Recent settlement by Maine on Robo-signing

To: "James.R.Frechette@maine.gov"; Dale Crafts (dalecrafts@aol.com); Garrett Mason (garrettpaulmason@gmail.com); RepSeth.Berry@legislature.maine.gov

Dear Mr. Frechette,

 

   I’m writing to you today to let you know not only about the mortgage fraud that has been perpetuated against me, but also of the out right cover up and fraud being done by our courts and judges in helping the banks commit this fraud. In no way am I asking for you, or anyone else to represent me as an attorney or help argue my case before the Maine Supreme Court, should my motion for appeal be granted. I’m am just giving you the facts, so that you will be aware of exactly what is happening (and has been happening) right now regarding foreclosures here in Maine and exactly how homeowners are being railroaded and having their homes stolen from them. This $500,000.00 settlement by Maine with LPS about their robo-signing fraud is just wrong. Why is it, that the state of Maine, many federal agencies and investors are getting big huge settlements, yet the biggest victims of this whole mess, us homeowners, are not only not getting any compensation, but are PAYING the banks AND losing our homes in rulings by judges in our courts? Please tell me, where is the fairness and justice in that???

  First, to be able to even bring forth a suit, the plaintiff must have standing, a right to have their case heard in a court of law. The Maine Supreme Court has ruled “[s]tanding to sue means that the party, at the commencement of the litigation, has sufficient personal stake in the controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy.” Halfway House Inc. v. City of Portland,670 A.2d 1377, 1379 (Me. 1996) (citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 731 (1972)). And “that proof of facts supported by evidence of a quality that could be admissible at trial, must be included in the mortgage holder’s statement of material facts” in Chase v. Higgins, Mechanics Savings Bank v. Bridges, Beneficial Maine, Inc. v. Timothy G. Carter and Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. David E. deBree et al.,. In my case, as for the facts brought by the bank suing me, their evidence of material facts included a “true and accurate” copy of the original promissory note and mortgage deed of trust, two assignments of mortgage, an affidavit/certification by an affiant swearing validity of these documents, and a Notice of Default.

   The copy of the promissory note does not have an endorsement. For the bank to be able to say that they own it, it has to be either endorsed to them by name, or have an endorsement in blank, which then becomes a “bearer” instrument. Otherwise, the owner is still the one listed as the lender entity. The un-endorsed promissory note clearly is proof that is doesn’t meet a quality that could be admissible at trial nor does it meet the criteria needed of business records to be exempt of the hearsay rule. But yet, the alleged original brought into court, of which the “true and accurate” copy filed 3 years earlier was supposed to be a copy of, had an endorsement in blank on it. How is that possible? No endorsement in 2009, yet endorsement 3 years later. I also included a report by a hand writing expert stating that this endorsement was indeed a forgery. This was brought up by me in my recent bench trial before Justice Paul Fritzsche, yet, he ruled in favor of the bank. (Please note, that this evidence wasn’t even good enough to BE AT TRIAL, let alone, WIN at trial!). 

This alone proves the bank has no standing.

   The affidavit/certification attached to these documents was signed by a robo-signor, in fact, one of the most well known ones, Jill Wosnak. She also did not state anywhere that she had personal knowledge of these documents or from what business records she saw these documents. This clearly is proof that is doesn’t meet a quality that could be admissible at trial nor does it meet the criteria needed of business records to be exempt of the hearsay rule. I also included a report by a hand writing expert stating that this affidavit/certification was indeed a forgery. This was brought up by me in my recent bench trial before Justice Paul Fritzsche, yet, he ruled in favor of the bank. (Please note, that this evidence wasn’t even good enough to BE AT TRIAL, let alone, WIN at trial!).

   The two assignments of mortgage are dated 17 months and 39 months after the trust fund’s closing date. Both are signed by robo-signors and the latter mortgage is dated 13 months after the date of the alleged default. The Pooling and Service Agreement (or Prospectus) that governs the trust fund states that the documents need to be included by the closing date and that none can be in default.  It also states that the assignments must be from the lender (Countrywide) to the sponsor (Lehman Brothers) to the depositor (Structured Asset Securities) to the trustee/trust, US Bank. This is so the trust remains as bankruptcy remote (on the investors behalf) from the originator as possible. But the first assignment in my case is assigned by MERS as nominee for Countrywide to US Bank, instead of being from Structured Asset Securities. Why is all of this important? Because New York trust law requires strict compliance with the trust documents; any transaction by the trust that is in contravention of the trust documents is void, meaning that the transfer cannot actually take place as a matter of law. If US Bank, NA, on behalf of the securitized mortgage loan trust is claiming to have come into possession of and has the ability to enforce a mortgage, and it agreed, by contract, that this mortgage loan being conveyed into the trust must be so conveyed by specific procedures, then US Bank, NA must prove that it complied with the very documents by which it agreed to be bound in order to establish that it owns the alleged indebtedness. Therefore, if the transfer for the notes and mortgages did not comply with the PSA, the transfer would be void, and the assets would not have been transferred to the trust.

The assignments are not valid and this alone proves that the bank does not have standing.

   I was denied discovery by order of Justice Paul Fritzsche. I could not properly defend myself nor present my counterclaim. At a hearing in November, 2011, Judge Michael P. Cantara ordered US Bank to provide me my requested discovery materials. Justice Paul Fritzsche at trial said I was not going to receive any more discovery, even though I had only received two items, and one of those items was given AT trial (which was the prospectus, 599 pages long) which I had absolutely no time to look at, let alone prepare a defense with. Justice Paul Fritzsche found for the bank and awarded them just shy of $200,000.00…plus my home!!!!!

  There is MUCH more to this in regards to the injustice and improper handling of my case by the judges involved, but in brevity, I only mention these so you get an inkling of what I (and other homeowners) face when WE get into court! Why is it that others, who have just lost money, who happen to have deep enough pockets to continue the case in court (thus exposing the bank fraud) get to win, but yet the ones who actually have more to lose and who OWN the homes, have to pay money plus lose their homes? Everybody else is profiting off this disgusting foreclosure fraud and the homeowner gets the shaft! The banks can't lawfully or legally prove standing, but yet not only get to go to trial without this proof, but also WIN!! WHERE IS THE JUSTICE IN THIS? I faithfully paid, for 14 years on my mortgage. I was duped by Countrywide to get 3 months behind so I could qualify for H.A.M.P. and was assured that I qualified. When I was sufficiently enough behind where I could not cure the past due amount, THEN I was told that I didn’t qualify and they were going to foreclose!

But the judge dismisses this, and all I stated above (and more that I haven’t told you) and finds for the bank!

 Does ANYONE who has received this email, think that the judges aren’t being bias, prejudiced and down right wrong and unfair? I am now forced to spend even more money (of which I cannot afford) to appeal this before the Maine Supreme Court. I’m not even guaranteed they’ll hear it, but I got to pay beforehand anyways. And if they do decide to hear this, I’m on my own because I just cannot afford to pay a lawyer. 

The bank on the other hand has THREE law firms fighting for them…one being from North Carolina and which is a huge, important firm! How do you like my odds in this, eh? And this goes on, and no one cares about us homeowners. Yet everybody else wins, with the same exact issues that us homeowners bring before the courts but yet we lose! In this case, the state of Maine wins on the issue of robo-signors, yet I lose???? Could someone PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME…..WHY??????? And exactly what are our state of Maine governmental leaders going to do about this injustice????

Debby Reagan

Sanford, ME 04073