SUPERSEDEAS BOND USED AS WEAPON AGAINST HOMEOWNERS TO STIFLE CLAIMS
Posted on August 12, 2011 by Neil Garfield
JUDGES: ASSUME THE BORROWER IS WRONG
So you have denied the claims of the pretenders and put that in issue. You have even alleged fraud, forgery and fabrication and the catch-word “robosigning”. But the Judge, alleging that he did not want to “make new law” (which wasn’t true) or allegedly because he didn’t want to start an avalanche of litigation interfering with judicial economy (and therefore allowing fraud and theft on the largest scale ever known to human history) has not only denied your claims and motions, but refused to even put the matter at issue, thus enabling you to at least use discovery to prove your point.
So the pretenders have their way: no evidence has been introduced into the record. You have proffered, they have proffered, but somehow their proffer means something more than your proffer even though no proffer is evidence.
Attorneys recognize this as low hanging fruit on appeal, where the trial judge is going to get the case back on remand with instructions to listen to the evidence and allow each side to produce real evidence, not proffers from counsel, and allow each side to conduct discovery. It’s not guaranteed but it is very likely. And the pretenders know that if it ever gets down to real evidence as opposed to arguments of counsel, they are dead in the water, subject to sanctions and liability for slander of title and other claims.
So they have come up with this strategy of setting supersedeas bond higher and higher so that the order appealed from goes into effect and they are able to kick the can down the road with a foreclosure sale, more transfers etc in the title chain, thus enabling them to argue the deed is done and the “former” homeowner must be relegated to only claiming damages, not the home itself. People can be kicked out by eviction proceedings that typically are conducted in courts of limited jurisdiction where in most states you are not allowed to even allege that the title is not real or that it was illegally obtained.
Initially supersedeas bond was set at levels that could be met by homeowners — sometimes as little as $500 or a monthly amount equal to a small fraction of the former monthly payment. Now, Judges who are heavily influenced by banks and large law firms, especially chief Judges who stick their noses into cases not assigned to them, are making sure that the case does NOT go to jury trial and essentially influencing the presiding Judge ex parte, to set a high supersedeas bond thus preventing the homeowner from obtaining a stay of execution on the eviction or the final judgment regarding title.
Of course it is wrong. But it is happening. You counter this by (1) making the record on appeal as to the merits of the appeal (2) adding to the record actual affidavits and testimony as to value, rental value etc. and (3) of course demanding and evidential hearing on the proper amount of the bond. Here you want to search out and produce the bond set in similar cases in the county in which your case is pending. Make sure you have a court reporter and a transcript on appeal and that the record on appeal is complete. It is not uncommon for certain documents to get “lost” or allegedly not “introduced” so when the appellate court gets it you can be met with the question of “what document?”
The other reason they are increasing supersedeas bond is because of a misconception by many pro se litigants and even some attorneys. They have the impression that the appeal is over if the bond is NOT posted with the clerk. And they have the impression that they can’t challenge the amount of bond set, or even go to the appellate court just on that issue and ask the appellate court to set bond — something they might not do but when they remand it, it is usually with instructions to the trial judge to hear evidence on the relevant issues — again something the pretenders don’t want.
Supersedeas bond ONLY applies to execution of the order or judgment that you are appealing. You can AND should continue with the appeal and if you win, the Judgment might be overturned — which means by operation of law you probably get your house back.
All these things are technical matters. Listening to other pro se litigants or even relying upon this other sites intended to help you is neither wise nor helpful. Before you act or fail to act, you should be in close contact with an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located. Local rules can sometimes spell the difference between the life or death of your case.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor,Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: | bankruptcy, BOND, borrower, countrywide, disclosure,foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, robosigning, securitization,supersedeas bond, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND
4 Responses
Related articles
- A Few Words on State v. Branch (mpdtrainer.wordpress.com)
- Ask for a 402 hearing and then dissmiss the eviction !!! (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
- FBI: Mortgage fraud still prevalent, hard to catch (usatoday.com)
Second, since the “loan” refinances (subprime/alt-a) and jumbo new purchases were non-compliant and non-performing manufactured defaults, no ‘funding’ at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans). The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferred any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor” would provide to their correspondent lenders. Once the “loan” refinance origination was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspondent (originator). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-line transaction.
Third, it is not productive to state that since someone else was actually making payments on the “loan”, “albeit” not the borrower, that the loan is not in default. Courts do not care about this — they only care if the borrower is in default. However, if the actual party does not come forward claiming that the debt is owed to them, and the actual party cannot prove how they came to own the collection rights — borrower does not owe the debt to anyone. That party is never going to able to demonstrate that collection rights belong to them because they would have to divulge the above fraudulent process and that the “mortgage loan” from onset was not a mortgage but, instead, collection rights. This admission would also mean that the “debt” is unsecured and can be discharged in BK.
Do not need to know the “processes” — subprime/alt-a/jumbo refinances (as nearly 100% were refinances) — were and are nothing more than a transfer of servicing rights to false collection rights. And, jumbo new purchases fit in the same category.
This does not preclude QT challenge — all for it — just want most to understand — we are not challenging mortgage title — it never existed in the first place — we are challenging ANY title based on fraudulent loan (collection rights) assumption – and fraudulent mortgage title origination – to begin with.
All is NOT as THEY would like it to appear to be. Far from it. If you call them a “mortgage” — when it is not a mortgage — they will try to find some way to hold accountable —-this is wrong – and it is FRAUD. Just because it looks like a “duck” — does not mean it is a “duck” — no matter how it “quacks.”
Unsecured — name of the game. .
Subprime/alt-a/jumbo — were not mortgages — they were transfers of collection rights (albeit — with escalated balance owed and egregious terms). Once the Note/loan — is charged off — no more mortgage — only collection rights survive.
TARP Inspector General — Footnote 35 again — and again– and again.
“Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”
Securitiztion can be for any cash flows — but the security investors are NEVER the creditor. In the case of subprime/alt-a/jumbo securitization — there were no mortgage liens — the cash flow pass-through was only for pass-through of cash payments to collection rights. No mortgage lien – not mortgage — no pass-through of collection rights itself. Transfer of servicing rights only.
The “investors” were the debt buyers that purchased the collection rights — period. The security investors were duped to believing that the cash pass-through was to valid mortgage liens. But, these security investors never were the lender, never were the creditor, and never were the mortgagee — because there was never any valid mortgages!!!!! And, security investors are NEVER the creditor.
CDOs??? nothing more than derivatives from the false assets that the false securitizations were based upon to begin with!!!”