My favorite paragraphs, hopefully they apply to someones case:

3. On May 5, Aoude filed a second action in the same federal district court. The complaint in the “new” case adopted all the factual allegations made in the first case and prayed for essentially the same relief, but abandoned plaintiff’s earlier reliance on the phony contract. Then, citing Mobil’s February 24 letter to Monahan, the new complaint proceeded to allege violations of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2801-2806 (1982).
8

4. On May 17, Mobil moved to dismiss both actions because of Aoude’s fraudulent practices.
9

We need not wax longiloquent as to ensuing events. On June 2, the district court granted preliminary injunctive relief in Mobil’s favor;1 the court also denied plaintiff’s motion to substitute the authentic agreement for the ersatz one. Thereafter, the district court heard arguments on defendant’s dismissal motions and took them under advisement. Some months later, the court filed a memorandum decision dismissing both actions. In its rescript, the court observed that “plaintiff’s entire case rests on a false foundation.”

892 F.2d 1115: Salim Aoude, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Mobil Oil Corporation, Defendant, Appellee

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/892/1115/72189/

A “fraud on the court” occurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.

also

We need go no further. Appellant chose to play fast and loose with Mobil and with the district court. He was caught out. The judge considered the relevant factors and acted well within his discretion: appellant’s brazen conduct merited so extreme a sanction; Mobil, having undergone extra trouble and expense, had a legitimate claim to dismissal; and the court, jealous of its integrity and concerned about deterrence, was entitled to send a message, loud and clear.
35

Affirmed.

Tony, write that letter : )

plaintiffs file a pendency, summons and complaint…” we are the owner and holder of the note and mortgage” that’s it , they attach nothing their word is taken as writtin. Maybe I should send a letter with evidence that the plaintiffs committed a fraud upon the court , and that all the Plaintiffs are doing is trying to cover up the Fraud in the certificate series and mudddy the waters. in a case that I’m speaking of is of my very own. I have WRITTEN proof from all parties involved of FRAUD and yes I’m in SC.

They want you to modify on the banks’ terms. You want to find out who owns your mortgage (“quiet”) on your terms. You want to find out who really owns your mortgage so you can know who to pay and who will be able to give you a valid satisfaction when the note is paid off.

When do I tell the judge that “foreclosure intervention” means to me that the judge requires the bank to “produce the note,” not to require me to modify the mortgage? Requiring the banks to “produce the note” would stop almost all foreclosures in their tracks.

Proving that your mortgage was either/both registered into MERS and/or securitized is a difficult proposition today. MERS won’t tell you. FNMA won”t tell you. The banks’ only remaining strategy is to deny that the mortgage was either registered into MERS or securitized. Garfield charges $199 to tell you, so the information is available.

IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK AND … One clue is whether there is an assignment of your mortgage in the public records. MERS procedure is to file an assignment just before foreclosure of the delinquent note. For example, My bank, BofA, has stated that FNMA owns my mortgage, but there is no assignment to FNMA in the public records of my county. The mortgage is delinquent, but not in foreclosure. So, I figure that my mortgage (5/5/2006) was registered into MERS (then shredded) and then securitized. (that’s what FNMA does!)

This MERS procedure begs the question as to why FNMA (or a bank) would buy a delinquent mortgage?

“Sorry, judge, this “intervention” remedy is not what I have in mind. Why must I negotiate with (or pay) a party that cannot prove its ownership of my mortgage? Have my payments been going to the real owner?”

OK, let’s go to court (foreclosure defense or “quiet” offense), where I will ask the judge to require the bank to produce the note.

If the judge won’t require the bank to prove its ownership, the homeowner virtually cannot win. However, if a recent mortgage, (1-year statute of limitations) federal provisions can be used to rescind the mortgage or fine the wrongdoer bank.

We sum it all up at: http://www.ForeclosureFraudFacts.org

Our thanks and prayers go to Carol Asbury, Michael Redman and Lisa Epstein.
BobSub