Karen Nevis a fine watercolor artist sent me a copy of her Brown Pelicans at harbor. They used to be endangered but are now making a comeback. How defenseless is a pelican? What could it have done to preserve itself or change its decline. It took the mercy of a superior being to preserve it. I wonder why we have become so proud that unlike this pelican we believe we can make that change. Michael Jackson had 50 booked concerts. He was unable to change his circumstance. My faith has been ridiculed but my hope in the mercy of a superior being will net a positive result. I may not be as stupid as a pelican but I hope I can be that wise.
I haven't seen a real pelican in quite some time but Karen's representation is enough to appreciate God's majestic creation. How can one not look at a creature like this and garner hope from the power, mercy and creative intellect that fashioned it. Thank you God and thank you Karen for this brief but important pelican truth. Surely if God can arrange for a pelican comeback a Dorean comeback is surely in the making.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
Number of bank failures this year: 81 and counting.
Last week, regulators closed 4 banks, bringing the number of bank failures to 81 so far this year. The banks which were shut down are Guaranty Financial Group of Austin, Texas, with deposits of $12 billion; CapitalSouth Bank of Birmingham, Alabama, which had $546 million of deposits, First Coweta of Newnan, Georgia, which had $155 million of deposits, and ebank of Georgia, which had deposits of $111 million. Guaranty's failure is the eleventh largest in U.S. history. Amid recession and a rise in delinquent loans, the number of bank failures has been rising, from 3 in 2007 to 25 in 2008, to 81 so far this year.
Richard Bove of Rochdale Securities says another 200 banks could fail in the current banking crisis. "The difficulty at the moment is finding enough healthy banks to buy the failing banks," says Bove. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which has already taken a significant hit, may have to look at additional sources of revenues such as special assessment levies. Bove said these assessments could total $11 billion in 2010, on top of the same amount of regular assessments. "FDIC premiums could be 25 percent of the industry's pretax income," said Bove.
Notarial Dissent says:
Comes now the Bilge Report for April 10, 2008
usual Kurt blather
A short time ago I offered you the legal challenge.
Actually, it was more in the line of a good belly laugh.
more Kurt blather
That is why he could only give me 20 years on count 1; conspiracy.
Sure Kurt, since that was the maximum that was allowed, that was all they could give you.
I really am impressed, you are making even less sense than usual...
_______________________________
Maximum amount time allowed? No, ND, you are the one AS USUAL, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE YOU RETARD:
http://www.mortgagefraud.org/journal/2005/9/29/dorean-group-principles-indicted.html
The maximum statutory penalty for each count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and affecting a financial institution is 30 years imprisonment and a fine of $1,000,000, plus restitution. The maximum statutory penalty for each count of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 is 30 years imprisonment and a fine of $1,000,000, plus restitution. The maximum statutory penalty for each count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 is 30 years imprisonment and a fine of $1,000,000, plus restitution. However, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
The last link got cut off, this should give you the full link:
http://www.mortgagefraud.org/
journal/2005/9/29/dorean-
group-principles-indicted
.html
Now we're all laughing at you
Notarial Dissent, and it's a real belly laugh, AS YOU SAY, to say the least.
Trying to be an expert on everything just doesn't work. LOL
Pelican's he is lecturing on pelican's. He is now proven nuts. This is the man that people trust with their mortgages? The man who spouts out drivel about Jesus all the time. Maybe prison is the wrong institution for him.
Mortgage Free said: "He is now proven nuts. This is the man that people trust with their mortgages?"
________________________________
First of all, you aren't a psychiatrist, so your opinions mean nothing. Anyway Kurt & Scott were proved to be sane by the Court, by a real psychiatrist, or have you forgotten that fact? LOL
Mortgage Free, unfortunately truths are wasted on you since you have the inability to rely on a higher power to preserve your best interests, or teach you something important, just as the pelicans did.
Course what kind of stupid comment can we expect from you when you don't even believe in Jesus, your creator, when you pretend to believe in God, but know nothing about him & don't even know his real Son.
Does that mean you should be put in an institution due to your own spiritual ignorance? Mortgage Free, you are without hope or mercy so in all fairness, should that same standard that you use & judge others by, also be shown to you too? Is that how you want others to view and treat you? The Jesus you belittle, and don't even know, will be your Judge, how's that for irony? LOL
I can see you at the final judgment saying, "but I thought you were just a mortal man with no significance" to my life.
Jesus spoke in parables & used animals such as birds & foxes in his stories, yet he was a Rabi, as you called him, or a great teacher. Are you going to make the leap & call Jesus a nut too? Why not offend all Christians on this blog? You certainly have not said anything constructive on this blog.
Who are you anyway? You obviously hold a grudge.
has anynone bother to listen to the TNP audios that were put up on the last blog entry??????
Jesus was the creator? Born around the year 0? Wow the earth hasn't been around long. God was the creator.Jesus was a man You probably don't even believe in evolution.
SOP. I tried that link and was unable to bring it up.
i just tried the links that i had put down, and they worked.
do you have quicktime player on your cmputer?
thats what seems to play the links.
download or stream from quicktime player
each hour is broken into 2 parts
aug 16 1st hour parts I & II
part 1 1st hour
http://www.commonlawvenue.net/main/Audio/SamKennedy/2009/08-August/SK-081609-1.mp3
part 2 1st hour
http://www.commonlawvenue.net/main/Audio/SamKennedy/2009/08-August/SK-081609-2.mp3
2nd hour parts I & II
part 1 2nd hour
http://www.commonlawvenue.net/main/Audio/SamKennedy/2009/08-August/SK-081609e1.mp3
part 2 2nd hour
http://www.commonlawvenue.net/main/Audio/SamKennedy/2009/08-August/SK-081609e2.mp3
the ohter way to do it is maybe you have windows medai player.
in that case, go to:
http://www.commonlawvenue.net/main/Audio/SamKennedy.htm
then just right click on the links and "save as" and download for windows media player.
just make surte that you download all 4 links as they are broken up as the show is 2 hours long.
this past sundays show is also a blockbuster if you care to listen.
WOW. That's what happens when Billy's not available. Wonder if this Judge gets "early" retirement.
Federal Reserve loses suit demanding transparency
Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:39pm EDT
NEW YORK (Reuters) – A federal judge on Monday ruled against an effort by the U.S. Federal Reserve to block disclosure of companies that participated in and securities covered by a series of emergency funding programs as the global credit crisis began to intensify. In a 47-page opinion, Chief District Judge Loretta Preska of the federal court in Manhattan said the central bank failed to show that disclosure would cause borrowers in the Federal Reserve System to suffer "imminent competitive harm," by stigmatizing them for using Fed lending programs.
"The board essentially speculates on how a borrower might enter a downward spiral of financial instability if its participation in the Federal Reserve lending programs were to be disclosed," she wrote. "Conjecture, without evidence of imminent harm, simply fails to meet the board’s burden."
Monday’s ruling comes as lawmakers and investors demand greater disclosure in how the government manages a series of programs designed to lift the economy out of its deepest recession in decades. The case arose when two Bloomberg News reporters submitted requests under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) about actions the Fed took to shore up the financial system in 2007 and early 2008, including an expansion of lending programs and the sale of Bear Stearns Cos to JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N).
Mortgage Free said: Jesus was the creator? Born around the year 0? Wow the earth hasn't been around long.
___________________________________
Jesus as a PREMORTAL SPIRIT created the earth & everything in it. Read the first book of Genesis. There are TWO creations mentioned in two separate chapters. First a spiritual creation of all things. Then, a physical creation of all things.
You are only talking about the physical creation when you say Jesus was a man & born in the year 0. Jesus lived AS A SPIRIT before he was physically born. Jesus was God before he was born.
You criticize Biblical teachings only because you don't read them, or understand what is being taught.
WHERE’S THE NOTE, WHO’S THE HOLDER: ENFORCEMENT OF PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY REAL ESTATE
HON. SAMUEL L. BUFFORD
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
(FORMERLY HON.) R. GLEN AYERS
LANGLEY & BANACK
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY INSTUTUTE
APRIL 3, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C.
WHERE’S THE NOTE, WHO’S THE HOLDER
INTRODUCTION
In an era where a very large portion of mortgage obligations have been securitized, by assignment to a trust indenture trustee, with the resulting pool of assets being then sold as mortgage backed securities, foreclosure becomes an interesting exercise, particularly where judicial process is involved. We are all familiar with the securitization process. The steps, if not the process, is simple. A borrower goes to a mortgage lender. The lender finances the purchase of real estate. The borrower signs a note and mortgage or deed of trust. The original lender sells the note and assigns the mortgage to an entity that securitizes the note by combining the note with hundreds or thousands of similar obligation to create a package of mortgage backed securities, which are then sold to investors.
Unfortunately, unless you represent borrowers, the vast flow of notes into the maw of the securitization industry meant that a lot of mistakes were made. When the borrower defaults, the party seeking to enforce the obligation and foreclose on the underlying collateral sometimes cannot find the note. A lawyer sophisticated in this area has speculated to one of the authors that perhaps a third of the notes “securitized” have been lost or destroyed. The cases we are going to look at reflect the stark fact that the unnamed source’s speculation may be well-founded.
UCC SECTION 3-309
If the issue were as simple as a missing note, UCC §3-309 would provide a simple solution. A person entitled to enforce an instrument which has been lost, destroyed or stolen may enforce the instrument. If the court is concerned that some third party may show up and attempt to enforce the instrument against the payee, it may order adequate protection. But, and however, a person seeking to enforce a missing instrument must be a person entitled to enforce the instrument, and that person must prove the instrument’s terms and that person’s right to enforce the instrument. §3-309 (a)(1) & (b).
WHO’S THE HOLDER
Enforcement of a note always requires that the person seeking to collect show that it is the holder. A holder is an entity that has acquired the note either as the original payor or transfer by endorsement of order paper or physical possession of bearer paper. These requirements are set out in Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted in every state, including Louisiana, and in the District of Columbia. Even in bankruptcy proceedings, State substantive law controls the rights of note and lien holders, as the Supreme Court pointed out almost forty (40) years ago in United States v. Butner, 440 U.S. 48, 54-55 (1979).
However, as Judge Bufford has recently illustrated, in one of the cases discussed below, in the bankruptcy and other federal courts, procedure is governed by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy and Civil Procedure. And, procedure may just have an impact on the issue of “who,” because, if the holder is unknown, pleading and standing issues arise.
BRIEF REVIEW OF UCC PROVISIONS
Article 3 governs negotiable instruments – it defines what a negotiable instrument is and defines how ownership of those pieces of paper is transferred. For the precise definition, see § 3-104(a) (“an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest . . . .”) The instrument may be either payable to order or bearer and payable on demand or at a definite time, with or without interest.
Ordinary negotiable instruments include notes and drafts (a check is a draft drawn on a bank). See § 3-104(e).
Negotiable paper is transferred from the original payor by negotiation. §3-301. “Order paper” must be endorsed; bearer paper need only be delivered. §3-305. However, in either case, for the note to be enforced, the person who asserts the status of the holder must be in possession of the instrument. See UCC § 1-201 (20) and comments.
The original and subsequent transferees are referred to as holders. Holders who take with no notice of defect or default are called “holders in due course,” and take free of many defenses. See §§ 3-305(b).
The UCC says that a payment to a party “entitled to enforce the instrument” is sufficient to extinguish the obligation of the person obligated on the instrument. Clearly, then, only a holder – a person in possession of a note endorsed to it or a holder of bearer paper – may seek satisfaction or enforce rights in collateral such as real estate.
NOTE: Those of us who went through the bank and savings and loan collapse of the 1980’s are familiar with these problems. The FDIC/FSLIC/RTC sold millions of notes secured and unsecured, in bulk transactions. Some notes could not be found and enforcement sometimes became a problem. Of course, sometimes we are forced to repeat history. For a recent FDIC case, see Liberty Savings Bank v. Redus, 2009 WL 41857 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.), January 8, 2009.
THE RULES
Judge Bufford addressed the rules issue this past year. See In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 (Bankr. C. D. Cal. 2008). First, there are the pleading problems that arise when the holder of the note is unknown. Typically, the issue will arise in a motion for relief from stay in a bankruptcy proceeding.
According F.R.Civ. Pro. 17, “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” This rule is incorporated into the rules governing bankruptcy procedure in several ways. As Judge Bufford has pointed out, for example, in a motion for relief from stay, filed under F.R.Bankr.Pro. 4001 is a contested matter, governed by F. R. Bankr. P. 9014, which makes F.R. Bankr. Pro. 7017 applicable to such motions. F.R. Bankr. P. 7017 is, of course, a restatement of F.R. Civ. P. 17. In re Hwang, 396 B.R. at 766. The real party in interest in a federal action to enforce a note, whether in bankruptcy court or federal district court, is the owner of a note. (In securitization transactions, this would be the trustee for the “certificate holders.”) When the actual holder of the note is unknown, it is impossible – not difficult but impossible – to plead a cause of action in a federal court (unless the movant simply lies about the ownership of the note). Unless the name of the actual note holder can be stated, the very pleadings are defective.
STANDING
Often, the servicing agent for the loan will appear to enforce the note. Assume that the servicing agent states that it is the authorized agent of the note holder, which is “Trust Number 99.” The servicing agent is certainly a party in interest, since a party in interest in a bankruptcy court is a very broad term or concept. See, e.g., Greer v. O’Dell, 305 F.3d 1297, 1302-03 (11th Cir. 2002). However, the servicing agent may not have standing: “Federal Courts have only the power authorized by Article III of the Constitutions and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto. ... [A] plaintiff must have Constitutional standing in order for a federal court to have jurisdiction.” In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F.Supp. 3d 650, 653 (S.D. Ohio, 2007) (citations omitted).
But, the servicing agent does not have standing, for only a person who is the holder of the note has standing to enforce the note. See, e.g., In re Hwang, 2008 WL 4899273 at 8.
The servicing agent may have standing if acting as an agent for the holder, assuming that the agent can both show agency status and that the principle is the holder. See, e.g., In re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008) at 520.
A BRIEF ASIDE: WHO IS MERS?
For those of you who are not familiar with the entity known as MERS, a frequent participant in these foreclosure proceedings:
MERS is the “Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. “MERS is a mortgage banking ‘utility’ that registers mortgage loans in a book entry system so that ... real estate loans can be bought, sold and securitized, just like Wall Street’s book entry utility for stocks and bonds is the Depository Trust and Clearinghouse.” Bastian, “Foreclosure Forms”, State. Bar of Texas 17th Annual Advanced Real Estate Drafting Course, March 9-10, 2007, Dallas, Texas. MERS is enormous. It originates thousands of loans daily and is the mortgagee of record for at least 40 million mortgages and other security documents. Id.
MERS acts as agent for the owner of the note. Its authority to act should be shown by an agency agreement. Of course, if the owner is unknown, MERS cannot show that it is an authorized agent of the owner.
RULES OF EVIDENCE – A PRACTICAL PROBLEM
This structure also possesses practical evidentiary problems where the party asserting a right to foreclose must be able to show a default. Once again, Judge Bufford has addressed this issue. At In re Vargas, 396 B.R. at 517-19. Judge Bufford made a finding that the witness called to testify as to debt and default was incompetent. All the witness could testify was that he had looked at the MERS computerized records. The witness was unable to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 803, as applied to computerized records in the Ninth Circuit. See id. at 517-20. The low level employee could really only testify that the MERS screen shot he reviewed reflected a default. That really is not much in the way of evidence, and not nearly enough to get around the hearsay rule.
FORECLOSURE OR RELIEF FROM STAY
In a foreclosure proceeding in a judicial foreclosure state, or a request for injunctive relief in a non-judicial foreclosure state, or in a motion for relief proceeding in a bankruptcy court, the courts are dealing with and writing about the problems very frequently.
In many if not almost all cases, the party seeking to exercise the rights of the creditor will be a servicing company. Servicing companies will be asserting the rights of their alleged principal, the note holder, which is, again, often going to be a trustee for a securitization package. The mortgage holder or beneficiary under the deed of trust will, again, very often be MERS.
Even before reaching the practical problem of debt and default, mentioned above, the moving party must show that it holds the note or (1) that it is an agent of the holder and that (2) the holder remains the holder. In addition, the owner of the note, if different from the holder, must join in the motion.
Some states, like Texas, have passed statutes that allow servicing companies to act in foreclosure proceedings as a statutorily recognized agent of the noteholder. See, e.g., Tex. Prop. Code §51.0001. However, that statute refers to the servicer as the last entity to whom the debtor has been instructed to make payments. This status is certainly open to challenge. The statute certainly provides nothing more than prima facie evidence of the ability of the servicer to act. If challenged, the servicing agent must show that the last entity to communicate instructions to the debtor is still the holder of the note. See, e.g., HSBC Bank, N.A. v. Valentin, 2l N.Y. Misc. 3d 1123(A), 2008 WL 4764816 (Table) (N.Y. Sup.), Nov. 3, 2008. In addition, such a statute does not control in federal court where Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 and 19 (and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7017 and 7019) apply.
SOME RECENT CASE LAW
These cases are arranged by state, for no particular reason.
Massachusetts, In re Schwartz, 366 B.R.265 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2007)
Schwartz concerns a Motion for Relief to pursue an eviction. Movant asserted that the property had been foreclosed upon prior to the date of the bankruptcy petition. The pro se debtor asserted that the Movant was required to show that it had authority to conduct the sale. Movant, and “the party which appears to be the current mortgagee…” provided documents for the court to review, but did not ask for an evidentiary hearing. Judge Rosenthal sifted through the documents and found that the Movant and the current mortgagee had failed to prove that the foreclosure was properly conducted.
Specifically, Judge Rosenthal found that there was no evidence of a proper assignment of the mortgage prior to foreclosure. However, at footnote 5, Id. at 268, the Court also finds that there is no evidence that the note itself was assigned and no evidence as to who the current holder might be.
Nosek v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company (In re Nosek), 286 Br. 374 (Bankr D Mass. 2008).
Almost a year to the day after Schwartz was signed, Judge Rosenthal issued a second opinion. This is an opinion on an order to show cause. Judge Rosenthal specifically found that, although the note and mortgage involved in the case had been transferred from the originator to another party within five days of closing, during the five years in which the chapter 13 proceeding was pending, the note and mortgage and associated claims had been prosecuted by Ameriquest which has represented itself to be the holder of the note and the mortgage. Not until September of 2007 did Ameriquest notify the Court that it was merely the servicer. In fact, only after the chapter 13 bankruptcy had been pending for about three years was there even an assignment of the servicing rights. Id. at 378.
Because these misrepresentations were not simple mistakes: as the Court has noted on more than one occasion, those parties who do not hold the note of mortgage do not service the mortgage do not have standing to pursue motions for leave or other actions arising form the mortgage obligation. Id at 380.
As a result, the Court sanctioned the local law firm that had been prosecuting the claim $25,000. It sanctioned a partner at that firm an additional $25,000. Then the Court sanctioned the national law firm involved $100,000 and ultimately sanctioned Wells Fargo $250,000. Id. at 382-386.
In re Hayes, 393 B.R. 259 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008).
Like Judge Rosenthal, Judge Feeney has attacked the problem of standing and authority head on. She has also held that standing must be established before either a claim can be allowed or a motion for relief be granted.
Ohio
In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F.Supp. 2d (S.D. Ohio 2007).
Perhaps the District Court’s orders in the foreclosure cases in Ohio have received the most press of any of these opinions. Relying almost exclusively on standing, the Judge Rose has determined that a foreclosing party must show standing. “[I]n a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must show that it is the holder of the note and the mortgage at the time that the complaint was filed.” Id. at 653.
Judge Rose instructed the parties involved that the willful failure of the movants to comply with the general orders of the Court would in the future result in immediate dismissal of foreclosure actions.
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Steele, 2008 WL 111227 (S.D. Ohio) January 8, 2008.
In Steele, Judge Abel followed the lead of Judge Rose and found that Deutsche Bank had filed evidence in support of its motion for default judgment indicating that MERS was the mortgage holder. There was not sufficient evidence to support the claim that Deutsche Bank was the owner and holder of the note as of that date. Following In re Foreclosure Cases, 2007 WL 456586, the Court held that summary judgment would be denied “until such time as Deutsche Bank was able to offer evidence showing, by a preponderance of evidence, that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed.” 2008 WL 111227 at 2. Deutsche Bank was given twenty-one days to comply. Id.
Illinois
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Cook, 2009 WL 35286 (N.D. Ill. January 6, 2009).
Not all federal district judges are as concerned with the issues surrounding the transfer of notes and mortgages. Cook is a very pro lender case and, in an order granting a motion for summary judgment, the Court found that Cook had shown no “countervailing evidence to create a genuine issue of facts.” Id. at 3. In fact, a review of the evidence submitted by U.S. Bank showed only that it was the alleged trustee of the securitization pool. U.S. Bank relied exclusively on the “pooling and serving agreement” to show that it was the holder of the note. Id.
Under UCC Article 3, the evidence presented in Cook was clearly insufficient.
New York
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Valentin, 21 Misc. 3D 1124(A), 2008 WL 4764816 (Table) (N.Y. Sup.) November 3, 2008. In Valentin, the New York court found that, even though given an opportunity to, HSBC did not show the ownership of debt and mortgage. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice and the “notice of pendency” against the property was cancelled.
Note that the Valentin case does not involve some sort of ambush. The Court gave every HSBC every opportunity to cure the defects the Court perceived in the pleadings.
California
In re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008)
and
In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008)
These two opinions by Judge Bufford have been discussed above. Judge Bufford carefully explores the related issues of standing and ownership under both federal and California law.
Texas
In re Parsley, 384 B.R. 138 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2008)
and
In re Gilbreath, 395 B.R. 356 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2008)
These two recent opinions by Judge Jeff Bohm are not really on point, but illustrate another thread of cases running through the issues of motions for relief from stay in bankruptcy court and the sloppiness of loan servicing agencies. Both of these cases involve motions for relief that were not based upon fact but upon mistakes by servicing agencies. Both opinions deal with the issue of sanctions and, put simply, both cases illustrate that Judge Bohm (and perhaps other members of the bankruptcy bench in the Southern District of Texas) are going to be very strict about motions for relief in consumer cases.
SUMMARY
The cases cited illustrate enormous problems in the loan servicing industry. These problems arise in the context of securitization and illustrate the difficulty of determining the name of the holder, the assignee of the mortgage, and the parties with both the legal right under Article 3 and the standing under the Constitution to enforce notes, whether in state court or federal court.
Interestingly, with the exception of Judge Bufford and a few other judges, there has been less than adequate focus upon the UCC title issues. The next round of cases may and should focus upon the title to debt instrument. The person seeking to enforce the note must show that:
(1) It is the holder of this note original by transfer, with all necessary rounds;
(2) It had possession of the note before it was lost;
(3) If it can show that title to the note runs to it, but the original is lost or destroyed, the holder must be prepared to post a bond;
(4) If the person seeking to enforce is an agent, it must show its agency status and that its principal is the holder of the note (and meets the above requirements).
Then, and only then, do the issues of evidence of debt and default and assignment of mortgage rights become relevant.
This type of evidence needed THAT THE COURTS HAVE RULED ALREADY IN MANY STATES IS PARAMOUNT, was not shown TO THE CA DISTRICT COURT that the banks/lenders had standing to be the victims in the dorean criminal trial.
There can't be any mail fraud without a foundation of all of things mentioned in the previous posts, such as possession of the original notes, a proper chain of title showing the lender had standing to even be a victim, etc. All of this paperwork was assumed to be in order by the Judge & Jury, but never produced.
All of the paperwork in the presentment was geared towards the clients interests & showing that the banks were the one's commiting fraud against the client, so it's silly to say that the clients were victims of mail fraud by the Dorean Group.
In essence Kurt & Scott were convicted with LACK OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE NEEDED TO PROPERLY CONVICT, so there is a need in the name of justice to reverse the convictions.
still noone listen to dr. sam audio b/casts yet?
ho can yo take anynone sirius on dis blaaaaaaagh then?
then this blaagh is just all bla...bla....bla....bla....bla....bla...bla...bla...blaaaagh.....
Moge apparently you believe everything you read. The new testament has writings that were written 100's of years after Jesus died. Many writings of the day were left out because it didn't fit in with what the church wanted you to know.Thus Mary Magdalen was portrayed as a prostitute to keep women in their place and Jews were actually blamed for killing Jesus rather than the Roman's You think that mortgage companies were a scam, the church had them beat over a millennium ago. The ten commandments say not to prey to any other Gods but the lord and you are doing that. Jesus was historically a great man but a God?
"trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table..."
Barney Frank
Moge apparently you believe everything you read.
APPARENTLY I DON'T SINCE I DON'T BELIEVE HALF OF WHAT YOU SAY.
The new testament has writings that were written 100's of years after Jesus died. Many writings of the day were left out because it didn't fit in with what the church wanted you to know.Thus Mary Magdalen was portrayed as a prostitute to keep women in their place
AGREED, SO WHAT?
and Jews were actually blamed for killing Jesus rather than the Roman's
THE JEWS COULD HAVE SET HIM FREE BUT THEY ASKED THAT BARRABUS BE FREED INSTEAD, SO THEY SHARE IN THE BLAME.
You think that mortgage companies were a scam, the church had them beat over a millennium ago.
AGREED THERE TOO.
The ten commandments say not to prey to any other Gods but the lord and you are doing that.
NO, I DON'T PRAY TO JESUS. THAT'S NOT WHAT JESUS TAUGHT. I PRAY TO JESUS'S FATHER, WHO IS OUR HEAVENLY FATHER, THE SPIRIT FATHER OF US ALL, THE HIGHEST GOD, SO YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN.
Jesus was historically a great man but a God?
JESUS TAUGHT HE WAS A GOD. YOU EITHER BELIEVE HIM OR YOU DON'T. YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE THE THINGS HE SAID.
1. Only a God could resurrect himself.
2. Only a God could have power over life & death. Only a God could choose to live or die, but chose to die for all sin & be crucified on the cross. Only a God could have endured the physical & spiritual suffering it took to complete the atonement.
3. Jesus's literal father "in the flesh" was God, or Eloheim, "the head of the Gods", so by his divine DNA, he was a God. He is referred to as "the only Begotten of the Father".
4. Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God", referring to his "title" of being a God, and criticized the Jewish people when they thought his statements were blasphemy, citing that their own teachings taught this.
5. Jesus was asked by Pilate if he was a God and had a kingdom. He answered "yes" or "thou sayest" to Pilate, meaning the same thing, or saying, he didn't deny the statement that he stated as a fact.
6. Jesus taught Math 5: 48
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Heavenly Father is perfect".
Jesus would not give a commandment if it wasn't possible to achieve one day, whether in this world or in the next.
A God is a perfect Being.
7. In Genesis, it reads: "Let US make man in OUR own image."
Was God, having a conversation with himself???? I think not. There were other Gods involved in the creation, but Jesus was in charge, under the direction of his Father. Thus, Jesus gets credit for the creation of the world and the heavens.
The Bible is full of teachings about this doctrine: if you are faithful, you will "HAVE ALL THAT THE FATHER HAS, AND BECOME JOINT HEIRS WITH CHRIST."
What do you think a God is?
Most people think that Jesus & the Holy Ghost are different manifestations of the same person, or the Same God: the concept of 1 + 1 +1 = 1. That isn't even good math. Since I don't believe that, nor do I think that is Biblically based, any reasonable way you look at the Trinity, it is 3 separate Gods. "There are THREE that bear record in heaven" the Bible says, not one.
If there is more than 1 God, and the Bible is full of this doctrine, than it isn't unreasonable to believe there is only 1 God. A God is a level of achievement in eternity.
Certainly there is no other God like Heavenly Father, the highest Being, and the only God we should worship or pray to & "there is none else". No one else is like him or ever will be.
Mortgage Free, maybe any writings in the Bible that might suggest otherwise, might support your notion that the original Church, the Catholic Church, changed some of the original teachings that were pure, or changed things that they didn't want the true believers to believe. Certainly the Catholic Church, along with the council at Nicea, wanted it's following to believe in only 1 God & rejected the idea of plurality.
The notion that Mary was a prostitute is ridiculous considering who's mortal mother she was & who she was intrusted with to teach. Even the Kings James version of the Bible doesn't support or prove this in any way, even with the original Church's manipulations or deceits.
GAME.SET.MATCH.
The dollar cannot, and will not remain the primary reserve currency.74 days to go.
PARIS -(Dow Jones)- French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Wednesday that the dollar can’t remain the world’s only reserve currency, as the rise of emerging powers such as China and Russia challenge the U.S.’s prominence.
"The political and economic reality of a multipolar world will have to find sooner or later a translation on the monetary level," Sarkozy told foreign ambassadors, gathered for a yearly reception at the Elysee Palace. "A multipolar world can’t count upon one currency only." Sarkozy also said that he won’t allow the euro to be the only currency to bear the weight of foreign exchange market adjustments as has happened in the past.
There were other Gods involved in the creation, but Jesus was in charge, under the direction of his Father. Thus, Jesus gets credit for the creation of the world and the heavens.
Is this the psalm of moge no one can believe this drivel. There is a higher being that created all of this. He probably is embarrassed anyone could write such a thing.
In all probability he just lets man live on. He has more important things than listening about a son of God and Paul Bunyan another myth.You can't believe stories that were written 100 of years later and only published for the church's benefit. I guess you do.
sop said;
ho can yo take anynone sirius on dis blaaaaaaagh then?
then this blaagh is just all bla...bla....bla....bla....bla....bla...bla
what are the chances of you disappearing again ??? slim to none probly!!! I dont know what rock you were under but it would be nice if it found you again !!!!!
Mortgage Free said: "You can't believe stories that were written 100 of years later and only published for the church's benefit."
______________________________
You don't believe Jesus is the Son of God period irregardless of what era of time that testimony came in. There are testimonies even in the latter days of men seeing Jesus & God, as their were witnesses to jesus's resurrection right after his death. There are accounts of men seeing Jesus as a Spririt even before he was born on this earth that was written down, even before the so called "original church" or Catholic Church was established, so your argument has no merit whatsoever.
Are you saying that you can't even believe Indian stories that are passed down from generation to generation as true? Why study history at all than? There are stories that a great white God appeared on the American continent & that he would one day come back in the latter days. This is in ancient Indian writings. This supports the idea of Jesus as the Christ. The Book of Mormon was history written down as it happened by ancient American prophets. It talks about Jesus visiting the Americas too. The Bible isn't the only witness to his divinity, yet you won't even consider those things.
But you can suredly believe stories that are published as they happen right now like the newspapers? Or are you really just saying you can't believe hardly anything that is past your own thinking?
Obviously you believe that God can't inspire man after so much time has elapsed. Your God you call God, is not even a God of power; he's a joke, no wonder you aren't spiritually minded & lack any hope that Dorean will be successful, however, ironically you are always here.
The Bible was not published for just the "Church's benefit". To you scriptures are a myth & can't be trusted. You have no foundation of truth, your foundation is sand & will never stand the hard days ahead.
You never bother to address the posts I do make, so you are a waste of time too. Your mind is closed. You're like cement, thoroughly mixed up & permanently set. LOL
Is this the psalm of moge no one can believe this drivel.
YET 12 MILLION PEOPLE DO AT LEAST. SO WRONG AGAIN!
There is a higher being that created all of this. He probably is embarrassed anyone could write such a thing.
OH, SO YOU SPEAK FOR HIM NOW? I DIDN'T REALIZE A GOD COULD GET EMBARASSED????? SUCH A REVELATION TO ME. EMBARASSMENT COMES FROM HUMAN WEAKNESS & FRAILITIES, NOT FROM A GOD WHO IS PERFECT! YOU ARE AN IDIOT TRULY!
In all probability he just lets man live on.
YES, A GOD WHO CREATED ALL THINGS & HAS THE IDEA OF "LIVE & LET LIVE" AS IF HE DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN. THAT'S THE GOD OF YOUR IMAGINATION & THE ONE YOU WORSHIP. I WOULD NEVER PRAY TO SOMEONE LIKE THAT, YET IT WAS YOU, THAT BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF PRAYER. HOW INTERESTING. DO YOU PRAY TO A GOD THAT DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN? OBVIOUSLY YOU DO. YOU OBVIOUSLY CARE THAT PEOPLE PRAYER TO THE RIGHT BEING, OTHERWISE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE, YET YOU TALK OF A GOD WHO DOESN'T CARE OR ONE THAT DOESN'T GET INVOLVED WITH MAN, YET YOU SAY HE HAS MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO. YOU'RE THE ONE THAT DESERVES TO BE IN AN INSTITUTION IF YOU BELIEVE HALF OF THE THINGS THAT COMES OUT OF YOUR MOUTH. LOL
He has more important things than listening about a son of God and Paul Bunyan another myth.
OH YEA, YOU'RE RIGHT. HE HAS THINGS TO DO LIKE SPEND THE TIME TO GET EMBARASSED ABOUT HIS CREATIONS. PRAYTELL, WHAT ARE THESE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS HE HAS TO DO? I NEED A GOOD LAUGH TODAY, ONE WHO BELIEVES IN AN APATHETIC GOD, BUT REALLY IS AN ATHEIST AT HEART. REMEMBER, YOU USED THE WORD "PROBABLY", SO YOU MUST KNOW, OR MAYBE YOUR WORDS CAN'T BE TRUSTED BECAUSE THEY WERE WRITTEN DOWN WITH NO REAL THOUGHT IN MIND? COURSE THEY MUST BE MORE RELIABLE THAN THE BIBLE THAT WAS WRITTEN 100 OF YEARS LATER, SO RELIABLE ONE, INSPIRE ME!
Mortgage Free: I never brought up Paul Bunyon. You are the one that brought him up as an irrelevancy. You can't even listen, how sad!!!!
Just admit it, you believe Jesus Christ to be a myth, like Paul Bunyon, but you are concerned that people pray to an apathetic God, rather than a myth, (Jesus), but at the same time, you believe God has better things to do than to answer prayers, so your statements are meaningless from the beginning & should all be ignored by your own admissions.
Why don't you explicitly say what you hope to mean? Are you a "bush beater" too? You like to beat around the bush obviously. You must have flunked logic 101 & English 102. No wonder you have a difficult time expressing what you believe, because most of what you say is an apparent contradiction & a waste of time to listen to.
Go back to the Sesame Street blog where you came from. Go feed Bert a cookie.
Moge... Do you have any Lawyers that do this kind of work you speak about. Did 3 houses with Dorean. Would like to keep them.
Mike Prince:
You can keep your 3 homes even if you are behind on payments. There are loan modifications that you can take out thanks to the Obama administration. The banks gets paid by our government for these loan modification agreements made. You can lower interest rates, for example from 6% to 3%, get back payments put on the back of the loan, reduce principal payments owed, eliminate late charges, & get an affordable payment for you etc. Until our remedies can be had for you, at least this is a short term solution.
There are companies that negotiate all of this with your lender for you for a fee. If you need a referral, I can give you one.
At any rate, communicate with your lender & let them know of your intentions that you intend to get caught up & don't want to lose your homes. Most lenders will work with you.
Post a Comment