Bringing in the Clowns Through Breach of Fiduciary Duties


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


Editor’s Comment: In my many conversations with both attorneys and pro se litigants they frequently express intense frustration about those invisible relationships and entities that permeate the entire mortgage model starting in the 1990’s and continuing to the present day, every day court is in session.

I think they are right. This article takes it as given, whether the courts wish to recognize it or not, that the parties at the closing table with the homeowner were all fiduciaries and included all those who were getting fees paid out of the closing proceeds — in other words paid out either the homeowner’s hapless down payment (worthless the moment it was tendered) or the proceeds of a loan (undocumented as to the source of the loan and documented falsely as to the creditor and the terms of repayment.

This article also takes it as a given, whether the courts are ready to recognize it or not, that the parties at the closing table with the investors who were the source of funds pooled or not were all fiduciaries and included all those who were getting fees paid out of the closing proceeds — in other words paid out either the hopeless plunge into an abyss with no loans purchased or funded until long after the money was in “escrow” with the investment banker in exchange for a completely worthless mortgage backed security without any mortgages backing the security.

But the interesting fact is that while some of the parties were known to the investor, and some of the parties were known to the homeowners, the investor did not know the parties at the closing table with the homeowner; and the borrower did not know the parties at the closing table with the investor.

In point of fact, the borrower did not even know there was a table or an investor or a table funded loan until long after closing, if ever. Remember that for years MERS, the  servicers and others brought foreclosures that are still final (but subject to challenge) while they vigorously denied the very existence of a pool or any investors.

While this is interesting from the perspective of Reg Z that states that a pattern of table-funded loans is to be regarded as “predatory” per se, which the courts have refused to enforce or even recognize, I have a larger target — all the participants in the securitization chain, each of whom actually claims to have been some sort of escrow agent giving rise to a fiduciary relationship per se — meaning that the cause of action is simple and cannot be barred by the economic loss rule because they had no contract with the homeowners and probably had no contracts with the investors.

Again, I warn about the magic bullet. there isn’t one. But this one comes close because by including these fiduciaries by name from your combo title and securitization report and by description where the fake securitization was dubbed “private label” they are all brought into the courtroom and they are all subject to a simple action for accounting which can be amended later to allege damages, or if you think you have enough information already, state your damages.

Based upon my research of the fiduciary relationship there are no limits anywhere if the action is not based upon a direct contract, and some states and culled that down to a “no limit’ doctrine (see Florida cases) except in product liability or similar cases.

The allegation is simply that the homeowner bought a loan product that was known to be defective, poorly documented, if at all, and subject to a shell game (MERS) in which the homeowner would never know the identity of the chosen creditor until the homeowner was maneuvered into foreclosure. There are several potential channels of damages that can be alleged.

Lawyers are encouraged to do about 30 minutes of research into fiduciary liability in your state and match up the elements of the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty with the securitization documents that either has already been admitted or that has been discovered.

Go through the PSA and look at it from the point of view of assumed agency and escrowing or holding documents, receivables, notes, money and mortgages. Each one of those is low hanging fruit for a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit.

And of course any party specifically named as a “trustee” whether a trust exists or not raises the issue of trust duties which are fiduciary as well, whether it is the trustee of a “pool” or the trustee on the deed of trust (or more likely the alleged substitution trustee on the DOT).

85 Responses

  1. Honest courts???

  2. Joann Here is the post by Neil to email this email to join his national firm attack against the foreclosure attacks on us. Please forward to everyone. Thanks Shelley!

  3. Joann, Yes, and this is one of the reasons I do repeats. There are a lot of newbees out there. I will get the email to him to join and come back after I eat. I am starving. Probably get in to trouble for expressing I am hungry.

  4. zurenarrh, I have seen the Appeals courts make decissions without remanding back to the lower court,and remand it back to the lower court, so I did not ask for remand, and I specifically asked not to remand it and added multiple statutes against the judge and opposing lawyer, asked for sanctions and so forth. I will email you. Need to eat first.

  5. Shelley,
    Please tell me more about your case. My email address is I did not know that you could ask that a case not be remanded after appeal. I will have to look into Neil’s national law firm deal. I did not read the post announcing it very closely.

  6. Jeff Barnes on “The Entire Non-Judicial Foreclsure System is Un-Constitutional and Needs to be Scrapped

  7. @Shelly

    “Joining Neils national firm national law suit would be a great way to go for you.”

    Does Neil have a national law suit a person can join?

  8. zurenarrh, Yes due to Fraud upon the Court your statutes of limitiations are timeless statutes due to the bad of it being deemed a bad crime. This has to be your call. Perhaps joining Neils national firm attack back would be best for you. Fraud upon the court allows you to file over and over until justice is done. Joining Neils national firm national law suit would be a great way to go for you. Take pressure and cost off your back. The stress is hard on you and your whole family. I have already started my Appeal and am in the last stages of it. I trully believe the appeal is easier than that the first half. My SMJ was done without the discovery process which is against the U.S. Constitution. Always use Objection to every claim they make due to fraud upon the court due to lack of standing. I have not asked for remand back to the lower court. I have specifcally asked the court not to rmand my case back to the wolves. Part of my appeal is the partial judges in the federal court adjudicating unconstitutional law and the judge warring against the U.S. Constitution, by not recusing herself after my request of four times for the judge to recuse herself, and having violated the mandated 18USC statutes. I am waiting for the results, so I can not tell you the results or how long it takes. Been over a year since I filed it. More reports to support the case, more newly discovered case law, to support our cases. Everyday the chances of winning are getting better. We are way ahead of two years ago, when I first got started. The judges that were asleep are waking up, and the judges that are corrupt have to be thinking twice with all the evidence of the corruption to be adjudicating against the homeowners.

  9. @z

    What you just wrote is exactly why I chose not to go to court—I saw the writing on the wall…and it’s a total disgrace.

  10. @Shelley,
    I appreciate your encouragement. I swore that I would appeal when the judge ruled against me. I knew that summary judgment would be granted to the Defendants, but never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that it would be granted without taking into account a single piece of evidence that I had presented and also completely ignoring the summary judgment standard I was entitled to as the non-movant.

    However, I now have the order of the judge. And now that I realize that the past 2.5 + years of my life were spent being humored by the court with the Defendants being coddled at every turn while the judge kept saying that nothing they did prejudiced me. Basically, I now realize that my entire case was a choreographed charade to make me feel like I was getting my arguments heard but what I didn’t know was that everyone in the system was laughing at me behind my back because they all knew that I would lose no matter what I did or what I said.

    So over 2.5 years of late nights, lost sleep, more cigarettes than I care to think about, strain on my life, my marriage, foregoing other pursuits (some for financial gain, others merely for pleasure) to focus on the damn lawsuit–and I was doomed to lose from the start (but I didn’t know–REALLY know–that). How long will the appeal take, I wonder? 6 months? A year? Two years? And even if I win the appeal, then what happens? Oh right, I have to go right back to same judge that ignored me before and somehow believe that he won’t do it again. Then when he does, I have to appeal again. Or answer the bank’s appeal if by some miracle the judge rules in my favor. So what’s that–2 or 3 more years down the road? And that would be before any other appeal that might come out of the appeal that I’m contemplating now. And I have to hope the whole time that the judge(s) will do the right thing and follow the law? Ha! I already know from personal experience that they don’t! They don’t! Ask Matt Weidner. Ask any lawyer–and I have asked them. And they’ve told me, to a man (and woman), the same thing: the judges can do what they want. Meaning that if they want to rule against you, they can and will, the law and evidence be damned.

    So that’s how I’m looking at this–do I want to spend another $1,000 that I don’t have on an appeal filing fee and hearing transcript and then spend–waste is more like it–the next 2-4 (5?) years of my life hoping for an outcome that I not only have no control over no matter how solid my evidence and argument but also that I now know from personal experience will almost certainly not be in my favor just because the judge can do whatever he wants? And if he or they violate conduct standards, then what? File judicial misconduct complaint in my spare time from writing appeals briefs and trying to live a semblance of a normal life? No thanks.

    I am not trying to be bitter, just realistic. And I certainly don’t want Shelley or anyone else–except the judicial system–to feel that my vitriol is directed at them. I just have to do a cost/benefit analysis, and an appeal will cost me way more than it will benefit me. I MAY still do it anyway, though. I still have some time to decide. But I’d have to be just about crazy to do it.

  11. Shelley A. Erickson- re: short sale video- I didn’t like the guy’s tie, it looked sort of suspicious. He had a condescending, know-it-all attitude as well. And his body language was a dead giveaway.
    In summation, I don’t think that he is overly concerned with clouded titles, forged and perjured AOM, bogus satisfactions of mortgage on the homes he is shortselling, or nonexistent trusts. He also doesn’t care about IRS fraud due to breached PSAs, void REMIC status, or credit bids from noncreditors, and the subsequent loss of transfer taxes to all 3600 county courthouses in the US.
    He is angry that deadbeat borrowers sank the US economy, but feels that homeless families are a problem, I noticed that he tithes $10.00 per month to the Salvation Army to assist foreclosed homeowners.
    Thanks for posting that video.


    Then there are firms like this attempting to get the houses sold nomatter what it takes to steel by negotiations? This was sent to real estate agent friends of mine. Whom refuse to list foreclosed houses stolen with clouded titles.

  13. JD told his employees they are doing homeowners a favor when they foreclose. He has also said – no recovery until foreclosures get speeded up. This point of view permeates decision makers, educators, talking heads and people paying on time who all think JD is sliced bread and that his word is gold and silver.

    Then there is the ongoing discussion about what to do about underwater homeowners. Resistance because it’s unfair to those paying on time. How long until they are underwater too? More every day. One day when they go to sell they will have to pay the IRS for their “gain” too.

    Paid on time mortgages have all the exact same issues as those not paid on time. Time to run the numbers on the trusts and dole out justice for all wherever that leads us. Who has the power to order this up? Investors and homeowners will be better off. Heck even the banksters might be better off.

  14. zurenarrh, Look at all the cases that did go on to the Appeals court and have be reversed and won and a lot by Pro se’s. More on the way everyday. Still waiting for mine. You are giving up before the ship sinks. Well worth your effort to go onto the Appeals court. U.S. Appeals court not the state Appeals court. That is exactly what I am saying. Fraud Upon the Court has not statutes of limitations. Keep going dont give up now. This is where you want to be ready to go on to the Appeals court where justice has hope.

  15. I totally agree, Shelley. If I had spent the $30K to prosecute my case that my lawyer I had at the beginning told me I’d have to spend to see the case through, I’d be beside myself at the final judgment and order I got in which the judge completely IGNORED my evidence and the case law.

    I saved the$30K and did it myself. The only reason I’m considering not appealing is because I know now from personal experience that the system is broken. Why spend the time, energy, and money to appeal an obviously farcical ruling of the lower court judge when the appeals court will, in all probability, do exactly what the lower court judge did, i.e., just ignore the evidence and the law and rule how they want to?

  16. I said the judges are not helping…I should correct that. They ARE helping the banks. They are harming the homeowners.

  17. I resent the misinterpetation being presented here, that I have been displaying hopelessness. I have been trying my best to get people to [SEE] to [NOT] giving up hope at the lower level of the courts, to encourage them their is hope in the higher courts, to go onto the higher levels of the judicial system and [NOT] to give up! To not walk away from their houses. Show the proof the lower courts have done their job! How many cases in the U.S. or even in a few states have been won by the homeowners? How many have been reversed and won by the homeoweners in the Appeals courts. Why would Neil decide it will take a national firm headed by him to attack this crime, it the ammount of cases that should be won were being won, and the ammount of attorneys protecting the people were available? It is going to take the guts of Neil Garfield and his national firm to run this crime around. And the guts and knowledge of a few good attorneys not in Neils firm to turn this around. Most homeowners can not afford a good attorney. A lot that could ran out of money paying attorneys in the lower courts that lost. The people are not getting the help they need. The government is not protecting us. There would not be so many families in the streets and so many lost cases if the rule of law was being followed. Nor a back log of cases on the judges agenda. The system is completely broken and the help is not out there. I speak the truth, and if the truth is deafening then it is deafening. People need to be aware of the crime and their options and to look for good honest help from good attorneys and not to trust every one but to investigate whom to trust. The vulnerable are being screwed everyday by trusting the wrong people. If you take that on the defense, I am sorry. Not meant to offend good attorneys and judges. Meant to make people aware to protect themselves against being harmed again. Meant to encourgage them to go onto and fight in higher courts. You have to start in the lower courts to get to the higher courts.

  18. @joann,
    I agree–Weidner is on fire with the truth. He calls a spade a spade and doesn’t pussyfoot around anymore.

  19. I think Matt Weidner should run for president. Seriously. Let him come up with a good vice president that can handle all the other issues and let Matt use the bully pulpit for what he knows is at the root of all the other issues. Time for the “jack booted thugs” (did he coin that phrase?) to be put out of their dirty business to the benefit of all.

  20. The judges are NOT helping. To give them a pass on this stuff is naive, unnecessary, and unhelpful. Mortgage law is not rocket science. There is no reason that anyone who has attained the office of judge should be incapable of understanding that the mortgage follows the note and that negotiation requires BOTH transfer AND endorsement. To suggest that such basic concepts require judges to deliberate and cogitate endlessly to try to do the right thing by both the banks and the homeowners is unnecessarily charitable to our esteemed judges, who way more often than not come down on the side of the banks even when there is a raft of evidence and case law against the banks’ position(s).

    ATTORNEY Matt Weidner describes it this way:

    Now over the last several months, I’ve been obsessing over the fact that the general public is losing respect not just for our entire system of government, but for our nation’s court and justice system in particular. And why should they not? It is beyond dispute and frankly not subject to any debate anymore, that our nation and our government at all levels exist primarily to serve the interests of the corporate masters that control each and every component of our government, from the President of the United States of America, right down to the city council member and every vote whore in between. Those corporate “people” write the checks that keep the suits in office and it’s those “people” they serve, not you and me. “Our” courts likewise have been co-opted by the same insidious forces that have corrupted the rest of our nation, although I don’t think the turn is quite so direct or the corruption quite so dramatic. Most judges aren’t necessarily “bought” (although every student of American decline must watch “Hot Coffee”) and while most are not directly corrupted, there is an insidious incursion into our legal system caused by the overpowering, never ending appearance of the corporate cast of characters that form a line outside every single courtroom in this country every single day. I should think such familiarity would build contempt, but in my experience in foreclosure courtrooms, the familiarity has bred consent, not contempt. Consent to a new and dangerous theory of jurisprudence that laws and rules should not, indeed cannot, be applied against the corporate interests that keep the courthouse lights on.

  21. @enraged

    “say it’s hopeless”

    Not my thing – looking for understanding of codes and statutes and rulings and strategies – case discussions but that point of view has its place in the broader discussion of society right now as does yours with news of the engine breaking down.

    Most homeowners probably 99% especially in non judicial passively go out without a whimper. They haven’t a clue there is a whimper to make. Most of those who fight never had a chance and most attorneys will not fight for them either. Frankly they should not have to go to court at all or have to understand the injustice.

    Homeowners get the short end of the stick and end up helpless and hopeless against a machine. The judge in that recent Wells case pretty much articulated it for homeowners – pretty much said hopeless against the banker attorney court machine and fraudulently gouged going undetected. This will come to light more and more. There is massive inequality and injustice going on with no intervention. At least a few judges are starting to get it. Mainstream needs to get it.

    Pesonally I may be going down and it could happen soon but I will not lay down. I will go down fighting to the best of my ability which may be next to nothing but I will use whatever I have even if it is to stay until they break down the doors an throw me out with my lifelong possessions in an eviction. If the true creditor shows his face and shows what I owe him it would be much more graceful for all concerned. I might even be able to pay him what he is legitimately owed today but this is undisclosed. I will willingly hand over the keys if he is legitmately owed. Homeowners do not owe theives. We deserve better than that. We fueled the engine with our payments some for years and some for decades.

  22. and the phrase is COULDN’T care less…not “could” care less.

  23. Whatever, tn. Have a good day.

  24. @ Joane
    I have no bone to pick with any individual going online and stating whatever they want–they should–you are right–no one person should judge what is or is not relevant. But having said their piece–ok its said–once mabe more as the issue justifies–but 10 times per hour every day simply fills up the system—flogging a dead horse–or day after day week after week—we get it—-after so much it makes it difficult to find the pieces that are gems in the rough–even for the abusibe [by volume ] poster——its a matter of respecting shared access–freedom of speech is lost if one speaker stands atop the speaking stand shouting the same thing non-stop –its called filibuster in the Seanate–that is what i decry—and ill say no more–ill just have to disconnect if it it is not subject to some self-restraint—and my rights will have been trampled. I tend to post things that im working on—with the hopes that it will encourage discussion–or that maybe somebody will gain by it–i benefit by what others post—-even on ocasion sae—but i simply cannot pore through 50 missives each day–mostly reciting the same thing–its not fair to anyone

  25. @Joann,

    “We also have the right to say it’s hopeless and write the posts and letters that say so hoping some higher power will come to the rescue.”

    True. You have the right to say and write anything. The question is: does that help people gather the courage to get into action (i.e., engage in the fight, file suit, really, really fight by the rules) or does it dissuade them from even trying by overwhelming them with bad news and “what’s the use” reasoning?

    In America, we cheer people who try and we ignore people who display their fear. Know why? Fear is contagious. Re-read your Bible: God doesn’t help people who lament that it is too damn hard from morning to night. God helps those who go on the attack. And if they fail, those are the ones God picks up and restores.

    I understand venting and complaining but it can’t be a lifestyle. It rots everything. And nothing is hopeless anyway. What’s hopeless is sitting behind this screen and writing it day in, day out.

  26. @carie – it’s not an issue of being “sore” with you for not taking advice. that i could care less about. it’s more an issue with not having “been there and done it” yet still constantly expressing opinions on it, making suggestions to others, and generally giving advice.

  27. Agreed, Shelley. One of the most disgusting things is that the original perpetrators of this massive fraud already made their money and ran—and they KNEW they would be long gone and “unpunishable” by the time everyone woke up to the crimes…and they KNEW we would all be pitted against each other.

  28. Yes Well said Joann! AMEN!

  29. Well said, Joann.

  30. Carie, I see to many people quiting the fight for their homes at the lower court levels when I believe they would have won at the Appeals court, and to many attorneys in many states that take their money and fight at the lower level and give up either as soon as the motion for dismissal from the opposition comes or at the end of the lower court level decission. I dont believe one house would be foreclosed on if the rule of law was followed. Discovery was allowed and SMJ without discovering were not allowed, and as far as I view it this is absolutely unconstitutional law. I believe the unpresidented thousands of homeowners being tossed into the street is confirmation, my view of this atrocity in the courts by judges weither they are to trusting of the banks and did not know and have a big plate on their hands, is not justification for breaching their oath of office to our substantive due process 42USC1983. There is no excuse for it. Their plates would not be so full if they followed the rule of law and stopped this dead in its tracks with the first few cases. The injustice and lack of rule of law is what has their agenda so full up. This is a poor and I mean poor excues for the judges to rule bank law and choose to trust the good ol banks to be tellling the truth, and not choose to go by due process. I believe it is beyond this and there are a lot of paid off judges, or judges choosing unconstitutional law due to their retirement funds and the funds to keep their job coming directly from foreclosure funds. Direct conflict of interest. The homeowners need to plan to go on to the U.S. Appeals courts outside their state Appeals courts. The numbers of homeless support my beliefs.

