Florida Legislature Shredding Bill of Rights Under Guidance of the Banks

FLORIDA CITIZENS MUST CALL AND WRITE

THEIR STATE SENATOR AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE

PAY UP OR SHUT UP: FLORIDA BILL WOULD REQUIRE DEPOSITING MORTGAGE BALANCE INTO COURT REGISTRY EVEN IF THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE MONEY!!

Under the guise of facilitating mortgage foreclosure litigation, the Florida state Senate is attempting to destroy the rights, defenses, and counterclaims of homeowners without due process; and this is simply because the banks cannot win their foreclosure cases  without cheating.

S.B. 1666 Is the bill that has been proposed and which should be opposed by every citizen including those who have no interest in foreclosure litigation. It sets a dangerous example and precedent for restricting access to the courts and creating an insurmountable burden on homeowners to defend their property against illegal foreclosures. It also lays the groundwork for permanent corruption of title chains in the state of Florida such that the marketplace can never be a place where transactions are complete. This is obviously the handiwork of the banks.

Having failed to achieve the upper hand by virtue of congressional authority at the federal level, the banks are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying expenses and campaign contributions to protect their  ill-gotten gains.  Any Florida state senator or representative who votes for this bill should be known as someone who has sold out to the banks and whose interest is in protecting the banks rather than the state of Florida or its citizens.

 The new provisions on notice of the pending foreclosure proceedings makes a mockery of both notice and service of process. The new provisions allow for substitute service by publication on a website that nobody other than the banks are likely to visit. It is therefore publication without notice. This is something which is absurd on its face.

The new provisions would allow and encourage retired judges to determine whether an order should be issued for the homeowner to show cause why a final judgment should not be entered. This process is to be conducted without a hearing, notice, or any evidence or argument. It is not just the equivalent of nonjudicial foreclosure, it is far worse.

The hidden rationale behind this proposed legislation is to place the burden of persuasion on the homeowner before the homeowner has any opportunity to conduct discovery. It allows the judge to essentially overrule denials by the homeowner. It would require the homeowner to  make allegations  and attach documents,  most of which are in the sole care custody and control of parties that can only be reached through the power of subpoena.

Despite the facts and findings of multiple agencies and independent examiners wherein the conclusion was drawn that most foreclosures involve strangers to the transaction who are neither creditors nor authorized representatives of creditors, and despite the facts and findings in multiple cases and multiple agencies showing the fabrication and forgery of documents for the purpose of obtaining a foreclosure deed on behalf of an entity that paid nothing for the origination or transfer of the loan, the Florida Senate is considering a bill whose premise is that the loans are valid, the mortgage lien is perfected, the borrower has defaulted, the note accurately describes a transaction even though consideration was absent, and that the foreclosure is presumptively valid.

This bill has nothing to do with the functionality or bottleneck in the court system. It is highly likely that the bill will not get past the Florida Supreme Court, but it should be defeated long before it has an opportunity to be reviewed by that court. If anyone was truly serious about the functionality of the court system and bottlenecks caused by foreclosures they would start at the beginning rather than the middle of the litigation process.

 If the legislature wants to have a review process to determine the viability of litigation and the position of one party over another, it should start at the beginning with the pleading and attachments of the party seeking foreclosure. The proposed bill once again refers to the “holder” instead of the owner of the loan. The difference is monumental. And judges seem to attach considerable significance to the allegation that the would-be forecloser  is a holder instead of requiring that the party seeking foreclosure allege and prove that it is the owner or that it represents the owner of the loan.

 Thus this bill  seeks to allow and encourage retired judges to use presumptions even if they are contrary to the facts. These judges should not be charged with the responsibility of determining the viability of the defenses without first determining  the viability of the initial claim. This is not a technical problem. It is pure common sense. If a party wishes to foreclose on property it must be able to show proof of payment and proof of loss. We all need to understand that the foreclosure mess created by Wall Street changes the entire rationale of making loans and enforcing them.

The courts are being used as a vehicle to commit further fraud on both the investors and the homeowners who received loans from the investors but who executed documentation that raises the presumption that the payee on the note and the secured party on the mortgage actually made the loan when in fact the funding for the loan came directly from investors whose investment was diverted from the REMIC Trusts that issued the bogus mortgage backed bonds.

 If this bill is passed  it will allow any stranger to any transaction to make a claim of ownership or rights in that transaction despite their complete absence from the transaction and despite the complete absence of any reference to them as a third-party or third-party beneficiary. This precedent is something that the state of Florida will pay for many times over. As we have already seen for years in Senate hearings, the media,  and multiple reports published in every conceivable way, the opportunity for moral hazard is not only present, it is actually operating as we speak. Each time another foreclosure is approved it probably is allowing a stranger to the transaction to obtain ownership of the loan or of the house without having invested any money in the origination or transfer of the loan.

Every Florida citizen should be calling and writing their Florida State Sen. and their Florida state representative about this bill voicing their opposition to the banking oligarchy.

SB1666

41 Responses

  1. .
    .
    It is a well settled and universally accepted human right for people to own property, to be secure in their houses and to the protection against thieves “taking title” without due process of law.

    Article 17 of the Unversal Declaration of Human Rights (1948):

    (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
    (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

    The Law of Treaties obliges signatory contries and their respective rulers to comply.

    Where are they?
    .
    .

  2. MERS has no collection rights because the security was not and could not be created by these imposters. These foreign nationals destroyed our security, that is all they did.

  3. “…Why bother funding a loan as described on a paper based medium when the intent was to use a transferrable electronic record whose undisclosed terms may differ from the paper?”

    BINGO!!!
    Collection rights only—NO FUNDING…the true purpose of MERS.

  4. Neil,

    The elephant in the room is e-commerce.

    Relevant excerpts from a comment letter to the Florida Supreme Court task force on residential mortgage foreclosures by the Florida mortgage bankers association dated Oct 2009.

    from pg 4.

    “The reason “many firms file lost note counts as a standard alternative pleading in the complaint” is because the physical document was deliberately eliminated to avoid confusion immediately upon its conversion to an electronic file. See State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Lord, 851 So. 2d 790 (Fla.4th DCA 2003)

    Translation: Only one medium can be used to confer rights and defenses to a purchaser and so an electronic record and a tangible paper record cannot both exist at the same time and evidence the same loan.

    In most cases, Plaintiff is attempting to use paper to collect for itself that which was already sold into the secondary market using electronic means. For reference, please see FL stat 668.50 sec 16 – the holder of the transferrable record as defined in FL stat 668.50 sec 16(d) has aquired the rights and defenses afforded to a holder of an equivalent paper based note under the UCC.

    What the Florida mortgage bankers association is telling us is that certain parties agreed to conduct loan sales using digital files or electronic means pursuant to FL stat 668.50 sec 16 instead of transferring tangible paper.

    The obvious problem is that the borrower never closed the loan using an electronic platform and so the conversion of tangible paper into an electronic record to be consumed by the secondary market is illegal without consent of the borrower. This dovetails with your point about the loan funding transaction. Why bother funding a loan as described on a paper based medium when the intent was to use a transferrable electronic record whose undisclosed terms may differ from the paper?

    A loan that was transferred using a transferrable electronic medium must have been funded under its terms and is FOREVER evidenced by that medium. Which puts into perspective the Freddie Mac General Counsel letter to Florida Supreme Court Justice Peggy Quince dated Oct 15, 2009 stating in part that Freddie Mac’s servicers initiate foreclosure actions in their names, even though they are not the owners of the notes or loans in question, because they are the mortgagees as shown on the land records and they are the holders or otherwise in possession of the notes.

    Translation: Certain parties agreed to conduct loan transfers using electronic means. Servicers have retained possession of a paper medium that was never funded as described because the paper was never intended to be used to transfer loans into the secondary market, hence, the paper never descibes a real transaction with an owner and servicers are merely displayed as a mortgagee for the sake of convenience.

    Which is why we get this:

    The term “original note” or “original
    715 promissory note” means the signed or executed promissory note
    716 rather than a copy thereof. The term includes any renewal,
    717 replacement, consolidation, or amended and restated note or 718 instrument given in renewal, replacement, or substitution for a 719 previous promissory note. The term also includes a transferrable
    720 record, as defined by the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act in 721 s. 668.50(16).

    So when your servicer pleads facts it is both the servicer and holder, are they describing servicing for an owner of an electronic transferrable record as defined in FL stat 668.50 sec 16 while also maintaining possession of a tangible paper medium? Remember, only one medium can be used to confer rights and defenses to a purchaser under the UCC and so two competing mediums can’t coexist.

    Which is why plaintiffs in Florida typically argue that loan ownership is irrelevant relying heavily upon Riggs vs Aurora, only holdership or possession of the paper medium is needed to foreclose.

  5. The northern lights are always a warning sign from the heavens of a coming significant and historical event. The northern lights on Saturday night April 13, 2013 turned the night sky green like the sky was today in Chicago, we are having a deluge here….There have been several significant and historical events since then. I see evidence this spiritual war is really ramping up.

  6. Listen Up Buttwipe Scott Anderson (man of many hats with many employers) …….. When my clients request recission you better dam well do it! Discovery has come back to haunt your sorry excuse of a human being! Dear God! Just Let Me Drive the Karma Bus One Day… Amen

  7. There has to be proof that a legal contract exists to enforce a legal contract. A contract without a legal agreement, that has no security attached is unenforceable. That means an alteration to the original contract has occurred without notice being given to the other party to the contract.

    It is no different than if we were secret pyromaniacs and insured our chance of risk that we would openly burn the place down after we knowingly destroyed the Security because we decided we would not exercise ordinary care and protect the Security by not insuring the property, we had friends who would insure just the chance there could be a risk we would most definitely destroy the place and lo & behold we burned the place burned down because we decided to have a bonfire in the living room after we overissued investments in the risk we created to our friends who secretly knew we were pyromaniacs and insured the chance of risk. Ooops….that would be…just damned reckless of us….of course we would not notify the other party we decided to destroy the security by not exercising ordinary care with the security and told the investors in the chance of risk we had no idea there never was a security …you could have never knew we were pyros…..wink…wink… We would have made sure that we would not suffer any harm because me and the investors were all insured in case their was an unseen risk I was a pyromaniac…tsk…tsk …

  8. ;jldvha’lksdh ‘aois gyu
    apisgjlzkxcnb’jh;ao S}aeGS;DFJ BZ.CVN B: ldfihG
    si djsd’fjhbas’gi kAP”{DGSDB——————————————————————————————————————————————————

    Says … What I am thinking right now is Dangerous!! If they did this to one young couple … how many others did they do it to?

  9. OMG… Please Forgive Me! Just when I thought I had heard it all!! Perspective buyers apply for pre-approval for a mortgage loan because they found a home that caught their eye. They never make an offer and never applied for a loan for the home, only seeking pre-approval for that amount. Perspective buyers never received pre-disclosure docs (never knew they applied for a loan on that house) , heck didn’t know they bought the house and that the FHA loan was sold. Somebody get me the Buckshot!! Friggin Buttwipes !!

  10. WHEN ARE THESE PRETENDER MORTGAGE SERVICERS GOING TO JAIL. HEY NEIL CAN YOU EXPLAIN MORE ON HOW THE SERVICERS END UP WITH THE FAKE LOAN.

  11. Legal maxim
    Manner and agreement overrule the law.

    Manner. (the legal definition, not what free education taught you)
    A way, mode, method of doing anything, or mode of proceeding in any case or situation.

    However they do it to offer you a consideration, equitable or not without admitting wrong doing, and you accepting that a settlement when it clearly indicates in bold and box it’s a settlement and clearly indicates in bold and box that you can’t appeal it (ie. don’t come back for more money from this deal, but you can sue us and see if you get more money), it overrules the law.

    No law impairing the obligations of contracts.

    Just because you heard the words and don’t know how powerful contracts are over the law, is not the legal system’s problem.

    Right now, they violated contracts. They hold the hot potato.
    You accept anything from them, you have agreed on something.
    That’s a meeting of the minds. That means you established some sort of relationship with them, how can you complain you don’t have one when you are letting them give you money as consideration of something.

    Like I said, if they aren’t giving it to ‘everyone’, there is something that connects you to them, if it’s not wrongdoing on their part, then what is it to make them just send you a ‘consideration’ out of thin air?

    Questions…questions…
    Or get your own experience by your own free will.

    Trespass Unwanted, Conscience, Life, Creator, In Esse (In Being, Actually Existing), Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  12. Paying agent Rust Consulting’s Minneapolis,Minnesota is not anyone hired by the government. They were hired by the fed and the banks.

    No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be made.
    I provided the definition of settlement in here.
    Maxim:
    A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null.
    No action arises out of an immoral consideration.

    If you know this is against good morals, rendering it null, why not use your power to not accept it.

    They can’t say, you didn’t accept our immoral consideration so you get nothing. No action arise out of an immoral consideration.

    Know these things. No one can MAKE you accept something that is inequitable.

    Trespass Unwanted, Conscience, Life, Creator, In Esse (In Being, Actually Existing), Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  13. Their own media lets us know what they think of us. In a prior post, and I’m not making this up the exact quote is
    “to get the checks out to alleged victim homeowners as soon as possible”

    Alleged.
    Does that sound like someone sent you a check because they believe they caused you harm?

    Read the back. On the private side it clearly states getting the check does not mean they caused you any harm.

    Whoever is giving this advice, well do they care about you and your situation? Do they have the check, too? Are they your representative? Can you ‘stand’ on your own or do you need someone to tell you what to do so you can point fingers when it doesn’t go like you thought it should?

    The back tells you and the front has boxed in some pretty serious things and it was written by an attorney. So who’s interest do you think it is for, if the amount is not equitable for what happened to you?

    Let Part, easter egg, and sour milk sit at a table and decide your purported harm, which they claim getting the money doesn’t mean they caused any harm to you. Let them tell you you can’t appeal what THEY decided you’d get.
    It doesn’t state you’ll get another one, does it?
    That’s the only one you get. Cash it and that’s all you get.

    People not party to this transaction telling you what to do?

    Call them and ask them if you’ll get more money? See how cryptic that answer will be? Call them and ask them if you’ll get your home back? Watch them not admit to doing anything wrong.

    Take the step and grow up and be adults and not infants that need representation and make the call. There is a number. Call it.

    Or trust strangers on the internet and trust the media that is getting money from them, to tell you what to do.

    Trespass Unwanted, Conscience, Life, Creator, In Esse (In Being, Actually Existing), Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  14. The check is a Settlement Check and it clearly states, Your settlement.

    If you want to cash it, no one is going to stop you, that’s why they sent it to you in the first place, but do not blame anyone else if and when you discover that it really is your ‘final settlement’ and they get “final disposition of any claims you have (even though you don’t give up the right to sue for the claims – which I’m trying to figure out where you will get the money to do that)”

    It’s an offer, it clearly indicates it’s consideration, and when you cash it, you’ve accepted. That’s all the ingredients of a valid contract and a meeting of the minds.

    Some people say Deed of trust is not a valid contract, they made an offer and we accepted but where is the consideration? and others will tell you it’s when they told you they’d file the document with the County recorder, so for a $35 fee they get hundreds of thousands of dollars from your promise to pay them in return.

    Ignorance will not save you in this situation. It was lack of knowledge that got us into this mess, but if there are people that you trust, like the ones that sent you $300 for gypping you out of your home, or people who post on blogs and tell you to ‘do it’, ‘do it’, then by all means, do it. You got 90 days to let them know you like what they gave you.

    If you listen to the hearing I posted today, the banks have gotten final disposition on the other settlements they offered under the $25 billion dollar settlement even if they only settled the second mortgage but people needed help with their primary mortgage. Acceptance is final disposition ( a closing of the claim ).

    It takes a signature to cash a check.

    Yes, go ahead and take the ‘gift horse’. I AM Me. I’m no One’s God.
    I know nothing and if I think I know something I know nothing. I do not give legal advice because I don’t know legal things.

    https://www.mortgageoversight.com/about-the-mortgage-settlement/#settlement-documents
    for information about the $25 billion dollar settlement with Ally/GMAC, Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo.

    People choose their own experience. The programming is thick.

    Trespass Unwanted, Life, Creator, In Esse (In Being, Actually Existing), Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  15. E. ToLLe is right: cash the damn thing while it’s still good. (Read it very carefully first. If it doesn’t say “full and final settlement of all claims”, you’re ok.

