SNAKE-Oil Salesmen

Tommy Bastian at work....

MEETING OF THE SUPREME COURT ADVISORY CONMITTEE, June 12, 2009

Read the minutes and compare to November 7, 2007 meeting?

[excerpts to pay attention to coming very soon]

In the meantime;

Do people like judges or representatives of the State of Texas really not understand the difference between title theory and lien theory? Even in an important conversation? Title theory was mentioned more times than lien in a conversation wihin a "Texas Supreme Court Committee"? Are judges that ignorant of the law? And is it suiable to lay such unimportance upon a homeowner who justs wants to "come in and fuss" in a Texas court if they want to and so forth? Really? Criminals steal real property, and the homeowner's get to "come in and fuss" in a court of law? Is this not belittlement? Discrimination? Does this not violate the Constitution?

Can Tommy Bastian, an alleged "super lawyer" really be as ignorant as he appears in the transcript?  Here is a highlighted version of the transcript, but you should review the 735-736 portion in its entirety to understand how conceivable it was for Barret Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel to educate the ignorant as far back as the 1990's to make plausible the mixing of title theory into lien theory in Texas. Read it for yourself.  The rest of he transcript may help others understand about the "indigent" efiling and such.

More on Barret and Bastian....

FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC HOME MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS INTERPRETED AS NONRECOURSE DEBT (WITH POETIC COMMENTS LIFTED FROM CARL SANDBURG)

LAWYERS (BUT NOT HOME MORTGAGE BORROWERS) KNOW THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RECOURSE AND NONRECOURSE DEBT
The Lawyers, Bob, know too much.
They are chums of the books of old John Marshall.
They know it all, what a dead hand wrote,
A stiff dead hand and its knuckles crumbling,
The bones of the fingers a thin white ash.
The lawyers know a dead man's thought too well. 1

1. CARL SANDBURG, The Lawyers Know Too Much, in SMOKE AND STEEL 85,
85 (1920).

21. Texas lenders almost always employ deeds of trust that employ nonjudicial foreclosure without redemption after sale. Local foreclosure specialists agreed that few lenders today are pursuing claims to the point of deficiency judgments after foreclosure. One law firm specializes in foreclosures and charges high volume clients $500 to $750 to obtain (probably uncontested) deficiency judgments after deed of trust sale. A principal in that firm reports that, contrary to practices in the 1980s when lenders automatically pursued deficiency liability, many lenders now bid the full debt plus attorneys' fees as a matter of course, eliminating deficiency entirely. The reason given was that deficiencies create more hassle than they are worth, taking into account the additional legal fees, potential bankruptcy filings, and contested hearings on market value to determine the amount of deficiency. Telephone Interview with Michael C. Barrett (Member) and Tommy Bastian (Attorney), Barrett, Dafin, Frappier, Turner & Engel, LLP (Feb. 4, 2008) (Texas attorneys specializing in foreclosures statewide). - See page 5

FORECLOSURE UPDATE WITH A TWIST

The speak of the note bu argue they need not produce it

Excerpts

Typically, the servicer, who is the authorized agent for loan service administration for all matters related to a borrowers loan agreement, has custody, control or physical possession of the borrower’s “wet signature’ note. Who has the note is a critical piece of information for anyone handling a foreclosure because possession of the note eliminates most of the issues about who has the authority to foreclose.

The foreclosure statutes found in the Texas Property Code merely supplement the terms of the deed of trust with provisions the Legislature believes are important for due process and public policy reasons. While it may be hard to believe, at one time most deeds of trust did not require the lender to give notice to the borrower of a pending foreclosure sale.

It is a good read to see how a snake-oil saleman sells his "snake oil"?

If not, how about the "sell" to Texas? Did Texas lead the way in Constiutional violations?

Except for eliminating specious “standing” and “proper party” foreclosure challenges – which happens often – or being technically correct, naming a special purpose entity as the mortgagee in a common Texas foreclosure is not legally necessary if the servicer and the role of the servicer is properly disclosed. Texas, unlike all other states, recognized securitization radically changed the origination and servicing of real estate loans.

In 2004, the Texas legislature changed the foreclosure statutes to allow the mortgage servicer – which was the only entity that had any contact or loan level information related to the borrower’s loan - to administer the foreclosure process instead of the traditional “owner of the note”. A servicer can administer a Texas foreclosure if: (a) there is a written agreement - generally the PSA - between the servicer and the
“mortgagee” and (b) the name and address of the mortgagee is disclosed in the Tex. Prop. Code §51.00(2) notice of foreclosure sale sent to the borrower.

By definition, interestingly enough, a “mortgagee” can be six different entities at the same time, i.e. the grantee, beneficiary of the deed of trust, owner or holder of the note, a book entry system [MERS], or even the mortgage servicer.

Funny the PSA is mentioned as the proof of agency relaionship, yet the borrower cannot address the PSA, or challenge the validity?

In 2004, House Bill 1493 was enacted to allow conracts to be impaired, which deprived certain classes of persons their "rights" guaranteed by the Constitutions. H.B. 1493 allows for ciminal conduct without remedy.

It is all about "Rights".

MORE?

Re: Home Equity Loan Foreclosure Task Force

FORECLOSURE, Tex. R. Civ. Proc. §735 and 736, effective January 1, 2012

Texas: Important New Law re Expedited Foreclosure Application

Elements of Fraud - J. McGuire