Note the date on the article when you read….

“We have Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank and Chase openly admitting to what they’re trying to say are irregularities — but are actually fraud upon the courts,” said Lisa Epstein, a housing activist who regularly attends foreclosure hearings in South Florida.

The following article appears in today’s edition of Market Oracle.  It’s a pretty clear and straightforward explanation of how one of America’s cornerstones….private property ownership, is being utterly decimated…and how homeowners all across this nation will soon be nothing more than slaves eking out their meager existences on a nationwide plantation called the unUnited States of America. I don’t know the author Bill Butler, but he nails the facts and his conclusion seems spot on:

The untold story in the foreclosure crisis unfolding across America is that, following a foreclosure perpetrated by one of the October 2008 Bailout Banks (e.g. Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo) Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac suddenly appear as the record owner of Average Joe’s home. These federal government sponsored entities then go into local housing court and get a court order authorizing them to evict Joe. If Joe resists, these supposedly charitable institutions obtain a writ ordering the local sheriff to forcibly remove Joe from his home.

MARKET ORACLE

I have been hammering away especially over the last several weeks about the fact that possession and delivery of the original “blue ink” promissory note is absolutely essential in every foreclosure case. (There is an exception to the general rule that you need the original note, but for general discussion purposes, consider the general rule that requires the original note)

In order for a Plaintiff to state a claim for foreclosure, they must:

1) Be in possession of the promissory note, (with a limited exception) and;

2) they must be legally authorized to enforce the promissory note.

This means that even if a Plaintiff shows up in court with a blank endorsed promissory note, this is only the first step in a two step analysis. The second and the critical step is the Plaintiff seeking to enforce that note they possess must present properly authenticated evidence that they are legally authorized to be in possession of the note and that they have the right to enforce it.

But far too often, all of this is ignored.  Any old Plaintiff filing a foreclosure will in most cases get a judgment because the basic laws of standing and the Uniform Commercial Code are being flat out ignored.  This is entirely inexcusable anymore. You must read this long opinion in its entirety, it is a masterful treatment of the very basic elements of foreclosure that have been blown millions of times all across this country and continue to be blown in courtrooms every single day.

Read the opinion and pay particular attention to the discussion of what it means to be a “Holder” under the UCC.  This more or less destroys the whole servicer fiction.  I hesitate to break out any highlights from this opinion, because every word of it is important, but following are some of the key take aways:

• The concept of a “holder” is set out in detail in UCC § 1-201(b)(21)(A), providing that a person is a holder if the person possesses the note and either (i) the note has been made payable to the person who has it in his possession or (ii) the note is payable to the bearer of the note. This determination requires physical examination not only of the face of the note but also of any indorsements.

• under the common law generally, the transfer of a mortgage without the transfer of the obligation it secures renders the mortgage ineffective and unenforceable in the hands of the transferee. Restatement (Third) of Property (Mortgages) § 5.4 cmt. e (1997) (“in general a mortgage is unenforceable if it is held by one who has no right to enforce the secured obligation”). As stated in a leading real property treatise: When a note is split from a deed of trust “the note becomes, as a practical matter, unsecured.” Restatement (Third) of Property (Mortgage) § 5.4 cmt. a (1997). Additionally, if the deed of trust was assigned without the note, then the assignee, “having no interest in the underlying debt or obligation, has a worthless piece of paper.”

• (“The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.”); Orman v. North Alabama Assets Co., 204 F. 289, 293 (N.D. Ala. 1913); Rockford Trust Co. v. Purtell, 183 Ark. 918 (1931).

• As a result, to show a colorable claim against the Property, Wells Fargo had to show that it had some interest in the Note, either as a holder, as some other “person entitled to enforce,” or that it was someone who held some ownership or other interest in the Note. See In re Hwang, 438 B.R. 661, 665 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (finding that holder of note has real party in interest status). None of the exhibits attached to Wells Fargo’s papers, however, establish its status as the holder, as a “person entitled to enforce,” or as an entity with any ownership or other interest in the Note.

• AHMSI apparently conceded that Wells Fargo held the economic interest in the Note, as it filed the proof of claim asserting that it was Wells Fargo’s authorized agent. Rule 3001(b) permits such assertions, and such assertions often go unchallenged. But here the Veals did not let it pass; they affirmatively questioned AHMSI’s standing. In spite of this challenge, AHMSI presented no evidence showing any agency or other relationship with Wells Fargo and no evidence showing that either AHMSI or Wells Fargo was a “person entitled to enforce” the Note. That failure should have been fatal to its position.

• If, however, the maker pays someone other than a “person entitled to enforce” – even if that person physically possesses the note the maker signed – the payment generally has no effect on the obligations under the note. The maker still owes the money to the “person entitled to enforce,” Miller & Harrell, supra, ¶ 6.03[6][b][ii], and, at best, has only an action in restitution to recover the mistaken payment. See UCC § 3-418(b).

Read the full opinion below:

VEAL

The conduct of the banks in the midst of this foreclosure madness is nothing short of despicable, disgusting, disturbing.  They are wantonly violating all manner of laws, rules, procedures that have been in place from the time our country was founded….and they are getting away with it.

It’s bad enough when civilian’s rights are abused, but we cannot as a nation permit the rights of soldiers that serve our country to be violated.

Please click on the link below and watch the attached video….

ABC ACTION NEWS

An example of a story reported to me…the third similar such in a week.  The previous two involved borrowers sending money their lender to reinstate their mortgages….only their lender didn’t credit them….identity theft from within the lender/servicer.  People on the inside taking information and using it for their own purposes…wouldn’t be hard to create fictitious names that sound similar enough to the real thing to cash those checks right? (Search “fictitious name” on this blog.)  Won’t anyone step up to stop all of this?

I have been contacted on several occasions by a company representing
themselves as representative for Wells Fargo Mortgage. They asked me EXACTLY
the same questions in the same sequence as WF has during my foreclosure. I
recently received a letter from Wells Fargo regarding my inquiry regarding
my account. ( I have not contacted WF regarding a “Short Sale” as the letter
indicated that I had.

I went back to a an old letter from WF and called the number listed to
insure I was indeed calling WF. I explained the situation and they escalated
it to their fraud departement.
There are criminals who are now contacting the folks in foreclosure posing
as the bank, gathering their personal information and then contacting the
bank and psoing as the consumer to negotiate a short sale. Should I contact
the Florida Attorney General about this? I find this extremely alarming. My
home is up for sale on Nov. 4 and I thought that I was negotiating with
Wells Fargo and in fact I was not. WF says they are not contracted with this
company. I have lost a lot of valuable time with this Co. and I am afraid I
be a victim of identiy theft as well. I need some advise. I think that this
may be a new scam that is being pulled on both the homeowner and the bank.
Wells Fargo was extremely interested in my information.

I have the call on my caller ID. The funny thing is that I gave WF my cell
phone and this call came to my land line. Sounded just like a wells Fargo
call.

I can provide my case number if you need it.

What has happened to me is criminal and it needs to be investigated. How
many others have been victims of this NEW approach to scam vulnerable
homeowners and the banks?

Dear Members of The Citi Board of Directors and Citi Senior Leadership Commitee:

I’ve got about $2 million dollars sitting on my desk here in Little ‘ole St. Petersburg….and it’s yours for the taking…..but you big shots apparently don’t want it.

You see I’ve got contracts pending or potential offers on houses here where (at least apparently) Citi holds mortgages on the property.  Now the rough combined principle value of the outstanding mortgages is $2.5 million, so you would be taking (at least on the surface) a bit of a loss if you accepted the money on my desk….but you’re going to take much bigger losses if you don’t accept the money sitting on the table.

Take the home pictured above….you guys have two mortgages on the home totaling $500,000….now months ago you might have gotten offers that would have netted you $400,000, but the market has continued to decline and the offers now would net you $300,000.  You owe or have paid $21,000 in property taxes over the last two years and by the time you get it back in foreclosure, you’re probably going to spend tens of thousands of dollars so I just don’t see how you’ll net even $300,000.

Here’s the damdest thing about this particular house….YOU’RE GETTING SCREWED BY YOUR OWN ATTORNEYS ON THIS ONE. No need to go into details on this, the bottom line is the homeowner filed for bankruptcy long ago and disclaimed any interest in the property he had…….your attorneys could have concluded this long ago…your “loss mitigators” could have gotten you money long ago, but they’re all sitting on their hands….I’ve been taunting them….emailing them…asking why they don’t want to get this property back for you….but nothing from any one of them…I’ve emailed your state court attorneys, your federal bankruptcy attorneys, your senior loss mitigation staff….but not a peep out of them other than to acknowledge receipt of my email.

This situation is not unique….I’ve got many just like this…and Citi is not unique…I’ve got literally millions of dollars worth of money sitting on the table that could go to banks like Citi, Wells Fargo, OneWest and Bank of America….the homeowners don’t care anymore (and frankly don’t have anything to lose.)

They’re totally ready to get on with their lives…give you guys money and get the property off their hands and into the hands of someone who can use it….so I’m asking you people….all you smart men and women that are tagged on this post.  Hopefully your staff will be monitoring tags and blogs and that sort of thing….I’m just hoping that one of you will be curious enough about what I’ve got to say that you might contact me….remember, you folks do answer to shareholders don’t you?

Can you all just afford to turn money like this away?  Is the government cheese, tax breaks and subsidies you’re living on just too good?