    SOMETHING GOOD FOR HOMEOWNER IN HER APPEAL IN SEVENTH CIRCUIT- SEE ORDER, OPINION, MOST APPEAL FILINGS HERE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84525682/REVERSED-ON-SOME-COUNTS-AND-REMANDED-WIGOOD-V-WELLS-FARGO-HAMP-LOAN-MOD-DENIED-TO-HOMEOWNER-SEVENTH-CIRCUIT-COURT-OF-APPEALS-OPINI

  140. ABBY IN CA March 8, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

    CALIFORNIA AG KAMALA HARRIS ARRESTS 3 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR LOAN MOD SCAM. TODAY.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84553358/AG-Kamala-Harris-Arrests-3-Attorneys-in-California-for-Loan-Mod-Scam-March-8-2012

  141. ABBY IN CA March 9, 2012 at 10:29 am #

    THANK GOODNESS THE ATTORNEYS FILED A PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING IN THE MCOMIE-GRAY TILA APPEAL DECISION IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84712205/McOmie-Gray-Opinion-2-8-2012-TILA-and-Petition-for-Rehearing-Ninth-Circuit

  142. ABBY IN CA March 9, 2012 at 11:46 am #

    AMICUS BRIEF FROM NCLC IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT MCOMIE-GRAY IN NINTH CIRCUIT APPEAL CASE RE: TILA AND 3 YEAR

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84723587/NCLC-Amicus-Brief-in-Support-of-McOmie-Gray-TILA

  143. ABBY IN CA March 10, 2012 at 11:44 am #

    MORTGAGE LOAN FRAUD REPORTS ROSE IN CALIFORNIA

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84844295/March-5-2012-Mortgage-Loan-Fraud-Reports-Rose

  144. ABBY IN CA March 12, 2012 at 11:14 am #

    AG SETTLEMENT COMPLAINT FILED IN FEDERAL COURT AND CHASE AND BOA PROPOSED CONSENT JUDGMENTS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/85084270/AG-SETTLEMENT-DOCS-FILED-IN-FEDERAL-COURT-COMPLAINT-BOA-AND-CHASE-PROPOSED-CONSENT-JUDGEMENTS

  145. ABBY IN CA March 12, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    PROPOSED CIT AND WELLS FARGO CONSENT JUDGMENTS IN AG SETTLEMENT FILED MARCH 2012 IN FEDERAL COURT

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/85084966/AG-SETTLEMENT-PROPOSED-CITI-AND-WELLS-FARGO-CONSENT-JUDGMENTS-FILED-IN-FEDERAL-COURT-MARCH-2012

  146. Charlton Butler March 13, 2012 at 6:55 am #

    Thought you might find these of interest I absolutely hammered them I went after their exhibits their affidavits and their legal counsel. I used a couple of your examples to guide me as I never practiced law I did go to school just never could figure how to do the job without going bad. I put being an attorney like being a Rabbi or Priest that the truth must always come from your mouth or shut up. Any hoo here’s a link to the collection of docs I filed on the 2nd of March in response to plaintiffs attempt to beat the Maine Legislation HR 128 LD 145 that would make it a crime to try and foreclose without the original documents in hand. While this matter is on appeal with the Federal Court in Boston where I made the same pitch but from a constitutional angle that jurisdiction is of no consequence when the court has failed in its job to demand the plaintiffs have standing.

    http://www.scribd.com/collections/3520971/BANSC-RE-2010-187-CASE-FILES

    Anyway we’ll see where that all goes but I put both courts between a rock and a hard place and demanded sanctions and declaratory and injunctive relief that amounts to quiet title and send the opposing counsel home with no bar card. I could get lucky seems the courts are seeing the light and seeing how the pension plans they have could give the appearance of a conflict of interest which I also mentioned in the federal appeal.

  147. ABBY IN CA March 13, 2012 at 11:41 am #

    MARCH 12 2012 OIG HUD AUDIT REPORT ON BANK OF AMERICA–ILLEGAL NOTARIZATIONS AND THEY USED PERSONNEL IN INDIA TO VERIFY JUDGMENT FIGURES BUT BOA EMPLOYEES COULD NOT EXPLAIN HOW THEY DID IT

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/85234954/OIG-HUD-AUDIT-REPORT-OF-BANK-OF-AMERICA-MARCH-12-2012-THEY-USED-PERSONNEL-IN-INDIA-TO-VERIFY-JUDGMENT-FIGURES-BUT-BOA-EMPLOYEES-COULD-NOT-EXPLAIN-HO

  148. ABBY IN CA March 13, 2012 at 11:42 am #

    MARCH 12 2012 OIG HUD AUDIT REPORT ON CHASE–IT HAD NO EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER ITS FORECLOSURE PROCESSES AND ILLEGAL NOTARY ACTS PLUS MUCH MORE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/85232926/CHASE-HAD-NO-EFFECTIVE-CONTROL-OVER-ITS-FORECLOSURE-PROCESSES-OIG-HUD-AUDIT-REPORT-ON-CHASE-MARCH-12-2012-NOTARIES-DID-ILLEGAL-NOTARIZATIONS

  149. ABBY IN CA March 20, 2012 at 10:48 pm #

    HOLD ON THERE PARTNER!! INVESTORS THREATENING TO SUE OVER THE AG SETTLEMENT WITH BIG BANKS. THEY SAY THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ROBO-SIGNING SO WHY SHOULD THEY PAY!!

    SHORT VIDEO CLIP TOO

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/86174586/INVESTORS-THREATENING-TO-SUE-WE-DID-NOT-DO-ROBO-SIGNING-SO-WHY-SHOULD-WE-PAY-RE-THE-AG-BIG-BANK-25-BILLION-SETTLEMENT

  150. ABBY IN CA March 22, 2012 at 1:50 pm #

    A FASCINATING READ ON INSIDE PROCESSING OF COLLATERAL OF COUNTRYWIDE-BAC IN THE DEPOSITION OF MICHELE SJOLANDER WHO GAVE A POWER OF ATTORNEY TO HAVE OTHERS ENDORSE THE PROMISSORY NOTES. SHE DOES NOT KNOW WHO THEY ARE.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/86389331/MUSTANG-ENGINE-HOTMAN-WAND-COLD-DARK-ROWS-OF-COLLATERAL-DEPOSTION-OF-COUNTRYWIDE-BAC-MICHELE-SJOLANDER-SHE-GAVE-POWER-OF-ATTORNEY-FOR-ENDORSING-NO

  151. ABBY IN CA March 27, 2012 at 10:23 am #

    OCC ACTING COMPTROLLER WALSH SPEECH OF MARCH 26 2012

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/86931169/ACTING-COMPTROLLER-OF-OCC-John-Walsh-Speech-March-26-2012-at-Reinvestment-Conference

  152. ABBY IN CA March 27, 2012 at 11:09 am #

    READ JOHNSON’S COMPLAINT WITH EXHIBITS HERE AGAINST HSBC AND BOA–HE SURVIVED THE BANKS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/86935746/GREGORY-JOHNSON-V-HSBC-BOA-HIS-COMPLAINT-AND-HOW-HE-RESPONDED-TO-BANKS-MOTION-TO-DISMISS-PLUS-EXHIBITS-MARCH-2012-CALIFORNIA-FEDERAL-COURT-SOUTHERN

  153. ABBY IN CA March 31, 2012 at 10:36 am #

    HAWAII JUDGE SEABRIGHT GETS IT!! BIG WIN FOR HOMEOWNER WILLIAMS. DEUTSCHE HAD NO STANDING. LOAN ORIGINATOR NEW CENTURY IN BKR SO RED FLAG GOES UP ABOUT THE FRAUDULENT ASSIGNMENT!!

    THIS POST HAS DISCUSSION, AND THE COMPLAINT AND OTHER RELEVANT CASE DOCUMENTS.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/87479128/GOT-NEW-CENTURY-WIN-FOR-HOMEOWNER-READ-JUDGE-SEABRIGHT-S-DECISION-HERE-AND-COMPLAINT-ETC-no-evidence-that-plaintiff-was-validly-assigned-the-Mort

  154. ABBY IN CA May 3, 2012 at 3:52 pm #

    LANDMARK TILA OPINION JUST CAME DOWN TODAY!!

    BORROWER NEED NOT FILE TILA LAWSUIT WITHIN 3 YEARS IF THEY DID SEND THE NOTICE OF TILA RESCISSION WITHIN 3 YEARS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/92307831/MAY-3-2012-LANDMARK-COURT-OF-APPEAL-OPINION-ON-TILA-REX-GILBERT-V-RESIDENTIAL-FUNDING-DEUTSHCE-BANK-AND-THE-TRUSTEE

  155. israel2cu@gmail.com May 16, 2012 at 4:20 am #

    GMAC gets away with stealing. They just filed for bankruptcy and it all just went away. 30k in lawyers fees and I’m left hight and dry. We’ve seen this before…. Gerald Celente is absolutely correct. Welcome to the United Socialist States of America! Tim, I hate to say it, it’s all in vain.

    • bob sweeting June 12, 2012 at 8:13 am #

      Yes, i have (had?) a suit against GMAC. These crooks LIED their way out of my fraud case. THEN posted to all my credit bureaus that I now owe GMAC $16 MILLION on the same loan they SWORE in court they never owned! They furthered that by having posted 25 120 late payments on this nor existant loan! THEN they reposessed my Denali! They SWORE in court they never owned my Title to avoid liability, BUT went into another court and swore there they DID own it! Three years later, they “assigned” the U.D. over to another lender, who promptly evicted me, while GMAC claimed to have never owned the Title. I filed a separate action for the “Defamation of Credit” and for “Accounting” A temporary Judge ruled that it was “Res Judicata” which it was not, since this happened AFTER the suit was filed. It is now in the Ca. Appellate Court, and the judges were shocked by GMAC’s actions. Just about the time they were to rule, GMAC files B.K. in my case. It is a Chap 11, so either Ally, or the Gov’t will probably bail them out,The judge in the Trial court in Santa Ana, has seen these shenanigans by GMAC and HE wants their ASSES in front of him. He wants to make an example of these crooks.

  156. Gustavo Kuenca May 22, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    That ERIC JONES IS A FRAUD Timothy. Take real care who you recommend.Your credibility would be in dude.

  157. ABBY IN CA August 15, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME 123 CORP VICTIMS===
    BREAKING NEWS===THE IRS IS GIVING BACK $131 MILLION DOLLARS TO THE NEW CENTURY BANKRUPTCY. THIS STATED IN HEARING ON AUGUST 14 2012.

    IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO, CONSULT AN ATTORNEY TO INQUIRE ABOUT A BANKRUPTCY CLAIM OR ADVERSARY PROCEEDING AGAINST THEM.

  158. ABBY IN CA August 23, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

    WONDERING WHY CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE VICTIMS NEVER WIN IN COURT? CHECK OUT THE JUDGE’S RETIREMENT INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE LOADED WITH MBS & ABS. ADMINISTERED BY CALPERS. WHAT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/103728717/Wondering-Why-California-Foreclosure-Victims-Never-Win-In-Court-Judges-Retirement-Investments-Loaded-with-MBS-and-ABS

  159. ABBY IN CA September 1, 2012 at 3:17 pm #

    Los Angeles City Attorney Kicks Butt–files huge lawsuit against US Bank as Trustee for a myriad of securitized trusts! See If yours is listed!! Charges Illegal Evictions and Blight and various other violations! read the complaint here

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/104655945/Los-Angeles-City-Attorney-Kicks-Butt-files-huge-lawsuit-against-US-Bank-as-Trustee-for-a-myriad-of-securitized-trusts-See-If-yours-is-listed-Cha

  160. Wendy September 1, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    We are looking for a robo-signer named John Gilvarry. Have you come across this name or can you point me in the right direction to look? I have found nothing about this person on the internet.

    Thank you.

  161. ABBY IN CA January 16, 2013 at 9:22 am #

    AMAZING==NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL IN CALIFORNIA ORDERS DEUTSCHE BANK TO ANSWER THE EMERGENCY ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITHIN 3 DAYS IN THE BRIAN DAVIES FORECLOSURE MATTER. THE SECOND LINK DESCRIBES HOW DEUTSCHE et al VIOLATED AN INJUNCTIVE STAY IN THE CASE:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/120648676/NINTH-CIRCUIT-APPEAL-COURT-ORDERS-DEUTSCHE-TO-ANSWER-THE-ORDER-TO-SHOW-CAUSE-IN-THE-DAVIES-CASE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/120386159/DAVIES-FILES-ORDER-TO-SHOW-CAUSE-FOR-CONTEMPT-JANUARY-2013-FORECLOSURE-APPELLEE-IGNORING-INJUNCTION

  162. ABBY IN CA January 20, 2013 at 11:57 pm #

    NEW CFPB DIRECTOR REMARKS THAT CURRENTLY 10 MILLION HOMES ARE AT RISK OF FORECLOSURE!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/121434458/CFPB-DIRECTOR-RICHARD-CORDRAY-SAYS-CURRENTLY-AS-MANY-AS-10-MILLION-HOMES-ARE-AT-RISK-OF-FORECLOSURE-JAN-2013

  163. ABBY IN CA February 6, 2013 at 3:23 pm #

    Recent filing in the New Century Mortgage (now New Century Liquidating Trust) bankruptcy in Delaware (chpt 11). New Century filed for bankruptcy on 4-2-2007 and is still in bankruptcy as of Feb. 6 2013. The next Omnibus hearing is March 7, 2013 at 10AM Delaware time.

    Take a read on this pleading……………..

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/124239137/In-New-Century-Liquidating-Trust-2012-Motion-to-Deem-Claim-Non-Dischargeable-by-homeowner

  164. ABBY IN CA February 20, 2013 at 10:33 am #

    HERE YOU GO–BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE’S LAW FIRM FILES LEGAL MOTIONS TO GET JUDGE TO APPROVE WHOLESALE DESTRUCTION OF MORTGAGE LOAN FILES—EVEN GOING BACK AS FAR AS 2004! THESE WOULD BE THE MORTGAGE LOAN FILES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS (SECURITIZATION RELATED, OPERATIONS) FOR…………….

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/126430700/IS-THE-BANKRUPTCY-COURT-GOING-T

    ANY ATTORNEYS WANT TO JUMP IN HERE TO PREVENT THIS? THE BANKRUPTCY TRUST STILL HAS MILLIONS IN CASH AVAILABLE.

  165. wheresmyson February 22, 2013 at 7:16 am #

    When you have original deed stamped and signed in blue
    With original paperwork from lender paid in full returned to you, must it be returned if your equity loan that paid this off was a foreclosure that had wrongs, unfair practices, truth in lending,errors,falsified, predatory lending, that the bank did not follow the banking laws regulations that was fraud. Causing physical injuries and sickness need returned to the bank or lawyer for government use latter against one or for what ever reason?
    Is it law that these original docs would have to be returned then out of ones hands after owning 22 years. Plus all the title deed of trust and trustee original truth in lending every doc from original mortgage loan 1989 all in one lending co mortgage name stapled together showing the fraud and original loan holder prior payoff need to be given in order to get compensation?
    Honestly they would get a copy of these docs
    Unless these can be quick claimed over to a family member?
    Send answer to [princessjaneth@hotmail.com]
    Thank you kindly rebecca

  166. wheresmyson February 28, 2013 at 8:57 pm #

    Tell me why Martha Lopez the women who lives at my home has businesses at this addresses every dam place? Fraud foreclosure fraud seems possibly they screwed me out of my life world to confused put out to pasture why not all the dam cars and people kids who live in my upgrading home not that dam banks the forgers they wanted my home I believe this
    Why doesn’t any one contact me or tell me what is honestly going on today with this ?
    Two years long enought
    I need Finanical help ASAP is there any way I can get loan until my credits shot
    I’m drained angry upset just a mess itchy nerves it breaks my heart and god help America
    Can I come in to speak with you, will you be straight up honest to me? If I cash their checks IFR state ca national settlement or what ever who ever compensates me if will I be screwed over again ?
    I’m frightened to death each day the news gets worse and worse killings murders found dead. I am 55 single with my dog trying to survive. Only I’m getting depressed deeper I’m such a mess for what 125,000 dollars for three years in hell that fixes it bull shit
    I’m pissed sad I don’t know where how or when to anything in life my stuff locked away in storage that I can’t even get into
    I thought I’d get my home back
    They messed with me. Now draining my bank checking on collections debits I’m going to stop that bank acct and tell them to go f their self
    Who cares now honestly who gives a crap
    Hey ssi disability that I may becut off from that sorry this life is not worth it
    I had enough I’m so depressed I don’t like how my head jumps around and around until I can’t rest. Stress deadly on a person stress give heart attracks and its not doing well today I’m displaced they get money back who is the good guys and who are the bad. I don’t trust. I am not sure if they played a ugly joke saying this then that or am I losing my dam mind. Federal court case # what
    Where I need a motel voucher for a month hopefully some income from their lies fraud comes in by the end of this month
    Or I toss in my towel I’m done it is so unfair that America treats their own this way
    Justice what is justice have we seen any justice on IFR ? Not the lawyers who won clients cases that were paid this was for Americans who were wrongly foreclosed on the occ federal CFPB to make these bastards pay
    Now sue? Do I need to find a lawyer? What do I need to do before statue of limitations run out ASAP ? I want help only what do I do who do I trust where do I call

  167. ABBY IN CA March 7, 2013 at 8:16 am #

    FEB 2013 REPORT ON THE NATIONAL MORTGAGE SETTLEMENT
    19 BILLION ON SHORT SALES!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/129114667/National-Mortgage-Settlement-Feb-2013-Report-Ongoing-implementation-ALSO-KNOWN-AS-THE-50-STATE-AG-SETTLEMENT

  168. ABBY IN CA March 15, 2013 at 12:03 pm #

    LET THE SHREDDING OF EVIDENCE BEGIN. JUDGE ORDERS DESTRUCTION AND ABANDONMENT OF DOCUMENTS AND FILES FOR MORTGAGES IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123.

    HOMEOWNER/BORROWERS–IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY GOTTEN YOUR NECESSARY DISCOVERY—TOUGH LUCK!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/130604509/DESTRUCTION-AND-ABANDONMENT-JUDGE-ORDERS-THE-NEW-CENTURY-MORTGAGE-AND-HOME123-AND-BANKRUPTCY-DOCUMENTS-TO-BE-DESTROYED-IS-HE-AUTHORIZING-DESTROYI

  169. ABBY IN CA March 15, 2013 at 3:27 pm #

    GOLDMAN SACHS MAKES SURE THEIR SUBPOENA OF NEW CENTURY FOR DOCUMENTS AND FILES IS UPHELD

    DI 11101 IN THE NEW CENTURY BKR CASE FILED MARCH 2013

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/130630775/GOLDMAN-SACHS-SUBPOENAS-RECORDS-AND-FILES-FROM-NEW-CENTURY-WHILE-THE-NC-BANKRUPTCY-STILL-ONGOING-2012-2013

  170. ABBY IN CA March 19, 2013 at 10:10 am #

    CALIFORNIA PRO PER WINS APPEAL AGAINST JPMORGAN CHASE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/131275007/CALIFORNIA-Pro-Se-Wins-Appeal-West-v-JP-Morgan-Chase-March-2013

  171. wheresmyson April 2, 2013 at 9:00 am #

    I do not understand this. Dam it stressful
    Not sure where what who I can go to for help due to my income SSI disability extremely low limited
    Plus I am sick with flew my head comprehension is not working anylonger with all this Legual legislation laws. God help me I’m tired of homeless 2 years and don’t know if I even have or had a case except cfpb they found Mers and said move on its over. But what about justice served. ? No compensation yet nothing no one will even speak with me on all this. I’m alone out here wanting not to wake up. But I would not hurt myself or any one ever I’m chicken. Just so lost and very confused. Tears keep falling life is hard enough but after 2 years homeless my body is deterating I feel it very hard to move lift carry my L 6&7 have been broken from 2007. Is there any one place for me to get the honest help I need today I’m lost displaced its killing me daily

  172. Abby in CA May 9, 2013 at 10:56 am #

    VICTORY!! CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER STOPS A FORECLOSURE USING THE NEW CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS. HIS ATTORNEY CAN COLLECT HIS ATTORNEY FEES FROM THE BANK. BECAUSE SINGH WON THE INJUNCTION–HIS ATTORNEY WILL GET PAID BY THE BANK!! FIND THOSE ATTORNEYS TO HELP YOU IN CALIFORNIA.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/140451108/VICTORY-CALFORNIA-MAN-STOPS-A-FORECLOSURE-USING-THE-NEW-CALIFORNIA-HOMEOWNER-BILL-OF-RIGHTS-HOBR-5-9-2013

  173. Jellybeans June 4, 2013 at 1:50 pm #

    look at this—what a federal judge says in California–he does not have time!!

    also states on the record that we should contact our senators!!

    what…because he does not have time…means our due process rights go out the window??

    look at attached case decisions….

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/145517381/LOOK-LOOK-FEDERAL-JUDGE-DOES-NOT-HAVE-TIME-AND-TELLS-US-TO-CONTACT-SENATORS-BOXER-AND-FEINSTEIN-AND-WAS-YOUR-PRIOR-LOAN-REALLY-PAID-OFF-PROBABLY-NOT

  174. Jellybeans June 8, 2013 at 8:38 am #

    June 6 2013–appeal decision-win for homeowner-BOA note and deed separated–BOA no authority to negotiate a loan mod at mediation

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/146524132/Bergenfield-v-BOA-in-Nevada-June-2013-Appeal-Decision-reversed-and-remanded-note-and-deed-seperated-BOA-lacked-authority-to-do-loan-mod-at-mediation

  175. Jellybeans June 11, 2013 at 9:21 am #

    DISCOVERY CAN PROCEED! CLASS ACTION ON PMI -2013

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/147166544/RIDDLE-V-BANK-OF-AMERICA-ET-AL-ABOUT-PMI-RESPA-LET-DISCOVERY-BEGIN-APRIL-2013

  176. Jellybeans June 17, 2013 at 3:00 pm #

    this california judge gets it

    Chase class action -june 2013

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/148418548/CALIFORNIA-FEDERAL-JUDGE-GONZALEZ-ROGERS-GETS-IT-Class-Action-Against-Chase

  177. Jellybeans June 17, 2013 at 4:00 pm #

    HERE IS The COMPLAINT TO MY EARLIER POST TODAY ON THE CHASE CLASS ACTION

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/148434336/CLASS-ACTION-COMPLAINT-AGAINST-CHASE-FEDERAL-COURT-NORTHERN-CALIFORNIA-2012-2013-JUDGE-YVONNE-GONZALEZ-ROGERS

  178. Jellybeans June 19, 2013 at 10:21 am #

    WHERE ARE THE ATTORNEYS?? STEP FORWARD!!
    ONE SINGLE PRO SE FIGHTING HARD FOR ALL HOMEOWNER-BORROWER-CREDITORS UP IN THE NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123 CORPORATION BANKRUPTCY. THAT LIQUIDATING TRUST STILL HAS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN IT!

    HOW ABOUT IT ATTORNEYS—READY TO ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES??

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/148801668/ATTORNEYS-WHO-WILL-FIGHT-FOR-US-NEEDED-SOLE-PRO-SE-SEEKS-FORMATION-OF-BORROWERS-COMMITTEE-IN-THE-NEW-CENTURY-BANKRUPTCY-IN-DELAWARE-ORIGINALLY-FILED

  179. Jellybeans June 24, 2013 at 2:07 pm #

    CALIFORNIA CODE 27388–REAL ESTATE FRAUD TRUST FUND

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/149797334/California-Government-Code-27388-Real-Estate-Fraud-Trust-Fund

  180. Jellybeans June 30, 2013 at 9:58 am #

    Wells Fargo and Chase Quietly Prepare to Take Over BOA and Citi as They Collapse
    Posted on June 28, 2013 by Neil Garfield

    Major banks [WELLS AND CITI] have reportedly made proposals to the Fed on how to pay for the restructuring of large financial institutions that collapse, with the idea being to avoid the chaos that followed Lehman’s bankruptcy. Among the suggestions, the largest financial-services holding companies would maintain combined debt and equity equal to 14% of their risk-weighted assets, which would be used to support any failed bank unit seized by regulators. Full Story: http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1100632?source=ipadportfolioapp

    Editor’s Analysis: This is why I keep insisting on following the money trail rather than the paper trail. The paper trail is full of lies. The money trail cannot be faked. Or to put it more succinctly anyone who tries to fake the money trail will probably end up in jail. Checks, wire transfers, ACH transfers leave footprints throughout the electronic funds transfer infrastructure. In the paper trail there are documents that describe transactions as if they had occurred. It is the money trail that will tell you whether or not any transaction in fact did occur and if so, when and under what terms.

    PRACTICE HINT: the money trail (Canceled checks, wire transfer receipts) is the main point. The paper trail should only be used to corroborate your allegations concerning the reality of the transactions after you have shown that the money trail reveals an entirely different story — or that the banks are stonewalling access to the money trail because it will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that everything they have said in the creation of the mortgage, transfers of the mortgage, defaults and the mortgage, foreclosures, auction sales, credit bids and attempts for modification is a complete lie.

    Bank of America has approximately $300 billion on its balance sheet which are composed mainly of mortgage bonds (unsupported by any transaction in which money exchanged hands or any other consideration; and not backed by any loans which never made it into the asset pools that issued the mortgage bonds). It is one thing when people like me saying that the bonds are worthless and that Bank of America is broke. It is quite another when investors and traders arrive at the same conclusion. Recent trading activity indicates that a number of investors and traders are betting that Bank of America will collapse. They have arrived at the conclusion that the mortgage bonds are either worthless or not worth anything near what is reported by Bank of America. As rates go up the treasury bonds bought by Bank of America in exchange for free money at the Federal Reserve window, will drop like stones. This will leave Bank of America with insufficient capital to operate at its current levels.

    What is interesting is that two banks submitted a proposal for resolution of a bank that had been too big to fail. The two banks that submitted the proposal were Wells Fargo and Chase. Notably absent was Bank of America and Citibank. I take that to mean that the government and the financial community are expecting Bank of America and possibly Citibank to collapse and that it might be very soon. The timing of the Wells Fargo and Chase proposal might well be their assessment that the time is near and that if their proposal is the only one on the table it will be the one that is used by the government.

    FALLING BOND PRICES AND RISING YIELDS ARE THREATENING THE RECOVERY IN THE BALANCE SHEETS OF GLOBAL BANKS: Falling bond prices and rising yields are threatening the recovery in the balance sheets of global banks, which have built up huge portfolios of liquid securities to comply with regulatory requirements and due to a lack of better investments. For example, 90% of Bank of America’s (BAC) $315B portfolio comprises mortgage bonds and Treasurys. Some analysts, though, believe that QE tapering should increase interest margins and offset the one-time hit to book values because of rising bond yields. Full Story: http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1105882?source=ipadportfolioapp

    THE FUTILITY OF OF BANKS FIGHTING REPRESENTATION AND WARRANTIES LAWSUITS OVER MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES: Flagstar Bancorp’s (FBC +2.7%) weekend settlement with Assured Guaranty (AGO -3.3%) for $105M (vs. the $106.5M court verdict) shows the futility of banks fighting representation and warranties lawsuits over MBS, writes Mark Palmer. Next up is BofA (BAC) which has already settled with Assured and MBIA (MBI), but is still tussling with Ambac (AMBC). Credit Suisse (CS) and JPMorgan (JPM) have also been reluctant to settle with the monolines. Flagstar is sharply higher in a bright red market as the settlement removes a big overhang on the stock. Full Story: http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1101932?source=ipadportfolioapp

    [Editor: If the loans were real and the bonds were real, why would this be necessary?) BOA Caught Gesturing to Witness Coaching Answers: Bank of America's (BAC) Article 77 hearing is on hiatus until July 8 to allow the presiding judge time on other cases. Day 8 of the hearing was an uneventful one, reports Mark Palmer, notable mostly for the judge admonishing an attorney representing the supporters to quit coaching (through gestures) a witness on the stand. Full Story: http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1087682?source=ipadportfolioapp

    One way to profit from the false values of loans and the false representations of ownership is to buy them up as though they were real. The buyers have real bargaining power with the mere threat of revealing the bonds to be worthless and the ownership unknown. [I propose to put together a fund that offers the payment if ownership can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt]: Deutsche Bank (DB) is leading a wave of big banks ramping up exposure to single-family housing by extending credit to Wall Street firms so they can buy up homes to turn them into rentals. The bank reportedly just lent another $1.5B to Blackstone (BX) after an earlier $2.1B line got used up. Wayne Hughes’ American Homes 4 Rent has as much as a $1B line from Wells Fargo (WFC), and SilverBay Realty (SBY) just inked a $200M facility from Bank of America (BAC) and JPMorgan (JPM) Full Story: http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1087962?source=ipadportfolioapp

    Traders betting big on BOA collapse: The purchase of 50K January $11 puts on Bank of America (BAC) yesterday was indeed a the initiation of a position, writes Steven Sears, noting this morning’s open interest shows a 50K rise to 116,958 contracts. Rather than an outright bearish position, the purchase could just as easily be a BofA long hedging his/her bet (though the recent uptick in volatility has made this a more expensive move).
    Full Story: http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1111972?source=ipadportfolioapp

    JPMorgan Looks Like A Winner to Traders — probably because the U.S. government will look to Chase and Wells Fargo when BOA and Citi collapse: Full Story: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1526362?source=ipadportfolioapp

    BOND MARKET LIQUIDATION: Bond Funds Hit With Biggest Outflows Ever This Week
    http://www.businessinsider.com/weekly-epfr-fund-flows-data-june-26-2013-6

    [Editor: When mortgage rates rise the price of older bonds with lower interest falls. Most people agree rate increases are inevitable which means that the value of Treasuries and other bonds offering tiny returns are going to fall like stones. The ripple effect is going to be on going for years] Mortgage rates jump to highest in 2 years [Some novices are trying to make the case that if rates double bond prices will fall by half. That is not true and never has been true. Despite the value of the bond on the market the face value remains the same so the GAIN between the purchase price and the Face Amount (Principal) of the Bond must be factored in by using the present value of the that gain over the remaining term of the loan]
    http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/blog/morning_call/2013/06/mortgage-rates-jump-highest-in-2-years.html

    [Editor: This is a disaster waiting to happen for the banks. When those modifications are done they will face trillions in liability for insurance and credit default swap proceeds and probably claims from the Federal Reserve because the true value of the bonds will be marked down to market contrary to the representations of the banks when they sell the bonds to the FED] Regulations are now in effect that will prohibit Mass. foreclosures if loan modifications cost less
    http://www.boston.com/businessupdates/2013/06/26/regulations-are-now-effect-that-will-prohibit-mass-foreclosures-loan-modifications-cost-less/4W2NEXiN7w9xvNruGBxpXL/story.html

    Foreclosure documentation issues trap investors, creating litigation risk
    http://www.housingwire.com/fastnews/2013/06/21/foreclosure-documentation-issues-trap-investors-creating-litigation-risk

    Must See Video: Arizona Homeowners Losing their Homes to Foreclosure Through Forged Documents
    http://4closurefraud.org/2013/06/21/must-see-video-arizona-homeowners-losing-their-homes-to-foreclosure-through-forged-documents/

    Lawsuit: Bank of America Gave Employees Gift Cards for Hitting Foreclosure Quotas
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/24/Lawsuit-Bank-of-America-Gave-Employees-Gift-Cards-For-Foreclosures

    [Editor: This is BOA putting distance between itself and policies and procedures that produce an illegal result] Bank of America Said to Send Property Reviews to India
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-27/bank-of-america-said-to-send-property-reviews-to-india.html

    [Editor: I doubt if this tactic applies to most people] Illinois Attorney Saves Homes from Foreclosure Using Reverse Mortgages
    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2013/06/illinois-attorney-saves-homes-from-foreclosure-using-reverse-mortgages/

  181. Jellybeans June 30, 2013 at 9:58 am #

    GOOD NEWS FOR THIS CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER-BORROWER—CERT FOR PUB CASE–FIDUCIARY DUTY-VERY UNIQUE CASE -JUNE 2013

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/150902761/2013-CERTIFIED-FOR-PUB-UNIQUE-CALIFORNIA-WIN-FOR-HOMEOWNER-MICHAEL-FULLER-v-First-Franklin-California-Court-of-Appeals-broker-fiduciary-duties-But

  182. Jellybeans June 30, 2013 at 10:00 am #

    NOTE:—the post which says posted by Neil Garfield is in error. jellybeans posted it by mistake. However, if you like the article on how Chase and Wells may be planning to take over BOA and Citi…..visit the Garfiled blog site called LivingLies Weblog

    it is a treasure trove of information

  183. Jellybeans July 3, 2013 at 7:43 am #

    Here is something to do for you all! The CFPB has issued some new proposed rules for mortgages. You can give feedback to them up until July 22nd. 174 pages of proposed rules. Go for it.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/151520426/July-22-2013-last-day-to-respond-to-CFPB-new-proposed-mortgage-rules

  184. Abby in CA July 10, 2013 at 5:57 am #

    This man has better chance of surviving brain tumor than a foreclosure in California!!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/152914872/Mr-Koshak-has-a-better-chance-to-survive-brain-tumor-than-a-foreclosure-in-California-lawyer-says-in-letter-to-legislatures-July-2013

  185. Abby in CA August 1, 2013 at 1:07 pm #

    BIG WIN CALIFORNIA APPEAL COURT (STATE) –BORROWER MAY CHALLENGE THE SECURITIZED TRUST’S CHAIN OF OWNERSHIP.

    FINALLY FINALLY FINALLY!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/157511685/BIG-WIN-IN-CALIFORNIA-APPEAL-COURT-SAYS-BORROWER-MAY-CHALLENGE-THE-SECURITIZED-TRUST-S-CHAIN-OF-OWNERSHIP

  186. Jellybeans August 8, 2013 at 9:04 am #

    DEADLINE SOON—YOUR ASSISTANCE URGENTLY REQUIRED —

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/158957543/URGENT-YOUR-HELP-IS-NEEDED-VICTORY-OVER-CHASE-BUT-PLEASE-HELP-HOMEOWNERS-SEE-WITHIN

  187. Jellybeans August 8, 2013 at 9:38 am #

    WORD TEMPLATE TO USE TO HELP US

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/158965515/WORD-Template-Letter-to-Appellate-Court-Re-Publication-of-Glaski

  188. Jellybeans August 8, 2013 at 1:55 pm #

    THE CALIFORNIA APPEAL COURT CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION THE GLASKI CASE ON 8/8/2013. CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERS PAY ATTENTION!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/158957543/GLASKI-CASE-CERTIFIED-BY-CALIFORNIA-APPEAL-COURT-ON-8-8-2013-HOMEOWNERS-PAY-ATTENTION

  189. Jellybeans August 8, 2013 at 5:14 pm #

    HERE IS THE DECISION IN GLASKI V BOA NOW CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION –APPEAL COURT IN CALIFORNIA

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/159048121/Glaski-v-BOA-Published-Version-California-Court-of-Appeals-Decision-Cert-for-Pub-August-8-201

  190. Jellybeans August 8, 2013 at 5:24 pm #

    NINTH CIRCUIT SAYS BORROWERS CAN SUE WELLS FARGO OVER MORTGAGE MODIFICATIONS—CORVELLO CASE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/159049512/NINTH-CIRCUIT-SAYS-BORROWERS-CAN-SUE-WELLS-FARGO-OVER-MORTGAGE-MODIFICATIONS-Corvello-v-Wells-Fargo-Ninth-Circuit-Court-of-Appeal

  191. Jellybeans September 3, 2013 at 6:20 pm #

    THESE INVESTORS NOT HAPPY AND JPMORGAN CHASE CAN’T BE EITHER!

    DAMMING FACTS AGAINST NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123 CORPORATION.

    REMEMBER, AS OF TODAY 9-3-2013, NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123 CORPORATION STILL IN ACTIVE BANKRUPTCY IN DELAWARE (NOW CALLED NEW CENTURY TRS HOLDINGS INC. AND NEW CENTURY LIQUIDATING TRUST WITH APPTD. TRUSTEE ALAN JACOBS REPRESENTED BY HAHN & HESSEN–THE CASE IS 07-10416 KJC)

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/165283859/DAMMING-FACTS-AGAINST-NEW-CENTURY-MORTGAGE-THE-ROOT-OF-THE-PROBLEM-FOR-JP-MORGAN-CHASE-AND-JPMAC2006-NC1-IN-THIS-CASE-BROUGHT-BY-PHOENIX-LIGHT-SF-LIM

  192. Jellybeans September 11, 2013 at 8:01 am #

    WELL-TWO DIFFERENT FORECLOSURE TRUSTEES IN A CALIFORNIA CASE DID NOT WORK! SO SAYS A CALIFORNIA APPEAL COURT IN AUG 2013. MISSING SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE DOC.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/167354624/CALIFORNIA-HOMEOWNER-BILL-OF-RIGHTS-COLLABORATIVE-DEFINES-IMPORTANCE-OF-THE-PRECIADO-CASE-IN-2013-TWO-DIFFERENT-TRUSTEES-NON-COMPLIANCE-WITH-2924

  193. REALHOUSEWIFE September 26, 2013 at 9:25 am #

    DIMON ARRIVES AT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SEPT 2013

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/171210062/DIMON-ARRIVES-AT-JUSTICE-DEPARTMENT-SEPT-2013-I-WANT-TO-KNOW-WHY

  194. Jellybeans September 30, 2013 at 9:43 am #

    Attorney Deceit Statutes

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/172164091/Attorney-Deceit-Statutes

  195. Jellybeans October 3, 2013 at 2:56 pm #

    SEE THIS ON QUI TAM LYNN
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-zombeck/lynn-szymoniak_b_4033877.html#postComment

  196. sandiegan October 25, 2013 at 2:07 pm #

    ATTORNEY MICHAEL PINES PUTS OUT REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO ENLIST THE CFPB WITH THIS MATTER—

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/179052874/ATTORNEY-MICHAEL-PINES-REQUESTS-SUPPORT-TO-ENLIST-CFPB-TO-INTERVENE-AND-OR-FILE-AMICUS-ATTORNEYS-AND-OTHERS-NEEDED-TO-SUPPORT-THIS-HANDY-TEMPLATE

  197. Rebecca December 8, 2013 at 6:08 pm #

    I’m restricted onto your site(
    Hey will I ever find a place to call home again like we had?
    God help me three years put out to pasture at 53 almost 56 years old single woman who had their home stole out from under after 22 years.
    They put me out to pasture and left me out here. It’s sad
    Fraud foreclosure all the way only justice was to of been served. Only this is the justice America gave me homeless living in out of my car. With angel my service dog
    Torn my family apart
    Destroyed me. I’m lost displaced. God please pray for myself and family
    Thank you
    Rebecca
    Ps my emails are all filled with make money on line I never Got a penny(
    How dare they ?

  198. Jellybeans December 13, 2013 at 8:53 am #

    check out this ruling of dec 2013 –a demurrer defeat for Deutsche Bank National Trust

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/191332177/Dec-2013-Lucas-vs-Meridian-Foreclosure-Service-Ruling-on-Demurrer-GLASKI-WIN-Copy

  199. Jellybeans December 17, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

    THERE ARE STILL SOME HOMEOWNERS FIGHTING UP IN THE DELAWARE BANKRUPTCY OF NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123 CORPORATION. THIS WAS FILED DEC 2013

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/192171940/RICO-WHAT-IS-GOING-ON-IN-THE-DELAWARE-BANKRUPTCY-COURT-A-COVER-UP

    EXHIBITS TO THE ADVERSARY PROCEEDING

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/192174131/RICO-in-the-Delaware-Bankruptcy-Court-EXHIBITS-TO-THE-WHITE-ADVERSARY-PROCEEDING-FILED-DEC-2013

  200. Jellybeans December 19, 2013 at 12:24 pm #

    BIG DECEMBER 2013 OCWEN SETTLEMENT FOR 2.1 BILLION

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/192588188/BILLION-DOLLARS-SETTLEMENT-WITH-OCWEN-DEC-2013-KAMALA-HARRIS-CALIFORNIA-AG-NEGOTIATED-2-1-BILLION

  201. Jellybeans December 27, 2013 at 8:29 am #

    SEE WHAT THIS PERSON IS DOING TO EXPOSE THE INVESTMENT SCAM!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/15859082/INVESTMENT-SCAMATTENTION-PENSION-FUNDS-AND-INVESTORS

  202. Jellybeans January 15, 2014 at 3:20 pm #

    CHECK THIS OUT. KAMALA HARRIS -AG OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA- MAKES BIG ARRESTS INCLUDING TWO ATTORNEYS -
    FILINGS OF FALSE COURT DOCUMENTS AND FALSE DOCUMENTS FOR RECORDING!

    WHY ARE THE BANKS GETTING AWAY WITH IT?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/199974623/FELONY-COMPLAINT-AGAINST-CALIF-ATTORNEYS-WHO-FILED-FALSE-RECORDINGS-AND-FALSE-COURT-DOCUMENTS-JAN-2014-FROM-AG-KAMALA-HARRIS-FORECLOSURE-FRAUD-TASK

  203. Jellybeans January 15, 2014 at 3:47 pm #

    ON JAN. 10 2014 THERE BECAME EFFECTIVE NEW LAWS REGARDING THE QWR or Qualified Written Request

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/197864336/2014-TEMPLATE-FOR-NEW-QWR-UNDER-DODD-FRANK-MORTGAGE-REFORM-QUALIFIED-WRITTEN-REQUEST-TILA

  204. Jellybeans January 16, 2014 at 4:44 pm #

    CAL WESTERN RECONVEYANCE AND ITS PARENT COMPANY FILED FOR CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY IN DELAWARE–THIS IS THE LIQUIDATION PLAN. CAL WESTERN RECONVEYANCE PROCESSES THOUSANDS OF NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURES IN CALIFORNIA.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/200263443/CAL-WESTERN-RECONVEYANCE-AND-IT-S-PARENT-COMPANY-PROMMIS-SOLUTIONS-HAVE-FILED-BANKRUPTCY-IN-DELAWARE-THIS-IS-THE-LIQUIDATION-PLAN

  205. Jellybeans January 17, 2014 at 10:04 am #

    DEAD BODY FOUND PADLOCKED IN HOME – IT WAS A BANK OWNED HOME AND THE BUYER DISCOVERED THE DEAD BODY — MAJOR NETWORKS IGNORING STORY –PERSON DECEASED MAYBE 3-4 WEEKS!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/200412922/DEAD-BODY-PADLOCKED-IN-BANK-OWNED-HOUSE-WHICH-SOLD-TO-UNWITTING-BUYER-BREAKING-NEWS-JAN-2014

  206. Jellybeans January 31, 2014 at 5:45 pm #

    REASSIGNMENT ORDER OF THE NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123 CORPORATION BANKRUPTCY IN DELAWARE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/203778041/REASSIGNMENT-ORDER-OF-THE-NEW-CENTURY-BANKRUPTCY-CASE-JAN-2014

  207. Jellybeans February 13, 2014 at 10:04 am #

    NEW CLASS CERTIFICATION–RECORDER OF DEEDS GOES AFTER MERS, MERSCORP (see two parts)

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/206969835/RECORDER-OF-DEEDS-GOES-AFTER-MERS-CLASS-ACTION-CERTIFIED-FEB-2014

  208. Jellybeans February 13, 2014 at 10:08 am #

    JUDGE RULES 4 YEAR OLD FORECLOSURE SALE IS VOID AND IS TO BE SET ASIDE—BOA AND MERS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/206974543/4-YEARS-LATER-FORECLOSURE-SALE-IS-VOIDED-BY-JUDGE-WHO-SAYS-FORECLOSURE-WAS-UNCONSTITUTIONAL-FEB-2014

  209. Jellybeans February 13, 2014 at 10:37 am #

    LAWSUIT AGAINST DOJ REGARDING THE $13 BILLION DOLLAR SETTLEMENT WITH CHASE

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/206981116/LAWSUIT-AGAINST-THE-DOJ-REGARDING-THE-13-BILLION-DOLLAR-SETTLEMENT-WITH-CHASE-FEB-2014-BETTER-MARKETS-SUES-DEPT-OF-JUSTICE

  210. Jellybeans February 14, 2014 at 1:53 pm #

    NONE OF THE BANKS EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES STANDING TO FORECLOSE–SO SAYS THE COURT!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/207197473/Bank-of-New-York-v-Romero-N-M-2014-REMAND-BACK-TO-DISTRICT-COURT-WITH-INSTRUCTIONS-TO-VACATE-ITS-JUDGMENT-OF-FORECLOSURE-2014-AND-CITES-NON

  211. Jellybeans February 14, 2014 at 2:16 pm #

    VALENTINES DAY WIN FOR HOMEOWNER AGAINST ONE WEST

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/207201121/VALENTINE-S-DAY-SURPRISE-A-WIN-FOR-BRUCE-IN-COLORADO-ORDER-FOR-DISMISSAL-2014

  212. Jellybeans February 26, 2014 at 5:15 pm #

    CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT JUST DENIED THE DEPUBLICATION REQUEST FOR THE GLASKI CASE!

    http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2058168&doc_no=S213814

  213. ABBY IN CA March 27, 2014 at 2:03 pm #

    VERY IMPORTANT NINTH CIRCUIT APPEAL MEMORANDUM–MARCH 2014–GOOD NEWS FOR HOMEOWNER–LIBOR

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/214941069/CALIFORNIA-HOMEOWNER-HELEN-GALOPE-AND-HER-ATTORNEY-GOT-GOOD-NEWS-FROM-THE-NINTH-CIRCUIT-COURT-OF-APPEALS-MARCH-2014-REVERSED-IN-PART-AND-REMANDED-LIBO

  214. ABBY IN CA April 3, 2014 at 1:31 pm #

    Helen’s case involved not only LIBOR manipulation, but violation of bankruptcy stay and also a failed loan mod—–

    The filed Appellant Reply Brief in the Helen Galope ‘LIBOR” case. Filed in 9th Circuit. see my prior post for the Memorandum Opinion.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/216205520/the-Helen-Galope-9th-Circuit-filed-Appellant-Reply-Brief-case-12-56892

  215. ABBY IN CA April 4, 2014 at 10:08 am #

    HELEN GALOPE HOMEOWNER WINNER! HERE IS THE OPENING NINTH CIRCUIT OPENING APPELLANT BRIEF!
    REFERS TO THE MARCH 27, 2014 MEMORANDUM OPINION BELOW

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/216355121/Homeowner-Helen-Galope-s-Opening-Appellant-Brief-in-9th-Circuit-regarding-the-LIBOR-class-action-case

    THE GOOD NEWS MEMORANDUM OPINION!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/214941069/CALIFORNIA-HOMEOWNER-HELEN-GALOPE-AND-HER-ATTORNEY-GOT-GOOD-NEWS-FROM-THE-NINTH-CIRCUIT-COURT-OF-APPEALS-MARCH-2014-REVERSED-IN-PART-AND-REMANDED-LIBO

    ALL SHOULD READ THEIR LOAN DOCS TO SEE IF LIBOR WAS USED–THEN CHECK WITH YOUR ATTORNEY TO SEE WHAT IS NEXT STEP REGARDING ANY LIBOR MANIPULATION RELATED TO YOUR MATTER

  216. ABBY IN CA April 4, 2014 at 10:37 am #

    check out the loan modification expert witness analysis filed in the Helen Galope federal case—–

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/216361275/Analysis-by-Bernard-Patterson-on-Loan-ModIfications-in-the-Helen-Galope-case

  217. ABBY IN CA April 10, 2014 at 1:22 pm #

    ATTORNEY WHO GOT THE GOOD RULING FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE GALOPE MATTER DEMANDS RETRACTION FROM LEXIS NEXIS!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/217537345/ATTORNEY-ALBERT-DEMANDS-RETRACTION-FROM-LEXIS-NEXIS-ABOUT-THE-HELEN-GALOPE-DEICISON-WHICH-WAS-FAVORABLE-FOR-THE-HOMEOWNER

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. You are not in default. Freddie Mac is making your payments! Home Solution Counselors - Loss Mitigation and Real Estate Short Sale Experts Home Solution Counselors - May 7, 2010

    [...] Timothy McCandless Esq. @ http://timothymccandless.wordpress.com/about/ [...]

  2. BOA ACT 91 sent old version can I use this against them? - December 7, 2010

    [...] [...]

  3. No Income, Can't Mod, How To Fight Wachovia FC In Court? - December 9, 2010

    [...] [...]

  4. About Timothy McCandless Esq. « Timothymccandless’s Weblog | Four Blue Hills (A repository, of sorts) - March 12, 2012

    [...] About Timothy McCandless Esq. « Timothymccandless’s Weblog Posted on March 12, 2012 About Timothy McCandless Esq. « Timothymccandless’s Weblog. [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 691 other followers

%d bloggers like this: