Foreclosure Defense Attorney Proves Scammer Joe Esquivel Owner of Mortgage Compliance Investigators Is A Con Artist

A well respected foreclosure defense attorney, Thomas Cox proves Joseph Esquivel, owner of Mortgage Compliance Investigators, is a scammer.

“I bumped into this con artist back in 2013 and wrote the attached article about his con game… in case you want to see how totally looney the guy is”: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDYwMDAzOTAyMzU3OTcyMzc4MzgBMDYyODYyNjc3NDQyNTA2MDEyOTgBZ1kwRkdvMUJCQUFKATAuMS4xAQF2Mg

Sadly, a quick search will show dozens of homeowners lost their homes; worse yet we couldn’t find even one case where a homeowner was successful. It’s clear anyone relying on Esquivel’s “inaccurate legal conclusions,” and “erroneous statements of law” will lose their home. See, ERNESTO McKENZIE v. M&T BANK case. In the very last footnote of the case, the court makes it clear, this Esquivel character is totally incompetent and has no idea what he’s talking about. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12352845220372117433&q=%E2%80%9CJoseph+Esquivel%E2%80%9D+foreclosure&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33.

The court cites several cases where homeowners lost their homes using Esquivel’s worthless audits. The court: “The Court notes that this is not the first time that borrower-homeowners have relied on Esquivel’s ‘inaccurate legal conclusions,’ despite the fact that he is not a lawyer and has ‘not shown competence’ to provide legal advice or testimony regarding chain of title issues.” The court further notes:  “Mr. Esquivel’s affidavit is “replete with erroneous statements of law and is wholly unhelpful to a resolution of the case let alone to be admitted as any expert opinion.”  

 

7 thoughts on “Foreclosure Defense Attorney Proves Scammer Joe Esquivel Owner of Mortgage Compliance Investigators Is A Con Artist”

  1. My Names Robert Montessi and have known Joe Esquivel, utilized his services, recommend his services. Joe’s work is a specialty. He makes no legal conclusions. I’m aware at the time of the case, most judges weren’t capable or didn’t care enough to make themselves savvy enough to understand how or why the chain of title explicitly details how the pass through happened, and how it was supposed to happen. A chain of title when utilized properly is priceless. Loan level data. who the proper parties are and aren’t are relevant facts. Debt collectors v. proper Mortgagee who may have standing provided they have the original version of the note v. A copy of a note ( which is nothing less then a digital image of a Note) which must be accompanied by the securitization document is a huge issue. What A disgrace the judge is, the author and the worthless, lawyer who decimated Joe’s name. Joseph Esquivel, is A competent LICENSED PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR. Know your facts before you attack one’s character. Maryland is a very difficult state to help homeowners in. It’s deed of trust or judicial. It can be either or! SAD but TRUE. If the court made an improper decision, the defendant should had made a motion to reargue, or filed in the court of Appeals. What’s so troublesome with the authors blog is his/her lack of understanding the system.
    As it relates to MERS, Joseph Esquivel of Mortgage Compliance Investigators had it right from the get go! See decision : https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/mers-mortgages-cant-be-foreclosed—federal-judge-rules
    Not convinced? https://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2010/07/california-court-rules-mers-can%E2%80%99t-foreclose-citibank-can%E2%80%99t-collect/

    It was and has been Esquivel who from the beginning of this fiasco whose pointed out that MERS HAS NOTHING to do with A foreclosure suit. Yet, so many judges who were supposed to mandate an attempt for the so called “lender” to offer A settlement before a court date ruled in favor for the fraud.

    I couldn’t help but to notice A following comment about a disbarred attorney named Mark Stopa up next. I dare anyone to attempt to go after a lawyer who was disbarred because he went after the system. Mark WON many cases. Calling him a criminal? You have a screw loose. Mark wrote a book. You ought to rip a page out of it. Ask yourself, how many of these judges ruled on cases they truly weren’t qualified to rule on. Then ask yourself, how many of these judges had a vested interest in the lender. Should they had recused themselves from the case? Did they own shares in Bank of America? Citibank NA? were any of there IRA’s or 401k’s at risk? it’s called a vested interest! My email address is :rmontee5@gmail.com
    I am not a lawyer. This is NOT a legal opinion. These are factual statements that I’ve personally observed in A courtroom, working in a law firm who too was a Licenses CC investigator with credentials from various news sources . Know your facts before spewing your Bullshit out on the internet!

    Like

    1. Our firm has access to all of the legal search engines, we could not find any cases where a homeowner won using Esquivel’s worthless audits. Several courts that have seen his nonsense portray him as incompetent and not qualified to testify on chain of title issues, and replete with erroneous his legal conclusions, exactly what Tom Cox a well respected foreclosure attorney had proven. Don’t be a useful idiot for a scammer.

      Furthermore, you obviously have no legal training, because if you did, you’d know the Agard case was overturned and Cts’ all over the country ruled that MERS could not only assign, but could also foreclose, to wit: SATERBAK V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 808, 814 [plaintiff “lacks standing to challenge alleged defects in the MERS assignment of the DOT to the 2007-AR7 trust; FLORES V. GMAC MORTG., LLC, No. C 12-794, 2013 WL 2049388, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2013) (“[plaintiff contends that] because MIT securitized the note, this allegedly stripped MERS of any ability to assign the deed of trust. Courts have consistently rejected this theory.”); YVANOVA V. NEW CENTURY MORTG. CORP., 365 P.3d 845 (Cal. 2016) (“California courts have held that a trustor who agreed under the terms of the deed of trust that MERS, as the lender’s nominee, has the authority to exercise all of the rights and interests of the lender . . . is precluded from maintaining a cause of action based on the allegation that MERS has no authority to exercise those rights.”); CULHANE V. AURORA LOAN SERVICES OF NEBRASKA, 708 F.3d 282 (1st Cir. 2013), (“a mortgage contract that names “MERS … as nominee for [Lender] and [Lender’s] successors and assigns” does suffice to make MERS the mortgage holder and then authorize MERS to assign the mortgage on behalf of the lender to the lender’s successors and assigns.”); HERRERA V. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSN. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1498, 1504-1505) (The courts in this state have already rejected the argument that MERS’s lack of a possessory interest in the note demonstrates its lack of authority to make a valid assignment of a deed of trust on behalf of the original lender.’); L’AMOREAUX V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (5th Cir. 2014) 755 F.3d 748, 750 [“although [the lender] had ceased to exist at the time of the assignment, the deed of trust explicitly contemplates MERS’s continuing to act as nominee for [the lender’s] `successors and assigns.]; CERVANTES V. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 656 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011) (“None of their allegations indicate that the plaintiffs were misinformed about MERS’s role as a beneficiary, or the possibility that their loans would be resold and tracked through the MERS system …. By signing the deeds of trust, the plaintiffs agreed to the terms and were on notice of the contents.”); .”); BENHAM V. AURORA LOAN SERVICES, No. C-09-2059 SC, 2009 WL 2880232, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2009) (“Other courts in this district have summarily rejected the argument that companies like MERS lose their power of sale pursuant to the deed of trust when the original promissory note is assigned to a trust pool.”); SILIGA V. MORTG. ELECT. REGISTRATION SYST., INc., 161 Cal. Rptr. 3d 500, 506 (Ct. App. 2013) (“California courts have held that a trustor who agreed under the terms of the deed of trust that [electronic database provider Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.], as the lender’s nominee, has the authority to exercise all of the rights and interests of the lender . . . is precluded from maintaining a cause of action based on the allegation that MERS has no authority to exercise those rights.”).

      The above case law, and I could post hundreds more, proves that Esquivel’s arguments are ridiculous, that’s why everyone that’s ever used his garbage has lost!

      Like

      1. YOUR FULL OF IT🎯‼️🎥
        You are also probably being paid by the BANKSTERS👀🎯‼️🎥
        YOUR IGNORANCE IS AMAZING🎯‼️

        Like

      2. What’s it like being a “useful idiot” for the scammers. Learn some law before you make “mickey Mouse” comments!

        Like

    2. VERY WELL PUT🎯‼️
      Joseph is DEPENDABLE 🎯‼️😎
      Judges are PROBABLY being paid or threatened by the BANKSTERS to protect their FRAUD 💰‼️😎

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s