Tag Archives: Holder-in-Due-Course

Carrie Lynn Luft’s Second Amended Complaint against Mortgage Note Securitization and Related Documents in the Middle District of Florida

Carrie Lynn Luft’s May 13 2013 FINAL Draft Second Amended Complaint with CLASS ACTION for Predatory Lending & Securitization ©

07-30-2008 USDC SDNY CITIGROUP GLOBAL v ACCREDITED HOME LENDERS Case 1-08-cv-03545-RJH Document 15 First Amended Complaint

Citi-Luft Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint

Carrie Lynn Luft to Mark N. Muller 05-31-2013 Request for Three Stipulations ©

06-11-2013 Carrie Lynn Luft’s Motion for Extension of Time to file Response to Muller MtD Second Amended Complaint  ©

06-11-2013 Motion for Extension of Time ©

Citi-Luft Response to Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion to Disqualify MHM et al

Citi-Luft Affidavit of Gerard Bellesheim (signed)

06-24-2013 Carrie Lynn Luft’s Motion to Convert Citigroup’s Motion under 12(b) to Summary Judgment and Reply to Citigroup’s Response to Motion for Extension of Time to file Response to Muller MtD Second Amended Complaint ©

06-26-2013 Carrie Lynn Luft USDC Middle District of Florida Clerk’s Docket

06-26-2013 US District Court MDFLa Carrie Lynn Luft v Citigroup Global-AHL et al

© All Editorial Copyrights Reserved by © Carrie Lynn Luft & Charles Edward Lincoln III—No Claim Made to Original Government Works, Public Record or to any registered Trademarks of Public or Private Companies—For Educational and Instructive Use as Whitepaper on Mortgage Finance Policy seeking additional Dialogue and Commentary. ©

FORGED PROMISSORY NOTES: We Need Other Examples of Expert-Verified Forged Promissory Notes Wachovia to Wells Fargo Transition—Please Help if you have information.

Please Help: I would like to assemble a list of forensically verified (expert witness confirmed) FORGED PROMISSORY NOTES, especially by Wells Fargo claiming status as successor to Wachovia.  We have obtained an expert witness report in New Jersey who has verified and distinguished a probable forgery in a Wachovia note now claimed as proof by Wells Fargo.  I am looking for any comparable forgeries verified by expert witness analyses in other cases.  

I will share all our information with anyone who will share with us any of the following (1) experts reports, (2) images of the forgery, and (3) expert curriculum vitae concerning other Wachovia/Wells Fargo Forgeries.  It would especially be useful to have evidence from any bank or mortgage finance company/originator at all (any brand name) in the Middle Atlantic States: Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, or Pennsylvania, but really from Wells Fargo and Wachovia anywhere.  Please contact me here on this blog or at charles.e.lincoln@gmail.com and provide me contact information.  I will pay costs of duplicating, certification, and express delivery of the documentation.

There may be a pattern of forgery which document or evidence the sloppy securitization practiced at Wachovia and Wells Fargo’s lack of concern for accuracy or honesty in proof of its status as actual holder of notes allegedly “inherited” from Wachovia.  

THE FORM OF WACHOVIA PROMISSORY NOTES:

The Wachovia “note” in question (produced May 15, 2013) also had inconsistent footers and inconsistent patterns of pagination from page-to-page.  I would be very interested in seeing as many samples of Wachovia Notes and Mortgages from 2004-2009 (showing footers) as I can get my hands on.  

Aside from the facts concerning the forged signature, the problems are as follows:

One does not need to be a forensic document examiner or expert auditor of mortgages, commercial papers generally or promissory notes in particular to see and understand the significance of the word “REDACTED” stamped on the upper right hand corner of Page 1 of the Wachovia Bank document submitted by Foreclosure Mill-Law Firm REED-SMITH, nor of the “Lender’s Use Only” stamp on the bottom right of that same page.  These stamps both indicate even to the most casual observer that the copy tendered is both NON-ORIGINAL and ALTERED from the original.

22.     “REDACTED” means nothing in the English language besides “edited” or “altered.” Yet this is “a true and correct copy of the Note from the loan file that was provided to” Foreclosure Mill-Law Firm REED-SMITH “by representatives of Wells Fargo Bank.”  REED-SMITH might as well have certified this “Note” as found on-line in Wikipedia or delivered to her by certain unidentified and unknown “Men in Black”.

23.     Any indication of forgery or alteration of a note or other document renders it impossible for the claimant to such note or other document to qualify as a “holder-in-due course” under the relevant provisions of New Jersey Law:

12A:3-302. Holder in due course

a. Subject to subsection c. of this section and subsection d. of 12A:3-106, “holder in due course” means the holder of an instrument if:

(1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and  [bold and Italic emphasis added]

(2) the holder took the instrument for value, in good faith, without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, without notice of any claim to the instrument described in 12A:3-306, and without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in subsection a. of 12A:3-305.

Last modified: February 13, 2012

http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/12a-commercial-transactions/3-302.html, consulted and copied on-line on Sunday June 2, 2013.

24.     Of course, Wells Fargo Bank has not yet offered even a scintilla of evidence that it “took the instrument for value, in good faith,….” Or “without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered.”

AND IN FACT, THE SIGNATURE IS NEITHER GENUINE NOR AUTHORIZED, AND THE NOTE IS A FRAUDULENT FORGERY

25.     A visual comparison of the footers show that the pages of Foreclosure Mill-Law Firm REED-SMITH’s  alleged “Note” do not belong to a single continuous series.

26.     The footers on pages 1-5 of the alleged Note bear the alphanumeric designations SD253A through SD253E, in each case followed by the parenthetical (2006-09-6) while page 6, bearing what purports to be MNM’s signature, bears only the alphanumeric designation SD253 without the expected sixth letter F, followed by the parenthetical (2004-03-1). 

27.     The page designation on alleged note page 6 is also different, printed as “Page 6 of 6” where none of the previous pages in the Note bear this “of 6” inscription or notation.

28.     Following the first parenthetical, pages 1 and 2 only bear the further bracketed parenthetical [A 02 (2006-09-6)] and then “Adjustable Pick-A-Payment” Note followed by “NJ”. 

29.     On page 1 this inscription is condensed, as if electronically, moved right to accommodate the inserted rectangular box “Lender’s Use Only” which does not appear on any other page but bears a bar code and the numbers “0 0 1.”

30.     The footers on Alleged Note Pages 3, 4, and 5 all lack this second bracketed parenthetical entirely, and the “ADJUSTABLE PICK-A-PAYMENT NOTE” is properly centered and isolated over the “Page 3” inscription.

31.     The signature page, perhaps significantly, does NOT bear the centered “ADJUSTABLE PICK-A-PAYMENT NOTE” designation above “Page 6 of 6” but it DOES contain a second bracketed parenthetical, which matches the different date identified above of (2004-03-1) by stating [W14 (2004-03-01)].

32.     Finally, in regard to the footers, the First Page is also unique because, beneath the left margin-justified SE253A (2006-09-6) notation, it bears the further left margin-justified text: “A MODIFICATION TO NOTE AND RIDER TO SECURITY,” which is inconsistent with the title “Adjustable Rate mortgage Note Fixed Advantage Pick-a-Payment (sm) LOAN (MONTHLY INTEREST RATE CHANGES) at the top of the same page.

33.     This “visual” analysis of the footers indicate that while pages 3, 4, and 5 come from a single pre-printed series, pages 1, 2, and 6 have either been altered or come from other pre-printed series, with page 6, the signature page, showing the most radical divergence in form and relationship to the other pages.

The Futility of Individualized Resistance to Collectivization: the Foreclosure Crisis is Government Policy in Action, Securitization is the Banks’ Communistic Mechanism for Confiscation

I want to deliver a very short and bitter message here: individual case litigation strategies have failed and are doomed to continued failure.  EVERY PERSON who wants to fight in court for his or her family home in Court in California must include a Constitutional Challenge to the Non-Judicial Foreclosure System and all the component statutes, but even this is not enough: the remedy is political action.  Until these statutes and the nation-wide socialistic policies which support them are obliterated, which can be reliably expected to happen ONLY through political rather than judicial action, the institutions of private property and the home-based family will continue to erode and disintegrate.  

Without MASSIVE LEGAL REFORM, there is no hope that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” will not be continually violated as it has been in millions of cases nationwide.  These mass foreclosure and eviction policies have been approved and strategies formulated by the government at the highest levels.  

(That was the short brief and very bitter message—all the rest that follows is an elaboration on these points).

I am writing today to announce firmly that I think that everyone involved in the “Anti-Foreclosure” guerilla resistance is and has been misguided, myself included.  We have to stop thinking, or even looking for ways, to succeed on an individual, case-by-case basis.  We have to organize as a community whose wealth and values are under siege.  Offering potential strategies or hypothetical solutions to individuals is just “wrong” and we’ve got to give it up.  We must organize like the abolitionists before 1861, like the labor unions from the 1880s-1920s, like the real civil rights activists of the 1950s-60s.  All our “gurus” and sources of individual advice regarding individual and isolated action, from the cosmically brilliant Neil Garfield on his wonderful “Living Lies” website, down the hierarchy through local geniuses like April Carrie Charney and Malcolm Doney in Florida, Charles Koppa and Catherine Bryan in Orange and San Diego Counties, California all the way down to Theresa Moore and Robert Garvin in Studio City and finally Peyton and me have just had it all wrong—–we have been doing more harm than good.  

We are all either engaging in false hopes or blindly misleading people to think that we can stop the seizure of homes and property in any sort of systematic way through litigation and the court system.  

Worse than that, by offering false hopes to people and engaging in one losing court-battle after another, we have been bolstering and shoring up the success of the corporate-banking enemies.

What I am writing today is that the individual case-litigation approach is a massive failure even to slowing the rates of foreclosure and eviction in California or anywhere else.  Even in Florida, at best “Anti-Foreclosure Guerillas” like April Carrie Charney, Malcolm Doney and Catherine Bryan can claim very if outright victories other than temporary delay in a small percentage, not even a statistically significant minority of foreclosures or evictions.  

The individual case strategy cannot be used to eradicate what is a society-wide systemic cancer created by the politically tempting bait of “easy credit” which was, after all, the original communist-socialist demand of the mid-to-late nineteenth century.

Because “easy credit” is by definition based on wants and desires rather than actual wealth or production, “easy credit” is the antithesis of capitalism or any sound economic system, but it sure is popular if you’re a politician….  When they said that Communism works through the ways and means of the devil, they weren’t kidding: the theory that temptation has been the path to sin and death since the Garden of Eden is not actually “just a theory” but a fairly demonstrable fact.

Even coordinated constitutional litigation cannot work because I do not think we can every achieve statewide in California, much less nationwide, anything like what I tried and failed to achieve in the family courts in Williamson County Texas in 2005-7.  What I tried in Georgetown, Texas, was to try to arouse and incite enough popular discontent and cooperative participant action among parents that we might close down the system.  I came close enough that Judge James F. Clawson commented on the fact that if he did not ban me from further litigation in the state of Texas, I would have closed down the Family Law Courts.  

But in fact we did not come anywhere close to permanently shutting down the courts by flooding them with protests and constitutionally demanding civil rights motions and litigation maneuvers.  We just got labelled “paper terrorists.”  Ok, Assistant Texas A.G. James Carlton Todd and his boss Mr. Greg Abbott actually called me “the most dangerous paper terrorist in Texas”—but that dubious distinction plus $5.00 is barely enough to buy you a coffee and pound cake at Starbucks these days.

Given the scale of the foreclosure crisis—Millions in California alone—tens of millions nationwide—1.5 million abandoned and empty homes in Florida—we have to recognize this as a problem much bigger than any of us as individuals.  

Slavery was not abolished by helping individual slaves escape through the “underground railroad” or even through individual plantation-owners granting manumission by will to hundreds or thousands of slaves upon their deaths by will.  

Decent wages in factories were never achieved by individualized negotiation for “modifications” of employment contracts—only by COLLECTIVE ACTION on the part of organized labor unions—and that is what we need in the foreclosure arena.  And in doing so we have to recognize that we face, just like the operators of the underground railway did, just as the early leaders of the labor movement did in the 1880s-1890s, the possibility of arrest and even armed suppression of our movement.  (Compare the “Haymarket Riot” in Chicago on May 4, 1886 and the much larger and more widespread Pullman Riots, also centered in Chicago but Nationwide, in the summer of 1894.)

So if we REALLY oppose collectivization of private property we cannot do so individually, we cannot oppose the government one-on-one, unless we do so as “We the People” acting politically and in concert.  To this end I would ask for contributions to take out full – page ads in the Los Angeles Times and advertise on television and radio as well as the internet.  “CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL—TAKE BACK YOUR RIGHTS BEFORE THEY TAKE YOUR HOME, IF YOUR HOME HAS BEEN TAKEN, TAKE BACK YOUR RIGHTS AND YOUR HOME.

We must clearly articulate our position that: we know that the Foreclosure Crisis is Government Policy in Action, Securitization is the Banks’ Communistic Mechanism for Confiscation, and we demand an end to both the governmental policy and the (ironic as it might seem) banks’ confiscation of property by securitization.  

The outward trappings of capitalism have become the instruments of communistic confiscation and expropriation of homes and the destruction of families.  This will only end when the people demand it to end—and the Courts are not the proper arenas to do this. Courts in the United States and Europe, all known judicial systems, really, are designed at best to correct (or compensate) small variant problems and deviations from established norms.  

We who OPPOSE foreclosure and eviction, who DEMAND adherence to the common law and constitutional norms respecting contract and the right to own property according to contractual terms and rights, WE are the deviants now, and it is UP TO US to bring the law into conformity.  It is a tall order, but it is the only way we can reclaim our heritage and our RIGHTS to property—even when so much property has already been lost or destroyed.

Courts can only act as mechanisms for the imposition of widespread social and cultural change when they are expressly delegated this purpose by the political branches, as they have been during the racial civil rights movements 1948-1972 and the less well-publicized but even more historically significant family and domestic relations “reformulations” involving no fault divorce, abortion, and “sexual liberation” generally during the period starting not later than 1962 and continuing until the present time.  

Ironically, for all its internal contradictions, for all that it was an incomplete movement which only raised up one part of society by dragging down another, upgraded some statements of rights while degrading others, some of the best pro freedom statements and constitutional formulations of the law as written today owe their origins to the American Civil Rights movement.  

The civil rights movements of both the 1860s-70s (though mostly constitutional and statutory) and 1950s-60s (mostly judicial) had many positive components and results which were actually pro-freedom and anti-communist (although the movement itself was widely labelled as “communistic” by many opponents during the twentieth century—I often retell the story that among my earliest memories of highway driving in Texas and Louisiana were the “Impeach Earl Warren” signs all throughout the South and Southwest in the late 1960s).  

Again ironically, the “sexual liberation” movement and now the mortgage foreclosure crisis have undone many of the positive, pro freedom, effects of the civil rights movement by creating new forms of oppression (as indeed have some statutory civil rights programs—as distinct from a strong majority of the judicial decisions of the civil rights quarter century noted, 1948-1972).  

But the mortgage foreclosure crisis appears to be completing what was worst in both the civil rights and sexual liberation movements: the final destruction of the home-based family and stable neighborhood community.  In fact, it is fair to say that, on the populist activist level, it would now be impossible to have a civil rights movement analogous to the one that started after World War II, because NO COHERENT COMMUNITIES OF ANY POLITICALLY SIGNIFICANT SIZE REMAIN IN AMERICA TODAY—we are truly a nation of transients).

For fifteen years now, since 1996, I have been involved almost continuously in Civil Rights litigation of one species or another against State and Corporate abuses of individual rights and personal autonomy, against takings of liberty & property without due process of law.  I started off fighting the Sheriffs and Police Departments in Central Texas, disputing their claims of “qualified immunity” to abuse the rights and autonomy of people on a random and unsystematic basis, almost like criminals or terrorists.  I then graduated to believing the problem took a more systematic form with a plan to destroy the individual and family regularly and predictably, and that the root of problem lay with judicial immunity and the Court system, especially the Family or Domestic Relations Courts.  I still believe that at both levels, our local, state, and national institutions have betrayed their birthright in liberty.

Since 2006, my focus has been primarily against the mortgage finance and credit systems.  During these five years’ time I have researched and experimented with many varieties of theories or approaches to common-law (and commercial code) holder-in-due-course doctrine, privity of contract, quiet title, securities fraud, and other pro-consumer, pro-buyer, theories.  I have tried and tested such theories at the very least in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Colorado, Idaho, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, and (most intensely of all since 2008) California.   I know that, logically and rationally, all these theories are either correct in some absolute or historical or logical sense, but they do not work in Court in ANY SORT OF PREDICTABLE WAY. What this means is that, as a matter of any individual’s “reasonable expectation”, there is no adequate remedy at law or in equity, there is only the occasional, seemingly almost random, single decision in a thousand or so that goes the way of the owner consumer.  This is not a matter of “legal victory”, this is a matter of “playing the odds” at Roulette or Blackjack, much worse than betting on racecars, ponies, thoroughbreads, or greyhounds whose mechanical design and/or natural and innate skills can be rated and assessed objectively.

In the past five years, no two cases or situations have ever been exactly alike, but the pattern is always the same: the decks in the courthouses across the nation are stacked against the homeowner/consumer/buyer/ “borrower” or “credit applicant/credit user.”   I feel I fairly competently understand the law in only five states at the present time: California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and Texas (although all the Ninth Circuit States—Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Washington—are by conscious historical design pretty close in design and execution of statutory scheme to California).   In Florida and New Jersey, the law is EXCELLENT, in that foreclosure and eviction are both by the clear requirement of the law judicial in nature, and common law modified by the commercial code is all that counts.  Yet the rate of foreclosure is astronomical in both states.  In Florida, they are dragging judges out of retirement to preside over the foreclosure epidemic in the state with the flimsiest houses (owing to both construction and lack of regular winter weather) and the nation’s longest tradition of continuous real estate fraud.  In New Jersey, there is a moratorium on foreclosure proceedings until the system “can catch up with itself” whatever that means.  

In California, the worst laws in the country are fueling the worst foreclosure epidemic anywhere in history.  I have written extensively about California Civil Code §§2924 et seq., especially 2924a, 2924i, and the related “attorney conspiracy” limitations of §1714.10.  Michigan and Texas are both “mixed” systems where judicial and non-judicial foreclosure are authorized by law, but non-judicial foreclosure has become the norm in the past decade.

It was only when I came to California in 2008 that I began to realize for certain what was really going on, and what is really going on is that the United States Government, and State Governments with more-or-less enthusiasm, are cooperating with banks and finance companies to abolish private property and turn ownership of all private interests to a state-controlled governmental-corporate conglomerate along the lines originally suggested in Karl Marx’ and Frederick Engels’ Communist Manifesto of 1848.  

      In some very real ways, the most disturbing results come from Massachusetts.  To the same degree that I believe that the Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loan case (121 CalRptr3d 819 OPINION Gomes v Countrywide Home Loans Inc Feb_18_2011) illustrates the utter futility of fighting within the law of California—(when the law itself is the enemy and unconstitutional wall-to-wall), I had thought that the Ibanez case in Massachusetts showed a glimmer of sanity and light on the East Coast US Bank Nat Ass’n v Ibanez 458 Mass 637 941 NE2d 40 (Massachusetts 2011).  Peyton’s research in Massachusetts last month (May 2011) has brought evidence to my attention that Ibanez in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with securitization and that Massachusetts law appears to expressly permit the separation of ownership of the note and ability to collect on the mortgage, and has done so for approximately 100 years.  In particular, two sections of its general laws make Massachusetts appear as bad or even worse than California in terms of its statutory scheme, although Massachusetts generally has a much “kinder and gentler” set of consumer protection laws § 9-609 Secured Party’s Right to Take Possession After Default UCC 106 Art 9 GENERAL LAWS of MASSACHUSETTS and § 9-607 Collection and Enforcement by Secured Party (these are all part of the “gentle, gradual” transition to socialism which deceptively gives the—entirely false— appearance of respect for individual rights).  The “Uniform Commercial Code Comment” for 1999 Main Volume appears to confirm that the note and mortgage may be separated in Massachusetts by stating: 

“6. Relationship to Rights and Duties of Persons Obligated on Collateral. This section permits a secured party to collect and enforce obligations included in collateral in its capacity as a secured party. It is not necessary for a secured party first to become the owner of the collateral pursuant to a disposition or acceptance.”

In other words, Massachusetts Law addresses by editing the Uniform Commercial Code what would otherwise is and should remain one of the strongest common law (and in fact, “normal” commercial code) explanations for why securitized mortgages are (everywhere else) facially illegal. It is widely known that Massachusetts and California are two of the most “socialist-tending” states in the Union—so the Ibanez case as originally (apparently, COMPLETELY misinterpreted) was a major surprise.  See also the Boston Bar Journal Comment on the case: Boston Bar Journal US BANK v IBANEZ THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY’S DOCUMENTATION PRACTICES IN FOCUS, and for the disconnection between Massachusetts law and the rest of the United States Concerning the necessary that “note and mortgage travel together” see the Westlaw Journal Article published on Valentine’s Day: 02-14-2011 IBANEZ A 19TH-CENTURY DECISION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY.  

Now, regardless of whether California or Massachusetts has the WORST foreclosure law “on the books” the simple truth is that the law, and the way that the law is consistently applied by the courts—is the primary problem—NOT “robo signing” by the banks, NOT any of the faults or practices of the banks at all in fact—because if the Courts would enforce the common law and constitution against the financial industry, criminal and civil violations would be recognized and dealt with as such.  The problem is that the law and the Courts have effectively IMMUNIZED the Banks and financial institutions pursuant to an express government policy—very succinctly and clearly, and unambiguously identified, articulated, and described in the California Gomes opinion attached above, from February 18, 2011, that California public policy favors quick and easy foreclosure.  Foreclosure has thus become a kind of “kindly manner” of execution in this “Brave New World” in which we now live.  (Compare G.B. Shaw’s Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism” which explains: 

…under Socialism…..you would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not.  If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.”)

One repeating mantra of the “easy credit” society is that “living well is the best revenge” but appears that in a Socialist Society—others (namely the Corporate/Governmental Intelligencia) has the power to decide on our behalf what constitutes good living.  Obviously, the choice to live austerely in the desert and contemplate truth, like the early Christian monastics known as “The Desert Fathers” would be off limits/impermissible.  I suppose “living well” means buying at shopping malls, living in government/corporate allocated housing which will be awarded based on the degree of your conformity with government/corporate policy—whatever that is—which determines whether you have or have not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble.”

Getting to these conclusions and understanding what’s going on has been a long and fairly painful process…..

       It is still less than ten years since, on my son Charlie’s tenth birthday, California Attorney Deborah S. Gershon, then Vice-President and General Counsel of AAMES Home Loan, Inc., informed me that AAMES could not modify any Home Loans because the notes at all been pooled and securitized.  Following up, I now find that Deborah S. Gershon (according to her profile with the California State Bar) is employed by and affiliated with another subprime lender: “Signature Group Holdings, Inc.” (owner of “Signature Capital Advisers, LLC, Fremont Credit Corporation and Fremont Investment & Loan Bank of California).  This is very interesting because Fremont Investment & Loan went through bankruptcy reorganization a couple of years ago as a direct result of some early “foreclosure crisis” litigation in Massachusetts relating to predatory lending in the sub-prime field.  See, e.g., http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/452/452mass733.html (452 Mass. 733, 2008) and also, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s press release on her $10MM settlment http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagopressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Cago&b=pressrelease&f=2009_06_09_fremont_agreement&csid=Cago   In short, Deborah S. Gershon has dedicated her life to the securitization of mortgages and related financial and legal endeavors.  It is apparently a very good business, and a very good line of work.  Those who had the foresight to join in that movement deserve the same respect as those who saw that the Bolsheviks were destined to rule Russia after the 1917 Revolution, that Mao Tse-Tung would triumph over Chiang Kai-shek (aka Jiǎng Jièshí or Jiǎng Zhōngzhèng in Mandarin), and that Saigon would ultimately fall to Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam (for the Vietnamese aftermath, seehttp://www.eng.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/eng/news/default.aspx?cat_id=513&news_id=12053#content “Scientific seminar on President Ho Chi Minh and the road to national salvation”).

AAMES was a pioneer in home equity loans, starting an advertising program in the late 1970s (Carter Administration) which included some fairly interesting and or amusing ads, see for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjTzEzNT7_M&NR=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJgB335zLfc&NR=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp5STpiAwt0.  AAMES is thus one of the earliest criminal enterprises which insinuated the concept of Easy Home Credit through the Yellow Pages into the American Consciousness as a vehicle of expanding credit regardless of productivity and wealth or REAL need—and AAMES’ was a mover in reshaping Federal and State laws to allow for the extension of such loans and the consequent expropriation of homes without due process of law.  

In one sense, the American people bear full responsibility for and complicity in this crisis up to the present time.  More certainly even than that the Germans voted Hitler and the Nazi Party into power in not one fluke but two successive national elections in 1932 and 1933, the Americans have repeated voted the supporters of easy credit and punitive and confiscatory policies leading to the expropriation of property into power.  The destruction of Germany under Hitler and during World War II, then was guaranteed by only two elections.  

The Americans have been voting soft-sell corporate socialists into power continuously for 76 years since 1932, with increasingly express enthusiasm since at least 1970 (the last “real” anti-communists to receive any electoral votes for the Presidency were Barry Goldwater in 1964 and George Wallace in 1968).  The election of 2008 saw the first election of the first avowedly, admittedly socialist President in U.S. History, and major magazine articles discussed his commitment to socialism with fanfare as “Cover” articles, but little actual controversy.  And the greatest irony was that there was not one IOTA of difference between the “avowedly socialist” policies of President Barack Hussein Obama and the “Conservative Republican” policies of George Walker Bush—Obama has yet to introduce a single policy without precedent in his predecessor’s administration more significant than his “cash for clunkers” program.  (“Obamacare” has actually been “in the works” since 1993 during Hillary’s first term in the White House….. yes, if Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky made anything clear about Bill Clinton, it was that if anyone was wearing the pants in the White House during the first term, it certainly was NOT him….and in fact Hillary’s support for health care reform back then was well-known and publicized).  

The highly controversial “individual mandate” for healthcare has been a socialist threat since the 1920s.  Samuel Gompers, an early American union leader, founder of the American Federation of Labor (A.F.L.) and contemporary of Eugene Debbs, argued against the individual mandate as early as January 22, 1917:

“Compulsory social insurance is in its essence undemocratic and it cannot prevent or remove poverty.  The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems, which are held to be not only impractical, but a menace to their rights, welfare, and their liberty.  Compulsory sickness insurance for workers is based on the theory that they are unable to look after their own interests and the state must use its authority and wisdom and assume the relation of parent and guardian.”

If Gompers could see the “individual mandate” coming in January of 1917, it is not so surprising that we now HAVE IT as enacted law today, in June 2011, despite considerable resistance in the courts and public mind.

And the general proposition that socialism would be imposed by stealth on the United States people without their realizing it has been around since at least 1947, when Harvard’s famed professor of history (and CUNY “Albert Schweitzer Professor of the Humanities”) wrote in an oft-quoted essay:

IF SOCIALISM (i.e. OWNERSHIP BY THE STATE OF ALL SIGNIFICANT MEANS OF PRODUCTION) is to preserve democracy, it must be brought about step by step in a way which will not disrupt the fabric of custom, law, and mutual confidence upon which personal rights depend.

         That is, the transition must be piecemeal; it must be parliamentary; it must respect civil liberties and due process of law Socialism by such means used to seem fantastic to the hardeyed melodramatists of the Leninist persuasion; but even Stalin is reported to have told Harold Laski recently [remember this was written in 1947] that it might be possible.  . . . There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals.  

        Socialism, then, appears quite practical within this frame of reference, as a longtime proposition.  Its graduate advance might well preserve law and order…. the active agents in effecting the transition will probably be, not the working classes, but some combination of lawyers, business and labor managers, politicians, and intellectuals, in the manner of the first New Deal.  

Quoted in John A. Stormer’s 1964 None Dare Call it Treason, Ch. XIII, Economics & Government: 199.

I submit to you that we find ourselves in a critical moment of history.  I oppose collectivism because I want to own my home and all its contents.  If people steal my home and all its contents under any pretext which violates my common law contractual and constitutional rights, I want them to be held liable as thieves and compelled either to restore my property to me or to compensate me very richly for the loss of the same.  I have in fact lost two homes and their valuable movable content to such “predatory lending practices”, once in Texas and once in California, both times in 2009.       I don’t think it is a coincidence that these criminal acts happened during the first full year of the first term of the first openly socialist President of the United States.  Expropriation and confiscation and destruction of private property are, in essence, a core part of the socialist way of life, mandated by the express terms of the Communist Manifesto of 1848.  

      How do you feel about your homes and property, if you still have them OR if you’ve already lost them?  Do you believe that those who oppose collectivism are routinely discredited by smears as I and so many others have been?  Do you believe that we should all accept that we “can’t fight city hall” as our philosophy and settle down to “exist” within the framework of a completely-controlled, federally dominated economy and culturally decimated way of life?  Do you feel that politicians should avoid genuine controversy, and focus on emotionally “hot” issues which are tangential to the choices we have to make that will define our own and our children’s way of life for hundreds of years to come?  

Should we all just look to our own individual interests or should we band together and fight until the laws which permit Collectivisation of our Society and the Confiscation and/or Expropriation of all that we own are repealed and or overturned?

NONE OF THESE THINGS WILL EVER OCCUR THROUGH INDIVIDUAL CASE-BY-CASE LITIGATION.  NONE OF US WILL EVER REALLY OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY AGAIN UNTIL ALL OF US CAN OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY and, within the words of the Fourth Amendment, know for sure that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” either by the Federal Government, the State Government, Local Sheriffs, or Privateering Real Estate Pirates Like Steven D. Silverstein and all the other marauders like him who operate “under color of law” in California and nationwide.

Can I recommend any attorney that is “on the cutting edge of the securitization issues” here in California? No, not without gagging, I cannot.

Dear Charles, Question:  Do you know an attorney that you can recommend that is on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California? We are in the Santa Barbara Central District.

[[[First: a merely rhetorical question: Why do you want a State Licensed Bar-Card Attorney beholden to the Supreme Court of California and an officer of every court before whom you appeal, would you not rather have independent, non-monopolistic, representation by someone not officially integrated into one of the few expressly authorized State Action exceptions to the Anti-Trust Laws under the New Deal Era “Parker Doctrine?”]]]
So, dear reader, you want “an attorney that [I] can recommend that is on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California?”  I fear there is nobody who fits that bill.  I sadly cannot recommend a single California attorney of whom I have any knowledge who is also “on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California.”  I am copying this letter to Catherine Bryan who may have a different opinion, or at least “some” opinion on which way to turn—it generally appears that almost everyone who goes with a “bar attorney” ultimately loses, with a very few exceptions (but then, almost everyone loses, regardless).
          Attorney Michael Pines would be the closest, because he once (exactly a year ago in fact) wrote and filed a complaint (“on the cutting edge of the securitization issues here in California) which I considered magnificent, here attached “Michael T. Pines NDCA Complaint for FDCPA-Wrongful Foreclosure”. On June 15, 2010, one of the best complaints ever was filed:  Michael T Pines’ NDCA Complaint for FDCPA-Wrongful Foreclosure 10-02622 Class Action, but then, 96 days later, that case was dead because the Plaintiffs’ California State Bar Licensed Counsel failed to file any responses to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss OR even to the Defendants’ Motions for Sanctions…CAND-ECF-10-02622 Michael T Pines v Silverstein Docket 09-19-2010
So as you can see, that case foundered and died because of Michael T. Pines Voluntary Dismissal 09-21-2010–PINES AND ASSOCIATES—Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and Failure to file responses to Steven D. Silverstein’s Motion to Dismiss.  09-27-2010 10-cv-02622-RS Case Status Report
Since that dismal episode, Michael T. Pines would appear to be constantly trying to make the news.  He has been arrested several times for “trespass” or trying to get people back onto their lands/homes.  I’m not sure where all that stands right now but you can probably google it.  His complaint last year was filed against too many defendants on too many issues.  But he didn’t really try at all, in my opinion.  We have a case, 09-cv-01072-DOC, in USDC CDCA-Southern Division (Orange County) which is currently still alive but hanging by a thread…..and we’re unsure what exactly we’re going to do next.
           Then there was Dennis Martin Russell, who responded to my on-line/website-based ad (charleslincoln3.wordpress.com) seeking a Constitutional Lawyer to advance the issue of civil rights removal in Orange County.  Dennis Martin Russell accepted $5,000.00 from Renada Nadine March, which was close to 100% of her settlement from a car wreck, and proceeded to do absolutely NOTHING.  I am considering helping Renada with a malpractice lawsuit against him.  We had high hopes for Russell, but to say he disappointed us would be a cruel understatement: he misled us and deceived us.
        But any such malpractice suit will go up against the precedents set and actions taken by current California Governor Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown while he was attorney General, again last year.  Governor Moonbeam, while Moonlighting as Attorney General Moonbeam, prosecuted several attorneys for….what was the phrase, advancing a novel legal argument that a borrower’s loaCEL to EDMUND G BROWN CAL AG 08-26-2010n could be deemed invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it.”  See attached letter, “CEL to Edmund G. Brown, AG, 08-26-2010.”  
           To that fairly meaty letter we received a completely content-free reply, namely the attached “09-08-2010 K. Savona Response to CEL Letter.”  09-08-2010 K Savona Response to CEL Letter to Edmund G Brown
          Finally, Diane Beall Templin is currently working with an enigmatic, New York licensed, Attorney named Paul Nguyen, who won a case against Chase Bank before the highly enigmatic A. Howard Matz here in the Central District of California.   See attached files for reference: 09-cv-04589-AHM Docket Report as of 09-19-201009-04589-AHM-AJW 10-29-2009 Nguyen Motion to Howard Matz for Contempt against ChaseHoward Matz Granted Foreclosure TRO 09-4589 July 2009Howard Matz Supplemental TRO Requiring Authenticated Appraisal 08-03-2009
          Paul Nguyen has since then opened an office somewhere in Orange County and is now supposedly practicing with some success, but I cannot personally vouch for anything except that I met him once in his office and he is very sharp and energetic and MIGHT be as good as he looks—my only reservation after meeting him was that he preached a kind of caution which, although traditional and understandable among attorneys, did not seem quite sufficient or adequate to the task of unraveling the non-judicial foreclosure & eviction morass in California created by legislative statute: California Civil Code §2924 et seq..  
        And then again Paul Nguyen MIGHT just have pulled a special trick on Judge A. Howard Matz, or intimidated him in such a manner as Jose L. Pineda appears to have done—see the lead story on my blog (right after this letter).
          If I can provide you with any further information, please let me know.  On the whole, I am opposed to the State Bar Monopoly and believe that the licensing of attorneys does little more than to insulate incompetent and corrupt practice from challenge.  As I have recently written, I think that Judges such as A. Howard Matz are completely and totally knowing collusion with the banks, and so lawyers like Diane Beall Templin and Paul Nguyen may be as well.
Catherine Bryan, to whom I have copied this letter, has accused Diane Beall of being in complicity with the Banks and their attorneys.  Catherine Bryan to CEL re-Diane Beall April 3 2011 .  We do not know the truth because we see only through a glass, darkly.  We moan like doves and growl like bears.  We seek for the light but live in darkness and grope like blind men along the walls.  OK, so what else  does Corinthians 13 have in common with Isaiah 59 and the allegory of the Cave in Book VII of Plato’s Republic?
          I simply do not know what to say at this stage about Paul Nguyen and Diane Beall, but if Catherine were a lawyer, or if Bar Cards were not required, she would be the first person I would recommend, immediately after myself….. The connection between A. Howard Matz and Paul Nguyen’s victory on the one hand and subsequent migration to California on the other are both….curious and disturbing to me.  
         If you haven’t read my blog, please do so at https://charleslincoln3.wordpress.com, especially the lead article on A. Howard Matz and the Jose L. Pineda case, and what it may or may not mean.
After Midnight on June 12, Pentacost Sunday, Jennifer Lee wrote in from Pasadena:
Thanks Charles
As for Paul Nguyen he stole 4 k from my mom and promised an adversarial complaint and never did it and I could give you a list of horrible things he did to her including a chapter 11 bankruptcy that he botched so badly and abandoned her when she had paid in full to him. He then told us he has 100 customers and can’t possibly help them all so he had to pick which ones he is going to let loose and he doesn’t care less if they loose and get evicted. He told us he chose us to loose as our case was more difficult and he doesn’t care. I just spoke to a lady I saw tonight who told me he did the same to her and many more people she knows and she has someone who is going to go after him for her. I was given advice of how to report him. I have been too busy but I really need to report him to the bar and judicial review. Don’t remember off hand the place.he is a con man. Diane beall was upset to hear what he did to us but she told me she was losing all her cases so she needed to learn from him and she needs money even though she didn’t want to be there and she was sick to watch what he did to mom. She tried to confront him for what he did to us and she got in trouble for it.  

Another Note on MERS claims in Bankruptcy Court, this time from Idaho

2009 Comm. Fin. News. 59
Commercial Finance Newsletter
Professor Dan Schechtera
July27,2009
Assignees of Mortgages Cannot Enforce Unendorsed Notes in Their Possession Because MERS Documentation Does Not Expressly Authorize Assignment of Notes [In re Wilhelm (Bankr. D. Idaho)]
A bankruptcy court in Idaho has held that the assignees of pooled mortgages cannot enforce unendorsed promissory notes in their possession, because the controlling MERS documentation does not expressly authorize MERS to assign the notes. [In re Wilhelm, 2009 WL 1988812 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009).]
Facts:
A group of financial institutions filed motions in separate consumer bankruptcy cases, seeking relief from the automatic stay in order to enforce the borrowers’ promissory notes and to foreclose. Each of the deeds of trust named Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as the nominal beneficiary, but the trust deeds did not state that MERS was authorized to transfer the underlying notes. On its own motion, the court questioned the lenders’ standing to enforce the promissory notes.
Reasoning:
The court first noted that all of the lenders were assignees, rather than the original holders of the notes. The court then held that since none of the notes was endorsed to the assignees, the assignees bore the burden under state law of showing possession of the notes, which they failed to do in an evidentiary-competent manner.
Most importantly, the court held that even if the lenders were in possession, they could not enforce the notes because they had not adequately documented the authority of MERS to assign the notes:
[The lenders] apparently rely upon an assignment document to show that the notes were transferred to them. The signature block in these assignments typically indicate that MERS executed the assignments on behalf of the original lender and that lender’s successors and assigns. [The lenders] seem to presume that the assignments, standing alone, entitle them to enforce the underlying notes. Such a presumption is unfounded, however, because [the lenders] have not established MERS’s authority to transfer the notes at issue…. [T]he relevant deeds of trust name MERS as the “nominal beneficiary” for the lender. Further, MERS is granted authority to foreclose if required by “custom or law.” But what this language does not do–either expressly or by implication–is authorize MERS to transfer the promissory notes at issue. [Citations omitted.]
Comment:
This opinion calls to mind an ancient joke: “They said cheer up, things could be worse. So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse.” Just recently, a few bankruptcy courts have held that the failure of the originating lender to endorse the notes to the assignee meant that the assignee lacked standing to enforce the notes; see, e.g., 2009 Comm. Fin. News. 57, Assignee in Possession of Mortgage Note May Not Enforce It Because Note Is Not Endorsed to Assignee. I thought that was alarming enough, since it is so difficult to obtain those endorsements after the fact.
This latest case goes much further, however: even if the assignee is physically in possession of the note, the assignee may not have standing to enforce it because MERS, the original beneficiary, had no authority to assign it in the first place. That problem cannot be solved by ex post facto redocumentation.
This seeming lack of authority is particularly alarming because the apparent defect in the MERS documentation is system-wide. There are millions of mortgages, originated during the last several years, that use MERS as the nominal beneficiary. If MERS has no authority to assign the mortgages, then all of those mortgage pools holding “infected mortgages” will have no way to enforce them.
Although this decision may be technically (even hypertechnically) correct, I predict reversal, probably by the Ninth Circuit or the Ninth Circuit BAP. The consequences of stripping the mortgage pools of their ability to foreclose are too severe. My guess is that a reviewing court will find, by implication, that if MERS has the power to foreclose, it also has the power to assign. There is no express prohibition on assignment contained in the documentation, and virtually all contractual rights can be assigned, unless there is some supervening reason to forbid assignment (such as, for example, in the case of personal services contracts). Therefore, the power to assign is inherent in the status of MERS as the original beneficiary, even if that power is not expressly contained in the documents.

Copyright Thomson Reuters

Footnotes

These materials were written by Dan Schechter, Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, California. The opinions expressed herein are solely those of Professor Schechter.
End of Document © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Obtaining Money by False Pretenses and Fraud

Plaintiff alleges that BankUnited, pursuant to industry-practice, securitized his mortgage note upon or shortly after “closing” of the mortgage agreement, which means placing the mortgage note into a securitzed pool in which the individual identity of notes and transactions are effectively lost and neither traced nor traceable.

Accordingly, such “pooled” securitization of mortgage notes (or any other credit notes) not merely breaks but obliterated any legal trace of the chain of “privity of contract” (also known or treated under the general UCC Rubric “holder in due course”) and renders all notes unenforceable as a matter of common and statutory law.

Unless and until BankUnited has shown by competent evidence (competent meaning authenticated original, documents) supported by independent actuarial or forensic analysis (“auditing and accounting”) of its books (double entry assets/liabilities) to prove that it specifically assigned or granted Plaintiff’s note to a specific agent with power of attorney or trustee by contract, deed, declaration of trust, or endorsement, this Court should temporarily and on final trial permanently enjoin BankUnited or any person taking by or under Bank one from collecting, attempting to collect, or showing any amount due from Michael Mastoris on any ledger or report, including reports to any of the three major credit bureaus or any minor credit bureau.

Plaintiff alleges that upon complete forensic or fiduciary accounting BankUnited cannot and will not show any specific assignment of his note to any trustee with power of attorney, but instead, the evidence will show, BankUnited compressed Plaintiff’s note, like wheat stalks, into a rich wheat paste known as a “pool” of mortgages, in which pool or paste all the individual wheat stalks have lost their identity and are no longer traceable.

Plaintiff alleges that BankUnited functioned initially as the “originator” of his loan (“originator” as defined under the UCC codified at ______ New Jersey Statutes Revised/Annotated).

Immediately upon approval, or within not more than 90-180 days thereafter, the BankUnited “originated” loan belonged to BankUnited no more, because the note was sold into a securitized “pool.”

At this point, there was no longer any direct link or “privity” of contract between Plaintiff and BankUnited, except to the degree that Plaintiff voluntarily continued to make payments to BankUnited pursuant to the Unilateral Contract which he had signed, which provided him with, basically, nothing at all, but required that he make a large number of promises to BankUnited (as alleged throughout this complaint).

The functional business relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant BankUnited at this point was (or should have been) that of strangers who owed nothing to each other at all.

In order to maintain the fiction, however, of lawful mortgage enforceability, the Defendant BankUnited, along with so many other financial institutions in the late 20th and early 21st centuries in the United States, invented a new function, that of “Servicer” (See Exhibit ____), a function quite unknown to the common law, and not the creature of any statutory innovation, but merely of financial industry custom and usage whose existence and function has no basis in any law aside from, perhaps, the law of the jungle.

Plaintiff alleges that the sole purpose of a “Mortgage Servicer” is to collect illegal debts, or collect lawful debts by an illegal means, in that the Mortgage Servicer can never maintain true privity of contract or any connection with the true “holder in due course” of any note, because Defendant BankUnited as Servicer has no more means of ascertaining the identity of the true “holder in due course” to whom the individual wheat stalks were originally sold and bundled before being ground into paste (for spaghetti or fettuccine or dumplings) than anyone else.

It is a fraud for BankUnited to pretend to stand in the same place physically in regard to the Plaintiff (and all others similarly situated) while imperceptibly changing its functional and legal identity by securitizing and selling the note.

It is a fraud for BankUnited to pretend to be a “holder in due course” when it is nothing but a servicer without any real relationship to the Plaintiff.

The transaction between Plaintiff and Defendant BankUnited was flawed, even in the beginning, by an unconscionably one-sided contract and a deal which appeared to be a “loan” but which was in fact no more than an “origination”, i.e., a creation of credit acceptable as legal tender out of the mist and the aether.

But there was a relationship of some sort between the Plaintiff and the Defendant BankUnited which ceased to exist the day that BankUnited sold the Plaintiff’s note for value, into a securitized mortgage bundle.

Call to Arms: Wells Fargo Class Action possible on Mortgage Servicing/Holder-in-Due Course Fraud, Securitization issues?

FEDERAL CASE AGAINST WELLS FARGO

Currently I am the sole Plaintiff in a lawsuit against Wells Fargo in US District Court in Boise Idaho. The suit, like many of the others I write, is for Quiet Title to my property located in Caldwell Idaho. My assistant, Peyton Freiman, took it to the Court for filing in September along with an Application for Temporary Restraining Order, regarding which the Court immediately ordered a three hour hearing set for October 28, 2009.  Usually the decision on whether or not to grant a TRO is made in a manner of minutes in chambers. But, on this particular occasion, given the current economic climate, distrust of banks and maybe the individual language used in my pleadings I have been given a great deal of time to make my case for injunctions against Wells Fargo as we continue onward into Discovery and finally a trial. Hopefully this is a Court that realizes the seriousness of the matter and is giving me more time as a result, not simply a scare tactic to make me have second thoughts. Either way, I plan on being as prepared as ever to argue the issues in my pleadings.

I realize that this is a great opportunity and extend the option to anyone reading this who also has a loan out with Wells Fargo to intervene and join as a co-plaintiff in this case in Idaho. It would be a great strategic advantage  to have a massive list of Plaintiffs going into this hearing to give added weight to my words and possibly gain class action certification as a result.  To obtain certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there has to be at least one claim and issue regarding which all class members have identical claims. They have gotten very strict about that recently, it seems.  So class action status as a co-plaintiff we would need to talk about what issues there are in common and whether we can make identical claims for damages, injunction, or declaratory judgment.   In other words, there’s a difference in drafting issues of a different kind here: tailored issues for class certification and designation of one representative as “typical.”  We will also have to get a lawyer representing everyone’s claims in this action.  There is nothing specific in Rule 23 that says you have to have a licensed attorney.  Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, while Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(iv) states that “a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member desires.  Almost decision I have seen, however, requires that a class be represented by a licensed attorney and I’m not sure this is the place to try to challenge that issue, although it may be.  I’m open to discussion on that point.  The Court’s discretion to impose the requirement of a licensed attorney springs from Rule 23(d) (1)(C) “In conducting an action under this rule, the court may issue orders that….impose conditions on the representative parties or on intervenors.”

For the time being, and I’m writing this as of September 30, 2009: I issue this “Call to Arms”—Will everyone who believes they have been defrauded by Wells Fargo in regard to the servicing or modification of a mortgage note or mortgage contract signed after January 1, 2000, or who particularly believes that Wells Fargo is no longer the “holder in due course” of their note, or has otherwise acted in a manner inconsistent with “privity of contract” contact me through Robert Ponte at 860-599-5557?  It would be easier to start out with people in the Ninth Circuit: Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and American Samoa, but we have another anchor state in Florida and still others in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Michigan where parallel actions could be filed.

I’d ask this:  I am working on the lawyer, are you, dear reader, willing to work with me?  If you want to know more I am willing to forward on the complaint, essentially the damages are “holder in due course” issues, which I talk about frequently on this blog. In short, if you think that somehow you and I don’t share the same kind of damages or allegations of material fact please think again: we are ALL being duped by big banks who have no idea where our original notes are. So, think about it and contact me if you wish,

CEL III