Title & Securitization Search Here

. . .
.
.
.

You can pause music below if you want

Law Says The Borrower Does Not Owe The Money If There Is A Break In The Chain of Title

.

Written by John Wright

I was talking to one of my Bank of America executive connections yesterday.  He actually sits around the corporate table with Bank of America’s CEO, Brian Moynihan.  I have actually known him for some time now, but I have agreed to never reveal who he is on my blog.  This is because he says that he actually likes his job there.   Today, as I always do with him, I brought up the fact that the potentially criminal Bank of Living Off America and other potentially criminal banks all together received 7.7 TRILLION DOLLARS in a taxpayer bailout money.

BofA Executive: “Now John Wright, when are you going to stop bringing that bailout stuff up?  We paid that all back with interest!”

John Wright: “Yah, after BofA made interest on it! How about giving the taxpayer money to the homeowner for a change?   We promise to give it back after we make interest on it too!”

That is when he explained to me that Bank of Living Off America never wanted the money in the first place. (Yawn)  Accordng to him, BofA was told that one of the other banks would collapse without it. He said that the government said BofA had to take the bailout money because if they did not take it - - nobody would get the money.  Whatever!  Nobody is ever going to convince me that the government had to twist Bank of Betraying America’s arm to take free money.

.

We eventually got on the subject of the clouded chain of title issue.  I told him that Countrywide Home Loan Inc. might have sold the same loans multiple times concurrently to multiple investors at the same time.  I explained that often the fraudclosing bank is unable to identify the correct investor, because there has been a break in the chain of title, in which the law says the borrower will NO LONGER OWE ANY MONEY ON THE LOAN if there is a break in the chain of title.

U.C.C. provision, U.C.C. §3-305(c): “An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument.”

LEGAL CITATION: U.S.C. §3-203

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE – ARTICLE 3 – NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT

PART 2 – NEGOTIATION, TRANSFER, AND INDORSEMENT

§3-203 – TRANSFER OF INSTRUMENT; RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY TRANSFER.

  • (a) An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument.
  • (b) Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any rights of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due course, but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument.
  1. Presentment may be made at the place of payment of the instrument and must be made at the place of payment if the instrument is payable at a bank in the United States; may be made by any commercially reasonable means, including an oral, written, or electronic communication; is effective when the demand for payment or acceptance is received by the person to whom presentment is made; and is effective if made to any one of two or more makers, acceptors, drawees, or other payors.
  2. Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making presentment must (i) exhibit the instrument, (ii) give reasonable identification and, if presentment is made on behalf of another person, reasonable evidence of authority to do so, and (iii) sign a receipt on the instrument for any payment made or surrender the instrument if full payment is made.

Read Breakdown of Laws:  Click here

.

The BofA executive told me that he actually mentioned what I had said to the other executives sitting around the corporate table one day. He asked the ones in charge of the home loan department if it as true, because he is in charge of a department that has nothing to do with home loans.  He asked them if it was true that there were copies (MERS) of the notes, in which might have caused a situation where the bank is unable to identify the correct beneficiary, because there are multiple trusts with multiple investors.   He said that one of them expressed that it was true that they were dealing with copies.  However, it was expressed that the problem was only isolated to a few.

  • John Wright:  “Yah!  Isolated to not being one of them it happened to!”
  • BofA Executive:  “John, people cannot just get a free house out of this.  They borrowed the money and have to pay it back.”

John Wright:  “Well, maybe you have something there my friend, but neither does it suggest that Bank of Stealing America should get a free house either!  They might have already been paid back by multiple unidentified investors, multiple times, and by credit default swaps and insurance!  A potential insurance fraud!  Then the taxpayer had to bailout AIG! Now they want the homeowner to pay them again?”

BofA Executive: “Well, I am not talking about the law John. I am talking about how I feel about it.”

For the record, it is totally untrue that it is isolated to only a few:

  1. S.F. Audit Uncovers Extensive Flaws in Foreclosures
  2. Click Here For Actual Audit Results
  3. Pelosi, Speier Request DOJ Examination into Possible Violations of Federal Law in S.F. Foreclosures

Nevertheless, I do understand that he represents a large amount of people who feel the same way.  These people believe that the importance of homeowners not getting something for nothing, instead of following the law that says the homeowner does not have to pay if there is a break in the chain of title.  I like to call this Vigilante politics.  There is simply a lot of bank propaganda out there that says things like “Nobody gets a house for free!”  I believe that this is a negative PR driven bank campaign.  Other arms of this campaign are phrases such as “MORAL HAZARD” and “DEADBEAT BORROWER.”   They are simply meant to deflect you from what the real issue is, while the real issue is that Wall Street has blown up our economy while the banks were and are committing potentially irregular, fraudulent and simply unsafe mortgage selling practices.- Supporting Article


.

Why Does Chain of Title Matter?

The chain of title refers to the history of passing of title ownership to real property from the present owner back to the original owner. Chain of title is a complete, accurate, and publicly recorded, history of instruments used to transfer ownership in a piece of property. Chain of title is a homeowners’ ultimate proof of ownership of his/her real property interests. Besides being conclusive proof of ownership, chain of title is the basis for title insurance, mortgage finance, and use of property as collateral for business loans. Moreover, a defective chain of title is unmarketable, meaning that properties with broken chains of title may be un-saleable (or if saleable, defective title may adversely affect the property’s price). – click here

Your question is: “How do I get a title and securitization search done?”

Write John Wright to find out how to get your check done at:  Piggybankblog@earthlink.net

So maybe you had the Golden Lucky Wonka Ticket the whole time:  Click here

All Rise!  The Honorable Judge John Wright has left The Courtroom of Public Opinion!

My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

John’s Daily Blog for updates: Click here

Register to be part of my blog: Click here

. 

.

.
John O’Brien Interview

Coming SoonTo

Piggybankblog

.

John O’Brien is the Southern Essex Country Register of Deeds in Massachusetts, who made national headlines when he refused to record certain post-foreclosure instruments in the absence of a Register’s prescribed Affidavit. This is because Mr. O’Brien believes that a particular instrument may have been ‘robo signed.’ John O’Brien stated: “My registry is a crime scene as evidenced by this forensic examination. This evidence has made it clear to me that the only way we can ever determine the total economic loss and the amount of damage done to the taxpayers is by conducting a full forensic audit of all registry of deeds in Massachusetts.” This is because John O’Brien’s thinks the nation’s largest banks created MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) to dodge paying recording fees when a mortgage is assigned, while depriving taxpayers anywhere from $200 million to $400 million plus in lost revenue. He said that “MERS should absolutely be out of business,” while Mr. O’Brien has further tried to encourage other registers throughout the nation to pull their deposits from any banks that are affiliated with MERS. However, here is the best part, because John O’Brien asked and received permission from his State Treasurer, Steve Grossman, to remove a whopping $25 million dollars in deposits from, none other than, BANK OF DESTROYING AMERICA!

Article sent by O’Brien’s office: “If you have taken out a mortgage on (or refinanced) your home (or business property) in the last 10 years or so chances are the title of your property is clouded so badly that no one can legally foreclose on your loan. This is the result of an illegal, little known operation that was specifically setup to expedite the rapid securitization and trading of mortgage securities. Further it was explicitly devised to circumvent the centuries old democratic process of recording property ownership and mortgages against those properties at county clerks offices across the country.” - Read Article
.
John O’Brien: “My Registry will not be a knowing participant in this fraud against homeowners. From today forward, lenders be on notice, the Southern Essex District Registry of Deeds will not record robo-signed documents.”

.

So what does it mean if the search company should produce you a report that shows that the loan exists in multiple Trusts and a break in the chain of title?  Well, it means that the search company  might have just sent you the lucky Golden Wonka Ticket! – click here

So Get on it!  Get it done!  Do it now before it is too late!  Hold Banks accountable!

.

All Rise!  The Honorable Judge John Wright has left The Courtroom of Public Opinion!

My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

 

.
I need your help.
If you liked today’s blog, please give piggybankblog a donation

 

.

.

.

Brookstone Granted Injunction By Honorable Judge Matz!

.

Written by John Wright

I have been recently been following a Brookstone Law Firm plaintiff’s case in the Angela Sacchi et al vs. Mortgage Electronic System Inc. lawsuit. On May 2nd, 2011, the Honorable Judge A. Howard Matz presided over this case filed in a United States District Court in Los Angeles California. Judge A. Howard Matz goes on the record with saying that he gets “a million of these cases,” and that he just did not think that he had an informed understanding of where the law is now and where it is heading with these kinds of lawsuits. Thus, the judge asked the Brookstone Law Firm contracted attorney, Deron Colby, if he could assist him in an experiment of sorts. The judge asked Mr. Colby if he could maybe educate him by preparing a chart that would show where the Deed of Trust went versus the Note because the judge said that he thought there was a “pervasive confusion” about to whom the plaintiffs might owe obligations and who had any right, if anyone had a right, to initiate foreclosure proceedings. The Honorable Judge Matz stated that it was a “vexing problem,” while he went on to say that this could be a “potential precedent-setting matter,” because it could be eventually used by other judges.

The judge also stated for the record:

“I want no efforts taken form here on forward, until this matter is considered more carefully, to throw these homeowners out of their residences, assuming that they’re currently there. I can make all the necessary findings. I’ll do so in a sweeping way that, based upon the current state of the Court’s – of the pleadings and the court’s recognition, the usual factors in weighing injunctive relief, especially the irreparability of the injury the public interests, clearly favor the homeowners or the borrowers.”

“I’m ordering the lawyers, including the lawyer for Sacchi who cited this case in reply papers, to, on a considered basis, brief the impact of Salazar. Do so with respect to not just that case narrowly but other cases in this crisis-ladened foreclosure national problem, including in other states that may have provisions comparable to California’s in the Civil Code and elsewhere.”

“One is to have the flow of key events set forth in diagram from top to bottom, meaning vertically, and the transfers of authority, of ownership, of servicing rights, of foreclosure rights, of trustee ownership to be signified through horizontal or diagonal flow chart that shows who got into the picture when, on behalf of whom and in place of whom, and then to have a chronology geared to the diagram.”

“…..I want to see the documentation, and I want to see the flow chart figuring out who fits in where and who’s out and who’s in and at what point in time, as we as the ongoing sequence of key events from the issuance of the loan or the executive of the note or Deed of Trust, which could be separate items. So don’t feel bound by the number system I have here. This is just designed to you an idea f what I’m looking for.”

The Honorable Judge Matz then tell the Bank of Stealing America not to do anything until he has seen this chart on June 6th, 2011d by saying “….don’t do anything. You’re now enjoined from doing anything to take away this home from this woman Guerero. You understand that? Transcript: Click here

So it finally sounds like we have ourselves a judge who says it the way it is! This is exactly why I have been telling you that you need to check the chain of title, because what did the judge say? He said that it seemed to “Clearly favor the homeowners or the borrowers.”

You Judge Matz and Attorney Deron Colby are good! You’re good you! You saw that there was something I was trying to do and you figured that out! You’re very good you!

.

I am sure that Mr. Colby must be feeling much the same as Billy Crystal right about now. (lol) However, I have to admit, I felt as excited as Robert De Niro when I found out about this case at Brookstone Law Firm. It even made it to Westlaw: Click here

I’ve got my eye on you Deron Colby!  Mr. Colby is apparently a shining star! I would reconsider canceling my lawsuit with Brookstone Law Firm if they put Deron Colby on my case!  Then I would just have Daron Colby argue some of the causes of actions while I file another lawsuit to have another attorney argue the other causes of action.  Yah!  That’s the ticket!  I think we call that hedging ones bets!  I am meatball baby!  And I don’t mean Mabye! (Wink)

What was the result of the hearing on June 6th, 2011?  Well, THE JUDGE GRANTED THE INJUNCTION TO STOP THE BANK FROM TAKING HER HOME! – Click here

.

Paging Mr. Colby!  Paging Mr. Colby!  Mr. Colby, please report t0 the Honorable Judge John Wright at the Court of Public Opinion.

.

My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

 

Hi John:

I am Robert John (Jack) Wright. I heard about your case quite some time ago. Today, I was sent a link to your site and wanted to introduce myself.

It took Bank of America, Bear Stearns and EMC Mortgage 10-years and well in excess of $1 million to steal my $139K home. Why would anyone do such a thing?

After Congressional hearings and investigations that discovered faked documents were used to take people’s homes, I went to my county land records. There I found forged documents have been filed against my property since 2000. These certified documents clearly demonstrate that Bank of America and EMC Mortgage never owned my property. I also discovered through my expert that it appears my loan was intentionally destroyed on or before 1991 due to fraud in the origination. How BA got the data is still unknown.

I wish you the best of luck and hope you never give up.

Regards,

Jack Wright

.

.

.

Why Did the Banks Need to Falsify and Forge Fabricated Documents?

.

Piggybankblog posted on 01/06/11

Picture posted by Piggybankblog

Cross linked story with livinglies article

.

The investors who purchased David Stern’s foreclosure mill have taken the extraordinary step of announcing publicly that they had been duped into buying a “criminal enterprise.” Obviously they didn’t want to get caught up in the dragnet of prosecutors looking for convictions. Nobody would spend $60 million like these investors did and then announce to the world that not only was it worthless, it was worse than worthless. It turns out that once they owned it they discovered that the entire enterprise was based upon criminal and other illegal or improper acts. It will soon be obvious that virtually all the foreclosure mills operated identically to Stern because they were owned and operated by the same people.

Those criminal acts were all about pushing foreclosures through the system. The end result of foreclosure is that somebody gets the house upon entry of a “credit bid” which is to say that they don’t pay cash, they just submit a “bid” based upon the fact that the property was the collateral for money that was due them. Since Stern was not taking the homes, and it is obvious that others were taking the homes, the question is why did they need to go through all those gyrations and subject themselves to prison time if the mortgages were legitimate?

I think the question answers itself. No Bank would require, allow or promote practices that were criminal acts in order to foreclose on an otherwise legitimate mortgage, note and obligation. The only reason why criminal acts were required was that the mortgages and foreclosures were a sham. At this point, with all the publicity about robo-signing, surrogate signing, forgeries, fabrications, back-dating etc., and the Banks’ protestations that these are the result of paperwork problems that emerged as a consequence of the volume of foreclosures, the Banks have had more than adequate time and opportunity to prove their case — that the mortgages were legitimate and the foreclosures were proper, subject only to resolving some minor paperwork errors.

That they have not done so corroborates the point I made 4 years ago. In most cases, at the time the mortgage documents were signed at “closing” the originator showing on the note and mortgage was not owed one cent — because they never made the loan. The originator was a paid straw-man. Somebody else made the loan but the paperwork does not even hint at that fact. That means the paperwork refers to a transaction with the originator that never occurred. The intermediaries who created this scheme made tons of money without reporting or accounting to either the investors or the borrowers. So it looks like the loan is still outstanding and due when in fact it has been paid several times over. Foreclosures only represented another payment in addition to the other multiple payments of the loan.

The actual source of the loan, as I have stated for years, was a group of institutional investors who were induced into buying bogus mortgage bonds thus creating a pool of money. The investment bankers took a huge bite out of that pool before they started funding mortgages. They did it contrary to the expectations and understanding of the investors and the ratings agencies. It was like buying a new car: as soon as you drive off the lot you lose a substantial amount of equity because now it is a used car. In this case, the Banks drove the money off a cliff and the investors were lucky to receive a few cents on the dollar they invested.

The fact that the mortgage documents refer to a transaction that never took place should be interpreted as a fatal defect in the documents as well as violating deceptive lending laws on the Federal (TILA) level and state level. That defect means or should be interpreted to mean that there is no lien on any of those homes and it can’t be corrected without getting a signature from the homeowner or a court order clearing title. The Banks know as much as I do about all this. In fact they know more than I do and they know exactly how to clear title.

They couldn’t go back to the homeowner because the homeowner now knew what was unknown at closing — that the deal was toxic and stupid and couldn’t work. The Court would enter the order the Banks required if they proved that the requirements of law had been met in establishing a mortgage loan. They can’t. So they are left with (a) an unsecured PAID loan to an unknown creditor and (b) liability for fraud. And they can’t fix it.

So they started foreclosing and in order to do so they needed to finesse the borrowers and the Court system with documents that looked right but were pure fabrication. Millions of these foreclosures took place and the Judges who rubber-stamped them never bothered to look at whether the paperwork actually made sense. Now, like to or not, all those foreclosures need to be reviewed for fatal errors. And homeowners, getting wise to the fact that they might still legally own homes they were kicked out of years ago, are visiting lawyers to see what can be done to recover the property. My guess, is that the tide has turned. That means homes are going to be returned to homeowners. In turn that means the value attributed to the mortgage backed securities have also been false and that requires a significant write-down of non-existent assets.

The write-down of assets on the balance sheets of the Banks (which after all are not really banks) will diminish their capital to a point well under the reserve requirements by any standards whether FED, Basil or otherwise. The only real question left is whether we will act as a nation of laws or of men. If we are a nation of laws the fraudulent transfer of wealth from the populace to the banks will be reversed and the economy will start humming again. If we are a nation of men, then we must recognize that a coup d’etat has occurred and we no longer have the government or the society we thought we had.

 

“This is a peaceful demonstration where dramatic license is used in an abstract way. Please be advised that nothing in this protest is to be construed or defined as suggesting that there will be a consequence or penalty given if such protest does not produce a result. There will be absolutely no consequence issued whatsoever. Please contact me right away with any concerns that there is anything on my blog to suggest otherwise. “ – disclaimer

 

Tags:

Related Posts

0 Comments

You can be the first one to leave a comment.

Leave a Comment