JB Campbell: Mortgage Fraud

Here’s a great read from Veteran’s “Today”

DYING TRUTH: You’re gonna love it!
JB Campbell: Mortgage Fraud
January 7, 2011 posted by J. Bruce Campbell · 32 Comments

Foreclosure fraud is in the news. Or it was. It probably will be again even though the media masters don’t want to talk about it. There’s a big decision coming up in Massachusetts as to whether securitized mortgages are just so much toilet paper. The banks got so greedy that merely collecting usury on “loans” that cost them nothing wasn’t good enough. They “securitized” them, bundling thousands, millions of mortgages and turning them into “securities,” selling them to even greedier speculators without the little detail of recording the transfers of ownership. Massachusetts’ highest court is going to decide if your mortgage ought to be zeroed out and the house put in your name, no more questions asked. And if you lost your home in the current Great Depression, as so many of us did, you’ll probably be able to get it back.

Foreclosure fraud is based on mortgage fraud, of course. Anything the banks do is based on fraud and lies – no exception to that rule. Mortgage fraud, interest fraud, foreclosure fraud – they’re all connected. Banks don’t lend a dime in real money – they credit your account with electronic entries out of the ether. They take zero risk but collect real cash from you and if you fall behind they take your house and sell it to the next poor sucker.

You may recall a couple of months ago that several big banks had suspended all foreclosures in all fifty states because a couple of homeowners had discovered the nature of the mortgage and foreclosure scam. The former congressman Alan Grayson’s YouTube video explaining the scam went viral. Then it became a non-subject. The lie factories went silent on the subject, not even trying to lie for their banking masters since the credibility gap in Manhattan could swallow Rockefeller Center, where so many lies originate.

So what happened to me and my friends twenty-eight years ago probably won’t happen to you, now that the fraud is becoming widely understood. The SWAT team probably won’t show up at your place for a foreclosure eviction. The SWATs may come for other reasons but the way things are going today, it won’t be for an eviction because fraud nullifies all contracts.

My friend Pete was a decorated Vietnam veteran. He got the Silver Star and Purple Heart for an action in which his unit was overrun by Vietcong and most of them killed. Pete and several others were wounded and Pete picked up an M-60 that wasn’t being used and managed to kill over a dozen VC in an extended fight and saved the lives of the wounded guys, allowing all to be rescued some time later. His award was re-evaluated and a survivor recommended the CMH but the officer-witness died during the process. The point is that Pete knew his way around guns. He had no criminal record and made his living as a real estate broker in central California. He and his wife Gwendolyn had done quite well in the real estate boom in the ‘70s, buying and selling fixer-uppers. Then the interest-rate crisis of 1980 hit and real estate didn’t sell so well with the prime rate at 23%, thanks to Paul Volcker.

By 1983 he fell behind in his mortgage payments and the bank in Santa Cruz foreclosed. Pete and Gwen had $240,000 in equity in their lovely property in the giant redwoods up on Summit Road. The bank, I came to realize, had no equity, no risk and no standing. But they had a crooked judge named Christopher Cottle, who was a reformed gang member according to an article in the Santa Cruz paper. But I didn’ t know that until later.

I read an article in the old Spotlight newspaper about the Minnesota legal case of First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly of 1968. Do a search on that and discover some interesting things, such as the banker admitting that “banks create money out of thin air – it’s standard practice.” The jurors were so taken aback by this casual admission that they quickly found for Jerome Daly, and the judge, Martin V. Mahoney, remarked, “It sounds like fraud to me.” Daly’s contract with the bank was made null and void and the farm was his in fee simple. I missed the part where Judge Mahoney was murdered by poison six months later. The Daly case potentially was the death warrant for the standard bank practice of lending credit, should it ever become widely known.

I took this article to Pete and Gwen and suggested that they sue their bank for fraud and usury, based on Jerome Daly’s experience. Neither of them was very good on the typewriter so I wound up doing the paperwork of their lawsuit for them, which you can imagine was rather detailed.

The case went to court and was dutifully thrown out by Judge Cottle, despite our showing that the bank had put up nothing of value and had created credit out of thin air. It was appealed and indignantly denied by another judge. Pete assured me that he was licked but that we had fought the good fight. I went to Santa Fe to visit some friends. While there I had a bizarre nightmare that persuaded me I must return to Carmel as quickly as possible. If you ever have a weird dream and get an irresistible urge to act on it – don’t. This was possibly the worst mistake of my life, and I’ve made a few of them.

When I got home there was a message on my machine to call Pete, that he was going to be evicted and he needed another gun. Naturally, I took him a Heckler & Koch HK-91 in 7.62mm NATO that morning. And a half-dozen 20 round mags. I’d already given him a .357 Magnum revolver but he obviously could use more firepower.

What was I thinking? Pete had given me an M1A1 Thompson submachine gun a couple of years earlier that he’d brought back from Nam. I’d needed a clean gun to use against David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger in 1980 in an operation that unfortunately went south, with me going to jail – no conviction. But Pete had come through, no questions asked, and I could hardly do less – right? Don’t answer that. We were also involved in an operation against Paul Volcker in ‘82 but one of our confederates was arrested and burned us to make a deal. Pete managed to persuade the FBI that the guy was lying. And I had just finished the manuscript of my book that would start the militia movement and was in a very revolutionary mood. Taking on some stinking banker’s SWAT team didn’t bother me, frankly. The team wasn’t ready for our combined anti-terrorist experience in Africa and Vietnam, if we’d been serious.

I showed up with the equipment and had lunch with them, their daughter and baby granddaughter and another vet named Jimmy. I checked him out on the rifle and said, well, if the cops weren’t going to show then I was going to go back to Carmel and get some sleep, as I’d had none since leaving Santa Fe thirty hours earlier. I went out to the upper gate and swung it open and looked down the road and saw the SWAT team approaching, single-file. Camouflage, AR-15 rifles and one bolt-action sniper rifle. Eight guys.

Back down to the house. Hey, Pete – they’re here.

The SWATs took positions behind bushes and trees. Pete had, at Gwen’s insistence pinned on his Silver Star and Purple Heart. Jimmy had a camera and wandered down to the lower gate to take pictures, the doofus. The sergeant in charge of the SWATs asked Jimmy to come a little closer so they could talk. Jimmy fell for it and the cop grabbed him. Jimmy yelled and pulled away but Pete went hustling down there to see. The sniper and his helper rushed Pete from behind and drew a bead on him. I stepped off the porch and waved frantically but silently for them to Get Back, Get Back! For some crazy reason, they got back. Maybe they were confused by my clothes. I had on slacks, white shirt, dark tie and sport coat. I probably looked like a cop. Gwen saw what happened and naively said, “Bruce, go up there and talk to them! Tell them to stop it!” I had nothing better to do, so I did what she said.

I could see where they were hiding so I walked carefully up the gravel drive toward them and took off my jacket and put it on a bush. They were both aiming at me. I raised my hands and said I just wanted to talk. One of them shouted, “You’re under arrest! Get on your knees!” I kept my hands up and said, “No, I’m not getting on my knees. I’m just asking you not to shoot my friend. He needs his day in court.”

“I said you’re under arrest! Get on your knees!” I shook my head and picked up the jacket and walked back down to the house, ignoring their shouted orders to stop. Pete came up from the lower gate and said, “What’s that all about?” When I pointed to the sniper and assistant, I got in a lot of trouble. I said, “Pete, those guys about killed you from behind when you ran down there. Gwen wanted me to talk to ‘em, and I said not to shoot you.”

Pete calmed down a little after that and the SWAT team withdrew after an hour or so. They cut water, gas, phones and power to the property. At one point, one of the SWATs fired his weapon. I looked out of the upstairs window where I’d been trying to take a nap and saw Pete lying on the porch below me. I thought he’d been nailed, but he yelled out, “Don’t get nervous in the service!” One of the dopes had had an accidental discharge. After a couple more hours, for some reason, they allowed the press to pour onto the property. Television, newspaper, radio guys were everywhere, interviewing Pete and Gwen. I told Pete that we needed some more guys up here and I’d take a chance and drive down to the local store and make some calls, but to hold on to my dog in case they busted me. Cops generally kill dogs. He said okay. I drove carefully through the throngs of reporters, out onto Summit Road and was immediately busted and pulled out of my car and put face down on the asphalt. Then into a car and taken downtown. After several hours I was taken to an interrogation room and a detective started with the questions. What the hell was this all about? I said that Pete needed his day in court, that he’d sued a bank for fraud and usury and Cottle threw it out. Well, this isn’t how you get justice, taking on a SWAT team. Really? How do you get justice?

He didn’t much care for me and I got the orange suit and was put in a cell block from the 1930s with a lot of guys. I was in there for five days. On about the second day, the jailer yelled out, “Where’s Campbell?” He said I had an attorney visit, which was pretty good since I didn’t have an attorney. It turned out to be two detectives. The one guy said he was with the Sheriff’s office and the other one was with the Coroner’s office. Coroner? “Yeah, we need next-of-kin information on Pete and Gwen.” You killed ‘em? “We can’t say anything until we notify next-of-kin.”

Wow. So now, I’m looking at Murder One. Any cops killed? “We’re not sure at this time.” Uh, huh. Wow. My friends are dead and I’m up for murder. “So, how about the next-of-kin information?”

I didn’t know where their next-of-kin lived or even what their names were. I wasn’t any help, but I would have been if I’d known. That’s how good they were.

I staggered back to the cell block. After an hour or so, the jailer called out my name again. “Hey, those two detectives said to tell you that the property’s secure and nobody was killed. They said you looked in pretty bad shape.” Whaddya mean, no one was killed? Besides my two friends, you mean? “Buddy, I’m in jail just like you are. I only know what they told me.” Someone shouted at me, “Hey, come look at this!” They could see a television screen beyond the cell bars and the news was on. Turned out that Pete had taken the whole gang, Gwen, daughter and her baby and Jimmy, right down the mountain, through the SWAT lines and the huge redwoods. He did it because the FBI had gotten in the act and gassed them. Pete watched my Scottie keel over at his feet just as he himself was getting extremely sleepy, along with everyone else. So he told them that they had to get out. I don’t know how the hell he did it but he pulled off a good one. That’s why the cops pretended they were dead so they could trick me into telling them where they probably went. They did trick me but I didn’t know anything.

Here’s how I avoided prison: The initial detective asked me the next day to go up to the house to talk Pete into giving up. I wanted to talk with him and get our stories straight so I immediately agreed. Shortly before the other two pulled the KGB trick on me, the first one changed his tune and bitterly denounced me as the brains of the whole operation. He said he’d found the lawsuit papers in my car. He said, “I know that you took the guns to him. We had a witness who saw the whole thing.” The thing was, no one had ever read me my Miranda warning, either out on the asphalt or in the squad room or anywhere. So I immediately said, “Yes, I took him the guns. The guns were mine.”

I eventually did get an attorney. I told him that I admitted bringing the guns to Pete.

“You what? Why did you say that?”

“Because I was never read my rights.”

He hesitated. “Are you sure about that?”

“I’m sure.” He checked with the detective, who reluctantly confirmed it. And for that reason I did not go to prison for twenty years. I was charged with multiple felony conspiracies (with no co-conspirator), much more serious charges than Pete, but they were all reduced to one misdemeanor accessory-after, because of the bad confession, and I had to do about seven weekends in jail.

Pete wasn’t so lucky. He was at large for a couple of months but was finally arrested in the courthouse where he was trying to get his legal papers. I went to his trial and the sniper pointed at me and broke into tears, saying that I had pointed him out to Pete and he could have been killed and that he had a family! His boss, the sergeant, took the stand and admitted that the Sheriff had authorized the SWAT team to kill all of us. Pete said, “Even the women and the child?” Yes, everyone. Pete got six years, did about two and a half at San Quentin.

So, we were a little ahead of the power curve on mortgage and foreclosure fraud. But now, twenty-eight years later, the true nature of the fraud is exposed for everyone to see. It is exactly as Jerome Daly and Pete told their respective juries, that the banks create money out of thin air but we have to give them hard cash or the property – plus interest. The banks couldn’t lose.

Until now. Now, they can’t win. They’ve been caught and their monumental crimes against the people are being revealed.

Representative Marcy Kaptur tells her Ohio constituents, do not leave your home under any circumstances. Demand to see the original note. In the great majority of cases, there is no original note because the mortgages have been “sliced and diced” and bundled and securitized and not legally recorded before they were turned magically into “mortgage-backed securities” and peddled to stupid and greedy speculators overseas. The federal government is in on the fraud also. Phony and Fraudie (Fannie May and Freddy Mac) have a bogus front company called MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Service) that has assumed power over millions of these fraudulent mortgages, but to avoid scrutiny, have moved MERS to New Delhi, or Calcutta or Bangalore or some damn place. That’s India! Does that sound kosher to you?

Hell, yes – Circle K kosher.

6 Responses

  1. In case anyone gets the idea that they can use the Jerome Daly case as good case law, they can’t and it will get thrown out. Even though we all know that it stands for the trust regarding our financial system, it does not matter because our government has decided that the banks can commit this type of fraud but no one else can. If the system is going to change, it needs to start by getting rid of the Federal Reserve System.

    I had investigated the Jerome Daly case a while back and have concluded that it has and had no authority or relevance at all because the case was heard in the justice of the peace court which had no jurisdiction. The Justice of the Peace wasn’t even an attorney let alone a judge. It appears that they served the Bank and held the proceeding without any legal authority to do so. It is the same as the current California Limited Civil court which hears unlawful detainers but can not hear cases involving other issues such as foreclosures, etc. The judge hearing the case, a magistrate judge is not necessarily an attorney and usually has the title of Commissioner. Anyways, here is the Order from the Minnesota Supreme Court on this case.

    In Re Jerome Daly
    No. 42174
    Supreme Court of Minnesota
    284 Minn. 567; 171 N.W.2d 818; 1969 Minn. LEXIS 1102

    September 5, 1969

    PRIOR HISTORY: Order to show cause why Jerome Daly should not be held in constructive contempt of this court. Adjudged guilty of contempt, suspended from practice of law, and investigation ordered.

    HEADNOTES
    Contempt — constructive contempt — attorney advising justice of peace to disregard order of supreme court.

    COUNSEL: Faegre & Benson, Peter Kitchak, and Gordon G. Busdicker, for relator.

    Jerome Daly, pro se, for respondent.

    OPINION BY: PER CURIAM

    OPINION
    On July 11, 1969, Mr. Justice C. Donald Peterson, acting for the Minnesota Supreme Court, directed Martin V. Mahoney, justice of the peace of Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota, and Jerome Daly, counsel for plaintiff in an action brought by one Leo Zurn against one Roger D. Derrick and the Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis, to show cause why they should not be permanently restrained from further proceedings in the justice court. In addition, Justice Peterson ordered a stay of all further proceedings before the justice of the peace pending final determination of the questions raised by Northwestern National Bank’s petition for writ of prohibition.

    Although the stay order of Justice Peterson was served on the justice of the peace and Mr. Daly on July 11, 1969, they intentionally and deliberately disregarded it in this way: On July 14, 1969, the justice of the peace, upon motion of Mr. Daly, entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order for judgment in favor of Zurn. In response to our order of August 12, 1969, directing the justice of the peace and Mr. Daly to show cause why they should not be held in constructive contempt of the Supreme Court of Minnesota for this conduct, Mr. Daly appeared personally in his own behalf before this court on August 21. He advised the court that he had been authorized to represent the justice of the peace in the proceedings. After noting that he was making a special appearance, Mr. Daly, an attorney at law admitted to practice in this state, acknowledged that both he and the justice of the peace intentionally violated the order of Justice Peterson because in their opinion neither this court nor Justice Peterson had jurisdiction to issue it.

    Although the death of the justice of the peace on August 22, 1969, has rendered the proceedings as against him moot, it is our judgment that the conduct of Jerome Daly was contumacious. It is the order of this court that he be temporarily suspended from the practice of law in the courts of this state effective October 1, 1969.

    We reserve jurisdiction of this matter to permit further proceedings, the object of which will be to determine whether this contumacious conduct of Jerome Daly is or is not an isolated instance of impropriety. Final determination of the disciplinary measures to be invoked will be made after such hearing has been conducted. Reasonable notice of any charges of misconduct and a full opportunity to be heard shall be afforded in these contemplated hearings.

    The rationale of our determination is as follows:

    (1) The Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota by the terms of our Constitution has power to issue writs of prohibition restraining a court of limited jurisdiction from exceeding its power. Minn. Const. art. 6, § 2, provides that the Supreme Court “shall have original jurisdiction in such remedial cases as may be prescribed by law.” By the terms of Minn. St. 480.04, the legislature has provided:

    “The court shall have power to issue to all courts of inferior jurisdiction and to all corporations and individuals, writs of error, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and all other writs and processes, whether especially provided for by statute or not, that are necessary to the execution of the laws and the furtherance of justice. It shall be always open for the issuance and return of such writs and processes and for the hearing and determination of all matters involved therein and for the entry in its minutes of such orders as may from time to time be necessary to carry out the power and authority conferred upon it by law, subject to such regulations as it may prescribe. Any justice of the court, either in vacation or in term, may order the writ or process to issue and prescribe as to its service and return.”

    (2) In Minnesota, the justice of the peace court is a court of inferior jurisdiction. Since the constitutional amendment of the judicial article in 1956 justice of the peace courts exist in this state only to the extent permitted by the legislature. Minn. Const. art. 6, §§ 1, 8, and Schedule. The legislature has fixed narrow limits to the jurisdiction which may be exercised by justices of the peace in this state. (Minn. St. 530.01, 530.05, 530.06, 531.03, 531.04, 532.37.) Acts in excess thereof by such justices of the peace are a nullity and subject to control by a writ of prohibition. Smith v. Tuman, 262 Minn. 149, 114 N.W. (2d) 73. For a definition of the term “inferior courts” see 21 C.J.S., Courts, § 7, p. 21.

    (3) The power to prohibit an improper exercise of jurisdiction embraces the power to issue ex parte an order designed to maintain the status quo pending a hearing upon an application for a writ of prohibition. See, Minn. St. 480.04. In the case of In re Lord, 255 Minn. 370, 378, 97 N.W. (2d) 287, 292, under similar circumstances, we stated that —
    “* * * this court had full authority to issue a preliminary order to show cause why such peremptory writ should not issue, and, in order to maintain the status quo until both sides of the controversy could be heard, to issue a restraining order to prevent any further action from being taken, either affirmatively or by inaction such as we have here.” See, also, 21 C.J.S., Courts, § 88, p. 136, [***6] and cases cited in note 13.

    (4) The order executed by Justice Peterson, acting in the name of this court, was a proper exercise of the court’s authority. Any justice of the supreme court, either in vacation or in term, may execute orders in behalf of the court pursuant to § 480.04. See, 48 C.J.S., Judges, § 48, and particularly cases cited in note 94; 30A Am. Jur., Judges, § 35.

    We find no essential requirement that such orders be issued by or through the office of the clerk of this court. To impose such a requirement would unnecessarily curtail the capacity of this court to respond in emergency situations. It would be unreasonable to make the per-formance of a clerical act a necessary condition to the exercise of judicial authority which must be asserted promptly to be effective. The signature of a justice of this court is adequate assurance of the authenticity of any order to which such signature is affixed.

    Although the verification of statements of fact sub-mitted to this court in ex parte matters is to be preferred, there is no jurisdictional requirement that a petition for temporary relief or for a writ of prohibition be verified. See, Dean v. First Nat.Bank, 217 Ore. 340, 341 P. (2d) 512; 73 C.J.S., Prohibition, § 26. In the matter before us it was evident from an examination of the summons and complaint in the proceedings sought to be restrained that Justice of the Peace Mahoney was undertaking to act in a matter with respect to which he had no jurisdiction. The representation of an attorney at law authorized to practice before this court that a copy of this summons and complaint attached to the petition seeking the writ of prohibition was a true and correct copy of the process served on his client formed in itself an adequate factual basis for the issuance of the temporary order directed to Justice of the Peace Mahoney and Jerome Daly.

    (5) The refusal of the justice of the peace to respect the July 11 order of this court was not justified. The justice of the peace would be bound to obey our intermediary order regardless of whether the actions restrained by our order were in excess of his jurisdiction. In re Lord, supra. Apart from this principle, it is clear that the proceedings restrained were beyond the limits of the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace in a number of respects, including these:

    (a) The summons, being returnable at 7 p.m. rather than between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. as specified by Minn. St. 531.03, was a nullity.
    (b) The summons did not contain a statement of the amount claimed by plaintiff as required by § 531.03.
    (c) Contrary to the provisions of § 531.04, the summons was personally served upon Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis in the city of Minneapolis, a city having a population in excess of 200,000.
    (d) This service was performed outside of the county of issuance, Scott County, in violation of the provision of § 531.04 that such service must satisfy the requirements of Minn. St. 532.29. One of the requirements of Minn. St. 532.29 is a continuance of proceedings for a period not exceeding 20 days, and no such continuance was provided in this case.
    (e) The amount in controversy exceeded the $ 100 jurisdictional limitation of the justice of the peace courts under § 530.05.
    (f) The relief sought, a declaratory judgment, was not within the granted powers of a justice of the peace. See, § 530.05. It has been the law ever since the 1861 case of Fowler v. Atkinson, 6 Minn. 350 (503), that a justice of the peace has no jurisdiction over equitable proceedings. See, Smith v. Tuman, supra.

    (6) We are satisfied from the record that the justice of the peace acted upon the advice and at the instance of attorney Jerome Daly. Mr. Mahoney was not admitted to practice as a lawyer. An attorney who intentionally and deliberately advises and encourages a justice of the peace or any other person to disregard an order of the Minnesota Supreme Court is guilty of contempt. See, Minn. St. 588.01, subd. 3(1, 2, 3, 7); In re Lord, supra; State v. Leftwich, 41 Minn. 42, 42 N.W. 598; In re Green, 172 Ohio St. 269, 175 N.E. (2d) 59. The fact that such advice is prompted by fanciful notions that justice of the peace courts have a constitutional status giving them immunity from the jurisdiction of the supreme court of this state cannot excuse or justify this conduct. This is especially the case in the present situation where the jurisdiction of this court to prohibit acts beyond the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace was clearly delineated by our decision in Smith v. Tuman, supra, published in 1962. See, also, State ex rel. Meister v. Stanway, 174 Minn. 608, 219 N.W. 452.

    (7) The supreme court has inherent power to discipline an attorney guilty of contempt. In re Contempt of Cary, 165 Minn. 203, 206 N.W. 402. In exercising this authority no attempt is made to impose the sanctions of the criminal law. A principal purpose of the exercise of disciplinary authority is to assure respect for the orders of this court by attorneys, who, as much as judges, are responsible for the orderly administration of justice in this state. In disciplinary proceedings the formal requisites of criminal procedure, including the right to a jury trial, have no application. In re Disbarment of Williams, 221 Minn. 554, 23 N.W. (2d) 4; In re Application for Discipline of Rerat, 232 Minn. 1, 44 N.W. (2d) 273; In re Application for Discipline of Joyce, 242 Minn. 427, 65 N.W. (2d) 581, certiorari denied sub nom. Joyce v. Dell, 348 U.S. 883, 75 S. Ct. 124, 99 L. ed. 694; In re Discipline of Tracy, 197 Minn. 35, 266 N.W. 88, 267 N.W. 142.

    Disposition
    Jerome Daly is adjudged to be guilty of contempt of this court. We are not prepared to determine with finality at this time the appropriate form of discipline to be prescribed. Final resolution of the matter must depend on whether the acts of this attorney are a part of a persistent and continuing effort to defy the authority of the courts and in part on whether there is any disposition to amend the contumacious behavior demonstrated.

    The Rules of the Supreme Court for Discipline and Reinstatement of Attorneys, adopted November 14, 1961 (260 Minn. x), which prescribe the procedure to be followed in cases where unproved complaints involving alleged unprofessional conduct are leveled against an attorney, was not intended to apply to situations where an attorney has been found in contempt of this court and an inquiry is needed to aid us in determining the kind of discipline to be imposed. To meet the problem posed by this case, we herewith refer further proceedings in this matter to the Honorable E. R. Selnes, Judge of the District Court of the State of Minnesota, who will act as a referee of the Minnesota Supreme Court in order to consider such evidence as may be presented to him bearing on the fitness and competence of Jerome Daly to serve as a practicing attorney in the courts of this state. The State Board of Law Examiners (see, In re Disbarment of McDonald, 204 Minn. 61, 282 N.W. 677, 284 N.W. 888) is hereby assigned the duty and responsibility of conducting a thorough investigation of the fitness and competency of Jerome Daly to continue as a member of the bar of this state. So far as applicable, proceedings shall be in conformity with the rules of this court promulgated November 14, 1961. Due notice of such charges of unfitness and incompetence as may be warranted by the evidence secured, together with due and proper notice of the time and place of such hearings as may be held with respect to such charges as may be filed, shall be afforded the said Jerome Daly. The Practice of Law Committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association is authorized to intervene and become a party to these proceedings if it so elects. Upon the evidence presented and received, together with such evidence as may be presented by the said Jerome Daly in his own behalf, the Honorable E. R. Selnes in his capacity as a referee of this court shall make findings of fact and conclusions and recommendations for disposition of this matter as shall be justified by the evidence. Such determination shall be conclusive subject to the right of any party aggrieved to secure a review of the referee’s determination in the manner outlined in said rules of November 14, 1961.

    Because of the deliberate and aggravated nature of the contumacious conduct on the part of the said Jerome Daly and his failure or refusal to present any reasonable justification for his effort to frustrate the processes of the Minnesota Supreme Court, his privilege to practice law in the courts of this state is suspended effective October 1, 1969; provided, however, that this court will consider such application as the said Jerome Daly may make prior to October 1, 1969, for such limited exceptions to this order of temporary suspension as may be proved necessary in order to protect the interests of clients now represented by the said Jerome Daly and involved in litigation pending in the courts of this state.

    This matter is herewith referred to the Honorable E. R. Selnes, designated as referee herein, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, which proceedings shall be entitled “In re Jerome Daly.”

  2. I hope to see securitization and MERS gone by the end of the year. Securitization is fraud, too. Really ridiculous. Just call me Neva 864-241-8602

  3. Wow!

  4. I’m loving the Livinglies/Dying Truth thing. 🙂

  5. Fraud is fraud it is based on situations they developed. The design of MERS basically says it all. We are living amongst thieves and rapists and liars at the highest levels. Don’t believe one word the banks tell you. They are trained to lie. LPS has videos for the hairdresser employees to take the homeowner from a mod (that was more lies out of the box) to cash for keys or deed in lieu. These are the people who deserve the swat team. Where are they when u really need them!? Debi

  6. Interesting read. The flaw for me is that there was an original investor who PAID MONEY to have the homes built.

    When the banks and realtors find a buyer who meets the credit criteria, they pay the original investor back. Even if the original investor is paid with bank money that came from the government, that money is still valid because the investor can use it to buy things.

    What IS fraudulent is stealing people’s home equity that they have taken years to build up, that is ONE of the FORECLOSURE THEFTS we should be focusing on.

    Another theft is banks that seem compelled to resell their mortgage deals, then use their instant profits in ways that actually prevent the original homeowner from being able to make their payments!

    It should be ILLEGAL for banksters to take profit upfront on a long term deal.

    When I had my video production company and editing business going full bore, I would get customers wanting to recommend other customers to me.

    Whether they were being nice, or wanted a discount for the referral, it did not matter to me. My response was always the same.

    “I won’t take new work that you refer to me until the EXISTING WORK I HAVE with YOU is complete and you are happy with it”.

    It’s such a simple, honest concept, and one the banksters and our own government seem incapable of embracing.

    And by the way, the after the fact securitization investors ARE NOT INVESTORS, they are REINVESTORS, and until this fraud is exposed and erased, the banksters win.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: