The simple way of knowing is if we SAY ON THE BLOG we endorse them, then they are endorsed. Some companies “troll” the comment forums here at LivingLies soliciting  or posting contact info, at times other websites may claim some relationship or endorsement(in one case they went as far as listing Brad’s name under the “management team” on their website).  So far, while we have our preferences we have endorsed nobody. IF WE JOIN FORCES WITH SOME FIRM, WE’LL ANNOUNCE IT AND PROMOTE IT. If you don’t see it here, then it doesn’t exist no matter what they claim.

17 Responses

  1. Does anyone have any feedback on US Lending Audit in Florida?

    They are the only auditors so far who have said they will look at more than just the closing documents. That’s what we must have.



  2. Help me understand please which way to go.

    I am going into foreclosure on my two rental homes in Tacoma, WA. I have researched this topic extensively and pretty much understand the fraud by the Banksters to collect on Credit Default Swaps, and I want to fight back. I see two methods to choose from, but I can’t decide.

    #1) Find a “lawyer who gets it” like those on the livinglies blog, and litigate in the courts. IF I could fine an interested lawyer here locally, I think it would be the best choice, but still I think it’s risky because I don’t know what the judges here are going to do. It seems like a crap-shoot, even with a great attorney. I like the idea of having a good attorney on my side, but I’m afraid of inconsistencies of the judges. I’m also having a hard time finding an attorney as Washington state seems to consistently lag the rest of the country in real estate issues for some reason.

    #2) Fight the thing with the method mentioned here:
    I have a good friend who is pro se with the help of a local non-lawyer hack who is basically doing the identical program to that one listed here and seems to have stopped the foreclosure dead in its tracks.
    As I understand it, this “Non-Judicial” method of fighting relies on first replying to a foreclosure notice with a “Notice of Conditional Acceptance upon Proof of Claim” which I understand to be a legal way to fully accept an “offer” (Foreclosure Notice, or Notice of Default) while also “binding” the offerer into a contract which keeps it out of court. Requiring the “Proof of Claim”, or validation of the debt, does not change the offer into a counter offer, it simply demands validation of claim binding the offeror. Simultaneously, they begin the progressive UCC filing process counterclaim for 3x Damages putting everybody on notice as debtors for having falsely collected the past payments. Since the lenders cannot produce any legal validation of the note, they never respond. My friend who is doing this method has heard only silence since he began this method, and now BofA is simply sending him monthly statements again with no more mean warning letters. The Good part about this method is that it removes the uncertainty of dealing with a judge who doesn’t know UCC. The bad part is that many of these characters pushing this method seem to know that it apparently works, but can’t explain why it works in simple language. NOR HAVE THEY PRODUCED ANY CLEAR TITLES YET SO FAR AS I KNOW.

    My dilemma is simply which way do I go? Is there something wrong with the “Non-Judicial” method in #2 and are all those people using UCC filings simply wasting their time? If it is an effective method, why wouldn’t all the lawyers get on board and mass-produce the fight against the banks as they wouldn’t have to labor through every case. Why aren’t lawyers doing it this way? Do they think they can make more representing broke homeowners with drawn-out litigation? With 10s of millions of people underwater and behind in their payments, even the Judicial “Rocket-Dockets” like they’re doing in Florida won’t keep up. There seems like there should be a better way to fight the banksters fraud on a larger scale using the arguments so well described on this site and others.

  3. The judge is not enforcing 2924. The sale took place pursuant to 2924. Tha bank used 2924, not the judge. A UD judge merely reviews whether the Plaintiff has title and then issues an order to remove the former homeowner. It takes about 5 minutes. The order to remove the homeowner is state action, but I don’t see how it violates due process or equal protection when the bank already has the trustee’s deed.

  4. Department of Justice

    Office of Public Affairs

    Thursday, January 21, 2010

    Columbus Accountant and Realtor Plead Guilty to Mortgage Fraud & Obstruction of Justice Conspiracies

    WASHINGTON – Dennis G. Sartain of Hilliard, Ohio; and Bonnie Helt, of Columbus, Ohio, pleaded guilty today to conspiring to commit mortgage fraud, money laundering and obstruction of justice, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced. Sartain, the accountant for co-defendant Thomas Parenteau, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to defraud the United States by impeding and impairing the IRS, one count of conspiring to commit money laundering and one count of conspiring to obstruct justice. Helt, a real estate agent for co-defendant Parenteau, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to commit bank and wire fraud and one count of conspiring to obstruct justice. Parenteau is scheduled to begin trial on March 8, 2010.

    In April 2009, Sartain, Helt and Parenteau were charged with tax fraud, bank and wire fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice in a superseding indictment. According to the indictment and statements made at the plea hearing, Sartain conspired with Parenteau and others to file false individual income tax returns for Pamela McCarty with the IRS for the tax years 2000 through 2003. These four tax returns falsely reported substantial losses and generated tax refunds from the IRS and state of Ohio of over $800,000 in total. McCarty, who was Parenteau’s mistress, gave a substantial portion of the fraudulent tax refunds to Parenteau or his nominees.

    According to the indictment and statements made at the plea hearing, Sartain conspired with Parenteau, McCarty and others to prepare a $4.5 million fictitious loan application to refinance to improve a 30,000 square foot home. As a result of the fraudulent loan documents, McCarty obtained nearly $4.5 million from one bank and an additional $1.5 million from a second bank, and she transferred the money to Parenteau. From March 2004 through September 2006, Parenteau and Sartain dispersed in excess of $1 million of the loan proceeds back to McCarty by disguising the payments as payroll checks from Your Home Source (YHS) and JSS Investments, rental payments and consulting payments from YHS and other miscellaneous payments. On Jan. 31, 2007, Parenteau and his wife refinanced the 30,000 square foot property and received a $12 million loan, which was used in part to pay off McCarty’s existing obligations at the two banks.

    According to the indictment and statements made at the plea hearing, Helt admitted that from 2005 through 2007, she, Parenteau, and others negotiated and participated in real estate deals in which they sold luxury homes for a falsely inflated purchase price from the builder in exchange for an undisclosed or disguised kickback. In many of the transactions, the buyers misrepresented their income and assets in order to obtain financing of the inflated purchase price. The buyers and sellers in the transactions attempted to justify the inflated purchase prices by creating false work change orders and addendums which created the appearance that the inflated price represented additional substantial work to be completed on the homes. No such agreement was actually intended by any party. Further, those documents were not disclosed to the lenders. The object of each transaction was to use the loan proceeds in excess of the actual purchase price in order to fund hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickback payments to the buyers. The loans associated with several of the real estate purchases have gone into default.

    According to the indictment and statements made at the plea hearing, both Sartain and Helt admitted to conspiring with Parenteau and others to obstruct the IRS criminal investigations of Sartain, Parenteau and others. Sartain and Helt admitted to altering or destroying records as well as lying to federal and local law enforcement agents.

    The U.S. District Court Judge Michael H. Watson has not scheduled sentencing date. Sartain faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a maximum fine of $1 million or twice the monetary loss or gain from the offense. Helt faces a maximum sentence of 35 years in prison and a maximum fine of $1.25 million or twice the monetary loss or gain from the offense.

    John DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Tax Division, commended the special agents of the IRS Criminal Investigation for the investigation, as well as Tax Division trial attorneys Richard Rolwing, Sean O’Connell and Jessica Nuzzelillo who are prosecuting the case.

    Tax Division

    Dan Edstrom

  5. OK now we are getting somewhere. I guess it would be settled all things being equal. I will have to review that case but it seems to leave some options open. But maybe not. It is not the “creditor” that is denying due process, equal protection and civil rights – it is the judge. The judge is a state actor. This seems to state that you would need to name the judge in your complaint. This seems to go full circle with the information on a “void” order from a judge. I guess your options instead of removal would be to appeal.

    Dan Edstrom

  6. second part:

    Flagg Brothers, Inc. v. Brook, 436 U.S. 149, held that there is no “state action” when a lender/creditor enforces a re-sale provision like 2924. Establishing “state action” is essential for a violation of due process/equal protection. Because it is a settled issue of law, attempting to remove a UD case based on due process/equal protection is frivolous.

  7. working hard,
    I am trying to understand the issue of why removal in a UD is bad. You seem to be giving an opinion without offering anything to support it. Or I just don’t understand what you are saying. Is there any way you could be more specific? When I read Rule 11 nothing jumped out at me that is related to removal of a UD for civil rights violations, denying equal protection or denial of due process.

    Dan Edstrom

  8. “That did not clear things up for me. Rule 11 applies to filing frivolous lawsuits. I am unclear how it is frivolous to “remove” if your civil rights are being violated, you are denied equal protection and you are denied due process. It seems to me that removal is made for these types of situations.”

    Rule 11 does not only apply to frivolous lawsuits, it applies to ANY filing in a federal court signed by an attorney.

  9. working hard,
    That did not clear things up for me. Rule 11 applies to filing frivolous lawsuits. I am unclear how it is frivolous to “remove” if your civil rights are being violated, you are denied equal protection and you are denied due process. It seems to me that removal is made for these types of situations.

    The article stated that MERS cannot be BOTH a beneficiary and a title holder. It seems to me that this is in relation to a “Trust”. I am not an expert on Trusts either so I do not know if this is true or not. But the articles does not state that MERS cannot be a beneficiary.

    Disclaimer: I am obviously not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

    Dan Edstrom

  10. In my opinion, the removal of a UD case could be grounds for sanctions under Rule 11.

    In California, it is perfectly legal for MERS to be the beneficiary under a Deed of Trust.

  11. mreadingthebsnow

    Anybody can file a complaint (form) with the local county District Attorney’s office. You don’t have to have an attorney do that for you. The forms typically can be filed online. So, do as I did, file the complaint form with your local DA, and attach certified copies of any forged document to it.

    I also filed the same with the FBI.

  12. working hard,
    I am not a lawyer so I cannot debate you on whether the removal has any merit or not. Also it does not say that MERS cannot be a beneficiary so I am not sure what you are saying in regards to 10234(a). I found the lawsuit and wanted others to see it for reference. It was too long to post in the blog and the only link I had was in that PDF file. Did you actually read the lawsuit? I thought it was very interesting. Will it work or could it work? I have no idea as I am not an attorney.

    Dan Edstrom

  13. Removal of a UD? That just made my day. Thanks for the laugh.

    Also, see Business and Professions Code section 10234(a), which specifically states that a a nominee of the lender can serve as the beneficiary under a deed of trust.

    It’s not looking good at all in California. Tender and 2924 have effectively eliminated any meaningful foreclosure offense.

  14. info @ the web site from Dans previous post

    You Can Stop Evictions! Call for a Civil Rights Removal Revolution! The Truth about California Non-Judicial Foreclosure is, it’s all based on LIES, LIES, and MORE LIES! There’s one simple reason: California Civil Code Section 2924 Protects the Liars!

    the link

  15. i did call an atty on your list, although the bank forged my signature in an attempt to take my property, the counselors told me they work out a payment plan with the bank…..THEY DONT GET IT!!! so just who check on thes atty’s on your list?…I am victim of many violations, and now a forgery on the loan from the bank?…..ant the atty’s didnt care to report a criminal act…just slurred over it…..

  16. Having trouble in California? You are NOT alone. Check out this case regarding CIVIL RIGHTS and EQUAL PROTECTION. Also notice what it says about MERS being both beneficiary and title holder of all rights granted (put in “trust”) …

    The case is the first one in this PDF file:


    Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

    Dan Edstrom

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: