From: Randolph Frodsham
To: ctsmyhon@yahoo.com
Sent: Sun, April 3, 2011 2:23:24 PM
Subject: California foreclosures
I am NOT an attorney. (I think that's clear enough to make the point.) I am an ex-State employee (worked for about 20 years as an investigator for the Transportation Division of the State of California Public Utilities Commission). In CA to have a statute making it a felony to record a false document the affects the title of any residential property of 4 or fewer units. (I've attached a copy of PC 115. PC 115.5 is the penalty section. All bolding is mine.) During my career I prepared and submitted reports wherein I alleged certain violations of the Public Utilities Code to reviewing deputy DA's around Southern California. I must have prepared and submitted 300-400 such reports during my career all resulting in the deputy DA preparing complaints which I signed as complainant and then filed with the court. Of all the complaints filed, about a handful went to trial; and, of those, I lost once.
As you know, California is non-judicial. I believe that 99.9% of all Notices of Default recorded in the past several years have contained at least one false statement, in that all of these recorded documents say that the beneficiary (lender) has "deposited" the (original) deed of trust and all documents evidencing the debt (that should be the note) with the trustee who actually conducts the foreclosure process that ends with the sale. The reason I say 99.9% (instead of 100%) is to allow for any foreclosing 'hard-money' loans where the lender does, in fact, have possession of the original (wet-sig) promissory note and deed of trust.
Even given the severe budgetary issues every level of government is suffering today, in the two counties where homeowners have submitted reports I have helped prepare, there is absolutely no interest on the part of anyone who could prosecute. (I'll send a copy of my reports if interested.) This may well be due to the conflict of interest that exists on two levels; first, being civil servants that participate in the CalPERS retirement system, ultimately, their (and almost all other civil service types) retirement fund would be negatively impacted if court cases started going against mortgage holders so that the value of mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) - of which CalPERS holds more than $12 BILLION - and security values declined as a result. Additionally, every County where homeowners have submitted the reports I've prepared to the reviewing deputy DA (that reviewing deputy is a County employee) holds millions of dollars worth of investments in MBSs. (Copies of CAFRs - Combined Annual Financial Reports - available upon request as well.)
Though I am more fortunate than most (I was kinda dumb too in that I was a good little boy who diligently paid off my mortgage), I want to help the homeowners, distressed and otherwise, who are being screwed by this system. I have been warned on several quarters about "practicing law without a license," which I address by telling the truth because I merely assist the homeowner in the preparation of the report. The homeowner knows that, if there should be any court action, THEY will be the one on the witness stand as they are the victim in this situation, not me.
Do you believe my interest in the criminal aspect is a waste or do you feel their may be some way to insight some real interest, and ultimately action, to address the criminal side of this?
--
Randy FrodshamOn Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Kelly L. Hansen
wrote:Randolph,
First and foremost, thank you for stepping forward. Second, may I have your permission to post what you have written? If yes, do you have conditions?
I think your letter has extremely valuable information of which homeowners, lenders, investors, and the judicial system should avail themselves.
I hope to hear from you.
Kelly L. Hansen
HOMEOWNERS HELPING HOMEOWNERS FOUNDATION, INC.
From: Randolph Frodsham
To: Kelly L. Hansen
Sent: Wed, April 6, 2011 4:04:08 PM
Subject: Re: California foreclosures
I just received a replacement dsl modem yesterday, so am finally back online with reasonable stability. I didn't see anything more from you since my last feeble response when I was having so much trouble with my isp service but I don't know it you may have attempted to contact me again.
FYI, about 3 weeks ago, during the last congressional recess, I went to visit my U.S. Representative, Darryl Issa, at his district office in Vista, CA. While I was there, he came into his office and I had an opportunity to have an albiet brief, conversation with him about the current mortgage situation. During our conversation, he made a comment that really tells the whole store.
He said, "We can't let the banks fail."
This told me that, as a sitting congressman, he knows which side his bread is buttered on. Other than the power of the ballot box, I don't know how else to argue with that line of thought.Randy
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Kelly L. Hansen
wrote:There is a big difference between letting the banks fail, and having them making appropriate recompense. They can make appropriate ($25B), or necessary ($135B) recompense, and they would never fail!
The Banks need to quit whining about what they don't want to do, and step up and fix the problems they have caused.
Please write me ASAP.
Thanks so much Randolph.
Kelly L. Hansen
HOMEOWNERS HELPING HOMEOWNERS FOUNDATION, INC.
I have no problem with my name appearing. What I wrote to you I firmly believe to be true. I welcome any information that might show that I am wrong. I believe that our entire judicial system with its retirement benefits package and investments made by various government entities have setup a no-win situation for the homeowner in this country who has suffered from the illegal acts of the banking industry.
The government entities and retirement funds were lied to and snookered into purchasing investment instruments by the investment rating companies that said that the MBS investments were AAA rated when, in fact, they should have been rated B or C at best. All the pension funds were rolling in cash until the market fell out on the MBSs. Now there are trillions of dollas of shortages that the public employee unions and government entities are expecting the taxpayer to bail out. Whyisit that seemingly no one wants to talk about the real root of this problem and who deserves to pay. The pension funds need to be made whole, but not at the expense of the innocent taxpayor.
Randy
The number of prime mortgages facing foreclosure has shot up 425 percent since 2008 due to falling home values and rising unemployment. And if you purchased your home at the peak of the real estate market from 2004 to 2006, your value has substantially dropped. While these numbers may be irrelevant to some borrowers, those who are able to afford their mortgage payment and plan on residing in their home for a decade or more, others have simply given up in the hope of forcing a short-sale or principal reduction.
