Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm


LivingLies Membership – If you are not already a member, this is the time to do it, when things are changing.

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Notes:  

When I was on Wall Street, we had an expression “Bears make money, bulls make money but pigs never make money.” It means that people who think the market is going down have a number of ways to bet in that direction and protect their risks. People who think the market is going up have the same options. But those who seek to overreach and get all the money going both ways will lose.

In this case, National Bank is the pig. After invoking the power of sale in a non-judicial foreclosure, they sued for a deficiency they created by submitting a low bid at the “auction.” If the loan was securitized, (which presumably it was not or it was not brought to the attention of the trial court and therefore was not in the record on appeal) there is a good chance that the auction was rigged and faked because the trustee would have been a controlled or owned entity and the credit bid was false because it was not submitted by a party who was “the beneficiary in full or partial satisfaction of the contract secured by the trust deed. A.R.S. § 33-801(5) (2007). Bank asserted $675,000 was the fair market value at the time of the sale.”

In virtually ALL cases, the credit bid accepted by the trustee was from a party that was not, at the time the bid was submitted, a party whose description conformed to the definition of a beneficiary (creditor) in the statute. Thus the bid was an empty bid, void from inception, and should have been disregarded by the trustee (which of course was never done because they were taking their orders from the pretender lender instead of following the state statute. In this case the record on appeal is devoid of any evidence that National Bank was not the originator AND the lender at the time of the foreclosure, so you need to keep that in mind, if you are going to use this case for anything.

The Court appeals was completely perplexed by the action brought by National bank for a deficiency judgment against the “former” homeowners who probably have every right to reverse the foreclosure sale, remove or discredit the deed upon foreclosure and return to having full title and right of possession. The Court just didn’t understand why the deficiency action was ever filed, but was willing to rule on the arbitration clause, on the outside chance that there was something else besides a foreclosure invovled. IF not, the deficiency action should obviously be dismissed:

In the footnotes of the decision the Court makes it clear that the anti deficiency statutes apply, and hints that if the pretender lender sues for the deficiency they might be invalidating the foreclosure by their own actions because the Arizona statute gives a choice between foreclosure or suing on the note. Under no circumstances do the Arizona statutes allow the lender to pursue both remedies for the obvious reason that the so-called deficiency is artificially created by a self-serving “credit bid” and self serving statement as to the value of the property.



A credit bid is a bid made by the beneficiary in full or partial satisfaction of the contract secured by the trust deed. A.R.S. § 33-801(5) (2007). Bank asserted $675,000 was the fair market value at the time of the sale.


The record is devoid of an explanation as to why the anti- deficiency statutes are inapplicable here. We are unable to discern if the property was too large or that the promissory note was not for purchase money or why the anti-deficiency statutes do not apply to homeowners.

We note that Arizona has two anti-deficiency statutes: (1) A.R.S. § 33–729(A), which applies to purchase money mortgages and purchase money deeds of trust that are judicially foreclosed, Baker v. Gardner, 160 Ariz. 98, 770 P.2d 766 (1988); and (2) A.R.S. § 33– 814(G), for deeds of trust foreclosed by trustee’s sale whether or not they secure purchase money obligations. And both anti- deficiency statutes prohibit the entry of a deficiency judgment after the forced sale of a parcel of “property of two and one-half acres or less which is limited to and utilized for either a single one-family or a single two-family dwelling.” A.R.S. §§ 33–729(A) and –814(G).

Arizona also has an election of remedies statute applicable to mortgages. Under A.R.S. § 33–722, a mortgagee can sue to judicially foreclose its mortgage or can sue on the note and waive the mortgage, but it cannot maintain both actions simultaneously. See Tanque Verde Anesthesiologists L.T.D. Profit Sharing Plan v. Proffer Group, Inc., 172 Ariz. 311, 313, 836 P.2d 1021, 1023 (App. 1992).”

The Appellate Court overruled the trial court as to its ruling on the deficiency action being “ancillary” to the foreclosure in order to reach its legal conclusion that if an action can be arbitrated it should be arbitrated:

“The Bank argues, as it has before3, that the deficiency action is “ancillary” to its statutory foreclosure action and therefore excepted from the arbitration agreement. Specifically stating:

‘Consequently, a deficiency action arises out of, relates to, and is dependent upon the non-judicial foreclosure of a deed of trust. The deficiency action is thus an “ancillary remedy” necessarily related to the non- judicial foreclosures.’

The trial court adopted that reasoning, finding:

[t]here would be no deficiency without a foreclosure; deficiency arises from the foreclosure. Therefore, a deficiency action is excluded from arbitration under the terms of the Note.

We disagree.

It is a challenge to interpret this decision. It swings one way and then it swings the other way, bat apparently only to preserve the right to binding arbitration if it has already been agreed between the parties. But it restates those statutes that are clearly intended to make Arizona an anti-deficiency state.

To read the entire opinion click here:  CV100772-opinion






36 Responses

  1. […] Read more… Posted in Banks, MERS, News Around The Country, States « WASHINGTON Foreclosure Help from Mandelman Matters – START HERE CAR- California Assn. of Realtors Tries to Kill Homeowners Bill of Right » You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]

  2. @MARY

    “But can they get away with the fact that you can prove it was not in the Trust”

    How do you prove the negative?
    They shpuld bear the burden of proof if you make a showing that it is not in the trust—say no loan schedule filed.?

  3. PS, what if the warehouse lender, took the loans from the originator, knowing of the defects, “as is” fraud, etc., due to repurchase agreements….

  4. But can they get away with the fact that you can prove it was not in the Trust, the Trustee (Pl) is suing as trustee for. How do they explain the lie.

    Do you think that weighs with the court, Trustee claiming ABC2007he6 and it was not.

    After they caught with that, trustee (Pl) now tries to back down, on the fraud assignment in claiming the note only. But it does not reflect trust requirements. How will they attempt to pull that off…

  5. @Tony

    I think the point is that people tend to overstate the significance of the security [res] side of the deal–some think that termination of a mortgage or DOT ends their trail of tears. Or that obtaining a quiet title will solve their problems. “Res” ——–

    These things are stictly secondary legal issues. As one judge put it the assignments of mortgage are mere “distractions”. The mortgage is only of interest to the lender in establishing the priority of his claim in a que with other creditors —credit card auto loan —medical bills—-what is important is the possession of the ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE—–everything else is smoke and mirrors. The whole robosigning deal as it applied to assignments of mortgage was soley to create documents that intimidated the homeowners–each of these pieces of toilet paper was stamped by a notary—then stamped by a county recorder, then stamped by a clerk of courts—delivered by a deputy or by mail –ie again stamped. The totality of this whole process was to intimidate homeowners into believing that the claimant had a decent claim—–while in fact the entie claim is supported by a mere one liner in the complaint: my client “alleges it is the holder of the note” Iv even seen these claims filed w/o even this minimal assertion—–stuff like my client “alleges that it originated the note”.

    The purpose of these assignment creations was intimidation–holding out toilet paper as a legal document for the purpose of intimidation–squarely within the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibted acts on multiple bases–but nobody even concerns themselves withthat –instead the defenders run around crying about supposed fraud in creating these pieces of toilet paper. But the toilet paper is largely irrelevant under the law in any event–but for those few jurisdictions that suggest the security arrangenent does not by operation of law simply “follow the note”.

    Bottom line is that all eyes need to be on the note—what happened to it –who has PHYSICAL POSSSESSION—all the indorsements etc in the world emblazoned on a nice looking COP of the note are meaningless. Delivery to a homeowner of a copy of the note marked anything is no defense against the holder of the ORIGINAL promissory note. EXAMPLE: suppose you enter into a settlement in state A that results in res being siezed in exchange for your Deed in lieu [of what by the way–damages? ]

    The settlement calls for the servicer to give you the original promissory note–if you are on your toes and demand that it specifically say “original” albeit it should be presumed–but dont bet on it–if there is any way they can substitute a copy for the original they will—why ? because the original is still enforceable in state B —maybe even in State A ? so long as it is produced by an entity other than the ones that sued you in the 1st place–ie res adjudicata only binds the parties named in the case—–or the settlement—if they use the trust the actual trustee in his own right could come after you on the original note—–saying hes not bound by the settlement he signed “as trustee”———-yes its awful but it is true and expect the worst especially when dealing with non-bank servicers—

  6. Your going way off topic now. This conversation was about you saying “you do not have legal title to convey”. This is what my writings are about. Please stay on topic and give case law on this issue and we can discuss that.

  7. @ TONY ETC
    What happens if you think you settled a debt but dont get the original note back—–marked paid in full

    You are still liable on the note no matter what happened to the “res”. If they cannot produce the note because it was indorsed in blank as bearer paper then stolen–and possible put in the hands of a holder in due course years later—-if they create a lost note affidavit–then you very well should get a surety bond in case the holder in due course shows up

    Cause you owe the amount on the note plus accrued interest.

    Supporting Case Law

    Where the complaining party cannot prove the existence of the note, then there is no note.

    See Pacific Concrete F.C.U. V. Kauanoe, 62 Haw. 334, 614 P.2d 936 (1980), GE Capital Hawaii, Inc. v. Yonenaka 25 P.3d 807, 96 Hawaii 32, (Hawaii App 2001).

    Siwooganock Bank in Lancaster NH, in alleged foreclosure suit, failed or refused to produce the actual note which Siwooganock alleges Eva J. Lovejoy owed.

    To recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of the note in question; (2) that the party sued signed the note; (3) that the plaintiff is the owner or holder of the note; and (4) that a certain balance is due and owing on the note. See In Re: SMS Financial LLC. v. Abco Homes, Inc. No.98-50117 February 18, 1999 (5th Circuit Court of Appeals.)

    Volume 29 of the New Jersey Practice Series, Chapter 10 Section 123, page 566, emphatically states, “…; and no part payments should be made on the bond or note unless the person to whom payment is made is able to produce the bond or note and the part payments are endorsed thereon. It would seem that the mortgagor would normally have a Common law right to demand production or surrender of the bond or note and mortgage, as the case may be. See Restatement, Contracts S 170(3), (4) (1932); C.J.S. Mortgages S 469, in Carnegie Bank v, Shalleck 256 N.J. Super 23 (App. Div 1992), the Appellate Division held, “When the underlying mortgage is evidenced by an instrument meeting the criteria for negotiability set forth in N.J.S. 12A:3-104, the holder of the instrument shall be afforded all the rights and protections provided a holder in due course pursuant to N.J.S. 12A:3-302″

    Since no one is able to produce the “instrument” there is no competent evidence before the Court that any party is the holder of the alleged note or the true holder in due course. New Jersey common law dictates that the plaintiff prove the existence of the alleged note in question, prove that the party sued signed the alleged note, prove that the plaintiff is the owner and holder of the alleged note, and prove that certain balance is due and owing on any alleged note. Federal Circuit Courts have ruled that the only way to prove the perfection of any security is by actual possession of the security.

    Supporting Case Law

    Unequivocally the Court’s rule is that in order to prove the “instrument”, possession is mandatory.

    See Matter of Staff Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 550 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir 1977). “Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the only notice sufficient to inform all interested parties that a security interest in instruments has been perfected is actual possession by the secured party, his agent or bailee.” Bankruptcy Courts have followed the Uniform Commercial Code. In Re Investors & Lenders, Ltd. 165 B.R. 389 (Bankruptcy.D.N.J.1994), “Under the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code (NJUCC), promissory note is “instrument,” security interest in which must be perfected by possession.

  8. @Nora C

    Can you provide the law/statutes/code that states this – but how about some case law that interprets this?

  9. Again understand they are trying to make your property guilty of wrong doings. Instead of a person just being guilty. Its like when they say corporations are people, so you can sue them. They are “persons” but not a natural person. Slight of words but 2 different meanings.

    That’s why its called an attachment, they attach anything you have by making it guilty too. When in truth when you by a house all they really have is your word. If you don’t pay all they can do is get at you, but your house is off limits because the house is not guilty.

    A house can not sign a promissory note, only you can. You didn’t put the house up for collateral your word is collateral. Banks are not on any deed. Remember they gave you “purchase money” not “purchase house”. All they have title to is the money, not the house. The note is there “deed”. This is why they bring the note in question as evidence.

    This is why the defense of jurisdiction must be address and why we must stop admitting that we only have an interest in the property. This is why Shay Rebellion happen. Debtors prison. They knew that only you could be guilty and not your property, but if they could lock you up the proceed (sometimes) to put a claim against your property without to able to defend, then it was a default. You not only got jail time, you lost your house too. Shay was like I fought in the war to get away from this kind of rule, seems like government used me for there own claims. Shays proved one big point, they only talk a good game. It backed fired when they had no federal troops to protect them, because of there fake decrees to please the people so that they would go to war.

    Read and study case law about debtors prison and then all your questions will be answered and then some. Justice Story and Marshall break this down very deeply. After you read some case law on it let me know if you have any questions on the cases.

  10. interesting —delivery of an asset to stand as security in possession of some body more or less –right?— Now how does one hypothecate an electronic note? or 17,000 paper ones? Serious question here.

  11. dcbreidenbach,

    Hypothecary action is used all the time. How else would they attach the res. You checked any supreme court case law on this or were you using Google.

    The reason why I state this is because all of your examples are examples of this type of action. If you purchase a note how can you attach to anything without trying to make the res the guilty party too?

    In order to take the house, car, etc you must be able to attach the property to the guilty party. For property alone can not be guilty. This is called a hypothecary action. Without it they wouldn’t tow your car they would just issue you a ticket and sue you. Nor would they be able levy anything.

  12. @NORA C
    “The Note is evidence of a transaction, not the debt itself.”
    My response is that it does take on characteristics of a government “bill”…………doctrine of merger of concepts of holder and possessor. If someone comes after you on a debt and alleges they are holder of your original note—you must defend. The piece of paper unmarked is best evidence of the possession of the note purchased for value. The future holder can reassert liabilty you thought settled–aabsolutely yes.

  13. @dcbreidenbach
    The Note is evidence of a transaction, not the debt itself. The debt arises by operation of law and statutes set out in common law, and is technically a private contract or Promise to Pay under certain terms, a certain amount by a specified date. Read Neil’s good article about private contracts opening the door to self-help. However, once a Note that evidences a “loan” has been converted into stock it’s no longer an enforceable Note or a “loan”, it’s a stock. The promissory Note no longer exists. Once the fetch bank or aggregator receives payment and or a commission, the debt evidenced by the Note is satisfied and the parties named in the Note have finished their business. The banks have just hidden the fact that the Notes have been converted to stocks or equitable shares, and failed to de-recognize these assets or their liabilities on their balance sheets. They introduce copies or even sometimes original Notes in court and demand enforcement of a debt evidenced by the Note that isn’t owed to them. This reattaching of the Note to a security instrument in an attempt to collect the already discharged debt is called Adhesion.

  14. No $$ for US deadbeats when shaky foreign banks want cheap money.

    FHLBs Increased Exposure to Europe as Advances Fell

    WASHINGTON — The Federal Home Loan banks increasingly turned to offering short-term, unsecured credit to financial institutions exposed to the turmoil in Europe as the 12-member cooperative’s own core business dwindled, a government watchdog said Thursday.

    The report by the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Office of the Inspector General depicts a startling picture where the banks, facing sluggish demand for advances, extended unsecured credit to domestic and foreign firms that were at times on the brink of failure.

    “It appears that in the aftermath of the domestic financial crisis some FHLBanks extended unsecured credit to foreign financial institutions in order to offset declining advance demand,” says the report, which was undertaken to evaluate FHFA’s oversight of the Home Loan banks’ risk management practices and how it conducts its oversight.

    The level of Home Loan bank advances has plummeted since its height in 2008, when it reached $930 billion, falling to $418 billion as of yearend 2011.

    While the OIG concluded that several of the FHFA’s initiatives contributed to the Home Loan banks’ decision to reduce their exposure to foreign institutions by the end of last year, it said some Home Loan banks put the system at risk by violating regulations that set limits on the amount of unsecured credit.

  15. It would appear that this is headed toward restrictions on ability to remove your deposited money from a bank. Such a rule was proposed last week by SEC for mutual funds. They want to give the banks and funds a reasonable excuse for explaining why your checks can still be deposited there —but your withdrawals are limited—-prevents run on the banks as has occurred in Greece and Spain [to lesser extent] Good news –you can still use debit cards but only up to certain amounts–eg cant buy a car on a debit card–must finance that even if you have money in the bank. So you deposit your money at say 1% for 3 years and take out a loan at say 8% to buy the car –after borrowing your money back. This is bank-think.

    “Calm Before the Storm in Deposit Flows?
    Print Reprints Email . inShare.0.Euro turmoil has reached its scariest pitch in two years, but deposit levels here in the United States have been relatively stable.

    That’s a sharp contrast with last summer, when strains on the Continent combined with the debt-ceiling standoff to send cash flying into transaction accounts at a faster pace than even after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in late 2008.

    Maybe the most nervous money has already fled to the shelter of the bank safety net, or maybe tensions are only just building.

    Joseph Abate, an analyst at Barclays Capital, sees a case that money markets have been desensitized as fund managers have attempted to wall themselves off from risks posed by European banks. But, he wrote in a report this month, the “binary nature of short-term funding” — its capacity to shut down suddenly and violently — is itself a cause for anxiety.

    Year-over-year growth in checking deposits surged to 33% in August 2011, surpassing the previous post-Lehman peak of 29% in December 2008 (see the top chart), as corporations abandoned money market funds with heavy exposure to European banks.

    Assets in institutional money funds plunged by $121 billion, or 6.5%, to $1.7 trillion in July and August last year (see the bottom chart). This year, outflows from institutional money funds were only $32 billion, or 2%, from April through June 11 (the most recent data available through the Federal Reserve). That period straddled inconclusive Greek parliamentary elections that stoked fear over the potential breakup of the European currency bloc.

    Meanwhile, deposits have also increased fairly gradually in recent months.

    Broadly, deposit growth since the financial crisis has been a boon to U.S. banks, providing cheap funding that has helped sustain net interest margins. Panic surges have been nettlesome, however, presenting banks with influxes of money that could stream out as quickly as it arrived, and forcing them to maintain big pools of liquid assets that can produce negative net returns.

  16. @TONY
    Ok –Im not interested in the the homes as an investor in “hot leads” [hypothetically pls understand] —–I want to resurrect the promissory note –a nice clean original —signed by you—so i can sue you on that note and get a judgment and sieze whatever you have today—-maybe just get the judgment and wait till you die to get your life insurance–so ill want to grade them based on age and job experience——gee ill even try to collect if you were discharged in bankruptcy–all i need is for you to unwittingly accede to re-establish the debt. That hypothecate stuff hasnt been used in finance documentation that i have ever looked at in the past 40 years—its in the boilerplate –but never substantively a defined term —-of course iv not seen european stuff much–maybe the english like it

  17. dcbreidenbach,

    I’ll answer the question this way. you have been sold nothing but fake hopes and dreams. Yes you were sold paper and you have title to the paper, but thats just it. Title to the paper, it never granted you anything else, you can not go over to that location and have a party in the back yard. You can’t open a home based business there, nor remodel the house either. Try any of that, and when the police come just tell them, you have title. I don’t think that would work.

    See what a mass liquidator make the argument that they have legal title, they want you to fight back with no they don’t. Then they will show you and the court the note, and now you are debating on if the note is real or not. You see the problem here.

    Case law will always beat you if you do this defense. When they say they have legal title say what title are you talking about? This will make the lawyer look confused. Then tell them I have legal title the property, it can not be sold underneath me without a court order. You are trying to come in here claiming the note is title which it does not. All you are claiming when you say this is I claim this note.

    Title insurance is based on this same thing. The insurance is in place not to give you the house back, but pay you for damages caused by the note, if the house was not suppose to be sold.

    This slight of hand and mouth has been going on for centuries. Its called a hypothecary action. Without this they can not reach the res. Look this word up in old case law, and NOT google. Google is not your best friend when you are looking for legal information, the law library is.

  18. @NORA
    “Anyone is possession of a Note that has been used as an asset in the issue of equitable shares in a security is double dipping. (securities fraud) ”

    I do not think the UCC sees it that way—I do not understand what you are referring to vis note becoming a stock. mortgage notes are assets of securities issuers who themselves issue MBS “notes” –electronic registry

    now if you do not recover the original note when it is paid off for any reason–a holder in duevcourse can buy it for value and pursue you even if you paid the wrong person previously—very clear —that is why standing–who is holder etc–where is the note is so important—you do not satify the note unless you pay the holder some way–eg DIL–AND get thre note back marked paid in full–if its “marked cancelled” -then there is still risk———it is very important the physical note and the trail of custody

  19. You’re stepping into the DE-recognition of assets territory. When a promissory note gets converted to a stock, that promissory no longer exists. Once converted, it is forever a stock. Anyone is possession of a Note that has been used as an asset in the issue of equitable shares in a security is double dipping. (securities fraud) Attempting to reattach it to the Security Deed, Deed of Trust or Mortgage is Adhesion. (and fraud) The Note and Stock cannot exist at the same time. Once the security is registered with the SEC, you can’t switch out the asset (The Note). The Notes were supposed to have been destroyed when the security was issued, and the assets and liabilities de-reccognized, but since it was so easy to commit such a huge fraud…well you know the rest.

  20. @ Tony

    The note comment is sort of interesting——let me pose a question–somehat like how many devils can sit on a pinhead at one time—–

    If I answer an email advertisement that says write for HOT LEADS–and what i get is an offer to sell 100 pounds @ $50/lb of original promissory note indorsed in blank —-marked “canceled”—-ie not marked “satisfied”-“paid in full” ——-what term descibes me? Holder in due course?
    ownner-possessor? am i “holder”? How would you like to have me show up at your door in 5 years with one of these peices –especially after you handed over a DIL to somebody else ages ago?

  21. a deed of trust is what it says–a deed which is defeasible upon condition subsequent–payment of the note—i do not think in terms of legal title to a note—–there are holders—etc

    i understood tthe discussion to refer to such a system–but as each is different one has to look to the plain meaning of the words–ie DOT—-but sure your DIL conveys your future estate—you are quit claiming your reversionary interest –if you get the money you cant get the house back

    each state differs ——–a mortgage is a conveyance of equitable title—while you sit with naked legal ittle —–its great to have a unified title with both equitable and legal title vested in the same person–even better if the possessor in interest is trhat person

    does this square up with your sense of things—-all you have is a contingent future interest——it is in some sense a legal title i suppose—the whole deed of trust trick is hard to comprehend since it was devised to give lenders the upper hand and contravenes common law

  22. dcbreidenbach,

    Where do you get that you do not have legal title? This is a slight of mouth wording. Yes the bank has legal title to the “note” but not legal title to your house. This is why they can “sell the note” to another party. They can not sell your house to another party because only you have this right. Banks have what is called a non qfc (qualified financial contract). If they had title to your house then there would be no need for a deed in lieu.

  23. @nora

    You can find it here:


    If only it were that simple…If I had tried that here in CA, I would most likely be in jail by now…

  24. @Ray
    You can’t do what you’re describing, legally or otherwise. You put yourself on a par with the banks if you do.

  25. @ RAY
    Is this a joke? The last deed you gave was the deed of trust to the mortgagee—you do not have legal title to convey—-the best you can do is a quit claim which would have to be supported in some convincing manner or constitute a cloud on the title and give them a claim —for a specious claim–sanctions atty fees owed to them—you might be unhappy if they stick you with their atty fees—true punishment—of course its one way to see what their billings look like


  27. Thanks, neidermeyer.

  28. Why are you guys still thinkig there is nothing you can do but get a gun and finish this insane complicated matter…. when you can simple transfer the deed of trust to a relative in your family and get a clear title ownership in the County where your property is located and Record your deed on the name of your family member, since for example the assignee in my case was New Century whom filed bankruptcy and assigned my loan to mortgage electronic registration system who is not a bank not a servicer or any financial institution most cases are Fraudulently miss recorded the property belongs to you. please take a good look at your documents……………………………………. case close.

  29. @carie

    Where’s the beef? I mean where’s the BRIEF?

  30. Yuh. But…money is created out of thin air. There’s nothing backing it. Our reputation in the world is one of an interfering bully who meddles in other nation’s business and installs military bases everywhere we have an agenda. We have lost our idolized status and the associated “full faith and credit” that once backed our dollar, and are looked on with suspicion, thanks to the globalists. They have attempted to destroy not only our reputation with their attack on human dignity and rights, national sovereignty and nationalism, but all currencies. I’m in favor of doing away with the Federal Reserve Note as well as the Federal Reserve system, but I don’t believe a gold standard is the answer. Gold has always been the rich man’s money, meaning the rich men wind up with all of it. How about a productivity based dollar? A diamond dollar? We need Bill Black to come up with a good suggestion for the basis of our new currency, until full faith and credit are viable again.

  31. Now we’re talking. Foreclosure Mill in Ohio faces liability under the FDCPA for misrepresenting the foreclosing bank’s “holder” status

  32. BOOM! THE NEXT MOST IMPORTANT APPELLATE ISSUE- If a bank is going to throw an American family into the street, do they need to prove who directed them?
    June 26th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

    A criminal has the right to confront his accusers in a criminal trial….right?

    A defendant in a lawsuit has a right to know who it is that’s suing him….right?

    In the context of foreclosure, “servicers” are taking direction from Wizards who are hiding behind the scenes, pulling the levers, deciding whether short sales are approved, deciding whether modifications are approved, deciding whether homes are broken into, security destroyed and privacy breached. As hinted at in a recent federal report, the servicers and their thugs MAY BE bilking The Enterprises and taxpayers out of billions of dollars in unnecessary or improper fees.

    In many cases, the Wizard behind the curtain is actually the Federal Government through its Frankenstein creation, the Government Sponsored Entities.

    I say, if you’re going to sue my client. If you’re going to throw an American family into the street, you cannot hide behind servicers or straw plaintiffs or make believe parties in interest.


    But not just screaming out in capital letters, read this fantastic appeal, with great credit given to my associate, Mike Fuino who really pulled this together….

    Initial Brief

  33. This is a reminder for all that the servicers expect to chase deficencies either by obtaining a judgment that lays dormant until the victim has recovered something else to sieze —–or by retaining the promissory note at the time of foreclosure or settlement and allowing an affilate or purported holder in due course to come back after the victim years later.

    Arizona is nice–anti-deficiency state——still did not stop their attempt to force the person to bankruptcy and sieze their retirement account discretionary distributions in Chapt 7–ie monies withdrawn to pay kids college tuition etc.Or to sieze a husbands life insurance proceeds from his widow and orphans—-

  34. Oh, and I overheard on the BBC (I believe it was the bbc) some retired Jewish general stating that unless the Jewish people repudiates Zionism and actively speaks against it worldwide, the entire Jewish community will see antisemitism the likes of which it has never, ever experienced and it could very well be wiped out entirely as an ethnie.

    I found that ominous but also probably very true.

  35. It’s getting so insanely complicated that I’ve decided not to trouble myself with it any longer. My husband and I are going to buy a gun and start target practice.

    Unless the little green guys who draw crop circles all over the planet come to take away the bankers and throw them in never-never land, that gun will come handy. I can feel it… 🙂

    PS: NPR yesterday had a three-hour radio thing where economists were talking to very, very worried wallstreeters. Guys, the situation is soooooo bad that, according to those economists, we need to completely throw Congress out the window, start with brand new legislators, scratch every single bank-related law doing and undoing this insanity, pretty much start from: “Thou shall not lie” and “Thou shall not steal” and rewrite our way out of it by forbidding banks from engaging in anything but receiving deposits and lending money.

    Those economists talked about everything wrong with our situation: student loans, mortgages, collection of defaulted bills, government (whose job it isn’t to regulate banks), lobbies, bought-out, sold-out and paid-for Congress that needs to be replaced a.s.a.p. by legislators who will be forbidden from making any money other than their salary, lawyers/scavengers, judges that need to be replaced by people with integrity, and I’m sure I’m still missing a few things.

    So, if the little green guys from up above come and remove all that scum, then we’ll be able to work something out. otherwise, well… get a gun. It will come handy.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: