[ucodegen]

Man, that house looks sad. Take a look at the roof-line at the eves. Somethings not right. Also look near the chimney and roof-line intersect. Post to the right of the front door is also leaning to the right. Termites?

Says foundation ‘failed’.. but usually foundations don’t just ‘fail’. They fail if they have been built incorrectly. It also looks like this one was built when houses were not built on slabs.

[ucodegen]

Man, that house looks sad. Take a look at the roof-line at the eves. Somethings not right. Also look near the chimney and roof-line intersect. Post to the right of the front door is also leaning to the right. Termites?

Says foundation ‘failed’.. but usually foundations don’t just ‘fail’. They fail if they have been built incorrectly. It also looks like this one was built when houses were not built on slabs.

[ucodegen]

Man, that house looks sad. Take a look at the roof-line at the eves. Somethings not right. Also look near the chimney and roof-line intersect. Post to the right of the front door is also leaning to the right. Termites?

Says foundation ‘failed’.. but usually foundations don’t just ‘fail’. They fail if they have been built incorrectly. It also looks like this one was built when houses were not built on slabs.

[ucodegen]

This has limited effect, there is a condition:

The ubiquitous Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, nominal holder of millions of mortgages, does not have the right to foreclose on a mortgage in default or assign that right to anyone else if it does not hold the underlying promissory note,

The can also do it if they have POA over that mortgage.
Now of they had ruled based on:

The defendants further assert that the mortgages and notes were bifurcated, rendering the mortgages unenforceable and foreclosure impossible, and that because of such bifurcation, MERS never had an assignable interest in the notes.

would be a different issue. This would address securitization.. could not foreclose if mortgages were part of a securitized package.

Now here is the interesting part:

The defendants also contend [*3]that the Supreme Court erred in considering the corrected assignment of mortgage because it was not authenticated by someone with personal knowledge of how and when it was created, and was improperly submitted in opposition to the motion.

Which Supreme Court? A lower court, even if it is an Appeals Court usually doesn’t have standing to overrule a Supreme Court.

[ucodegen]

This has limited effect, there is a condition:

The ubiquitous Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, nominal holder of millions of mortgages, does not have the right to foreclose on a mortgage in default or assign that right to anyone else if it does not hold the underlying promissory note,

The can also do it if they have POA over that mortgage.
Now of they had ruled based on:

The defendants further assert that the mortgages and notes were bifurcated, rendering the mortgages unenforceable and foreclosure impossible, and that because of such bifurcation, MERS never had an assignable interest in the notes.

would be a different issue. This would address securitization.. could not foreclose if mortgages were part of a securitized package.

Now here is the interesting part:

The defendants also contend [*3]that the Supreme Court erred in considering the corrected assignment of mortgage because it was not authenticated by someone with personal knowledge of how and when it was created, and was improperly submitted in opposition to the motion.

Which Supreme Court? A lower court, even if it is an Appeals Court usually doesn’t have standing to overrule a Supreme Court.

[ucodegen]

This has limited effect, there is a condition:

The ubiquitous Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, nominal holder of millions of mortgages, does not have the right to foreclose on a mortgage in default or assign that right to anyone else if it does not hold the underlying promissory note,

The can also do it if they have POA over that mortgage.
Now of they had ruled based on:

The defendants further assert that the mortgages and notes were bifurcated, rendering the mortgages unenforceable and foreclosure impossible, and that because of such bifurcation, MERS never had an assignable interest in the notes.

would be a different issue. This would address securitization.. could not foreclose if mortgages were part of a securitized package.

Now here is the interesting part:

The defendants also contend [*3]that the Supreme Court erred in considering the corrected assignment of mortgage because it was not authenticated by someone with personal knowledge of how and when it was created, and was improperly submitted in opposition to the motion.

Which Supreme Court? A lower court, even if it is an Appeals Court usually doesn’t have standing to overrule a Supreme Court.

[ucodegen]

This has limited effect, there is a condition:

The ubiquitous Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, nominal holder of millions of mortgages, does not have the right to foreclose on a mortgage in default or assign that right to anyone else if it does not hold the underlying promissory note,

The can also do it if they have POA over that mortgage.
Now of they had ruled based on:

The defendants further assert that the mortgages and notes were bifurcated, rendering the mortgages unenforceable and foreclosure impossible, and that because of such bifurcation, MERS never had an assignable interest in the notes.

would be a different issue. This would address securitization.. could not foreclose if mortgages were part of a securitized package.

Now here is the interesting part:

The defendants also contend [*3]that the Supreme Court erred in considering the corrected assignment of mortgage because it was not authenticated by someone with personal knowledge of how and when it was created, and was improperly submitted in opposition to the motion.

Which Supreme Court? A lower court, even if it is an Appeals Court usually doesn’t have standing to overrule a Supreme Court.

[ucodegen]

This has limited effect, there is a condition:

The ubiquitous Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, nominal holder of millions of mortgages, does not have the right to foreclose on a mortgage in default or assign that right to anyone else if it does not hold the underlying promissory note,

The can also do it if they have POA over that mortgage.
Now of they had ruled based on:

The defendants further assert that the mortgages and notes were bifurcated, rendering the mortgages unenforceable and foreclosure impossible, and that because of such bifurcation, MERS never had an assignable interest in the notes.

would be a different issue. This would address securitization.. could not foreclose if mortgages were part of a securitized package.

Now here is the interesting part:

The defendants also contend [*3]that the Supreme Court erred in considering the corrected assignment of mortgage because it was not authenticated by someone with personal knowledge of how and when it was created, and was improperly submitted in opposition to the motion.

Which Supreme Court? A lower court, even if it is an Appeals Court usually doesn’t have standing to overrule a Supreme Court.

[ucodegen]

Pretty well matches what I have seen, complete with the higher up’s belief that .. “well that didn’t look so hard, so why are you paid so much”. I have also wondered about some people I have seen in companies, where I have wondered what work are they really doing. I know most of the projects that are in the company and these people are not working on those, yet they seem to be busy.

[ucodegen]

Pretty well matches what I have seen, complete with the higher up’s belief that .. “well that didn’t look so hard, so why are you paid so much”. I have also wondered about some people I have seen in companies, where I have wondered what work are they really doing. I know most of the projects that are in the company and these people are not working on those, yet they seem to be busy.

[ucodegen]

Pretty well matches what I have seen, complete with the higher up’s belief that .. “well that didn’t look so hard, so why are you paid so much”. I have also wondered about some people I have seen in companies, where I have wondered what work are they really doing. I know most of the projects that are in the company and these people are not working on those, yet they seem to be busy.

[ucodegen]

Pretty well matches what I have seen, complete with the higher up’s belief that .. “well that didn’t look so hard, so why are you paid so much”. I have also wondered about some people I have seen in companies, where I have wondered what work are they really doing. I know most of the projects that are in the company and these people are not working on those, yet they seem to be busy.

[ucodegen]

Pretty well matches what I have seen, complete with the higher up’s belief that .. “well that didn’t look so hard, so why are you paid so much”. I have also wondered about some people I have seen in companies, where I have wondered what work are they really doing. I know most of the projects that are in the company and these people are not working on those, yet they seem to be busy.

[ucodegen]

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Alleged-Con-Man-Stole-10-Million-in-Investments.html
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_60667301-88d1-5b67-9bc3-9ea08db10300.html
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43257783/ns/local_news-san_diego_ca/t/alleged-con-man-stole-m-investments/
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/02/37011.htm

Not much other than he was indicted..

[ucodegen]

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Alleged-Con-Man-Stole-10-Million-in-Investments.html
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_60667301-88d1-5b67-9bc3-9ea08db10300.html
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43257783/ns/local_news-san_diego_ca/t/alleged-con-man-stole-m-investments/
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/02/37011.htm

Not much other than he was indicted..

[Author]

Posts