This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Tucson Mayoral Candidate Claims Dozens of Foreclosed Homes, Changing Locks, Kicking Out Real-Estate Agents and Posting “Do Not Trespass” Signs
GOT BALLS?
Now this is how you get it done...
Tucson Mayoral Candidate on Odd Spree of House Claiming
Some excerpts from the report...
A
Tucson mayoral candidate from a fringe political party has seized
dozens of foreclosed homes in metro Phoenix, changing the locks, kicking
out real-estate agents and posting "Do Not Trespass" signs.
Marshall
Home, who claims many foreclosures are illegal, has filed documents in
the past two weeks with the Maricopa County Recorder's Office showing he
has supposedly taken ownership of at least 21 homes belonging to
government-owned mortgage giant Fannie Mae. But none of the documents
shows any money has changed hands, and Fannie Mae says it has not sold
the houses.
Why would he do such a thing?
"Lenders are
gangsters, and they can't prove they own these homes. So they have no
right to foreclose," said the 80-year-old self-professed billionaire
from his real-estate and political office in Tucson on Tuesday. "I plan
to continue to take homes from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I would buy
them, but those groups can't produce the notes showing they are the
rightful owners to sell or foreclose on them."
I think I like this guys style...
Actually, he isn't doing anything different than Fannie's and Freddie's Foreclosure Mills do...
"He knows how to file a real-estate document that looks legitimate," Ruff said, "even if it may not be."
So how does he do it?
Last
week, Phoenix HomeSmart real-estate agents Brett Barry and Roland
Cleveland got a call from their brokerage telling them Independent
Rights Political Party Trust had sent a letter saying it "acquired all
rights" to the house at 6032 E. Skinner Drive in Cave Creek. The agents
were hired by Fannie Mae to maintain and market the property and had
heard nothing about a sale of the home.
The notice told the
real-estate agents they had 72 hours to remove their signs and
lockboxes, so they rushed to the house wondering what was happening and
why hadn't they been informed. But they were too late. Home's group had
taken their lockboxes, installed new locks and posted signs saying the
house was under video surveillance and any trespassers would be "dealt
with to the fullest extent of the law."
A special-warranty deed,
stamped by the Maricopa County Recorder's Office, also was posted on the
window of the home. The deed said the Federal National Mortgage
Association, Fannie Mae, had conveyed the property to the Independent
Rights Party. It was signed by Home and his notary, but there were no
signatures from Fannie Mae on it.
Ah, so he is assigning the properties to himself. Just like the servicers do...
LINDA "MARSHALL HOME" GREEN!!!
So, what did the Realtors think?
"We
called the people who hired us and work with Fannie Mae, and they
didn't know anything about a sale," he said. "It appeared right away the
document was fraudulent."
"It's crazy," he said. "How does someone just declare they own a home without paying for it or obtaining a clear title?"
So how does he get away wit it you ask?
All
types of documents can be filed with the Recorder's Office as long as
they are notarized. Not all documents are scrutinized before the county
agency accepts them because that's not its job.
More seizures
Home
said his group also has claimed control over foreclosure houses in
Tucson and other parts of the country, including Florida and Las Vegas.
Home said he took control of a 145-unit condominium project for a man in Florida.
So what does Marshall Home have to say about all this?
"We've seized hundreds of homes from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Home said. "Those groups have no legal right to them."
"I
haven't been contacted by either entity nor has either one done
anything to stop me," Home said. "I look forward to a call from one of
them so I can explain why I am legally in the right to take over
taxpayer-owned homes."
You can check out the article in its entirety here...
Awesome!
And the dude is 80 years old!
Mr. Home "MARSHALL HOME" is my new favorite Linda Green...
www.4closureFraud.org
»
- advertisements -
Here is how he does this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58282733/Home-Path-Bitchez-lol
So, it has started to spread. I'll hazard a guess as to where it is going.
It is going (in no great hurry) to inability to maintain ownership of a residential property without at least one armed person on premises at all times. Titles, court documents, pleadings will be meaningless. Once that is well known, possession will be most of the law. While funds remain for local sherrifs/police, that may provide some respite, if they know you. Otherwise only armed defense will matter.
Just one douchebag fighting and trying to out lawyer another another douchebag. It's funny labeling this guy as a "billionaire" tries to give him some type of intellectual authority. It fails the smell test to me.
Homestead your way right into property tax liability. WooHoo! You'd have to be mentally deficient to buy a f*cking house right now.
Homestead your way right into property tax liability. WooHoo! You'd have to be mentally deficient to buy a f*cking house right now.
Simply put, fannie mae cannot defend the title because it was not properly conveyed to them. They have no evidnce of ownership.
The bank which packaged the loan and sold it to investors will not defend the title.
If the bank succeeded they would owe a full refund to the mbs and be required to take it out of the securitized package and put it back on the bank balance sheet.
Simply put, Fannie has an equitable interest in the property, and a legitimate claim against the original debtor. The right to foreclose is a separate and tougher issue. The old fool has no legitimate interest in anything.
If he created a fake title for your car and drove it away, would you be able to see the problem?
See my reply below. If he finds a car and files a claim on it saying it was abaondoned and no one has proper title then he can have the car. Abandoned property is picked up all the time this way. The house is abandoned if no one has proper title or the entity who has proper title will not defend it
Abandoned cars are repoed and eventually sold as salvage or otherwise disposed of.
In the meantime due time is put into notice to the original owner if any prior to action.
That is one of the reasons why it can take up to 3 months to take possession of clear title to a auctioned bought used car.
abandoned cars cannot be repoed if there is no valid loan on them. Any person who finds it abandoned can claim it.
Yes it will take a long time for the guy to get legal possession of the house.
The courts will give fannie and anyone else lots of time to prove they have a title. The bank doesn't want title. Fannie and freddie don't have proper conveyance. Again I say brilliant strategy alleging abandoned property.
It takes 20 years for real estate to be considered "abandoned" in most states. See adverse possession, and study some law before you start mouthing off about it.
In all states, personal property is treated differently from real estate.
Simply put, Fannie has an equitable interest in the property, and a legitimate claim against the original debtor. The right to foreclose is a separate and tougher issue. The old fool has no legitimate interest in anything.
If he created a fake title for your car and drove it away, would you be able to see the problem?
Perhaps you might if the courts would recognize it and just let it pass through. And most of the time anyone bearing a contrary interest would simply be defaulted for failing to fight it. Like, for example, because you were promising them that you were working out a loan modification and asking for paperwork over and over again. Only to actually be full of shit and moving smartly ahead to seize the property.
If he found an abandoned car and no one had proper title, or the person who had proper title refused to defend it for some reason then he could acquire a title to the car. It happens not infrequently.
He is claiming the property is abandoned and asking someone to produce a valid title. No one will produce one for the reasons I listed.
Fannie took over these MBSs because the government knew they were fraudulent. This is the reason they set up MERS to begin with. It's not that banks won't defend title, they can't when called out. They can't prove who the money is truly owed to because the mortgages were bundled and bastardized beyond recognition. The government was in on this along with the banks. The banks that created the straw man named MERS need to be sued by the investors continually for selling these same mortgages to multiple investors and selling them lies that these investments were foreclosure proof.
Interesting thread. Question for Macho: has your opinion on the length of the Moll Brief changed at all?
I think it safe to say that unravelling this on a case by case basis requires very granular analysis. IH10 - I'm in agreement with your comment "The government was in on this along with the banks". I think the same holds true for CDS/CDO. Using the absurd to illustrate the obvious, let's imagine for a moment that the total number of securitized (MERS or otherwise)residential mortgages was twelve and they fit into a one dozen carton. Just like eggs, it is very difficult to fit more than 12 in a carton without breaking them. If the number of CDS/CDO payouts was greater than 12 we have a problem that may be defined as "unjust enrichment".
Taking it a step further, REMIC status must determined and justified. This, to me, explains the reluctance (outright refusal)of the involved parties to cooperate with borrower's counsel in discovery. This is often described as a "proprietary trade secret".
IH10, I'd love to have your thoughts on the Moll Brief linked above. It's a 42 page imposition of your time but I think Macho read it and gave a pretty thoughtful opinion on it. I harp on this point frequently, but I think the distinction between "negligent representation" vs. "fraudulent representation" is very important in the fact that it shows intent. In the context of foreclosure litigation, very rarely do I see it plead effectively. There are a few who are getting it done and it's no simple task. I've seen copies of some pretty hefty checks...lol.
Didn't have time to get all the way through it but it looks like the lawyer hit the key issues. MERS didn't own the note so what was there to transfer? Nothing. Your point with negligent representation vs. fraudulent representation is a good one in my opinion. I believe their intent can be shown merely by the fact that they engineered MERS to begin with. What good reason did they have to set up a straw man when they could have easily securitized these mortgages under their own names? Almost invariably when people are trying to hide their interest in something, fraud and theft are at the root of it. These aren't low level idiots that designed this puppy...MERS was designed with very specific purposes in mind and it is obvious to any thinking individual that the main purpose was to circumvent land title laws. Once that is out of the way, the very next question is why did they need to do that? Once these bundled mortgages were bastardized beyond all recognition, what was stopping them from selling the same mortgages to multiple investors?...their high moral character? If the layers of MERS could be effectively peeled this whole thing would implode because the intent of their actions would be crystal clear. Everything is a conspiracy until it's not. The focal point should be the banks made a shit ton of money using MERS to split these mortgages from the notes and the middle class lost a shit ton of money. It's no secret we're playing a zero sum game when dealing with the banks. So was it an accident they made out like bandits once again while screwing the docile sheep of this country, or business as usual? This is like the cheating husband that says it was an accident. Sorry honey, I tripped and my erect dick wound up in the wrong hole. We're taking that guy seriously here...because we have to or they threaten us with financial Armageddon again. It's disgusting that more people aren't calling the banks to the carpet. As long as we have judges like this Silverstein one, it will keep getting swept under the rug and convoluted.
I'm not an attorney, but I beleive that fighting this battle on a federal level is a waste of time. I don't see federal judges ever siding with home owners on this issue. State judges on the other hand, at least where I live, are taking a special interest in this and it's not going the way banks want, or expected it to. I believe we'll see a lot more fireworks on this issue between state and federal judges.
Silverstein's primary focus seems to be economics as opposed to the law. If that's the case he should be working for NAR. Who knows? Maybe he is.
This is getting ugly.
Sand Canyon - The Cat that Just Won't Die
Thanks for checking it out.
JFC... someone needs to explain that it's "pendant lite" not "pending lite"...
Gimme a false doc like that and most of our likely judges would hold their feet to the fire like a merf... you wanna file mutually exclusive affidavits in a state court here? good luck with that one... wouldn't wanna be you.
Once the "blue print" gets made for digging up dirt like this... the banks are fucked... once non real estate attorneys can wing it on the backs of numerous cases, we're home free (mortgage free?).
I'm actually contemplating trying to invalidate my mortgage... if I win, awesome.. if it appears I am going to lose/go to trial, then I'll non suit it. Not sure whether to try and sell now and take my equity or roll the dice and wait for the suit to be determined... decisions decisions.
I think "Nicholas Barrett & Associates" are gonna get there hat's handed to them...lol. If you start taking on these pricks, and winning, the Bar comes after you. GB spoke before the R.I. Bar association for over an hour on MERS. To conclude his presentation he asked if there were any questions.
Not a peep. I'll be youtubing it soon.
I tried to read it again and couldn't... this type of thing should be 15 pages max... and with easily identified compartments with headings an old judge could read from the other side of the room... I also strongly suggest against EVER shit talking the judiciary when you're asking the judiciary for a favorable ruling... regardless of whether a traffic judge in BFE. As my boss always says, "we don't get paid by the pound".
I realize audience is everything... and in federal court, you can get by with quite a bit more legal analysis before the judge's eyes glaze over... but, generally speaking, you have to treat brief writing like mike tyson did his fights... knock the other guy out in the first round and don't worry about the rest. If you gotta read 20 pages to get to the meat of the argument, you're screwed.
Further, there are few viable defenses to discovery... it all depends on which judge you're assigned (pray it's an intelligent one that doesn't play games)... but, if it is a trade secret, then there are procedures to ensure this information is not released to the public and, thus, protect the trade secret. (although, there are a shit ton of cases where this process screws up and the trade secret becomes publicly revealed... doh)... presuming there is a trade secret (generally a total front). I can't say I haven't alleged the same for clients...
I'm still waiting for a way to prospectively invalidate mortgage/notes (sword) rather than using the blunders in the chain of assignment to defend against foreclosure or invalidate foreclosure decrees or foreclosures (shield)... this guy claims he got his mortgage invalidated through a lawsuit, but I'd like to see some precedent... doesn't really help out anyone until you get a successful appeal... unless you're infront of the same judge.
PS, might tell the lawyer to hold up on his jefferson quotes... http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=12928193&itype=storyID&keyword=...
The length of the brief is the result of "cause and effect". Each argument raised by the defense was carefully addressed by the plaintiff as a matter of necessity.
I do understand what you mean by "raising the dander" of a judge.
Just ask this guy...ooops...too late.
He's dead.
Fraudclosure | Sunny Sheu Murdered? Judicial Corruption Activist Dead Weeks After Posting Video About His Fears
What's next? The Night of the Long Knives?
I just did the same thing on an appellate brief... when i came up for air it was 40 pages and the max # of pages is 30 without court approval... needless to say, I have a better appreciation for page limits after knocking out 10 pages of redundant and/or irrelevant information.
The fact is, the other side is going to make issue with a whole bunch of things... generally... you have to pick the likely winners and devote more time... ignoring some in the process or barely discussing them...
Did the other side include headings/categories for the various issues involved? Generally, it's best if the responding party keeps the same headings... (sometimes this must be avoided due to the general stupidity/jerkoffishness of the other side). This thing is basically one giant body... gotta compartmentalize ideas somewhere... especially for quick reference... the judge is going to do it with his opinion... might as well help him down that path.
Point being, the only goal of brief writing is to make it as easy as possible for the judge(s) to side for you... obviously this is a subjective process... but, I would have drafted her a little differently... ultimately, all transgressions are redeemed through a positive outcome... so, best of luck. The more positive precedent we can get, the better...
I have been wondering when the MBS investors might come forward and even try to contain the wanton foreclosures being filed by the Servicers. Another unfathomable wrinkle is that the Servicers (themselves almost always banks) operate allegedly on behalf of the owners, which are not trusts, but actually directly the MBS investors. The banks set up REMIC trusts so as to pass through without holding these assets because that would lead to a taxable event. So the Servicers, who are leading the foreclosures, file foreclosure lawsuits rather than fixing settling any deficiencies (often enough actually manufacturing the "defaults") and insisting upon foreclosure, spending thousands in legal fees issuing false affidavits and defending the indefensible. Why? I am told that in this manner the Servicers move ahead of the MBS investors when the property actually sells at foreclosure. Thus the Servicers, who hold no title interest in the property, get to collect first fruits of the foreclosure sale to reimburse them for their services. This would seem to me to be offensive to the investors who are being defrauded and displaced by Servicers who will not settle these disputes and insist, indeed incite, foreclosures.
AFAIK, the putback suits are already filed... at least some of them... MBS investors are seeking to invalidate the sale and they seek to be made whole... in order to do so, they have to argue the assignments to the vehicles they invested in were invalid/fraudulent/failed to comply with securities laws... as a result, they would have to argue inconsistent positions... either the assignments were valid and they're the holders (and thus entitled to foreclose) or the assignments were invalid and the MBS purchasers have no standing to foreclose...
But you're right, practically speaking, as a possible "holder", I'd be worried about mitigation of damages... of course, on the flip side, if you know the assignments were invalid, there isn't much you can do... I suppose you could file a declaratory action and name the entire chain of assignment... but that would be pretty impractical if all you have to do is prove they never properly assigned any "security" to get made whole. Especially when you sure as hell don't want to get stuck with the depreciated house... Strategically, I think it best to put all the chips on breach of contract/fraud/securities violations and roll the dice.
Once the putbacks start, you'll see shadow inventory start clearing... in a hurry. First to blink wins.
You have to love this country...the land of opportunity. That's it...the investors that got screwed will never be compensated unless they sue the banks that sold them these MBSs. They were sold on foreclosure proof, top notch investments when in reality they bought garbage and can't even step in front of the irrelevant servicing company.
If they get the securities invalidated/put back, then the servicer isn't going to be taking any cut...
If they were a big enough player, some government entity should have already bought their interest... (a contributing factor to why we haven't heard more on the put back issue).
PS, I doubt they were sold on much anything... they had a passive interest in the matter and entrusted a financial manager of some sort to represent their interests... unfortunately, that trust was misplaced... everyone is a genius in a boom... the bust separates the men from the boys. The managers will be parties to the suit also... due diligence comes to mind (although, the pervasive nature of these things probably renders that argument difficult...).
You have to love this country...the land of opportunity. That's it...the investors that got screwed will never be compensated unless they sue the banks that sold them these MBSs. They were sold on foreclosure proof, top notch investments when in reality they bought garbage and can't even step in front of the irrelevant servicing company.
You have to love this country...the land of opportunity. That's it...the investors that got screwed will never be compensated unless they sue the banks that sold them these MBSs. They were sold on foreclosure proof, top notch investments when in reality they bought garbage and can't even step in front of the irrelevant servicing company.
The bank could easily defend the title.
If it were not properly conveyed then the title and mortgage are still with the original lender, the bank or mortgage company.
The original lender sold off the loan a long time ago. The original lender is hoping that no one figures out that it still is the official title holder and mortgage holder because of lack of proper conveyance.
The original lender wants to make it seem that ownership is somehow "unclear" but ownership of an improperly conveyed title and mortgage is perfectly clear. It defaults back to the bank that made the loan in the first place. If the bank is forced to take back the title and the mortgage it must fully refund the MBS purchasers the full price of the loan. Subseqently the bank has to put a shitty depreciated house on its balance sheet.
The strategy this guy is following is brilliant. It is not fraud. No one will show up in court with proper title. Fannie doesn't have proper title. The banks don't want anyone to figure out the bank still has it due to lack of proper conveyance.
If the guy gets the houses by default then the MBS investors lose out, not the bank
Mostly true, except the original lender that you signed your promissory note with could care less what happens to it when it's passed on. They have no interest in the property, deed, or note once MERS fires it off to some other bogus entity claiming to be the lender. My original lender was more than happy to sign a stipulation sent from my lawyer telling the truth that they had no more interest in my property whatsoever. That stipulation went in front of a state judge; since no other entity can rightfully claim interest on the chain of title, the judge had no other choice but to nullify the trust deed. It's that simple. If an entity that has no legal interest in the property tried recording on the chain of title they could / would be sued for treble damages (3 times the amount of alleged interest). MERS was set up to circumvent centuries of land title law. That point cannot be made enough. The banks and the government broke the law when they created MERS...plain and simple. Everyone has the right to know who they owe money to. If that can't be clearly established then the trust deed is invalid. That's it and that's that.
This is fun, but from a legal stand point, it's pure bull shit. He has no color of title. If he did, he could at least cloud the bankers' claims and play a (cough, snort)..., little extortion game like the lawyers always do. Pay me or we'll be in court FOREVEH!
This is fraud, pure and simple. If the old fool lives long enough, he will be so charged.
You say: "This is fraud, pure and simple." Not sure I can agree with you there. It does not appear that Mr. Home has made any misrepresentations, material or otherwise and/or intentionally or otherwise. He may be mistaken in his opinion about the legal consequences of what he has done and/or his right to do so, and may perhaps face liability on some other theory, but I see nothing in the article where he has misrepresented anything.
Having said that, it may be quite another matter when he goes to sell the property and/or transfer title. I know what I would say and put in writing if I were Mr. Home.
He has filed false documents. He claims to own something in which he has no legal interest.
Impatience = duplicate posts at ZeroHedge.
An interesting twist is however the political party he's affiliated with. I suppose it could be argued the purpose of the activity is to return the properties' paper to the local governing authority and reveal the absurdity of the initial lending institutions degree of culpability in creating the melt-down of the US middle class.
I don’t think this guy is trying to reinforce the power of possession. Quite the contrary, he’s showing us how the concept of possession is now being thwarted by the government and big banks, as he soon will be too if he gets very far with his demonstration. He’s showing us how sadly the most valuable asset today is nothing tangible, physical, or real. It is fiat power to “let it be written, let it be done, simply because I said so”.
Nicely done, albeit still an unsustainable situation. People will be leaving Arizona soon enough as fresh water reserves dwindle.
With all of the Wild Fires in Arizona, maybe he could insure the houses and hope they burn down so he could collect the insurance. Kind of like a CDS.
Arizona has a real income problem. Look for more states (or rich individuals, in the absence of political will) to do this as they start to grapple with their failing budgets. Despite all the fraud, some laws never change. Possession is rapidly going from 90% of the law, to 100% of the law. Next up, states taking possession of arable land and water resources. Hedge accordingly.
Simply having someone to deal with the problem will provide security and tax revenue, even if new occupants are only paying taxes on the property and taking care of the property.
So that's why they issued this "Domestic Terror" alert in AZ! Expect this guy to be shot by state troopers 97 times soon during a routine traffic stop..
Generally, a Quick Claim Deed does not wipe out any existing Legitimate Mortgage. But, the Property cannot be sold before the Quick Claim Deed is dealt with to clear the Title. If he took Title Fraudulently then he could be liable for all costs and penalties.
Plus, Fanny May and Freddy Mac are Federal so the the FBI would become involved. If he is 80 it appears that he does not care if he goes to a Federal Prison for the rest of his life, to make his point.
Maybe he could rent the houses to defray his legal expenses.
A "QUIT CLAIM" deed merely terminates the interest (if any) of the person signing it. What in the hell is a quick claim deed, and more to the point, where can I buy a suit case full of them;)
Those are simply a page with legalease.
The original buyer/owner signs over the place to you for one dollar and other valuable consideration.
And that's it. Been there done that.
generally it's 10 dollars (I think 1 has been found to be de minimis)... but it's not just legalese, it's important information that transfers title to a property...
PS, quick claim deed... lolz... that's almost as good as the purchase agreement I saw for the "sale of reality"... wish I could buy that and gift it to a lot of people...
A "quick-claim" deed is just a two-pump promissory note that releases interest but doesn't actually satisfy anything.
that sounds like either a quitclaim deed or a release...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Two%20Pump%20Chump
"Sarchasm" is on there too ;) You're one of the last people I figured would need the sarcasm-off tag on a comment, as you're usually spot-on with both that and the technical/legal side.
must be the heat getting to me... and humidity... sheeeee.