MORTGAGE FRAUD WAS NOT ONLY NEVER FIXED, BUT IT WAS ALSO NEVER CHANGED AT ALL. FORECLOSING PARTIES ARE STILL ASSIGNING MORTGAGES AND DEEDS OF TRUST TO TRANSFER THE OWNERSHIP OF YOUR DEBT. THE SUPREME COURT MADE IT CLEAR THAT AN ASSIGNMENT OF A MORTGAGE HAS NO EFFECT... IN 1872!

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

I HAVE SAID THAT BORROWERS ARE WINNING MORTGAGE FRAUD CASES TODAY BY CHALLENGING STANDING, BUT THIS OLDER ARTICLE SHOWS US THAT CHALLENGING STANDING HAS BEEN WINNING FOR SEVERAL YEARS


LOOK AT THE DATES ON THESE MORTGAGE FRAUD CASES INVOLVING FORECLOSING PARTIES WHICH COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING.

Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence. 

-Vince Lombardi

by Danny Hammond

The Foreclosing Parties that lose to the Borrowers in Foreclosure Fraud Courts have one big problem. The basis on which they lose was simply the finding that the alleged Trust or Plaintiff did not own the debt, promissory note or mortgage. This is the same as the San Francisco study that found that at least 65% of all foreclosures were initiated by “strangers to the transaction.”

The issue confronting lawyers is that at trial, the Judges are assuming and presuming things that are not true. And the facts are counter-intuitive, leaving the lawyer with no answer to the question “Well if the loan broker didn't didn’t fund the loan, who did?” and the corollary question “Well if the foreclosing party doesn’t own the loan, who does?”

Such questions shift the burden of proof to the one party who knows nothing — the homeowner. It is much more difficult to fight with opposing counsel and the Judge at trial than a major aggressive push in discovery. Judges frequently start out leaning towards the bank, but once it is pointed out that discovery is a much broader process than trial, many lawyers are punching through the fog. Arguments about presumptions during discovery should be turned on their head — that all such presumptions are rebuttable.

And one last point — for nearly ten years I have been cautioning lawyers and homeowners not to admit things they know nothing about. None of you actually have the facts and none of you has the requisite knowledge (except in rare cases) about the money trail. People complain about “bad” decisions and accuse the court of bias and this is true. In fact, in most cases where the borrower loses it is because facts that are untrue or unproven are accepted as true by the court.



Thursday, July 7, 2016

UCC-3: CLAIMS TO AN INSTRUMENT

UCC-CLAIMS TO AN INSTRUMENT by Danny Hammond
Your Promissory Note is not a document, it is an instrument like a $100 dollar bill, or a 10 year US Treasury Bill, or stock. Copies can't be used to collect money.  The original instrument must be presented by whoever is claiming that they own your home loan.

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

I AM POSTING HILLARY CLINTON'S TOP CAMPAIGN DONORS FOR YOUR INFORMATION

"Somebody needs to tell Bill Clinton that his repeal of Glass Steagall sucked over 100 million families into the Wall Street mortgage corruption scheme. We're a long way from fixing the damage he caused."

                      From the Blog:  Deadly Clear


04-01-2019  In order to leave this post in the archives, I need to update it.  When I wrote this I was trying to decide which was the least awful of the choices for president.  I generally use only one example to rule out Hillary Clinton.  As the secretary of state for President Obama (who along with his attorney general Eric Holder managed to go 8 years without mentioning MORTGAGE FRAUD.) Hillary gave 3 speeches to executives of Wall Street titan Morgan Stanley.  Hillary was paid $677,000 by Morgan Stanley for those 3 speeches.  Which gives us a simple example of just what "money laundering is.  What could Hillary have said in those speeches that made them worth over $200,000 per speech?  So, it could only have been money to encourage her to help the big investment bank/brokers get along with the government.  You know, they must have been bribes.  But Hillary billed them as speaking fees and paid the taxes (or really listed them as income against loss).  Ta da. Squeaky clean money.  I don't want you to believe that I like either party, so I must tell you, that I believed before he ran against Hillary that Don Trump was a criminal son of a bitch with the biggest head that I have ever seen hold steady on a pair of shoulders.

My dilemma was that Hillary was too slick.  That speech fee thing, man.  I knew that she could hide whatever she shoved into the back of the American taxpayer.  She was smart and sneaky.

Don T' I believed would tell on himself at every wrong turn he took.  I thought he might try all the dastardly tricks that he saw the Wall Street guys use.  I believed he would peel back the veil for us all to see just how corrupt our government was.

I didn't vote for either.  I voted for my wife Andrea.  I made her my write-in ballot.  She was smarter, prettier (I don't mean to say that Don isn't pretty) funnier, nicer, and more honest than either of them.  Typical USA, Hillary got more votes and Don won the electoral college (I am just sure he could not have gone to college).  Wow.  I never saw that coming. 

Hillary would most assuredly have piled up a fortune. (Obama did, but nobody hardly believes it, but he did).  But, Don, OMG, he has spent two years trying to pull off a coup 'd tat of the American government.  I am not kidding.  If you have not read "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" which looks big and hard to read, you should read it.  I don't think he did it on purpose because I understand he can't read books, but he is following that exact path of Adolf Hitler as Hitler slowly and with great dishonesty consolidate his power until there was no other power.

I didn't realize that Don Trump would scare the living daylights out of me by diluting the constitution in ways no one would have ever dreamed.  Andrea would never have done that.

So with that update below please find the kind of campaign contributors which is beneath either of our despicable parties.  

I dug this up in 2015-16 back when I thought Congress was just very dishonest.  Now, I believe that would be a flattering comment.

 
I am posting two articles concerning Hillary and Bill Clinton's Wall Street ties.  I am not advocating for or against anyone (mostly because there is no one in the picture I would choose) but, I believe the Clinton's have and will again sell American taxpayers out.

The below is information I think you may need to know before making choices in November.

by Danny Hammond 

I am not advocating for, or against anyone.  I want to vote "no" on Super-PAC fundraising and I don't want to see anymore United States Government support for Wall Street.  But, what does it say about Democrats when their first choice is overwhelmingly funded by Wall Street and her husband was the Democratic president who cooperated with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1934 in 1999.  That Act had kept our country safe from nightmare scenarios like the Great Depression of the 1930s and our current corruption ridden Mortgage Meltdown of 2008 for 80 years.  The Democrats and the Republicans repealed the law that kept stockbrokers from merging with bankers that had American taxpayer insured private bank accounts.  They did not replace it with any new Act for regulation.  The statutes were all still fine, but the regulators were all fired.  Can anyone say "fox in the chicken coop"?


They just left the banking and investment industries with NO regulation at all.  They did this in 1999.  


From 1934 to 1999 there was no event that hurt this country like the Great Depression.  For 65 years our bankers and stockbrokers were bound to laws that made sense and our government repealed it in order to make the banker/stockbrokers happy.  65 years of stability thrown out in 1999.  Nine Years later our banking and securities industries brought the economies of the world to their knees.  We shut down the Russian stock market for seven days.  (See my article about Glass-Steagall (and other subjects) HERE.



Following is a list of Hillary's top campaign donors or their Super Pac proxies.  It was compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.










This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Bill Clinton is soft pedaling Hillary's abominable relationships with Wall Street.  She appears to me to be more Republican than Republicans.  But, I am not clear if Donald Trump is more Republican than Hillary, or if he is more Democrat than Bernie Sanders.

Bill Clinton is out on the old campaign trail defending Hillary's connections.  This is from the President that helped both parties gut Glass-Steagall.

I am reblogging this article from  the "Justice league Blog" and my version is sort of about Bill and Hillary out on the old campaign trail trying to explain it all away and scaring me to death.

Sorry Bill, but Hillary's donations from Wall Street and her plan for Wall Street as President is very questionable. Both political parties have right to question and challenge Hillary. Bernie and Martin should not get her pass because they are all from the same party. And that goes for any issues. All Presidential candidates from both parties should challenge one another on issues that matters in this country.


Justice League Blog:

Bill Clinton Defends Hillary’s Wall Street Ties

Posted on November 16, 2015

Sorry Bill, but Hillary’s donations from Wall Street and her plan for Wall Street as President are very questionable. Both political parties have right to question and challenge Hillary. Bernie and Martin should not get her pass because they are all from the same party. And that goes for any issues. All Presidential candidates from both parties should challenge one another on issues that matters in this country.  And her stance of not wanting to reinstate Glass-Steagall bill, the same bill that Bill Clinton repealed, is not helping Hillary to win voters over that she is a trustworthy President that will go after Wall Street execs on their financial crimes…

Bloomberg:  Former President Bill Clinton insisted Sunday that his wife doesn’t deserve to be attacked by her fellow Democratic candidates for her relationship with Wall Street as opponents on both sides of the aisle jump to attack her defense those ties.

“It is a stretch. Those of us who were there know that,” he told reporters gathered on the rope line after Hillary Clinton spoke Sunday at the Central Iowa Democrats Fall Barbecue on the campus of Iowa State University in Ames.

Her husband didn’t respond to questions about those comments, but her opponents didn’t let up on their jabs Sunday, arguing that she went too far in invoking the terror attacks to justify her ties to Wall Street.

Speaking at the same barbecue, O’Malley, who on Saturday night called the comments a “gaffe,” said Clinton “sadly invoked 9/11 to try to mask” the influence that Wall Street has had on her. “But she doesn’t have to mask it. It is what it is,” he said. “That is the sort of economy, that is the sort of economic advice that she would follow.”

After his remarks, O’Malley was asked whether Clinton should apologize for her 9/11 comments.

“My guess is she probably regrets it,” O’Malley responded, adding that Clinton’s debate answer was a “very distasteful way trying to pump out a smoke screen for her coziness for the big banks of Wall Street by invoking the tragedy of 9/11 and those attacks especially so fresh after so many were murdered in Paris.”





Monday, May 23, 2016

THE FDCPA HAS BECOME A POWERFUL WEAPON AGAINST MORTGAGE FRAUD. I HAVE BEEN USING IT

“Christ, you know it ain’t easy, you know how hard it can be.
The way things are going, they’re gonna crucify me.”


                                                                                The Beatles



I RECENTLY REPOSTED AN EDITORIAL FROM TERRY LAWSON CONCERNING

CONGRESSIONAL EFFORTS TO RELIEVE ATTORNEYS FROM BEING LABELED DEBT

COLLECTORS UNDER THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT.  THE BILL IS

CALLED  H.R.4550- The Practice of Law Technical Clarification Act

Now here is more on this dangerous legislation.


by Danny Hammond
info@mtgdocxperts.com


I recently reposted an editorial on this subject which was written by Terry Lawson a Kansas City Consumer protection attorney.  That actually is what gave me the heads up about this pending legislation.

Terry warned about the harmless sounding name of the bill.  He was right.  This is probably the worst thing I have seen our government try to do since the 2008 Meltdown.  The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) is the most comprehensive protection US Citizens have against not just abusive credit collection, but even more valuable is the fact that it protects consumers from wrongful collection of debts not owed to the collector or his or her clients.  Such as wrongful home loan collection and the following wrongful foreclosure.

I encourage you to write to every single politician who represents you on the national and state level.  If you don't know who your representatives are then fill out a form and give me your address, town, state and zip code and I will send you a complete list with contact numbers.  I don't have another agenda, I want us to work together to let politicians know that we have had enough.  I don't need your name and I don't want to write you a letter, I want you to let democracy work correctly and participate.

Fill out your request for a complete list of who represents you with their contact info CLICK HERE

See KC Star Article


Reposted from The Hill

 Congress should vote down this harmful debt collection legislation

BY BART STICHMAN AND MARGOT SAUNDERS, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS
— 01/17/18 08:00 AM EST                                                                              

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL


This week, the House Financial Services Committee will vote on whether to open the floodgates to abusive litigation conduct by debt collection attorneys and debt buyers who work in their name. The Practice of Law Technical Clarification Act would unwind a bedrock protection for the 77 million Americans with debts in collection, including struggling families, elders, servicemembers and veterans.

RETURN TO TOP OF BLOG

READ MORE        COMMENTS SECTION IS AT THE END OF THIS POST




EMAIL: info@blvdre.consulting


Sunday, May 22, 2016

PRO SE PRIMER 101 #1-TERMS AND DOCUMENTS OF A HOME LOAN: PROMISSORY NOTE, SECURITY INSTRUMENT, MORTGAGE, DEED OF TRUST

“Curse my eyes….The people I’ve seen….Crawlin’ thru the wreck of the American Dream”

                               
                                                                                                                   Holiday Ranch

by Danny Hammond

Perhaps the greatest aid to illegal foreclosing parties is the word "mortgage".  In all 50 states this word is universally misused as a synonym for "home loan".  Home loans have come to be known as mortgages as a slang term.


But, a mortgage is not a home loan at all.  It is merely the name of an incidental, but not essential, instrument used to define the collateral that a borrower of any kind of a loan has agreed to pledge as security for repayment of a loan, to be forfeited in the event of a default.  The term mortgage evolved from the fact that the home loan included the property as collateral.  The mortgage described the collateral.


In fact, the correct name for this type of document or instrument is "security instrument".


The term "mortgage" is used to identify the security instrument in most judicial foreclosure 50 states it is the Promissory Note which binds the borrower to his debt.  


Also, in all 50 states the security instrument is only needed or used when a borrower signs a Promissory Note as physical evidence of money he has borrowed and used for the purpose that both the lending party and the borrowing party have agreed to.


It is important to remember this because the judges of the courts do not.  In some ways try to remember to stop putting the Promissory Note as the top priority.  The debt is real.  It was the money that paid for the house.  The Promissory is physical evidence that a loan of money was made.


You do not owe a Promissory Note to the Holder in Due Course of your loan, you owe the back the money that you received as a loan.  The Promissory Note is important because it is all that exists to evidence the debt in the event that the borrower pays it all back, or fails to finish payment. We focus on directing that message to the judges.  The foreclosing party as a debt collector will focus on the words and not  the money it represents.


If you did not receive the money from your lender and the fraud is that they say they have the Promissory Note, then the Promissory Note that they have is void. A debt collector cannot collect money from someone who does not owe them any money.  


The debt collector must prove he has the right to collect (foreclosure is an act of "debt collection") must prove beyond a doubt that they gave you money, before they can demand that you pay them any money back.   I am convinced that 100% of the home loans made after 1999 or possibly even earlier named a lender that did not give the borrower any of the promised money. Yes, the borrower absolutely got the money, but from who?  

The debt collector must prove it was him, or them. Once a borrower has spent the borrowed money for the purpose intended, there must be evidence of the loan and the terms of repayment.  The Promissory Note is that evidence and is the essential proof that a loan has been made and is owed.  If the borrower and lending party have agreed that something substantial is needed to guarantee the lending party can recover the money that was loaned by them, even if the borrower is unable to pay it back.  The borrower can pledge something that he owns as that guarantee that commonly is called collateral.

Some synonyms for the word collateral are:   surety, guarantee, guaranty, insurance, indemnity, backing, indemnification; as in "she put up her house as collateral for the loan" 

There is a great deal of confusion caused by using the word mortgage to mean a home loan.  Some of this is an innocent evolution of the term Note and Mortgage which in the past have both been part of one document or instrument.  

But, today the criminal foreclosing parties (I don't use the word lender here, because very, very rarely is the foreclosing party the real lender or even the legal owner of the essential Promissory Note) are using assignments of the mortgage to supposedly transfers ownership of your loan.  But, they are really preying upon the common mistaken use of the word "mortgage" as slang meaning "home loan".  

This is an intentional deceptive and misrepresentative act, as there is no such thing as an assignment of the mortgage".  Only the assignment of the Promissory Note can transfer the ownership of a loan.  But, it is done just endorsing the Promissory Note itself, much like you endorse a check to deposit it into your bank account at your bank, or to take cash.

The mortgage, as the description and the agreement of collateral, always follows the Promissory Note as it is essential to a loan.  The Promissory Note never follows the assignment of the "incidental" mortgage.   

The US Supreme Court described this in the case of "Longan vs Carpenter" in 1872, and since all rulings and orders of the Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court are binding as law on all courts in the nation.  All courts are arms of the US Supreme Court.   

I learned a lot of what I know beginning in 2012 from reading blogs written by attorneys who seemed to be trying to help borrowers who were locked up in fraudulent foreclosures.  Today I know that those websites while helpful are just intended to (just like everything else an attorney does) make money for the attorney.    I had an advantage over most borrowers because I am not an attorney.  But, I have long been a home loan specialist, because I am both a real estate broker and a mortgage broker (here the term mortgage is misused once again). 

What we call a lender (among worse names) claimed to the borrower that they were going to loan him or her money to buy your home, but the lender can't rely on everyone just knowing that you borrowed money. There must be evidence that you borrowed money and that you know who loaned it to you. 

So, if I loaned you $200,000 (dreamer) and you gave it to the house seller, the money is gone.  What is left when the money is given to the home seller?  All that is left after the money was paid from you, the borrower, to the Seller of the house is the debt to the lender, which is the "debt" that you must pay back.  

You signed the Promissory Note and gave it to the lender providing them with the physical evidence that you have borrowed the money from them and that you have promised to pay it back according to the terms that you and your lender agreed to. (This includes interest rate, amount of time until it is all paid back, how often you pay, and how much you pay each time you pay).


So, the Promissory Note is evidence of the debt.  (But, not actually the debt.)  A Promissory Note should be required by law to be recorded, but as we will talk about later there is a recording that indicates that there was at one time a Promissory Note.  


Now, since you have promised to pay back money that was given to you and that there is written physical evidence of the money you received, then we can say that the Promissory Note is essential to the deal you have made.  For many hundreds of years everyone new that the Promissory Note (many professionals and other stooges like to say "Note", but I have learned to say it exactly as it is meant to be said).    

Anyway, for hundreds of years literally everyone has always known that the Promissory Note is the only indispensable piece of a home loan. 

But, the lender paid for the house for you and that house is really the best collateral for him to tie to the loan he made.   There is no law defining what you and the lender can agree to as what you will pledge to the lender in case you can't pay back the money you borrowed, but the home you are purchasing with that borrowed money makes logical sense.  

In today's world (after 1994) you probably could not have talked a lender into any other collateral, so you probably signed a Security Instrument describing the property and what happens when you have paid back all the money, or what happens if you are unable to pay back the money according to the terms of the Promissory Note. 

The security instrument is then, kind of the rule book on what will happen if everything goes well and what will happen if things don't go well.  More simply, the Security Instrument is the rule book for the loan.  It describes the Promissory Note and it is the guide that you will use if A. You pay off the Promissory Note you signed to get the money to buy your home and B. You don't pay off the Promissory Note. 

A better description might be is that you don't really pay off your home as we tend to think of it. In reality you buy back the Promissory Note that you signed for the money.  When you finish buying back your Promissory Note and you get it returned marked PAID.

The Promissory Note is no longer evidence any debt, because when you paid back all the money you agreed to, you no longer owe a debt.   People used to have parties and burn the Promissory Note when it was returned to them marked paid and this purchase back of a Promissory Note can be defined by the term "free and clear".  This term means free of any liens.