ALERT!!!! PRETENDERS MOVING ON STATE LEGISLATURES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary SEE LIVINGLIES LITIGATION SUPPORT AT LUMINAQ.COM

PRETENDERS TRYING TO TAKE OVER COURT SYSTEMS

THROUGH LEGISLATIVE ACTION

UNCONSTITUTIONAL? SO WHAT?

WALL STREET, realizing it really doesn’t have a leg to stand on in Court and that an increasing number of decisions are going against them for simple, black letter law reasons, is attempting an end run around the Court system. In Florida a House panel has moved a bill that would give the legislature power over rule-making IN THE COURT SYSTEM! It sounds innocuous — but what it does is allow pretenders to foreclose even when they lack standing, are not the real party in interest, are not the creditor and have no legal relationship with a creditor that has a legal interest in a home loan. They are going to redefine those legal precepts that have governed an orderly society for hundreds of years so they can GET ANOTHER FREE HOUSE — ACTUALLY MILLIONS OF THEM TO ADD TO THE MILLIONS THEY HAVE TAKEN.

I don’t know when some clerk in a recording office is suddenly going to be in full realization that these houses are being stolen contrary to the law the clerk swore to uphold, but it’s coming. The  homes are being “bought” with a piece of paper (like a derivative) that has no value and contrary to law in the form of what they are calling a credit bid. But the credit bid can ONLY come from a creditor.

SO you have a company that lent no money, purchased no receivable, received no note or mortgage, nor any valid agency authority making the bid and then the title gets whipped around and put into entities that are “bankruptcy-remote” (code for protecting the thieves) and who are taking their order from unidentified people who work for unidentified companies contrary to the interests of either the investor who put up the money or the borrower who put up his home as collateral on a loan that was misrepresented to both as being worth less than the value of the property when the truth was quite the opposite.

WHILE THEY CONCEDE IT WOULD TAKE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DO IT, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE PUSHING IN FLORIDA AND OTHER STATES. IT IS A FRONTAL ASSAULT ON THE BASIS OF  GOVERNMENT WE HAVE — THREE BRANCHES EACH WITH THEIR OWN POWERS THAT CANNOT BE ASSUMED BY THE OTHERS.

If they succeed, the very act would be unconstitutional on the Federal level but who cares? They will have passed a law, changed the state constitution, and given themselves years to acquire more FREE HOUSES. Just because they didn’t make the loan, just because they didn’t buy the loan and just because they purposely lied to the borrower and the investor at both closings (where the investor put up the money and where the loan was funded) — that’s no reason to put an absolute stop on foreclosures!

The good news is that we are seeing desperate measures from desperate people. The house cards is about to tumble and neither the government nor the megabanks can stop it. The plain truth is that the banks have no real assets to support their structure or infrastructure but they are pretending they do and the government is letting them. Funny how the free market and separation of three branches of government is going to make the correction — another example, bankers, of be careful what you wish for.

The bad news is that it is going to work unless people get active and let their legislators know what is going on. Let them know you want the government that America started with and no redo’s, losing the court system as a check on the powers of the legislature and executive branch. If they win, America is over with two branches of government instead of three. It is the same thing as those contracts with insurance companies and investment firms that provide for “arbitration” with their own arbitrators. The independence of the judiciary will be destroyed, along with any chance for anyone to get a fair shake. The coup d’etat is not nearly over. We are still only in the 3rd or 4th inning of a nine inning game. You are up to bat. GO GET ‘EM!!!


16 Responses

  1. CALL TO ACTION FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS

    I MET WITH AN ASSEMBLYWOMAN FROM MY DISTRICT. SHE READ THE MATERIALS I PROVIDED TO HER ABOUT THE NEW ARIZONA LAW RECENTLY PASSED WHICH MAKES IT MANDATORY FOR ANY FORECLOSING ENTITY TO PROVE A CLEAR CHAIN OF TITLE BEFORE PURSUING A NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE. WE NEED THE SAME FOR CALIFORNIANS.

    EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NOT BE HER CONSTITUENT, SHE IS CHAIR OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION BUREAU FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISTLATURE.

    SHE SAID SHE WAS INTRIGUED BY THE NEW ARIZONA LAW, BUT SAID SHE COULD DO NOTHING BASED ON WHAT ONE PERSON (ME) WAS TELLING HER.

    I URGENTLY NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE BY ADDING YOUR NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION TO THE LETTER TEMPLATE, AND MODIFY IT IF YOU WISH, AND FAX IT TO HER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. YOU CAN ASK FOR EMERGENCY LEGISLATION TOO.

    THE ASSEMBLYWOMAN’S FAX IS INCLUDED IN THE LETTER AS WELL AS A COPY OF HER BUSINESS CARD.

    THANK YOU SO MUCH!!

    MAYBE WE CAN MAKE LIFE BETTER.

    WORD TEMPLATE IS HERE:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/51739663/CALIFORNIANS-CALL-TO-ACTION-FAX-THIS-ASSEMBLYWOMAN

  2. Just a question. With all the fraud involved with the securitization of loans and no truthful disclosures given to either the borrower or the investor, why aren’t the courts treating the banks the same way they appear to be treating the drug companies who do the same thing? This from my other favarite blog, The FDA Law Blog:

    The Supreme Court affirmed a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that allows a securities fraud class action to go forward against Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (“Matrixx”) for allegedly violating § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. As we discussed in a prior posting, the Court granted certiorari last June on the question of “[w]hether a plaintiff can state a claim under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on a pharmaceutical company’s nondisclosure of adverse event reports even though the reports are not alleged to be statistically significant.” By a vote of 9-0, the answer to that question is “yes.”

    The Court concluded that “the materiality of adverse event reports cannot be reduced to a bright-line rule. Although in many cases reasonable investors would not consider reports of adverse events to be material information, respondents have alleged facts plausibly suggesting that reasonable investors would have viewed [the reports at issue] as material.” The Court noted that there are many instances in which medical experts and FDA infer a causal link between adverse events and a drug in the absence of statistically significant data, and that “it stands to reason that in certain cases reasonable investors would as well.”

    The Court adhered to its prior holding in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988) that the “materiality requirement is satisfied when there is ‘a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the “total mix” of information made available.’” The Court emphasized that Basic’s “total mix” standard is not satisfied by the “mere existence” of adverse event reports. “Something more is needed, but that something more is not limited to statistical significance, and can come from ‘the source, content, and context of the reports.’”

  3. House panel moves bill giving Legislature power over court rulemaking

    http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/jnnews01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829/79d51a79d44f9a3085257848004b9af7!OpenDocument

    *links to he bills — PCB CVJS 11-01 and PCB CVJS 11-02 are at the end of the article

  4. Neil,
    .
    .
    What must the AG do when the legislature passes unconstitutional ‘laws’?
    .
    .

  5. A good Bankster is a Jailed Bankster

  6. Alert People are broke due to the parasite banks overinflated appraisals and extreme fees.

    Banksters you cant get water out of Stone. Unless you are Holy Moses

    Judges in America you must uphold the law that is why you get your salaries.

  7. Banksters should still not be allowed to enforce notes they are allegedly in possession of, at least in bankruptcy courts where the ‘real party’ is mostly taken seriously. It seems to me that if the UCC allows enforcement of notes by possession, this is in conflict with other laws regarding real party, because the banksters who allege to possess the notes still do not OWN them. Thus, they are not acting on their own behalf. This makes promissory notes special animals, because without reliance on that bs UCC possession thing, these banksters are no more than
    collection agencies, attempting to collect on a debt allegedly owed to another party. And they know it.

  8. @Ann, banksters deplore jury trials. Everyone should ask for a JURY trial when available.
    Here is a link to material on securitization which articulates it in a manner that most of us can understand:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/51356821/Securitization-and-Credit-Enhancements-for-Idiots

  9. Express yourselves including Neil Garfield on the http://www.wsj.com, http://www.nytimes.com http://www.latimes.com fox news etc….

    Spread the word. Go evangelical on them.

  10. We’d all be wise to take a look at what’s happening NOW with regard to UCC Article 9 Amendments. Many states now have legislation pending with more to follow. The goal to have 50 states by years’ end.

    REF:
    http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=CL710043

  11. Here is the problem — it not just pretend lenders trying to foreclose — it is pretend lenders trying to foreclose on a mortgage that was NEVER a mortgage to begin with.

    Footnote 35 from TARP oversight — “Both the note and the mortgage need to be properly transferred. Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit
    card debt.”

    It is the second part that is most important. These are not mortgages — any false default on prior mortgage — means a “mortgage” refinance is INVALID — there is no new SECURED mortgage. All you have is a sale of collection rights — on a UNSECURED debt. — TARP was onto this — and NO ONE is pursuing as it is should be.

    Dischargeable in BK — just like a credit card debt.

    Demand to know as to whether your refinance paid off the prior investors to prior trust.
    Once they know investors are involved — and they were not paid BY YOU — they listen.

    Again, what we have is reaffirmation of default debt — not a new mortgage — when you refinanced.
    And, any new home owners above F/F limits were sent to the wolves from the onset.

  12. Please everyone send in writing, fax, email, the form of the U.S. Constitution that will insure Congress members of both houses must respond:

    I petition redress of grievances seeking injunctive relief for enforcement of laws to prosecute the SERVICER and attorney and sub-stitute trustee, BUYER and SELLEr, Lender, Underwriter, Credit Risk Manager, who committed unlawful business acts to take my property thru deceptive acts and the bank allowed third party to take possession of my property in a larcenous manner. I prayerfully seek injunctive relief as allowed under law that the party without standing not be allowed to take my property unlawfully.

  13. http://www.military.com/news/article/jury-awards-gi-20-million-in-mortgage-case.html
    Jury Awards GI $20M in Mortgage Case
    March 22, 2011
    Columbus Ledger-Enquirer

    A federal jury awarded a Fort Benning Soldier more than $20 million on Monday in a case against Coldwell Banker Mortgage — an amount the plaintiff’s attorney called necessary to get the company’s attention.

    Jurors in the case of David Brash v. PHH Mortgage Corp., doing business as Coldwell Banker, deliberated for about six hours before ruling in Brash’s favor. During the six-day trial, jurors heard that Coldwell Banker improperly reported Brash, 29, to credit bureaus which led to a “serious delinquency” on his credit report, that it refused to answer his questions or correct his account and damaged him emotionally, physically and financially, his attorneys and court documents say.

    “The jury was aggravated as to how he was treated,” said Charlie Gower, an attorney who represents Brash. “I think the jury was just very mad because they were attacking David Brash the Soldier and basically calling him a liar.”According to Brash’s December 2009 complaint, the U.S. Army sergeant bought a North Columbus home in November 2007 and got his mortgage through Coldwell Banker. Brash set up automatic monthly payments because he was on active duty, and no problems occurred for almost 18 months.

    That’s when Brash started getting numerous phone calls and letters about missing or making late payments. Brash tried several times through phone calls and letters to explain himself, and he was told a number of times that Coldwell Banker would correct the error, his suit states.

    Jurors heard recordings of calls Brash made, recorded by PHH Mortgage, in which Brash would be on hold for 30 or 40 minutes at a time with overseas customer service representatives, said Gower and Teresa Thomas Abell, another attorney representing Brash.

    “The longest time was 55 minutes — listening to music or nothing,” Gower said.

    In May 2009, Brash got a letter threatening to report his supposed delinquency to credit bureaus. Abell said her client was adamant that he not be reported, and the suit states Brash spoke with one representative for more than an hour about Coldwell Banker’s error.

    The problems continued, and Brash hired Gower, who wrote a formal request to PHH Mortgage’s president asking for written confirmation that Brash’s account was current. Brash never received a response, Gower said, though adjustments were made to Brash’s account.

    Brash kept getting notices alleging he failed to make his payments, and he hired Gower again who sent another written request. Gower said that the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act restricts a mortgage company from reporting a customer during the 60-business day period when they must respond to such a written request.

    In November 2009, Brash was reported as being “serious delinquent” to credit reporting agencies.Gower says in a release that PHH Mortgage accused Brash at trial of improperly filling out forms. An attorney for the mortgage company couldn’t be reached late Monday afternoon.

    Jurors awarded Brash $1 million in compensatory damages plus $575 for out-of-pocket expenses. They awarded Brash $350,000 for attorney fees. The $20 million award was in punitive damages, Gower said.

    “The evidence showed that PHH Mortgage serviced approximately 1 million mortgages valued at $163 billion,” Gower states in his release. “The jury verdict on punitive damages was necessary to get PHH Mortgage’s attention.”

  14. Please post information on bill name or number so we know what to complaint about to our legislators here in florida.

  15. I am sure they are trying to do this in many other states than Florida. Burmese8@yahoo.com

  16. What is the Bills name and number?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: