.jpg)
EXAMPLES OF HIJACKING FOR SATURDAY
Dear Mark:
He mentioned something about insurance on the foreclosure? Didn't make a
lot of sense to me. He made the point that even an unrecorded deed could
render the property subject of the bankruptcy estate subject to an
equitable claim. But I pointed out there would be fewer MFR's then there
would be INNOCENT DEBTOR's coming forward to claim that the lender
foreclosed on property they know nothing about. In the few cases that it
would happen where the transfers were genuine, the court could easily
overturn those foreclosures at a bankruptcy level if the claim is
legitimate. So let's see.... a few hundred mistakes where sales are
rescinded no harm no foul.... or THOUSANDS upon Thousands of MFRs.....
Renay
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Mark T. Jessee wrote:
> Foreclosure trustee's concerns I can understand, but not those of title
> companies. Did Edward Weber at Routh Crabtree & Olsen give you any further
> insight into their thought process? I wonder why would the title companies
> care about something that is not recorded? These fake deeds are unrecorded
> cut and paste jobs and will never appear in record title upon search by the
> title companies? Every time I have dealt with a title company they have
> only epxressed concern as to what has actually been recorded.
>
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:46:06 -0800, R Grace Rodriguez
> wrote:
>
> ******
>
> Hey Jeff: I had a long talk with Edward Weber at Routh Crabtree & Olsen
> on this issue. He says it is not the banks that won't foreclose, he says
> its the foreclosure trustees and the title companies that won't allow it
> WITHOUT an order granting relief.
>
> FYI
> Renay
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:40 AM, jbsesq1965 > wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Jae:
>>
>> Don't assume that the deed is real because the creditor attached it to
>> the motion. Its NOT and for reasons I can't figure out the creditors, (as
>> Grace has pointed out) don't seem concerned that they are attaching FALSE
>> documents to their MFR as exhibits. I have proven such to the creditor's
>> attorneys only to have them say, "well we still need relief,...will you
>> stipulate?" While I said yes, I also pointed out, and in fact begged them
>> to instead, withdraw the MFR and just freaking FORECLOSE.
>>
>> One way to stop this crap is to make it ineffective.
>>
>> If the creditor's bar would tell their clients to have some chutspah,
>> they could get confirmation with debtor's counsel and a 3 minute review of
>> the public record, and determine that there is no valid transfer, therefore
>> no stay, and just pound the foreclosure and evict. If we could help make it
>> so that the advantage of doing this is measured in days not months, the
>> practice might stop.
>>
>> We can help but its going to take a few creditor's firms to step up, I
>> think.
>>
>> Jeff Smith
>>
>> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com ,
>> Jaenam Coe wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks and I will do some research. I actually found out about all this
>> when the lender filed a motion for relief from stay about two months after
>> bk filing. So the recording must have been real. J Coe
>> >
>> > --- On Thu, 1/19/12, R Grace Rodriguez wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: EXAMPLES OF HIJACKING FOR SATURDAY
>> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> > Date: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 7:42 AM
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Mr. Coe:
>> > In your case was the QCD actually recorded? Did you check the
>> instrument number on the QCD and actually go and pull the instrument number
>> from title to make sure that in fact that was the same document? There is
>> very good chance that it wasn't actually recorded. What they do is
>> everyday they collect recording stamps off the records filed. So whenever
>> they need a date stamp to cut and paste on to a QCD to stop a sale, they
>> just draw from the inventory of stamps. From these same documents, they
>> pull off the notary stamp and signature. I have interviewed six different
>> notaries who have all claimed they did not notarize a grant deed. The one
>> that I believe is the one that was working for the State Franchise Tax
>> Board who notarized tax liens. She didn't EVER notarize anything BUT tax
>> liens. I buy that. Yet the QCD had her signature & Stamp notarizing my
>> client's signature on the QCD. You can see they just did a cut and paste
>> job.
>> >
>> > You can go to NETRONLINE.COM for five
>> bucks, if you have the instrument number of a document you want you can get
>> it from them online. Its great because most of us have title history
>> search ability through our friendly title rep. So you can get the
>> instrument numbers from there. Then you go to NetROnline and pull the
>> actual documents. I did this a few times only to discover that the
>> document was never the QCD actually recorded.
>>
>> >
>> > Let us know what you find out?
>> > Renay
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Jaenam Coe wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In my client's case, I filed an indiv. ch 7 to learn afterwards that a
>> stranger had filed a QCD of his house to my client a day before the bk.
>> My client's bk stopped the stranger's home foreclosure. I am still
>> beating my head to figure out how the clairvoyant crook knew that I was
>> going to file bk the next day. (My guess is that somehow there is a lag
>> time between recording and express mail service at the county recorder's
>> office so the crooks actually recorded the predated QCD after seeing the bk
>> filing)
>> > I sent a letter to OUST with exhibits, but the OUTS advised me that
>> their policy is not to inform the outcome of their investigation. So I am
>> still in the fog as to what had really happened. Jae Coe
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Wed, 1/18/12, Mark T. Jessee wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: EXAMPLES OF HIJACKING FOR SATURDAY
>> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> > Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 12:11 PM
>> >
>> >
>> > I agree that the homeowners probably
>> > did not sign any deed conveying title to a bankruptcy debtor. The
>> people
>>
>> > they hired to help them stave off foreclosure are the crooks who forged
>> > documents and/or signatures. My point is the homeowners know who they
>> > hired. Question the homeonwers and the information
>> > provided leads to the perpatrators of these bk hijackings.
>> >
>> > Compiling evidence to present to law enforcement is of course a smart
>>
>> > idea.
>> >
>> >
>> > Mark T. Jessee
>> > Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
>> > "A Debt Relief
>> > Agency"
>> > 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
>> > Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
>> > (805)
>> > 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:54:25
>> > -0000, jbsesq1965 wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Mark:
>> >
>> > In my cases, there is no forgery, per se. The grant deed is
>> > pulled off of the county records and is "real" but the body has been
>> altered to
>> > change the name of the grantee, grantor, the legal description, the
>> names that
>> > appear under the signature line and the APN. In my cases, they used the
>> SAME
>> > deed as a template. I'm looking at three recorded documents, one real,
>> from the
>> > recorder's office, and having nothing to do with my client or the case,
>> and two,
>> > bearing the SAME recorder's document number, same signatures (largely
>> illegible)
>> > but purporting to transfer different property from different people to
>> my
>> > client, two months before she filed BK. I don't think the owners signed
>> ANYTHING
>> > in my case, as the signatures are unaltered fromm the original real
>> deed.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes they likely hired someone to stop the sale, but the perpetrators
>> > were able to do this without having the owners sign anything. That's
>> why I want
>> > to compare notes with others. I'm wondering if this is the only way its
>> being
>> > done or if there are other ways this is being accomplished. It will
>> help us help
>> > the authorities figure out if we are dealing with a few people or not.
>> >
>> > I
>> > love Judge Tighe's approach, but isn't that the job of law enforcement?
>> >
>> >
>> > Jeff
>> >
>> > --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com ,
>> > "Mark T. Jessee" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > While I have only
>> > had a couple of bankruptcy hijacking instances in my
>> > > client's cases, I
>> > would think that the property owners facing
>> > > foreclosure hired someone
>> > to help stop a foreclosure. While the
>> > > property owners may have no
>> > knowledge of the fake deeds and bankruptcy
>> > > hijacking, they do know who
>> > they hired to help them. If this is
>> > > becoming a common scheme I would
>> > hope that OUST would work with law
>> > > enforcement to investigate and track
>> > down the perpetrators. I would
>> > > think any investigator would start by
>> > questioning the property onwers
>> > > whose signatures were forged on the
>> > fake deeds to see who they hired
>> > > and pursue the leads from there. The
>> > problem is having law enforcement
>> > > seeing it as a big enough issue to
>> > investigate.
>> > >
>> > > Mark T. Jessee
>> > > Law Offices of Mark T.
>> > Jessee
>> > > "A Debt Relief Agency"
>> > > 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite
>> > 200
>> > > Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
>> > > (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864
>> > (Facsimile)
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:04:23 -0000, jbsesq1965
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Group:
>> > >
>> > > On the subject of Hijacking. I
>> > am seeing some similarities in the bogus
>> > > grant deeds that are the crux
>> > of the "hijacking" cases that have
>> > > occurred in my office. It leads me
>> > to believe that the perpetrator(s)
>> > > are possibly a small group of
>> > people. Someone out there who is offering
>> > > to stall foreclosures for a
>> > fee, and using this method.
>> > >
>> > > I'm going to bring examples of the
>> > bogus transfer deeds from my
>> > > hijacked files to the meeting Saturday. I
>> > would like it if some of you
>> > > would bring examples from your files of
>> > deeds purporting to transfer
>> > > property to your client(s) that are bogus.
>> > I would like to invite
>> > > anyone interested to meet with me after the
>> > program at 1:15p.m. or so
>> > > to compare the offending deeds for a few
>> > minutes of collective forensic
>> > > detective work.
>> > >
>> > > We may
>> > be able to determine, I think, whether there are just a few
>> > > people out
>> > there doing this hijacking, or if its more widespread, by
>> > > comparing the
>> > evidence that is showing up in our cases. We may also be
>> > > able to come
>> > up with some method of assisting the OUST or FBI in back
>> > > tracking these
>> > things to their sources, so someone can start putting an
>> > > end to it.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > I'm bringing the real deed as it appears in the County
>> > Recorder's
>> > > records, (available from any title officer) as well as the
>> > bogus deed
>> > > that was provided to the forclosure company/lender to stop
>> > the sale
>> > > that ended up in the MFR. I encourage you who have had this
>> > experience
>> > > to do the same, and make an extra 30 minutes to meet
>> > Saturday.
>> > >
>> > > Jeff Smith
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
>> > OFF: (818) 734-7223
>> > CEL: (818) 554-9922
>> >
>> > NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail
>> notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply
>> with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
>> business hours.
>> >
>> >
>> > CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
>> confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If
>> you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute,
>> store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender
>> immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
>> delete this e-mail from your system.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
> OFF: (818) 734-7223
> CEL: (818) 554-9922
>
> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice
> for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
> California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
> business hours.
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
> confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If
> you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute,
> store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
> delete this e-mail from your system.
>
>
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (818) 554-9922
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice
for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If
you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute,
store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system.
Dear Mark: He mentioned something about insurance on the foreclosure? Didn't make a lot of sense to me. He made the point that even an unrecorded deed could render the property subject of the bankruptcy estate subject to an equitable claim. But I pointed out there
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charsetF-8;
format="flowed"
Foreclosure trustee's concerns I can understand, but not those of title
companies. Did Edward Weber at Routh Crabtree & Olsen give you any
further insight into their thought process? I wonder why would the
title companies care about something that is not recorded? These fake
deeds are unrecorded cut and paste jobs and will never appear in record
title upon search by the title companies? Every time I have dealt with
a title company they have only epxressed concern as to what has
actually been recorded.
Mark T. Jessee
Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
"A Debt Relief Agency"
50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:46:06 -0800, R Grace Rodriguez wrote:
Hey Jeff: I had a long talk with Edward Weber at Routh
Crabtree & Olsen on this issue. He says it is not the banks that won't
foreclose, he says its the foreclosure trustees and the title companies
that won't allow it WITHOUT an order granting relief.
FYI
Renay
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:40 AM, jbsesq1965 wrote:
Jae:
Don't assume that the deed is real because the creditor attached it to
the motion. Its NOT and for reasons I can't figure out the creditors,
(as Grace has pointed out) don't seem concerned that they are attaching
FALSE documents to their MFR as exhibits. I have proven such to the
creditor's attorneys only to have them say, "well we still need
relief,...will you stipulate?" While I said yes, I also pointed out,
and in fact begged them to instead, withdraw the MFR and just freaking
FORECLOSE.
One way to stop this crap is to make it ineffective.
If the creditor's bar would tell their clients to have some chutspah,
they could get confirmation with debtor's counsel and a 3 minute review
of the public record, and determine that there is no valid transfer,
therefore no stay, and just pound the foreclosure and evict. If we
could help make it so that the advantage of doing this is measured in
days not months, the practice might stop.
We can help but its going to take a few creditor's firms to step up, I think.
Jeff Smith
>
> Thanks and I will do some research. I actually found out about all
> this when the lender filed a motion for relief from stay about two
> months after bk filing. So the recording must have been real. > Coe
>
> --- On Thu, 1/19/12, R Grace Rodriguez wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: EXAMPLES OF HIJACKING FOR SATURDAY
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 7:42 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mr. Coe:
> In your case was the QCD actually recorded? Did you check the
> instrument number on the QCD and actually go and pull the instrument
> number from title to make sure that in fact that was the same
> document? There is very good chance that it wasn't actually
> recorded. What they do is everyday they collect recording stamps
> off the records filed. So whenever they need a date stamp to cut
> and paste on to a QCD to stop a sale, they just draw from the
> inventory of stamps. From these same documents, they pull off the> notary stamp and signature. I have interviewed six different
> notaries who have all claimed they did not notarize a grant deed. > The one that I believe is the one that was working for the State
> Franchise Tax Board who notarized tax liens. She didn't EVER
> notarize anything BUT tax liens. I buy that. Yet the QCD had
> her signature & Stamp notarizing my client's signature on the QCD. > You can see they just did a cut and paste job.
>
> You can go to NETRONLINE.COM for five bucks, if you have the
> instrument number of a document you want you can get it from them
> online. Its great because most of us have title history search
> ability through our friendly title rep. So you can get the
> instrument numbers from there. Then you go to NetROnline and pull> the actual documents. I did this a few times only to discover that> the document was never the QCD actually recorded. Let us know
> what you find out?
> Renay
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Jaenam Coe wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In my client's case, I filed an indiv. ch 7 to learn afterwards
> that a stranger had filed a QCD of his house to my client a day
> before the bk. My client's bk stopped the stranger's home
> foreclosure. I am still beating my head to figure out how the
> clairvoyant crook knew that I was going to file bk the next day.
> (My guess is that somehow there is a lag time between recording and
> express mail service at the county recorder's office so the crooks
> actually recorded the predated QCD after seeing the bk filing)
> I sent a letter to OUST with exhibits, but the OUTS advised me that
> their policy is not to inform the outcome of their investigation. > So I am still in the fog as to what had really happened. Jae Coe
> --- On Wed, 1/18/12, Mark T. Jessee wrote:
>
> FOR SATURDAY
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 12:11 PM
>
>
> I agree that the homeowners probably
> did not sign any deed conveying title to a bankruptcy debtor. The> people they hired to help them stave off foreclosure are the crooks
> who forged
> documents and/or signatures. My point is the homeowners know who they
> hired. Question the homeonwers and the information
> provided leads to the perpatrators of these bk hijackings.
> Compiling evidence to present to law enforcement is of course a
> smart idea.
>
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief
> Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805)
> 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:54:25
> -0000, jbsesq1965 wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Mark:
>
> In my cases, there is no forgery, per se. The grant deed is
> pulled off of the county records and is "real" but the body has been
> altered to
> change the name of the grantee, grantor, the legal description, the
> names that
> appear under the signature line and the APN. In my cases, they used the SAME
> deed as a template. I'm looking at three recorded documents, one
> real, from the
> recorder's office, and having nothing to do with my client or the
> case, and two,
> bearing the SAME recorder's document number, same signatures (largely
> illegible)
> but purporting to transfer different property from different people to my
> client, two months before she filed BK. I don't think the owners
> signed ANYTHING
> in my case, as the signatures are unaltered fromm the original real
> deed. Yes they likely hired someone to stop the sale, but the
> perpetrators
> were able to do this without having the owners sign anything. That's
> why I want
> to compare notes with others. I'm wondering if this is the only way its being
> done or if there are other ways this is being accomplished. It will
> help us help
> the authorities figure out if we are dealing with a few people or not. I
> love Judge Tighe's approach, but isn't that the job of law enforcement?
>
>
> Jeff
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com,
> "Mark T. Jessee" wrote:
> >
> > While I have only
> had a couple of bankruptcy hijacking instances in my > client's cases, I
> would think that the property owners facing > foreclosure hired someone
> to help stop a foreclosure. While the > property owners may have no
> knowledge of the fake deeds and bankruptcy > hijacking, they do know who
> they hired to help them. If this is > becoming a common scheme I would
> hope that OUST would work with law > enforcement to investigate and track
> down the perpetrators. I would > think any investigator would start by
> questioning the property onwers > whose signatures were forged on the
> fake deeds to see who they hired > and pursue the leads from there. The
> problem is having law enforcement > seeing it as a big enough issue to
> investigate. > > Mark T. Jessee
> > Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> > "A Debt Relief Agency"
> > 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite
> 200
> > Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> > (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864
> (Facsimile)
> > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:04:23 -0000, jbsesq1965
> wrote:
> > > Group:
> > > On the subject of Hijacking. I
> am seeing some similarities in the bogus > grant deeds that are the crux
> of the "hijacking" cases that have > occurred in my office. It leads me
> to believe that the perpetrator(s) > are possibly a small group of
> people. Someone out there who is offering > to stall foreclosures for a
> fee, and using this method. > > I'm going to bring examples of the
> bogus transfer deeds from my > hijacked files to the meeting Saturday. I
> would like it if some of you > would bring examples from your files of
> deeds purporting to transfer > property to your client(s) that are
> bogus. I would like to invite > anyone interested to meet with me
> after the
> program at 1:15p.m. or so > to compare the offending deeds for a few
> minutes of collective forensic > detective work. > > We may
> be able to determine, I think, whether there are just a few > people out
> there doing this hijacking, or if its more widespread, by > comparing the
> evidence that is showing up in our cases. We may also be > able to come
> up with some method of assisting the OUST or FBI in back > tracking these
> things to their sources, so someone can start putting an > end to it.
> > > I'm bringing the real deed as it appears in the County
> Recorder's > records, (available from any title officer) as well as the
> bogus deed > that was provided to the forclosure company/lender to stop
> the sale > that ended up in the MFR. I encourage you who have had this
> experience > to do the same, and make an extra 30 minutes to meet
> Saturday. > > Jeff Smith
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
> OFF: (818) 734-7223
> CEL: (818) 554-9922
>
> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail> notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must
> comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office
> during regular business hours.
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
> confidential information and is intended only for the individual
> named. If you are not the intended recipient you should not
> disseminate, distribute, store, print, copy or deliver this message.
> Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received
> this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
>
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (818) 554-9922
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail
notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must
comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office
during regular business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
confidential information and is intended only for the individual named.
If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate,
distribute, store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
start="50r53aehgogs@webmail.mysuperpageshosting.com"
charsetF-8
p{margin: 0;padding: 0;}Foreclosure trustee's concerns I can
understand, but not those of title companies. Did Edward Weber at Routh
Crabtree & Olsen give you any further insight into their thought
process? I wonder why would the title companies care about something that
is not recorded? These fake deeds are unrecorded cut and paste jobs and
will never appear in record title upon search by the title companies?
Every time I have dealt with a title company they have only epxressed concern as
to what has actually been recorded.
Mark T. JesseeLaw Offices of Mark T. Jessee"A Debt Relief
Agency"50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200Thousand Oaks, CA 91360(805)
497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:46:06 -0800, R Grace Rodriguez
<rgracelaw@gmail.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Hey Jeff: I had a long talk with Edward Weber at Routh Crabtree & Olsen on
this issue. He says it is not the banks that won't foreclose, he says its
the foreclosure trustees and the title companies that won't allow it
WITHOUT an order granting relief.
FYI
Renay
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:40 AM, jbsesq1965 wrote:
> **
>
>
> Jae:
>
> Don't assume that the deed is real because the creditor attached it to the
> motion. Its NOT and for reasons I can't figure out the creditors, (as Grace
> has pointed out) don't seem concerned that they are attaching FALSE
> documents to their MFR as exhibits. I have proven such to the creditor's
> attorneys only to have them say, "well we still need relief,...will you
> stipulate?" While I said yes, I also pointed out, and in fact begged them
> to instead, withdraw the MFR and just freaking FORECLOSE.
>
> One way to stop this crap is to make it ineffective.
>
> If the creditor's bar would tell their clients to have some chutspah, they
> could get confirmation with debtor's counsel and a 3 minute review of the
> public record, and determine that there is no valid transfer, therefore no
> stay, and just pound the foreclosure and evict. If we could help make it so
> that the advantage of doing this is measured in days not months, the
> practice might stop.
>
> We can help but its going to take a few creditor's firms to step up, I
> think.
>
> Jeff Smith
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, Jaenam Coe wrote:
> >
> > Thanks and I will do some research. I actually found out about all this
> when the lender filed a motion for relief from stay about two months after
> bk filing. So the recording must have been real. J Coe
> >
> > --- On Thu, 1/19/12, R Grace Rodriguez wrote:
> >
>
> > Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: EXAMPLES OF HIJACKING FOR SATURDAY
> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 7:42 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mr. Coe:
> > In your case was the QCD actually recorded? Did you check the
> instrument number on the QCD and actually go and pull the instrument number
> from title to make sure that in fact that was the same document? There is
> very good chance that it wasn't actually recorded. What they do is
> everyday they collect recording stamps off the records filed. So whenever
> they need a date stamp to cut and paste on to a QCD to stop a sale, they
> just draw from the inventory of stamps. From these same documents, they
> pull off the notary stamp and signature. I have interviewed six different
> notaries who have all claimed they did not notarize a grant deed. The one
> that I believe is the one that was working for the State Franchise Tax
> Board who notarized tax liens. She didn't EVER notarize anything BUT tax
> liens. I buy that. Yet the QCD had her signature & Stamp notarizing my
> client's signature on the QCD. You can see they just did a cut and paste
> job.
> >
> > You can go to NETRONLINE.COM for five bucks, if you have the
> instrument number of a document you want you can get it from them online.
> Its great because most of us have title history search ability through
> our friendly title rep. So you can get the instrument numbers from there.
> Then you go to NetROnline and pull the actual documents. I did this a
> few times only to discover that the document was never the QCD actually
> recorded.
>
> >
> > Let us know what you find out?
> > Renay
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Jaenam Coe wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In my client's case, I filed an indiv. ch 7 to learn afterwards that a
> stranger had filed a QCD of his house to my client a day before the bk.
> My client's bk stopped the stranger's home foreclosure. I am still
> beating my head to figure out how the clairvoyant crook knew that I was
> going to file bk the next day. (My guess is that somehow there is a lag
> time between recording and express mail service at the county recorder's
> office so the crooks actually recorded the predated QCD after seeing the bk
> filing)
> > I sent a letter to OUST with exhibits, but the OUTS advised me that
> their policy is not to inform the outcome of their investigation. So I am
> still in the fog as to what had really happened. Jae Coe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Wed, 1/18/12, Mark T. Jessee wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: EXAMPLES OF HIJACKING FOR SATURDAY
> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 12:11 PM
> >
> >
> > I agree that the homeowners probably
> > did not sign any deed conveying title to a bankruptcy debtor. The
> people
>
> > they hired to help them stave off foreclosure are the crooks who forged
> > documents and/or signatures. My point is the homeowners know who they
> > hired. Question the homeonwers and the information
> > provided leads to the perpatrators of these bk hijackings.
> >
> > Compiling evidence to present to law enforcement is of course a smart
>
> > idea.
> >
> >
> > Mark T. Jessee
> > Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> > "A Debt Relief
> > Agency"
> > 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> > Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> > (805)
> > 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:54:25
> > -0000, jbsesq1965 wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark:
> >
> > In my cases, there is no forgery, per se. The grant deed is
> > pulled off of the county records and is "real" but the body has been
> altered to
> > change the name of the grantee, grantor, the legal description, the
> names that
> > appear under the signature line and the APN. In my cases, they used the
> SAME
> > deed as a template. I'm looking at three recorded documents, one real,
> from the
> > recorder's office, and having nothing to do with my client or the case,
> and two,
> > bearing the SAME recorder's document number, same signatures (largely
> illegible)
> > but purporting to transfer different property from different people to my
> > client, two months before she filed BK. I don't think the owners signed
> ANYTHING
> > in my case, as the signatures are unaltered fromm the original real
> deed.
> >
> >
> > Yes they likely hired someone to stop the sale, but the perpetrators
> > were able to do this without having the owners sign anything. That's why
> I want
> > to compare notes with others. I'm wondering if this is the only way its
> being
> > done or if there are other ways this is being accomplished. It will help
> us help
> > the authorities figure out if we are dealing with a few people or not.
> >
> > I
> > love Judge Tighe's approach, but isn't that the job of law enforcement?
> >
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com,
> > "Mark T. Jessee" wrote:
> > >
> > > While I have only
> > had a couple of bankruptcy hijacking instances in my
> > > client's cases, I
> > would think that the property owners facing
> > > foreclosure hired someone
> > to help stop a foreclosure. While the
> > > property owners may have no
> > knowledge of the fake deeds and bankruptcy
> > > hijacking, they do know who
> > they hired to help them. If this is
> > > becoming a common scheme I would
> > hope that OUST would work with law
> > > enforcement to investigate and track
> > down the perpetrators. I would
> > > think any investigator would start by
> > questioning the property onwers
> > > whose signatures were forged on the
> > fake deeds to see who they hired
> > > and pursue the leads from there. The
> > problem is having law enforcement
> > > seeing it as a big enough issue to
> > investigate.
> > >
> > > Mark T. Jessee
> > > Law Offices of Mark T.
> > Jessee
> > > "A Debt Relief Agency"
> > > 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite
> > 200
> > > Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> > > (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864
> > (Facsimile)
> > >
> > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:04:23 -0000, jbsesq1965
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Group:
> > >
> > > On the subject of Hijacking. I
> > am seeing some similarities in the bogus
> > > grant deeds that are the crux
> > of the "hijacking" cases that have
> > > occurred in my office. It leads me
> > to believe that the perpetrator(s)
> > > are possibly a small group of
> > people. Someone out there who is offering
> > > to stall foreclosures for a
> > fee, and using this method.
> > >
> > > I'm going to bring examples of the
> > bogus transfer deeds from my
> > > hijacked files to the meeting Saturday. I
> > would like it if some of you
> > > would bring examples from your files of
> > deeds purporting to transfer
> > > property to your client(s) that are bogus.
> > I would like to invite
> > > anyone interested to meet with me after the
> > program at 1:15p.m. or so
> > > to compare the offending deeds for a few
> > minutes of collective forensic
> > > detective work.
> > >
> > > We may
> > be able to determine, I think, whether there are just a few
> > > people out
> > there doing this hijacking, or if its more widespread, by
> > > comparing the
> > evidence that is showing up in our cases. We may also be
> > > able to come
> > up with some method of assisting the OUST or FBI in back
> > > tracking these
> > things to their sources, so someone can start putting an
> > > end to it.
> >
> > >
> > > I'm bringing the real deed as it appears in the County
> > Recorder's
> > > records, (available from any title officer) as well as the
> > bogus deed
> > > that was provided to the forclosure company/lender to stop
> > the sale
> > > that ended up in the MFR. I encourage you who have had this
> > experience
> > > to do the same, and make an extra 30 minutes to meet
> > Saturday.
> > >
> > > Jeff Smith
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
> > OFF: (818) 734-7223
> > CEL: (818) 554-9922
> >
> > NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail
> notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply
> with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
> business hours.
> >
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
> confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If
> you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute,
> store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
> delete this e-mail from your system.
> >
>
>
>
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (818) 554-9922
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice
for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If
you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute,
store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system.
Hey Jeff: I had a long talk with Edward Weber at Routh Crabtree & Olsen on this issue. He says it is not the banks that won't foreclose, he says its the foreclosure trustees and the title companies that won't allow it WITHOUT an order granting relief.
FYIRenayOn Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:40 AM, jbsesq1965 <jsmith@cgsattys.com> wrote:
Jae:
Don't assume that the deed is real because the creditor attached it to the motion. Its NOT and for reasons I can't figure out the creditors, (as Grace has pointed out) don't seem concerned that they are attaching FALSE documents to their MFR as exhibits. I have proven such to the creditor's attorneys only to have them say, "well we still need relief,...will you stipulate?" While I said yes, I also pointed out, and in fact begged them to instead, withdraw the MFR and just freaking FORECLOSE.
One way to stop this crap is to make it ineffective.
If the creditor's bar would tell their clients to have some chutspah, they could get confirmation with debtor's counsel and a 3 minute review of the public record, and determine that there is no valid transfer, therefore no stay, and just pound the foreclosure and evict. If we could help make it so that the advantage of doing this is measured in days not months, the practice might stop.
We can help but its going to take a few creditor's firms to step up, I think.
Jeff Smith
@yahoogroups.com, Jaenam Coe <jaenamcoe@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks and I will do some research. I actually found out about all this when the lender filed a motion for relief from stay about two months after bk filing. So the recording must have been real. J Coe
>
> --- On Thu, 1/19/12, R Grace Rodriguez <rgracelaw@...> wrote:
>
>
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: EXAMPLES OF HIJACKING FOR SATURDAY
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 7:42 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mr. Coe:
> In your case was the QCD actually recorded? Did you check the instrument number on the QCD and actually go and pull the instrument number from title to make sure that in fact that was the same document? There is very good chance that it wasn't actually recorded. What they do is everyday they collect recording stamps off the records filed. So whenever they need a date stamp to cut and paste on to a QCD to stop a sale, they just draw from the inventory of stamps. From these same documents, they pull off the notary stamp and signature. I have interviewed six different notaries who have all claimed they did not notarize a grant deed. The one that I believe is the one that was working for the State Franchise Tax Board who notarized tax liens. She didn't EVER notarize anything BUT tax liens. I buy that. Yet the QCD had her signature & Stamp notarizing my client's signature on the QCD.
>
> You can go to NETRONLINE.COM for five bucks, if you have the instrument number of a document you want you can get it from them online. Its great because most of us have title history search ability through our friendly title rep. So you can get the instrument numbers from there. Then you go to NetROnline and pull the actual documents. I did this a few times only to discover that the document was never the QCD actually recorded.
>
> Let us know what you find out?
> Renay
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Jaenam Coe <jaenamcoe@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In my client's case, I filed an indiv. ch 7 to learn afterwards that a stranger had filed a QCD of his house to my client a day before
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charsetndows-1252
More than the lender firms, you need the support of the title insurance counsel.
Jason
JASON WALLACH, ESQ.
Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC
4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 300
Marina del Rey CA 90292-7925
Tel: (310) 821-9000
Direct: (310) 775-8725
Fax: (310) 775-8775
Email: jwallach@ gladstonemichel.com
www. gladstonemichel.com
On Jan 20, 2012, at 11:40 AM, jbsesq1965 wrote:
> Jae:
>
> Don't assume that the deed is real because the creditor attached it to the motion. Its NOT and for reasons I can't figure out the creditors, (as Grace has pointed out) don't seem concerned that they are attaching FALSE documents to their MFR as exhibits. I have proven such to the creditor's attorneys only to have them say, "well we still need relief,...will you stipulate?" While I said yes, I also pointed out, and in fact begged them to instead, withdraw the MFR and just freaking FORECLOSE.
>
> One way to stop this crap is to make it ineffective.
>
> If the creditor's bar would tell their clients to have some chutspah, they could get confirmation with debtor's counsel and a 3 minute review of the public record, and determine that there is no valid transfer, therefore no stay, and just pound the foreclosure and evict. If we could help make it so that the advantage of doing this is measured in days not months, the practice might stop.
>
> We can help but its going to take a few creditor's firms to step up, I think.
>
> Jeff Smith
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, Jaenam Coe wrote:
> >
> > Thanks and I will do some research. I actually found out about all this when the lender filed a motion for relief from stay about two months after bk filing. So the recording must have been real. J Coe
> >
> > --- On Thu, 1/19/12, R Grace Rodriguez wrote:
> >
> > Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: EXAMPLES OF HIJACKING FOR SATURDAY
> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 7:42 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mr. Coe:
> > In your case was the QCD actually recorded? Did you check the instrument number on the QCD and actually go and pull the instrument number from title to make sure that in fact that was the same document? There is very good chance that it wasn't actually recorded. What they do is everyday they collect recording stamps off the records filed. So whenever they need a date stamp to cut and paste on to a QCD to stop a sale, they just draw from the inventory of stamps. From these same documents, they pull off the notary stamp and signature. I have interviewed six different notaries who have all claimed they did not notarize a grant deed. The one that I believe is the one that was working for the State Franchise Tax Board who notarized tax liens. She didn't EVER notarize anything BUT tax liens. I buy that. Yet the QCD had her signature & Stamp notarizing my client's signature on the QCD. You can see they just did a cut and paste job.
> >
> > You can go to NETRONLINE.COM for five bucks, if you have the instrument number of a document you want you can get it from them online. Its great because most of us have title history search ability through our friendly title rep. So you can get the instrument numbers from there. Then you go to NetROnline and pull the actual documents. I did this a few times only to discover that the document was never the QCD actually recorded.
> >
> > Let us know what you find out?
> > Renay
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Jaenam Coe wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In my client's case, I filed an indiv. ch 7 to learn afterwards that a stranger had filed a QCD of his house to my client a day before the bk. My client's bk stopped the stranger's home foreclosure. I am still beating my head to figure out how the clairvoyant crook knew that I was going to file bk the next day. (My guess is that somehow there is a lag time between recording and express mail service at the county recorder's office so the crooks actually recorded the predated QCD after seeing the bk filing)
> > I sent a letter to OUST with exhibits, but the OUTS advised me that their policy is not to inform the outcome of their investigation. So I am still in the fog as to what had really happened. Jae Coe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Wed, 1/18/12, Mark T. Jessee wrote:
> >
> >
> > Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: EXAMPLES OF HIJACKING FOR SATURDAY
> > To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 12:11 PM
> >
> >
> > I agree that the homeowners probably
> > did not sign any deed conveying title to a bankruptcy debtor. The people
> > they hired to help them stave off foreclosure are the crooks who forged
> > documents and/or signatures. My point is the homeowners know who they
> > hired. Question the homeonwers and the information
> > provided leads to the perpatrators of these bk hijackings.
> >
> > Compiling evidence to present to law enforcement is of course a smart
> > idea.
> >
> >
> > Mark T. Jessee
> > Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> > "A Debt Relief
> > Agency"
> > 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> > Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> > (805)
> > 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:54:25
> > -0000, jbsesq1965 wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark:
> >
> > In my cases, there is no forgery, per se. The grant deed is
> > pulled off of the county records and is "real" but the body has been altered to
> > change the name of the grantee, grantor, the legal description, the names that
> > appear under the signature line and the APN. In my cases, they used the SAME
> > deed as a template. I'm looking at three recorded documents, one real, from the
> > recorder's office, and having nothing to do with my client or the case, and two,
> > bearing the SAME recorder's document number, same signatures (largely illegible)
> > but purporting to transfer different property from different people to my
> > client, two months before she filed BK. I don't think the owners signed ANYTHING
> > in my case, as the signatures are unaltered fromm the original real deed.
> >
> >
> > Yes they likely hired someone to stop the sale, but the perpetrators
> > were able to do this without having the owners sign anything. That's why I want
> > to compare notes with others. I'm wondering if this is the only way its being
> > done or if there are other ways this is being accomplished. It will help us help
> > the authorities figure out if we are dealing with a few people or not.> >
> > I
> > love Judge Tighe's approach, but isn't that the job of law enforcement?
> >
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com,
> > "Mark T. Jessee" wrote:
> > >
> > > While I have only
> > had a couple of bankruptcy hijacking instances in my
> > > client's cases, I
> > would think that the property owners facing
> > > foreclosure hired someone
> > to help stop a foreclosure. While the
> > > property owners may have no
> > knowledge of the fake deeds and bankruptcy
> > > hijacking, they do know who
> > they hired to help them. If this is
> > > becoming a common scheme I would
> > hope that OUST would work with law
> > > enforcement to investigate and track
> > down the perpetrators. I would
> > > think any investigator would start by
> > questioning the property onwers
> > > whose signatures were forged on the
> > fake deeds to see who they hired
> > > and pursue the leads from there. The
> > problem is having law enforcement
> > > seeing it as a big enough issue to
> > investigate.
> > >
> > > Mark T. Jessee
> > > Law Offices of Mark T.
> > Jessee
> > > "A Debt Relief Agency"
> > > 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite
> > 200
> > > Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> > > (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864
> > (Facsimile)
> > >
> > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:04:23 -0000, jbsesq1965
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Group:
> > >
> > > On the subject of Hijacking. I
> > am seeing some similarities in the bogus
> > > grant deeds that are the crux
> > of the "hijacking" cases that have
> > > occurred in my office. It leads me
> > to believe that the perpetrator(s)
> > > are possibly a small group of
> > people. Someone out there who is offering
> > > to stall foreclosures for a
> > fee, and using this method.
> > >
> > > I'm going to bring examples of the
> > bogus transfer deeds from my
> > > hijacked files to the meeting Saturday. I
> > would like it if some of you
> > > would bring examples from your files of
> > deeds purporting to transfer
> > > property to your client(s) that are bogus.
> > I would like to invite
> > > anyone interested to meet with me after the
> > program at 1:15p.m. or so
> > > to compare the offending deeds for a few
> > minutes of collective forensic
> > > detective work.
> > >
> > > We may
> > be able to determine, I think, whether there are just a few
> > > people out
> > there doing this hijacking, or if its more widespread, by
> > > comparing the
> > evidence that is showing up in our cases. We may also be
> > > able to come
> > up with some method of assisting the OUST or FBI in back
> > > tracking these
> > things to their sources, so someone can start putting an
> > > end to it.
> >
> > >
> > > I'm bringing the real deed as it appears in the County
> > Recorder's
> > > records, (available from any title officer) as well as the
> > bogus deed
> > > that was provided to the forclosure company/lender to stop
> > the sale
> > > that ended up in the MFR. I encourage you who have had this
> > experience
> > > to do the same, and make an extra 30 minutes to meet
> > Saturday.
> > >
> > > Jeff Smith
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
> > OFF: (818) 734-7223
> > CEL: (818) 554-9922
> >
> > NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
> >
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
> >
>
>
charsetndows-1252
More than the lender firms, you need the support of the title insurance counsel.Jason
-- JASON WALLACH, ESQ.Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 300Marina del Rey CA 90292-7925Tel: (310) 821-9000Direct: (310) 775-8725Fax: (310) 775-8775Email: jwallach@ gladstonemichel.comwww. gladstonemichel.com
On Jan 20, 2012, at 11:40 AM, jbsesq1965 wrote:
Jae:
Don't assume that the deed is real because the creditor attached it to the motion. Its NOT and for reasons I can't figure out the creditors, (as Grace has pointed out) don't seem concerned that they are attaching FALSE documents to their MFR as exhibits. I have proven such to the creditor's attorneys only to have them say, "well we still need relief,...will you stipulate?" While I said yes, I also pointed out, and in fact begged them to instead, withdraw the MFR and just freaking FORECLOSE.
One way to stop this crap is to make it ineffective.
If the creditor's bar would tell their clients to have some chutspah, they could get confirmation with debtor's counsel and a 3 minute review of the public record, and determine that there is no valid transfer, therefore no stay, and just pound the foreclosure and evict. If we could help make it so that the advantage of doing this is measured in days not months, the practice might stop.
We can help but its going to take a few creditor's firms to step up, I think.
Jeff Smith
a>, Jaenam Coe <jaenamcoe@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks and I will do some research. I actually found out about all this when the lender filed a motion for relief from stay about two months after bk filing. So the recording must have been real. J Coe
>
> --- On Thu, 1/19/12, R Grace Rodriguez <rgracelaw@...> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: EXAMPLES OF HIJACKING FOR SATURDAY
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 7:42 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mr. Coe:
> In your case was the QCD actually recorded? Did you check the instrument number on the QCD and actually go and pull the instrument number from title to make sure that in fact that was the same document? There is very good chance that it wasn't actually recorded. What they do is everyday they collect recording stamps off the records filed. stop a sale, they just draw from the inventory of stamps. From these same documents, they pull off the notary stamp and signature. I have interviewed six different notaries who have all claimed they did not notarize a grant deed. The one that I believe is the one that was working for the State Franchise Tax Board who notarized tax liens. She didn't EVER notarize anything BUT tax liens. I buy that. Yet the QCD had her signature & Stamp notarizing my client's signature on the QCD. You can see they just did a cut and paste job.
>
> You can go to NETRONLINE.COM for five bucks, if you have the instrument number of a document you want you can get it from them online. Its great because most of us have title history search ability through our friendly title rep. So you can get the instrument numbers from there. Then you go to NetROnline and pull the actual documents. I did this a few times only to discover that the document was never the QCD actually recorded.
>
> Let us know what you find out?
> Renay
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Jaenam Coe <jaenamcoe@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In my client's case, I filed an indiv. ch 7 to learn afterwards that a stranger had filed a QCD of his house to my client a day before the bk. My client's bk stopped the stranger's home foreclosure. I am still beating my head to figure out how the clairvoyant crook knew that I was going to file bk the next day. (My guess is that somehow there is a lag time between recording and express mail service at the county recorder's office so the crooks actually recorded the predated QCD after seeing the bk filing)
> I sent a letter to OUST with exhibits, but the OUTS advised me that their policy is not to inform the outcome of their investigation. So I am still in the fog as to what had really happened. Jae Coe
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 1/18/12, Mark T. Jessee <mjessee@...> wrote:
>
>
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: EXAMPLES OF HIJACKING FOR SATURDAY
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 12:11 PM
>
>
> I agree that the homeowners probably
> did not sign any deed conveying title to a bankruptcy debtor. The people
> they hired to help them stave off foreclosure are the crooks who forged
> documents and/or signatures. My point is the homeowners know who they
> hired. Question the homeonwers and the information
> provided leads to the perpatrators of these bk hijackings.
>
> Compiling evidence to present to law enforcement is of course a smart
> idea.
>
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief
> Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805)
> 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:54:25
> -0000, jbsesq1965 <jsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark:
>
> In my cases, there is no forgery, per se. The grant deed is
> pulled off of the county records and is "real" but the body has been altered to
> change the name of the grantee, grantor, the legal description, the names that
> appear under the signature line and the APN. In my cases, they used the SAME
> deed as a template. I'm looking at three recorded documents, one real, from the
> recorder's office, and having nothing to do with my client or the case, and two,
> bearing the SAME recorder's document number, same signatures (largely illegible)
> but purporting to transfer different property from different people to my
> client, two months before she filed BK. I don't think the owners signed ANYTHING
> in my case, as the signatures are unaltered fromm the original real deed.
>
>
> Yes they likely hired someone to stop the sale, but the perpetrators
> were able to do this without having the owners sign anything. That's why I want
> to compare notes with others. I'm wondering if this is the only way its being
> done or if there are other ways this is being accomplished. It will help us help
> the authorities figure out if we are dealing with a few people or not.
>
> I
> love Judge Tighe's approach, but isn't that the job of law enforcement?
>
>
> Jeff
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com,
> "Mark T. Jessee" <mjessee@> wrote:
> >
> > While I have only
> had a couple of bankruptcy hijacking instances in my
> > client's cases, I
> would think that the property owners facing
> > foreclosure hired someone
> to help stop a foreclosure. While the
> > property owners may have no
> knowledge of the fake deeds and bankruptcy
> > hijacking, they do know who
> they hired to help them. If this is
> > becoming a common scheme I would
> hope that OUST would work with law
> > enforcement to investigate and track
> down the perpetrators. I would
> > think any investigator would start by
> questioning the property onwers
> > whose signatures were forged on the
> fake deeds to see who they hired
> > and pursue the leads from there. The
> problem is having law enforcement
> > seeing it as a big enough issue to
> investigate.
> >
> > Mark T. Jessee
> > Law Offices of Mark T.
> Jessee
> > "A Debt Relief Agency"
> > 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite
> 200
> > Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> > (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864
> (Facsimile)
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:04:23 -0000, jbsesq1965
> wrote:
> >
> > Group:
> >
> > On the subject of Hijacking. I
> am seeing some similarities in the bogus
> > grant deeds that are the crux
> of the "hijacking" cases that have
> > occurred in my office. It leads me
> to believe that the perpetrator(s)
> > are possibly a small group of
> people. Someone out there who is offering
> > to stall foreclosures for a
> fee, and using this method.
> >
> > I'm going to bring examples of the
> bogus transfer deeds from my
> > hijacked files to the meeting Saturday. I
> would like it if some of you
> > would bring examples from your files of
> deeds purporting to transfer
> > property to your client(s) that are bogus.
> I would like to invite
> > anyone interested to meet with me after the
> program at 1:15p.m. or so
> > to compare the offending deeds for a few
> minutes of collective forensic
> > detective work.
> >
> > We may
> be able to determine, I think, whether there are just a few
> > people out
> there doing this hijacking, or if its more widespread, by
> > comparing the
> evidence that is showing up in our cases. We may also be
> > able to come
> up with some method of assisting the OUST or FBI in back
> > tracking these
> things to their sources, so someone can start putting an
> > end to it.
>
> >
> > I'm bringing the real deed as it appears in the County
> Recorder's
> > records, (available from any title officer) as well as the
> bogus deed
> > that was provided to the forclosure company/lender to stop
> the sale
> > that ended up in the MFR. I encourage you who have had this
> experience
> > to do the same, and make an extra 30 minutes to meet
> Saturday.
> >
> > Jeff Smith
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
> OFF: (818) 734-7223
> CEL: (818) 554-9922
>
> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Jae:
Don't assume that the deed is real because the creditor attached it to the motion. Its NOT and for reasons I can't figure out the creditors, (as Grace has pointed out) don't seem concerned that they are attaching FALSE documents to their MFR as exhibits. I have proven such to the creditor's attorneys only to have them say, "well we still need relief,...will you stipulate?" While I said yes, I also pointed out, and in fact begged them to instead, withdraw the MFR and just freaking FORECLOSE.
One way to stop this crap is to make it ineffective.
If the creditor's bar would tell their clients to have some chutspah, they could get confirmation with debtor's counsel and a 3 minute review of the public record, and determine that there is no valid transfer, therefore no stay, and just pound the foreclosure and evict. If we could help make it so that the advantage of doing this is measured in days not months, the practice might stop.
We can help but its going to take a few creditor's firms to step up, I think.
Jeff Smith
>
> Thanks and I will do some research. I actually found out about all this when the lender filed a motion for relief from stay about two months after bk filing. So the recording must have been real. J Coe
>
> --- On Thu, 1/19/12, R Grace Rodriguez wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: EXAMPLES OF HIJACKING FOR SATURDAY
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 7:42 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mr. Coe:
> In your case was the QCD actually recorded? Did you check the instrument number on the QCD and actually go and pull the instrument number from title to make sure that in fact that was the same document? There is very good chance that it wasn't actually recorded. What they do is everyday they collect recording stamps off the records filed. So whenever they need a date stamp to cut and paste on to a QCD to stop a sale, they just draw from the inventory of stamps. From these same documents, they pull off the notary stamp and signature. I have interviewed six different notaries who have all claimed they did not notarize a grant deed. The one that I believe is the one that was working for the State Franchise Tax Board who notarized tax liens. She didn't EVER notarize anything BUT tax liens. I buy that. Yet the QCD had her signature & Stamp notarizing my client's signature on the QCD. You can see they just did a cut and paste job.
>
> You can go to NETRONLINE.COM for five bucks, if you have the instrument number of a document you want you can get it from them online. Its great because most of us have title history search ability through our friendly title rep. So you can get the instrument numbers from there. this a few times only to discover that the document was never the QCD actually recorded.
>
> Let us know what you find out?
> Renay
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Jaenam Coe wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In my client's case, I filed an indiv. ch 7 to learn afterwards that a stranger had filed a QCD of his house to my client a day before the bk. My client's bk stopped the stranger's home foreclosure. I am still beating my head to figure out how the clairvoyant crook knew that I was going to file bk the next day. (My guess is that somehow there is a lag time between recording and express mail service at the county recorder's office so the crooks actually recorded the predated QCD after seeing the bk filing)
> I sent a letter to OUST with exhibits, but the OUTS advised me that their policy is not to inform the outcome of their investigation. So I am still in the fog as to what had really happened. Jae Coe
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 1/18/12, Mark T. Jessee wrote:
>
>
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: EXAMPLES OF HIJACKING FOR SATURDAY
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 12:11 PM
>
>
> I agree that the homeowners probably
> did not sign any deed conveying title to a bankruptcy debtor. The people
> they hired to help them stave off foreclosure are the crooks who forged
> documents and/or signatures. My point is the homeowners know who they
> hired. Question the homeonwers andthe information
> providedleads to the perpatrators of these bk hijackings.
>
> Compiling evidence to present tolaw enforcement is of course a smart
> idea.
>
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief
> Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805)
> 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:54:25
> -0000, jbsesq1965 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark:
>
> In my cases, there is no forgery, per se. The grant deed is
> pulled off of the county records and is "real" but the body has been altered to
> change the name of the grantee, grantor, the legal description, the names that
> appear under the signature line and the APN. In my cases, they used the SAME
> deed as a template. I'm looking at three recorded documents, one real, from the
> recorder's office, and having nothing to do with my client or the case, and two,
> bearing the SAME recorder's document number, same signatures (largely illegible)
> but purporting to transfer different property from different people to my
> client, two months before she filed BK. I don't think the owners signed ANYTHING
> in my case, as the signatures are unaltered fromm the original real deed.>
>
> Yes they likely hired someone to stop the sale, but the perpetrators
> were able to do this without having the owners sign anything. That's why I want
> to compare notes with others. I'm wondering if this is the only way its being
> done or if there are other ways this is being accomplished. It will help us help
> the authorities figure out if we are dealing with a few people or not.
>
> I
> love Judge Tighe's approach, but isn't that the job of law enforcement?
>
>
> Jeff
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com,
> "Mark T. Jessee" wrote:
> >
> > While I have only
> had a couple of bankruptcy hijacking instances in my
> > client's cases, I
> would think that the property owners facing
> > foreclosure hired someone
> to help stop a foreclosure. While the
> > property owners may have no
> knowledge of the fake deeds and bankruptcy
> > hijacking, they do know who
> they hired to help them. If this is
> > becoming a common scheme I would
> hope that OUST would work with law
> > enforcement to investigate and track
> down the perpetrators. I would
> > think any investigator would start by
> questioning the property onwers
> > whose signatures were forged on the
> fake deeds to see who they hired
> > and pursue the leads from there. The
> problem is having law enforcement
> > seeing it as a big enough issue to
> investigate.
> >
> > Mark T. Jessee
> > Law Offices of Mark T.
> Jessee
> > "A Debt Relief Agency"
> > 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite
> 200
> > Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> > (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864
> (Facsimile)
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:04:23 -0000, jbsesq1965
> wrote:
> >
> > Group:
> >
> > On the subject of Hijacking. I
> am seeing some similarities in the bogus
> > grant deeds that are the crux
> of the "hijacking" cases that have
> > occurred in my office. It leads me
> to believe that the perpetrator(s)
> > are possibly a small group of
> people. Someone out there who is offering
> > to stall foreclosures for a
> fee, and using this method.
> >
> > I'm going to bring examples of the
> bogus transfer deeds from my
> > hijacked files to the meeting Saturday. I
> would like it if some of you
> > would bring examples from your files of
> deeds purporting to transfer
> > property to your client(s) that are bogus.
> I would like to invite
> > anyone interested to meet with me after the
> program at 1:15p.m. or so
> > to compare the offending deeds for a few
> minutes of collective forensic
> > detective work.
> >
> > We may
> be able to determine, I think, whether there are just a few
> > people out
> there doing this hijacking, or if its more widespread, by
> > comparing the
> evidence that is showing up in our cases. We may also be
> > able to come
> up with some method of assisting the OUST or FBI in back
> > tracking these
> things to their sources, so someone can start putting an
> > end to it.
>
> >
> > I'm bringing the real deed as it appears in the County
> Recorder's
> > records, (available from any title officer) as well as the
> bogus deed
> > that was provided to the forclosure company/lender to stop
> the sale
> > that ended up in the MFR. I encourage you who have had this
> experience
> > to do the same, and make an extra 30 minutes to meet
> Saturday.
> >
> > Jeff Smith
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
> OFF: (818) 734-7223
> CEL: (818) 554-9922
>
> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
In my client's case, I filed an indiv. ch 7 to learn afterwards that a stranger had filed a QCD of his house to my client a day before the bk. My client's bk stopped the stranger's home foreclosure. I am still beating my head to figure out how the clairvoyant crook knew that I was going to file bk the next day. (My guess is that somehow there is a lag time between recording and express mail service at the county recorder's office so the crooks actually recorded the predated QCD after seeing the bk filing)I sent a letter to OUST with exhibits, but the OUTS advised me that their policy is not to inform the outcome of their investigation. So I am still in the fog as to what had really happened. Jae Coe
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charsetF-8;
format="flowed"
I agree that the homeowners probably did not sign any deed conveying
title to a bankruptcy debtor. The people they hired to help them stave
off foreclosure are the crooks who forged documents and/or signatures.
My point is the homeowners know who they hired. Question the
homeonwers and the information provided leads to the perpatrators of
these bk hijackings.
Compiling evidence to present to law enforcement is of course a smart idea.
Mark T. Jessee
Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
"A Debt Relief Agency"
50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:54:25 -0000, jbsesq1965 wrote:
Mark:
In my cases, there is no forgery, per se. The grant deed is pulled off
of the county records and is "real" but the body has been altered to
change the name of the grantee, grantor, the legal description, the
names that appear under the signature line and the APN. In my cases,
they used the SAME deed as a template. I'm looking at three recorded
documents, one real, from the recorder's office, and having nothing to
do with my client or the case, and two, bearing the SAME recorder's
document number, same signatures (largely illegible) but purporting to
transfer different property from different people to my client, two
months before she filed BK. I don't think the owners signed ANYTHING in
my case, as the signatures are unaltered fromm the original real deed.
Yes they likely hired someone to stop the sale, but the perpetrators
were able to do this without having the owners sign anything. That's
why I want to compare notes with others. I'm wondering if this is the
only way its being done or if there are other ways this is being
accomplished. It will help us help the authorities figure out if we are
dealing with a few people or not.
I love Judge Tighe's approach, but isn't that the job of law enforcement?
Jeff
>
> While I have only had a couple of bankruptcy hijacking instances in
> my client's cases, I would think that the property owners facing
> foreclosure hired someone to help stop a foreclosure. While the
> property owners may have no knowledge of the fake deeds and
> bankruptcy hijacking, they do know who they hired to help them. If
> this is becoming a common scheme I would hope that OUST would work
> with law enforcement to investigate and track down the perpetrators.
> I would think any investigator would start by questioning the
> property onwers whose signatures were forged on the fake deeds to see
> who they hired and pursue the leads from there. The problem is having
> law enforcement seeing it as a big enough issue to investigate. Mark
> T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:04:23 -0000, jbsesq1965 wrote:
>
> Group:
>
> On the subject of Hijacking. I am seeing some similarities in the
> bogus grant deeds that are the crux of the "hijacking" cases that
> have occurred in my office. It leads me to believe that the
> perpetrator(s) are possibly a small group of people. Someone out
> there who is offering to stall foreclosures for a fee, and using this
> method. I'm going to bring examples of the bogus transfer deeds from
> my hijacked files to the meeting Saturday. I would like it if some of
> you would bring examples from your files of deeds purporting to
> transfer property to your client(s) that are bogus. I would like to
> invite anyone interested to meet with me after the program at
> 1:15p.m. or so to compare the offending deeds for a few minutes of
> collective forensic detective work. We may be able to determine, I
> think, whether there are just a few people out there doing this
> hijacking, or if its more widespread, by comparing the evidence that
> is showing up in our cases. We may also be able to come up with some
> method of assisting the OUST or FBI in back tracking these things to
> their sources, so someone can start putting an end to it. I'm
> bringing the real deed as it appears in the County Recorder's
> records, (available from any title officer) as well as the bogus deed
> that was provided to the forclosure company/lender to stop the sale
> that ended up in the MFR. I encourage you who have had this
> experience to do the same, and make an extra 30 minutes to meet
> Saturday. Jeff Smith
>
start="fviiyp85uuo@webmail.mysuperpageshosting.com"
charsetF-8
p{margin: 0;padding: 0;}I agree that the homeowners probably
did not sign any deed conveying title to a bankruptcy debtor. The people
they hired to help them stave off foreclosure are the crooks who forged
documents and/or signatures. My point is the homeowners know who they
hired. Question the homeonwers and the information
provided leads to the perpatrators of these bk hijackings.
Compiling evidence to present to law enforcement is of course a smart
idea.
Mark T. JesseeLaw Offices of Mark T. Jessee"A Debt Relief
Agency"50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200Thousand Oaks, CA 91360(805)
497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:54:25
-0000, jbsesq1965 <jsmith@cgsattys.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Mark:
In my cases, there is no forgery, per se. The grant deed is pulled off of the county records and is "real" but the body has been altered to change the name of the grantee, grantor, the legal description, the names that appear under the signature line and the APN. In my cases, they used the SAME deed as a template. I'm looking at three recorded documents, one real, from the recorder's office, and having nothing to do with my client or the case, and two, bearing the SAME recorder's document number, same signatures (largely illegible) but purporting to transfer different property from different people to my client, two months before she filed BK. I don't think the owners signed ANYTHING in my case, as the signatures are unaltered fromm the original real deed.
Yes they likely hired someone to stop the sale, but the perpetrators were able to do this without having the owners sign anything. That's why I want to compare notes with others. I'm wondering if this is the only way its being done or if there are other ways this is being accomplished. It will help us help the authorities figure out if we are dealing with a few people or not.
I love Judge Tighe's approach, but isn't that the job of law enforcement?
Jeff
>
> While I have only had a couple of bankruptcy hijacking instances in my
> client's cases, I would think that the property owners facing
> foreclosure hired someone to help stop a foreclosure. While the
> property owners may have no knowledge of the fake deeds and bankruptcy
> hijacking, they do know who they hired to help them. If this is
> becoming a common scheme I would hope that OUST would work with law
> enforcement to investigate and track down the perpetrators. I would
> think any investigator would start by questioning the property onwers
> whose signatures were forged on the fake deeds to see who they hired
> and pursue the leads from there. The problem is having law enforcement
> seeing it as a big enough issue to investigate.
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:04:23 -0000, jbsesq1965 wrote:
>
> Group:
>
> On the subject of Hijacking. I am seeing some similarities in the bogus
> grant deeds that are the crux of the "hijacking" cases that have
> occurred in my office. It leads me to believe that the perpetrator(s)
> are possibly a small group of people. Someone out there who is offering
> to stall foreclosures for a fee, and using this method.
>
> I'm going to bring examples of the bogus transfer deeds from my
> hijacked files to the meeting Saturday. I would like it if some of you
> would bring examples from your files of deeds purporting to transfer
> property to your client(s) that are bogus. I would like to invite
> anyone interested to meet with me after the program at 1:15p.m. or so
> to compare the offending deeds for a few minutes of collective forensic
> detective work.
>
> We may be able to determine, I think, whether there are just a few
> people out there doing this hijacking, or if its more widespread, by
> comparing the evidence that is showing up in our cases. We may also be
> able to come up with some method of assisting the OUST or FBI in back
> tracking these things to their sources, so someone can start putting an
> end to it.
>
> I'm bringing the real deed as it appears in the County Recorder's
> records, (available from any title officer) as well as the bogus deed
> that was provided to the forclosure company/lender to stop the sale
> that ended up in the MFR. I encourage you who have had this experience
> to do the same, and make an extra 30 minutes to meet Saturday.
>
> Jeff Smith
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charsetF-8;
format="flowed"
While I have only had a couple of bankruptcy hijacking instances in my
client's cases, I would think that the property owners facing
foreclosure hired someone to help stop a foreclosure. While the
property owners may have no knowledge of the fake deeds and bankruptcy
hijacking, they do know who they hired to help them. If this is
becoming a common scheme I would hope that OUST would work with law
enforcement to investigate and track down the perpetrators. I would
think any investigator would start by questioning the property onwers
whose signatures were forged on the fake deeds to see who they hired
and pursue the leads from there. The problem is having law enforcement
seeing it as a big enough issue to investigate.
Mark T. Jessee
Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
"A Debt Relief Agency"
50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:04:23 -0000, jbsesq1965 wrote:
Group:
On the subject of Hijacking. I am seeing some similarities in the bogus
grant deeds that are the crux of the "hijacking" cases that have
occurred in my office. It leads me to believe that the perpetrator(s)
are possibly a small group of people. Someone out there who is offering
to stall foreclosures for a fee, and using this method.
I'm going to bring examples of the bogus transfer deeds from my
hijacked files to the meeting Saturday. I would like it if some of you
would bring examples from your files of deeds purporting to transfer
property to your client(s) that are bogus. I would like to invite
anyone interested to meet with me after the program at 1:15p.m. or so
to compare the offending deeds for a few minutes of collective forensic
detective work.
We may be able to determine, I think, whether there are just a few
people out there doing this hijacking, or if its more widespread, by
comparing the evidence that is showing up in our cases. We may also be
able to come up with some method of assisting the OUST or FBI in back
tracking these things to their sources, so someone can start putting an
end to it.
I'm bringing the real deed as it appears in the County Recorder's
records, (available from any title officer) as well as the bogus deed
that was provided to the forclosure company/lender to stop the sale
that ended up in the MFR. I encourage you who have had this experience
to do the same, and make an extra 30 minutes to meet Saturday.
Jeff Smith
start="481nisny2gow@webmail.mysuperpageshosting.com"
charsetF-8
p{margin: 0;padding: 0;}While I have only had a couple of
bankruptcy hijacking instances in my client's cases, I would think that the
property owners facing foreclosure hired someone to help stop a
foreclosure. While the property owners may have no knowledge of the fake
deeds and bankruptcy hijacking, they do know who they hired to help
them. If this is becoming a common scheme I would hope that OUST
would work with law enforcement to investigate and track down the
perpetrators. I would think any investigator would start by
questioning the property onwers whose signatures were forged on the fake
deeds to see who they hired and pursue the leads from
there. The problem is having law enforcement seeing it as a
big enough issue to investigate.
Mark T. JesseeLaw Offices of Mark T. Jessee"A Debt Relief
Agency"50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200Thousand Oaks, CA 91360(805)
497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)On Wed, 18 Jan 2012
19:04:23 -0000, jbsesq1965 <jsmith@cgsattys.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.