EXAMPLES OF HIJACKING FOR SATURDAY
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:51 pm
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rescinded no harm no foul....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.