From Our Friends At Living Lies on the Glaski Decision

Glaski Decision in California Appellate Court Turns the Corner on “Getting It”

Posted on August 2, 2013 by Neil Garfield  @:

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/glaski-decision-in-california-appellate-court-turns-the-corner-on-getting-it/

On the other hand we should not assume that they have arrived nor that this decision will have pervasive effects throughout California or elsewhere in the United States or other countries.

J.P. Morgan did suffer a crushing defeat in this decision. And the borrower definitely receive the benefits of a judicial decision that will allow the borrower to sue for wrongful foreclosure including equitable and legal relief which in plain language means reversing the foreclosure and getting damages. Probably one of the most damaging conclusions by the appellate court is that an examination of whether the loan ever made it into the asset pool is proper in determining the proper party to initiate a foreclosure or to offer a credit bid at a foreclosure auction.  The court said that alleged transfers into the trust after the cutoff date are void under New York State law which is the law that governs the common-law trusts created by the banks as part of the fraudulent securitization scheme.

Before you give them a standing ovation remember that it is possible for additional documentation to be created, fabricated and forged showing that despite the apparent violation of the cutoff date, the trustee has accepted the loan into the trust. This will most likely be a lie. I don’t think there is any entity acting as trustee of a trust that doesn’t know that it is under intense scrutiny and doesn’t want to be subject to liability that could amount to trillions of dollars advanced by investors with the purchase of bogus mortgage-backed bonds that were presumably managed by the trustee but in reality not managed at all  because the bonds were worthless. This gave the banks the opportunity to claim that they owned the bonds and therefore had an insurable interest which gave rise to the whole problem with AIG and AMBAC and other insurers or parties who had guaranteed the bond, the loan or any loss (credit default swaps).

The fact that the loan in this case was definitely securitized is also interesting. Of course Washington Mutual was stating to everyone that it was not involved in the securitization of mortgage loans when in fact nearly all of the loans originated became subject to claims of securitization. This case explains why I never say that the loan was securitized or that the loan was in any particular trust, to wit: I don’t believe that a funded trust exists with the ability to purchase loans and therefore I don’t believe the loans are in any of the asset pools. So when people ask me how they can prove which trust their loan is actually in, I reply that they are asking the wrong question.

What is being played out here in this case and hundreds of thousands of other cases is a representation by the foreclosing entity that the trust owns the loan when in fact it never owned the loan nor could it because the money that was advanced by investors was never deposited into the trust. We have the same banks representing to regulatory authorities and insurers that it is the bank and not the trust that owns the loan even though the bank merely made the loan using money advanced by investors who believed that they were buying mortgage-backed bonds. The truth is they were merely making a deposit into an account maintained by the investment bank. The resulting transactions do not qualify for exemption as securities or insurance under the 1998 law. Nor do they qualify for REMIC treatment under the Internal Revenue Code.

In other words if you take a close look and actually follow the path of the money and the path of the paper you will find that despite the pronouncements from the Department of Justice and other agencies, this is a simple fraud case using a Ponzi model. The hallmark of a Ponzi model is that it collapses as soon as the investors stop buying the bogus securities. If the government cares to do so it can freely prosecute the individuals and companies involved without any air of exemption under the 1998 law because none of the parties followed the securitization path presumed by the 1998 law. So we are back to this, to wit: a security is a security and subject to SEC regulations and insurance is an insurance contract subject to insurance regulators, and fraud is fraud subject to recovery of restitution, compensatory damages, punitive damages, treble damages etc.

You should remember when reading this decision that the appellate court was not ruling in favor of the borrower granting the substantive relief the borrower  was seeking. The appellate court merely reversed the trial court decision to dismiss the borrower’s claims. That only means that the borrower now as an opportunity to prove the elements of quiet title, wrongful foreclosure, slander of title, cancellation of instruments and relief under California’s version of unfair business practices. But the devil is in the details and proving the case requires aggressive discovery and aggressive preparation for trial. It is highly probable that the case will settle. The bank will probably be willing to pay almost any amount of money to avoid a judgment setting forth the elements of a wrongful foreclosure and how the bank violated the law.

The Bank will attempt to avoid any final order that undermines the value of loans that are subject to claims of securitization, because those loans supposedly support the value of the bogus mortgage-backed bonds sold to investors.  Any such final order would also undermine the balance sheet of J.P. Morgan and any other major bank carrying the mortgage bonds as assets on their balance sheet. If those assets are diminished, then the bank is not as well funded as it has been reporting. In fact, those assets might well vanish completely from the balance sheet of those banks, causing the banks to be seized by the FDIC and broken up into smaller pieces for regional and community banks to pick up. Hence this decision represents a risk factor that could eliminate the legal fiction created by smoke and mirrors from Wall Street banks, to wit: it is not the borrowers who are deadbeats, it is the banks who are broke and whose management has run off with billions and perhaps trillions of dollars that should be in the United States economy. The absence of that money lies at the root of our unemployment and low economic activity.

This Glaski case has many of the elements that we have been discussing for years. Fabricated documents, forgeries, perjury, false affidavits and no money trail to backup the story painted by the fabricated documents. And of course it has our old friend Washington Mutual Bank And the supposed take over by Chase Bank that never actually happened.

And it involves the issue of assignments and the fact that the assignment is not the transaction itself but only a report of a transaction. If the borrower proves that the transaction reported in the assignment or other instrument of conveyance never occurred, or if the borrower is successful in shifting the burden of proof to the bank to show that it did occur, the assignment will have no value whatsoever unless the transaction is present, to wit: that someone actually purchased the loan through the payment of money or other valuable consideration that was received by a party who actually owned the loan.

Thus even if Chase Bank were able to show that it entered into a transaction in which the loans were transferred (something we can find no evidence of which the FDIC receiver says never occurred) that would only be the equivalent of a quit claim deed, to wit: whoever received the consideration for the transfer of the loans was merely conveying any interest they had even if they had no interest at all. Hence the transactions by which Washington Mutual allegedly came to be the owner of the loan must be examined in the same way as the transaction between the Washington Mutual bankruptcy estate and chase bank.

You should also take note that the decision was published with the admonition that it is  “not to be published in the official reports.”  this is further indication that the court is concerned about the far-reaching effects of the decision and essentially tells trial judges that they do not have to follow it. So for those who wish to point to this decision and say “game over” we are not there yet. But I do think that we passed the halfway point and we are probably in the fifth or sixth inning of a nine inning game. Translating that to time, I would estimate that it’s going to take another three or four years to clean up this mess and that it might take several decades to clean up the title corruption that was created by the banks.

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2013/08/01/glaski-v-bank-of-america-ca5-5th-appellate-district-securitization-failed-ny-trust-law-applied-ruling-to-protect-remic-status-non-judicial-foreclosure-statutes-irrelevant-because-sa/

Advertisements

Living Lies/Neil Garfield on Georgia

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/wake-up-georgia-courts-are-opening-the-door-on-wrongful-foreclosure/

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/wake-up-georgia-courts-are-opening-the-door-on-wrongful-foreclosure/

Wake Up Georgia: Courts Are Opening the Door on Wrongful Foreclosure

Posted on March 15, 2013 by Neil Garfield

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN GEORGIA

If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 (East Coast, including Georgia – the Atlanta Area) and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. Customer service for the livinglies store with workbooks, services and analysis remains the same at 520-405-1688. The people who answer the phone are NOT attorneys and NOT permitted to provide any legal advice, but they can guide you toward some of our products and services.

The selection of an attorney is an important decision and should only be made after you have interviewed licensed attorneys familiar with investment banking, securities, property law, consumer law, mortgages, foreclosures, and collection procedures. This site is dedicated to providing those services directly or indirectly through attorneys seeking guidance or assistance in representing consumers and homeowners. We are available to any lawyer seeking assistance anywhere in the country, U.S. possessions and territories. Neil Garfield is a licensed member of the Florida Bar and is qualified to appear as an expert witness or litigator in in several states including the district of Columbia. The information on this blog is general information and should NEVER be considered to be advice on one specific case. Consultation with a licensed attorney is required in this highly complex field.

Editor’s Note: For years Georgia has been considered by most attorneys to be a “red” state that, along with states like Tennessee showed no mercy on borrowers because of the prejudgment that the foreclosure mess was the fault of borrowers. For years they have ignored the now obvious truth that the defective mortgages and wrongful foreclosures do make a difference.

Now, reflecting inquiries from Courts below who are studying the the issue instead of issuing orders based upon a knee-jerk response, the State has taken a decided turn toward the application of law over presumption and bias. There is even reason to believe that the door is open a crack for past wrongful foreclosures, as the Courts grapple with the fact that thousands of foreclosures were forced through the system by strangers to the transaction and thousands of wrongful foreclosure suits have been dismissed because of the assumption by judges that no bank would lie directly to the court. It was a big lie and apparently the banks were right in thinking there was little risk to them.

Look at Pratt’s Journal of Bankruptcy Law February/ March Issue for an article on “Foreclosure Law in the Wake of Recent Decisions on Residential Mortgage Loans: The Situation in Georgia” by Ashby Kent Fox, Shea Sullivan and Amanda Wilson. Our own lawyers have out in front on these issues for a couple of years but encountering a lot of resistance — although lately they are reporting that the Courts are listening more closely.

The Georgia Supreme Court has now weighed in (Reese v Provident) and decided quite obviously that something is rotten in Georgia. Focusing on Georgia’s foreclosure notice statute but actually speaking to the substantive defects in the mortgages and foreclosures, the majority held, as a matter of law, that

o.c.G.a. § 44-14- 162.2(a), requires the person or entity conducting a non-judicial foreclosure of a residential mortgage loan to provide the borrower/debtor with a written notice of the foreclosure sale that discloses not only “the name, address, and telephone number of the individual or entity who shall have full authority to negotiate, amend, and modify all terms of the mortgage with the debtor” (the language that appears in the statute), but also the identity of the “secured creditor” (not required by the statutory language, but which the majority inferred based on legislative intent). the majority further found that the failure to identify the “secured creditor” in the foreclosure notice renders the notice, and any subsequent foreclosure sale, invalid as a matter of law.

Once again I caution litigators that this will not dispose of your case permanently and that such rulings be used strategically so that you are not another hallway lawyer explaining how you were right but the judge ruled against you anyway. Notice provisions can be cured, non-existent transactions cannot be cured. Leading with the numbers (the money trail” and THEN using decisions like this to corroborate your argument will get you a lot more traction than leading with defective paperwork.

As I have said repeatedly, no judge, no matter how sympathetic to borrowers is going to give much relief when the borrower has admitted the debt, note, mortgage and default. These must be denied and lawyers should study up on the subject as to why they can and should be denied, and to persevere through discovery to show that the note, mortgage, default and even the debt have all been faked by strangers to the transaction.

Forcing the opposing side to show that they are a bona fide holder FOR VALUE will flush out the truth — that originator in nearly all cases was never the lender, creditor or even broker. They were simply paid naked nominees just like MERS, leaving no real party in interest on the note or mortgage, no consideration between the parties stated on the note and mortgage or notice of default, and no meeting of minds between the real lender (who is NOT in privity with the nominee lender) who, as an investor received a prospectus and Pooling and Servicing Agreement and advanced money under the mistaken belief they were buying bonds of an entity that either did not exist or was simply ignored by the investment banker and the other participants in the false securitization scheme that was used to cover-up a PONZI scheme.

Practice tips: DENY and DISCOVER. Ask for proof of payment and proof of loss. The assignments, the note and the mortgage are not proof of the debt, they are potentially evidence of the debt and the security agreement ONLY if the foundation is there (testimony by witness with personal knowledge, with exhibits of wire transfer receipts and wire transfer instructions, cancelled checks etc.) to show that the originator shown as payee and “Secured party” or “beneficiary” was lender of money.

Make them show that they booked the loan as a receivable with a reserve for default. Discover that they actually booked the transaction as a fee for service (shown on the income statement) and never entered it on their balance sheet.

And PLEASE study up on voir dire, objections and cross examination. If you are not quick and ready objections to leading questions and other issues might well be waived unless you interrupt the questioning as fast as you can stand up. If you study up on hearsay and the business records exception to hearsay you will discover that in practically no case were the business records qualified as exceptions to the hearsay rule. But if you don’t raise it, if you don’t have statutory and case law and even a memo on the subject the judge is going to rule against you. We are talking about good lawyering here and not bias amongst judges.

Land Records, Foreclosures, tax evasion

It is no secret that the foreclosure hell sweeping the country has resulted in a nightmare from hell. 

The land records of the past 300 years is in peril, as is your right to know who owns your Note, and who you are obligated to make your payments to.

There is an important Petition to sign to help your county keep the records in order.  It is one of the only safeguards that you, as a borrower have against the banksters.

Click the link, there are 100,000 signatures needed!

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/mandated-national-land-record-audit.html

Wrongful Foreclosure Complaints

 

It is truly amazing, the number of wrongful foreclosure complaints that are on the internet.  People search around for a complaint to copy and file in the Court, and wallah!  That one looks like a winner! 

Ever do a google search on “wrongful foreclosure”?  Amazingly… there are millions of returns on that phrase.

The other thing that no one considers, is who really puts all those sample complaints on the web?  Is every site on the up and up, or do the banks contribute their share with mis-information.  It would have to be that way. 

I have noticed some of the complaints that have ended up in the Courts, filed by pro se litigants.  Obviously, someone put that complaint out there, just so that these people would file it and fail.  Like… Well, there is another we won’t have to worry about fighting us in the courts.  So who?  Who would do such a thing?

Clearly another pro se litigant would not take an unproven complaint and suggest to others that it is a winner. 

And God knows, the plethora of bad case law already created from the rulings of federal courts, ESPECIALLY rulings from US District Court or the Northern District of Georgia, with the exception of course of Amy Totenberg’s rulings.  Those are actually the only ones worth readings. 

If you have a case in front of any other judge in NDGa., why even wait till its over to read the ruling, you know what it will say.

Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC | AG Biden Says $25B Settlement Not the End, Securitization Next

 

AG Biden Says $25B Settlement Not the End, Securitization Next

mortgagenewsdaily.com | May 16, 2012

Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden said recently that the states’ attorneys general need to make it clear that the recent $25 billion settlement with five major banks is the beginning not the end of their enforcement actions.   Biden, speaking on MSNBC’s Morning Joe said the savings and loan crisis cost the economy $168 billion and 1,000 people went to jail.  “This crisis, which was man made,” he said, “cost the economy trillions and I can’t really find anyone who has been held accountable.”

Show co-host Willie Geist asked Biden who he was focusing on, who did he think should be in jail?  Biden said one area he, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and others are looking at is the securitization aspect, “whether or not there were false securities, mortgage-backed securities, sold to investors.  That affects borrowers as well.”

He noted that Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster recently indicted DOCX and its CEO Lorraine Brown.  This is relevant, Biden said, because this woman has become famous, on 60 Minutes and so forth, because she signed thousands upon thousands of foreclosure affidavits.  “Chris Costner indicted her for forgery.  That’s the kinds of thing we need to begin to do.”  He said that investigations need to go beyond robo-signing and that people must be held accountable.  “People are angry,” he said.  “Republicans, Democrats, Tea Partiers and 99 Percenters are all angry that no one has been held accountable for something they know is obviously fraught.  And that’s my job as AG.”

Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC | AG Biden Says $25B Settlement Not the End, Securitization Next

About Us | Foreclosure Defense Nationwide – Mortgage Foreclosure Help – Free Advice

 

Jeff Barnes

WILLIAM JEFF BARNES, ESQ.

Jeff is the founder of the Foreclosure Defense Nationwide (FDN) website and blog. His law practice is primarily oriented towards defense of foreclosure actions throughout the United States, with his Firm having represented victims of foreclosure and predatory lending practices with local counsel where required in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Jeff has been a member of the Florida Bar since 1988 and is also a member of the Colorado Bar, first admitted in 1990. Before concentrating full-time on foreclosure defense, he had been previously admitted to practice in several state courts, including the Superior Court for the State of New Jersey (Atlantic City); the Hennepin County Circuit Court (Minnesota); the Norfolk Superior Court (Commonwealth of Massachusetts); the Circuit Civil Court of Walker County, Alabama; and the Superior Court for the State of California (Orange County).

He is also admitted to several Federal Courts, including the United States District Court for the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits. Jeff has been previously admitted to practice pro hac vice in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (Duluth); the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark); the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming; and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose Division), and is currently admitted pro hac vice to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division); the United States District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland Division); the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington; and the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville Division).

Jeff has been admitted pro hac vice to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division (numerous counties, including Atlantic, Ocean, Monmouth, Morris, Glouster, Burlington, and Passaic); the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Plymouth); the Superior Court for Flathead County (Montana); the Superior Court of Coweta County (Georgia); the Superior Court of Washington (Ferry County); the District Court for Kootenai and Bonner Counties (Idaho); Hancock County Superior Court (Indiana); Iowa District Court (Greene County); Kern County Superior Court (California); San Bernadino County Superior Court (California); Washetenaw County (Michigan); Mahoning County (Ohio); Maricopa County Superior Court (Arizona); Pima County Superior Court (Arizona); the Hawaii First District Court (Honolulu); the Hawaii Second District Court (Maui); the Kenosha County Court (Wisconsin); The Superior Court for Washington County, Vermont; the Circuit Courts of Oregon (Clackamas, Multnomah, and Crook Counties); and the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit (Winnebago County, Illinois); all such admissions and applications being in connection with foreclosure defense litigation representing borrowers. Mr. Barnes does not represent any banks, “lenders”, servicers, trustees of securitized mortgage loan trusts, trustee sale companies, or any others who seek to foreclose.

Jeff has spent over twenty-two years litigating throughout the United States in the areas of business tort litigation, contract litigation, insurance litigation (coverage, claims, premium fraud defense, and Unfair and Deceptive Insurance Practices), fraud litigation, real estate litigation, and Administrative proceedings involving defense of chiropractors in disciplinary proceedings, and appeals in deportation proceedings following the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act. His practice includes both trials (jury and non-jury) and appeals at both the state and Federal level, and opposing Proofs of Claim and Stay relief Motions in Bankruptcy proceedings involving foreclosure issues. Jeff has also been a Certified Mediator and Arbitrator certified by the Supreme Court of Florida, and also previously obtained status as a Qualified Neutral in the State of Minnesota.

After graduating from Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania with a degree in Experimental Psychology, Jeff obtained a Master of Science degree in Education and his Juris Doctor (law) degrees from the University of Miami (Florida). Between graduation from college and prior to law school, Jeff was a public and private school teacher in Miami, Florida, having taught elementary, junior, and senior high students, as well as serving as an assistant adjunct professor at Florida International University in the areas of Behavioral Science Statistics and Preventive Law to Master’s and Doctoral candidates. While in law school, Jeff served as a prosecutor in the Office of the State Attorney in Miami, Florida during law school.

FDN handles foreclosure defense matters in both judicial and non-judicial (trustee) jurisdictions and is affiliated with securitized trust auditors and investigators; mortgage loan auditors, certified fraud examiners, and paralegals who conduct a wide-ranging review of mortgage documents to ascertain any violations of Federal lending laws, loan tracking rhrough securitizations, applicable insurances, and other issues. Amortgage loan examination or audit is strongly recommended for anyone seeking to defend a foreclosure action. FDN will provide contact information for an auditor or loan examiner upon request made through our “Contact Us” link.

FDN’s local counsel network currently embraces thirty-nine (39) separate law Firms throughout the United States and continues to grow.

About Us | Foreclosure Defense Nationwide – Mortgage Foreclosure Help – Free Advice

The Securitization Curtain is Lifting in Hawaii! | Deadly Clear

Deadly Clear

Derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction… potentially lethal. -Warren Buffet

The Securitization Curtain is Lifting in Hawaii!

Posted on March 29, 2012 by Deadly Clear

“One of the most important decisions for Borrowers Rights in the history of Hawaii has been made with this decision,” remarked Honolulu attorney Gary Dubin. Honorable Judge J. Michael Seabright of the Hawaii United States District Court, today GRANTED the homeowners’ Motion to Dismiss the case filed against them in federal district court by Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-NC1 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-NC1.

The Williamses (Leigafoalii Tafue Williams and Papu Christopher Williams), who were represented by Honolulu attorney, James J. Bickerton (Jim), of Bickerton Lee Dang & Sullivan, filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), in which they argue, among other things, that Plaintiff has no standing to foreclose because it has not established that it was validly assigned the Mortgage and Note.

The Court noted that: “Because the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish its standing to bring this action, the court need not reach the Williamses’ other arguments for dismissal.”

Honorable Judge J. Michael Seabright gets it! And his ORDER was detailed. In the Discussion, Judge Seabright notes an argument that homeowners have being trying to persuade the courts (especially at the lower state levels) to grasp: STANDING and JURISDICTION.

Standing is a requirement grounded in Article III of the United States Constitution, and a defect in standing cannot be waived by the parties. Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (US.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939,954 (9th Cir. 2011). A litigant must have both constitutional standing and prudential standing for a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over the case. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11 (2004). Constitutional standing requires the plaintiff to “show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him to suffer an ‘injury in fact’ that a favorable judgment will redress.” Id. at 12. In comparison, “prudential standing encompasses the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights.” Id. (citation and quotation signals omitted); see also Oregon v. Legal Servs. Corp., 552 F.3d 965, 971 (9th Cir. 2009).”

Let’s continue – but we’ll get back to that injury issue later in the post.

The WILLIAMSES’ ORDER continues: “The Williamses factually attack Plaintiff’s prudential standing to foreclose, arguing that there is no evidence establishing that Plaintiff was validly assigned the Mortgage and Note on the subject property. The issue of whether Plaintiff was validly assigned the Mortgage and Note is inextricably intertwined with the merits of the Plaintiffs claims seeking to foreclose…”

Of course, this was a New Century Mortgage (Home123) and the Plaintiffs were taking part in a fabricated assignment in 2009 to a 2007 Trust… (that boat had sailed 2 years before because theTrust had long since closed) – but even more compelling in the Motion to Dismiss-Memorandum was the Williamses assertion that New Century aka Home123 was in a liquidating bankruptcy as of August 1, 2008 and they had nothing to assign in January 2009.

Deutsche argued that the Williamses were not parties or beneficiaries to the assignment such that they cannot challenge it… [we’ve heard that before, yeah?]. However, the Judge Seabright clarifies a valid point:

“Plaintiffs argument confuses a borrower’s, as opposed to a lender’s, standing to raise affirmative claims. In Williams v. Rickard, 2011 WL 2116995, at *5 (D. Haw. May 25, 2011), — which involved the same parties in this action and in which Lei Williams asserted affirmative claims against Deutsche Bank – Chief Judge Susan Oki Mollway explained the difference between the two:

“…Standing” is a plaintiff’s requirement, and … Defendants must establish “standing” to defend themselves.”

Judge Seabright continues: ”Deutsche Bank asserts affirmative claims against the Williamses seeking to enforce the Mortgage and Note, and therefore must establish its legal right (i.e., standing) to do so. See, e.g., IndyMac Bank v. Miguel, 117 Haw. 506, 513, 184 P.3d 821, 828 (Haw. App. 2008) (explaining that for standing, a mortgagee must have “a sufficient interest in the Mortgage to have suffered an injury from [the mortgagor’s] default”).”

Attorney Bickerton faced off in court and explained to the Judge in oral argument that the banks didn’t just miss the date to file their assignments or needed to tidy up paperwork, this was a ‘Business model using the loans for overnight lending.’ Bickerton told the Court that if this wasn’t dismissed, his first line of discovery would be geared to uncover the outside financial advantages being derived from the use of the Williamses’ loan.

Understanding the premeditated intentions of these banks, how they pledge, collaterize, swap, sell, lease,and trade these loans that are SUPPOSED to have been in a static trust will open the eyes of lawmakers to the real moral hazard – the fraud upon the homeowners, the courts and the state.

Jim Bickerton profoundly says that, “every foreclosure in the state is a victim of this shadow banking scam.”

James J. Bickerton
Bickerton Lee Dang & Sullivan
Fort St Tower
745 Fort St Ste 801
Honolulu, HI 96813
808-599-3811
Email: bickerton@bsds.com

“Security trusts will no longer be able to hide behind the hocus pocus of the pooling and servicing agreements. The ramifications of this decision are extraordinary,” praises Gary Dubin.

INJURY – Remember that issue from above?

Let’s discuss the trusts. We can see by the assignments that they were not made timely and NY trust laws call them VOID. The REMIC has failed. But maybe the investors ARE getting paid with the behind the scenes shadow banking scheme.

And let’s suppose we can see the trading in the trust is active, numerous investors have already been paid off – where is the “injury”….hmmm?

We’re connecting the dots, people with above average intelligence are realizing, just like Judge Seabright, that there are huge schemes behind the scenes of an everyday mortgage that the borrower never intended to participate in… and eventually we’ll know whether the application for a mortgage started the securitization process before the borrower signed the note making them securities with no disclosure, how many insurance policies were attached to the loans and when (we never agreed to be over insured which would give someone the incentive to “off” us)… it’s coming soon – to a court room near you…

…and the Securitization curtain will be lifting for the big show.

___________________________________________________________________

Details by DeadlyClear

Honorable Judge J. Michael Seabright – Thank you. Mahalo!
This is why he gets the “Gets It” award:

http://archives.starbulletin.com/2005/04/28/news/story5.html

An assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted several high-profile white-collar criminal cases here is on his way to becoming Hawaii’s fourth full-time federal judge. Michael Seabright: As an assistant U.S. attorney, he put three isle politicians behind bars.

The U.S. Senate voted 98-0 yesterday to confirm J. Michael Seabright as a U.S. district judge for the District of Hawaii. ”I’m very honored to have received that vote,” said Seabright, 46, an assistant U.S. attorney since 1990 and head of the white-collar crime section since 2002.

Image of the Honorable John Michael Seabright from http://www.grainnet.com/articles/usda_cited_by_federal_judge_for_permitting_violations_in_hawaii-36404.html