  31. Someone posted and it might have been Tresspass or E. Tolle that when you are fighting to prevent a fraud foreclosure you are fighting to prevent a crime. Once the fraud foreclosure has happened a crime has occurred and you are even in a better position to make a claim.

    Just thinking there will be more and more ammunition coming down the pike to show a wrongful foreclosure occurred and it will come from the state Supreme court level as in MA already on the table and more to come as well as other states. Too late for so many homeowners however….

    The party isn’t over until the fat bankster sings.

    When it comes to judges I guess they are people like everyone else and by far most people just don’t get it that delinquency does not mean it is open season for just “anyone” to grab a house or be paid.

    The financial engineering slave engine has permeated every day to day activity of every human being from little mindless enabling daily actions to big fraudulent actions. We are all participating in it and dependant on it including the judges. Brokers of all sorts don’t get it yet that if you kill the slaves the bread making stops.

    The challenge is to keep putting the rule of law in front of the judge understanding where they are coming from (even if you think they are bought and sold by wallstreet trading their retirement funds) and hope for the best. It’s all we can do and we have the right to do it too.

    We also have the right to say it’s hopeless and write the posts and letters that say so hoping some higher power will come to the rescue. We have the right to shout about it. It may take another decade but those at the top of the pyramid will fail too and someone will have to deal with reality instead of perpetuating the ponzi. Just hope it is sooner rather than later.

    There was just a little case in Oregon which is a non- judicial state awhile ago. A lower court judge used common sense. Wells Fargo, et al v. Michelotti, Hood River County Circuit Court Case No. 11-0015FD, a circuit court judge considered the title issues in a post foreclosure eviction and said :

    “Those issues give credence to Defendant’s argument that this case is better brought as one to quiet title then for ejectment. Plaintiff’s counter argument to the effect that ‘if Defendant had paid the mortgage we wouldn’t be here’ does not prevail at this junction because the question remains: are the right we here?”

  32. P.S. I am not the one that checked your notify me of follow-up comments via email. You made that choice not me. Blame yourself for your emails. NOT ME! YOUR CHOICE! I NEVER STEPPED ON YOUR RIGHTS! YOU HAVE THIS BACKWARDS!.

  33. Thanks again Carie and all of you that stood up for freedom of speech and our right to share our ideas. Group ideas and a lot of heads in the thought and learning process can develope great things, I am here to learn as well as to share. Thought that is what this post is all about. I am a very possitive person and strong willed and beleive we all need to share to defend ourselves from the injustice and evil happening. I care about all Americans suffering from the injustice of this government and the big banks, and insurance compainies and the corrupt judicial system. I know there are a lot of good judges and attorneys on this planet, and have always given Kudos to the honest lawyers and judges. I dont believe in keeping or putting our heads in the sand. A poor judicial system is worse than the corruption of the banks we are fighting. without justice and the rule of law we have nothing but our stones and rocks to throw. I dont want a blood bath, which is what this injustice could lead to, if we dont seek to stop it in the courts.

  34. Yikes … Someone forgot to put her Big Girl Panties on this morning. Coffee? Did Someone Say Coffee? I Love Coffee!

  35. Sorry – just figured out “sae”. Thought maybe it meant securitization audit expert or something. If sae is what I think it is we need an army of sae’s. Just when I was about to thank DCB profusely for an excellent explanation of “trusts”…..Geez can’t we all get along….no one person can say what is relevant or not relevant for someone else. There is no need to trash posters. Big injustice to trash pro se. What is someone who cannot afford audits and attoneys supposed to do. Lay down and die? Many points of view will pan out to be correct over time. Personally I don’t mind scanning quickly what goes over my head or seems not relevant to my personal situation. I don’t care who posts what. Understanding grows over time. I miss some who haven’t posted in awhile – where is johngault – he is good at group think trying to understand stuff without judgement or making you feel stupid. Where is Kathryn – awsome pro se with success on the table. Best of luck to all and to every homeowner or previous homeowner. We need it.

  36. Also, tn—I thanked you profusely for your advice—but, you are so typical (of lawyers)—if someone doesn’t take your advice (for some reason), you condemn them. I think YOUR “sour grapes” are showing…

  37. tnharry—you are too much. back off…please.

  38. What is an “sae”?

  39. @carie – i couldn’t let the statement “Since you love judges so much—why don’t you tell us why they won’t deal fairly with the homeowners?” slide by. How would you know? You solicited advice from everyone here and didn’t go to court. Now you’re throwing your sour grapes around the site all day everyday. It’s consuming you at this point.

  40. Good article Neil, contract law is a huge basis here

  41. @Shelly

    You said this in a different thread:

    “In the state of Washington it is a non judicial state. One of my customers at my day spa had an attorney write a letter to the fraudcloser and sent a letter afforded by the FDCPA. Claiming unlawful foreclosure and unlawful sale at auction and loss of equity. He should have and may have added unlawful siezer of property and embezzelment. However he has never brought a copy of the papers to me so I could read them to see just what the attorney did claim all together, He said it is as simple as I have claimed. Not to much to the letter. His house is worth over three million, and had a $22,000.00 monthly mortgage on it. In six weeks he had a recinded foreclosure and recinded sale at auction. He had been walked off the property by the sheriff. He has been back in his house for almost two years now. The debt collector eventually put the house back in my customers name and the property tax bill. He sit there wondering what to do next. Afraid to open a can of worms by motioning for quiet title or clear title. However back in his house without going to court so far. No ones been harrassing him. No other assignments on the county records. ”

    This is very interesting. Can you email me—I would like to ask you about this: thanks.

  42. Rock on, Shelley.


    …Schneiderman says that the investigation will be successful if it accomplishes three objectives. “We have to get accountability,” he says. “We have to get substantial relief for homeowners and investors, in the form of principal write-downs and reductions. And we have to get the story told clearly so the right doesn’t rewrite history. If we don’t lay out what actually happened, it will all happen again.”

    In the weeks since the State of the Union, Schneiderman has been busy assembling the working group and recruiting its leaders. By late March, 11 state attorneys general and 8 U.S. attorneys’ offices had joined the group. The Justice Department has put 55 attorneys on the case, and its new budget creates positions for several hundred more.

    Schneiderman assumes that the pressure from the banks to limit the size and scope of the investigation will increase as it begins to turn up evidence of possible misconduct. He believes that the only way the investigations will succeed will be because liberals insist on it. Charles Hamilton Houston, his beau ideal of a social-change attorney, understood that politics depends on movements. “This is something that progressives have lost their sense of,” Schneiderman says. “I need everyone out there to help us make this investigation as strong and thorough as it needs to be.”

  44. ps she is impinging my 1st amendment right——–right to hear–right to put a question up w/o being deluged with dozens of 2 line emails–this is a design to impair free flow of info

  45. Because judges R bought:

  46. all it takes is one or two sae’s and it burns the bridge for everybody—iv seen a couple in action—the courts the lawyers–the sheriffs all think pro se’s are nuts because of the larger than life attention seeking of a few sae’s –theres one in every jurisdiction it seems -they poison the well—this is one of them—shes expressed fights that go on for years over god knows what—using this for her personalanti-judiciary sounding bd—well wake up and face it you gotta play by the rules–hard but its not the entire us judiciary system lined up to commit treason against one sae

  47. @Carie,

    In the FireDogLake page, I posted the summary of an appeals hearing showing exactly what judges go through to even understand the ramifications of what has been committed by deregulations and banks having taken advantage of them without any oversight whatsoever.

    It’s a step by step of the many questions judges asked just to get a handle on what the issues were. Please read it and you’ll get the full picture of what goes on during appeals.

    I understand what DCB is saying: reading day in and day out that judges are all corrupt, sold out and incompetent doesn’t constitute help we all can use. It’s merely venting. Venting once or twice is ok. Venting day in, day out and in every post can depress everyone. We’re all looking for answers. Or questions that make us think. We don’t want to read over and over the same negative litanies with no redeeming qualities of their own.

    Remember that we all suffer from one syndrome or another. We don’t all express it the same way. This manmade crisis has destabilized us on every level: financial, economic, phychological, emotional, etc. Many people on this site turn into lose cannons for a while and regroup. If the tendency for bipolarism was there, it can develop into a full blown episode where people turn on each other. The last thing you want is to give it any power to destabilize you as well. Likewise, constant and endless venting can destabilizing some readers and bloggers.

  48. Don’t read it then. Since you love judges so much—why don’t you tell us why they won’t deal fairly with the homeowners? What have they been told? Why do they ignore evidence and not allow discovery? WHY?

  49. i do not drink–im sick of wading thru that crap about criminal judges–every day–every hour

  50. We at this site know we were screwed and they never lent us any money. The real problem is those millions of Americans who are still living lies. They don’t realize a coup de tat of their country has occurred right under their noses and it was an inside job. The traitors are banking on the sheep not waking up so they can carry out this robbery to its end game. Which will be the loss of our National Sovrreigny. Hope they all wake up and stop participating in the fraud before we are all broke and homeless.


  52. @dcb

    Please don’t drink and post. You are extremely rude.

  53. Geithner blew some whistles:

  54. The closest I can get to this is when I was a kid and we had a party line and the old lady up the road was on our line—so every time we picked up the phone to make a call for a real purpose the old lady was on there chatting about everything from the temperature to the size of her girdle to who visted whom——monopolzing the line—she sure liked to hear herself talk——–but she wore everybody else out—-

    there are 6-12 people who post useful material–citing cases—-stuff thats relevant—–

    if there are about three moles that want to bring down a site by overloading it such that people like NPV–etc will not wade through the shere number of entries —then you would get the award SAE–i dont know whether you are intentionally trying to crater the site by putting about 20 notes up per hour or whether you are just a dense selfish old lady like my neighbor but the effect is the same

    if i could put a block on your entries i would in a heartbeat–i do not buy your stories for a second—–there is nothing that you can write that is worth the time to open your line—-you are either a nut or a mole–doesnt matter much –all i can do is screen you out—-

    if carie loves this so much why dont the two of you go offlineand chat it up —you are like the old lady in the fast lane that will not get over–you enjoying it–is that what it is you are some sort of sociopath that seeks attention–get it here or in the ct—-i dont think you have the guts to do this stuff–you are just craving artention–sad–i feel sorry for the judges that have to put up with you–if there are any –frankly i think you are just a pathetic attn seeking liar

    can i make it clearer

  55. start with Geithner

  56. blind men–sorry–yes old old story

  57. Thanks Ian & Carie. I was feeling a little oppressed.The greatest power that the Oppressor has is the mind of the oppressed. Steven Biko

    In a corrupt society, the truth can be found in what is forbidden to say.

    “This crisis of confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is real and growing.” “Left unaddressed, the perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that courts are supposed to uphold.”

    Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor – 2010

  58. I have been trying to pull this article up and the site says it is not available. An emailer wants to know about being able to claim TILA and I thought she would like this article.
    Livinglies’s Weblog
    Feb 02, 2012 · Forensic TILA Loan Analysis – Recommended companion service to Title … — Neil F Garfield, It isn’t just hype. Law firms like the one …

    Ninth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of TILA Claim Despite Timely Rescission … via Now let’s talk about the ***PENALTY*** for NOT ……and…nail-livingliess-weblog.html

  59. dcbreidenbach- you said ” there was a story about three blond men touching an elephant…”. Did you mean three BLIND men? Is this the story where one puzzles over the fact that blind men wear dark glasses, but deaf people don’t wear ear muffs? Or are they blind blond men? Say, this isn’t another dumb blonde joke, is it? We really shouldn’t be making disparaging comments about any group or subset of our readers here at LL. For pete’s sake, we can’t have LL become a platform for aspiring comedians to lambast fellow readers.
    Let’s knock it off here. But, what did they do to that elephant, I’m curious.

  60. I have seen one outfit that actually got a bad audit report for having doubled up the use of a group of loans–purporting they were “sold”–using the term loosely–to a [purported] trust while simultaneously putting them up as collateral for what appeared to be a warehouse crdit line——-per their own auditor–described as inadequate interbnal controls–requiring restatement—my pet theory–no more–is that the failure to file loan schedules was to facilitate duplicatted sales of loan files——-so long as the entit was servicer and there were two different trustees–there would be nothing to prevent this–that i can see—and then it all gets wiped out by a bankruptcy filing of the group–i cannot say to anyone anything but id=f there was no loan schedule for the trust that claims to own the note/loan–then as you say –its probable that there is in fact a 2nd or third holder claimant out there–beware the servicers

  61. Ian, this is certainly the exact picture I have been seeing. Total con game by sophisticated cons. Appauling to see this distressing millions of innocent famlies.

  62. I cannot speak to the intricaies of the intermediary cash flows–or credits—-but i do know from the CUSIP #s reported on various charitable invetment organizations’ tax return filings poste online that and investor lawsuits that there are in fact “investors” that hold MBS —I cannot say that was able to follow the description of events well enough to either agree or disagree with the thrust of t–there is often a lot of insider terminolgy etc that the only way for me a non-industry investigator would be to engage in some basic Q& A with whomever starting with –when you refere to this term –what do you mean—–

    im not sure what the takaway was from the description you gave frankly—it may be good s gold–it may be one perspective–it may be wrong–i cant say

    there is a story about three blond men describing an elephant—each was correct in his statement from what he touched —but the descriptions sure did not match up from their limited perspectives

    i suspect there is a lot of this going on here–as i read your essay –i was thinking–it sure would nice if this were charted

  63. dcbreidenbach- thanks for posting such an easy to understand explanation of the static (nonchanging) requirements of trusts. And, I agree, if there is no mortgage loan schedule, how can anyone prove that the loan was ever in the purported trust? They can’t, it is that simple. The party foreclosing is not the alleged injured party, your honor, and the injured party doesn’t exist anyway.
    Apart from the nonexistent mortgage loan schedules which belong in the illegal, tax-evading trusts, another sure way to underscore the nonexistence of the “notes are bundled into the pool” theory, there is no A>B>C>D>E sales (not transfers, or assignments) of the Note to establish a bankruptcy remote entity.
    What a hilarious crock. There isn’t a shred of anything by any stretch of the imagination to tie these notes into a trust. If the note is collateral for the debentures sold to the pension funds, it cannot also be collateral for a warehouse line of credit. ANONYMOUS is right- the mortgage brokers sold them all to the the GSEs, defaulted them, bought them back, sold the collection rights, and started dunning people for “interest and principal” payments, when there was NO principal, just pennies on the dollar, and the interest was just a ruse to keep the balls in the air. Disgusting.

  64. @dcb

    This TRUTH from ANONYMOUS answers your questions:

    “…Certificate purchasers” are the banks themselves (security underwriters), and they only purchase a “pro-rata” share to a “pool” of cash flows —- that is all — they are NOT the mortgagee/creditor—the trust is assigned the loans from which the pass-through cash flows are derived—it is the DEPOSITOR (subsidiary), that owns the collections rights (they are not mortgage loans), and the Trust itself. The “certificate purchasers” (the bank security underwriters (another subsidiary) themselves) then repackage the certificates to “pro-rata” cash flows into CDOs that are marketed to security investors — who are also never the mortgagee/creditor. According to all PSAs — there must be a documented valid sale of the “loans”, with supporting Mortgage Schedule to the Depositor in order for any Trust to be valid. There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.
    …Since the “loan” refinances (subprime/alt-a), and jumbo new purchases were non-compliant and non-performing manufactured defaults, no funding at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the “loans”). The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferred any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor” would provide to their correspondent lenders. Once the “loan” refinance origination was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspondent (originator). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-line transaction.
    …It is not productive to state that since someone else was actually making payments on the “loan”, “albeit” not the borrower, that the loan is not in default. Courts do not care about this — they only care if the borrower is in default. However, if the actual party does not come forward claiming that the debt is owed to them, and the actual party cannot prove how they came to own the collection rights — borrower does not owe the debt to anyone. That party is never going to able to demonstrate that collection rights belong to them because they would have to divulge the above fraudulent process and that the “mortgage loan” from onset was not a mortgage but, instead, collection rights. This admission would also mean that the “debt” is unsecured and can be discharged in BK.”

  65. what is the so-called 100 mile rule please?

  66. You can preserve testimony of an expert by a video deposition attended by both parties—in fact the opposing party may attend by phone if they want—i have had expert testimony put in a can for evidentiary hearing that was taken months and thousands of miles from the witness chair—you can have simple telephonic depositions—if no docs involved or stipulated—–i had one guy testify by phone from his hospital bed while recovering from a heart attack—a real trooper—and damn if the opposing counsel didnt badger hm to the point i had to step in and overrule my left chair outhouse counsel and ask the court to intervene—and the court did—no need for physical presence

  67. The basic question is whether the entities that assert the claims as named plaintiff are “trusts”? Is there a conveyance of secified assets to a bank as trustee? in order to do this conveyance of a loan schedule must be provable. If there is no specific conveyance to the bank–then the “depositor” may never have done more than held the loans for its own account and issued debt certificates that are non-recourse debt of the depositor. If there was no provable coneyance then the federal definition of a trust fails—-that is the ability of the purported trust to vary the investment in the assets held by the trust. That is why there is a cut off date to deposting loans–and if no loan schedule was ever filed–how can there be poven that the trust was in fact not varying investment to suit the interest of the depositor. So the loan schedule filing goes to two issues–intent to deposit assets with the nominal trustee–the 2nd even if a loan schedule was filed –but the cutoff date was ignored, the trust was not static and was not held at arms length from the depositor–so the assets entrusted to it never really became held exclusively for the benefit of the investors–but was a mere division of the depositor used to borrow money from the investors in a sort of ponzi scheme. Keep selling investor units–keep depositing and replacing loans until the pool is closed to public scrutiny by a SEC 15d filing–but if no loan schedles were ever filed then there was never public scrutiny–there was never a cutoff date–and for all we know the substitutions and sales/borrowings continued indefinitely.

    the result of a failure to convey is that the mortgages remained in the hands of the depositor–no trust formed in legal fact—–if the cutoff was ignored, then the trust was treated as an association defaulting to a corporation—–tax at the trust level on interest income and at the investor level as dividends—not a simple pass thru—-and if loans were modified the association had a taxable loss —-unless the entity was deemed to be an unincorporated association –a partnership

    see definition of a non-taxable trust below— from irs regs 26 CFR 301.7701—these things underly all of the scheming–it is necessary for your so called securitization experts to be able to explain these things or they are no experts—can one get on here and explain how these things operate–am i right or wrong about the effects of trusts without loan schedules? there is more to being an expert than just being able to track through what these people said happenened–what was the legal effect of what they were doing??? if the bank lawyers are not impeaching your experts using this line of questioning its because they do not want people to know the answrs to the questions—its not because the questions are unimportant –or that the bank lawyers dont know the answers thenselves—it goes directly to who is the owner of the notes–a trustee/trust–or a bankrupt depositor –or a bank in its own name today—-i believe it is better for the banks today to hide behing a purported trust because the trustee generally is not liable in its own right for breaches–for negligence—just the purported trust–ie the losses due to bank errors should not be charged to investors—many ramifications but you “experts” should be able to explain this—and for any of you–have you written aricles published in the Journal of accountancy” et subject to peer review–how did you get annointed as experts? When i had experts in other fields testify –i always aske for a list of publications–please lets see some of these lists? please–i need a real honest to god expert thats not on a bank payroll or retainer–please send me your vitae–you will need to appear in a court room in Ohio in late summer —applicants welcome

    ill review your credentials; please contact me at –no secret there
    (c) Certain investment trusts —(1) An “investment” trust will not be classified as a trust if there is a power under the trust agreement to vary the investment of the certificate holders. See Commissioner v. North American Bond Trust, 122 F. 2d 545 (2d Cir. 1941), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 701 (1942). An investment trust with a single class of ownership interests, representing undivided beneficial interests in the assets of the trust, will be classified as a trust if there is no power under the trust agreement to vary the investment of the certificate holders. An investment trust with multiple classes of ownership interests ordinarily will be classified as a business entity under §301.7701–2; however, an investment trust with multiple classes of ownership interests, in which there is no power under the trust agreement to vary the investment of the certificate holders, will be classified as a trust if the trust is formed to facilitate direct investment in the assets of the trust and the existence of multiple classes of ownership interests is incidental to that purpose.

  68. Speaking of bringing anything down…

    People are fed up. Countries are fed up. And Germany has been able to capitalize big time on the crisis but… it doesn’t look very rosy anymore there either. They thought they could manufacture their way out of the crisis. Manufacturing, they did. Nobody’s buying!!! AND they just lost their biggest ally and France is heading back to socialism. No german-dictated auterity for them socialists. So, looks like Greece will completely default. Spain will default. Italy will default. Portugal will default. France won’t give a shit (never does) so long as they have their wine and cheese.

    Maybe it won’t be bloody after all. ‘Cuz once everybody defaults, there is not one thing we can do here but default too and take it in the nose.

    Dutch Cabinet Resigns
    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/23/2012 10:33 -0400

    Budget DeficitEuropean UnionGermanyGross Domestic ProductNetherlands

    As reported first thing this morning when we discussed the perfect storm in Europe, the Dutch government was expected to resign en masse in the aftermath of this weekend’s auterity fiasco. Sure enough, that resignation is now fact.

    From the WSJ:

    Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and his cabinet have resigned after failing to reach agreement on reducing the country’s budget to meet European guidelines, the Dutch government information service said Monday.

    The information service said that Mr. Rutte had met with Queen Beatrix and she had accepted his resignation, asking him to tend to pressing matters of state with a caretaker government for the time being. Mr. Rutte is due to address parliament Tuesday afternoon to discuss interim budget cuts and schedule new elections.

    Talks over measures to slash the government’s budget deficit collapsed over the weekend after seven weeks of negotiations, raising questions about the future commitment of one of the euro zone’s foremost proponents of fiscal stringency to a German-led austerity agenda.

    The Netherlands has been a key ally of Germany and one of the most vociferous supporters of austerity since Greece’s debt problems initiated the euro-zone’s debt crisis more than two years ago. But its economy is performing poorly and is expected to shrink this year, widening its budget deficit and making it one of the worst-performing in the euro zone.

    The talks collapsed after the right-wing Freedom Party pulled out of talks with Mr. Rutte’s center-right liberal party. The negotiations had been aimed at cutting the budget deficit to 3% of gross domestic product next year, in line with European Union rules, from a forecast 4.6%.

    And so the final Catch 22 for Europe unfolds: impair banks and suffer threats of the end of the world, or impair citizens and suffer falling governments. Check to you.

  69. Ian, I have issues with experts also, in most cases it looks to me that an expert is doing Hearsay testimony. Alike a lawyer that signs an affidavit that they have personal knowledge of the facts, when they were not there at the time and are making a partial statemen, based on what they were told by their client, without having personal knowledge as they claim, and doing it for their client. How conflict of interest and partial is that? Unless they are an expert at investigating specific paperwork and the language, and are in the field finance documents, Where the writing is on the wall, which is what we need here.

  70. dcbreidenbach, You are only missing the judges and the bankster lawyers if the case was smj/dismissed already due to the judge not ajudicating by the rule of law. Which happens in the thousands. And the fudiciary duty of the bankster lawyers violationg mandated 18USC 2,3, &4 and on laws. They have a fudiciary duty as well to up hold the US Constitution and the entire rule of law and are a large part of this corruption. The lawyers are to be loyal first to the judicial system and justice and report fraud not enable it and then only second to their clients. That should be a fudiciary duty as an officer of the court as I am understanding it. Besides a Breach of Oath of Office.

  71. embarassed, not embararassed or whatever I said there

  72. tnharry- I was speaking in generalities, as I am not an attorney and have no courtroom experience or knowledge as to what is and what is not admissible. And I never heard of the 100 mile rule. The few public hearings I have attended on various issues have led me to believe that the ‘expert witnesses’ who appear on behalf of some entity’s agenda do so for reasons other than to provide the clearest, most factual, dead honest representation of the facts, issues, or historical accuracy of their actions. These people are from the ‘big leagues’, and we mere commoners should be in awe of their expertise in such matters. We should furthermore not have the temerity to question, let alone criticize what they put forth in furtherance of a project, or budget item, or whatever. Half the time, I know more about what they are talking about than they do, sometimes to the point of my being emabarssed for them. But they are only there to collect an engagement fee and head to their next meeting. And it is hard to get answers. I am just not a fan of experts, in my own realm of work, I have been correcting the work of experts for several decades now.

  73. @ian – if you say so. medical experts are generally local since they’ve seen the party. in fact, I would suspect experts less than 100 miles away are more the norm than the exception. I wonder if you’re inadvertently bringing in discovery/evidence rules into the discussion with regard to the 100 miles issue.

    the evidentiary problem with Neil’s affidavit or his reports is more related to the inability to “cross-examine” the report or affidavit. i think you’d have a hard time getting either admitted as evidence at trial, although the affidavit might be useful at summary judgment stage if it was specific to your facts.

  74. Judges Helping Bank Lawyers at Foreclosure Trials

    Posted on April 21st, 2012 by Mark Stopa

    A prospective client just sent me this transcript from a trial she handled herself. Although she lost, this homeowner did a decent job. She didn’t assert any objections, some of which certainly would have been appropriate, and I think she’d be the first to admit it would have been much better if she had a lawyer. We all know lawyers can do better than pro se homeowners, though, so I don’t want to harp on that.

    Instead, I want to discuss something that really jumped out at me as I read the transcript. Unfortunately, I fear this will be a significant issue in many foreclosure cases as more trials take place, and it’s something about which everyone should be aware.

    Read the transcript.
    Do you notice how the judge was helping the bank’s lawyer?

    You might think it was subtle, but, as I see it, the judge’s “help” absolutely jumped off the page.

    Look at page 8. The bank’s lawyer made it clear he had “no further questions” (for the only witness he brought to trial), and it was clear to me that he was done presenting evidence. However, the bank’s counsel had not asked his (only) witness any questions or introduced any evidence to prove the bank’s claim to re-establish the lost note, as would be required for the bank to prevail and foreclose. Clearly, the judge realized counsel was not introducing evidence of an essential part of his case. But instead of allowing him to screw up (and, potentially, enter judgment for the homeowner), the judge interjected:

    “[Counsel], this is a lost note?”

    If you’re a nonlawyer, this might seem subtle, but as a lawyer, I assure you – this was an obvious reminder by the judge that the bank’s attorney needed to submit additional evidence. Of course, right on cue, the lawyer responded by asking more questions, with an eye towards proving what a bank needs to prove to re-establish a lost note under Florida Statute 673.3091.

    Tellingly, at the bottom of page 8 and continuing at the top of page 9, the bank’s lawyer actually asked the judge if she “required anything else.” This was not innocuous, either; this was the lawyer’s way of asking the judge, on the record, if he was missing any other evidence necessary to prove his case (and for the bank to prevail). In response, the judge told him precisely what to ask:

    “no explanation as to how [the note] got lost?”

    Again, right on cue, the bank’s attorney responded by asking the question the judge told him to ask, i.e. how the note was lost.


  75. tnharry- an expert doesn’t HAVE to live 100 miles away, but whenever ‘expert’ testimony is proffered, if you look at the qualifications of said expert, they will most likely be from out of the area. For instance, you will seldom, if ever, find an ‘expert’ who lives down the street from his client. Perception is everthing.

  76. One would have to be a zillionaire to bring such a suit.

    Agree with Breidenbach that motions would lfly and sanctions would probably accrue to the hapless homeowner didn’t have the money to bring suit in the first place

  77. Jail John Stumpf ! aka Wells Fargo C.E.O.

  78. @ian – why does an expert have to live 100 miles away?

  79. enraged: re ‘experts’. Just remember that an expert is someone who lives at least 100 miles away. And a ‘consultant’ is someone who you bring in at the last minute to share the blame. “Why yes, your Honor, they spoke quite highly of themselves in the advertisements”.

  80. DCB,

    Yesterday, E. Toile mentioned something about Maher Soliman (one of those experts). I did some research and, from what I saw, he does testify in court. Haven’t reviewed any of the cases he’s testified in and don’t know what the outcomes are.

    That would make sense to find one of his trial transcripts to see what h does and what he says. That way, we may be able to have a few more pieces of info on how to introduce such a testimoney from an “expert”..

    No time to dig in today byt I’ll do some research.

  81. Ok –some nuts and bolts would be helpful here but if I follow this explanation—then homeowner in a judicial state is served with a complaint–she has 28 days to answer—to find a lawyer or otherwise obtain an enlargement of time——-then goes out and seeks one of these combo analyses. I make no judgment on that–but I really would like to know if this combo analysis is supposed to be an “expert report”.
    But whether it is or not–lets just say its the lawyer’s tool to identify all these people in the chain that touched the deal–if thats an appropriate way to describe it. Is this correct a lawyers tool? And I guess its the tool to use in setting up countercomplaints against everybody from;
    –realtor unless was a refi
    — origininating broker
    –title company
    –originating named lender
    –the securization entities often but not always affiliated with the originator
    –the investment bankers–that actually blue printed the deal
    –the trustee banks
    –and why not the investors? if the purported trust was no trust–then there is nothing buta joint venture pool –all members of which are potentially liable
    –certainly the servicer/aka collection agency

    Am i missing anybody?

    Just to look at the mechanics of the suit —-all of these must be named defendants in a fiduciary -based countercomplaint –or in a non-judicial state–a complaint?

    So 1st the homeowners atty must determine which are bankrupt?
    then whether and how he can get service?
    —the clerk of courts sends out say a dozen or more summons?
    —how many lawyers will enter appearanances?
    —how many answers?
    — certainly the local realtor and broker and title company [branch of local law-firm] will be represented
    —how many motions to dismiss?
    —and at least some will request sanctions–for frivolous claims-right?–the local guys pretty much have to

    my offhand thought is that this proposal results in a list of names that starts an avalanch of paperwork—-guaranteed to PO a local court–
    –its not surgical for sure–and im hard pressed to see what you have given me other than maybe a reasonable basis to name all those people——–at leat half are gone now in bk ct

    what have you given me that i can use in support of my reply to the flurry of MTDs?

    what have you given me that i can use in my reply to the motions for summary judgment–this last is really where im most interested –because the rest is tactics—-the lawyer may look over the list and decide to narrow it to avoid the local political fallout–etc

    but in the end what does it do or me in rebuttal to motion for summary judgment–is it a valid expert report? does it need to be?
    this is not intended to be an argumentative question–i really want to know–please

  82. Very nice article. Would this lawsuit be separate from the harassment lawsuit, and the punitive damages lawsuit?

  83. In my state, case law states that trustees in a deed of trust have equal fiduciary duty to both the lender and the homeowner. Probably the same for other states, but can’t say this for sure.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: