6th Circuit Reverses Trial Court on RICO Against BofA, Law firm, et al

For more information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688



SEE http://www.troydoucet.com/racketeering-lawsuit-over-robo-signing-can-proceed/


Click to access 14a0745n-06.pdf

The key element here is the Court’s determination that the lawyers were misleading the court by characterizing the homeowner’s claim as seeking damages for a false assignment. The Sixth Circuit correctly analyzed the situation and arrived at the simple conclusion: if BOA didn’t have any right to foreclose the mortgage then it doesn’t matter whether or not the homeowner defaulted.

The importance of this finding, finally, in a somewhat conservative court cannot be understated. It might well be as important as the Jesinoski decision. The reason it is so important is that this means that the primary assumption by virtually all courts in the land is turned upside down. That assumption is that if the borrower defaulted it doesn’t matter who is foreclosing. This Federal Court has arrived at THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION that cannot be argued — which I have been saying since 2007: If the party foreclosing has no right to do so then the alleged default of the alleged borrower doesn’t matter. And the reason for THAT is that the alleged default is irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant? Simple: it is irrelevant because the party foreclosing has no legal relationship with the loan as owner, holder, servicer or anything else. This is the first major decision where the court shows its understanding that the foreclosing parties have no injury, regardless of whether the homeowner stopped paying or not.

Just like the Jesinowski decision told thousands of Judges they had it wrong on rescission, so does this decision tell thousands of Judges they have it wrong on the burden of proof and the burden of pleading. This decision comes in no small part from the fact that after getting a foreclosure judgment, on the eve of a hearing in which the capacity of the person who executed affidavits was going to be examined, BOA dismissed the action and then vanished. Lesson: If BOA suddenly dismisses the action it can only be the result of their knowledge that they had no right to foreclose in the first place.

If that is the correct conclusion, as it was in this case, the homeowner has every right to sue for wrongful foreclosure. But this case goes further: the sixth circuit says, and I agree, that such conduct qualifies for a RICO lawsuit which makes punitive damages a lot easier.


100 Responses

  1. “James Smith, on May 20, 2015 at 2:18 pm said:

    Does anyone have any contact information for Wells Fargo Legal Department or in House Attorney’s. I need to send them a Demand Letter. jsmith5915@msn.com

    I would send it to their registered agent (sos in your state) as well as any corp officers listed with the sos.

  2. Bob Hurt … Everything you write in your post below is fine and dandy if you buy into the notion that the judges are nice people who don’t get it wrong. In order to believe that, one must turn a blind eye to the level of corruption involved in the government and its handling of the entire mortgage fraud Ponzi scheme and the billion dollar settlement with the states attorneys general … But for the rest of us, the vast majority of the citizens who can recognize how the judges are running cover for the criminal acts of the banks and lenders, we disagree with you.

    Just because “BAD CASELAW EXISTS” does not mean we should all be forced to accept it .. Justice Scalia and the other members of the Supreme Court refused to accept it.

    The judges have intentionally and deliberately leaned heavily in favor of the lenders to the point of disregarding the rule of law, to the point of creating bad caselaw, to the point of legislating from the bench, to the point of denying due process for homeowners, to the point of twisting and perverting law and statutes into new meanings and definitions in order to protect the lenders from losing their cases, to the point of allowing FRAUD to enter the courtroom doors by telling the borrowers that they are not allowed to raise the issue of FRAUD because they are a third party to the MERS Assignment of mortgage or because they are somehow time-barred from raising FRAUD in their contract because too many years has elapsed.

    The judges have gotten it wrong time and time again .. and they have an un-written agreement as to why they are behaving this badly … it goes something like this … “Nobody gets a free house”.

    The proof of the abuse is easily evident when you look at it objectively, you have to consider the following facts as being true …

    1) The 50 states attorneys general were all chomping at the bit to start prosecuting the banks and lending institutions for the crimes they committed including but not limited to .. fabrication and forgery of financial instruments and documents related to mortgage foreclosures, illegal mortgage origination schemes involving securitization, etc.

    2) The federal government intervened and stopped the prosecutions before they began (preventing the truth from being exposed and thus preventing new caselaw and defenses from being used by borrowers) the federal government orchestrated a 25 billion dollar settlement in exchange for the banks being given a free pass to get a free house from the borrower/victims. The judges understood the message from the federal government .. the message is as follows … “We have decided that, despite the banks getting caught in this criminal conduct, we as a nation must allow the citizens/victims of this criminal enterprise to take the hit and lose their homes .. because to do otherwise would undermine the confidence and credibility of our financial institutions, and in turn it could possibly lead to utter chaos and collapse. Our entire property ownership structure would come under scrutiny and question which would be a threat to national security”. This created bad case law to which Bob Hurt points to , but Bob needs to acknowledge that it is bad case law .. and bad case law can be over-turned.

    The judges believe that by denying us justice, they are somehow protecting the national security of the rest of the citizens. We the victims of the mortgage scheme have been deemed “expendable” in the eyes of the federal govt and the majority of judges. We are labled as “dead-beats” .. “in default” … “raising fraud in order to try and get a free house” … etc., etc.

    Bob Hurt .. you need to be honest and admit that the 2 factual truths listed above are in fact true .. in order for you to have credibility.

  3. I am fleshing out LivingLiesTheTruth dot com (or LivingLiesTheTruth.wordpress.com) to make it more useful to everyone who wishes he could get useful info from Garfield. In fact, I just added a HEROES & HEELS page where people can write the names of the lawyers who bilked them out of money and led them into the jaws of foreclosure without ever examining the mortgage, or where they can write the names of lawyers who DID examine their loans and used the causes of action to attack the malefactors.

    I intend to add pages explaining TILA, RESPA, and other regulatory laws, but honestly, the discussions in the rescission thread showed readers all kinds of case law that explains how the courts will rule in that issue. Google scholar and other opinion repositories have become excellent resources for people to look up cases and read them. I believe the law and regulations speak clearly for themselves, and the opinions show that judges, with help from the smarter lawyers appearing before them, just dig in and do the same kind of research all of us can do in order to come up with a viable opinion. Most of the time you will agree with them because their opinions make sense.

    That’s why I began a few years ago to hold Garfield in some disdain. First all, no lawyer can blog like does and represent clients and manage their cases. Second, he has formed an opinion about things and propounds it for the purpose of getting people to buy his services, seminars, securitization audits, “rescission packages” etc. So his blog entries tend to push people into his services, usually services they don’t need. And underneath it all, his firm has devoted itself to foreclosure defense, not to mortgage attack. That’s the biggest disappointment I have with him.

    And I suspect that most of the people who troll these pages have followed his suggestions and lost their houses as a result.

    ALL of them might still benefit from a mortgage examination. Neil will NEVER tell them that.

    He does bring up interesting cases, but he nearly always makes something of them that isn’t there. Like in the above article, he tries to make a big deal out of the fact that the court will let the RICO case go forward because it could survive a motion to dismiss.

    Also, he tries to say courts assume borrowers defaulted by looking at the foreclosure complaint that alleges the default. How many did not default? virtually none. Millions have defaulted on their home loans, so NATURALLY judges assume they defaulted. The judges want the borrower to come up and say “Yeah, judge, I defaulted, but they breached the note first, the loan was unconscionable, they lied about the value of the house in the appraisal, they bait and switched me in the loan deal, they charged me excessive interest, they didn’t give me disclosures, etc.” Now the judge will enjoy a venture into proof of injury to the borrower rather than having to hate the nonsense Garfield would bring up if he litigated foreclosure cases, like “where’s the note, there isn’t any money, the note financed the loan, the note and mortgage got bifurcated, MERS is an evil empire, securitization is evil, they violated the PSA, they robosigned the assignment, the dog ate our homework, etc”

    Look, folks. I don’t mince words, but I don’t go out of my to malign well-intentioned people. And it seems fair to me to jump on somebody’s case when I show them the law and the court opinions supporting my take on it, and that somebody goes on and on and on with pointless rebuttals and what-if scenarios, then calls the courts crooked.

    Realize that judges are the mothers and fathers of society. If they issue an opinion and you flout it, you will go down. Get used to it. That’s our system. So the judges are generally honest, and even the crooked ones are honest most of the time. They are NOT picking on you. YOU are coming into their court with a non-meritorious case, a poor grasp of the rules of procedure and evidence, no knowledge of litigation practice, mouthful of patriot myths and nonsense they have already trounced numerous times, and they simply will not sit still while you spout it at them. LEARN FROM THEIR OPINIONS. Stop acting like they don’t mean anything.

    See you on LivingLiesTheTruth

  4. Does anyone have any contact information for Wells Fargo Legal Department or in House Attorney’s. I need to send them a Demand Letter. jsmith5915@msn.com.

  5. Christine, Living Lies–The Truth is finished, so I will finally be leaving Garfieldtown for good, and leave all of the scammers and brainless dupes to their own demise.

    See you over at: http://www.livingliesthetruth.com

  6. Trespass is right. Carly Simon was a piece of ass in her heyday, and i would let her dupe me every day…

  7. test

  8. Readers it appears we are scammers, dupes, look aid drinkers, idiots and other adjectives.

    I doubt if any as described would jump in the same wagon or follow anyone that uses only those terms to describe anyone who is not them.

    A teen even in a movie would speak or have a line that states, “I’d rather be a dupe than a pompous, arrogant, name calling, bully”
    Some in the audience would cheer for the teen and some would agree with the purportedly adult name caller. Where in society name calling is not the forefront of social behavior.

    You’re so vain I bet you think this comment is about you; don’t you, don’t you.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator

  9. Christine, I have explained time and time again, your wasting your time with a bunch of scammers and their brainless dupes.

    You can’t have a logical discussion with scammers and their brainless dupes; they always have an answer to back up their lunacy, no matter how schizophrenic, or illogical.

    Living Lies–The Truth (www.livingliesthetruth.com) is almost finished and should be up and running in the next couple of days, so we can get out of this lunacy and get to helping homeowners that haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid. These scammers and hustlers can continue to poison their dupes and we’ll just be leaving them to their own demise.

  10. since the various banks cannot provide proper documentation, they cannot prove when the loan was consummated, giving him the ability to opt out whenever.

    Trespass Unwanted

  11. Yes, neidermeyer, you can tell the process server exactly where and when they will be down to what they are wearing.

    I had to have someone served and asked if I could deliver it myself because I was going to be around them for a weekend.

    I was told, it could not be anyone familiar to either of us, it has to be an uninterested third party or there would be a defect in the service.

    We set it up so the uninterested party knew what time I’d get to the location and that I’d hand an item to the one to be served, and it was weird, as we got there and did our thing, a car pulled up, and served right there, the process server didn’t have to waste time figuring out who was who.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life

  12. I forgot he posted to lvinglies, but it’s good he is still at it, and the posts are fresh, today/yesterday The read more has a lot more.

    He went to law school, it’s interesting the last comment made was why do we still fight? because to us the war never ended.

    It’s because we do not accept the authority of someone who does not know how to adjudicate situations based on fraud, and we do not have to ever accept fraud because the statute of limitations never run out.

    That’s why no matter what judgments that man has received, and all the denials the got from purported people who were to adjudicate these matters, he know, oh yes he knows he does not have to accept what they have decided.

    You are not the boss of me! (that’s what a kid can be heard saying)

    It’s not over until we say it’s over, and where we can name names, and point fingers and show people didn’t have the authority they said they had, or the power they claimed to have had, and where no one can convey a right they do not own, or a property they do not own, it’s easy.

    Never give up, never surrender.
    Interesting, where the courts failed him and locked him out, he decided to rescind his signature.

    Most powerful statement in my opinion
    in their haste to turn mortgages into securities, banks may have flaunted the rules so aggressively they lost their right to collect mortgage payments.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life

  13. Thanks TU ,,

    I’ll pay the server … As I understand it I just need to file before the SOL runs (getting close!) ,, the clock starts for the defendant when they’re served and that can be after the SOL hits as long as I had it initially filed on time as I cannot control when the server will catch up with someone.

    I just hate to spend the money ,, I work a block away and I’ll be serving a law firm so they’ll accept it without any hysterics or gameplaying.

  14. This Former Bank Regulator Quit His Job to Fight For His House
    May 19, 2015

    Its a wun-da any won kan fynd this cents the people who kum here arr so stewpid ack orden to sum thengs that lyke tu poste here I will not poste the link kause I no, know theng and do nowt gihv leegul add vise, and on lee have up in yuns and luv to haing owt with all tie-ps ink luden stew-pid pee-pull if I were tuh bee-leave those that wunt us to let them tell us whut we kneed to dew n how tuh dew it n knot haive my owe-n mynd.

    That was fun! Do not feed the uh, uh, you know what? I’m not gonna say, cause I would be giving ’em a snack of my energy and they can’t have it.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  15. Neidermeyer, it has to be an uninterested third party, ie process server to be a valid delivery/delivery attempt.

    Trespass Unwanted

  16. History has shown I get attack remarks when something from my I know nothing
    I don’t give legal advice
    I only have opinions

    Strikes a nerve and no one is supposed to pay attention to it.

    Whatever it was that got me noticed, I know nothing and I do not feed the energy vampires.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life

  17. Oops! Should have said “registered agent” and that agent is of course a law firm…

    In Florida if I were to file a lawsuit do I need to hire someone to serve the defendant if the defendant is a corporations registered rep and I hand deliver the suit and get a signed delivery receipt? $40 is $40…

  19. Although some times Christine posts get me angry. I believe she is correct in most of what she is saying. And I have been for a very long time.

    Christine IS Pure evil.

  21. Are you legally declared insane or is it an act? Hmm… what would explain anyone having lost to “the grinch” to stick around and systematically deny the obvious while attacking mercilessly everyone who dares question the guru?

    This is America. Only two possible answers: thoroughly brainwashed or… money. This operation geared toward fleecing homeowners is getting more interesting by the day. What a great country!

  22. Christine, your response is simply more bullshit heaped on your previous piles. Not a single person on your list can be linked to Garfield and his supposed (by you) agenda, other than the fact that, like Deb pointed out, they all come/came here to keep up to date and talk turkey. Anyone who’s been around here for any length of time will vouch for the fact that never has there been an instance of anyone asking Guru Garfield how to amend or motion this or that….

    You obfuscate, constantly, to move your false narrative forward, at any and all cost. None of it, zero, is based on fact. Your first example was me. Show me just one instance where I showed even a slight move towards whatever it is that you think is a Garfield stance. You can’t.

    If you believe that false assignments, dueling notes, fabrication, counterfeiting, perjury, and the like are Garfield trademarks, and that one must be a Garfield disciple to plead those issues, you’re drinking Kool-Aid…oh sorry, that’s a well worn analogy around here. How’s you’re full of shit work? Works for me.

  23. Hey Ian, I haven’t yet checked but is there a list of winning cases?

  24. Hey christine- did you check out Marie O’Donnell for any reports you refer to? She and her firm are above reproach, and has the track record to back it up.
    O’Donnell Analytics.
    Not one of the garbage peddlers to whom you refer. Her reports accepted in all courts nationwide.


  26. I am still in my house Evil Christine. Even the Devil who ate you had to barf you out.


  27. Oh, and I forgot: that A MAn moron doesn’t strike me as a winner. And he’s been sticking around for how long? I’m missing quite a few but go back to 2009/2010. Look up where they are now. They were all cult followers, looking up to you as the smart boy on the block. It’s quite comical, actually. Many moved on. Even that, you can’t muster…

  28. You, weirdo Trespass, Carie, Cubed2k, Leapfrog, UKG, Zurrenhar (spelling…?), Hman and the list goes, not counting those screwed over by Nancy Drewe an Maher Soliman, both endorsed by Garfield. The list of cases in which judges referred to Garfield theories and dismissed his costly reports right of the bat is increasing daily. I deal with some of his road kills all the time. I see how gullible they were. And how much money he made out of them for no results other than flat out losses with very little hope of ever being compensated.

  29. Pure Evil Christine Rock ShadowPussycat and Robber Hurst


  30. my former attorney sent me this case in 2014 as it allows the defendant to challenge the assignment which heretofore, defendants as non-parties to the assignment were forbidden to do in Illinois. i have quoted from it extensively now using it in my motion to amend my quiet title and add rico as another count.

    IMPORTANT: see the brief amicus of marie mcdonnell in mass. she owns macdonnell property analytics and says that EVERY SINGLE ASSIGNMENT she has reviewed was FRAUDULENT

  31. “The trail of road kills he’s left behind speaks volume…..”

    Here’s your golden opportunity Christine….run with it. Please list the road kill, a.k.a, all of the innocent LL bystanders that were mowed down by listening to Guru Garfield and pleading by his example.

    Put one name on the list, I dare you, and not that whack-job who allegedly blew a sheriff away when changing the locks….anyone who remembers him knows that he came apart at the seams due to his inability to cope with the fact that the entire justice system is answering not to the Constitution, but to the highest bidders. It’s called Legal Abuse Syndrome, and it’s an accepted entry into the dark world of PTSD, and rightfully so.

    And not ivent either. Not only because she too had only a few screws left to turn, but because I’m afraid that just mentioning her name might call her back to fill this place with her incessant rants and ravings.

    She whose name must not be spoken….

    Like Rock….

  32. And NPV,

    The trail of road kills he’s left behind speaks volume about the efficiency of his help. Meanwhile, people lose everything they worked for and he’s making out like a bandit. He’s pushed homeowners right into banks hands. Then again, homeowners walk right into it… ant attack anyone who points out the obvious. Especially those who followed his lead and lost everything. It’s a cult. Garfield is a guru. A For Profit guru.

  33. NPV,

    The problem is NOT what Garfield posts. Hell, it’s been said by many people, including Neil Barofsky and Bill Black. The problem is presenting himself as someone wanting to “help” homeowners by filling their heads with information Garfield knows (or should know) to be irrelevant to their defense, peddling irrelevant and costly reports and failing to demonstrate first hand how to successfully plead them and WIN in court. And misinterpreting other attorneys results in order to advance his own agenda. It’s called “lack of ethics”. And… it is actionable.

  34. E.Tolle- short, concise and to the point. You are, as usual, correct. And i appreciate your having read the court’s ruling and condensed it.
    Was it taken out of context? What would Rock say about your post?
    It just goes to show that things are more like they are today than they’ve ever been.

  35. Rock, reading the newspaper is the equivalent of believing the note were properly endorsed and transferred to the pool at the closing date…

    The plaintiff attorneys (banks) in NY get about $6,500 (includes bk without adversary hearings) max during the foreclosure process. On an average home of 200k, the closing costs including realtor fee is about 15k. Even if I add back escrow advances of about 7k a year – that still amounts to $41,500. Not a good number, but half the amount you have claimed.

    I am heavily involved with the local market here on LI. I am sure it varies by County, but do not believe the propaganda about that 80k number.

  36. I saw this on another site … Is it wrong for me to come here just to see Rocks head explode?

  37. A significant part of the Slorp decision that Neil posted, and I haven’t read the entire deal….just skimmed it….is for me the following:

    According to the complaint, Hill was an authorized agent of neither MERS nor Countrywide, and she therefore lacked the authority to assign the mortgage to Bank of America. Assuming that to be true, as we must, Bank of America wrongfully initiated foreclosure proceedings against Slorp, and his damages were proximately caused by the defendants’ institution of fraudulent foreclosure proceedings that led Slorp to incur attorney’s fees. The allegedly fraudulent assignment allowed the defendants to perpetrate and conceal the fraud by precluding the state court from ascertaining whether the defendants were the proper parties to initiate the foreclosure proceedings. On those facts it was the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations rather than Slorp’s default that led to his injuries. Had the proper mortgagee, whoever that is, elected to initiate its own foreclosure proceedings against Slorp, he would have faced double liability, and the defendants’ fraudulent assignment would have led to the anomalous and unlawful result of two separate mortgagees—one real and one fraudulent— foreclosing on Slorp’s house. The fact that the legitimate mortgagee has not initiated foreclosure proceedings only reinforces the conclusion that the defendants’ allegedly fraudulent foreclosure led to Slorp’s injuries.

    This is exactly the kind of stuff I’ve been yelling back at the pro-banks contingency that’s infiltrated LL of late, yes, the same ones that are the first to comment, always in the negative, about anything Neil posts these days. The courts are starting to lean in the direction of the borrowers, and that’s to be expected after all this time. After a while, and enough criminality moving through the courts, even the most bank loving jerk will finally see that the emperor is not only totally nude, but gyrating suggestively. Rock is, however, blinded by his admiration for large financial sinstitutions. [sic] I heard a rumor that he lap dances regularly for Jamie Dimon.

    Assignments have, forever, been off-limits. Verboten. Don’t go there counselor. But this decision accepts the fact that if not for the (alleged) fraudulent assignment….blah blah. That’s a big change in the right direction.

    Jeff Barnes wrote recently about this here. He says:

    “….clarifying that a non-party homeowner may challenge the validity of an assignment to establish the assignee’s lack of title, among other defects.


    Thus, a non-party homeowner may challenge a putative assignment’s validity on the basis that it was not effective to pass legal title to the putative assignee.

    Yeah baby! That’s exactly what javagold was referring to in his comment, and I’ve stated the same issue in my case. When a judge turns a blind eye to obviously fraudulent assignments, such as in my case, Bank A to Bank B, Bank A to Bank C, how can Bank C foreclose, save for fraudulently? Easy answer….it can’t.

    And Christine likes to paint the picture that I whine about the MN judiciary, when it was actually my inabilities as a pro se. Sure, pro se sucks, but especially when faced with obvious fraud and a judge who’s more than willing to look the other way in allowing a non-party to foreclose. Talk about lack-o-standing….

    For the borrower to be able to show that assignments, whether robo-forged or late to the trust caused the harm, it’s a bright day in Whoville. Let’s form a circle and sing, shall we?

  38. Rock is Evil

  39. Here what happen is that the best law school on the planet in Harvard weigh in with a Brief of Amicus Curiae in the County of Montgomery Recorder. Now it saying the MERS is this RICO outfit that screwed up the recording system and these clowns don’t own these debt, is the long and short of what going on.

    Where the citizen have been handicapped is because the banks have the best legal representation and we got guys from just take their money to get a stupid temporary modification where there was less than 500,000 modification in the first 2yrs of the HAMPs out of 4.25 million request, and now after 6 1/2yrs you got a little over a million and you got to figure another 4 million or so request as they not publish the number of request after Dec 2010. So as you had Suntrust, Bank of America and Ocwen not performing modification, so instead of setting these modification up on the lowest and best situation, you got something like a 75% default rate on the modifications.

    So all that was done was to push this crap down the road, but these lenders cannot prove to the court that they own the debt as with Holm or re:Franklin and this is the deal. As we push the new AG Lynch who is not a former Covington & Burling employee, now we can expose Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer who represents MERS. These two could not prosecute MERS who handles 60 million loans. All roads in this crisis would lead back to MERS!

  40. Javagold, not knowing the facts of your case, I can’t say for certain, but you might want to consider that a gap in the chain of title would not necessarily result in dismissal of a foreclosure action. See Anderson v. Burson, 424 Md. 232, 35 A.3d 452 (2011).

  41. Rock rehab before its tooo late

  42. Rock- im the only person I know with a mortgage that sits in the vault of our local 108 year old bank. So if they foreclosed, i know that they own the note and have the right to do so.
    You are talking about “losses”, but, absent backdated, forged, fabricated assignments, it isnt clear who can claim a loss.
    And when the bank/lender/ whatever takes a charge against earnings for the defaulted mortgage, they receive 100% of the value of the mortgage as per IRS.
    So all that’s left is collection rights to defaulted debt, which sells for 2 cents on the dollar.
    The “losses” are illusory at best, nonexistent at worst. Depending on who’s trying to claim the loss.

  43. Javagold- “nemo dat” (abbr.) the basic underlying legality of all this means you cannot give what you don’t own.
    If B is purports to assign your mortgage to C but never got the mortgage from A, then that can’t happen. Clear as a bell.
    Maybe the judge thought it was a frivolous pleading, wasting the court’s judicial resources trying to save your home while the bank stole it with the court’s blessing.

  44. iwantmynpv, sorry to have to correct you; but all of the studies show that losses can vary widely, several independent studies find them to be generally quite significant: OVER $50,000 per foreclosed home or as much as 30 to 60 percent of the outstanding loan balance.

    If we take the low number 30%, what’s 30% of $400K? $120,000.00.

    Especially, having to fight nitwits that have no clue what they’re talking about, and making stupid arguments, makes it quite expensive for both parties.

  45. The disclosures here say
    ” do not rely” consult a licensed professional.

  46. Rock you say
    “I have the expertise, that’s why I don’t let things go uncorrected, just like you or anyone else would in their given profession”

    The point i will make is you better be sure, in my profession we have certain amount of automony to practice, within guidelines ( they are not written in stone – hence the word guidelines) and policies for procedures in line with the organizations requirements, but i must do no harm, and my duty is to report any POTENTIALLY harmful practice. These guys knew we would be harmed and they had expertese and the knowledge to know and cause, to know. But they did not care. They should care because the heat is going to be turned up, as we see with RICO claims.

  47. My problem Rock is i feel too much i try too hard and im a total hope nut,
    I WISH For Us all to have a COMMON GOAL thats the only way to break them and help future generations it is important time in History im sure you agree on that point.

  48. Rock, you talk about shitty lawyers all the time. The Banks must have some shitty lawyers and liquidation experts. It does not cost 80k to litigate and sell a property in NY.

    Comments like that put you right on the same scale of those you purportedly expose.

  49. The following is attributed to Cornell law

    (i) Rescission rights in foreclosure
    (1) In general
    Notwithstanding section 1649 of this title, and subject to the time period provided in subsection (f) of this section, in addition to any other right of rescission available under this section for a transaction, after the initiation of any judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure process on the primary dwelling of an obligor securing an extension of credit, the obligor shall have a right to rescind the transaction equivalent to other rescission rights provided by this section, if—
    (A) a mortgage broker fee is not included in the finance charge in accordance with the laws and regulations in effect at the time the consumer credit transaction was consummated; or
    (B) the form of notice of rescission for the transaction is not the appropriate form of written notice published and adopted by the Bureau or a comparable written notice, and otherwise complied with all the requirements of this section regarding notice.
    (2) Tolerance for disclosures
    Notwithstanding section 1605 (f) of this title, and subject to the time period provided in subsection (f) of this section, for the purposes of exercising any rescission rights after the initiation of any judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure process on the principal dwelling of the obligor securing an extension of credit, the disclosure of the finance charge and other disclosures affected by any finance charge shall be treated as being accurate for purposes of this section if the amount disclosed as the finance charge does not vary from the actual finance charge by more than $35 or is greater than the amount required to be disclosed under this subchapter.
    (3) Right of recoupment under State law
    Nothing in this subsection affects a consumer’s right of rescission in recoupment under State law.
    (4) Applicability
    This subsection shall apply to all consumer credit transactions in existence or consummated on or after September 30, 1995.

  50. Ms. Wynn, I don’t disagree with most of what you said, however people here are being misled, that’s the problem.

    I’m sure others that frequent this site have an expertise of one field or another. If someone in your field was posting things you knew to be wrong, I doubt seriously you would sit back and let it go uncorrected.

    I have the expertise, that’s why I don’t let things go uncorrected, just like you or anyone else would in their given profession.

    You’re condemning for something I hope you do in your profession, as I hope others here would do as well.

  51. i can still hear you lol
    Rock ms Wynn is not visibly upset but deep deep down inside she is ” a bit cross” and i have every right to be considering what i have lost in total.
    I will read the decisions you post of course, thank you, what im saying is contrubute – absolutely, people read on here, then let peoole decide how they are going forward, or not, however they chose, THAT would actually give your arguments more credibility as a non lawyer, no one is a big authority who blogs on here, stands to reason, not me not you no one BECAUSE our cases are unique in mant resoects , aside from jesinoski and other cases there is much ” in the middle” ( ill call it – meaning the course the cases take and prior judgements that may or may not be void depending on again , how case was moved ) to be factored in, we try, we stumble and fall but ill say this 90 % of the battle is getting up, fighting back with the best ammo you got, your choice of ammo is crucial and confusing but in the end i say, Gods will, be done.

  52. No Rock, you don’t get it. The BEUKES are from MN. You should know that all judges in MN are corrupt, biased, bought, sold and paid for. Ask William Butler… 🙂

  53. Christine, homeowners like Ms. Wynn get visibly upset because you take away their false hope. Instead of thanking us for showing them the truth, they attack us.

    BTW, the Eighth Circuit just gave leave for the bank to take another poor homeowner’s home, and also gave a TILA education, post Jesinoski. BEUKES v. GMAC, LLC. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17415186002294400140&q=beukes+v+GMAC&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47

    There hasn’t been one homeowner that’s won post Jesinoski, proving scammers Garfield, rciferri, et al have no clue how TILA works; don’t understand the court cases they read: and generally have no clue what they’re talking about.

    But, obviously we do because the courts explain it exactly the way we did.

  54. “stop attacking Garfeild it ruins your credibility”

    Surely you jest! Do you know truly what credibility he has in the foreclosure defense arena? Have you seen any solid attorney, known for their results, come here? Do you know what they say about LL?

    Come on, Deb. Get serious!

  55. And before i do rush off- again
    If theres one thing im in gratitude to this site for it is the day Neil posted that jesinoski Supreme Court decision, i may have missed it and it was time thing, perfect Divine timing. So if we get a seed of inspiration on here or one piece of caselaw that fits then its worthwhile checking in, imho.

  56. DAM!!!!

    But you can use what is right under your nose.

  57. Its about admissions and denials …. No proof of …….. Allegations.
    That’s where Discovery comes in ………

  58. The forces of Darkness know no limits. That includes :Rock Christine Shadowcat and Robber Hurst.



  59. For gods sake Christine how bloody stupid do you think readers are – you underestimate us, class up, stop attacking Garfeild it ruins your credibility and its actually counterproductive to what you say you are about. There, now im off.

  60. Deb,

    How are we being hypocritical? Don’t you get it that attorneys MAY NOT purposely misrepresent by intentionally misquoting cases and ruling IN ORDER TO CAPITALIZE ON PEOPLE”S IGNORANCE?

    I don’t make a damn cent and I don’t “interpret” rulings to make them say what they never did, in order to mislead poor schlemiels and entice them into buying useless securitization reports. Nor does Rock.

    Do you know what doing that is called? Running a racket. In fact, I do what I preach and I advocate what I do because… I know it works! Show me ONE part of Garfield’s theories which work in court.

  61. Its a matter of being able to distinguish between opinion and fact when reading the authors posts.

    That case also not a Full Publication.
    We could argue to the moon and back about it..
    Its about attacking with what you have……
    The Contract …
    The Public Records…
    Your Records …


  62. And before i do – sc yes reliance which equals accountability for their actions and inaction on what they know to be true, had they disclosed that truth the outcome of the courts decision would be wildly different,( or should be) thats where RICO comes in. And these are the rules in every court. It used to be called lying by omission.

  63. Rock – and you christine are being hypocritical at the end if the day, as a matter of fact. Im off.

  64. Absulutely Rock!
    They file lies with the court.
    They file lies at the county recorders office.

    People rely on representations made…
    People get hurt…
    They rely on representations. ..
    They rely on representations.. .

    Just Say No!!!

  65. Right christine i agree
    But its that recognition that there ARE material facts unresolved, like i said, its a start, i guess neil should have saud the tide is Showing signs of turning, ill take thAt as a plus.

  66. Deb,

    For once, Garfield posted the actual ruling. Please read it from to top to bottom and tell me where the appelate court judges stated: “If BOA didn’t have any right to foreclose the mortgage then it doesn’t matter whether or not the homeowner defaulted.”

    Garfield takes allegations (qualified as such, one by one, by the appeals judges) and puts into their mouth affirmations they never made. If it’s not gross incompetence, I don’t know what is! Incompetence is one thing: people have their limitations. Intentional misrepresentation by an attorney is another altogether. You better believe we will call him on it every chance we get!

    All the court said is that there are enough unresolved issues to warrant a reversal on SOME of the allegations so that the trier of facts can dig into them and resolve them.

  67. Ms Wynn, I agree Garfield is NOT responsible for what anyone else blogs, but he’s certainly responsible for what he posts, which regrettably is mostly factually and legally incorrect.

    Moreover, there is no a common goal. You have scammers here misinforming homeowners.

    Then you have people here that have already lost their cases, the only thing they can contribute is not to do what they did, but they want to blame anyone but themselves because they listened to the nonsense.

    Then you have dupes here that choose to listen to the scammers just like the people who already lost..

    Then you have those of us that try to give homeowners the facts and truth, and instead of thanking us we get attacked as bank shills.

    So, there really isn’t a common goal like there are in the legal groups I’m in.

  68. No, its to do with the burden if proof,
    And the thing i hate about the frog anaology is somebody once tried it and the frog was ignorant to the fact that he had become an experiment ,,,!

  69. Ms. Wynn, a bank can come into court and lie all day long if they wish, but it won’t get them anywhere when there are breaches, errors, tortious conduct, setoffs, etc, etc within the mortgage transaction that you can prove.

    This is really pretty straight forward.

  70. Boy! do some people have a strange read into cases and court decisions… and boy! can people confuse allegations and court rulings!

  71. May i point out that garfeild is not responsible for what we blogg, or share he gave us a forum for discussion and sharing, why make it into a ” im right hes wrong issue” thats what peeves me. Stop it, because it does not serve the delemma we find ourselves in or the common goa
    – assuming we all have a common goal on here.

  72. Christine, its pretty obvious that anything other than financial compensation, and/or free title is not a win by any definition.

    And I agree you have these self-proclaimed guru lawyers that just ripping off homeowners with bad advice, but it won’t be long before it all comes crashing down on these hacks.

  73. Rock
    It takes this long to get anywhere near a win when cases or rather the course of justice has been perverted because of the presumptions that banks dont lie to the court.

  74. Rock,

    True. In fact, when HAMP came about and banks were “strongly encouraged” to modify, while they would tell good faith people trying to negotiate a mod that “you need to be 60 or 90 days behind in your mortgage”, they did offer mods to those who were fighting.

    Max Gardner and Bruce Levitt used to call that a “win”, knowing full well that the mod was temporary, no principal reduction occurred and five years down the road, the homeowner would be back in default.

    I never understood paying an attorney a lot of money for such a lousy result.

  75. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear.

  76. Actually Shadowcat, there have been no wins based on ANY of Garfield’s arguments.

    Nonetheless, I’ve seen cases settle where ridiculous arguments had been made, BUT the bank did give the homeowner loan mod based on the fact it would cost more to litigate those stupid arguments and then have to foreclose, which costs in the vicinity of $80K to do so in a judicial state.

  77. I know nothing.
    I do not give legal advice and only have opinions.

    If I discovered something new that had issue with the theft of my property by some law firm, I’d give notice to the law firm who stole the property, the information I discovered, via a letter of some sort, and then send the same information to the court business that was used to steal my property, and anything the court business receives that contains the cause number of the eviction will be placed into the record for that eviction.

    The cases never close.

    Then I would record a public complaint naming names of people.

    There is proof two or more persons conspired, to make you enter into a contract with an entity (in this case it is an assignment that was to tie the purported borrower with the purported servicer, and without that connection even if the borrower was in default, it was none of their business).

    The html link in this post contains the statements not in order.
    If you notice, the case was more about the people who acted together to conspire to steal property, and created paperwork to force the property owner into a purported contract that the court business compels you to perform the obligations of.

    During the foreclosure case, judgment had been taken against the homeowner without him realizing the problematic documents.
    After the foreclosure lawsuit was dismissed, the homeowner filed a federal lawsuit alleging several causes of action against all four parties,
    Bank of America, NA (“BANA”), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), the law firm of Lerner Sampson and Rothfuss(LSR), and one of the law firm’s paralegals, Shellie Hill.
    The lawsuit against BANA, MERS, LSR, and Ms. Hill will now continue under the federal racketeering statute, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law initially designed to prosecute mob activity

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  78. Its my contention you attack the contract……1st
    Where did my money go?
    Where did the title to my estate go?
    Why did a nobody slander my title ?
    Everybody is going to court.

  79. I don’t want to debate with the Legal Eagles but I have personal knowledge of these cases settling out of court and that is why there are no court wins.

    Prosecutors Talk….

  80. Ms.Wynn, I like your frog analogy, but posting cases that are not wins, is not helpful; which begs the question–where are all of the wins?

    There aren’t any because the nitwits on this blog aren’t attacking the mortgage transaction (contract).

    BTW, we are in the process of creating Living Lies–The Truth, which will have people that know what they’re talking about, proving Garfield and the other scammers that post here do not.

  81. When they go down, not if, when, it will be big time because the industry is no good as it currently operates in my humble opinion and people will not be debt slaves i find that more and mire people are opening their eyes to the truth of the matter,and – goes against natural law.
    It might be possible to claw back or seize Their fruits of unjust enrichment, that would be justice, and the jails get to fill their cells.

  82. Welcome Back Rock!
    Behave! You are of no value to anyone if you are in Quiet Time!

  83. Come on Rock – its a start then they survived a motion to dismiss, it passes muster, so my frog analogy applies.

  84. RE:”knowing what we do, no one should find themself in a new foreclosure”


    But they didn’t pay the R.E taxes and got FC on anyway.


  85. This case says nothing of the sort.

    Once again Garfield has no clue, the holding is: “the allegations in Slorp’s complaint are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.”

    Nothing more.

  86. Good Morning Sunshine.


  87. Thank you Deb. Fighting AFTER the fact is much more difficult than preempting foreclosure. If course, for those who already lost everything, fighting to get something back is warranted but, by now, knowing what we do, no one should find himself defending a brand new foreclosure.

  88. You cant Java
    But you can fight for justice

  89. How can I be made whole after the fact ?? I argued the assignments were robosigned and post dated (clear as black and white)…..The assignments dates on my case, went from Bank B to Bank C before supposedly Bank B got assignment from Original Bank A ….How could Bank B assign to Bank C in 2005 when Bank A didn’t assign to Bank B until 2007 !!!!!!

  90. Neil reminds us that the party taking the home has no injury so christine you are correct in asking the important question ” where did my payments go”
    Does it matter that your payment did not get to the creditor or the party that stood to be injured as a consequence, you paid in good faith against a contract that you were lead to believe was fair with an accurately appraised true market value of the collateral home yes,
    This is why it is so difficult suing these guys because they all work together and why rescission is a great weapon.

  91. Sorry that link i posted doesnt work so go to foreclosure fraud website

  92. Actually it was issued SAME day as trustee sale

  93. Christine the 1099a cant be explained – that was also issued over a year ago and im stonewalled.

  94. Am I missing something? That case is a year old! Are you just waking up?

  95. Bloody hell. That is supposed to say
    ” the frog in a pan of water”

  96. Its a case of the frog in a own if water analogy ( though not a very nice one) as you bring the pot to boiling the frog fails to jump out because it acclimates to the heat, and so gets cooked.

  97. Good.

  98. Ck this case

  99. This has been what we been saying over 4yrs and that is the party claiming a due is owed is lying and does not have the right to foreclose and thereby is committing a crime when filing the assignments. The Brief Amicus Curiae by the Harvard Law School break down what part MERS has in all of this, plus unless your under a rock, the reference to Covington & Burling who was the law firm representing MERS and its two biggest stars were Eric Holder & Lanny Breuer who just happen to work at the Justice Dept and now Breuer returned to the firm and Holder is sure to follow!

    At some point this should be over.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: