you have to read this.. sir Davd Rogers.. > > which involves repeated bulk transfers of mortgages. **************************** The legal confusion stems from the existence of competing systems for establishing title to mortgages and transferring those rights. Historically, mortgage title was established and transferred through the “public demonstration” regimes of UCC Article 3 and land recordation systems. This arrangement worked satisfactorily when mortgages were rarely transferred. Mortgage finance, however, shifted to securitization, which involves repeated bulk transfers of mortgages. To facilitate securitization, deal architects developed alternative “contracting” regimes for mortgage title: UCC Article 9 and MERS, a private mortgage registry. These new regimes reduced the cost of securitization by dispensing with demonstrative formalities, but at the expense of reduced clarity of title, which raised the costs of mortgage enforcement. This trade-off benefitted the securitization industry at the expense of securitization investors because it became apparent only subsequently with the rise in mortgage foreclosures. The harm, however, has not been limited to securitization investors. Clouded mortgage title has significant negative externalities on the economy as a whole SNIP***< Absolutely! because of the shift in legal methods for mortgage transfer and title that accompanied securitization This was new securitization methodology (not even the original version) and patented in the USTPO (patents - new inventions and/or business method process, i.e. software technology) in the 1990s through even today. These were not traditional mortgages as Sheila Bair points out in Bull By the Horns - these were NTMs (nontraditional mortgages). Current state laws are not structured for NTMs - especially when it is starting to appear that the approved loans were securitized (sold, pledged, etc.) before the borrower signed the documents... and of course, had no disclosure that his collateral, credit score and promise to pay were (or had) morphed into a securities transaction. Detinue was the choice (in MD state court at least) as I didnt want the hassle of posting the bond as is usually required (some states have loosened the bond req.) in replevin cases. Wetzelberger v. Friedman, et al., Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Md, No. 03-C-13-009963 Hang with me, as this comment is relevant to the post. Its my way of attempting to give back in the hope it will benefit others. I believe this is a way to counteract (i.e break the back) of the false stigma of the deadbeat homeowner when attacking clouded title, securitization, fraudclosure and the massive land grab that is in play right now. Ive been referencing Adam Levitin and Katherine Porters work for the past few years in state, federal and bankruptcy courts and I thank them. Their research, diligence and insights have been invaluable. As a 15yr real estate investor/developer (with an MBA), now accidental litigator by way of hurricane Katrina wiping out our $3M r.e. bus. literally overnight (8+yrs ago) and playing Monopoly since I was very young, I am thankful that a natural disaster woke me up to how the financial world (and world in general) really works. I had no clue, despite doing a lot of deals over the years with private money, bank money, public money, etc. Ive also been a small private lender, so I know what valuable consideration is and when a contract is formed. I can produce the books and records and am a credible, competent, reliable witness to authenticate those books and records. I first learned about off balance sheet accounting way back when I worked in the oilfield as a deep sea diver (was investing in r.e. during that time) when Enron with its 2800+ off balance sheet entities collapsed. Having diver friends from Texas and Louisiana with family members that lost everything, clued me in to the scam of using off balance sheet entities in offshore jurisdictions to willfully conceal their fraud. Being involved in litigating many properties, I found I love the law, took to it like a duck in water, and have gotten lucky on a lot of occasions, having nothing to do with my abilities. The luck Ive experienced at very precise times, is evidence to me there is some greater force at work here. Im knee deep in fraudclosure in multiple states, not only with our own properties, but as more people came to us for research, investigation and litigation support. It wasnt planned. I naively reported all the well documented crimes through the proper channels-- FBI, IRS, AG, state attorney,judges, sheriff,attorney grievances, judge grievances, lobbied House Judiciary Committee, traveled to Panama to get a case filed with goal of going around corrupt US just-us system, to bring foreign judgment back to US or enforce against bank in a foreign jurisdiction---and for the most part, those efforts yielded minimal results. On the plane back from Panama 2yrs ago, I sat next to an Italian economist for the World Bank. She asked me what I did.. I sue crooked banks and attorneys.... She gave me her rosary beads and said you will need these more than me... Ill leave off my tin-foil hat for now, but there are much bigger forces at play that we are all up against that are well documented. Former World Bank Senior Counsel (Yale Law) Karen Hudes and other ex-gov whistleblowers corroborates what those PNJs (patriot nut jobs) have been saying for years. Matt Taibbi finally agreed in his Rolling Stone articles while covering griftopia Ive taken a lot of arrows as a whistleblower, been threatened by judges for exposing fraud, attacked, retaliated against,etc but all attempts to intimidate have ricocheted. Having been almost killed at least a half dozen times working in the oilfield, Im lucky that every day above ground is a good day. I have 2 young children and thankfully, a very supportive wife, that is why I do what I do. Our children will inherit the world we leave behind. I saw a comment to a post on this site from 2011 (Standing to Invoke PSA...) where Robert Sedlar posed the why arent people suing to get their note/mortgage or deed of trust (personal property) back in either a replevin or trover and conversion (posted by indio007) complaint? I had same question. Well,....I finally got unbusy enough to file the first detinue complaint (Sep. 2013) for the return of personal property (note/DOT) on a purported $483,000 loan that was allegedly paid in full on 22 Dec 2006. Ive got about 60 more after the first one. Pre-suit demand letters are rolling out every day. Detinue was the choice (in MD state court at least) as I didnt want the hassle of posting the bond as is usually required (some states have loosened the bond req.) in replevin cases. Wetzelberger v. Friedman, et al., Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Md, No. 03-C-13-009963 Bottom line is of the 6 defendants (2 attorneys/trustees, Litton as successor to Freemont, MERS and Wells Fargo) one default is entered against 1 attorney, Litton never answered (default 2 awaiting Order) and the other 4 defendants are squealing like stuck pigs. The usual childish shenanigans have resulted- ducking service, Circuit Court losing papers I filed (happens often), chambers judge out to lunch when I show up to get duplicate blank Orders of default signed when they lose original, frivolous motions to dismiss filed by unethical defense attorneys, etc. Anyone who has litigated in fraudclosure cases can relate. Anyway, having corresponded with people across the country (incl. Neil Garfield) I high encourage, in fact I challenge everyone to follow this path, no matter whether you paid off a purported student loan, auto loan, mobile home loan, auto lease, home equity loan, refinance, etc. We all know every one of these purported loans have been converted and sold via a FASIT or REMIC. Problem is when you fulfill your purported obligation due to the nature and character of the securitization, it is a virtual impossibility to return the original, genuine, unaltered, authenticated instrument(s). This doesnt even factor in LPS/DocX, Lorraine Brown document fraud. Yes, I have several fraudulent certificates of satisfaction filed in land records- even discovered one on a Maryland judges home signed by notorious Linda Green, have duplicate copies of original forged notes, etc. etc.--have laundry list of fraudulent docs and instruments. Imagine if 100, 10,000 or 100,000 people sued for the return of their documentary intangible personal property, that has nothing to do with real property, clouded title, etc. ??? Who has more credibility now to compel the judge to do the right thing? In maneuvering into checkmate, I included as exhibits not only the public record deeds of trust that every attorney involved in the detinue complaint executed (redacted personal info,) but I also included DOTs that several selective judges executed as well. If the judge (yet to be assigned) to this case tries to fu.... me (sorry but its happened often)they not only invalidate 600yrs of trust law, but they also invalidate their very own deeds of trust that have the exact same Non-Uniform Release covenant and every DOT across the country. You lawyers out there- feel free to call me out on this, but Im advancing that a trust arrangement was formed via the DOT. Most will point to the case law that says a DOT is just like a mortgage contract, but, every DOT states a trust arrangement is being formed. The plain language is right in every DOT. Ive also discovered (while diligently pursuing commercial, contract and securities research) that under trust law no party to a trust needs to know or understand a trust is being formed. Ill gladly provide the cites is support. The reason for pursuing trust law as the controlling law of the case is it is a very powerful way to have an obligation enforced, in my opinion more powerful than contract or commercial law. Again call me out on this, but this is what Im advancing (along with many sub- agendas) in this detinue case. Bottom line (in Md. at least) is if defendants, who are jointly and severally liable, cannot return my property, they have to return the value of the property instead-$483,000 face amount, not including all the proceeds made from my property. Post default judgment on Friedman, Ive requested an Order of Reference to my friendly court auditor to tally up exactly how much that note has generated in profits. There are plenty of cases on Lexis or WestLaw supporting the face value rule. Ill gladly share any/ all resources and I urge all of you (working with competent counsel and those that cannot afford it) to pursue this path. I dont know why more people are not doing it, as its laying right under our noses. My guess is ignorance, as I was ignorant despite being what I thought was a real estate professional. I had no idea..... Its just a different species of property and I cant see how any judge can deny the right to the return of your property when not only the custom and practice is well settled, the plain language (at least in deeds of trust) clearly provide for the return of property. Last, Ive dealt with the purported statute of limitations defense (generally 3-4yrs) but with recent revelation that DocX has been forging, falsifying and/or fabricating documents going back over a decade, the time starts ticking upon discovery that you were harmed. Ill post from time to time on progress and you can check docket history- google Maryland Judiciary and link to case search should come up. Hope this has been beneficial, its the least I can do to pay it forward for all the assistance Ive received over the past several years. Todd Wetzelberger todd@surefirehomeretention
Posted on: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 02:50:10 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015