For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688
Patrick Giunta, Esq. will be the guest on the Neil Garfield Show next Thursday, 6pm EDT.
===========================
See Final Judgment: PURSGLOVE FINAL JUDGMENT DOC031715-001
See Transcript of Judge’s Order: Pursglove – Excerpt of Trial Transcript
Besides rescission, there are many other heavy duty weapons available to borrowers when it comes to defending foreclosure cases. The assumption that the party named as Plaintiff even knows of the existence of the foreclosure is false. The assumption that there ever was a transaction in which the Plaintiff EVER acquired the loan, the note or the mortgage is false. And the assumption that the “servicer” is the party authorized to manage the loan is false — because they are the agent of a Trust that does not own the loan, note or mortgage. And the assumption that the foreclosing party actually knows the balance due from the borrower is false. And the assumption that there is a default is usually false — especially when you see the balance continue to go down in monthly statements sent after the borrower stops paying (obviously from servicer advances).
While each case varies on the facts, this case is instructive on winning a foreclosure case where claims of securitization are involved. The Banks simply cannot win if they are actually required to prove the facts that they are attempting to get the court to presume. The attorneys of record for the homeowners were Patrick Giunta and myself. Further proceedings are expected for the recovery of costs and other matters. Patrick and I litigate some cases directly and we provide litigation support for cases across the country for lawyers who are litigating foreclosures, many times in hostile judicial climates.
As I have stated in hundreds of articles, these cases are winnable on one or more of several grounds — ownership, authority, balances and default. In this case it helped that Chase had sent out a notice of default the same day they processed a current payment from the homeowner. If the loan was truly owned by the Trust or the Trustee for the Trust, if the default had actually happened, and the servicing had been done properly, there would have been no need to slip SPS (Select Portfolio Servicing, owned by Credit Suisse) and its “boarding” process in to avoid embarrassing questions. In this case the attempt to bull doze the court with a cloud of paper didn’t work. They had to show real facts and they couldn’t. They couldn’t show real facts because the real facts contradicted their position as owner and servicer.
This is one of those moments that makes the struggle worthwhile. The case named the Plaintiff as US Bank “as trustee” for either a trust or certificate holders. As usual, no witness actually appeared for the Trust, the Trustee or the former “servicer.” There was no credible evidence showing US Bank was the Trustee. The Pooling and Servicing agreement said that Chase was the servicer but the Court found that the cutoff date could not have been satisfied. Hence the Trust was being falsely presented as the owner of a loan that it couldn’t possibly own by the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA). Hence Chase was not the legal servicer of the loan and neither was SPS who produced various Powers of Attorney, endorsements that were obviously backdated etc. none of which gave them any more power than Chase had.
The Court found that the “boarding process” was evidence that could be admitted but then concluded that the boarding process was unreliable, and essentially untrustworthy and not credible. The witness for SPS was found to be credible — but not his testimony — because the information he had was insufficient to justify the claim of default and any claims about the balance. And the Court found that Chase had played with the escrow accounting and it was obvious that if anything, the homeowners had not only paid, but had quite probably overpaid the account.
- This most likely applies to whoever it was that could be identified as Plaintiff — The Trust, the Holders of Certificates, US Bank, SPS (Specialized Loan Services), Chase, JP Morgan Chase Acquisition Corp., JP Morgan Chase, N.A. etc.
- The suit was brought to enforce contractual rights contained in the note and mortgage introduced as Plaintiff’s exhibits.
- The Court found there was no basis for Chase or SPS to “service” the loan account, collect any payments, maintain an escrow, make any disbursements except as a volunteer, or enforce the debt, note or mortgage. [This sets the stage for a lawsuit for disgorgement of money paid — pretty much the same thing as TILA rescission]
- Plaintiff’s counsel announced that they were dropping their claims for anything other than principal and interest — thus dropping any claim for escrow for taxes and insurance, late charges, advances, fees, etc. There was a good reason for this — Chase had been using the escrow account as a slush fund.
- SPS was unable to establish that it had the authority to service the Loan account. The Court found they did not have that authority.
- SPS was unable to establish that they had the authority to “represent” the Trust, US Bank, or the holders of certificates.
- No corporate representative of US Bank appeared. The SPS representative had no knowledge of any books, records or business of the Trust or Trustee. The lawyers were trying to snow the Judge. By diverting attention to the allegation of default, they were attempting to get the Judge to ignore the fact that the borrower didn’t owe these people any money and that previous collections were unauthorized.
- No corporate representative of Chase Bank the alleged former servicer appeared.
- No corporate representative of JP Morgan Chase Acquisition Trust Corp appeared, nor did the court receive any evidence or proffer as to the existence of such an entity. But it appeared nonetheless in the document trail.
- Plaintiff during the latter part of litigation chose to style the case naming as Plaintiff US Bank, NA as Trustee for the holders of the certificates issued by a trust. No certificates were produced, nor any authority for the holders to collect or enforce the alleged debt, and no authority was presented to the court as to the right of the holders of those certificates to pursue foreclosure.
- The evidence included as unsigned Pooling and Servicing agreement which included a cut-off date of November 16, 2006 for the loan to have been acquired by a trust through purchase of the debt from JP Morgan Acquisition Corp. The evidence did not include any evidence of a transaction in which the Trust actually purchased the loan for value, much less that such a transaction was completed before the cutoff date. The PSA was relied upon by the Plaintiffs as authority for filing the foreclosure. The Court found that none of the parties variously identified as Plaintiffs or representing the Plaintiffs ever acquired the debt, note or mortgage.
- The evidence regarding transfer documents for the loan was not credible. The court found that the debt was not acquired and that neither the note nor the mortgage was acquired by the Trust, Holders of certificates, or JP Morgan Acquisition Trust before the lawsuit was filed. The documents appear to have been backdated because the copy of the note attached to the complaint was clearly different than the note with various endorsements (one stamped VOID) that was introduced at trial.
- The Plaintiff failed to establish a credible default date. The court finds that the default letter dated November 3, 2008 was wrong as to the existence of a default, wrong as to the date of the alleged default and clearly wrong as to the amount required for reinstatement. The Court further found that the witness for Plaintiff, while credible, did not have adequate information to answer the simplest questions about the loan account.
- While the “Boarding Process” was initially presumed to be adequate to establish the records of the “prior servicer” (Chase Bank), continued attacks in cross examination (and questions from the Bench) later proved the Boarding process and the therefore the previous records of the “servicer” Chase to be not trustworthy or credible — with testimony about “default dates” of July 1, August 1, September 1, October 1 (all 2008) unexplained. In the end there was no default date.
- The Court noted that after preparing for multiple trial dates, the sole witness for the Plaintiff could not answer the question posed by the Court: When was the default date? The Court noted that it had taken eleven minutes for the witness, who was still analyzing the report generated by Chase the previous servicer, whose records had been “boarded” by Select Portfolio Servicing claiming to be the successor to the servicing rights on the alleged loan. During that period the witness gave three different dates for default and gave 4 different dates for the last credit to the borrower’s account. The last date conformed with the testimony of the Defendant’s sole witness who said that her last payment was in November, 2008 on the same day that Chase records showed processing for that payment which was the same date that Chase sent out the default letter.
- The amount demanded for “reinstatement” in the default letter was clearly wrong and could not be explained by Plaintiffs. Regardless of which figure was used in the default letter dated November 3, 2008, none of the amounts could be reconciled with even common sense. The letter says the the default occurred as of the payment due for October 1, 2008, and yet the Plaintiff admitted receiving two payments — one for October and one for November between October 1, 2008 and November 3, the same day that the default letter was sent out (only 34 days after the alleged “default”).
- The Court found the default letter was wrongly prepared even if it was sent to the Defendants, which was doubtful. There was no evidence of mailing the default letter. Hence the conditions precedent in paragraph 22 of the mortgage were not satisfied by Plaintiff or any related parties prior to suit being filed. None these, Plaintiffs or their representatives (Chase) had the right to elect to accelerate the entire debt due as stated on the note and mortgage. The Court found that the acceleration and the default letter were wrongfully prepared and that the foreclosure of the mortgage was accordingly wrong.
- The Chase records on handling of the escrow payments, the reversal for “escrow purposes” could not be justified since the monthly payments admittedly received by Chase included principal, taxes, taxes and insurance. Other entries of payments, reversals and transactions relating to insurance could not be explained and would indicate that Chase had at least been negligent in the bookkeeping and accounting for their own posting of entries into loan account for the subject loan.
- The Court reserved jurisdiction to consider entitlement and amount of fees and costs to be awarded to the Defendants as the prevailing party in this action.
We have seen numerous cases in which the Borrower won. In this case a Final Judgment of Dismissal not only put the Borrower in position of winner, it established the grounds for a wrongful foreclosure with aggravating circumstances to support a claim for punitive damages in a subsequent lawsuit.
What’s the trick? There is no trick. If your next door neighbor wants to collect your payment for credit cards or student loans you would properly refuse to give him a dime and probably report him for attempted fraud. There is only one creditor in these transactions — some undefined group of investors whose money was diverted into commingled accounts on Wall Street where the money was laundered, dry cleaned and pressed into the service of the Banks who were supposed to be mere brokers. Instead the Banks created the illusion that THEY were the principals. The only way they could maintain that illusion was by getting foreclosure sales in their names. And the only way they could do that was by lying to the court. So far their strategy has worked in most cases because borrowers didn’t realize they were being used as pawns in relation to predatory transactions as defined by the Federal Reserve and TILA.
PRACTICE POINTER: The strategy was not to use up all our arguments against information that was proffered as evidence, but to attack the evidence once it was introduced — hoisting the Plaintiffs up on “their own petards.” Many pro se litigants and lawyers assume that they lost because the court correctly allows a document or testimony as evidence admitted into the record. But the fact that something is allowed as evidence doesn’t mean the matter is proven: for a good trial lawyer it presents a nice target to rip apart false and fraudulent attempts at foreclosure.
Filed under: foreclosure |
Can I ask what your defense was?
There no attorneys in Maryland who will defend foreclosures or Fraudclosures. We just have to walk away and live our lives. SMH. I have done everything I can possibly think of including all these cases that livinglies present here and Judges in Maryland seem to think non-judicial means NO DUE PROCESS!
Lost property in an UNLAWFUL foreclosure,where a Notary Publuc,used a feaudulenr,and forged signature,in a 11/09/2007,move of the loan,from Washington Mutual Bank to US BANK.
We did not know,the signature was (ab initio) until we were informed of the Notary’s forged signature,through a letter sent to us,on August 28,2013.
We did not know,that forged assignments of mortgages,ARE ANALOGOUS,TO A FORGED DEED,and that there is,NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION,IN FRAUD,OR FORGED DEED CAES,UNTIL WE READ:
1. FAISON v. Lewis,2015,N.Y. Slip Op 04026.
2. We are still in the property,after it was sold,WHAT DO WE DO NOW,with the evidence of the FORGED SIGNATURE,OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC,in ADDITION TO THE FOUR ROBO SIGNERS ON THE SAME ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE THAT HAS THE FORGED NOTARY SIGNATURE,HERE IN NEW YORK?
If you cannot practice law in New York,who could you recommend,please.Thank you.
Hi thank you for letting me know Patrick Giunta does not practice in Maryland, only in the state of Florida. Please contact info@lendinglies.com. Thank you.
Do you know of an attorney with similiar experience that does practice in md?
Thank you
Wendy Cottrell
Patrick Giunta does not practice in Maryland, only in the state of Florida. Please contact info@lendinglies.com. Thank you.
Does Patrick Giunta, Esq. Practice in Maryland? If not is there an attorney with his similar experience that you could recommend that does practice in Maryland?
I have a case with assignment to us bank as trustee for Chase by an s ps employee named Koch where the assigning bank was out of business. I lost my property as I didn’t bring this out as I didn’t know and just focused on the complaint being filed past the statute of limitations. This might be void from what I read and someone owes me some money and some new boots.
What you wrote here is exactly what happened and still happening to me. I had 3 homes being foreclosed all at the same time in 2013 due to a messy divorce. With a corrupt bankruptcy lawyer helping my soon to be ex, along with his colleagues, 2 of my homes were forcefully taken away from me and my 4 kids by the greedy banks who has no right to foreclose on my homes. I intend to fight the banks and force them to provide real proof on their standing. I was forced to let go of my main home and my rental home through force and trickery almost 3 years ago. Many months after the supposed sale of my homes, I demanded SPS to give me back my Promissory Note. Of course they couldn’t provide anything. They had the audacity to tell me, “It’s done and over with, focus on your current home or you’ll lose it too!” In hopes of finding out the truth on what happened on the sale of my main home, I demanded to see all of the paperwork recorded at the county relating to the sale of my 2 homes. At first, the County Recorder’s office refused to give me all of my paperwork. In fact it took me more than a year and a half before I was able to get all of the paperwork pertaining to the sale of my main home. It took me to demand my rights under the FOIA from the Deputy Counsel of the County before I was granted access to my paperwork. After reviewing the data I got from the County, I am now fully convinced that there were fraudulent activities relating to the sale of my 2 homes that was forcefully taken away from me. With the help of the greedy BK lawyer, SPS/Chase got away from taking my 2 homes. I intend to prove that SPS/Chase have no right for my homes. I hope you will help me and the nice bankruptcy lawyer who took my case despite of me not having any means to repay her for now. With all the evidence I accumulated, I have no doubt I can prove my case well and demand justice for me and my kids.
My husband’s and I mortgage was with HSBC and sold to what our “servicer” SPS-SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING refer to as: “investor”, “creditor”, and/or “note holder”.
US Bank National Association, as indentured trustee, for CIM Trust 2016-3, Mortgaged-Backed Notes, Series 2016-3 is the owner of our mortgage and SPS the servicer. And loan owner may change from time to time. Who owns my home which is still upside down and the payments made on time. No one will help us with our “upside down”. Our account manager at SPS suggested asking th be trustees if they would forgive $70k. Like they would b we willing to do that..
Ive narrowed 228,000 and I’ve paid for 8 years my place is worth way more than that as I put 150,000 in it from the get go plus owned the land. I got hurt at my work of 22 years and list everything now I’m in forclosure filed chapter 13 and am awaiting hearing I’ve signed 6 big promissory notes there is 5 deeds of trust at the courthouse and I can’t figure out for the life of me what they have done but I smell fraud.
Why this site has everything but separate lists of all the bad acts by banks is beyond me. Everyone needs to gather the information and post it. Each bank should have it’s own list of fraud they were caught for. We also need numbers. The total amount of cases being filed in every state that allege the same things are bona fide proof that this is not the normal circumstances and that what everybody is alleging must be true.
The notion that millions of people could have conspired to make the same things up would be absurd.
The reason people are getting railroaded in court is because they aren’t doing the work that’s needed. You have to research all the frauds up on the court committed by your bank, all the fines and penalties, all the orders and deferred prosecutions, and present them to the court. They can’t ignore that. You have to present it as a special circumstance that allows them to deviate from the normal rules.
The courts are trying to treat these cases as if they were normal circumstances, but they aren’t. The goal is to show they are habitual offenders, and thus cannot be taken at their word. Especially when habitual acts of fraud upon the court is concerned. They have a duty to protect the integrity of the judicial system.
Reblogged this on occupyourhomesfl.
Can I get some help in Maryland!? Good lawd they are killing us over here. My federal case is in court Pro Se but I could really use legal help or education about my case. No Lender Signed. Fannie Mae Investor Trust 2007-20with possible US Bank. GMAC/OCWEN and NationStar sold a real estate transaction with my alleged account numbers (credit report) in the year following the foreclosure case and days before the sale. No PSA and No SEC filed. No assignments of Note or Deed until after the sale. Go Figure! elsiesharp@comcast.net
After two years, agonizing through litigation, I’ve decided not to appeal this go round. I rather decided to live the rest of my time thankful and enjoying what I have. I have family, and nearing age 70 being homeless is frightening.
Trespass Unwanted–you are brilliant.
Here’s a Garfield win. The order says “judgment for defendant.” Anyone can read it for themselves. That’s a win, no matter how you look at it. Neil is not Superman; he cannot undo decades upon decades of court bias against “borrowers” in one case or even in a hundred cases.
Huzzah to the The Garfield firm!
All I know is my Deed of Trust has a definition, Lender.
Only one definition and one named as Lender, didn’t even say Creditor, said Lender.
Two, my deed of trust said the Lender could sell an interest or partial interest in the note, but it NEVER SAID, whoever they sold it to became the new Lender or a Creditor (which by all purposes they were not the Creditor)….and FDCPA gives definition of creditor as one who extends create to create a debt, and the Lender did not extend credit and did not create a debt.
So, I don’t care if JG holds the note, and johngault I hope you don’t mind me using those initials in this example, if JG held the note, he is not the Lender, nor the Creditor and I’m not beholden to him to pay him anything. JG’s agreement in his interest or partial interest in the note, is between he and whoever sold him the note, and that would not convey interest in the property I have possession of because I extended credit that created the debt promised in the note when I signed the note.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
Anything but Produce the note = discrimination lawsuit
Anything but Produce the note = No due process
Anything but Porduce the note = Corrup
NEVER AGAIN
Christine = Axis Sally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_Gillars
NEVER AGAIN
l found something to smile about tonight. “U.S. Bank as trustee” got wiped out in a f/c action by a homeowner’s association. US Bk argued that the cc&r’s stated any hoa dues liens, ess, were to be subordinate to any first mtg lien on a home in the PUD. However, certain (state) statutes prioritized the hoa liens AND the statute said the priority could not be waived by agreement (i..e., in the CC&R’s). Yesterday or so I said parties may agree to anything with a lawful goal and further, that there was nothing in the default law UCC to prohibit them from agreeing to who could enforce, as was done in these notes imo: First of all, the UCC is default law.
Secondly it doesn’t (and prob can’t imo) prohibit anyone from making any particular agreement in a note or any agreement or contract. Some people may not know what “default law” is, so I’ll try as a lay person to explain it. It’s law which is turned to when a contract or agreement doesn’t resolve an issue by its terms and language or when even after looking at that language and terms, the so what can’t be determined. The UCC will get looked at for a remedy to a problem. The UCC, article 9, for instance, says that when there’s an agreement for the sale of a note, it’s paid for, but not forthcoming, the buyer has a security interest in that note and presumably that sec interest is senior to any subsequent sale of the note by the bad-apple seller. This is somewhat at odds with a hdc; in other words, if Joe then thought he bought the note in good faith, for value, and without notice of the first buyer’s sec interest and rights. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know where that dust would settle, but I believe the UCC would resolve it.
But, the agreement between the seller and the first buyer wouldn’t necessarily (and prob wouldn’t) spell out the buyer’s security interest in the event of non-delivery, so the UCC does. imo.
I believe the note restricts the party who may enforce and it’s also interesting that these notes come with successor liability established by state or federal law.
I think this might be worth discussion:
“The value of an interest in a contract instrument is determined by the value of the collateral pledged in the instrument. Purchasers generally acquire loan contracts at mark down or discounted prices.”
http://www.tax-help-guide.com/subrogation.html
Why would a trust or anyone buy a note in default and with a reduced collateral value? (Some states out right prohibit deficiency judgments, making these deals non-recourse, i.e., no money judgment available)
So… there we have it again.
JG, who long ago used to post during the day and no longer does, coming up as the last blogger of the day with… some 1998 judgment completely irrelevant to anyone’s foreclosure in 2015.
I seriously rest my case. The evidence is overwhelming. No Mark Stopa here. No Max Gardner. No Troy Doucet either. Rest assured: NG will still find people to buy his audits, based on his editorials and his bloggers: “There’s a sucker born every minute.” They flock here.
From U.S. v Beggerly (re: equitable relief from judgment) 1998
“In the years following the adoption of the Rules, however, courts
differed over whether the new Rule 60(b) provided the exclusive
means for obtaining postjudgment relief, or whether the writs
that had been used prior to the adoption of the Federal Rules still
survived. This problem, along with several others, was addressed in
the 1946 amendment to Rule 60(b). The 1946 amendment revised the Rule to read substantially as it reads now:
“(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered
Evidence; Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just,
the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence
could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct
of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment
has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment
upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or
it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have
prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying
relief from the operation of the judgment.
The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for
reasons (1), (2), and (3)
not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding
was entered or taken.
A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of
a judgment or suspend its operation.
**This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an
independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or
proceeding,** or to grant relief to a defendant not actually
personally notified as provided in Title 28, U.S.C. § 1655,
or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. Writs of
coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and
bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the
procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall
be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent
action.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 60(b).
The new Rule thus made clear that nearly all of the old forms of
obtaining relief from a judgment, i.e., coram nobis, coram
vobis, audita querela, bills of review, and bills in the
nature of review, had been abolished.
The revision made equally clear, however, that one of the old forms,
i.e., the “independent action,”[fn2] still survived. The Advisory
Committee notes confirmed this, indicating that “[i]f the right to
make a motion is lost by the expiration of the time limits fixed in
these rules, the only other procedural remedy is by a new or
independent action to set aside a judgment upon those principles
which have heretofore been applied in such an action.” Advisory
Committee’s Notes, supra, at 787.
The “independent action” sounded in equity. While its precise
contours are somewhat unclear, it appears to have been more
broadly available than the more narrow writs that the 1946
amendment abolished. One case that exemplifies the category is
Pacific R. Co. v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. of Mo.,
111 U.S. 505 (1884).[fn3]
In Pacific the underlying suit had resulted in a court
decree foreclosing a mortgage on railroad property and ordering
its sale. This Court enforced the decree and shortly thereafter
the railroad company whose property had been foreclosed filed a
bill to impeach for fraud the foreclosure decree that had just
been affirmed. The bill alleged that the plaintiffs in the
underlying suit had conspired with the attorney and directors
of the plaintiff in the subsequent suit to ensure that the
property would be forfeited. The plaintiff in the subsequent
suit was a Missouri corporation, and it named several other
Missouri citizens as defendants in its bill seeking relief from
the prior judgment.
When the matter reached this Court, we rejected the contention
that the federal courts had no jurisdiction over the bill because
the plaintiff and several of the defendants were from the same
State. We first noted that there was no question as to the
court’s jurisdiction over the underlying suit, and then said:
“On the question of jurisdiction the [subsequent] suit may be
regarded as ancillary to the [prior] suit, so that the relief
asked may be granted by the court which made the decree in that
suit, without regard to the citizenship of the present
parties. . . . The bill, though an original bill in the
chancery sense of the word, is a continuation of the former suit,
on the question of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.”
Id., at 522.
Even though there was no diversity, the Court relied on the
underlying suit as the basis for jurisdiction and allowed the
independent action to proceed. The Government is therefore wrong
to suggest that an independent action brought in the same court
as the original lawsuit requires an independent basis for
jurisdiction.
This is not to say, however, that the requirements for a
meritorious independent action have been met here. If relief may
be obtained through an independent action in a case such as this,
where the most that may be charged against the Government is a
failure to furnish relevant information that would at best form
the basis for a Rule 60(b)(3) motion, the strict 1-year time
limit on such motions would be set at naught.
Independent actions must, if Rule 60(b) is to be interpreted as a coherent whole, be reserved for those cases of “injustices which, in certain instances, are deemed sufficiently gross to demand a departure”
from rigid adherence to the doctrine of res judicata. Hazel-Atlas
Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 244 (1944).
Such a case was Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 589
(1891), in which the plaintiff alleged that judgment had been
taken against her in the underlying action as a result of a
forged document…….”
Alina,
Thank you.
I did find the judgment for dismissal (after 20 years in court and a mountain of parties… I wonder how much Pursglove actually paid all those years to defend himself). No trial notes anywhere. Can’t even verify NG was involved. And it says nothing about no one else being able to file again at a later date. I don’t call that a win; I call that a stall. A 20 year-long stall. So does anyone somewhat versed in litigation.
Sorry but too much BS has been spread here for too long.
Louise and trespass
The debt is the issue , I checked my credit reports which were somewhat revealing, I’m not done taking that to task either.
jdsupra article
Florida Appellate Court Holds Dismissal of Foreclosure Action Could Time Bar Subsequent Action
4/8/2015 by Elizabeth Bohn,
Dismissal with prejudice or without prejudice what is the mortgage company to do about that statute of limitations.
jdsupra articles
Third Circuit Rules FDCPA Claims Can Be Based on Foreclosure Complaints
4/10/2015 by Martin Bryce, Jr.,
Law firm stealing the home included attorney fees for services not yet rendered as payment due from the one defending their right to not be robbed of their home.
So they attacked the debt collection practice, of the debt collecting law firm (who is a debt collector by definition for collecting a debt for another) that violated Federal Law.
Trespass Unwanted
I agree a dismissal without prejudice is worthless. However, I think the number of lawsuits, class actions and forced settlements is beginning to impinge. Ocwen is getting out of the servicing business. That says volumes. Also, Wilbur Ross is no longer part of Ocwen and servicing either. A big bottom feeder debt collector scu%$ag. It is just taking too long. BTW, here is something interesting about debt collecting: after a certain amount of time (usually 18 months) the debt is written off. They may not collect on that debt again because it has been written off. No double dipping. May be some areas to attack.
She is in Ohio…so I have been told, by others familiar with her, Alina.
For your entertainment – both hours are here
archive . logosradionetwork . com / rule-of-law / 2014-rule-of-law / 05-02-14-rule-of-law/
Trespass Unwanted
jg you are right, the getting there is the hardest part.
But we are getting closer
void judgments dot com / audio / ROL_2014-05-02_64k_Hr1&2.mp3
DOAN v. WILKERSON, 56591 (Nev. 6-26-2014)
327 P.3d 498, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 48
CRAIG A. DOAN, Appellant, v. RICHARD WILKERSON, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE,
Respondent.
Filed June 26, 2014
Equitable relief as an independent action
Relief in equity by independent action may be granted when the
claimant meets the traditional requirements of an equitable action,
which are more demanding than the requirements of NRCP 60(b)(l)-(3).
Bonnell, 128 Nev. at ___, 282 P.3d at 715. An independent action for
relief from a judgment that has become final or unreviewable “`[is]
available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.'” Id.
(alteration in original)
(quoting United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47 (1998)).**
Claim preclusion does not bar independent actions for equitable
relief because the exceptional circumstances justifying equitable
relief also justify deviation from the doctrine of claim preclusion.
Bonnell, 128 Nev. at ___, 282 P.3d at 717 (adopting the reasoning of
Beggerly that independent actions for relief must meet a demanding
standard to justify “departure from rigid adherence to the doctrine
of res judicata” (internal quotation omitted)); see also Amie, 106
Nev. at 542, 796 P.2d at 234 (“The right to bring an independent
action for equitable relief is not necessarily barred by res
judicata.”).[fn3] Society has no interest in the finality
of a judgment that was procured by fraud upon the court. NC-DSH, 125
Nev. at 653, 218 P.3d at 858.”
**Beggerly is actually a QT action filed by the United States!
Fraud on the court is not the only reason justifying equitable relief. It must have been the reason in the last case cited. This is a case decided on state specific laws, but these same principles will be found in the FRCP’s. One thing this case or another referenced is that one should make the move before not making the move has caused the other party to do something it would rather not have, essentially, in reliance on the ruling one wants tossed mol.
TU at 9:57 first para: right on and left off. I went into this a long time ago and actually, not that long ago by way of an example of a chinese firm assigning a debt to a U.S. company for jurisdictional reasons (the court ruled the u.s. co. was a debt collector essentially, no skin in game x small percentage for collection) But when we don’t know how to make the fraudster prove his skin in the game, it’s for naught.
Neil is fired because while he touts challenging presumptions, which I’ve tried to articulate ways to do in the past, he doesn’t present any
mechanisms of doing that. I appreciate a bottom line event, but the how you got there is what matters to those here.
void judgments dot com
Trespass Unwanted
FDCPA is not the route to follow, it has it’s limits as far as penalties to the offender, but there is more than one door to stop someone from hurting us, we just need to learn how to open them and then close the offenders off on the other side of them, shutting them out of our lives.
Trespass Unwanted
http://fairdebtcollection.com/pdf/fdcpa.pdf
15 USC 1692a —– ——- § 803. Definitions
The term “creditor” means any person who offers or
extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is
owed, but such term does not include any person to the
extent that he receives an assignment or transfer of a
debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection
of such debt for another.
————
Now by signing the promissory note, the debt was created.
Debt is created from extending credit.
The bank took the note, typed in the credit amount (the amount extended) and created the debt, but it was by our signature.
Notice it does NOT including any person to the extent that receives and assignment or transfer of a debt in default SOLELY for the purpose of ….collection of such debt FOR ANOTHER.
So tell me.
Those who are represented in court, suing you for a debt that they were assigned for the collection of the debt FOR ANOTHER, are debt collectors, not creditors.
See how that applies to the law firm who is not the creditor, and for the law firm representing the trust who is not the creditor but claims to be collecting the debt using the name of the trust for another (debt collector), and for law firms representing the servicer who is supposedly collecting the debt FOR ANOTHER according to the PSA.
Just consider it, Do they have standing, and what violations are there, and what causes of action and elements can be proven to state the claim for relief?
Trespass Unwanted
I’ve argued that the language in the note prevails over the default law UCC. See No. 16 of the dot. It doesn’t say that the terms of the note or dot conflict with any applicable law. In fact, it’s written somewhat oddly, except to the extent that it (may) read that the contract will be enforced with the exception of any part which conflicts with any applicable law. That part is standard for contracts (they often say the contract will be enforced ‘as if any unlawful provision is not a part hereto’).
But, there is no law which precludes the agreement found in the note as to whom may enforce the note (parties may agree to anything between them with a legal goal). What the parties agreed to as to enforcement isn’t by one in possession of a bearer note. In fact, fwiw at this date, imo the language in the note precludes the note from being a negotiable instrument or at least technically enforcement is disallowed based on (mere) negotiation. It’s by one who has taken the note by transfer AND is entitled to payment. (Who IS that and what is the evidence?) I believe the language was put in there as it is to preclude enforcement by the very people who tried to enforce them early on, like in the Boyko days, whether or not those people were thieves or miscreants. If they didn’t have the notes by transfer, they weren’t entitled to enforce. As a party to the note, even though the language was a lender-protection to preclude wrongful claims imo, the borrower should be able to rely on it: only someone who has taken by transfer (not negotiation) and has the right to payment should be after us. Should there even be endorsements on THESE notes? I don’t know, but endorsements are generally a creature of negotiability. I can see that that’s weird since the psa’s called for endorsements, but then again, given what they do and have done with the infamous blank endorsement, maybe the banksters had their reasons for calling for them. In fact, up until recently, there’s never been an endorsement on a note to a trust that I’ve ever seen. The final if not first end is in blank.
Maybe some serious double-speak (the language in the note v calling for negotiation in the psa’s). Or maybe calling for endorsements was legit as further evidence of movement, and it turned into a happy happenstance for the fraudsters. The blank endorsement, reliance on the default law UCC, and the ‘mers’ assignment is the enemy. Those ‘mers’ (sales and ) assignments are deadly because they can be
construed to meet the provisions in the note for transfer.
The judge in the case posted by NG had some issues with the alleged assgt. That doesn’t often happen (x that one case a few years ago when the judge, upon learning the ‘mers-officer’ person who executed it was an employee of the transferee, called it a fraudulent document sitting on public record and sent the bankster off and running with its tail between its leg. And God bless that judge, and by the way, why should that ruling be a fluke? The reasoning was sound)
But because I see an endorsement as something related to “negotiation” and not “transfer” but the assgt purports to transfer essentially, I’d still ask, if it could be done appropriately (read timely, I guess), on what the reliance is. The negotiation of the note or the transfer alleged in the assignment (but that’s why the mers-free-for-all is so deadly unless it’s changed) Have to start somewhere if you can’t demonstrate anything because all the info you need is singularly in the poss of the other guy. One needs to know the diff between negotiation and transfer, for starters. imo.
As to bk cases re: proofs of claim. It occurred to me the claimant has to be a creditor. IS a guy in poss of a bearer note a creditor of the debtor? I don’t see it that way, but don’t know really, even if using the default law UCC he has a right to enforce (an unsecured note, where allowed by state law re: mortgage loans – “security first” rule). If a fraudster has his hands on a note but not the dot and he makes a claim in a bk case based on the UCC (negotiation) bearer provisions, he may have caused the note owner to lose his security by making a claim on the note.
Christine,
If I may be so bold. I believe your confusion arises from the fact that this is a lower court final judgment. In Florida lower courts, many orders and final judgments are hand written. All the information you need is there including the case style and number. However, you are not going to find this on Findlaw or any other national database because it is a lower court decision. If you look closely at the top of the document, the final judgment was recorded in the county records. You could access the Official Records Search page for Broward County at http://www.broward.org/recordstaxestreasury/records/pages/publicrecordssearch.aspx. It is there – I just checked.
One more thing, although the final judgment does not say much. You have to read the transcript to get full story.
I don’t normally post but since you were insisting that there was nefarious going on, I thought I would point you in the right direction. Additionally, I don’t know which state you are from but I am originally from Florida and worked as a litigation/trial paralegal (I like calling myself a “lawyer’s roadie) for almost 15 years in Florida. I am very familiar with the procedures and norms of Florida court.
I do hope this information helps.
Imo a dismissal without prejudice is worthless as T on a bull. The banksters will just regroup and come back and generally win. I can’t tell if this is an involuntary dismissal or not from the transcript. An involuntary dismissal acts as an adj on the merits and rj attaches. Letting a bankster voluntarily dismiss is generally nuts. A way to prevent it is to flle a mtn for sj because then they may not move to dismiss voluntarily (so they may come back).
Rock said so and so argued his prior rescission as an affirmative defense. Don’t know how it was argued. I haven’t had time to read the transcript; just found it last night. Rescission is an ‘absolute defense’. I liked your take on juris fwiw, trespass unwanted.
This case does support my proposition that the (alleged) default figures must be exact (no matter where they’re disseminated – to the borrower by mail, by service, or in a recorded NOD). In this particular case (NG), it appears payments were made and misapplied, which will only occasionally be the case.
MERS HAS TO GO
Despite new attacks, those of us who lost our homes 3 years ago still have no hope of justice or restitution—-ever.
That’s just WRONG.
Some of us have never recovered, I’m in my 60’s now & it’s too late for me to “start over”.
I remain disgusted & pissed off.
Since there’s millions of us who lost in the first wave of theft, I can’t believe I’m the only one still wanting justice?
This ol’ lady STILL wants to kick some big bankster ass!
Belanger, posting more misinformation taken from scam loan auditor’s website. Nguyen won because someone falsified his wife’s signature. Not anywhere near what scammer posted on his website.
Bailment
Help Take A Bite out of Crime..Attack the Mortgage
Strong oaths, not string oaths
Sent from my Android that did a terrible auto complete.
Attorneys have oaths to each other.
String oaths.
You can tell how they protect the system by detracting from the issues and misleading people into thinking there is only one door to open their remedy.
If there was one door, the lawsuit would be written a specific way, and be before the same judge and court for every hearing on the issue and he/she would rule the same way every time.
There is no one door.
Attorneys write the laws using non Webster dictionary words and they, other attorneys, enforce (notice the word force) the laws upon us and attorneys will expose their professional status and have their BAR card taken with payment penalties; if they expose this.
Their oath is to keep it secret. Its deeper than taking the property.
Not many will give up their job or even put it on the line to expose the truth.
Their oath forbids them even considering it.
The weed seeds are planted with the good seed.
Not many others will put their life, jib, professional status, or family on the line to expose the truth. People roll over on traffic tickets for driving when they could protect their right to travel; and I am not the pot calling the kettle black. I have the right to travel and it didn’t come easy using the right i have and I know how to protect my right to travel from experience and my job and family were on the table as I protected that right.
What attorney with all the college loan expenses to get into the BAR club along with other traps of wealth while being an attorney where being a judge is the ultimate career goal for many; what attorney will give that up to expose other attorneys for writing and coding and voting the fraud into color of law and expose judges for perpetrating the fraud when their oath, which is the strongest contract out there, forbids it?
We don’t need Neil to represent us. He’s not a god. We have the power to expose through non consent for the contracts offered and none acceptance of the consideration they claim to be giving us when they compel us under coercion to go into their business of court, to rob us
Trespass Unwanted
The jury awarded Brash $21,350,575, including $20M in punitive damages. PHH says they will seek further judicial review.
We thought the homeowner who foreclosed on a Wells Fargo branch was the ultimate David/Goliath story of the year, but Brash’s $21M award may have just taken the cake.
Well in this case (Nguyen v. Chase Bank), the Plaintiff, GOING IN PRO PER WITH A VERY WELL WRITTEN COMPLAINT, socked it to Chase who was also confronted with questionable conduct that it was argued violated the preliminary injunction obtained by the savvy Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff sent in his rescission letter and made an offer to tender which was rejected by Chase. Under TILA, the borrower must also tender back the loan proceeds received minus what they are owed the lender. When Chase rejected the tender offer, the Plaintiff sued for TILA violations, Forgery, Rescission, and other damages. Mr. Nguyen obtained a preliminary injunction. The Defendants, despite the injunction, filed a Notice of Sale acting in complete indifference to the Plaintiff’s Federal TILA rights.
At the end of the Day, the judge issued an order that “the Deed of Trust recorded with the Orange County Recorder……is WHOLLY VOIDED……..THAT A DEED OF RECONVEYANCE ISSUE……ALL ADVERSE CLAIMS AGAINST THE PROPERTY ARE QUIETED…….AND THAT THE PROMISSORY NOTE IS RESCINDED…….
Folks, if you were wondering why we have been shouting from the rooftops that if your refi loan was in the last three years, you should get a mortgage documents analysis from a qualified loan auditor or legal professional. This case shows the potential power of TILA, as we state on our website, is perhaps “your most powerful weapon” to battle and win the war on foreclosure.
Christine=Rock, how about you? Have you posted your winings yet? Cheep cocktail conversation. Why don’t you start your owne blog to make money like Garfield if you claim you are so smart? I see jealousy and no standing. Garfield never lowers himself to trash you. Why are you here lowering yourself to all the “cool aid” drinkers? 😨 is there a motive? I suspect there is!
NPV,
Right!
Shark Tank allows you to see winners. LL makes out winners out of thin air and won’t allow you to see anything. In a way, Shark Tank is more… honest! The proof is actually in the pudding: any winner here?
@ Christine – shark tank is much different – you only see the winners. kinda like that show flipping Vegas. i guess sponsors would not support a show if the common homeowner came on and said javier screwed me on the tile job and carmine destroyed the plumbing, and i lost me ass on this flip.
Neal, please provide the full caption and I will read it myself. A dismissal is only a dismissal if they have to at a minimum refile. If they have to refile – that is a win. Maybe not the entire war, but certainly that battle. i want to read about the battle. Please post the full caption or index number and i will dig it up.
Garfield,
“See Final Judgment… See Transcript of Judge’s Order”
Should be public knowledge: judgments are not subject to confidentiality agreement. Care to post the entire caption so that we can find and read it for ourselves?
Or do you really believe your readers are such morons that they will keep on swallowing forever the BS you write?
@NPV,
I know you want proper tools to be pooled, in order to truly help homeowners. Can’t happen when everyone is pulling the cover toward himself and using every trick of the (dishonest) trade to make money from squeezing the lemon to its last drop. LL wasn’t about helping homeowners 7 years ago and it still isn’t. LL is into making Garfield money. Just like Shark Tank!
“If people coming here…” Typo.
Well Rock,
I’ve been claiming that same “give me the exact caption of the case and let me read it for myself” for 5 years. There’s an agenda here that I do not particularly respect and I believe is intentionally misleading. As I have said over and over, Garfield makes out like a bandit and doesn’t have much ethics.
Of people coming here still don’t get it and keep attacking me over it, then they deserve everything they get from associating with him.
Christine, like I pointed out, this was no win.
And Kathy Utiss,
From personal experience, Chase Home Finance, originally located in Westerville OH (second HUB for JP Morgan Chase) has not existed for a sweet long time. I believe the whole operation was closed in 2011 or 2012. Which, incidentally, was a big basis for my own case as I was suing Chase Home Finance looking to see who would step in to defend it.
Well Rock…
I googled the info given here and, as usual, I found something irrelevant, originally filed over some credit card debt, going in every direction and all over the place, just like one the many cases filed by Anonymous way back when.
I have tremendous difficulty with half-ass information which does not even allow me to read the actual case and pleadings. And if you add Patrick Giunta and Neil Garfield to the research, you hit a wall. No time for those games. If Garfield were serious, he’s made sure we can easily find cases he refers to. Otherwise, it follows the old pattern of giving half info and editorializing over fluff to purposely mislead. We can all read. We should be able to do it for ourselves and draw our conclusions.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1065981.html
Nothing current and nothing remotely close to the fairy tale told here. Call me biased…
To: David Belanger….is it possible for you to contact me…please send me an email at feet4fins@yahoo.com
Christine, its a state case argued in Broward County. That’s from what Garfield had in his post.
Rock,
Did you find it? Is it a state case? A fed case? What’s the caption? It’s been my pet peeve all along: Garfield has NEVER given the entire caption of ONE case he’s referred to. EVER!
iwantmynpv, haven’t read the case, but Garfield like all of the rest of the others claiming victory, their so-called wins are nothing but stalls in reality. Show me one case where a homeowner received remuneration and/or free title that they’ve won–that is a victory!
BTW, from what little he posted, guaranteed its only a stall.
NPV,
Can’t find that case. Do you have the entire caption?
I honestly AM happy Neil’s firm won. It helps those who still have a fight.
But it still comes down to money, as I’m sure it wasn’t pro bono.
(I fully understand attorneys can’t work for free).
I have learned so much from this blog since I began reading it, but it was all too late. My 20 year home was “sold” at auction 7-27-2011, because I could not afford an attorney.
(I didn’t know nearly enough at that point to even attempt pro se litigation).
I continue to read it daily, but no longer sure why? I already lost it all, & still trying 3 years later to cope with the fact I can never go home again. How can that be?
My home was very humble, not a mansion, but I loved it & had never intended to leave.
I’m getting a bit tired of reading cases where folks could afford $200,000 for an attorney to modify their half a million dollar or more home, & therefore they won & weren’t thrown into the street like the rest of us.
Was that the case here, as well?
Single, female, & 63 years old, I remain horrified by what happened to my life. Without money, I never stood a chance. (Uh, wasn’t that the reason for the HAMP program? To help us who were MIDDLE class?)
If I’d had the kind of money the dozens of lawyers I spoke with charged, I would have just paid off my home! 🙁
None of the settlements have helped those like me.
I’m just screwed, it seems, in my “golden years”. *scream*
Now, to all of the naysayers – Mr. Garfield has posted a case that he litigated and won. Now I want to see the folks who say he’s never won a case review the decision and seriously think about forming a merged product that incorporates both products. Storm and Neal – it is time to step up for the best interest of us all. God save the Queen!
well well , look at what i found out doing some research, on the limited power of attorney, that was put on my land records, from wells fargo bank n.a., as trustee. to and given ocwen loan servicing, llc the power to do what ever they want to do with al the trust, that were on the attachment. mine is one of the trust. on list.
this go’s to the fact that they are still using forged doc’s and robo signers to do the signing,
signing as trustee, is julie eichler,as vice president, now its nice being a vice president. right. i have her business card as of june 18 2014, her job at wells fargo & company is,.( training consultant. ) now she signed a legal doc, that was put on my land records, on 2 august ,2013. as vice president.
the notary , is kathleen a dean, howard county , maryland, now i look her up, and i have found about 6 to 8 different signatures of this person, as of now.
so i call howard county court house , to get a true copy of her signature that she gave them, in the record books as her true signature, cant wait to see what come’s in. they will be sending me a true certified authenticated copy of her signature.
so they are still using there wells fargo foreclosure manual. thats for sure.
Produce the note (+deed of trust) = due process
anything else equals coru
Eric Mains v. Chase, Citi, WaMu and a host of others, where he present a RICO case about the FDIC and Chase allege purchase of WaMu assets.
What I find so amazing about the Sept 25, 2008 deal is that there no mention about the 1.3 million WaMu loan that were and are currently being serviced by Wells Fargo.
Freddie Mac within a month they lose a $2.9 million case that only had a $145,000 balance and a bankruptcy case where in both cases ownership by either Wells or Freddie could be proven.
So what does this say as Wells is shutting down that Milwaukee mortgage servicing center that all these loan are housed out of? You got total 1,000 personnel working out that servicing center plus the Robo signer who testified at the $2.9 million award that still employed, but all the 1,000 workers are being laid off!
There no way this does not explode because there are a few dozen of these workers that know whats been going on, and now it time for self enrichment to work because your talking about an foreclosure rate during 2008-2010 of around 4% per year for government insured loans.
So we know for a fact Ginnie Mae does not originate, buy or sell a home mortgage at all, however we do know that Freddie & Fannie are suppose to buy loans, why why in the two cases in Holm & Franklin could they not produce a receipt of the purchase? Is it what Neil was saying that the funding not originally from the banks and Freddie up-fronted the monies and actually funded the loan making it impossible to use the up-front receipt to prove a post loan purchase!
In the Holm case you had a 7 year battle where a simply receipt would have won the case for them! There must not have been a present in Florida of WaMu, because there not a single government insured loan pooled that can be either modified or foreclosed.
Bravo kathy
Tons of fraud throughout the alleged litigation process. Fraud on the court up the ying yang. As long as the homeowner does not get due process, this will keep going. The trusts do not have your loan. My loan was dated 2006, and the latest assignment states 2013. How can that loan be in the trust if the trust closed in 2006? The forgery is so obvious.
Gee, Neil. That’s swell that you won.
Problem is, as I encountered for literally years (& am forced to live with every day!), is those of us who truly needed a modification under HAMP (“Hellbent At Making Profits” program), couldn’t afford legal counsel.
I filed complaints with the OCC, my AG’s ofc, my State Rep, HUD, & on down the line for years, while I spoke with dozens of attorneys only to find out I couldn’t afford one.
The Consumer Protection Section of my AG’s ofc tried to get a mere statement for me from Chase Bank (something I’d tried to get for the 6 years of my refinanced loan, first from EMC, then Chase), & they only received a partial one, undecipherable, with a letter from Chase saying, “Due to our records retention policies, this is all we have”.
They took my home of 20 years, anyway, despite the fact they admitted to my AG’s ofc, in writing, they didn’t even have full records of my loan. No one would help me.
One lawyer who pulled some of my court papers said it was obvious clouded title, as 3 separate entities were used to take my home, with one foreclosing, another selling it at auction, & another buying it at bid.
I had made my modified pymts for a full year, while they kept me in foreclosure the entire time. Each month I would go to the courthouse, to make sure they’d received word from Chase to stop the auction.
Each week I once again faxed the same paperwork over & over to EMC Mtg, & then Chase after they acquired them. I was kept in foreclosure the entire time I was under HAMP.
They then began refusing my pymts, & sending them back after that year, while continuing to send me form letters saying they needed “an additional 15 days to process my request” (for a statement!!!).
I continued to receive those letters for literally years–even after they took my home.
The advice of my AG’s ofc? Hire a lawyer!
Each & every agency I contacted advised me to “hire a lawyer”.
Gee, that would be swell if I had an extra $100,000 a year to do so! None would take on contingency (& I get that), so consequently those of us who had mortgages of less than $150,000 who suffered illness, job loss & such, & thought a modification was an answer to our prayers, lost everything—because we couldn’t afford legal help.
Yes, it’s great you won. May I ask, how much was the loan amount on THEIR home?
My humble ranch was appraised at $260,000 when I refinanced (for $140,000 to pay off cc’s & my former loan). I didn’t take any extra money out for a new car, vacation, or anything else.
They took my ranch from me & sold it for $65,000, & pymts of far less than half of what I was paying.
If I’d had an extra $100,000 a year to afford an attorney, I would have paid off my home, bought a new vehicle, & still had savings.
From my view, only the 1% could afford legal counsel to keep their homes. As a divorced 63 Y/O woman now living in rented squalor (not even a flush toilet here), where’s the justice for me? I’m still alive. Hello?
I’ve been fighting this in 2004 I found its more than anything you talk about Neil. You seem to know your stuff.
Yet you won’t disclose to anyone about the fact that Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation now Chase Home Finance uses The LOGS network like 99% of these FRAUD PRODUCING CORPORATE ELITISTS! YOU KNOW they are over 35 of America’s top law firms, and in bed with every servicer, title co and judge playing golf! You know they write these laws that have produced this FRAUD GOV UPON US ALL. Yet YOU ARE SILENT IN STOPPING THE FRAUD! This is more than mortgage FRAUD!
I BELIEVE American’s should know they’ve been hood winked by so many attorneys who claim to be on our side to help fight the good fight. Why not tell them the TRUTH!? Our identities were stolen prior to birth. Along with ownership records for land patents any mining assets of our ancestors.
Hell it gets even better you get to find out your family had the 1st rolling steel mill in Dallas..Helped build the 1st STEEL BRIDGE in the world. They even provided the stone for several courthouses all over Texas! Yet you can’t be told.
It’s so interesting to me that my Great Grandfather had a sideshow that traveled the country no less known as ‘THE HOLLYWOOD SIDESHOW!” IT’S ALL A SIDESHOW as come to find out everyone in America know’s my great grandmother by her WORLD FAMOUS FICTIONAL NAME. AS everyone knows her as Katie Scarlett O’hara as in Gone with the Wind!
i SOMEHOW don’t believe the lies with what I can prove! LIVING PEOPLE count on every attorney to be given the BENEFIT OF DOUBT in trying to do the right thing. Work to pay bills 1st b4 anything else yet are looked upon like the dirt on your shoe as they pay out the ass for representation! If they can even find REAL REPRESENTATION! You do a lot of work why keep up with the SIDESHOW and NOT REALLY HELP HOMEOWNERS! THIS IS THE 21ST Century American’s have had enough.
These people with their claims of a FIDUCIARY DUTY need to KICK these PEOPLE AND METHODS TO THE CURB. American’s deserve a government to protect them if and when it’s necessary! This is NECESSARY! Rebuild LIVES, AND THE WORLD, and our FINANCIAL SYSTEM. it CAN BE DONE!