File a False Lien - Go To Jail (Ronald Hoodenpyle)

[wserra]

Thanks, TG2. You're right, it's not very helpful. I think you made the most out of limited information, and agree with your conclusions.

You summarize CO Rule of Civil Procedure 120(e), which reads as follows:

Hearing Dispensed with if no Response Filed. If no response has been filed within the time permitted by section (c), the court shall examine the motion and, if satisfied that venue is proper and the moving party is entitled to an order authorizing sale upon the facts stated therein, the court shall dispense with the hearing and forthwith enter an order authorizing sale.

It is surely possible that Hoodie never responded. Still, the hearing was scheduled for 1-22-08, five days before that (per R 120(c)) is 1-17-08, and the sale was held 1-16-08. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

We'll probably never know.

[David Merrill]

In light of the derivatives market being such a stellionation, as blatant fact, I am amazed you all came about at all.

As of this morning...

If you listen to that you might understand why it was such a mistake to allow the derivatives market to survive at all. The Auditor predicts a new Subprime Mortgage Crisis but prefixes it with Super.



Request

BoE

Proof of Service

Bonds Market Report

Funds Rate Chart

[Joey Smith]

The dreaded "Derivatives Market" is simply an options market, i.e., investors making side bets on whether ordinary equity or debt investments will win or fail. The existence of derivatives markets make the ordinary markets much more efficient.

The housing bubble and resulting financial crisis didn't occur as a result of the derivatives market, but instead occurred because underwriting at the homeowner level went out the window, i.e., lots of people were sold homes that were too expensive for their circumstances and flippers were able to get loans without any real skin in the game. Then the banks often double booked all this junk as collateral when it really wasn't good collateral at all.

But none of that creates a defense at the homeowner level. A homeowner can't blame anybody but himself if he bought a house and the value went down, or the mortgage payment turned out to be above his pay level. The homeowner signed the papers, incurred the debt, and took the keys to the house. If it didn't financially work out for the homeowner, the homeowner still owes the debt.

[lorne]

The problem with investors/banks making simple side bets (at 40:1 leverage) is when things go south, the inevitable bubble bursts, then the banks are not allowed to fail or go bankrupt, but instead receive taxpayer-funded bailouts. Privatize the gains and socialize the losses.

David Merril, trying to follow along here, much of your lien info is new to me. Do you have a website or book? You said they took away your EDIT capability? I have a edit button so I guess I'm no patriot. And Harvester tells me someone moved his post to the Flame Wars thread

I did that, it was off topic and I also removed your attempt to copy and paste the post in yours.

Gregg

[.]

It's a Thanksgiving invasion of the same old trolls.

The most amazing thing is that this idiot actually wants to know if Van Pelt has a "website or book" so that he can read it and be enlightened, so to speak.

[.]

The funniest thing, when it comes to "lorne" and his trollish ilk and their delusions is that I, one little financial speck in the grand scheme of things, over the last 30 years have bought and sold well over two billion dollars worth of derivatives.

I'm a futures trader. That's literally tens and tens of thousands of contracts of gold, silver, copper, platinum, palladium, soybeans, bean oil, meal, corn, wheat, T-bonds, various foreign currencies, oil, coffee, cocoa, sugar, cattle, hogs and what not for future delivery. Which I never take. And never once have done with anything like 40:1 leverage. I'm not crazy.

What "lorne," Van Pelt, et al don't understand is much of anything about derivatives. They're intimidated by very, very large numbers. Those numbers must obviously be the result of some sort of "bankster" evil.

They don't understand notional value. They don't understand that the regulated portion of the business requires mark-to-market margins to be posted on an instantaneous basis.

They don't understand assessment of counter-party risk in the over-the-counter unregulated segment of the business or that the OTC portion of the business marks-to-market and demands collateral on a daily basis.

They don't understand that even though it's not done through a central clearing-house, most of the OTC participants have large resources and don't tolerate anyone who can't meet a margin call. Not to mention penniless wannabes like themselves.

They likely are at most only vaguely familiar with what a credit default swap is, never mind an interest rate swap or any of the other hundreds of types of swaps that exist.

Are these clowns aware that hundreds of thousands of swaps are conducted every month in stuff like sugar or natural gas and on and on? Of course not. Do they even know that there are options on most futures? Probably not.

I wouldn't even want to explain long-duration stock options to them, never mind single-stock futures. How about swaps for physicals in any number of markets? Or how to construct a fund full of all kinds of swaps, maybe including some swaps-on-swaps? Don't get me started.

They don't understand that people with risk often use a transaction to lay off risk to another party. They don't understand that there are usually about a half-dozen different ways to do that. They don't understand that many transactions take place because someone else in the same business, not some speculator takes the other side of the trade.

They don't understand that the total notional values reported are grossly overestimated.

"A" sells $100 million of credit default risk on "XYZ" to "B." "B" later changes its opinion of "XYZ" and sells $100 million of credit default risk on "XYZ" to "C."

"B's" net exposure? Zero. Total reported exposure? $200 million. Actual exposure? $100 million.

This happens 10 more times, net (partial positions are often bought or sold.) Total reported exposure? Could be as much as $1.2 billion. Actual net exposure of all parties? $100 million.

But, "lorne" and Van Pelt always take the hype of their fellow economic and financial illiterates (derivatives are a $50 trillion tower of destruction!) as gospel, and assume that the "evil banksters" are up to no good and the world is about to collapse. Even they should realize that this is old-hat BS, from 2006 and before.

If they had a firing synapse, they would have taken the Lehman bankruptcy example to heart.

Never mind Lehman's total derivative exposure, which was widely estimated to be in the multiple trillions of dollars of value (notional, of course, but that is never mentioned when you want to support a horrible headline) before the bankruptcy, they being one of the largest investment banks around before they went down the tube.

The liquidation of all of those trillions of stuff caused nary a ripple in the market.

And how about the liquidation of the $400 billion of credit default swaps on Lehman debt, itself:

Roughly $400 billion will be paid out on Lehman CDS, but, once all positive and negative positions are "netted" out, about 2% of that money will actually change hands

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/lehman ... -efficient

2%.

Oops. The horrible (hyped by morons like "lorne") $400 billion disaster turned into a lousy $8 billion, literally peanuts, which was routinely paid by the many losing counter-parties in due course.

Gosh, "lorne," have you figured out yet that you're a totally uninformed, blithering idiot?

Do you think that you might be impossibly and ridiculously out of your depth?

[Cathulhu]

I think if you're smarter than they are, they think it means you're evil. Goes with the megalomania, don'tcha know?

[David Merrill]

The dreaded "Derivatives Market" is simply an options market, i.e., investors making side bets on whether ordinary equity or debt investments will win or fail. The existence of derivatives markets make the ordinary markets much more efficient.

The housing bubble and resulting financial crisis didn't occur as a result of the derivatives market, but instead occurred because underwriting at the homeowner level went out the window, i.e., lots of people were sold homes that were too expensive for their circumstances and flippers were able to get loans without any real skin in the game. Then the banks often double booked all this junk as collateral when it really wasn't good collateral at all.

But none of that creates a defense at the homeowner level. A homeowner can't blame anybody but himself if he bought a house and the value went down, or the mortgage payment turned out to be above his pay level. The homeowner signed the papers, incurred the debt, and took the keys to the house. If it didn't financially work out for the homeowner, the homeowner still owes the debt.

The law requires that a mortgager provide original evidence of ownership. When the mortgager sells the note into a marketplace like you describe, they forfeit the right to come claim the home because they have sold the original note.

I don't think you read my point here Joey. Ronald Roy demanded the Note on the subpoena and they pulled an underhanded trick to avoid having a default against them (Deutsche Bank) when they came to the hearing without it. The two opinions against Duetsche Bank in the federal courts by O'MALLEY and BOYKO support my point in the first paragraphs.

The other point I made is the time for a Refusal for Cause to be effective is on the Notice of Foreclosure. That is when the mortgager sneaks in a Novation (innovation) to the agreement and notifies the homeowner that asset-backed pass-through certificates (Paragraph 2) will suffice for evidence of ownership. If the homeowner does not refuse the novation, then the attorney in the black robe will note that the homeowner acquiesces to the waiver of lawful right - to demand the original note.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Famspear]

.....When the mortgager sells the note into a marketplace like you describe, they forfeit the right to come claim the home because they have sold the original note.

David, you're confused about a lot things, including your legal terms. In simplest terms, the borrower (the home owner) is called the "mortgagor." The lender (the bank, etc.) is called the "mortgagee".

[The Operative]

.....When the mortgager sells the note into a marketplace like you describe, they forfeit the right to come claim the home because they have sold the original note.

David, you're confused about a lot things, including your legal terms. In simplest terms, the borrower (the home owner) is called the "mortgagor." The lender (the bank, etc.) is called the "mortgagee".

Fam, don't you have that backwards?

Famspear is correct. It appears backwards, but it isn't. I keep them straight by thinking of the terms in the sense of borrowing. The mortgagor, or borrower, is borrowing money from the mortgagee or borrowee. The other way to look at it is the home owner or buyer is transferring an interest in the property in order to secure the loan and the legal document to do that is the mortgage.

[Famspear]

It can be a little confusing.

The home buyer is (1) the "grantee" on the deed conveying the title to the property from seller to buyer, (2) the "promisor" (the borrower) on the promissory note evidencing the debt owed to the lender, and (3) the "mortgagor" with respect to the mortgage (consensual lien on the real estate).

The seller is (1) the "grantor" on the deed, (2) the "promisee" (the lender) on the promissory note (edit: assuming seller financing!), and (3) the "mortgagee" with respect to the mortgage.

In states (such as Texas) where a "deed of trust" is used (instead of a mortgage) with respect to a consensual lien on real estate, the home buyer is the "grantor" on the deed of trust, the lender is the "beneficiary," and a named trustee is, well, the "trustee" and grantee.

[Joey Smith]

The law requires that a mortgager provide original evidence of ownership.

That is not true. There is a whole body of law that relates to missing or destroyed notes that provides that duplicates and copies can be used to establish liability.

When the mortgager sells the note into a marketplace like you describe, they forfeit the right to come claim the home because they have sold the original note.

That is not true, either. Usually an assignment of the note to a subsequent purchaser provides that the original noteholder retains the power to collect payments and remit the moneys to the purchaser, and foreclose if necessary.

[Prof]

Joey, I still think you are overly optimistic on the use of the lost, stolen, destroyed note provisions. In order to exercise that right, the alleged holder of the note must show that it is either an owner(holder) or at least a transferee from a holder. If the person seeking to foreclose cannot make those showings, it has no standing and is not a real party in interest.

Often, these original notes were transferred so many times that the originals became lost, but the alleged owner cannot show rights sufficient to invoke the lost, stolen, destroyed provisions of Art. 3.

However, the mortgage does not go away; it (or the deed of trust) would continue to cloud title unless the land owner (home owner) takes some step to get rid of the mortgage -- and there are ways to quiet title.

However, as usual, DVMP is wrong on process, procedure, law, etc. None of this is easy or self-proving. In Texas, for example, why would a lawyer agree to represent a probably broke homeowner when the asset to be retrieved is probably exempt from any fee the lawyer might wish to charge.

[Joey Smith]

Certainly there are cases where the chain of title has become so confused that it is difficult if not impossible for the current holder(s) to establish their interests, at least easily, but agree wholeheartedly that such circumstances is not any justification for the release of the mortgage lien on the property in the way that DVPM falsely suggests.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Concealing documentation and evidence in foreclosures is only one part of the story.

Allowing fraudulently-created loan documents to surface in a court case exposes originators to all kinds of litigation risk.

[wserra]

I split off the posts since DMVP appeared in the thread - including mine - to a new one in Potpourri. I chose Potpourri rather than Flames because the thread has some substance.

A polite request to my fellow Quatloosians: every time David appears in a thread, the thread immediately becomes about him. Yes, he plays a part in this. Still, I don't think it necessary to repost every time the things about David we all know. This thread, supposedly about Hoodenpyle, hadn't mentioned him in the last two pages of posts. It's worth the longer threads to present a clear and complete picture of each TP/sovrun to those searching for them, but it also requires more self-restraint than perhaps we're used to.

If you can't stick to rebutting things David actually raises, perhaps the ignore list?

Edited to add: David, that applies to you too. The thread is about Hoodenpyle, not you. The document you filed in Hoodenpyle's docket is here. We'll see what happens. I moved your last post to join the others, and I'll answer you there.

[wserra]

Hoodie's appellate lawyer has requested a final extention to file his brief. Granted. He has until March 11, no further extensions.

Meanwhile, Hoodie has been indicted on his truly moronic failure to surrender. He was assigned counsel, whom he promptly moved to fire in this piece of epic. Apparently his lawyer refused to "recognize [his] Constitutional Rights, challenge of (sic) the jurisdiction by (sic) the court", the lawyer won't "recognize [his] sovereignty and that [he's] not subject to statutory rules and regulations", and doesn't agree that Hoodie's conviction on appeal was "fraudulent". Bad Lawyer! No B.A.R. card for you!

The beleaguered lawyer has moved to be relieved as well. Most judges give an indigent defendant one shot at a new lawyer. The hearing is February 18.

[wserra]

I just reviewed this thread. It's a good example of how badly somebody can f**k himself, a thread to which one can direct a newbie not familiar with these guys.

If Hoodie has a family, they're the ones suffering.

[notorial dissent]

What a marvelous collection of true gibberish and total nonsense. What a complete and utter fool and waste of protoplasm.

[Judge Roy Bean]

One should not forget that this guy has none other than Van Pelt tossing even weirder gibberish into the clerk's office allegedly on his behalf.