COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

“government is making a critical miscalculation that jeopardizes the public interest”

State AGs Have Done Almost No Investigation of Servicer Abuse and Foreclosure Fraud

By: David Dayen Monday July 11, 2011 11:21 am

Shahien Nasiripour leads today with a persistent complaint I’ve had about the state Attorney General investigation: that it was not an investigation at all, but an immediate move to settlement talks, in ways that undermined the goal of getting a solution that matches the level of fraud and abuse.

For federal and some state officials, expedience now appears to be trumping other considerations in settlement talks with major mortgage servicers. Despite failing to marshal a strong case proving misconduct during the foreclosure crisis, the government is seeking to craft a settlement quickly, in the hopes that this will inject greater certainty into the financial system, stabilize home prices and add vigor to a flagging economy.

But some officials with experience sitting across the negotiating table with major banks say the government is making a critical miscalculation that jeopardizes the public interest by seeking a deal before amassing a credible threat of successful prosecution: In essence, they say, the government would give servicers a blanket pass for widespread alleged acts of fraud while extracting too little in return and operating from a relative position of weakness.

“I would never want to go into a negotiation without solid evidence of actual misconduct to hold as leverage over my counterpart,” said Neil M. Barofsky, the former special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which was crafted to bail out teetering banks. “It would also be very dangerous from a public policy perspective to waive all future claims as part of such a settlement if you do not have a good sense of the size, scope and severity of the underlying misconduct.”

According to sources familiar with the ongoing state and federal probes, state and federal officials have wasted months not digging into the details of the foreclosure crisis, yielding little of value in court and undercutting the lenders’ incentive to strike a settlement of greater benefit to homeowners and taxpayers.

At this point, the claim that state and federal regulators had to be expedient and speed up the process to provide relief looks ridiculous. The state AG “investigation” began last October. It’s now July. These nine months have been spent not combing through loan files and building the case that the banks have abused their customers and broken state laws with fraudulent documents, but trying to persuade the banks to accept a settlement. This fails on a number of levels Without knowledge of the extent of the wrongdoing, it’s impossible to price a settlement properly. And, without that knowledge, it’s impossible to persuade the banks into giving up anything, since they won’t fear the alternative in the event of a collapse of the talks. In short, as one person familiar with the talks told Shahien, “The evidence a prosecutor would use is not in the possession of the prosecution.”

But much like in the debt limit talks, the side that wants to sell an agreement is bending over backwards to get that agreement. It will include some penalties and maybe some relief for a small amount of homeowners or transition assistance when they are forced out of their homes. It will not be commensurate with the crime because we have no idea how big the crime is. And it’s somewhat likely that past loan modifications will be included in the topline settlement number, making that number completely meaningless.

I think a lot of AGs believe they simply don’t have the firepower to conduct a real investigation. Witness Kamala Harris, the California AG, announcing a mortgage fraud task force and then seeing all the money earmarked for it cut during a budget deal. But that assumes that there aren’t low-cost resources that exist. Abigail Field for Fortune Magazine simply went down to her local courthouse and found more widespread evidence of documentation fraud and securitization failure than anyone at the state or federal level. There are registers of deeds around the country sitting on a mountain of evidence. These resources aren’t being utilized.

There’s plenty of reason to question whether all AGs, especially key ones like Eric Schneiderman in New York, will accept this settlement, and the waiving of claims that goes along with it. But the Justice Department is acting as the Administration’s muscle on this one.

Even so, state and federal officials are nearing a settlement that would release companies like Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase from legal liability in exchange for a cash settlement, reduced payments for homeowners, transition assistance for troubled borrowers and promises to improve performance and comply with state and federal rules.

The Justice Department is pressing state attorneys general to release the banks from liability for a host of alleged violations in exchange for a far-reaching settlement, people familiar with internal discussions said.

Whether the AGs settle or not, judges still have the option of viewing outright fraudulent documents as fraudulent and refusing to accept them in a foreclosure, which is what is happening now across the country. This settlement cannot possibly break the deadlock in the judicial process that has slowed foreclosures. Given the puny numbers in the settlement, it cannot fix the foreclosure mess or allow the housing market to heal.

Yves Smith offers a simple solution that could actually work:

The biggest banks all have large second lien portfolios (almost entirely HELOCs). They’ve refused to modify first mortgages because it’s a lot of work they don’t get paid for, and they make good money foreclosing. And they are able to keep borrower looking current on seconds via a combination of bullying and accepting very skinnied down payments.

If the Fed and the OCC told banks that they had to write down the second liens on delinquent mortgages, and write off the second liens on homes where they started foreclosing on the first, you’d see a 180 degree change in behavior. Banks would be falling all over themselves to do mods Indeed, if these regulators were to take this step (which is within their power) you’d probably see an bank change of heart on bankruptcy cramdowns too (banks twice beat back legislation to write down the value of a mortgage to the market value of the house in bankruptcy proceedings, which is done with very other type of secured consumer debt).

But we’re not going to see that at all. Instead, we’re gearing up for a giveaway settlement that I’m not even sure you’ll be able to get more than 25 AGs to even agree to.

48 Responses

  1. Is Alicia Wood & Theresa Constantine on the Robosigners list. I have Alice Woods I have her in my Papers as assistant secretary and I found an Articles that she was Sanctioned In Mortgage Foreclosure Action in NY.and she was listed as president of Mers.She also had something with Residential credit solution.Can anyone help me with information on this.

  2. Wow, amazing weblog format! How lengthy have you ever been blogging for? you make blogging glance easy. The entire glance of your site is great, as well as the content material!

  3. that may be the very definition of a wall of text…

  4. Richard Cordray one last thing Help one of your judges on your watch has robbed me i need a Amicus brief before you go!KENNETH S. TAYLOR ETAL [PRO SE]

    Attorney for Appellant PRO SE


    Kenneth S. Taylor et al,
    Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al,
    Appellee-Respondent )
    ) Case No.: 11-3277


    Appealed from United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio
    Originating Case No: 5:10 CV 2766




    FOR APPELLEE; Rose Marie L.Fiore of McGlinchey Stafford PLLC lead counsel and James S. Wertheim 25550 Chagrin Blvd. Cleveland, Ohio 44122 1216-378-9905, FOR APPELLANT’S Kenneth S. Taylor, Alycia Taylor Driggins [pro se].


    Interlocutory orders can be obtained by a writ under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), which authorizes appellate courts to review trial court orders that are not final judgments. A writ of mandamus in a civil case may be issued if there is no adequate remedy by regular appeal or otherwise; the petitioner will be harmed in a way not correctable on direct appeal; the trial court’s challenged order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; the issue is likely to recur; and the order raises issues that are new and important or of first impression. Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977). Writs have been issued to review an order compelling disclosure of privileged information or a trial court’s refusal to rule on pending motions. We ask for the purpose of this appeal that this harsh order by Judge be construed as Final and Appealable because of its extreme and drastic effects on plaintiff’s complaint bringing it to a dead stop in trial court. Now come Plaintiff’s Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor Driggins (pro se) See Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003).( Under this standard, some allowances for the pro se plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal authority should be allowed,) who submit this Interlocutory Appeal A Writ under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), No federal judge has the authority to terminate the fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens, as Judge Adams ,has did in this case ,destroying in the process, the Taylors rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness , guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIV[1868] Section 1, violating Due Process rights, in this case:
    Case No.: CASE NO.5: 10 CV 2766 this case has no final judgment, therefore there is no adequate remedy by regular appeal or otherwise, the petitioner will be harmed in a way not correctable by direct appeal if his home is sold unlawfully he may never get his home back, monetary reward will not replace uniqueness and lifetime memories of 23years in home, if petitioner re-files the case, the case will return back to original Judge Adams for the same wasted repeated results. the trial court’s challenged order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; the issue is likely to recur; We Now Ask this High Honorable Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to review all issues, make and consider same set of facts, assignment of errors listed below as standard of review De novo, The appellate court owes no deference to the trial court’s legal conclusions. Instead, the appellate court has the power to determine for itself the application, interpretation, and construction of a question of law. An appellate court, however, may not retry the evidence or make new determinations of fact in deciding the applicable law. Judge John Adams Violated major substantive due process protections, including the rights guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act, Bivens, RICO, Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Supreme Court’s void judgment doctrine. 1.) First Assignment of Error: Unlawful Gatekeepers Order JUDGE JOHN ADAMS ORDERS [Resolves Docs. 21] entered in this action on the 1st day of March 2011 and moves this Honorable Court for a Final Appealable Order as to all parties and as to all claims, we further Opposed Judges Order filed on March 01, 2011, which he instructed Clerks Office to no longer accept filings from Plaintiffs in this matter. See Civil Docket # 22 Filed 03/01/2011 Whether or not Judge clearly abused discretion and/or denied due process of law by causing court clerk to repeatedly obstruct and effectively preclude appellant’s filing for final appealed order on March 8, 2011 when Clerk rejected Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor motion at window and would not let him file the motion, and denied Plaintiffs default motion on Manley Deas Kochalski LLC and Kevin L. Williams requested in good faith by pro se appellant. See Civil Docket #15 Filed on 1/11/2011 whereas clerk had a lawful duty under Rule 55 (a) to enter default judgment and judge abused his discretion in his involvement with clerk. Statement of facts: he further says per verbatim “Any filings received should be returned to plaintiffs, along with a copy of this order. Plaintiffs’ motion for contempt Denied. We have absolute proof that every motion plaintiffs filed before the court have merit and are sensible, also some credence should be given too the fact Judge Adams employer The United States has sued Plaintiffs, defendants for similar actions involving fraud. The Justice Department sued Deutsche Bank AG, one of the world’s 10 biggest banks by assets, for at least $1 billion for defrauding taxpayers by “repeatedly” lying to a federal agency when securing taxpayer-backed insurance for thousands of shoddy mortgages. The case is U.S. v. Deutsche Bank AG (DBK), 11-cv-2976, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). For this reason alone the court should remand back to district court. Also See In re: Ron Wilson, LaRhonda Wilson, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, case no. 07-11862. For the debtors: Elisabeth Harrington of Harrington & Myers. For the U.S. Trustee: Carolyn s. Cole and Mary Langston A LANDMARK CASE DECIDED APRIL 7 2011 IN WHICH LENDERS PROCESS SEVERCINGS COMPANY WAS SANCTION FOR LYING TO COURTS AND PROVIDING “sham affidavits. See exhibits attached the same company produced these fake document, the assignment, the fake “sham affidavits used in pleadings before this court. In which Judge Adams refused to test the evidence denying several show cause motions to do so. along with public support contained in a segment aired on national T.V. by CBS 60 Minutes which verifies Kenneth S. Taylor allegations made in District Court records during initial pleading in complaint page # 15 See Civil Docket # 1. THE MOST IMPORTANT MISLEADING FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT IN THIS CASE IS THE DEFECTIVE ASSIGNMENT WHICH FOR SOME STRANGE REASON WAS ENDORSED IN Dakota County, Minnesota WHERE, Lender Processing Services continues to mass produce “replacement” assignments specifically, strategically and systematically. The fraud is widespread, massive, the Judges have been lied to trick into favorable judgments by banks with phony, fake, robo signed documents. On April 12, 2010, Lender Processing Services closed the offices of its subsidiary, Docx, LLC, in Alpharetta, Georgia. That office was responsible for pumping out over a million mortgage assignments in the last two years so that banks could foreclose on residential real estate. The law firms handling the foreclosures were retained and largely controlled by Lender Processing Services, in this case Manley, Deas, Kochalski LLC. Of Columbus, Ohio law firm, LPS and LPS Default Solutions is illegally splitting attorney’s fees as part of their contractual arrangement. Who presented the “sham affidavit and fake , fraudulent assignment to this court as only evidence of any alleged ownership that was deemed defective by this federal District Court itself, according to a Sanctions Order entered by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Diane Weiss Sigmund (In re Niles C. Taylor, EDPA, Case 07-15385-sr, Doc. 193). Lender Processing Services, the largest “default management services company” in the country, has already made at least partial admissions that there were faults in the documents produced by the Docx office – although courts and homeowners were never notified. According to Lender Processing Services, over 50 major banks use their default management services. The banks that especially need the services provided by Lender Processing Services include Deutsche Bank, acting as trustees for mortgage-backed securitized trusts. (there now is absolute concrete proof and evidence that the assignment before this court is false , phony , fake, and deceptive, misleading, defective, and produced by this crime lab, rendering state court summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company forever Null, Void, and without Force.) For this reason alone the Plaintiffs Claims and all causes of actions as well as entire complaint should be restored , this case should be reversed remanded back to District Court, at the least , or in the alternative this court has the power to grant plaintiffs declaratory relief and damages from what has been four (4) years of complete absolute fraudulent lawsuits 3 in total have been filed against the Taylor’s by these parties pretending to be the lenders who have cause Taylors to suffer continue to suffer from lethal doses of Civil Right Violations, who are hard working citizens and have paid taxes for all these years and live in their home with ownership rights for 23 year . We ask this court to grant plaintiffs-appellants- petitioners Kenneth Saylor ,Alicia Taylor Diggings 300, 000.00 dollars in damages, and hear Quiet Title Claims and award 100 million in punitive damages to plaintiffs a amount so high it would economically force Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and all other parties named to follow the law This Court has the power to Grant Relief from these proceedings, Grant Relief under both federal and state rules and laws 28 U.S.C. 1655 .These trusts, in the rush to securitize mortgages and sell them to investors, often ignored the critical step of obtaining mortgage assignments from the original lenders to the securities companies to the trusts. Now, years later, when the companies “servicing” the trusts need to foreclose, they retain Lender Processing Services to draft the missing documents. The mortgage servicers, including American Home Mortgage Services, and American Servicing Company, never disclose that the trusts are missing essential documents – they just rely on Lender Processing Services to “fix” the problems. Who is also named in caption of this complaint who is also being sued by: Kay VanHauen v. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., 10-02146, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas); State of Texas v. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., 2010-3307, District Court of El Paso County, Texas; State of Ohio v. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., 09-708888, Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio; Michael Landi v. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., 10-00921, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland (Baltimore); Kenneth Coplin v. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., 3:10-cv-01096, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego). Although the Alpharetta office has been closed, Lender Processing Services continues to mass produce “replacement” assignments from its Jacksonville, Florida, and Dakota County, Minnesota offices, Law firms retained by Lender Processing Services also often use their own employees, posing as officer of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, to produce the needed Assignments. Since the vast majority of homeowners do not retain counsel in foreclosure proceedings, this flawed system has worked very effectively for the last few years, with courts all over the country rarely questioning why so many mortgage companies had officers in Alpharetta, Georgia, or why Trusts that closed in 2005 and 2006 were just obtaining Mortgage Assignments in 2009 and 2010. Most courts never even questioned why companies long-dissolved, such as Option One, could still be executing documents years after the dissolution. While the closing of the Alpharetta office may be a sign that these fraudulent activities will finally be exposed and addressed, for the time being, it is just a matter of an unsatisfactory end of one small facet of an enormous and far-reaching problem. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency rendered punishment on Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS) and other financial institutions “… for unsafe and unsound practices related to residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing.” The OCC now requires mortgage servicers to reform and improve practices for servicing residential mortgage loans and processing foreclosures. To support these actions, servicers must use independent firms to conduct audits of these practices and processes as they unfolded in 2009 and 2010. In the case of borrowers who wrongly suffered financial harm, servicers must provide monetary compensation. The OCC may also assess civil penalties. This defendant LPS is name in caption and has agreed to pay the plaintiffs damages, the decree and consent order is further proof of plaintiffs allegations against this party who issued and manufactured and produce the “sham affidavit, and fake , fraudulent assignment , and other documents used to obtain null and void summary judgment in trial court unlawfully. This court is now and forever put on notice the “ASSIGNMENT” presented to this Honorable Court, and Summit County Common Pleas Court in Akron is fraudulent, The proper party with standing to foreclose a note and mortgage is the holder of the note and mortgage or the holder’s representative. See Taylor v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust. Co., 44 So. 3d 618, 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); BAC Funding Consortium Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So. 3d 936, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). While Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust. Co alleged in its unverified complaint that it was the holder of the note and mortgage, the copy of the note, assignment, affidavits , and all other exhibits as all of them are fraudulent and attached to the complaint contradicts that allegation. When exhibits are attached to a complaint, the contents of the exhibits control over the allegations of the complaint. See Hunt Ridge at Tall Pines, Inc. v. Hall,766 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Because the exhibits to Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust. Co complaint conflicts with its allegations concerning standing, Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust. Co did not establish that it had standing to foreclose the mortgage as a matter of law. As a result, the trial court acted prematurely in entering the final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust. Co. See Exhibit A-3 ,a fake sham affidavit and was proffered by Dakota County, Minnesota offices, absolute proof is found on “ASSIGNMENT” as it is endorsed by a notary named JAMES C.MORRIS in the state of Minnesota , he is a WELL KNOWN robo signer in Dakota County, Minnesota offices, also this office produced a false Foreclosure Compliance Affidavit in the case 5:07 CV 01840 SL Document 4 filed 6-22-2007 See Exhibit B, and a fraudulent Affidavit Regarding Account And Competency And Military Status signed by Assistant Secretary SCOTT WALTER of American Home Mortgage Service Inc. On August 13, 2008 who was present in Minnesota at arms length as it is endorsed by a notary named JAMES C.MORRIS in the state of Minnesota, Dakota County, Minnesota offices, also when American Home Mortgage Service Inc was locate in Irving Texas. The “ASSIGNMENT” further states that Assistant Secretary Jeanelle Gray From Option One was present in Minnesota on June25, 2007 for a arms length deal as a secretary to sign away 84,000.00 note although Option –One Mortgage Corporation was located in Irvine Ca. and purportedly out of business and defunct at such time. Also Absolute Proof. The judge Tom Parker while case was in state court conspired with the plaintiff’s attorney Robin Wilson of Thompson Hine LLP in a joint effort to destroy defendants counterclaim. The judge directed her to draft a false and misleading statement in a previous Final decree of foreclosure. Robin Wilson did so knowingly and willingly by inserting false claims of judge that he had considered defendants counterclaim is his motion granting plaintiff summary judgment which is void because of fraud of the courts and judge a lying officer of the court… Robin Wilson drafted and sent a letter dated September 28, 2009 to Judge confirming the act of conspiracy and her participation as such. The letter states per verbatim “Enclosed, in response to your telephone request, is a revised Judgment Entry and Decree in Foreclosure so as to include Defendants’ Counterclaim and Plaintiffs’ Reply to Counterclaim”. Signed by Robin Wilson. See Exhibit (A). These representations were false and defendants knew the falsity of these statements at the time they were made. The judge never once mentioned defendants counterclaim, prior to this directive, nor is there any evidence the judge has reviewed the counterclaim. This was a wicked scheme perpetrated against defendants specifically, strategically and systematically, the judge lied in effort to deprive defendants of their rights to homeownership. Judge and Robin Wilson have given false and material declarations to the trial court violating federal laws under 18 U.S.C.1623 which is a both a criminal and civil act of conspiracy against defendants. Moreover COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT C. A. NO. 25281 agreed with the plaintiffs that judge erred essentially confirmed he lied and reversed and remanded case back to trial court, but somehow Judge John Adams believes these are wild allegations. Judge Tom Parker is an Officer of the court THIS VOIDS STATE COURT FINDING OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ITS NULL AND VIOD FOREVER. AND PLAINTIFFS can never be state court losers, and judge John Adams has erred dismissing any of plaintiff’s claims.Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
    “Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.” For an Officer of the Court to make deceitful representations to this Honorable Court is “fraud upon the Court”. “falsum (fal-sәm orfawl-sәm), n. [Latin] Roman law.1.A false
    Statement.2. A crime involving forgery or falsification.”Black’s Law Dictionary Seventh Edition, p. 619 “False statement.1. An untrue statement knowingly made with the intent to mislead. See PERJURY.2. Any one of three distinct federal offenses: (1) falsifying or concealing a material fact by trick, or scheme, or device; (2) making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent representation; and (3) making or using a false document or writing. 18 USCA § 1001” Balk’s Law Dictionary Seventh Edition, p. 619 “Fraud on the court. A lawyer’s or party’s misconduct in a judicial proceeding so serious that it undermines or is intended to undermine the integrity of the proceeding. Examples are … introduction of fabricated evidence.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, pg. 671 The judge John Adams has mischaracterized all plaintiffs motions as wild accusations against the Court , the state court system and opposing attorneys, however never points to or reveals one single wild allegation or the falsity of such allegation by Plaintiffs Kenneth S. Taylor pro se fillings in the record there is no proof in the record of such facts allege by Judge its hearsay and unsubstantiated, unsupported facts, rhetoric , and no evidence is included in his order , he never cites any case law or law or treaties that allows him the power and authority to close off the Clerks Office to plaintiffs Kenneth S. Taylor pro se who has paid the filling fee. Whose claims are not frivolous, not malicious, and not vexatious litigation, the Judges orders are wrong, unlawful egregious abuse of judicial discretion. When a court does not apply the correct law or if it rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of a material fact.” [U.S. v. Rahm, 993F.2d 1405, 1410 (9th Cir.’93)] “A court may also abuse its discretion when the record contains no evidence to support its decision.” [MGIC v. Moore, 952 F.2d 1120, 1122 (9thCir.’91)]. The Judge has erred and violated substantial due process rights , and substantial procedural due process rights to access to the courts because his Sua Sponte dismissal of all plaintiffs claims are highly disfavored in law , the Appeals Courts have warned lower court District Judges over and over again and again from doing so , but the judge is so smart and highly skilled legal scholar he uses a civil procedure maneuver to stop case dead in its tracks he has executed this perfectly it is impossible to get to the merits , unless this appeals courts reverses or remands or vacates this illegal order, plaintiffs cant appeal until they get an appealable order , smart but illegal, the judge so worried by plaintiffs complaint being heard on its merits he has reinforced his Civ Pro strategy by placing a barricade at the entrance of the courtroom locking and blocking the door to the administration of justice short circuiting Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor entire case from being heard not one single hearing, on merits or evidence and was dismissed before service of summons could be complete, before defendants responsive pleadings could be obtained. . “Standard of Review”; “clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious,” “De Novo” reviews necessary. 1. Courts have the inherent authority to enter pre-filing injunctions ― also referred to as gatekeeper orders ― restricting individuals from filing new lawsuits or other papers without court approval, when necessary to prevent abuse of the judicial process and protect other parties. 2. The gatekeeper order should be the judge’s last resort, after other efforts to control the litigant have failed. As with any disciplinary matter, the subject should be given notice of the proposed order and a chance to respond before it is entered. To the extent possible the order should be limited to the circumstances showing abuse ― for example, if all the abusive litigation is directed at one particular party, the order should only limit filings related to that party. 3. The order needs to specify the history that has led to its entry, in sufficient detail that an appellate court can review for the trial court’s abuse of discretion. 4. The order needs to include a means for the person to file legitimate actions The judge has become so personally involved and embroiled with helping plaintiffs win at all cost, he has compromised the integrity of the court, and he has loss sight of any justice for the defendants and has interfered with the administration of justice and short-circuited the rights of defendants to a fair trial. Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
    In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
    Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).
    That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
    The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
    “Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
    Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.
    Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
    Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).
    Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity.
    An often-cited federal case listing the factors to be considered by the trial judge in deciding whether to restrict a litigant’s future access to the courts is Safir v. United States Lines Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2nd Cir. 1986). The factors to be considered are: At 24. 14. Cromer v. Kraft Foods North American, Incorporated, 390 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2004), is the leading Fourth Circuit case on the standards for issuance of a gatekeeper order. The litigant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before a gatekeeper order is entered. The precise relief sought; This case must be remanded back to trial court, in front of another judge, reversed or this order vacated. The plaintiffs evidence is overwhelming and compeling and refutes judges claim for gatekeepers order , and His reasons for sua sponte dismissal of plaintiffs claims. This Court has the power to Grant Relief from these proceedings , Grant Relief under both federal and state rules and laws 28 U.S.C. 1655 .plaintiffs were given no notice ,or warning, of courts intention , and no opportunity was given the Taylors to be heard before the judge barred the door shut to the District Court. We ask this court to grant plaintiffs-appellants- petitioners Kenneth S.Taylor ,Alycia Taylor Driggins 300, 000.00 dollars in damages, and award 100 million in punitive damages to plaintiffs a amount so high it would economically force Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and all other parties named to follow the law.
    2.) Second Assignment of Error : Unlawful Sue Sponte Dismissal of Plaintiffs Entire Complaint Before Service of Process, and Summons was Complete on all Defendants and before Responsive Pleading was filed As a general rule, “a district court may not sua sponte dismiss a complaint where the filing fee has been paid unless the court gives the plaintiff opportunity to amend the complaint.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). In Tingler v. Marshall, 716 F.2d 1109 (6th Cir. 1983),we established that when “faced with a complaint which it believes may be subject to dismissal[,]”a district court must: “(1) allow service of the complaint upon the defendant; (2) notify all parties
    of its intent to dismiss the complaint; (3) give the plaintiff a chance to either amend his complaint or respond to the reasons stated by the district court in its notice of intended sua sponte dismissal;
    (4) Give the defendant a chance to respond or file an answer or motions; and (5) if the claim is dismissed, state its reasons for the dismissal.” Id. at 1112.Moreover this case includes T.I.LA. Rescission Rights.} The rules of federal civil procedure says the courts are to view this complaint as the truth and favorably and in most light to movant party. The court has short-circuited justice for Mr. Taylor and advances no reason for pruning of the complaint and stands in the way of defendant’s responsive pleading. Mr. Taylor believes this matter is one of the most serious tragedies and deprivation of life and liberty ever realized in a free society and asserts he has been harmed and no amount of money could replace the emotional distress and anger and outrage. For the court not to allow plaintiffs case to move forward naturally against these Defendants is a miscarriage of justice so ripe and so worthy of Appellate review. “Standard of Review”; “clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious,” “De Novo” reviews necessary. And the District Court should address these most serious and substantial constitutional questions present by this case. While the court has no eyes it has ears the words of the plaintiffs speak loudly clearly and the rules say believe these words as truth. The Appellate Courts have repeatedly tried to impress upon District Judges that sue sponte dismissal would almost always seem less preferable than requiring some responsive answer defendants Redwood v. Council of the District of Columbia, 679 F .2d 931 (D.C. Cir.1982) Accord Bayron v. Trudeau, 702 F .2d 43, 45 (2d Cir.1983) Dismissal of pro se prisoner petition before the service process and the filling of a responsive document by the defendants is strongly disfavored. The plaintiffs has meet all the liberal pleading requirements set forth in the in Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure under rule 8 (a). In 1993 the, Supreme Court tried to require a heighten pleading, but Letterman v. Tarrart County a case which found it simple impossible to square with under the “liberal” system of Notice Pleading, Bennett v. Schmidt 153 F .3d 516, 518, (7th Cir 1998), the plain language rule and the ruling meant what it said. Federal Rules don’t contain any special pleading requirements under these statues name herein, and Plaintiffs need not allege all the factual obligations that he must prove eventually neither is all the evidence nor does plaintiff need to establish a case prima facie at the early pleading stage. This court should allow Plaintiffs to pursue justice and on all counts and all counts shall remain in the interest of justice. Everest & Jennings, Inc. American Motorists Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 226,228 (9th Cir. 1994). All allegations of fact must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to [appellant]. There should not be such dismissal unless it appears beyond doubt that the [appellant] can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.” [ Gotcher v. Wood, 66 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 1995)] Plaintiffs asks this Honorable Court to take judicial notice of the fact that they appear without counsel, is not schooled in the law and legal procedures, and is not licensed to practice law. Therefore their pleadings must be read and construed liberally. Tannenbuam v United States. Further Plaintiff’s believes that this Court has a responsibility and legal duty to protect any and all of the Plaintiff’s Constitutional and statutory rights; to not do so would send a Chilling harsh message to citizens throughout the United States of America to not come forth seeking justice, redress , an fairness in this High Honorable District Court against law firms who choose to join forces with renegade Attorney Kevin Williams and their firm of Manley Deas Kochalski LLC, and sub prime Kings Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and the unlawful ,wrongful , reckless conduct that has harmed the plaintiffs Kenneth S. Taylor an Alycia Taylor Driggins. Statement of facts: the Truth in Lending Act was created in 1968. Congress passed the Act to protect United States consumers. The federal act is part of the Consumer Protection Act. SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT AND ITS DEFENANTS ARE UNLAWFUL AND PHOHIBITED BY CONGRESSIONAL ORDER. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON SET FORTH BELOW;
    The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) created laws which protect consumers in credit transactions. These laws require lenders to disclose (reveal) clearly to the consumer the terms and costs of the lending agreement. Furthermore, TILA requires lenders to provide in writing, an accurate cost of credit. This includes the finance charges added to the loan, along with the annual percentage rate charge.
    The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of civil procedure enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in two cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts other than the Supreme Court should not sit in direct review of state court decisions unless Congress has specifically authorized such relief. Defendants claims fail under this doctrine as relief plaintiffs seek is authorized by Congress.The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) (P.L. 90-321, 82 Stat.146) is a federal statute which Congress enacted in 1969 and amended and expanded on numerous occasions after that date. In adopting TILA, the legislature declared: Once the court finds a violation such as not responding to the TILA rescission letter, no matter how technical, it has no discretion with respect to liability (in re Wright, supra. At 708; In re Porter v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 961 F,2d 1066, 1078 (3d. Cir. 1992); Smith v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., Supra. At 898. Any misgivings creditors may have about the technical nature of the requirements should be addressed to Congress or the Federal Reserve Board, not the courts.
    The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of civil procedure used primarily for Bankruptcy cases does not and cannot apply hear, 15 different causes of actions are present in this instant case. Plaintiff brings RICO claims, TILA claims, Fraud claims, all of which bars the door shut of Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a defense. Plaintiffs are not State Court losers . The ” Rooker-Feldman ” doctrine does not apply to an action collaterally attacking a final state court judgment on grounds that it is void. As the present action did not ripen as a separate and independent claim until the Ohio court entered a foreclosure decree. It is clearly established law that a judgment is void if the court that rendered it either lacked subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. Margoles v. Johns, 660 F.2d 291, 295 (7th Cir. 1981). The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenths Circuits have all held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar an original, separate independent action that could be brought as a remedy under the law of the rendering state and federal law in the nature of a common law bill in equity collaterally attacking a final state court judgment as void if the court that rendered it either lacked subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process . And this is where application of Rooker –Feldman Doctrine fails , plaintiffs have filed suit on different parties , third parties, and causes of actions not addressed in state court plaintiffs counterclaim is based on harm caused plaintiffs before the state action was filed , new causes of actions have risen , the only concern from state court is a void summary judgment based on fraudulent assignment , the new claims causes of actions and parties that were never a part of state actions are as follows See at Original Complaint filed Civil Docket # 1 COMPLAINT FOR: PREDATORY LENDING, OHIO RICO,DECLARATORY RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM: WIRE FRAUD; CANCELATION OF WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS, RICO Due Process and Equitable Tolling, FRAUD UPON THIS COURT, AND OTHER COURTS; FORGERY, TORTIOUS VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS, EMERGENCY/ TRO, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM UNLAWFUL SHERIFF’S SALE OF PLAINTIFFS PROPERTY, ON 12/17 2010, MAIL FRAUD. TILA VIOLATIONS; RESPA; FDCPA, HOEPA; FCRA; VIOLATIONS; Civil Conspiracy; QUIET TITLE REAL PROPERTY An action to determine all adverse claims to the property in question; a suit in equity brought to obtain a final determination as to the title of a specific piece of property;JURY DEMAND ENDOSRED HEREON. AND THE FOLLOWING NEW PARTIES ; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST2006-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006- OPT2 THOMPSON HINE LLP, MANLEY DEAS KOCHALOSKI LLC. KEVIN L. WILLIAMS, ROBIN M.WILSON, ALLONDIAN TITLE, Inc. EDWARD M. KOCHALSKI, CHICAGO TITLE, CYNTHIA STEVENS, AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING INC. Scott WALKER, REBECCA SHRADER.SANDS CAYNON MORTGAGE CORPORATION JEANELLE GRAY (Assistant Secretary), Docx, LLCLender Processing Services Defendants IN NEW FEDERAL ACTION. Lewis v. East Feliciana Parish Board , 820 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 1987); Catz v. Chalker , 142 F.3d 279, 294 (6th Cir. 1998); Nesses v. Shepard , 68 F.3d 1003, 1005 (7th Cir. 1995); McKay v. Pfeil , 827 F.2d 540, 543 (9th Cir. 1987); Johnson v. Rodriques , 226 F.3d 1103, 1107 10th Cir. 2004) (federal courts “may entertain a collateral attack on a state court judgment that is void whenever the Court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction over the subject, the person or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law). Under Griffith v. Bank of New York , 147 F.2d 899, 901-03 (2d Cir. 1945) it is well settled that the federal courts may exercise equity powers available to set aside, deny enforcement or ignore a state court judgment obtained by extrinsic fraud and a bill of equity enjoins void judgment uncontaminated” by a “litany” of pervasive ex parte judicial cronyism, “home cooking,” case assignment manipulation, falsehood to acquire standing to sue, fraud upon the rendering court and the like without being denied access to the federal courts under Rooker-Feldman . In In re Murchison , 349 U.S. 133 (1955) the Court made clear: A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. . . . Circumstances and relationships must be considered. This Court has said, however, that ‘Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge . . . not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true between the State and the accused, denies the latter due process of law.’ Tumey v. Ohio , 273 U.S. 510, 532. To perform its high function in the best way ‘justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.’ Offut v. U.S. , 348 U.S. 41. Id. at 136. In sum, any state court judgment collaterally attacked in federal court as void under where a party was denied a “full and fair opportunity” to assert claims and defenses violates due process and is not entitled to full faith and credit under the Federal Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738. And if the state court judgment is void then Rooker-Feldman cannot bar a collateral attack in federal court under Rooker-Feldman . Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp ., 456 U.S. 461, 481-82 (1982) (court may not grant preclusive effect to constitutionally infirm state court judgment – federal courts not (28 U.S.C. § 1738 requires United States courts to give same preclusive effect subject to due process); Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 311 (1983); Migra v. Warren City Board of Education , 465 U.S. 75, 83 n.5 (1985); Allen v. McCurry , 449 U.S. 90, 95 (1980) (same). IX. CONCLUSION This petition raises an important question of first impression since D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman was decided by the Court in 1983: Whether ” Rooker- Feldman ” abrogates the filing in federal court of a common law bill in equity under Barrow v. Hunton , seeking to void a state foreclosure decree when Petitioners did not ask the federal courts to review the merits of the foreclosure decree only those departures from established modes of procedure effecting the full and fair opportunity to be heard under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment such as manipulation and re-assignment of elected partisan judges off the record, willfully evading the random reassignment procedures established by the clerk of courts as well as for fraud upon the rendering Ohio court by Banks that did not even have standing to bring a foreclosure action as they possessed no cognizable legal or equitable interest in Petitioners’ house or the mortgage instruments. For the foregoing reasons the Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT S. CATZ Counsel of Record 1600 28th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007 (202) 277-6585 Counsel for Petitioners June 11, 2008. United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053, 1060 (9th Cir. 2000). To obtain a reversal under this standard, Pacheco-Zepeda must prove that there was “error,” the error was “plain,” and the error affected ’substantial rights.’ United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732(1993). If such conditions are satisfied, this court may exercise its discretion to notice the forfeited error only if such error ’seriously affect[s]the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.’” [ United States v. Gabriel Pacheco-Zepeda, Case No. 99-50720, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit] . [N]eutrality and passivity are essential not only to ensure an evenhanded consideration of each case, but also to convince society at large that the judicial system is trustworthy. When a decision maker becomes an active questioner or otherwise participates in a case, he is likely to be perceived as partisan rather than neutral. Judicial passivity helps to ensure the appearance of fairness, Pro se litigants must be afforded special solicitude. .(there now is absolute concrete proof and evidence that the assignment before this court is false , phony , fake, and deceptive, misleading, defective, and produced by this crime lab, rendering state court summary judgement in favor of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company forever Null, Void, and without Force.) The precise relief sought; For this reason alone the Plaintiffs Claims and all causes of actions as well as entire complaint should be restored , this case should be reversed remanded back to District Court, at the least , or in the alternative this court has the power to grant plaintiffs declaratory relief and damages from what has been four (4) years of complete absolute fraudulent lawsuits 3 in total have been filed against the Taylor’s by these parties pretending to be the lenders who have cause Taylor,s to suffer continue to suffer from lethal doses of Civil Right Violations, Amendment V, double jeopardy, who are hard working citizens and have paid taxes for all these years and live in their home with ownership rights for 23 years . We ask this court to grant plaintiffs-appellants- petitioners Kenneth S.Taylor ,Alycia Taylor Driggins 300, 000.00 dollars in damages, and hear Quiet Title Claims and award 100 million in punitive damages to plaintiffs a amount so high it would economically force Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and all other parties named to follow the law. 3.) Third Assignment of Error: JUDGE Violated Substantial Due Process Rights Dismissing Arising From Any One of the Multiple Federal Causes of Actions Stated in the Complaint Sua Sponte. The judge has taken an unlawful pretext, bias position against plaintiffs in this case and blocks the gate of this court to an Africa American Black plaintiff who is a law-abiding citizen of the U.S. who has paid the Courts filing fee. Right of Access To Courts is Constitutionally Protected. “Standard of Review”; “clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious,” “De Novo” reviews necessary. The right of access to the Courts is clear according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977);M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). The Supreme court has stated the right of access to the courts also protected by the First Amendment. BE&K Construction CO. v. National Labor Relations Board et al. 536 U.S. 516 (2001)(“the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government,” and that “[t]he right of access to the courts is … but one aspect of the right of petition.“). California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U. S. 508, 510 (1972)(“The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition.“). See Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004)(recognizing “the fundamental right of access to the courts”); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974)(“The constitutional guarantee of due process of law has as a corollary the requirement that prisoners be afforded access to the courts in order to challenge unlawful convictions and to seek redress for violations of their constitutional rights.“).Statements of facts ; Mr. Taylor who is in a protected class under the law, who has been denied Equal Protection, and Due Process, Whereas plaintiff have proof of blacks being main targets of predatory lending claims included in his complaint, the judge has administered a unlawful lethal blow of civil rights violation, by teaming up and jumping in a fight that was fair until he started helping his friends out by arbitrarily and capricious Sua Sponte dismissal of plaintiffs entire complaint before even requiring any defendants to answer complaint , even prisoners, who habeas corpus forma paupers complaints filed are given 3 chances to get it right the Judge has became so embroiled with protecting the worst criminal behavior by defendants in the history of the United States of America, Plaintiffs attempts to report these federal crimes to people in the executive and legislative branches of government resulted in occasional admission of the gravity of the charges, but none would receive the evidence or take required action. Seeking to circumvent the coverups and obstruction of justice, Plaintiffs filed papers in federal courts to report the federal crime to a federal judge under the mandatory responsibility of the federal crime reporting statute, 18 U.S.C. and the right of citizens to seek a court order for federal officials, judges, and lawyers to perform a mandatory duty and halt unlawful conduct that is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The clear language of Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 requires that anyone who knows of a federal crime must promptly report it to a federal judge (or other federal officer), or that person is guilty of a crime: Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Blocking the reports of major criminal activities against the United States by government insiders violates other criminal statutes, including Title 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 4, among others Instead of performing his duty, federal judge Adams dismissed the lawsuit as soon as the action was filed, Sua Sponte The judge however has lost all sight of justice for plaintiffs, a position so destructive to humanity it defies human decency it makes Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor feel sick to the stomach as though a judicial noose has been placed around his neck and choke off justice and equal access to this High Honorable District Court, he now wishes he was born a “White” man so he would be accepted by this court as a human being and be treated fair and equal, now I beg the court to stop treating me as a sub-human, there is something illegal and morally wrong when a judge sentences black defendants to maximum sanction .But opens a escape hatch for Whites. He Violated the responsibilities of federal judges to receive reports and evidence of federal crimes as part of their administrative duties under 18 U.S.C. 4. He Violated major substantive due process protections, including the rights guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act, Bivens, RICO, Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Supreme Court’s void judgment doctrine. The law provides that a jury decides whether a conspiracy existed to block the reporting of the criminal activities and whether a conspiracy existed to violate Plaintiffs civil rights, and whether a conspiracy existed to block every federal defense related to these matters. Certainly not a judge who may be protecting the series of judges implicated in these offenses. He Violated multiple procedural due process rights, including the (a) right against Sua Sponte dismissal; (b) right against dismissal when facts showing federal causes of actions are stated for which federal relief exists; (c) right to discovery; (d) right to a jury trial; and (e) right to a honest adjudication of major federal causes of actions. The Dismissal Order Violated Multiple Procedural Due Process Rights The dismissal order violated every relevant procedural due process protection guaranteed to all citizens by the laws and Constitution of the United States for the record-setting violations stated in Appellant’s complaint .Violated Due Process Rights Barring Sua Sponte Dismissals The dismissal order violated the clear and settled law that requires a hearing, discovery, opportunity to defend, and a meaningful and honest opportunity to be heard. In Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) 418 U.S. 539, the Court stated: The Court has consistently held that some kind of hearing is required before a person is finally deprived of his property interests; In Anderson National Bank v. Luckett (1944) 321 U.S. 233, 246, the court held: “It is error to dismiss a claim on the merits without notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to respond.” FRcivP Rule 12(b)(6). “[T]the court must give notice of its Sua Sponte intention to invoke Rule 12(b)(6), and afford Appellants ‘an opportunity to at least submit a written memorandum in opposition to such motion,” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979), quoting Potter v. McCall, 433 F.2d 1087, 1088 (9th Cir. 1970); Harmon v. Superior Court, 307 F.2d 796, 796 (9th Cir. 1962) “the right to a hearing on the merits of a claim over which the court has jurisdiction is of the essence of our judicial system, and the judge’s feeling that the case is probably frivolous does not justify by-passing that right. Appellant is entitled to have process issued and served, and to be heard. ”Violated Bar to Dismissing Arising From Any One of the
    Multiple Federal Causes of Actions Stated in the Complaint A Rule 12 based dismissal on failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted requires that the factual allegations of the complaint must be taken as true, and any ambiguities or doubts concerning the sufficiency of the claim must be resolved in favor of the pleader. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 (1979); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78. Dennis v. Sparks 449 U.S. 24 (1980)(“a section 1983 complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears that the PLAINTIFFS can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief … For the purposes of testing sufficiency of the complaint, the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true. … If PLAINTIFFS allegations state a claim for which federal courts can grant relief, the court must accept jurisdiction.”); Gardener v. Toilet Goods Assn., 387 U.S. 167, 172 (1967). (An action, “especially under the Civil Rights Act, should not be dismissed at the pleadings stage unless it appears to a certainty that Appellants are entitled to no relief under any state of the facts, which could be proved in support of their claims.” Escalera v. N.Y. Housing Auth., 425 F.2d 853, 857 (2nd Cir. 1970). See also Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-7) 1957). The complaint stated facts constituting multiple federal causes of actions for which federal judges had a duty to provide a court forum, some semblance of due process, and relief. Dismissals under Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6). “are permitted on a motion if the complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” “The court cannot subject ever undisputed evidence to interpretation, unless it is only subject to one possible interpretation; it cannot weight conflicting inferences or interpretations that can be put on the evidence. U.S. v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654; “The district court may dismiss the complaint “only if it is certain that no relief can be granted under any set of facts which could be proved.” General Refractories Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 337 F.3d 297, 303 n.1 (3d Cir. 2003), quoting Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 171 F.3d 912, 919 (3d Cir. 1999). “An appeal [or complaint ] is not frivolous if any of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits.” Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; The requirement for “no genuine issue of material fact” standard provides that the court cannot try the case on a summary judgment motion. National Assn. of Gov’t Employees v. Campbell, 593 F.2d 1023, 1027-29 (D.C. Cir. 1978). also 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[1.–0], [3]. A judgment is void if the rendering court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2862. “A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. V. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980). “[T]he constitution, by prohibiting an act, renders it void, if done; otherwise, the prohibition were nugatory. Thus, the warrant is a nullity.” Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204, 217 (1821). “’No judgment of a court is due process of law, if rendered without jurisdiction in the court, or without notice to the party.” Old Wayne Mut. Life Ass’n v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 15 (1907). Generally, a judgment is void under Rule 60 (b) (4) if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or if acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. E.g., s Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc., 909 F.2d 657, 662 (1st Cir. 1990);Beller & Keller v. Tyler, 120 F.3d 21, 23 (2nd Cir. 1997); Union Switch & Signal v. Local 610, 900 F.2d 608, 612 n.1 (3rd Cir. 1990); Eberhardt v. Integrated Design & Const., Inc. 167 F.3d 861, 867 (4th Cir. 1999); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown 84 F.3d 137, 143 (5th Cir. 1996) The U.S. Supreme Court,”SCOTUS”, On the Importance of Due Process Courts as well as citizens are not free ‘to ignore all the procedures of the law….’. The ‘constitutional freedom’ of which the Court speaks can be won only if judges honor the Constitution.” Walker v. City Of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 338 (1967)(Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting). “Due process is perhaps the most majestic concept in our whole, constitutional system.” Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 174 (1951) (Justice Frankfurter, concurring). It is ingrained in our national traditions, and is designed to maintain them. In a variety of situations, the Court has enforced this requirement by checking attempts of executives, legislatures, and lower courts to disregard the deep-rooted demands of fair play enshrined in the Constitution.” id. 161. “Fairness of procedure is “due process in the primary sense.” Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 281 U. S. 681. In a long line of cases, the United States Supreme Court has held that impingements of constitutional rights are, without variation, subject to the strictures of “due process” or notice and opportunity to be heard prior to their enactments. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950); Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Owen v. City Of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980); Carey v.Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). “The principle stated in this terse language lies at the foundation of all well-ordered systems of jurisprudence. Wherever one is assailed in his person or his property, there he may defend, for the liability and the right are inseparable. This is a principle of natural justice, recognized as such by the common intelligence and conscience of all nations. A sentence of a court pronounced against a party without hearing him, or giving him an opportunity to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.” Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274;23 L.Ed. 914 (1876). US CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAVE ROUTINELY REJECTED “SUA SPONTE” PRE-FILING INJUNCTIONS. A long line of United States appellate courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have rejected sua sponte issuances of pre-filing injunctions because they are violations of due process. In Weaver v. Leon County Sch. Bd., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (11th Cir. 2006), the Eleventh Circuit held that a litigant was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a restriction was imposed on his ability to challenge an injunction. U.S. v. Powerstein, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 14928,*;185 Fed. Appx. 811 (11th Cir. 2006)(litigant entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before the court imposed the injunctive order ). See Sires v. Fair, 107 F.3d 1;1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2173 (1st Cir. 1997); Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island , 985 F.2d 32 (C.A.1 (R.I.), 1993) (vacating a pre-fling injunction issued without notice); MLE Realty Assocs. v. Handler, 192 F.3d 259, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 23362 (2nd Cir. 1999) ; Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121 (2nd Cir. 2000) ; Holton v. Oral Surg. Sing Sing Corr., 24 Fed. Appx. 37; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 25151 (2nd Cir. 2001); Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 1998) (district court may not impose a filing injunction on a litigant without providing the litigant with notice and an opportunity to be heard.); Gonzales v. Feiner, 131 Fed. Appx. 373, * 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8370, ** (3rd Cir. 2005) ; Wiliams v. Cambridge Integrated Servs. Group , 148 Fed Appx. 87, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 18624 (3rd Cir. 2005) ; Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027 (C.A.3 (Virgin Islands), 1992)(vacating a sua sponte issued injunction); It is imperative that the court afford the litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to issuing such an injunction. In Re Head, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8265,*;174 Fed. Appx. 167 (4th Cir. 2006)(vacated a 10 yr. old sua sponte injunction); Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 819 (4th Cir. 2004)(vacating a pre-filing injunction issued without notice); Tucker v. Drew, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 11784 (4 th Cir. 1994) ;DOUGLAS BAUM v. BLUE MOON VENTURES, LLC , 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 91,*;513 F.3d 181;49 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 68 (5th Cir. 2008)(“Notice and a hearing are required if the district court sua sponte imposes a pre-filing injunction or sua sponte modifies an existing injunction to deter vexatious filings.”) ;De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir.) ; Roscoe v. Hansen, 107 F.3d 880;1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 4996 (10th Cir. 1997); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20966,*;500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007)(litigant must be given notice and a chance to be heard before the [injunctive] order is entered.); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351,354 (C.A.10 (Wyo.), 1989)(vacated and holding that the litigant is entitled to notice and an opportunity to oppose the court’s order before it is instituted.); Procup v. Strickland, 567 F.Supp. 146 (M.D. Fla., 1983)(court issued a show cause order) Procup v. Strickland, 760 F.2d 1107, 1110 (C.A.11 (Fla.), 1985) (held that district court did give adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before issuance of the injunction); Cofield v. Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm., 936 F.2d 512, 514 (11th Cir.1991)(noting that court issued show cause order prior to rendering pre-fling injunction); In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427, 431 (D.C.Cir.1988)(reversing and holding If a pro se litigant is to be deprived of such a vital constitutional right as access to the courts, he should, at least, be provided with an opportunity to oppose the entry of an order restricting him before it is entered.); Martin v. Circuit Court, 627 So.2d 1298 (Fla.App. 4 Dist., 1993)(reversing a pre-filing order and holding that limiting the constitutional right of access to the courts, essential due process safeguards must first be provided); Lawsuits of Carter, In re, 510 S.E.2d 91, 95; 235 Ga.App. 551 (Ga. App., 1998)(reversing a pre-filing injunction because notice or an opportunity not given); Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1296 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that injunctions “may not be expanded beyond the meaning of its terms absent notice and an opportunity to be heard.”).Courts have felt that the notice and opportunity to respond was so important that they have reversed district courts even where they thought the pre-filing injunction was otherwise valid. See Oliver, In re, 682 F.2d 443, 446 (C.A.3 (Pa.), 1982); Scott v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage , 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 15709,*;143 Fed. Appx. 525(4th Cir. 2005);Gagliardi v. McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81, 83 (3d Cir. 1987). The United States Supreme Court has stated: A court must, of course, exercise caution in invoking its inherent power, and it must comply with the mandates of due process, both in determining that the requisite bad faith exists and in assessing fees. (emphasis added) Chambers v.Nasco, Inc.,501U.S. 32, 50 (1991) (“[W]here . . . a complaint may not have

  5. two years ago we went to the las vegas metropolitan police department and wanted to file a complaint against countrywide home loan servicing. the very confused officer said that they could not take the complaint because they cannot arrest or prosecute a corporation. so we said okay, instead of countrywide, how about angelo mozillo, again he declined.

    6 months later i saw the clark county district attorney and as i was going up the same escalator as him i asked what can we do about the countrywide fraud, he said, go to the fbi.

    The absolute stupidest part of this all is if someone can into my house to steal something, i could call the cops, and maybe even shoot him if i felt he would attack/hurt me….

    but if someone wants to steal my house…..they just file false documents at the county recorders office or not, torture us for 3 years and then rearrange their corporation and shuffle and switch, confuse and torment …and law enforcement says its okay because NV is a non-judicial state.

    The NV AG is suing B of A right now……do we contact her? she sued countrywide before and was part of the 8.4 billion settlement to “Help Homeowners”….

    Now b of a is making a 8.5 billion dollar settlement with 22 institutional investors…..

    hmm….promise to give 8.4 billion to help homeowners, now give 8.5 billion to investors…..

    so supposedly 8.4 should have gone homeowners and now 8.5 to the investors in the “trusts”…..

    something stinks and it isn’t fish

    P.s. they are also paying BONY ‘s law bills……not a conflict?

  6. This is from 2008. It gets very interesting about 45 minutes into it. As the hits are 5 million now, it is for newbies as well as oldies here.

    Are you a “chump” ?, answer near the end of the video clip.

  7. What can we do, when our government and the courts refuse to follow the law, and engages in governmental anarchy?

  8. FORECLOSURE HAMLET: You know it’s Robo-Signed if their Name is….

  9. Does anyone know if we have lost web site. hey kept depositions and list of robo signers. It has been off the air all weekend.

  10. @4justice – I framed that poorly. I absolutey agree with you. What I meant was bs was the allegation by AG’s (was that it?) that they can’t do much.

  11. I am done with this entire system. My family and I are buying used items whenever possible. No more paying retail prices, no more doing business with the banks. As long as there is no consumer protection this is how we will live. We will rent for the rest of our lives. We will never have a mortgage again. We are freeeeeee.

    We are teaching our daughter to do the same and she is to teach her children.

    No credit cards, no mortgage, no student loans. We are freeeeee.

    Let the housing market be damned forever and ever. We are freeeeee.

    We will never put our trust in man again. There is no politician that will ever earn our trust again. We are free from the lies.

  12. +i new there had to be a good reason for not doing these mods. there must be a secret operandi we do not know about that went along with the hamp guidelines. that directed banks to lose our paper work and move our files out of review. if all these mods went through we would have the mortgage intrest deduction. its all in the plan . so sad now we know why no one is in jail they were following orders from the comander and chief. doesnt make us feel anybetter. i am the only one on my note, approved on my own for a mortgage that was bound to fail. mortgage grokers were told to fudge on applications, appraisers were told to annie up keep the properties rising because they new our thirst to owna home will evnetually catch up to us and now look. they formed the mortgage intrest deduction before this ponzi scheme. they included that you can only deduct other expenses if you have mortgage intrest deduction now none of can deduct anything but i think it backfired because now there are nojobs. so we maynot beable to deduct but now we are not woorkin and payiing into the tax pool. makes no sense to scam the middle class we are the blood of america. we are the hard workers. i see business afterr business in florida closing. alsways a new one ot follow . its sad times and now we know the scam and why w are not being help by them. it was done to us on purpose. not sure the purpose. i gues it goes back to my sons statement when he was young. what is the meaning of life? why hurt us. where is the satisfaction. all we all have ever done was trying to be happy and raise happy children and now they have taken away our happiness. we can not find jobs, we are losing our homes, we can go anywhere because we have no money. why would that make them happy. i am sad today becuase i know to much. maybe ie would have been better not to know this stuff.

  13. @johngault … it is not BS and will find away to show you if you still want to challenge it, I have the letter right in front of me. Black and white and for once very clear. Notes are taken and that is the extent to their ability. In other words, you are small and we don’t care. Perhaps you are thinking of people that went with $$$ behind them via attorney or press, and got them to file something though another Chanel, but since foreclosures as still happening and have not won great strides in court, it is they, that are full of BS. No one is accountable for making the Banks accountable. at least no one transparent enough to find. How can you even stand up for any government agency. The federal government is reaping in personal income taxes like crazy now that mortgage interest in not being claimed on about 8-10 million homes. Hmmm?

  14. Thanks…my email is

  15. carie,

    Have been here a while — there are a many here — but, you are very sharp. Post an email — if you can.

  16. Neil Garfield—you should fill this out:

    They need you!!

  17. “with intent to hurt…” Intent to hurt may be demonstrated if someone
    threw paint or toxins all over the place, say, or as another example, if one puts sugar or some other junk in a tank because there is no other reason for doing this. The value may well have been lessened by the removal but an assumption of intent to devalue based on that is not fast. Intent must be proved. The real problem is that technically fixtures and things attached become real property and comprise the collateral just as the wall. I think this is found in the deed of trust. But that is not what he is charged with as far as I can tell. Probably if he won on the actual charge, they’d just come back with the real one. The real one is not a crime, though. It’s a contractual violation and may even have been extinguished by the foreclosure. Don’t know about that one.

  18. The Florida Bar Speaks- Lawyers Must Disclose “Faulty” Paperwork.
    July 17th, 2011 · · Foreclosure
    You really must read the entire release, and especially the statements from the member of the Bar that reviewed the Opinion…..the implications here are quite huge….

    FLORIDA BAR!OpenDocument


    “In Bair’s account, the Treasury’s prioritization of the well-being of financial institutions over the well-being of homeowners has hobbled the government’s foreclosure response since the beginning of the crisis. As we reported in February, Geithner’s Treasury undermined a 2009 attempt to put more pressure on servicers to modify mortgages.

    Bair told Nocera that when she went to the Treasury in 2007 to encourage them to put pressure on mortgage servicers, she received little response. The government, she said, “thought maybe I was overstating the problem and that it wasn’t going to be that big a deal.” Instead, Bair gained a reputation as “difficult.”
    In her recent Washington Post op-ed, Bair wrote:

    Government efforts to promote modifications … have gradually moved in the right direction but have remained behind the curve. At the height of the crisis in the fall of 2008, when fear over where the bottom was ruled the markets, policymakers were supremely focused on the short-term priority of preventing the failure of the nation’s largest financial companies. Government assistance to financial institutions took a variety of forms, amounting to a total commitment of almost $14 trillion by the spring of 2009. While those actions were necessary to prevent an even bigger economic catastrophe, we still have not addressed the No. 1 cause of both the crisis and the subpar recovery we are in: a stubborn refusal to deal head-on with past-due and underwater mortgages.

    Starting in September, Bair will be working for Pew Charitable Trusts (a ProPublica supporter)—a move that earned her plaudits from the Wall Street Journal’s Deal Blog, which noted, “Here’s a bit of shocking news: A Washington regulator is NOT going to work for the industry she used to rule over.” She has also secured a book deal for her own account of the financial crisis, “Bull by the Horns: What Main Street Must Do To Fix Wall Street.”

    …but, she’s still calling them “mortgages”…sigh.

  20. Just to reiterate from the last post, this goes into the hard to fathom column….

    “Technically, he owned the property he is alleged to have taken illegally.”

    Conversely, the banks have been found to be taking property that doesn’t belong to them, and are allowed to continue unabated. Go figure.

  21. They haven’t stopped enforcing laws….at least not the ones that matter to them….in case you haven’t noticed, there’s a two-tiered system of justice and law enforcement in place nowadays….

    With his building under foreclosure, Donald Mordal decided to take some items that he says belonged to him.

    Now, he’s facing criminal prosecution, only the second person charged in Anoka County in the past 25 years under a 1963 state law. The law makes it a felony to remove or damage property subject to a mortgage with intent to hurt the property’s value. It is so rarely used that officials in the Hennepin and Ramsey county attorney’s offices couldn’t recall prosecuting anybody under it.

    Mordal, a businessman in Nowthen, was one of many Minnesotans caught in the foreclosure crisis. After years of building his business, he couldn’t make his mortgage payments in June 2009, and the bank foreclosed on the 7,600-square-foot building he’d helped construct. With it sitting empty, the charges say, he removed some doors and windows, plumbing, cabinets and landscape boulders he had bought and installed.

    According to police and his bank, he wasn’t entitled to the property, and he caused more than $40,000 in damage.

    “I don’t think I did anything illegal,” Mordal said. “The bank has the money and time to prosecute me, but not the money and time to help me get a loan.”

    Mordal, 44, was charged in March with “defeating security on realty.” Prosecutors said he wasn’t charged with a more common felony theft crime, which requires intent to take someone else’s property and deprive them of it. Technically, he owned the property he is alleged to have taken illegally.

    Mordal, who has nothing more than a speeding ticket on his record, was stunned when he learned of the charge. Potential jail time is now piled atop the foreclosures of his business and house, along with unemployment and a divorce.

    Mordal didn’t deny removing certain items he considered personal property. There were a cherry wood credenza, a few doors, a window between offices and a landscape boulder wall that was hindering drainage in the parking lot, he said.

    The charges said he also removed a floor heating system, but he said that’s impossible because it was under several inches of concrete.

    None of the property was sold, he said, and a brand-new air conditioning unit sits behind the building, something he says he could have taken if gutting the property had been his intent. He also doubts the two damage appraisals supplied by the bank.

  22. […] Livinglies’s Weblog Filed Under: Foreclosure Law News, Foreclosure News Tagged With: crisis, foreclosure, […]

  23. If they don’t enforce any laws, then we shouldn’t be expected to follow any either. Thus far the only thing the Government has been is an obstacle that prevents “We the People” from solving this problem once and for all.

  24. It CAN’T get “swept under the rug” at this point…the fraud is just too big…and hold on to your hats, because another HUGE CRASH (globally this time), is coming…just a matter of time…

  25. Da Truth Revealed 7/13/2011 ‘Gretchen Morgenson
    Why Prosecutors Don’t Go After Wall Street
    President O’bama ‘Commander in Chief’ of Executive Branch forces gentleman’s agreement to ‘not’ prosecute!

    Gretchen found smoking guns including memo ‘Wall Street’ law firm ‘Sullivan & Comwell’ sent to its clients’ (the banks and insurance companies and owners) noting importance of
    ‘Justice Department’s decision to go easy…

    Gentleman’s agreement of the entire Executive Branch
    Governor’s and their attorney generals and federal attorney generals all report up through the chain of command to their commander.

    Did President Obama tell us the truth during his bid for election? Did he tell us he would only look forward and not back? Is that how he got in? A ‘gentleman’s agreement?’

    Goggle and read and listen to the story

    Why Prosecutors Don’t Go After Wall Street

    New guidelines issued by the Justice Department in 2008, which have allowed prosecutors to take a “softer approach” to corporate crimes. The guidelines — known as deferred prosecution agreements — have permitted financial companies to avoid indictments if they agree to investigate and report their own crimes.

    “It’s a gentlemen’s agreement, and it really allows companies to keep their share prices higher and it helps companies continue to do business with the government, but it’s a lot lighter [in terms of penalties,]” says New York Times financial reporter Louise Story. “And this [approach] was celebrated on Wall Street.”

    ‘White collar crimes” are crimes aginst commerce which CONGRESS GOVERNS and continually overstepping limited power prevents ‘enforcement of the laws.’


    President Barack O’Bama — but he chooses to ‘look the other way.’ I will to upon election and can’t wait.

    LET US NOT FORGET THAT banks get their charters from CONGRESS! and are allowed to do business on behalf of the US GOVERNMENT whether they are a (national association), (federal association), (federal savings bank) and as a financial holding company a collection of all types through which CONGRESS authorizes ‘business’

    CONGRESS DOES NOT give authority to adjudicate alleged unlawful business acts to FDIC, OTS, OCC, FRB, SEC, FCC, rather vests limited powers to Attorney Generals under Executive Branch and Chief Executive Officer – President Barck OBama who sits well suited to deal away our blood – sweat – and tears of the past decades and allow additional harms to befall the nation.

    Under Article I, Congress makes the laws, controls the budgets, laws and regulations governing all matters related to commerce. Erase from your brain that you as a constituient are anything more than a dollar and a vote to get into office the party who will make ‘gentleman’s agreements’. Foreverafter your opinion does not cout! And your congressional representative a monkey will do what they are told like dogs they get feed, rewarded and sleep well at night.

    Many of us have become part of the welfare lines of the nation, but let’s get the facts straight that we are not part of the consideration of the ‘welfare of the nation’ .

    Under Article II Enforcement of Law, Congress is overstepping limited powers instructing the ‘Justice Department’.

    Who is the Federal Attorney General and State Attorney General in your State? They don’t have a choice! How can we help? Get the evidence into their hands to prosecute those who but for without the deals never would have gone down!

    Was only Sullivan and Cromwell privledged to this message? Who is on what committee as related to the goverment from SUllivan and Cromwell and/or which ‘banker’ in which FRB board? Yada.

    Fact remains, President Obama’ entered office because he was instructed to only look forward or agreed to only look forward?

    Chief Executive OFficer of the Executive Branch who are to enforce the laws both federl and state … why are therefore prosecutors since 2008 in agreement do not prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

    Congress continues overstepping its limited powers.

    The US President chooses to ‘look forward’ not back, and consumers as individuals remain unsafe in life and property as individual consumers are without protection from any federal agency.

    As residents, we are denied protections and entitlements otherwise available if but not for the ‘bank’ label affixed to the related transactions which are retail and not with banks rather with title companies. What a conundrum.

  26. If all this is swept under the rug, let us all NEVER have any dealings with the banks again. Who will they sell their loan products to then?

  27. And if these are misdeamors and felonies and not torts, then the states are using our misfortune to fill their own coffers. I’m not saying those coffers don’t need the funds badly, but the fact that they do is no excuse to sacrifice one set of people, the former homeowners nor, to set aside the law for any reason, including the fact that’s what they’re doing by not filing charges. But as Carrie says, maybe they are hiding or otherwise live behind no funds to go up against MegaMonsters with endless funds. Like I’ve said, and I think we would all say, here’s my 10 bucks and I’d even
    fetch coffee.

  28. @carie – you are so right, and they have done the same thing to homeowners. Golden rule: he who controls the gold rules.

    @usjustice4all@ – that’s bs. I can tell you that as of 2008, the AG in
    NV was the party – and the only party – statutorily empowered to prosecute a lot of violations, and I can’t remember for certain, but I believe those included TILA and RESPA. It would take me a while to find those statutes – lost them in a crash before I had the sense to do back-up. Probably just under powers and duties of AG.

    Pursuant to those statutes, I filed the appropriate paperwork with our AG and got shuffled off to one agency after another whose unvarying answers were ” dat’s not ma job”.

  29. Well, color me ignorant, but when an AG gets in some act, isn’t it because someone has violated laws and those violations are misdemeanors, felonies, what not?
    How did this turn into civil actions for damages as if the acts are torts?


    “U.S. prosecutors are ratcheting up the pressure on Credit Suisse Group AG as part of an escalating tax-evasion probe.

    Credit Suisse disclosed Friday that the U.S. Justice Department had notified the bank that it was a formal target of a criminal investigation into how Swiss financial institutions allegedly helped U.S. citizens avoid paying U.S. income tax.

    For the Justice Department to signal that the bank is now the target of a criminal investigation, “is a big, big problem for a banking entity;” no major bank in the U.S. has ever survived criminal charges, said David Garvin, a Miami tax lawyer.”

  31. It was a BRILLIANT plan by wall street/bankster fraudsters:

    Hurry up and STEAL all the money that would be needed in the future to prosecute them!!!

    “Given the magnitude of the S.E.C.’s task, Congress could make Wall Street firms pay more and not less to police the mess they helped create. A government that wants to hold wrongdoers’ feet to the fire and prevent future abuses could finance an S.E.C. enforcement surge analogous to the military’s strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress could fully finance the S.E.C.’s requested $1.4 billion — and add another $100 million for technology spending. The $1.5 billion would be paid entirely through fees. Financing the S.E.C. adds nothing to the federal deficit and, on the contrary, will help reduce it. It is an investment that would most likely generate increased fines and penalties that could be returned to defrauded investors and taxpayers.”


    “With her track record of standing up to Wall Street and fighting for consumers, Elizabeth Warren was the best qualified to lead this bureau that she conceived — and we imagine Richard Cordray would agree,” PCCC co-founder Stephanie Taylor said in a statement. “That said, Rich Cordray has been a strong ally of Elizabeth Warren’s and we hope he will continue her legacy of holding Wall Street accountable.”

  33. Yes, Deutsche Bank = EVIL SCUM

    Does anyone know if anything is happening with that huge lawsuit (filed in May), against them in Los Angeles? All of the properties they stole/foreclosed on in the inner cities are falling apart…and they blame the “servicers”…of course…steal the house/money and blame someone else…

    “City attorney Carmen Trutanich stood by a Los Angeles map stained with blue dots. Each dot indicates a property held by Deutsche Bank. Trutanich says during the housing boom and bust, Deutsche Bank’s subsidiaries acquired more than 2,000 properties in LA through foreclosure.

    “It’s time to recognize that the fraud committed on Wall Street turns into blight on Main Street,” Trutanich says.”

    …and from another article:

    “Other cities have faced similar frustrations.

    In 2008, the city of Cleveland sued Deutsche Bank and other financial institutions alleging that subprime mortgage lending practices had resulted in widespread foreclosures and blight. A judge dismissed the suit.”

    …and another article:

    “Pursuant to the aforementioned contracts for securitization trusts, loan servicers, and not the trustee, are responsible for foreclosure-related legal proceedings. The attorneys and law firms who oversee foreclosure proceedings on behalf of the trusts are engaged by loan servicers rather than the trustee. Loan servicers are obligated to adhere to all legal requirements, and Deutsche Bank, as trustee, has consistently informed servicers that they are required to execute these actions in a proper and timely manner,” said Deutsche Bank spokesman John Gallagher.”

    …and here is a quote from Mr.John Gallagher that has curiously disappeared from the internet—ie. the article where I found it.:

    “Deutsche acts as trustee and has an administrative role…but has no beneficial ownership, stake, or interest in the underlying mortgage loans”.

    and finally, a quote of clarity and truth from ANONYMOUS:

    “Just after subprime mortgage closing — only servicing rights are actually transferred. It is not until this “loan” (not really loan) goes into default that they had to scurry about to try to make it appear that the fake “loan” actually went to some trust. This became particularly important because courts were already coming down stating the servicer is not the creditor.”
    “What does it matter that they put you in default (again) on subprime refinance before you default?? — you were already in false default!!”

  34. Here in CA, the AG had made campaign promises regarding the bank fraud. So, the banksters just used their control of the state government to change the budget for her staff.

    The prior AG, now governor-again moonbeam, is the brother of Kathleen Brown.

    Notice the crappy ‘Settlement’ with CountryWide that Jerry Brown orchestrated? Guess where his sister worked then? Oh, yeah, upper management with CW and then moved to Shank America with the take-over. Now Kathleen has moved on to the Western Division of Goldman Sucks.

    Did the new AG, Kamala, know ahead of the publicity about her task force that the banksters already had her muzzled?

  35. @ Shelley A. Erickson

    That site definitely is messed up. I can get to the main page but all the links are broken from that point on.

    Either they had a server issue and are having to bring the site back up or else they may have gotten HACKED.

  36. This is the e-mail I sent to this bank owned harlot.

    Dear Pam Bondi,
    I am upset by your lighthanded approach to the fraud that banks and foreclosure law firms have so far gotten away with in this state.
    As the chief law enforcement officer in Florida, and a member of the Florida Bar, your duty is clear. To do anything less than full prosecution on those who would, fabricate, and use fraudulent documents in court proceedings is a violation of your oath as a officer of the court, and Attorney General of the state of Florida.
    We are in troubled times, and the public needs to know that the law applies to all, great and small. If rule of law, is perceived as rule of the rich, then civil unrest and revolution will be the result.
    Do you think Judge Judy would rule in favor of a plaintiff or defendant who produced a fraudulent document to win their case? NO! because it would violate the”CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE” that no relief shall be granted to a party who engages in unlawful activity.
    I ask that you do your duty.

    Please everyone send your representative AG a letter, fax or e-mail expressing your thoughts about the fraud, Wall Street and the to big to fail banks have perpetrated on the American people and the world.

  37. usjustice4all- you are absolutely correct. the ag’s office is ineffective. they always give the same story. we cant help individulas or give advice. they do nothing. you could slam down a 2 foot pile of evidence that a bank stole from you and they dont give a sh@#. they tell you to hire a lawyer. well, not everyone can afford an attorney at $300 an hour so what they are saying is its ok for the banks to steal from anyone in that position, but not from those who are fortunate enough to have the means to pay a lawyer. its nonsense, its also disgusting and appalling.

  38. the attorney generals “investigating” this matter havent looked because they dont want to look. 1, they dont want to lose the campaign money the banks are throwing at them, 2, if they did their jobs most if not all of the banksters would be headed off to jail, 3, if the real truth were ever to be exposed you would see the greatest transfer of wealth to the middle class that this country has ever seen. when its proven the banks dont have squat and no valid claims to these properties voila you have a house without a mortgage. that would be real economic stimulus. if the top banks fail, then the ones below them will step in and fill their shoes. thats the beauty of america.someone is always waiting to take your place.
    who cares if BoA or jp morgan or gmac crash and burn. they did this to themselves and deserve to crash and burn. the economy will recover in a snap if the truth were exposed and homeowners were no longer under threats from these thieves in the night. the banks are the reason the economy is where its at. if they owned up to what they did and took it on the chin for the good of the country the economy would do a spin around in 1 second flat.

  39. +@ the a man you hit the naail on the head that is what started our trend down ward unable to find jobs. my husband is un meployed and we needed 2 salaries to make ends meet this is sad time in americans lives.

  40. oops

    Too Big Too Fail equals guaranteed Failure
    We are experiences a modern day Holocaust of the American People.

    How many millions of Foreclosures Lost Jobs Lost Pensions, Lost Equity etc… at the hands of the Banksters?

    The Same Deutsche Bank that looted the Jews in Germany is doing it again in America.


  41. Obama and Boehner need to be recalled impeached etc… We can not afford them anymore. They are masters of not getting anything done.

    The Banksters are gonna take us all down with them

    Too Big Too Gail equals guaranteed Failure.

  42. “No Jurisdiction” — that is what you get from government agencies. Each agency wants to pass off complaints to another agency.

    The banks, as servicer or original creditor, may not even be the real party to negotiate in the settlements — they may or may not currently “own” collection rights.

    Nevertheless, a settlement will compromise a homeowner’s position in courts. A settlement will not prevent an individual’s right to defend himself/herself in court, but it does mean that the banks have settled “fraud” claims with no admission of wrongdoing. A court may claim — “res judicata.” It is undeniable that the banks, debt buyers, government, administration, etc. etc. — want to quickly push foreclosures through under the guise that clearing foreclosures will allow the housing market to recover. A settlement will clear that path and, homeowner assistance will remain voluntary. Two problems with this — 1) the economy itself would likely recover more quickly if homeowners were provided MEANINGFUL assistance 2) A settlement will not stop the foreclosure fraud.– it will compound it by allowing the real fraud to continue — NOT investigated by any state Attorney General. A settlement will block a complete and thorough investigation – forever.

  43. @shelley yeah it off. probably attacked by a virus/worm. my computer was attacked to. thank god my son had one that all we needed was a new charger cord. my other one is a net book that it totally crashed, i also have a dell that crashed to. so what ever powerful tools they have to keep us ignorant they are using. funny, i was at the library checking out emails like this morning and the “library” computer was hit. he was able to shut it off and then it resets. but just shows you they don’t care who they hurt with these viruses. we use our computer for job search to.!!!\
    n i have also wrote the ag of florida. pam bimbo. when i was writing that wells fargo was abusing me and trying to steal my hiome i would get emails back that they forwarded my info to wells fargo. then i started writing about the fraud. sending them posts. web sites and i get nothing , not one email back apologize for our corrupt state and she is doing all she can to rectify the mortgage industry for her residents. yes we are all alone in this crap. one case at a time. a lee county judge once told a lawyer that he is not there to find evidence he is there to look at the evidence and make a decision. but if every case on the docket that is defended has fraud what about all the case noon defended. playing on our ignorance is no way to fun a country.

    so sad to be going through this. at least we are on here. we are educating ourselves. we will fight.

  44. The Obama administration, the Democrat and Republican parties are afraid that America will find out their pension funds are GONE! The economy is in a tail spin and the news to government workers, unions and corporate retirement beneficiaries that they have nothing to retire on unless we make huge sacrifices – would literally kill an election for ANY politician. Plus, it could like cause a run on the banks… OMG, I can hardly bare the thought.

    So, instead of coming clean with America and figuring a way to replenish the funds with new revenues – they are acting like a bunch of mobsters trying to figure out where to bury the body before the sun comes up. Where the hell is Elliott Ness when you need him?

  45. The reason I think it is being dropped by the AG is when a person, like myself, does write in with a complaint, I get a call from someone who tells me they have no authority to really do anything about it, send in tons of paperwork and they will find someone to report it to, if even, because they have no legal rights to take any action.

  46. Does anyone know what happened to Looks like it is off the web. It is the only site I can not get.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: