Archive for the ‘Foreclosure Industry News’ Category

Predicted New Foreclosure Fraud by Attorney and Bank for 2012 – Blank Endorsements

For years now I have been fighting for the rights of the people in foreclosure. As a Fraud Examiner I must be objective and call things as they are. It is against the code of conduct to accuse directly anyone of any actual wrong doing. However, so far any writing that I have made has included allegations of fraud that have been proven true over time. The media has jumped all over many of the fraud schemes and now the government has finally had to admit that it is a plague in the industry. I’m so glad that I am finally given credit for being right. For years I was looked at as a conspiracy theorist by those outside of the scope of my work and assistance. I now see the next scheme to defraud the foreclosure defendant. Please be fully advised and take notice that I am not an attorney and nothing in my writings should be considered or accepted as legal advice. For legal advice please contact an industry specific attorney.

Most foreclosures are presented before the court under the statutes or codes that are the administrative procedures of that court. However, due to the robo-signing scandals, missing paperwork and other document issues there just had to be a better way for the creditors and their debt collector attorneys to prevail without having to defend the creations of false documents and robo-signing. You see it has become a major issue for the creditors. Imagine filing a suit and not having the original contract to defend your position and the wet ink signature of the defendant. At first the trick was the affidavit of prove up or truth, the lost note affidavit, then it was the falsified note and mortgage, then it was the plague of the assignment.

However,there were many sharp people out there that fought the “Show me the note argument”. There has been great debate and much argument over the note. Unfortunately there ere also many people out there that found out about the Note argument and just did not know how to fight it. Many courts now reject that argument and use judicial discretion in using affidavits, assignments and other chain of title evidence that still do not equal the original wet ink document. The truth is if you see a pile of documents that do not include the original note and mortgage it’s probably because the creditor does not have them. It is becoming more and more difficult to get discovery in the courtrooms to allow the creditor to authenticate the copies placed into evidence through the production of the originals.

Now we know about the cut and paste techniques, photo shop of signatures and an actual robot that can reproduce documents with an actual ball point pen. It just gets harder and harder as the technology is more and more advanced. It’s cheaper to buy the technology and create documents than admit to their non-existence or admit to falsification of already made documents on the court record. Imagine the amount of settlement money the creditors would have to pay out if caught by the right defending attorney or regulating agency.

Know that this applies to foreclosures where the standing or right to collect on the note is challenged or Jurisdiction based on standing or failure to prove up the right to state a claim in which relief may be granted.

It is my prediction that the next phase will be the use of affidavits and a copy of the note and mortgage where the note will have whats known as an endorsement in blank. YES ENDORSEMENT IN BLANK pursuant to the Uniform Commercial code. Click on the link to see the explaination more completely.

What this endorsement does is allows the holder of the note whether or not the person has any right to the note to collect on the note as the bearer (Just for having possession of it). The Uniform Commercial Code has recently been revised, I would like to draw you attention to section 3 of the UCC. Look up that section on line to get familiar with it. This section has been revised in such a way that all you need is an endorsement that states “Pay to the order of” a blank line and limited info as to the endorser. Imagine this, if a note is lost or stolen any person who finds it can collect on the note in any court of law! That person need not pay anything for the note, simple possession is perfection of the debt and no public recording is required. this is where the banksters and their sidekick debt collector attorneys will continue the theft of Peoples homes.

Learn more about these endorsements and what the code allows to see the dangers of this practice. I have personally witnessed in the court room where the defense argues falsification of documents, failure to validate and verify the debt pursuant to the F.D.C.P.A, failure respond or comply with a Q.W.R request (Qualified Written request) or any other consumer protection law, code, right, regulation and or other substantive or procedural irregularities within the court file. The judge trying to make heads or tails of the matter and the foreclosure attorney will then declare confidently “Your Honor, the promissory note is endorsed in Blank”. That is when all the defense and evidence from the defense goes right out the window!It’s the easy rocket docket reason to find for the Plaintiff. Another one bites the dust. This is becoming more and more common in Cook county Illinois and I have seen this with mine own eyes. With the note in Blank it is easy for the court to say for the sake of time and resources unless you can disprove standing that is it.

My writing would not be complete with some type of suggestion to aid in the avoidance of being a victim of this type of scheme if the creditor has actually falsified the document. Get a Ink date and paper testing Forensic scientist or lab to test the documents. Have all the signatures, stamps and paper tested for creation date. you may find that the paper was made last year and the note date was made years ago. the signature ink dates a few months ago and the signature date alleges to have been signed years ago. the Ink stamp used to endorse again new ink for old actions. Albeit these procedures are quite expensive. However, your home is worth the extra expense. if it pans out that the documents are false that the court is to rely on and you prove they came before the court with this type of scheme the case should be tossed out and the Plaintiff owes you your expenses in defending yourself. Then victims may consider a quiet title action and a counter suit for fraud. Again this is not legal advice, it is a hypothetical example.

You may consider having you documents first reviewed by a Fraud Examiner in order to determine if the note and or mortgage is worth ink and Paper date testing. You first need to have the note and mortgage reviewed for indicators of falsification before deciding to undertake a greater expense in exposing any fraud or material misrepresentation within the original documents. Know that the originals will not be immediately available. You first have the copies examined then use the findings to challenge the originals. In discovery you subpena the original to be authenticated. Chances are if the original does not exist and or the document before the court is nothing more than a fake of what is purported to be a copy of the original the creditor attorney will seek to avoid compliance and the truth will come to light that the original does not exist. Then the contradiction of all the prior claims on the record is now detrimental and may grant the defendant a favorable order.

Now it’s time to do some homework. Think objectively and uncover the hidden. Remember the best way to hide something is in plain sight. You saw it here first.

Tony Hernandez
Fraud Examiner
Chicago Il.


Delay The Foreclosure Process or Not to Delay? Continuation part 1

Foreclosure docket rocket orders: You can obtain the transcripts at there you will find the official transcript. After reading the transcript read the statute. You will see that the legislature did not intend for any court to side step the law as intended. You will find that in 1985 a similar situation was in traction. The bill failed to pass but not without enough discussion to reveal that the procedure was to be followed to the letter regardless of the needs of the debt collector, the attorney or even the process server. Today it’s the rocket docket courts that use the excuse that they need to somehow over come the clogging of the dockets. So a special General Administrative order (only for Foreclosure cases) was made in order to help the process along. What Lacks reason is, if the courts are so bogged down by so many cases up at the same time, why then create an order that speeds up the foreclosure process of service? This would only add to the bottleneck. If the Sheriff is so slow in serving would that not aid in slowing down the docket clog? Go to http://www.byebyebanksters to get a copy of the General Administrative order and the note to the foreclosureattorneys. This order cannot be obtained by the Cook County court website as a matter of fact as of the time of this writing it is not even listed in the list of GOA orders for 2007 which jumps from 2007-2 to 2007-4. Why is it not there? You be the judge.

More to come.
google-site-verification: google57d64f9ceb1eed77.html

View the original article here


THERE have been changes in federal rules covering how mortgage brokers are paid, and while legal challenges to them persist, the question now is how the new system will work in practice.

Regulators and consumer advocates say borrowers are bound to benefit. Broker trade groups say their industry will shrivel and consumer costs will go up.

Mortgage brokers are middlemen who work with multiple lenders to arrange home loans for customers. They say they add value by helping borrowers find the best deal; their detractors say they add costs that have been hidden in complex fees.

The business has contracted significantly in the last five years. In 2005, during the real estate boom, brokers accounted for 31 percent of mortgages originated, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, a trade publication. Last year it was just 11 percent, and the market was only half as big.

Brokers used to be compensated by a mix of borrower-paid origination fees and lender-paid fees. The most controversial was a “yield spread premium,” paid by lenders when a broker placed a borrower in a loan that charged higher interest than other loans. The justification was that higher rates allowed lower upfront closing costs. The criticism was that the premiums were an incentive to push expensive loans and that the system contributed to a flood of risky loans and thus to the financial crisis.

In response, the Federal Reserve put out rules that prohibit loan originators from being paid by both the borrower and lender on the same deal, and also barring commissions based on anything other than loan size. The rules were set to take effect April 1; two trade groups sued, delaying enactment a few days before a federal appeals court allowed it. Both the National Association of Mortgage Brokers and the National Association of Independent Housing Professionals say they will keep pressing their lawsuits.

On the front line, the problem is that there has been “no clear guidance” on exactly how to arrange commission structures for employees who originate loans, said Melissa Cohn, the president of the Manhattan Mortgage Company, a loan brokerage firm.

“To be honest with you,” she said, “in some cases it’s going to create higher-priced mortgages.” Although the spirit of the law is to protect borrowers, she added, “the reality of it is it’s just going to cause more confusion.”

Mike Anderson, the director of the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, speaking just two days after the rules went into effect, said: “It’s already happening. Rates have already gone up; fees have gone up.” Mr. Anderson, who is also a broker in New Orleans, cited situations in which brokers could no longer cut fees to make deals go through, and others in which banks were raising charges. “The rules basically pick the winners and losers,” he said, with the winners being the big banks. “The losers are the small businesses.”

The Facebook page of the National Association of Independent Housing Professionals is full of complaints from what appear to be mortgage brokers saying the rules will hurt their business, and recounting how unnamed lenders have raised prices.

Despite industry opposition, the change is a victory for borrowers, according to representatives of the Center for Responsible Lending, an advocacy group long critical of the yield-spread premium system. Borrowers “should be getting more honest services from the originator they’re working with,” said Kathleen E. Keest, a senior policy counsel, “because that originator is no longer going to have a conflict of interest if they put a borrower in a loan with a higher interest rate or riskier terms.”

“If people were saying that the way things worked, worked well,” she added, “that’s one thing, but it’s very clear the way things worked before didn’t work for anybody. The notion we need to have the same rules is denying what happened. It’s denying that the way the market was working was disastrous for everybody.”

View the original article here

50 U.s. States initiate probe into foreclosure Mess

WASHINGTON –officials in the 50 States and the District of Columbia has launched a joint investigation into allegations that the mortgage company mishandled documents and broke laws in foreclosing on hundreds of thousands of homeowners. States ‘ attorneys general and banking regulators will examine if the mortgage company’s employees made false statements or prepared documents incorrectly … Continue

Click here for update.

View the original article here