    But by George, sue the bank! That check is not subject to that sordid 25 billion settlement.

    http://dannlaw.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/if-you-get-a-check-from-rust-consultants-related-to-the-foreclosure-review-you-should-review-your-own-situation-with-a-lawyer/

    If You Get A Check from Rust Consultants Related to the Foreclosure Review You Should Review Your Own Situation With A Lawyer
    In Uncategorized on April 17, 2013 at 10:08 am

    Throughout the country close to Three Million families will be receiving checks ranging from $300 to $125,000 from someone called Rust Consultants. Rust was the latest contractor hired by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) in their disastrous effort to “investigate” foreclosure abuse by the National Banks that they are charged with regulating.

    You may remember that the nation’s largest Banks, in collaboration with the OCC wasted billions of dollars that could have gone to consumers who were the victims of fraud, perjury and document fabrication in the foreclosure process that was openly perpetrated by banks, often resulting in homes being taken without any meaningful due process of law, often from homeowners who were not even in default, or who were being promised, government subsidized modifications of their loans.

    After spending billions on consultants to review bank files, the OCC and the Banks agreed a few months ago just to let the banks decide who they defrauded and to get the checks out to alleged victim homeowners as soon as possible. (I’m not making this up. The Federal Government agency overseeing banks suspended the independent review of the banks files and decided to let the banks themselves decide who they defrauded)

    So each and every one of the 2.9 million checks that Rust Consulting will be sending to homeowners is based on a bank’s own admission that they acted inappropriately in the foreclosure process.

    The only good news about the OCC settlement is that specifically states that homeowner’s who receive the checks DO NOT WAIVE ANY LEGAL CLAIMS THEY MIGHT HAVE AGAINST THE BANK THAT FORECLOSED ON THEM. While there has been a little problem of some of the checks bouncing, homeowners who can get the bank to honor them should cash the checks.

    But, there is a much more important issue for homeowners receiving checks. You are now aware that the bank that foreclosed on you admits that there was something wrong with your foreclosure.

    Whether you are still in your home or not you should consider consulting a lawyer in your state who is experienced in consumer, banking and foreclosure issues to determine whether or not you may still have a civil claim against the bank, or even whether the fraud in your case was so egregious that a court might be persuaded to unwind the foreclosure all together.

  16. E. ToLLe is right: cash the damn thing while it’s still good. (Read it very carefully first. If it doesn’t say “full and final settlement of all claims”, you’re ok.

    But by George, sue the bank! That check is not subject to that sordid 25 billion settlement.

    http://dannlaw.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/if-you-get-a-check-from-rust-consultants-related-to-the-foreclosure-review-you-should-review-your-own-situation-with-a-lawyer/

    If You Get A Check from Rust Consultants Related to the Foreclosure Review You Should Review Your Own Situation With A Lawyer
    In Uncategorized on April 17, 2013 at 10:08 am

    Throughout the country close to Three Million families will be receiving checks ranging from $300 to $125,000 from someone called Rust Consultants. Rust was the latest contractor hired by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) in their disastrous effort to “investigate” foreclosure abuse by the National Banks that they are charged with regulating.

    You may remember that the nation’s largest Banks, in collaboration with the OCC wasted billions of dollars that could have gone to consumers who were the victims of fraud, perjury and document fabrication in the foreclosure process that was openly perpetrated by banks, often resulting in homes being taken without any meaningful due process of law, often from homeowners who were not even in default, or who were being promised, government subsidized modifications of their loans.

    After spending billions on consultants to review bank files, the OCC and the Banks agreed a few months ago just to let the banks decide who they defrauded and to get the checks out to alleged victim homeowners as soon as possible. (I’m not making this up. The Federal Government agency overseeing banks suspended the independent review of the banks files and decided to let the banks themselves decide who they defrauded)

    So each and every one of the 2.9 million checks that Rust Consulting will be sending to homeowners is based on a bank’s own admission that they acted inappropriately in the foreclosure process.

    The only good news about the OCC settlement is that specifically states that homeowner’s who receive the checks DO NOT WAIVE ANY LEGAL CLAIMS THEY MIGHT HAVE AGAINST THE BANK THAT FORECLOSED ON THEM. While there has been a little problem of some of the checks bouncing, homeowners who can get the bank to honor them should cash the checks.

    But, there is a much more important issue for homeowners receiving checks. You are now aware that the bank that foreclosed on you admits that there was something wrong with your foreclosure.

    Whether you are still in your home or not you should consider consulting a lawyer in your state who is experienced in consumer, banking and foreclosure issues to determine whether or not you may still have a civil claim against the bank, or even whether the fraud in your case was so egregious that a court might be persuaded to unwind the foreclosure all together.

    http://www.stopohioforeclosure.com

  17. All cities should follow

    Lynn on foreclosure law

    To The Item Editor:

    It took Lynn City Councilors to do something that the federal and state government have been unable to do — namely require big banks to sit across the table face to face and mediate with homeowners who are going through foreclosure, post a $10,000 bond to ensure that any homes that are foreclosed upon are repaired and maintained so that they do not become a blight on our neighborhoods.

    Why anyone would be opposed to this ordinance is beyond me. I know why the banks are opposed to it — because when they meet with these homeowners who were set up for failure from day one, they will have to bring with them the original note and accompanying
    documents including the original loan application proving their ownership which in most cases, they do not have, and they know it.

    Kevin Kiley of the Mass Bankers Association made the irresponsible statement that this ordinance will impact the bank’s future ability to write mortgages in our city; this, on top of being untrue, is patently silly and he knows better than that. If Mr. Kiley had bothered to come to the Essex South Registry of Deeds and see the 39,000 fraudulent documents sitting on my conference table that were prepared and recorded by the banks he represents maybe this type of outrageous comment could’ve been avoided.

    As the Register of Deeds for the Southern Essex District I have agreed to follow the law of our city and not record the
    foreclosure deeds unless they are accompanied by a certificate of compliance acknowledging that the banks have followed the rules. If I thought for one minute that this was just an attempt by the City Council to make themselves “look good” in an election year I would have never signed on. This ordinance is a reasonable and responsible action drafted by a team of people who are committed to solving a problem. The City of Lynn has always been a city of fists and last Tuesday evening the City Council made history again. I am hopeful that this ordinance will be adopted into law not only by our city, but by cities across the country.

    We can not afford to once again give the big banks a pass.

    John L. O’Brien

    Essex South Register of Deeds

  18. Settlement. Act or process of adjusting or determining; an adjusting; an adjustment between persons concerning their dealings or difficulties; an agreement by which parties having disputed matters between them reach or ascertain what is coming from one to the other; arrangement of difficulties; composure of doubts or differences; determination by agreement; and liquidation. Sowers v. Robertson, 144 Kan. 273, 58 P.2d 115, 1107. Payment or satisfaction. Ledbetter v. Hall, 191 Ark. 791, 87 S.W.2d 996, 999. In legal parlance, implies meeting of minds of parties to transaction or controversy. Ezmirlian v. Otto, 139 Cal.App. 486, 34 P.2d 774, 778. To fix or resolve conclusively; to make or arrange for final disposition. Wager v. Burlington Elevators, Inc. 116 N.J.Super. 390, 282 A.2d 437, 441.
    Closing; the culmination of a particular transaction involving real property, such as the purchase and sale of the property, the execution of a lease or the making of a mortgage loan. See also Closing.
    (There is more definition)

    Notice this ‘check’ is a settlement. It’s an agreement between three parties who had a meeting of the minds to give people who were robbed some money to settle their claim of being robbed.

    The cashing of the check will be proof the people accepted it as ‘consideration’. They can go back to the regulators and get a final disposition from the problems they created and the harm they caused to the people who accepted.
    To know you can ‘still’ sue, and accept a settlement with his a ‘closing’ of the transaction would be interesting the type of argument you will make when they produce evidence of the ‘settlement’ you accepted and the ‘consideration’ that wasn’t a problem when you cashed the check.
    It’s a liquidation of the problem because someone cashed the check regardless if the reason One thinks they can give for cashing a check.

    it’s another example of negotiating with the devil and expecting the devil to ‘care about you in the deal’.

    “At the end of the day, those that are harmed should have the appropriate relief. They should know what the relief can be, they should maximize that relief, and it seems to me a little perverse that you can get a lot, that the servicers uh, the institutions can get a lot to do a little in comparative ways much different that the mortgage settlement process. Ah, those are real concerns to me as the chair and I look forward to pursuing these.”

    I like that the chairman of the committee mentioned that.

    Trespass Unwanted, Life, Creator, In Esse (In Being, Actually Existing), Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  19. Direct link to the hearing, about 18 minutes some activity begins.
    http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=6aac2b90-e6ee-4c5c-b6a0-526ab27c70d2

    Trespass Unwanted.

  20. Obama dissatisfied about the gun bill being rejected. If someone wants to harm they don’t need a gun as the Boston massacre proves.

  21. Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
    Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

    This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

    This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

    Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

    Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    The final comment of the chairman in the hearing. Thank you.
    Those who were harmed should get the appropriate relief. The servicers get a lot for giving a little. I didn’t read the settlement they made to end the Independent Foreclosure Review, but 500 to 1 credit for what is paid, it’s obvious those who came to the table and offered the settlement were NOT representing the interest of the borrower.
    They are all in the financing and banking business and their goal is to maximize their assets and minimize their liability due to theft from others. We are not the original settlers of this land, and what was done to them is unconscionable. We have created laws to stop that from happening again, and yet we were dispossessed by threat of gun just like the original settlers were. Now don’t think that me not wanting my ‘feet to be moved’ and resisting a man with a gun that he won’t claim he felt his life was threatened and he use it with impunity to make me move.

    Peaceful people don’t resist, but that’s doesn’t mean you can ‘take’ what is ours. That’s why contracts and meeting of the minds is important.

    Trespass Unwanted, Life, Creator, In Esse (In Being, Actually Existing), Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

    I have the Black’s Law definition of settlement.
    It includes an adjustment between persons concerning their dealings or difficulties, it also includes these terms. -:- determination by agreement; and liquidation. -:- to fix or resolve conclusively; to make or arrange for —-final disposition —
    (— emphasis is mine)

  22. That hearing is revealing.
    500 to 1 credit to the servicers.
    Incentive to settle larger loans first to get credit under the settlement.
    Billions end up being millions in settlement money due to the credits?

    Geesh.
    I love the dog and pony show.
    My concern is, I don’t know how to get my home back. They are dragging this out so long, someone is going to try to do an adverse possession of my property and quiet the title when I had been forced from it and surely can’t knock on the door and move my items back in and live there like I’d want to.

    There has to be a way to see if we ‘truly’ abandoned our property, as that 1099A was supposed to be their claim that we abandoned it. They sent that document to the IRS and sent a copy to us to send to the IRS to claim abandonment. I didn’t file it because under good conscience I cannot file a document that is a lie, and sign the form that the information is true under penalty of perjury.

    So many conflicts, but so much evidence that points to ‘people’ who caused it.

    500 to one credit, $1000 settlement becomes $500,000 credit to the bank. In my earlier example, easter egg and sour milk gave Part a really good deal for stealing property and putting the asset on their books as free of encumbrances. Wow!

    Trespass Unwanted, Conscience, Life, Creator, In Esse (In Being, Actually Existing), Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  23. These foreign entities also overissued investments in everything that would put in peril our Life, Liberty and Property.

  24. I have said it countless times, we are here because of the Concealment of the Origination Fraud, the fact the Security was not and could not be created because these are foreign entities stealing our wealth and lending us crap credit……nothing of value.

  25. Did it ever occur to anyone that the whole slew of problems we have, starting with judges not upholding the law and government doing nothing might be simple to fix?

    We got it terribly wrong. Instead of growing from communities outwards, we’ve shrank from the bottoms up. Why? Federal taxes being collected from individuals versus communities or states. The incentive for states to shape up is given by bribes coming from the federal government. States have less money and the feds has more and more. States are under undue pressure to cave in to the federal government on issues that are absolutely not of its resort (abortion, gun control, osha, car seat belt and such crap).

    Reverse the situation: let’s say that we, the people, pay taxes to the city. Only the city we live in. I wouldn’t mind paying the same percentage but to only one entity, the one that is more likely to impact me. Cities would collect and handle the day to day operations while taking half or even 75% and sending it to the state which, in turn, would handle day to day operations (infrastructures rebuilding, education, roadways, justice, etc.) After the state’s budget has been passed, providing for what is dear to the people such as health care education and such, it would keep a portion of the surplus and forward the rest to the federal government. That way, most programs would depend exclusively from cities and states and the federal government’s role would be curtailed once and for all by being limited to international policy, commerce and exchanges and national interests such as defense and spacial research.

    States would regain their freedom and sovereignty. Presidents would return to their original role of national representative only regarding national issues and congress wouldn’t be parading and displaying its absolute irrelevance. Banks would not be able to lobby any farther than the state’s legislators and the people would have a hell of a power over who gets what and who does what.

    In my view, that is the only way. And the more i think about it, the more sense it makes to me. We all learned about the Tower of Babel: the morality of the story escaped all the governments: instead of learning from it and getting it once and for all that bigger is not better and there comes a point where too big indeed must fail, they conveniently decided to ignore Babel and restart it all over again to see if really, really, that story was true and verifiable. Well, we’ve been verifying it for 2000 years and probably a lot longer (Egypt, Greece, Rome, England, colonialism, the Soviet Union, etc.)

    If we do not get voluntarily smaller, we will be made smaller. Once something is no longer at human scale, it gets out of control.

    End of story.

  26. I would never advocate violence but if somebody were to assassinate any of the POS scum-bags who sponsored this ‘legislation’, I sure wouldn’t shed a single tear for them.

    Stealing people’s homes….not much is lower than that…maybe pedophilia and animal abuse I guess.

  27. @Etolle

    From my point of view, it’s a terrible waste to lodge a complaint by simply returning Rust’s check

    I saw your suggestion, but I move in different world. I have no representative, so I will not be calling any General Counsel. They know how many checks are going out, it has been made public.

    What i do is not going to be a waste of time, but surely you’d know I can’t disclose what I would do.

    It’s not just ‘simply return the check’. If you’ve never heard of ‘refuse for cause’ you may want to. I don’t know, you may want to.

    If someone knows of refuse for cause, maybe they know something important. If you believe only what you see, you’ll believe in only what is shown to you.

    Some people seeing this check think that’s it. They have no idea that three private parties or their representatives sat at a table and decided what to do about breaking the law and stealing.

    No business is above the law.

    If someone named Part, cause your home to burn down, can I come to you and tell you I’m the paying agent make an offer of consideration (words that are on the check) of $300, tell you that you can’t appeal the decision, this is ‘your settlement’, and you must cash it within 90 days.

    Can I really do that? I tell you, that I’m a paying agent and Part, and easter egg, and sour milk came to an agreement over what was done and we’ve decided you will receive $300.

    That’s how unconscionable this is. I don’t deal directly with the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve, and if they are making a decision on what happened to me, what role do they play, what obligation do they have in the resolution. If I don’t deal directly with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, then who in the heck in that organization sat at a table and decided what I should receive in consideration of what was done to me? The settlement doesn’t even give me a one month free pass on rent! I paid over 10 years in more principal than was owed. If you take a mortgage and amortize it over 30 years, you know the original principal and you know the interest. If you look at the 10 year mark, (assuming you didn’t play with an ARM and I didn’t play with an ARM), you’d see that at the 10 year mark you have covered all the principal in payments, it’s just that they apply the payment to interest and principal according to that amortization schedule. My agreement with my mortgagor, and what I see is that they got the amount I promised to pay in the ten year time and vacated the agreement. They were made whole. The rest is interest and interest money is not created when the debt is created. So if a bank offers a loan of $100 and say you owe $107, the bank created the $100 and the $7 comes from what was created in someone else’s loan. By design there is NOT enough money to pay all debts plus interest and as a result someone will not be able to pay because there is no money, he who pays first got the $7. So two people owing $107 to two different banks and the two banks created $100, if I pay the $107 first, the other borrower has $93 and can only wait for a new loan somewhere to cause money to be created out of thin air so he can pay the rest off, which means he’s paying $14 more dollars to settle the loan. The new borrower that caused the $14 to exist could have had a $100 loan and owe $107. But when the $14 is taken off the table, all they have is $86 to pay back and they have to wait for someone to take out a loan for the money to be created out of thin air.

    We have been robbed in so many ways, and this was an overt war against the people, and we can refuse the payment. They know how many checks will come back, but the problem may be accountability anyway.

    On the Zerohedge sight someone complained that they contacted Rust and told them they never received a postcard that they were part of the settlement but they were part of the Independent Foreclosure Review. They were told a postcard was sent. After doing their own research they found out someone with the same name and different middle initial received their postcard and was going to receive the settlement. They contacted Rust to say do not send it to that address, that is not where I live, and was told they would send it to that address, and more than likely that recipient would cash the check. The blogger expressed a deeper disappointment.

    Everyone is entitled to their remedy to any problem. Most of the people on this site appear to have a connection to the mortgage industry or legal industry anyway, so no they would not have an interest in someone realizing they have the option to ‘not accept an unconscionable agreement, to sit on it and let the 90 days expire so that they can say E.ToLLe told me not to send it back, to call this number, and we all know the wheels of justice move slow and there is no way they’d get a response within 90 days that would make a difference.

    I contacted an AG office before PNC dispossessed me without standing, and to this day I haven’t seen anything that lets me know they did anything with the information and I was in their building, sitting across an Assistant Attorney General, gave her paperwork she copied as I sat in a room, and even have her phone number to call her with any additional information I had.

    So yeah the advice that is a waste of time from my perspective is to call a General Counsel. ” Excuse me? General Counsel, I recieved a check as consideration and settlement of the theft (they call it foreclosure) of my home. ”

    My answer: No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be made.

    The General Council was not a party to the agreement, it was PNC, Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. It was a private agreement between those parties, and they sent a check.

    What crime was committed? General Council will see none. You were robbed, you got a check, what do you want me to do about it?

    See it’s too late for the investigative part of the crime, it’s in a different area of justice.

    If 3 million people cash their check, that will leave 1.4 million to be settled with, but if they send the check to the wrong address, and the wrong party cashes it, that leaves an inequitable remedy for those who were robbed and didn’t agree to accept the settlement.

    Not totally knocking E. ToLLe, the advice is worth it for whoever wants to take it, and make yet another phone call and wait. I do read E. ToLLe’s responses and learn from them.

    I am not giving legal advice because I know nothing and if I think I know something I know nothing and I DO NOT give legal advice because I don’t know legal things.

    Trespass Unwanted, Conscience, Life, Creator, In Esse (In Being, Actually Existing), Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  28. Our taxes, food, healthcare, utility bills, and fuel should be dirt cheap because we own this place. The truth is foreign nationals were illegally and secretly allowed to invest in everything that effects our peace & security. That treason and those felonies have profoundly effected every aspect of our lives. This was criminal because it has compromised our legal rights to defend our Life, Liberty and Property. Our nation is in peril as a result and none of it was legal.

  29. TU said, “No ex post facto law shall be passed”

    Well, maybe not in a fictional world, but it happens all the time when legislators are asked by some lobbyist to pass some bill all the while holding fistfuls of cash. That would explain this little piece of legislation bought and paid for by MERS, of MERS, and for MERS, entitling it to have its way with mortgagors with no argument to be found:

    507.413 AUTHORITY OF MORTGAGEE DESIGNATED AS NOMINEE OR AGENT.

    (a) An assignment, satisfaction, release, or power of attorney to foreclose is entitled to be recorded in the office of the county recorder or filed with the registrar of titles and is sufficient to assign, satisfy, release, or authorize the foreclosure of a mortgage if:

    (1) a mortgage is granted to a mortgagee as nominee or agent for a third party identified in the mortgage, and the third party’s successors and assigns;

    (2) a subsequent assignment, satisfaction, release of the mortgage, or power of attorney to foreclose the mortgage, is executed by the mortgagee or the third party, its successors or assigns; and

    (3) the assignment, satisfaction, release, or power of attorney to foreclose is in recordable form.
    The county recorder and registrar of titles shall rely upon this assignment, satisfaction, release, or power of attorney to foreclose to assign, satisfy, release, or foreclose the mortgage.

    (b) This section applies to any mortgage, assignment, satisfaction, release, or power of attorney to foreclose executed, recorded, or filed before, on, or after August 1, 2004.

    Ooops, there’s that dirty little ex post facto deal in broad daylight.

    Charles Reed said:

    “[MERS] has absolutely zero employees makes it impossible for MERS to possess and house any blank Notes.”

    Please explain that to the MILLIONS of people who have been foreclosed upon by MERS.

    What seems like rock solid law was totally diluted long before the financial crisis, it’s just that we weren’t paying attention to its slow, cancerous growth. The fact is, these old white men wearing way too expensive suits are having their way with us, our politicians (for a trifle in cash), and our constitution. There’s simply no limit to their greed. They want it all, and anyone paying attention knows that they’re getting it.

    Cynical? You betch’a. Totally. Prove me wrong. Give me one glimmer. I dare you. Oh and stripes, kiss my ass.

  30. This is no recession. This is a secret depression. We are being intentionally and severely oppressed by these imposter felons.

  31. “…the banks cannot win their foreclosure cases without cheating…”

    Yup—because the whole subprime STARTED OUT with cheating…fraud at the beginning—fraud all the way through.
    I wish the judges would start getting foreclosed on.

  32. And the Answer is …. Accept the Recission or get Sued for Fraud! Another one bites the dust…. On to the next case! 🙂

  33. @HELP, yep, it’s game over.
    As they keep posting on the internet, it’s the End Game.

    The rest of this is an attempt at damage control.

    The settlement is proven to be without regard to the (injury, jury, In Jure) Jure means by right.

    Trespass Unwanted, Life, Creator, Conscience, In Esse (In Being, Actually Existing), Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  34. The one thing they can never counterfeit is the meaning of the numbers. The numbers never lie. That is why there were no audits.

  35. No ex post facto law shall be passed (not past.)
    Trespass Unwanted.

  36. No ex post facto law shall be past. I don’t share the same excitement about the bill as Neil does. They can’t make a bill in the future that allows them to enter into agreements of the past.

    All thefts of property under the disguise of foreclosure will still be thefts until people sign new contracts and agreements.

    Their bill is for the future.
    By their own rules, it will not clean up the past.

    Trespass Unwanted, Life, Creator, In Esse (In Being, Actually Existing), Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  37. That idea was suggested to me a couple of years ago by a family member. He told me during the last great depression, we will use your Grandpa as an example, your Grandpa would sell his property to his cousin for 10 dollars and vice versa. It would work like a sort of trust. I say go for it because, the plaintiff has the burden of proof because the law says….The party invoking Federal Jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the elements….(FW/PBS, Inc. -v- Dallas U.S. 215, 231 1990).

  38. It sounds like game over:

    A) Attorney Generals rolled over

    B) Federal reserve and OCC foreclosure reviews rolled over

    C) no senators or representatives have protected the people

    D) NOW Florida is trying to change the laws and due process = CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS rolled over

  39. http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=6aac2b90-e6ee-4c5c-b6a0-526ab27c70d2

    Archive of today’s hearing is posted at this link

    Helping Homeowners Harmed by Foreclosures: Ensuring Accountability and Transparency in Foreclosure Reviews, Part II

    Trespass Unwanted

  40. Every imbecile law passed thus far has come with serious loopholes. i can see one big one, if Neil read on it is correct: we, homeowners, getting together and claiming ownership of each other’s property by filing the kind of action banks do. Then we redistribute property amongst ourselves and give back to the rightful owner what was his the first place.

    Farfetched? Maybe not.

    This cannot end well…

  41. Legal Maxim: No one can sue in the name of another.

    as stated in John Gault’s post..
    As a prudential matter, a plaintiff must assert “his own legal interests as the real party in interest,” Dunmore v. United States, 358 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9 Cir. 2004), as found in the FED. R. CIV. P. 17, which provides “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party
    in interest.”

    @Charles Reed,
    A lot of Dinar Holders hold Wells Fargo in high regard. They are waiting with baited breath to go in and cash in. I’ve seen some things Wells Fargo has been accused of and not a bank I’d want to do business with. The only reason I see they are too big to fail is they bought up the smaller banks we were patronizing with our business. Doing so, made them third party interveners to standing contracts already in place. They had no representative to re-negotiate those contracts so they are putting their heavy handed enforcements on any that we are attempting to honor. They have some papers, a computer, and act with impunity.

    @neidermeyer,
    Dang! I am overly impressed by the simplicity of the deep seated knowledge that we forgot to remember. Universe smiling on such a powerful update of that knowing.

    Well I’m off to the post office to return an offer I CAN and WILL refuse for cause.

    An offer of settlement should receive a counteroffer since it appears they are attempting to bring some ‘consideration’ to the table. I mean their first offer was a ‘review’ of what they had done wrong. Now they are indicating they’ve done some wrong and providing some consideration for their actions.

    So I’ll make refuse for cause their offer and provide them with my counteroffer. I am not representing anyone. I AM that I AM. I AM Me.

    There’s enough information in the SEC filings, court records for the foreclosure case, the County Clerk Records showing theft by attorney as my home purchasing agreements contained papers with my signature on it and the theft paperwork contains all papers that do not have my signature on it. The law firm cannot show I hired them to represent me.

    I was discriminated against for being a flesh and blood body and not being a corporate body, for not hiring a representative to state my living claim of right, living People contracted among each other to go to war with the peaceful inhabitants and dispossess us from our shelter. There is theft by deception, theft by conversion, economic duress, terroristic threat (forced to evacuate a building), FDCPA violations (cannot threaten nor take property if you do not have an interest secured in the property), Federal and State Constitutional violations (illegal search and seizure, etc), Trust Law violations (trust is for the benefit of the beneficiary, if the beneficiary no longer wants the trust property, they assign it to another beneficiary or it reverts back to the Grantor of the trust – the trustee has no power to decide the Grantor cannot have their property back in void mortgage trust. It was not an Irrevocable trust), Contract Law violations (Consent makes the law. -:- A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent. -:- Consent makes the law: the terms of a contract, lawful in its purpose, constitute the law as between the parties. -:- To him consenting no injury is done. -:-
    He who consents cannot receive an injury. — so there we have it, it requires my consent and looking at all the paperwork in the world for creating the obligation of owning the home you see my consent, but creating the situation where the home was stole you do not see my consent in any paperwork what so ever. lawyers, and judges, and employees of an N.A bank (National Association bank), are the only ones who consented to steal.

    Title 42 USC 1983, Civil action for deprivation of rights

    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
    regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
    District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
    citizen of the United States or other person within the
    jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
    or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
    to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
    proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
    against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
    officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
    unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
    unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
    applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
    considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

    Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
    Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

    This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

    This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

    Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

    Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    We have UCC violations, and more, and as much as OCC and Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve would like for this to ‘go away’; I would not be in their life nor they in mine, if their N.A. bank hadn’t robbed and dispossessed me under unconscionable terms.

    I don’t need them to pour over the papers of the thief. There is plenty of paperwork elsewhere that the thief doesn’t control that will show what was done.

    Trespass Unwanted, Life, Creator, In Esse (In Being, Actually Existing), Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: