Casablanca Deja Vu: Shocked and Total Disbelief

Maybe it is true that some of the earlier attorneys for the banks were caught by surprise when they learned of fabrication of documents, unauthorized signatures and of course Robo signing. In this case lawyers from the state of Maine face possible discipline for their failure to take appropriate action in over 100 cases. This stems from the revelation that GMAC mortgage have an employee named Jeffrey Stephan, who was signing between 6000 and 8000 legal foreclosure documents per month without knowing anything. His job apparently was simply to sign his name. He wasn’t told anything, he didn’t see anything, and he never asked anything.  See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

The law firm is Drummond and Drummond.  One of the attorneys for that firm, Paul Peck, testified at a hearing last Thursday that he was completely surprised that Stephan never read the affidavit. The problem for the firm is that they had 100 other cases in which the same employee had executed an affidavit that was being used in litigation. The firm did nothing to inform the court of the potential problem. The Bar Association is accusing the firm of violating its ethics and failing to notify the court in the other cases. There does not appear to be any allegation that the firm was complicit in the filing of a false affidavit. Most people on the foreclosure defense side of these issues believe that lawyers should be disbarred for not only failing to notify the court of the potential problem, but also failing to perform due diligence intentionally to avoid knowing that they were submitting false testimony.

While I agree that the lawyers probably had more than an inkling as to what was going on, it is my opinion that the firm should be put under supervision and probation. We are walking a fine line here and we must be careful what we wish for. Lawyer is obligated to advocate every possible position that might be beneficial to his client. If the lawyer does not absolutely know for sure that his client is lying, I think most people who are engaged in the enforcement of ethics and discipline of lawyers would agree that there is no foul. Those of you who have been represented by counsel in connection with some matter in litigation probably know that there are always more than one interpretation of the facts and always more than one opinion as to which facts are important and which are not. You expect your lawyer to use the things that are most beneficial to your position.

However, that said, I think the attorneys who used those affidavits after hearing the revelation about GMAC mortgage and subsequent revelations are in a different position. For self-preservation alone they had an obligation to inquire. They might face liability for their part in submitting false testimony to the courts of various states. Their insurance company will probably take the position that they were committing an intentional act for the benefit of preserving an extraordinarily large channel of fee revenue.  I think the insurance company would be right. And I think that those attorneys should face harsh discipline.

With all that we know about fraudulent conduct of all of our major financial institutions, which so far has resulted in perhaps $200 billion in settlements, it is hard to imagine why any attorney would not closely scrutinize documents submitted for support of a foreclosure action unless they were intentionally avoiding information that they knew or should have known existed. Of course each such case should be examined separately on its own fact pattern. Not all lawyers work for a foreclosure mill should be subject to major discipline or even investigation. The layering that  occurred on Wall Street was also happening in the foreclosure mills. They were creating imaginary lines so that they could throw the junior associates under the bus if the truth was exposed. I would advocate that the junior associates should be given immunity from prosecution and that the  discipline should be directed at the managing partners who were aware of the issues.

Maine Lawyers in Foreclosure Mill Face Discipline

 Of course all of this is just a distraction from the main question, to wit: why was it necessary to fabricate documents, commit perjury, and create all of this layering if the loans were actually enforceable?

My answer is the same as the allegations made by the investors who thought they were buying mortgage bonds, the insurers who thought that they were paying broker-dealers who had a loss, and the guarantors who thought that they were paying broker-dealers who had a loss. They are all claiming (in an out-of-court) that the broker-dealers committed fraud and mismanagement of money.

In plain language they are alleging that the investment banks (broker-dealers) stole the money that was intended to be invested in the trusts. They are alleging that the investment banks created a web of controlled companies that served as sham originators  on loans that were made using the money that investors advanced for the purchase of mortgage bonds issued by a REMIC trust that turned out to be unfunded and without any assets or income.  They are alleging that the mortgage documents are unenforceable.  Don’t take my word for it —  you can Google up the complaints and read it for yourself.

It must be fair to assume that the investment banks would not pay $200 billion unless they were saving themselves from liability for much more than that. It is also fair to assume that the settlements with the investors reduced the loss of the investors.  Therefore is also fair to assume that any demand for payment that does not reflect a reduction in principal (and therefore a reduction in interest) is wrong. Any notice of default would similarly be defective and so would the notice of acceleration. Any lawsuit were nonjudicial foreclosure  would also be defective. The parties involved have actual knowledge of both the documentary problems outlined in the case above in Maine and the money problems that have been announced with great fanfare.

So the question is why isn’t the borrower getting credit on the loan account when these settlements occur and can be allocated to the loan account?  If the actual creditor has experienced a reduction in the account receivable, what is the basis for allowing anyone to claim that the full amount is still due?

And that leads to my final question of the day, to wit: why would anyone try to claim that the full amount is due and enter into needless litigation?  I can think of no answer other than pure greed and the failure to present this question properly  in a court of law.

After seeing the above article, our own Dan Edstrom, Senior Securitization Analyst adds the following:


Excellent article.  Here is what I have seen in a case that seems to relate to that duty:
Without good cause Deutsche, OneWest, attorney ******** and the Law Firm ****** relied on preposterous representations from the invalid Proof of Claim and closed their eyes to avoid discovery of the truth.  See In re Eashai, 87 F.32 1082, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 1996); In re Apte, 180 B.R. 223 (9th Cir. BAP 1995); See CA. Civ. Code § 1710.  See also Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., en banc, 929 F2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1990), “sanctions may be imposed for failure to conduct reasonable investigation before filing complaint”.  See: In re Villa Madrid, 110 B.R. 919 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1990), Sanctions on attorney for filing bad faith bankruptcy petition (comparable in this case to filing a bad faith Proof of Claim and then under F.R.B.P. Rule 9011(b) the attorney “later advocates” the creditors claim).  Once again see Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator CO., supra, 290 U.S. 240 (1933) “that [290 U.S. 240, 245] whenever a party who, as actor, seeks to set the judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, has violated conscience, or good faith, or other equitable principle, in his prior conduct, then the doors of the court will be shut against him in limine; the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf, to acknowledge his right, or to award him any remedy.”


33 Responses

  1. Jas, here is a link to the inimitable Judge Schack and how much he likes robosigners. Hope it helps.

  2. Can I get a straight answer from someone on this issue. I filed a complaint with the OCC indicating to them the there is a Cease and Desist Order out there on the Banks to stop Robo Signing. The complaint was both on Wells Fargo and Citi. Citi has responded with a bunch of crap, but in essence this is what they said, “Our records indicate Geraldine A. Belinski is a certified appointed signor for Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc.” Background: On my DOT Geraldine Belinski signed the document as the Vice President. My question to this is; Is she signing the document as Vice President of MERS or Citi Mortgage. I did some research on my own and tracked her down. The individual at Citi who answered the phone were she worked indicated that she was not a Vice President but a mere processor. So what I need to know before I draft a response and go over OCC’s head is Can they do that? If she signed the document as Vice President of MERS, can she be employed by Citi? And vice versa, if she signed the Document as Vice President of Citi, can she work for MERS, my thought is that it has to be one or the other and she cannot perform work for MERS as a Citi employee and cannot perform work for Citi as a MERS employee. Pleas keep it simple Im not as smart as some of you so you have to keep it simple. I just need to know before I draft my letters to respond. PS: I know some of you all think that I wont get anywhere, but If I can get this to the right people it could make a difference. I am an Army Officer and I never give up the fight.

  3. Oops meant to send it to my Lawyer. You rock though!!!

    Sent from my iPhone


  4. SELLERS v. WOLLMAN, 510 F.2d 119 (5th Cir. 1975)

    This case has an interesting discussion of attorney fees in TILA violation suits, including payment to pro bono attorneys, like but not necessarily non-profit organizations.

  5. Re FRCP 52

    Sellers v. Wollman, 510 F.2d 119 (5th Cir. 1975), an appeal:

    “No findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed in support of the judgment, as required by Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P. Both sides have filed appeals, plaintiffs asking an increased monetary award and reversal of the denial of attorney’s fees, and Wollman and Tri-State seeking favorable consideration of their counterclaim. In the absence of findings and conclusions we are left to speculation as to the basis for judgment, necessitating vacation and remand for compliance with Rule 52(a).
    The purpose of that rule iterated by the courts and unnecessarily frustrated in this case, “is to aid the appellate court by affording it a clear understanding of the ground or basis of the decision of the trial court”. 2B Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure Sec. 1121, p. 481 (Wright ed. 1961); see 5 Moore, Federal Practice Sec. 52.06[1], p. 2653 (1964). S. S. Silberblatt, Inc. v. United States of America, for Use and Benefit of Lambert Corp., 5 Cir. 1965, 353 F.2d 545, 549. The disagreement of the parties as to the basis for the district court’s judgment demonstrates the insurmountable difficulties facing a court attempting the review of a judgment lacking the necessary undergirding of findings and conclusions.”

    But see 52 (a)(3):

    “(3) For a Motion. The court is not required to state findings or conclusions when ruling on a motion under Rule 12 or 56 or, unless these rules provide otherwise, on any other motion.”
    This hummer requires some research! Rather odd to say that a court may rule X way on a mtn without explaining, is it not? No wonder the banksters like fed jurisdiction (if no good ‘other rule’ or exception is found. In looking for those ways to dodge this lousy (a)(3), we may stumble on more reasons to avoid rule 12 mtns being granted.


    These are Ohio’s. I think the “informed consent” is of particular interest to all of us.

  7. If people want to form their own (lay) opinions as to whether an attorney (for a bankster) is or has engaged in bad faith or illegal acts,
    a good place to start may be one’s state’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Here’s Michigan’s (last updated I believe in August 2013):


    To find your’s, just search My State Rules of Professional Conduct.

  8. James Smith the way they work is have these non paid employee of MERS create and sign these assignment, now whether she can sign depend on who actually hold the title with the debt.

    You got to find out who on title now, because I am sure Citi did not wait 7yrs to title the loan if they first originated because they must first title, before the loan is suppose to go into the MERS system. It not just as simple until you know more to give you and answer.

    If they done everything right and depending on your state the signer may be in the right, but it does not sound like it, and it sound like the loan was originated by another and purchase by Citi.

    You got some homework before you solve this, unless you got a FHA or VA loan.

  9. Charles so if the Geraldine Belinski is employed by citi and signed the document as Vice President can’t do an assignment for MERS?

  10. James Smith you may have a situation where the loan was first not originated by Citi and was filed as a title with that lender, and sold to Citi, because it was closed in 2006 and not assigned until 2013 to Citi.

    Now for Citi to not have gotten the title put in there name until 2013 and not use an assignment dated earlier, and only now assigned by the person, would make me believe the loan was placed into a Fannie, Freddie or Ginnie pool.

    So at one point that Note was assigned in blank and given over to one of the 3 agencies I mention. I don’t believe the Citi/MERS VP could sign an assignment because there is a gap in the title if the Note was every signed endorsed in blank.

    Contract the OCC and request they have Citi send over a fax copy of the Note in its current state, and then you will have to request that fax from the OCC with a Freedom of Information Act request. The Note will tell you what you want to know.

    Now if there was not an exchange in monies for the Note then the loan become invalid because the Note and debt were separated forever and they have a non negotiable document that not even a Note any longer!

  11. KC – I think you’z a tad confused on some stuff, altho when you’re into it, you do some good and valuable research.

    “JG, I am still trying to swallow how a Mortgage Lien
    …. was converted to a Life Estate held in Irrevocable Trust by a Straw Man (MERS). To top that off…. there is NO Beneficiaries named (not even MERS).”

    If you read my stuff today, I either expressed it poorly or you didn’t get it. There’s not, to my knowledge, supposed to be anything held in trust in a mtg. What is supposed to be created in a mortgage (not a dot) is a lien for the lender. But still, there is no “life estate” created that I’m aware of. A life estate is when, say, you want to give your son some rights in your home for his lifetime, but then it will pass to, say, your granddaughter. A life estate is generally for a grantee’s life time. At the end of the grantee’s life, the “estate” will revert to the grantor or the grantor’s designee: If two people are married, and getting a divorce, one spouse may grant the other a life estate in the former marital home, and upon that spouse’s (life-estate grantee) death, the property will go to their child or children.

    I think people misunderstand the word “estate”. People actually have an estate in a rental apartment. It’s called a “leasehold estate”, but it’s not ownership. It’s just rights, like possession. When you go to a movie theater, you have a “license” to be there. It’s good for the duration of the movie you paid to see. Your right is limited to occupancy, and even that is extremely limited, and is not exclusive, like a leasehold estate, so it’s called a license, instead of any kind of estate. No estate was meant to be created for the lender in a mortgage, a two-party instrument, to my knowledge, just a lien.

    “ESCHEAT!” huh?

    “If you hold beneficial interests you need to step up!!”

    jg: what beneficial interest? Step what up?

    “At closing (Trustee Deed) the Grantor only conveys the interests it holds to the Grantees , their beneficiaries and Heirs.”

    jg: In a trustee’s deed, the trustee IS the grantor. He grants the successful bidder, the grantee, the beneficiary’s interest and the homeowner’s. The dot empowers him to do this for CAUSE. There generally is NO ‘closing’ with a trustee’s deed. The bidder must pay cash at f/c sale and the trustee by law, generally, has a limited amt of time to fork over his trustee’s deed to that bidder buyer.

    I guess bottom line, at least for me, is that if a mortgage purports to create anything other than a lien for anyone, it’s a piece of junk. You want to know how they could create a something, and I think you’re misidentifying the something, but regardless, my answer is they can’t.
    Not lawfully, and all contracts to be enforced must be legal, briefly, or at least any provision which is unlawful will be ignored. Depending on how tweaked a deal is, any enforcement at all may not be possible.

    lay opinions – ask a lawyer

  12. My friends, I desperately need your help. After reviewing my Assignment of Deed of Trust I noticed some things that were definitely wrong. The assignment is with Citi Mortgage. The first thing I notice is that it was dated July 26, 2013, which is really crazy because the transaction was conducted back in 2006. The second thing that jumped out at me was the Signature. It is signed by a Geraldine Ann Belinski and her title is Vice President, so I decided to track down this Vice President. I finally reached the office where she worked at Citi Mortgage and I asked to speak to Vice President Belinski. Low and behold the Gentleman that answered the phone stated that she was not the vice president but a mere processor. So armed with that information and some issues with my second mortgage with Wells Fargo, which is securitized I decided to file a complaint with the Office of Comptroller of Currency. My complaint was based on the fact that there is a Cease and Desist order against both banks to stop the robo signing. I have not yet received a response from Wells Fargo, but Citi responded by saying “Our records indicate Geraldine A. Belinski is a certified appointed signor for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc.” What I need help with is, I need to know if she can in fact work for Citi and be a certified appointed signor for MER’s as they stated. Also is she signing the document as a Citi Vice President or MERS Vice President. I need to know because if this is in fact illegal Im going to keep pushing this up the Government Chain of Command until I get some answers. It makes no sense to me that they would initiate a Cease and Desist Order and not take any action when the banks are still clearly doing this. Thanks for your help in this matter James. 443-677-2799.

  13. Also from this platform of conduct and rocket docket judgements the land records have liens that are wrongful and to add insult to Injury these foreclosure mills get a discount for volume. Lovely.

  14. I’m just as perturbed by the ” rocket docket”. Understand it’s how they get away with it and judgements are passed devoid of a hearing or even in some cases, jurisdiction. There are judgements given out against probably thousands whereby the person against which the judgement is held does not even know.

  15. In the beginning, they only went after the borrower in MERS name and not the Beneficiaries or Heirs because there were not listed in public record.

    But in states were there are community property and martial asset laws .. the property always conveys to the martial spouse (T.I.E.), and or beneficial heirs (children ~ next of kin)

    When they got busted … they started suing the Estate, beneficiaries and heirs , exactly what they were trying to avoid
    . Because it gives them NOTICE of rights they don’t know they have.

  16. They are trying to make it look like the ESTATE knew or should have known it didn’t hold the property free and clear (legal and equitable) before conveying …..

    Or that the Plender knew or should have known … the Estates Irrevocable Life Trust was unfunded.
    Or that if it were funded, the mortgage was unenforceable.

  17. JG, I am still trying to swallow how a Mortgage Lien

    …. was converted to a Life Estate held in Irrevocable Trust by a Straw Man (MERS).
    To top that off…. there is NO Beneficiaries named (not even MERS).


    If you hold beneficial interests you need to step up!!

    At closing (Trustee Deed) the Grantor only conveys the interests it holds to the Grantees , their beneficiaries and Heirs.

    A Trust Expressed in the Instrument creating the Estate.


    Sent from my iPad

  19. The Steinberger and Robinson cases have been on the front line here recently, and I have said I didn’t like the court’s ruling in at least one of them (forget which) that MERS wasn’t the ben, but the lender was, because I think that’s not necessarily a fact in evidence and that it may be an unwarranted presumption on the part of the court. The court also said it found no evidence of agency in the membership agreement (as I recall). If MERS is not an agent, then the dot has not been perfected and is not a valid encumberance on the property. So what would it take to make the dot perfected? I think it would take reformation of the dot by the (original lender) and the borrower and then recordation. Obviously that’s problematic, for one, because some of the orig lenders (or note payees – pick one) are toast. The next problem is that not naming a beneficiary is not a scrivener’s-type error. The borrower signs a doc which says he will assist in correcting scrivener-type errors, but since this isn’t such an error, not sure he could be compelled to reform the instrument or sign a new one. One thing against the borrower is that it was clearly his intent to enter into a dot, to allow his home to be used as collateral. If the membership agreement or some other doc doesn’t create an agency, since agency is not found in the dot, then against the members is the fact that they knew or should have known there was no agency, which to me means any alleged assignee has no leg to stand on in trying to get the borrower’s help in reforming the dot to perfect it. And there’s still the problem of MERS showing as the ben in public record. The reformation, if any, would have to disavow that instrument and that may require a “MERS” autograph. But the bottom line to me is if MERS is not the ben, none is named, and the dot is not perfected. Also imo, this is the adjudication the Bain court stopped short of making. If MERS is the ben and there is no agent (my thinking), the borrower has a note with one party and a dot with another and all that would mean.
    lay opinions as always

  20. Good Title consists of both Legal and Equitable title.

    A tenant seised in deed as well as in law thus had obtained the best legal title to his tenure available.

  21. So Todd w
    Yes it’s abuse had nearly 5 years of it and the b.s haven’t hit me down yet and are not likely to , you simply turn the other cheek let them knock the s$&7 outta ya – doesn’t mean you can’t cry but keep putting one foot in front of the other and truth of the matter is revealed ALWAYS. And you must keep a sense of right perspective. Laugh with your buddies – a lot pref over wine leaving out the ” whine” . And that’s all I have to say about that.

  22. KC, KC Look into the Mirror and tell All what you see, ..

    ” I see a ( the ) Corpus of the Estate looking at me”

    Object! Deny! Demand Proof!

  23. RE: There does not appear to be any allegation that the firm was complicit in the filing of a false affidavit.

    Food for Thought …

  24. His job apparently was simply to sign his name. He wasn’t told anything, he didn’t see anything, and he never asked anything. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. —- More like: “I was only doing what I was told.”

  25. Neil Be Strong and Courageous.

  26. The main Question that should be asked is what happened to “Produce the Note”? CORRUPTION

    Neil Be Strong and courageous

  27. It is rather simple false Mortgages were used as vehicles to move illicit funds (launder money).That has been going on since the 1960 and 1970’s what complicated it was when they tried to turn a profit on the false Mortgages by selling them off as securities and when they started to crash they needed to cover their actions by filing insurance claims. IT is like a large fast train on a fast track with no correct direction in sight so they went with it and claimed they needed a bailout to cover their tracks. By doing this they made a profit and had the funds to play with an manipulate the securities and turn a larger profit with service fee’s. It was a win win for the Banks and those investors laundering money. Problem the Banks CEO’s needed to cover their tracks by closing up out standing loans thus the foreclosures kicked in. For every one real foreclosure you average 4 fraudulent foreclosures because no one exist to can not represent in court. So the banks blame everything on the Ghost Lender. If individual auditors were able to track the actual account and bar code on the documents the trail leads to a much larger crime! Legalizing money that was brought into the US by the drug cartels and terrorist groups as well as elite politician’s stealing from their own Country.

  28. Forgot to mention- very helpful with mental health for those (both homeowners and counsel) that have extended exposure to litigation at the hands of an abusive system you turned to for protection of your rights. google “legal abuse syndrome”. Dr. Karin Huffer (who I work with) pioneered this term and body of research as a subcategory of PTSD.

    This psychic injury (not mental illness) is backed by the scientific research, Dr. Huffer’s work was peer reviewed for 7 yrs before she wrote her first book and has been advancing the right to accomodations in the courts for those suffering from LAS.

    Anyone who has had the sh…. beat out of them by an abuse “just-us” system is prime candidate for LAS. It’s had to think you may be suffering from an invisible injury but symptoms like sleep disturbance, inability to pay attention, fear of getting the mail, fear of doorbell ringing, fear of going into a courtroom are all very real, not contrived symptoms.

    The point of this?? LAS mandates accomodations such as audio and video of hearings, telephone hearings and right to “meaningful” and full access to the courts.

    Best part?? If you get screened by a professional educated in this area, all med files are confidential and protected by HIPAA and the accomodations are done though court administration. They are a ministerial act NOT discretionary, meaning if they “judge” tries to mess with the accomodations, they are acting outside their jurisdiction and waive immunity.

    The “stick” is the ADA and more relevant ADAAA (ADA Amendments Act) passed in 2008. It is an unfunded mandate (not a big deal at this point) but if court administration violates your right to accomodations the federal lawsuit for violation of ADAAA by the state court destroys both corrosive purported judicial “immunity” AND 11th Amendment corrosive “immunity” for the state.

    Translated- most complaints by suffers of LAS for violation of ADAAA result in settlements. The goal is to get some good case law/ reported opinions to further mandate compliance.

    But- how ironic the very “federal” monster that has been overrun by crooked bankers and their cronys that sanctions gross abuse of your rights can be used to enforce those very rights being trounced upon.

    There are many testimonials of people that after being found to suffered the injury of LAS and demanding accomodations have seen miraculous things happen with their cases.

    Is this a magic bullet ? No. Is it very real and does LAS explain a lot of symptoms many homeowners who have had the sh…. beat out of them for an extended period of time experience (mental and physical)? Yes.

    We all just want a fair shake. If we lose fair and square so be it, but we all know this is NOT a fair fight. This legitimate tool can even the fight and provide fair and meaningful access to the courts and fair treatment by public servants occupying an office of the public trust.

    I strongly encourage anyone experiencing some of the manifestations of LAS listed above to google the term, contact Dr. Huffer and explore this information further.

    It answered a lot of questions for myself and has been incredibly helpful in continuing the fight for fairness and justice without being ground into oblivion by the criminal cabal.

  29. I would like to be the proverbial “fly on the wall” when these judges are told that screwing the American homeowner is in the best interests of the country and that unless we screw the homeowner, the whole shaky edifice ( the economy) comes crashing down. Whatta load of BS! Check out Paul Craig Roberts and the dollar vs. the banks. Should be very interesting.

  30. I am tired of pointing out all the discrepancy , lies , fraud, mistakes (call it whatever you want) in my foreclosure documents and being told it just doesn’t matter !!!!

  31. I think anyone in the fraudclosure game knows now to win- destroy their credibility, purported “evidence” with no foundation (100% of the time) is inadmissible if the rules of evidence were followed and same ole–1) demand verified accounting- all debits, credits, 3rd party pmts made on behalf of homeowner and 2) verified chain of custody to the title (legal and beneficial) to the purported obligation, blah, blah,.

    We all know this is how to destroy their frivolous, sham, bogus, unresearched claim 100% of the time. We also know the actors in black dresses (excepting maybe 4%) are in back pocket of banks. That is a fact. We know (after having done many in several states) grievances on attorneys and “judges” many acting without jurisdiction, thereby waiving immunity, are covered up by the entities that “self regulate” (absolute immunity and power corrupt absolutely- who didn’t know this happens throughout history?).

    Evidence is found (Fla for example) in that those on the board of Fla. Bar also happen to be on board or controlling the Fla. Lawyers Mutual Ins. Co. that has to pay the liability claims. So when the verified grievance supported with facts, evidence and law is tendered with the Fla Bar, it’s immediately covered up.

    David Stern and a few other criminals got thrown under the bus because of the utter embarrassment to the racket, they had to be sacrificed– but not without a “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…” finger waving fight. Stern “reinvented” himself flipping burgers with a Five Guys franchise. Just like all those that had the sh… sued out of them- Novastar “reinvented” itself into Novation Companies, Aurora Loan Services to Aurora Commercial, now to Nationstar that bought the corporate “person” who committed untold frauds, etc.

    We’ve “won” so many times in multiple states (including 3x in Mississippi- but “judge” keeps forgetting to sign the blank Order of Dismissal with prejudice- despite JPMorgan and lackey coward attorneys not showing up all 3 times!! Even after her cowardly ass said in open courtroom in front of witnesses she would) so we are directing attention to where the core problem lies.

    The problem lies in those actors in black dresses-often absent jurisdiction, reasoned opinion, facts or law (i.e. they can’t make up enough lies to cover their ass) whose arbitrary and capricious conduct directed toward homeowners and their counsel consistently evidences the pattern of willful gross bias and prejudice, while ignoring the Canons of Judicial Conduct, common law and equities among the parties.

    We know (Einstein I think it was) said definition of insanity is doing same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It is insane to keep banging your head against the wall thinking the “facts and law” matters (excepting those 4% of public servants who abide by their oath and canons) so focus the energy where the problem exists.

    Those judicial financial disclosure forms and campaign contribution only tell half of the crooked story. Many have accounts out of state and offshore they don’t put on those disclosure forms or they (have several instances- Sonny Chiu- who was murdered after discovering a big one) just “forget” to list certain assets on those forms. When Sonny discovered this on the judge that fu…. him, he went to the FBI, prosecutors, detectives who all turned their backs on Sonny. A few weeks later Sonny ended up dead after he “fell and bumped his head”.

    I hope everyone who has any skin in the game (we have a lot of it) and has been banging their heads against the wall screaming “why??” when your rights to substantive and procedural due process are summarily stomped on, start focusing your energy on the problem and stop thinking those power centered public servants who abuse that power for personal gain at the expense of those conscious centered people (85% of the population- proven out) who actually follow the “do unto others…” golden rule not “he who has the gold makes the rules..” focus your precious time and energy on where the problem lies.

    I hope this is helpful. We are pursuing impeachment petitions when all other attempts at redress of grievances have been summarily ignored. Also after getting the sham “immunity” dismissals after suing actors in black dresses in 42USC 1983 cases are requeueing up again along with constitutional tort (violation of 5th not 14 amendment- privileges not rights) claims.

    There are glimmers of hope – ie the TX “judge” who just went to jail for taking bribes for years along with prosecutor. Dig into Operation Broken Gavel and a bit older but applicable Operation Greylord.

    We lobbied House Judiciary Committee 2yrs ago just after crook “judge” Thomas Porteous was impeached and removed from federal bench and no Congressional staffer wanted to talk about it. That pr….k was taking bribes to cover his gambling debts for years.

    Picture yourself in front of Porteous when he was a Louisiana state court “judge” in a custody battle for your kids or saving your home and this pr….. has got his fat sticky hand behind his back taking bribes while sticking it to you…. This is very real, not hypothetical and plays out across the country as the evidence proves.

    Follow the money as NG says but follow it to those actors in black dresses that are systematically destroying our way of life on a daily basis.

    Hats off to Schack, more recently McConnell in RI and those brave public servants who actually take your oaths seriously. We should all come to their defense and support those who are actually doing their jobs.

    Hang tough….

  32. You got this brotherhood with these attorney who as Neil is saying that they should not be disbarred but how about the people who are dishomed?

    Neil fails to understand that no one other than home mortgage lenders can originate and fund loans, and all this “investors” gave monies to these lenders to produce loan does not matter because those “investors” could not be holder of home mortgage debt because by law they cannot purchase it.

    Attorneys were submitting forgeries as these pretend MERS Assistance Secretary as with these foreclosure mills. They are not paying $200 billion in settlement because they were right or slightly right.

    Neil got this problem with the homeowners receiving the homes back of full restitution, and that why these crisis is in year 6.

  33. Take a look at Brock & Scott, of VA, SC, NC, FL, GA..analysis of documents appear to have on of the attorneys for the firm signing over DOT’s, assignments and fake POA’s…then from Blank Rome of DE. ledgers from 1985 when the origination occurred in 2005. WHAT? They damned well do know!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: