Comments for Foreclosure Combatant

Comment on Gilroy v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. (Predatory Lending) by evelynwells

evelynwells — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 01:32:22 +0000

i believe the same thing happened to me

Comment on A closer look at MERS by truthmonger

truthmonger — Mon, 30 May 2011 20:44:14 +0000

It is fascinating how the clear perspective in this article is from the standpoint that poor little old MERS and the Poor little old alleged lenders Banksters, are inconvenienced and not one shred of empathy for the home owners!! When it comes to the Law, there is nothing like an attorney to a-turn-ey it around. The is to be stringently upheld by everyone But the banksters, attorneys and the other public servants. A bit backwards, I’d say!! Look there never was a Loan! in fact the banks took the application and deposited the credit into an account and used it without the permission or knowledge of the signer. 2. the Note was unlawfully converted when they stamped, “Pay to the order of” on it and under UCC that eliminates any alleged obligation! Three, there never was disclosure as to how the Note and the DOT were going to be used.. to make tones of money, fraud fraud fraud… Now when and if you guys happen to get a conscience and not be a sell out to the banksters, “moneychangers, that are killing this country and the world then come into the light of truth and help your mom and pop, children and neighbors and not the banksters. Choose Man over beast and fiction. As you allow the rip off of the value, property and land of this once great country for a few bucks the economy drops like a rock and your bucks become worthless!!Become honorable and do some homework and find out that it was a scam from the get go and you are just clean up crew stealing peoples property based on fraud. The Note and Deed of trust were separated!! If it was Securitized then it was most definitely separated and used in a manner for profit without knowledge or consent!! The insurance paid off the note many times over and they bet against the market on those Mortgages and profited up to 96 times.. and you feel sorry for them ,,, the thieves!!… Your are but manipulated tools or haven’t you read the articles where the banks threw you under the bus already?? Scripture shames theAttorneys for hiding the truth.. it seems that you do not even know the truth to hide any more, so convinced of the lies. Chaeck out the bankrupsy of the US and 12USC 411 and HJR 192, Choose truth over lies.

Comment on Buying a Cow and Selling Hamburgers- A Closer Look at Mortgage Securitization by Mortgage Auditor

Mortgage Auditor — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:33:25 +0000

But since a note is negotiable the holder can sell it without the consent of the maker.

Comment on Buying a Cow and Selling Hamburgers- A Closer Look at Mortgage Securitization by EyesWideShut

EyesWideShut — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 06:01:25 +0000

I always find it interesting how much heavy lifting people do to make this situation sound plausible.

What ever happened to the good ole principles of the law of contract. Is anyone going to say that a consumer loan transaction is the same as an investment securities transaction? I don’t think so. Securitizing parties shoot themselves in both knees when they choose this route without allowing the borrower to participate in choosing, and contemplation of the consequences of choosing that particular method of funding.

So, if there was no meeting of the minds between parties to the contract, then there is no contract because there can be no consent without understanding. Let’s not forget (for those in California) parties must be able to be identified in obligations.

Comment on Ohlendorf v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing by Kathleen Randell

Kathleen Randell — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:52:41 +0000

AHMSI is somehow involved with Citi Lending. They are liars, deceptive in their timing of foreclosure, sent us a letter dated 6/16/10 telling us to re-submit our doc’s for a modification, and then foreclosed on 6/24/10. They foreclosed with occupants(forgotten victims act)in the house and have been 7 months trying to get them out. They refused to except the payment for a year even though we offered to start paying them the minute they dropped the interest back to where it was originally, on a fixed interest loan. They are crooks!

Comment on Lender must prove existence of the note by Carrie

Carrie — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 07:14:46 +0000

how can you prove that a lender backdated a mortgage to show it was placed in the trust when it never got there during the 90 day time allotted to it ?

Comment on Pro Se Foreclosure Defense by absentcapacity

absentcapacity — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:33:56 +0000

I congratulate you, and would ask if it is possible to link this North Carolina Foreclosure Playbook on your site:

http://counterthespianage.com/northcarolinaforeclosureplaybook.html

Thank you!

Comment on FIGHTING MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENT FRAUD – IS FDCPA THE ONLY WEAPON? by jeff

jeff — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:08:12 +0000

[10:50:28 AM] jeff greenberg: We need your help. Please post a link prominently on this site for http://www.BankClassActions.com . We are aggregating class members for Class Action Law Firms against predatory lenders and their foreclosure mills. We are also studying the data with our Law Firm clients to find commonalities for new class action case theory. This is important, the foreclosure mills are gearing to start up again. The text should also invite anyone who has been foreclosed upon to go to the site and post their information, it is kept private.

Comment on FIGHTING MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENT FRAUD – IS FDCPA THE ONLY WEAPON? by carol reeves

carol reeves — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:20:15 +0000

Good article I am also a victim of assignment fraud. The US District court rubber stamped in favor of the Bank and LLPs even though they failed to even show for court , dismissing my request for TRO.I currently have it in appeals court and am waiting to get my voice heard. This whole ordeal has taught me Justice is sorely lacking in our courts.

Comment on JUDGE RESCINDS 5-YEAR OLD LOAN AND AMORTIZES TENDER OVER 30 YEARS by jordan Spence

jordan Spence — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 13:53:30 +0000

“Finally, defendants argue that there is no irreparable harm to plaintiff. Defendants assert that plaintiff will not suffer irreparable harm and instead will suffer only monetary injury. Monetary injury is not normally considered irreparable. LA Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. NFL, 634 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir. 1980). Defendants assert that the foreclosure is complete, therefore, the only possible remedy remaining is monetary damages.”

I still believe irrespective of the judgement that the defendant has failed in carrying out his own part of the deal.