Ellen Brown, Articles, June 26th, 2008
More than 1.5 million homeowners are expected to enter foreclosure this year, and about half of them are expected to have their homes repossessed. If the dire consequences Jefferson warned of 200 years ago have been slow in coming, it is because they have been concealed by what Jerome a Paris calls the Anglo Disease – “the highly unequal economy whereby the rich and the financial sector . . . capture most of the income but hide it by providing cheap debt to the middle classes so that they can continue to spend.” . . . .
Read more here: http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/subprime_defense.php
Filed under: Ellen Brown Articles/Commentary |
WEB OF DEBT BLOG 
Since my other comments were misfiled under the money reform tank article, from now on, I will comment here where my comments belong.
I drafted a five page letter to my lender this week, but after my law clerk reviewed it, we decided not to send it and instead send a much more benign letter which we will do on Monday. Interestingly, he brought me the most recent ABA Journal which has an article about the sub-prime mess and specifically mentions the foreclosures involving lost notes. It mentioned the US District Court case in Cleveland (Boyko?) and said that such suits were now being dismissed in the hundreds.
We decided to start with a benign letter simply asking for the return of my paid 2nd note and simply asking if the lender had possession of my 1st. Checking my Deed of Trust on the 1st note (the outstanding note) it indicates that MERS is the nominal beneficiary of the lender. Same crap as all the MERS foreclosure cases. We will follow up with my much more aggressive second letter if my first benign letter gets an inadequate response, which it probably will.
So I am going to diligently pursue, over the next few weeks, the whereabouts of both my notes. If it appears they can’t find them or produce them, I will litigate, no ifs, ands, or buts.
I have decided though, to keep making payments until such time as a court gives a final non-appealable order not to do so. I can always ask for my money back. I see no reason to give the lender the right to claim I am in default and that we are in peri delicto losing rights to equitable relief. I want to keep the good guy status.
Update: On Monday, I sent off my letter requesting the return of the “second” note I had paid for and requesting the whereabouts of the outstanding “first” note. I pared down my five page letter to two.
One of the reasons we did so was because my law clerk was concerned I might not have standing to sue on the “first” note based solely on my mere suspicion that the bank was no longer holding my “first” note; i.e., that standing would require more than a mere suspicion that I was paying the wrong party or an unauthorized party.
Ellen, I wonder what you would think about this creating a standing problem. I would think that I should at least have standing to question whether I am paying the wrong party, but I am not sure, so I am curious as to what you would think about this. I have been a litigator for thirty years, but this is not my field at all; I am a Plaintiff’s personal injury attorney, and have done little else for nearly thirty years. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Hi David, it’s not actually my field either — I did basic civil litigation/UCC/contract law, and retired to write books before these issues came up — but I’ve been advised by others that you can file a complaint for declaratory relief and then do discovery. If they don’t produce, you’ve got your evidence. If you’ve made a number of demands and they don’t respond, that’s grounds for at least pleading that “plaintiff is informed and believes that the defendant is not the real party in interest entitled to collect on the subject note” or something along those lines. Good luck, Ellen
Update: Well, I am sure the bank has had my letter for at least 7-8 business days by now. I guess I will give them a couple of more days and then call if I fail to get any mail. I guess not hearing anything right away means that they didn’t quickly find my notes.
Update: Not much to report. I called the bank on Wednesday and got through to someone in the legal department (not an attorney). Have not heard back from that person. It is not looking like the bank is going to respond.
Update: Still no contact from the bank whatsoever. So next week, instead of being polite about it, I am going to get nasty unless I get someone who has a decent explanation.
Ellen: This is interesting. I finally got someone from the bank to tell me that my 2nd lien note, which I have paid off, has been “shredded.” They offered to send me a copy of my note marked paid.
So I guess I will be going forward with my suit.
I am a fan.
And am discussing content in your book with my Rochester Enviroment Meetup Group, http://environment.meetup.com/75/. at our Wednesday meeting.
Also I am some into the book. And would be honored should you choose to leave a comment on e-thepeople.org.
To see what I have done there follow the link from
htttp://www.e-thepeople.org/comment/13465893/view
http://www.e-thepeople.org/comment/13465893/view
Thanks Bucky!
I have been asking some of the same questions that you raised.
1. What is becoming of the bank records as the banks are foreclosed?
2. If accounts are frozen during the bank transfers, how are the foreclosure documents available?
2. How does the current holder of the deed prove ownership of the paper on a property without a paper trail from the originator to the current holder of the deed?
3. Why is the media not asking these questions?
4. Why is congress more worried about the banks than the foreclosure victims?
Many more questions, but it’s good to see someone else thinks the way I do.