REMIC Trusts: VOID means VOID — Not Voidable

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

Rod Ciferri’s Telephone is 650-346-3741


Rod Ciferri, who was the guest on the Neil Garfield Show last week, has nailed the issue with extensive research and a highly articulate explanation of why the cutoff date and other requirements of the Trust Instrument (the Pooling and Servicing Agreement) are absolute and not subject to interpretation from the Bench. He goes back to basics — starting with the point we lawyers learn in law school in our first year. Statutes may not be construed unless there is a specific finding that the statute is ambiguous in some way. The New York statute says that any act in contravention of the express terms of the Trust instrument is void.

I would only add that none of the Trusts actually come to own the debt, loan, note or mortgage anyway. The creation of “assignments” and “powers of attorney” merely create the illusion of a transaction that never occurred.

Rod Ciferri is licensed in New York State. I strongly recommend that lawyers read the following excerpt from Rod Ciferri carefully and incorporate it into the argument and memos.

  1. New York Law Prohibits Plaintiff-In-Intervention’s Late    Acceptance Of The Loan And Deems The Same To Be Void Ab Initio

Estates, Powers & Trusts Law § 7-2.4 (“§ 7-2.4”) states that acts of a trustee in contravention of the trust agreement are void.[1] Here the act of Plaintiff-In-Intervention which is void is its late acceptance of the loan into the trust. Although Defendant is aware of cases holding such acts are merely voidable, such cases rest upon a misunderstanding of New York law.

First, § 7-2.4 was preceded by a statute of nearly identical language[2] – 1 R.S. 730, § 65. That statute was first considered by the highest court in New York, the Court of Appeals, in 1852. Powers v. Bergen (1852) 6 N.Y. 358, found a sale of certain real property held in trust under the direction that the real property would be a life estate for the beneficiary was void under that statute – despite the fact that the beneficiary did not object and that the legislature made a private statute specifically to facilitate such sale. The high court of New York found neither the ratification of the beneficiary, nor private statute of the legislature made the act of the trustees in contravention of the trust agreement anything less than void. Other cases of the New York Court of Appeals followed that literal interpretation of the statute.[3] Given that the statute under consideration by the New York Court of Appeals is identical to the current statute as to its terms that are material to the issues herein, these cases are mandatory authority on the meaning of § 7-2.4: “void” actually means void.

Finally, the California Supreme Court confirmed that the New York Court of Appeals ruled the predecessor statute to § 7-2.4 voided acts of the trustee in contravention of the trust agreement.[4] In fact, that case considered California’s own statute, former Civil Code § 870, that had identical language as New York’s former statute, except that it was limited to real estate, whereas, the New York statute applied to all estates. Significantly, the Firato Court acknowledged a trustee’s acts in contravention of a trust agreement are void, however, in consideration of another section of the Civil Code, it recognized that was not necessarily the case with regard to title to property thereby obtained by purchasers for value without notice. Subsequently, the California legislature repealed Civil Code § 870.[5] Therefore, the California Supreme Court has recognized that that the word “void” used in its own almost identical former statute means void, except in cases where the trustee conveys property to an innocent purchaser.[6]

However, should the Court determine that these cases are not mandatory authority herein because of differences between § 7-2.4 and the prior statutes, despite the dearth of New York Court of Appeals cases considering the legal effect of § 7-2.4, the intermediate appeals courts have established the rule of law in this regard that must be followed by trial courts. In the absence of an on point ruling by the New York Court of Appeals, it is the decisions of the intermediate appeals courts, the Appellate Divisions, which are to be followed by the trial courts. See, Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms (1984) 102 A.D.2d 663 (If only one Appellate Division has ruled on a point not ruled on by the Court of Appeals, that ruling is binding on trial courts).   The only Appellate Division that has specifically dealt with § 7-2.4 is the Second Department. In the matter of Doman (2d Dept. 2013) 110 A.D.3d 1073 (distributions from trust not authorized by the trust agreement must be returned to the trust); Pepi v. Petrella (2d Dept. 2000) 268 A.D.2d 477 (conveyance made in contravention of the trust void). Just as a trustee’s acts in contravention of the trust were adjudged void under the old statute, the Appellate Division, Second Department, has determined the same are void under § 7-2.4.

Moreover, the lower court decisions holding that the word void actually means voidable are of little authority because none of them actually found the wording of § 7-2.4 to have been ambiguous – a prerequisite to judicial construction and interpretation – whether analyzed under California or New York law.[7]

Where a statute is unambiguous, the courts must interpret its words in accordance with their ordinary meaning and not engage in statutory construction. Kimmel v. Goland (1990) 51 Cal.3d 202, 208 (To determine the intent of legislation, courts first consult the words themselves, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning); Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 73 (When statutory language is clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, and courts should not indulge in it); PBA v. City of New York (1976) 41 NY 2d 205, 208 (“where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the court should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used.”). Clearly the courts that have determined “void” means “voidable” did not follow these elementary rules prohibiting judicial construction absent an ambiguous statute.

Also, cases that don’t cite § 7-2.4 that find unauthorized acts of a trustee are “voidable” are of dubious authority herein for not considering that statute’s effect on such acts.[8] Finally, none of these cases analyze the substantially similar statutes that existed in both New York and California, nor the cases decided by the high courts of those respective states correctly interpreting them.

Therefore, this Court should follow the sound mandatory authority of the plain meaning of § 7-2.4, the New York Court of Appeals decisions that considered § 7-2.4’s predecessor statute, the California Supreme Court’s interpretation of a substantially similar statute and the Appellate Division, Second Department cases that specifically considered § 7-2.4. Whether void or voidable, the issue is not an academic one. The legislature’s purpose in enacting § 7-2.4 was “to protect trust beneficiaries from unauthorized actions by the trustee.” Turano, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Consolidated Laws of New York, Book 17B, EPTL §7-2.4. That statutory purpose is particularly important in the instant case, since the certificate holder beneficiaries under the trust herein are prohibited by the Agreement from voting on or challenging such unauthorized actions except in certain sharply circumscribed circumstances.[9] In short, “void” means void.

[1] The verbatim language of § 7-2.4 is: “If the trust is expressed in the instrument creating the estate of the trustee, every sale, conveyance or other act of the trustee in contravention of the trust, except as authorized by this article and by any other provision of law, is void.”

[2] “where the trust shall be expressed in the instrument creating the estate, every sale, conveyance or other act of the trustees in contravention of the trust shall be absolutely void.”   See Briggs v. Davis (1859) 20 N.Y. 15, 21.

[3] See Briggs v. Davis (1859) 20 N.Y. 15 (grantees of land in trust for the payment of debts reconveyed to the grantor, reciting that the trusts had been executed. In fact, the debts had not all been paid. The debtor then mortgaged the land to one having no actual notice of the trust. It was held that the reconveyance, being in contravention of the trust, was void, and that the legal estate remained in the trustees.); Genet et al. v. Hunt et al. (1889) 113 N.Y. 158 (“The statute makes every conveyance or other act of the trustees of an express trust in lands, in contravention of the trust, absolutely void…”); Russell v. Russell (1867) 36 N.Y. 581 (Transfer in contravention of the trust agreement void, despite mutual assent to it by the trustee and beneficiary).

[4] Firato v. Tuttle (1957) 48 Cal.2d 136 (“In 1859 it was held by a divided court in Briggs v. Davis, 20 N.Y. 15 [75 Am.Dec. 363], that this statute made a wrongful reconveyance under a deed of trust absolutely void even as to an innocent purchaser.”).

[5] For the history of Civil Code § 870, see Schiavon v. Arnaudo Brothers (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 374.

[6] Plaintiff-In-Intervention, as a party to the Agreement, had knowledge that its late acceptance of the instant loan into the trust res was unauthorized, and, consequently, cannot be deemed an innocent purchaser. In fact, Plaintiff-In-Intervention unequivocally covenants in the Agreement at Section 3.02, the following: “REMIC-Related Covenants. For as long as any 2007-AR4 REMIC shall exist, the Trustee shall act in accordance herewith to assure continuing treatment of such 2007-AR4 REMIC as a REMIC, and the Trustee shall comply with any directions of the Depositor or the Servicer to assure such continuing treatment.” RJN, Exh. A. See also, Section 11.01 of the Agreement:   “Intent of Parties. The parties intend that each 2007-AR4 REMIC shall be treated as a REMIC for federal income tax purposes and that the provisions of this Agreement should be construed in furtherance of this intent.” Id. See also, 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A–860G; see also Real Estate Investment Trusts. Securities Law Series, Vol. 29. Thomson West (2007): 6-22 (Late transfers to the trust result in forfeiting the pass through of taxation to the investors and subjects the trust to a 100% tax of the loan amount). Plaintiff-In-Intervention certainly cannot show it was without notice that its late acceptance of the instant loan was unauthorized by its Agreement.

[7] See, e.g., the odd case of a lower court (Appellate Term) that actually considered § 7-2.4 and found that a trustee could have apparent authority to bind the trust to the trustee’s unauthorized act: Feldman v. Torres (2011) 34 Misc.3d 47.

[8] People v. Toro (1989) 47 Cal.3d 966, 978, fn. 7 (“…cases are not authority for propositions not considered therein.”).

[9] See Section 11.04 of the Agreement: “…no Certificateholders shall have any right to vote or in any manner otherwise control the operation and management of the Trust… No Certificateholder shall have any right by virtue of any provision of this Agreement to institute any suit, action or proceeding in equity or at law upon, under or with respect to this Agreement against the Depositor, the Trustee, the Servicer or any successor to any such parties…”

58 Responses

  1. […] (“§ 7-2.4”) states that acts of a trustee in contravention of the trust agreement are void.[1] Here the act of Plaintiff-In-Intervention which is void is its late acceptance of the loan into the […]

  2. “Rock, on May 20, 2015 at 7:28 am said:

    Almost every court in this country has rejected the argument that the assignment executed after trust was closed in violation of the PSA rendered transaction invalid, reasoning that non-parties to the PSA lacked standing to challenge the assignment and it is irrelevant to the validity of the assignment whether or not it complied with the PSA.”

    Perhaps (if you disregard the judicially noticeable claims of sec’n advocates and merscorp’ original propaganda that each would benefit the borrower, i.e., the borrower was alleged to be an intended ben of secn and mers). What courts are saying is 1) IF A has something to assign, it’s not the borrower’s business to whom A assigns that something and 2) a secn trustee may elect to accept a late assgt on behalf of the trust bens (which imo he may not). Regardless, a borrower should be able to argue some other stuff, namely that A had nothing to assign, So and So has no authority to execute the assignment for “A”, the intended (named) assignee has not in fact accepted the assignment, the litigation or claim is brought by an entity which itself is a stranger to the alleged assignment (albeit in the name of the named assignee). These actions aren’t in fact brought by any secn trustee imo; they’re brought and financed by others, generally someone claiming to be the servicer. The servicer for whom and on what authority? There’s no reason for a court to presume a servicer, even once – if – its demonstrated it IS the servicer for A if not B, has authority to act for the trust in bringing the action in the trust’s name.
    PS – the issue isn’t necessarily compliance with the PSA. It’s about the trust law which says such an assgt is void, isn’t it?

  3. yes, rciferri, I think I got that info from case law; if not, from trusted law blogs re: ratification (not peculiar to sec’n, but so what?). The alleged sec’n trustee can’t accept a late assignment because the trust bens, the people for whom he works, cannot themselves accept a late assignment; thus, they can’t ratify his (alleged only) act of acceptance. Nor is there ever any evidence the trustee has in fact accepted a late assgmt. The matter of a secn trustee’s late acceptance isn’t worthy of any presumption, rebuttable or otherwise. At this stage, I believe what’s a fair presumption is that it’s the alleged servicer bringing the action or the defense in the name of the alleged secn trustee (and paying for it, as well) as a matter of self-interest. As I’ve said, I’d like to see a real secn trustee (not some minion with a trumped up title or poa) swear to acceptance of such an assgt (disregarding MERS’ unknown ability to assign a note).

  4. 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.

    (Bob Hurt posting below) …..

    bobhurt, on May 20, 2015 at 8:16 pm said:
    I am fleshing out LivingLiesTheTruth dot com (or 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

  5. michael keane

    Be careful with the heart, it is the second mind and most powerful as it is our direct connection to source.

    I am a living and spiritual witness to what they did and do to, all of us, one.

    Their names are in my book of life. As their name is in my book, my name is in theirs. What deeds have we done to each other. what intensity, with what permissions?

    Imagine how many names are in the book of life for a judge? And then imagine what he has done to each one who is named in his book?
    We are never judged by our Creator, we are judged by what we do with the life energy given to us. The one who created us loves us unconditionally, so much so, we are allowed to do things that cause our own judgment and punishment because we know good and evil, and have free will to select our path we will follow. All paths have consequences, even as they ultimately lead to the same place.

    My eyes have beheld the writings by their hand and their life energy, and my heart has conveyed the effects of their activity against my will as they end up in my book of life.

    We wait for the universe to balance these things; so we can go back to a more relaxed state; free of war.

    Personally, some earthquakes, that destroy the properties they claim to own, some shifting of the lands that removes the meets and bounds they claim to own, and some removal of land masses and creation of land masses to distort what they claim to own, and we can rebuild and their control is no more.

    It’s happened before, and before that, and before that.
    All this is an illusion of control.
    They have no power over us, they have control through force and threat, but that is not real power.

    The anticipation gets deeper.
    I don’t feel for them, for they know what they do.
    If I put out your eye, and I find out I put out your eye, and everyone before me, I put out their eye, I cannot claim I kept putting out eyes because I didn’t want to get into trouble for putting out the first eye.

    That’s how absurd it is when we hear they cannot reverse prior decisions because they don’t want to be identified as the reason for all the future decisions of the same caliber.

    A planet has an ice age, the world is overtaken by cold, and it seems it will be cold forever, but nature balances out and removes the power of the ice, and the world gets warm and it seems it will be warm forever, but nature balances out and remove the excess heat.

    Nature (natural or unnatural) will balance things out and remove those that make us leave our shelters. It’s just natural for it to happen.

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

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

  7. @ Trespass Unwanted,

    You are describing a type of “futures trading” that is described in the industry as “naked short selling”.

    This fraud and the consequences my family has been forced to endure have made me ill to the point of having to undergo heart surgery.

    Before I became sick, I started a petition:

    The properties are being scrubbed through fraudclosure while participants to the MERS are counterfeiting title any number of times while betting those titles will be foreclosed.

    This is the nature of derivatives fraud.

    They counterfeit ownership to the title and then place “short-sale” bets against something they never owned in the first place.

  8. Hey Rock- read Jeff Barnes’ post on this topic. He maintains that this issue is addressed in the Livonia Properties case out ot the 6 th Circuit. Further clarified by the same court in the Slorp case.
    Where the assignment fails to pass title to the parties (due to backdating for inclusion in the PSA in violation of the trust), the borrower has standing to challenge that assignment.
    Please read his post and get back to us.

  9. Almost every court in this country has rejected the argument that the assignment executed after trust was closed in violation of the PSA rendered transaction invalid, reasoning that non-parties to the PSA lacked standing to challenge the assignment and it is irrelevant to the validity of the assignment whether or not it complied with the PSA.

    However, all of the brainless dupes believe Garfield and his parrot, rciferri that the courts just “got it wrong,” like every other case that proves their full of it.

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

    For those that thanked me for clarifying all of the nonsense, you will be able to find refuge at

  10. I don’t know legal things, but I do wonder, what if.

    We have known the judges have allowed thefts under the disguise of foreclosure.
    We assume the judge/banker/judge who is a banker in his business would be harmed by deciding against the people when someone comes in and claims our property but clouds the titles, and THEN I read this article, and I ask what if.

    And I’m full of opinions

    What if, we are wrong in our assumption while we think they are getting it wrong in their presumption?

    What if it is still part of their plan, to have us think our property was foreclosed so we’d let them stick it in MERS to be sold again and again, but

    it is by design the foreclosure was fraud.

    We know they know it’s fraud, it’s all over the place, everyone knows it, and they get us to argue the contract or the modification, but

    What if they don’t have to pull back the transaction when the foreclosure is done by someone who is not the creditor, by design.

    So I’m reading this article about HOA’s taking homes in Las Vegas, and that wipes out the primary loan for the purported creditor but it doesn’t remove the securitization papers, nor does it cancel anything.

    Particularly of interest is this statement, that appears to be a known fact, but some how people attacking the contract haven’t told us it’s a known fact.


    In a pivotal case, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in September 2014 that properly executed foreclosure sales extinguish bank notes.

    “What the Supreme Court said last September was that if it was done properly, according to statute, it wipes out the mortgage,” Hafter said. “(So) you have to demonstrate in court that all the notices were properly served, that everything was done properly, and it’s all a question of fact, which can only ultimately be settled at trial. So now it’s a case-by-case basis; we can’t fast-track any of them.”

    So when the United States Supreme Court said people could rescind their signature per TILA, it meant they had to unwind the transactions and tender to the named borrower.

    They don’t want that, because they need these thefts to be improper.

    Improper by design, the papers are still floating and still securitized, collateralized, swapped, debt obligations.

    Oh the tangled web they weave, and the participants in the fraud.

    And MERS is a database playing a game of Go and strategically claiming property to where we’ll be purchasing our states again like the Louisiana purchase….my does history repeat itself. They just may be claiming all the water rights and property that is known to have minerals underneath.

    We always say, ‘If you believe that, I have the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you’, I bet MERS has title to the Brooklyin Bridge, Hoover Dam, and our very own White House, let alone the property in Denver surrounding that airport, if not the airport itself.

    Oh yeah, they have an interest in the property not being properly stolen, and they have judges orders and fake substitute trustees transferring property rights without power of attorney, and someone is benefiting greatly from the fraud, until they pull the rug from under everyone that helped them.

    I hope they put all the judges and lawyers in their own property called camp FEEDMA where they can have three hots and a cot, and can reminisce over the days they robbed the country they walked every day for some monopoly money and fiat promises of paper wealth leveraged 100 to 1.

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

  11. @johngault

    You said:

    “As a matter of law: beneficiaries may not ratify an ct they could not do themselves”

    And it appears to me that the United States Supreme Court agrees with you:

    “A ratification is, in its effect upon the act of an agent, equivalent to the possession by him of a previous authority. It operates upon the act ratified in the same manner as though the authority of the agent to do the act existed originally. IT FOLLOWS THAT A RATIFICATION CAN ONLY BE MADE WHEN THE PARTY RATIFYING POSSESSES THE POWER TO PERFORM THE ACT RATIFIED. The supervisors possessed no authority to make the subscription or issue the bonds in the first instance without the previous sanction of the qualified voters of the county.” Marsh v. Fulton County, 10 Wall. 676, 683-84 (1871).

  12. And they keep drooling in their insanity and wallowing in it.

    It’s not Kool Aid. Kool Aid is pretty harmless when nobody buys it or drinks it. It’s so much deeper than that… They’re stupid, ignorant, and obese from it and whatever other crap they ingest. Kool Aid was actually sold to them and they bought it, hook, line and sinker! Nobody else did. They do. Voluntarily too. Garbage in, garbage out (90% of the constipated American population notwithstanding…). Kool Aid banned in so many countries…!

    Keep going Garfield. Make your buck: if it’s honest, I’ll applaud you. As an officer of the Court, I will keep calling you on deliberate misrepresentation of case law so that you make that buck. Make it honestly by telling the truth. Don’t lie to make it. Professionals won’t allow it. You know… ethics and all…

  13. As a matter of law: beneficiaries may not ratify an ct they could not do themselves

  14. Attacking the.contract has no motion, and maybe its cause there are no teachers.
    Its an offense that is so secretive, only those who give up personal information in a contract by gesture gets to take a peek at that solution.
    I’m reminded of the carnival with the guy selling a view of the world’s smallest horse, (please no pictures only those that pay are allowed to see.)
    How many people benefited from being the only one to have seen that horse when the circus left town? Did they even talk about it after they saw it?

    The purported win cases are marketed the same. No law firm or attorney has advertised with confidence that when they walk into court business; the judge will rule on evidence, statute, code, or whatever.
    Its you didn’t object when we did it wrong, you didn’t assert when you had a window of opportunity to say that, we can’t read your writing, …, sure you are in court to stop them from taking your property but you didn’t say (Simon says), they lacked standing I’m a way we could tell you were saying they had no right to your property.

    I’ll keep looking for that offense page, I’m sure it will take hold and go viral soon. We’ll all be using it ( foreclosure offence-attack the contract) like people took to dancing to the Harlem Shake. [Nope won’t happen]

    Trespass Unwanted

  15. Please forgive me. At the end of the 5th paragraph I should have said,

    ‘”Fractional Reserve lending”, with ratios of return guaranteed at 10-to1″.”

    I said “10 percent” by mistake.

  16. There are 12 regional banks.

    The shares to the system that governs those regional banks are not available to the public. Instead, they are privately-owned, and, often foreign-owned banks contribute into the system by purchasing those shares.

    A good example of a privately-owned, foreign-owned participant to this fraudulent central-banking scam is “HSBC- Hong Kong Shanghai banking Corp.” They are “Federal Reserve” participants and they also launder drug and terrorist money…

    And… they use the financial system of the US- the intentionally-mislabeled “Federal Reserve” as their laundromat.

    Those private shares offered by the fraud that is the “federal Reserve” enjoy a guaranteed 6% return, and once the privately-owned and often foreign-owned bank chain purchases shares into that system they are also allowed to participate in “Fractional Reserve Lending” with ratios of return guaranteed at ten percent.

    So, once part of the scam, the “Lending Bank” will earn an ability to process 900K in additional “loans” on each 100K mortgage they “sell”… and the deceit continues ad infinitum.

    The scam exists in the English central banking system and that is where it was created and then exported to the US, IMF, and World Bank.

    The whole system uses the Sovereign Currency- the US Dollar to perpetrate and continue the scam.

    The LIBOR is supposed to establish interest rates- these central banking filth manipulated it in order to defraud whole municipalities across the entire world.

    The foreclosures are a deliberate “Boom (subprime lending)- and- Bust (predatory lending, counterfeit title, fraudclosure”… the ultimate goal is to collect on the bets these filth made against the borrowers’ ability to pay: DERIVATIVES.

    The shortfall to the INTERNATIONAL CENTRAL BANKING FRAUD, should foreclosures not “pay-off” is 682 TRILLION DOLLARS.
    The DTCC and DTC are supposed to track derivatives, they refuse to do so.

    The DTCC and DTC are owned and operated by the same thugs that own and operate the international central banking system.

    This is the reason why there is no justice and it is worsened by the fact that the pension plans of the planet (teachers, firefighters, police, and… yes… court personnel) are invested in the “International Notional Derivatives”.

    682 TRILLION DOLLARS is ten times the GDP of every country on the planet.

  17. Evil Christine what happened? The Devil threw you up after eating you?
    Racist Comments. Now Anti American comments? You are UnAmerican.

    Chrissy Chrissy Chrissy Evil Chritine.

    God Bless America

  18. @Rock

    You said:

    blah, blah, blah…

    I said:

    “Any New York Court of Appeals authority that specifically deals with EPTL 7-2.4 and DOESN’T come to the conclusion that “void” means “void”?

    I didn’t think so.”

    Find that case yet, Rock?

    I didn’t think so.

  19. Oh well… they will keep on arguing issues completely irrelevant to their bilateral contract and they will keep on losing. Unteachable “exceptional” America is actively self-destructing at every single level. Maybe it is godly justice being properly rendered: after all, America was created on war, murder, genocide and theft.

    The next wave of foreclosures promises just more of the same with an increasing case law from which banks will be more than happy to quote from. Self-destruction at its best.

  20. @Rock – how many of those cases involved the trust holding beneficial interest to real property? Of those, how many considered that clear title is of benefit to all parties, as well as the public, due to it affect on the basis to raise taxes.?And my contract in CA stated that the borrower is turning a property with clear title over to the DOT trustee, and further stated I was obligated to protect that clear title. Clearly I held a third party interest to keep the title clear, despite outside contracts.

  21. @rceferri – my understanding, as a pro se in CA, was that standing, as a point of law, can be raised at any point in the case, including the appellate level, as it must be resolved before any equitable rulings should be made. A court has no jurisdiction to make a ruling on a party who is not part of an action. Except maybe to report them to the DA for prosecution to avoid felony misprision.

  22. New York courts have consistently held that parties who are not beneficiaries of a trust lack standing to enforce the trust’s terms or to challenge the actions of the trustee. See, e.g., In re Estate of McManus, 390 N.E.2d 773, 774 (N.Y. 1979) (individuals “not beneficially interested” in a trust lack standing to challenge the trustee’s actions); Cashman v. Petrie, 201 N.E.2d 24, 26 (N.Y. 1964) (“A person who might incidentally benefit from the performance of a trust but is not a beneficiary thereof cannot maintain a suit to enforce the trust or to enjoin a breach.”); Naversen v. Gaillard, 831 N.Y.S.2d 258, 259 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) (“The Supreme Court properly determined that since the defendants were not beneficiaries of the [trust], they lacked standing to challenge the actions of the plaintiff as its trustee.”). New York law further provides that, to have standing to challenge a contract, a plaintiff must be a party to, or a third-party beneficiary of, the contract he seeks to challenge. See, e.g., Decolator, Cohen & DePrisco v. Lysagt, Lysagt & Kramer, P.C., 756 N.Y.S.2d 147 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003); Arrow Louver & Damper Div. of Arrow United Indus., Inc. v. New York City Transit Auth., 482 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984) (“[A]s a stranger to the contracts, plaintiff lacks standing to sue for the enforcement of their provisions, or for a declaration as to their meaning.”). A homeowner who is not a party to the assignment of a mortgage or a pooling and servicing agreement thus lacks standing to challenge the assignment or to enforce the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement under New York law. See, e.g., Bank of New York Mellon v. Gales, 982 N.Y.S.2d 911, 912 (N.Y.A.D. 2d Dep’t 2014) (affirming denial of mortgagor’s motion to dismiss foreclosure complaint because they “did not have standing to assert noncompliance with the subject lender’s pooling service agreement”); Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79, 87 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Although noncompliance with PSA provisions might have made the assignments unenforceable at the instance of parties to those agreements, . . . plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce the agreements to which they were not parties and of which they were not intended beneficiaries.”); id. at 88 (rejecting homeowners’ reliance on New York trust law to challenge noncompliance with PSA because, “under New York law, only the intended beneficiary of a private trust may enforce the terms of the trust.”) (citing McManus, Chasman, & Naversen). Plaintiff is not a party to the PSA and she thus lacks standing to assert claims based on perceived violations of its terms. See Rajamin, 757 F.3d at 87; cf. Edward, 534 F. App’x at 891 (citing Montgomery)).

    No courts follow any of the lunacy rciferri has posted. Just more hustler talk. This court got it wrong that court got it wrong, all from someone who’s never tried a case, let alone won one.

    Come on Bob, get Living Lies–The Truth finished so we can get out of this looney bin.

  23. @Bruce Broyles

    It’s because Erobobo waived the issue of the lack of standing of the foreclosing party:

    “Even affording a liberal reading to Erobobo’s pro se answer…, there is no language in the answer from which it could be inferred that he sought to assert the defense of lack of standing.”

    In other words, due to not timely raising the issue that the forecloser had no enforceable interest in the loan, the court did not consider it in opposition to the forecloser’s summary judgment motion.

  24. @Rock

    You said:

    “Tran v. Bank of N.Y. (S.D.N.Y., 2014) (“courts considering EPTL § 7-2.4 have held that “even if it is true that the Notes were transferred to the trust in violation of the trust’s terms [after the closing date of the trust], that transaction could be ratified by the beneficiaries of the trust and is therefore merely voidable.”

    Tran is wrong.

    Until the New York Court of Appeals, the most authoritative tribunal possible to decide the matter, overrules or distinguishes its prior cases, the rule will continue to be:

    “void” means “void”.

    See Powers v. Bergen (1852) 6 N.Y. 358, in which it was found a sale of certain real property held in trust under the direction that the real property would be a life estate for the beneficiary was void under that statute – despite the fact that the beneficiary did not object and that the legislature made a private statute specifically to facilitate such sale. The high court of New York found neither the ratification of the beneficiary, nor private statute of the legislature made the act of the trustees in contravention of the trust agreement anything less than void.

    Powers v. Bergen is the controlling law here. None of the cases you posted even considered it.

    Also, I notice you don’t post the second circuit case, Rajamin; they got it wrong too and admit why they made their mistake: because the court was “not aware of any New York appellate decision that has endorsed this interpretation of § 7-2.4”.

    If I were the lawyer representing the homeowner in Rajamin, you can be sure the court would be aware of Powers v. Bergen. I’m sure if Rajamin’s lawyer brought that case to the second circuit’s attention, it would have immediately realized all the cases saying “void” means “voidable” as used in the statute had little authority, since they were issued by tribunals inferior to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Also, the Jenkins Court in California wouldn’t think such cases were “more well reasoned” if it realized they were in conflict with controlling court opinions under both New York law AND California law.

    Are there any cases within your cut and paste dump that are of more authority than Powers v. Bergen?

    Any New York Court of Appeals authority that specifically deals with EPTL 7-2.4 and DOESN’T come to the conclusion that “void” means “void”?

    I didn’t think so.

  25. The Supreme court of California will settle Glaski and if not the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Rod Ciferri I agree with you but answering Rock is only a waste of energy. His sole purpose is to bring Negative Vibes to this website.

  26. For full disclosure, I am in the camp that asserts a violation results in a void transaction. How does the author reconcile the recent decision of 127 A.D.3d 1176, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., etc., appellant, v. Rotimi EROBOBO, respondent, et al., defendants.
    April 29, 2015? The Court reversed using boiler plate holdings.

  27. Like I said, rciferri doesn’t understand the law or what he’s reading what he’s reading. He’s is just a scammer, but like all brainless dupes they love his Kool-Aid he and Garfield serve up in Garfieldtown.

    rciferri’s comment:

    “You post NO CASES that specifically address EPTL 7.24.”

    From the cases I posted:

    Tran v. Bank of N.Y. (S.D.N.Y., 2014) (“courts considering EPTL § 7-2.4 have held that “even if it is true that the Notes were transferred to the trust in violation of the trust’s terms [after the closing date of the trust], that transaction could be ratified by the beneficiaries of the trust and is therefore merely voidable.”

    I could post about a dozen more.

    Just like Glaski there were a couple of courts that rciferri got his wishful lunacy from, but just like Glaski no court follows that nonsense either..

  28. E.Tolle here is another one on Storm

  29. E.Tolle thank you

  30. If he’s not Storm, it looks like he’s possibly a recent graduate of Copy & Paste Online Law School and Pet Grooming Service. LLC.

    Here’s a testimonial from a former client, on Ripoff Report, attesting to the sterling job he performs for his clients:

    Storm Bradford and Mortgage Fraud Examiners have cost my company thousands of dollars because of their misrepresentations, fraud and dishonesty.

    He is a liar, and a fraud!!!

    Please do not be fooled by these imposters.

    This office is run by Storm Bradford who represents himself to be a licensed Attorney when in fact he is not. He tries to perform Forensic Loan Audits, Mortgage Loan Audits, Attorney Forensic Loan Audits, or whatever you want to call them.

    Storm Bradford has personally called our offices and made unlawful, unethical, and immoral threats including racial threats targeted at minorities at our office if we did not comply with his requests. He conduct was so severe that it is the subject of criminal investigation for stalking and criminal threats.

    Many complaints have already been filed against Mortgage Fraud Examiners and Storm Bradford with the Federal Trade Commission, Attorney General Office and the State Bar in several Jurisdictions.

    So I’m now offering for sale to the highest bidder, the website entitled:

    Do I hear $1.75?

  31. Go to:




    dot com

    followed by:


    WordPress won’t let me paste it….

  32. Rock is Storm.

  33. Show me who transfered the money from the so called lender to my account?


  34. Where’s the Beef (money). Show us the money trail to the trust.
    That is all I want.

    Show me proof authority. Show me the agreement between the Attorney who says he/she represents the trust.

    Where’s the Beef?

  35. @Rock

    You said:

    “I could provide dozens more. rciferri is another hack who fails to understand what he reads, and in turn poisons the minds of brainless dupes, who buy into his lunacy.”

    I understand you are capable of cutting and pasting all the poorly reasoned cases that have popped up like mushrooms around this issue.

    You CAN and DO provide dozens of cases that don’t even address the law cited in my memorandum.


    You post NO CASES that specifically address EPTL 7.24 or the 19th century cases from the highest courts in both New York and California stating that the term “void” therein means “void”.


    You also post NO CASES that actually follow the rule that a statute must first be determined to be ambiguous before statutory construction may be engaged in by a court to change a word like “void” to “voidable.”

    So, cut and paste all you want Rock.

    None of it refutes my argument.

    All of it reveals poor legal reasoning, because:

    1. None of your cases found the language in EPTL 7.24 to be ambiguous;

    2. None of your cases considered the 19th century cases from the highest courts in New York and California that were on point and never overruled; and,

    3. None of your cases explain how the more general law of agency trumps the more specific EPTL.

    As usual, you post cases that were wrongfully decided, instead of providing well reasoned legal analysis defending those cases, after I have given you the real controlling law on the matter.

  36. Rod Ciferri great job. Rock is an Evil person.


  38. Rock
    Out of the mouth is whats in the heart
    You said “poisons the minds of brainless dupes, who buy into his lunacy” you have zero respect and lack emotional maturity. I would never hire you.

  39. Even assuming, as Glaski insisted, that New York law governs interpretation of the PSA, which it did not because the PSA was under Delaware law, and further assuming that the transfer of Glaskis’ loan to the Trust violated the terms of the PSA, that after-the-deadline transactions would merely be voidable at the election of one or more of the parties—not void as Glaski and the legal illiterates would have everyone believe. Consequently, Glaski, was not a party to the PSA, and did not have standing to challenge it.

    Moreover, no courts in Ca. state Appeals, or federal follow Glaski they find the holding factually and legally incorrect. Mottale v. Tirey (S.D. Cal., 2014) (“Plaintiffs cite the recent California Court of Appeal case Glaski v. Bank of America National Association, et al., 218 Cal. App. 4th 1079 (Aug. 8, 2013), to support the plausibility of Plaintiffs’ unlawful securitization theory of liability. (Dkt. No. 22 at 3.)….The Court first notes that the weight of authority rejects Glaski as a minority view on the issue of a borrower’s standing to challenge an assignment as a third party to that assignment. See Rivac v. Ndex West LLC, No. C 13-1417 PJH, 2013 WL 6662762 at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013) (collecting cases); Boza v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, LA CV12-06993 JAK, 2013 WL 5943160 at *10 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2013) (same); In re Sandri, 501 B.R. 369, 374-78 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2013) (same).”); (“This Court finds the reasoning in the above-cited caselaw to be more persuasive than the reasoning in Glaski. See Rivac v. Ndex W. LLC, No. 13-1417-PJH, 2013 WL 6662762, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013); Covarrubias v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. (S.D. Cal., 2014) (“This court is persuaded by the majority position of courts within this district, which is that Glaski is unpersuasive,…(“[N]o courts have yet followed Glaski and Glaski is in a clear minority on the issue. Until either the California Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, or other appellate courts follow Glaski, this Court will continue to follow the majority rule.”) (citations omitted).”); Scomparin v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (In re Scomparin) (Bankr. N.D. Cal., 2014) (“As determined in In re Sandri, 501 B.R. 369 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2013), the clear weight of authority is against Glaski and its reasoning is unpersuasive. The Glaski court’s interpretation of New York law is contrary to the more well-reasoned cases that have found that an act in violation of a trust agreement is voidable, not void….Consistent with Sandri and the majority of California court decisions that have addressed this issue, this court finds that Plaintiff has no standing to successfully challenge the validity or effectiveness of the transfer. Id. See also Patel v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 2013 WL 4029277 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2013); Sami v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2012 WL 967051 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2012) (collecting cases); Hunt V. US Bank N.A. (9TH Cir., 2015) (Under the majority rule in California, borrowers lack standing to challenge the authority of the foreclosing entity. Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 912, 924–27 (Ct. App. 2013). The contrary holding in Glaski has been widely rejected.);

    This concurs with time-honored principles of contract law. A void contract is “invalid or unlawful from its inception” and therefore cannot be enforced. 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 169. Thus, a mortgagor who was not a party to an assignment between mortgagees may nevertheless challenge the enforcement of a void assignment. A voidable contract, on the other hand, “is one where one or more of the parties have the power, by the manifestation of an election to do so, to avoid the legal relations created by the contract.” Id. Therefore, only one who was a party to a voidable contract has standing to challenge it.

    It is true that New York Estate Powers & Trusts Law § 7-2.4 states: “every act in contravention of the Trust is void.” New York case law, however, makes clear “that section 7-2.4 is not applied literally in New York. “Bank, 981 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). Instead, New York courts have held that a beneficiary can ratify a trustee’s ultra vires act. See, e.g., Mooney v. Madden, 597 N.Y.S.2d 775 (N.Y. App. 1993) (holding that trustee may bind trust to an otherwise invalid act or agreement that is outside scope of trustee’s power when beneficiary or beneficiaries consent or ratify trustee’s ultra vires act or agreement); Matter of Estate of Janes, 630 N.Y.S.2d 472, 477 (Sur. 1995), aff’d as modified sub nom. Matter of Janes, 643 N.Y.S.2d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996), aff’d sub nom. Matter of Estate of Janes, 90 N.Y.2d 41 (N.Y. 1997)(acknowledging that a beneficiary may ratify a trustee’s ultra vires act if “the ratification was done with knowledge of material facts”); Leasing Serv. Corp. v. Vita Italian Restaurant, 566 N.Y.S.2d 796, 797-98 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991) (“It is hornbook law that a contract entered into by . . . an unauthorized agent, corporate officer, trustee or other person purporting to act in a representative capacity . . . is voidable.”); Hine v. Huntington, 103 N.Y.S. 535, 540 (1907) (“We have before this called attention to the fact that the cestui que trust is at perfect liberty to elect to approve an unauthorized investment and enjoy its profits, or to reject it at his option.”); 106 N.Y. Jur. 2d Trusts § 431 (“[T]rustee may bind trust to an otherwise invalid act or agreement which is outside the scope of the trustee’s power when beneficiary consents to or ratifies the trustee’s ultra vires act or agreement.”); see also In re Levy, 893 N.Y.S.2d 142, 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) (explaining that “[t]he essence of ratification ‘is that the beneficiary unequivocally declares that he does not regard the act in question as a breach of trust but rather elects to treat it as a lawful transaction under the trust'”) (quoting Bogert, Law of Trusts and Trustees § 942).

    If an act may be ratified, it is voidable rather than void. See Hacket v. Hackett, 950 N.Y.S.2d 608, 2012 WL 669525, at *20 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 21, 2012) (“A void contract cannot be ratified; it binds no one and is a nullity.

    However, an agreement that is merely voidable by one party leaves both parties at liberty to ratify the transaction and insist upon its performance.”) (quoting 27 Williston on Contracts § 70:13 [4th ed.]) (internal quotation marks omitted); 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 4 (noting that “a void contract . . . is no contract whatsoever” and “cannot be validated by ratification”) (emphasis added); id. (“A contract that is merely voidable is capable of being confirmed or ratified by the party having the right to avoid it . . . .”).

    These cases above make it obvious that, under New York law, a trustee’s unauthorized transactions may be ratified; such transactions, voidable—not void. 

    That being the case, if the trustee of the securitized trust can’t, on its own, decide to accept these late-delivered notes, then it’s clear the beneficiaries can. They can ratify or waive anything they want. Common sense dictates that they can either, accept the notes/mortgages even though they were delivered late, giving the trust power to enforce, but theoretically putting the trust’s tax-exempt REMIC status at risk; or not allowing the trustee to accept the notes/mortgages, keeping their REMIC status alive, but denying themselves the income from the notes/mortgages they bought.

    Common sense would also dictate that if there are enormous numbers of late-delivered notes/mortgages, does anyone really believe that the holders of these notes/mortgages would rather lose the tax benefits by virtue of it becoming a taxable event, this highly unlikely because the IRS has failed to take any action so far, or lose the income from the notes/mortgages. Anyone who got out of the third grade can figure this one out, its not quantum physics.

    BTW, here are a few more cases:

    Tran v. Bank of N.Y. (S.D.N.Y., 2014) (“courts considering EPTL § 7-2.4 have held that “even if it is true that the Notes were transferred to the trust in violation of the trust’s terms [after the closing date of the trust], that transaction could be ratified by the beneficiaries of the trust and is therefore merely voidable.”); Almutarreb v. Bank of New York Trust Co., N.A., 2012 WL 4371410, *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2012) (“holding that “because Plaintiffs were not parties to the PSA, they lack standing to challenge the validity of the securitization process, including whether the loan transfer occurred outside of the temporal bounds prescribed by the PSA.”); Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Industries Group, 713 F.Supp.2d 1092, (E.D.Cal. 2010) (“The argument that parties lose interest in a loan when it is assigned to a trust pool has also been rejected by numerous district courts.”); Sami v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2012 WL 967051, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (rejecting claim “that Wells Fargo failed to transfer or assign the note or Deed of Trust to the Securitized Trust by the ‘closing date,’ and that therefore, ‘under the PSA, any alleged assignment beyond the specified closing date’ is void” because the plaintiff lacked standing).

    I could provide dozens more. rciferri is another hack who fails to understand what he reads, and in turn poisons the minds of brainless dupes, who buy into his lunacy.

  40. Sorry to digress

  41. Which makes me wonder why anyone puts their money in a bank use the local credit union who share profits with the shareholders – those who put their money in there.

  42. Indeed we gave them an asset, which they failed to take care of.

  43. moderation.

    is more appropriate for Rock.
    But I will settle for Iamanasshole.

  44. If someone’s job was to capture your sou, would they make it known or just fish for it and get it cause you took their bait?

    The world is multi-dimensional.
    Its not just lack of justice, its a dimension of greed, a dimension of lawlessness, a dimension of theft by gun. ( I can’t say gun point), its a dimension of theft of estate assets, a dimension of corruption.

    So many layers and we can get trapped in any layer and not see the others.

    You make them happy when they can bait you and reel you in.

    Their goal may not have only been to steal the physical property. People spend their life caught up in the theft, an asset you gave them that they could not steal, and they want the real property, the soul of the Creator within you.

    They know who they have captured and they will turn up the heat to capture more.

    Just be aware there is more going on here than discussions of property theft.

    Ultimately you decide if they capture you when you find that you can’t leave them.
    They aren’t trying to leave, that’s a lie. They are here to stay.

    If you find you need them, need to communicate with them, you may have been made ‘soul food’.

    Just find out if you are already captured and didn’t realize it. If you have been trapped, I can’t release you. Only the one who walked into the trap has to determine how to get out.

    Realize there are many deceptions they have to be more than 51% negative to earn their reward and they have to have many souls that they take with them (however they capture the souls).
    Many will weep and wail when they find out they were baited and captured; and few will get past the reapers when they harvest the negative energy.
    51% angry, hatred, mean, rude, just 51% is enough cause you are not on the fence, you have decided you path of energy you will create.
    You are being set up is my opinion.
    Courts are the bigger harvesters and love it when you loose your cool in their absorption business.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator

  45. Regarding the Yvanova case. The Judges in the case are elected officials and they know it. And Kamela is up for election if she wants to be in the Senate this case better give us our Due Diligence back. She is also backing the Judge from the Glaski case get elected for office.

    But I think Justice Scalia in his recent TILA decision kind of sent a message to the judges to stop with their Shinanigans. If not I would recommend the Judges to read the Nuremberg Trials.




  47. NPV, now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are!

    Hey wait a minute, I found that site first!

  48. @rock – this topic strikes to the heart of the Yvanova / Glaski case before the California Suckpreme Kourt. If the trustee is not authorized by the contract (PSA) to accept a loan after the closing date (in order to protect the trustors’ tax exemption), the court has no jurisdiction to supersede that authorization in order to protect the banksters who bankroll their re-elections. Ciferri’s analysis makes this clear, and your ad hominem attack is no substitute for legal argument. Ciferri visited the statutory law, case law, and legislative intent from both a factual and historical perspective. (All of which was missing from the amicus curiae brief submitted by CA Atty Gen’l Kamala Harris, to no one’s surprise)

    It should be pointed out that although the resulting ‘assignment’ is uncorrectable and therefore void, the lender attempting to sell the assignment retains possession and the chain of succession of their beneficiary interest has to be investigated thoroughly so there are no surprises. (point of law – in most states time only moves forward, so back-dating legal documents tends to nullify their effect. Except in California, so stay tuned for the Yvanova decision)

  49. Aw Deb, don’t ask that of the poor guy. Right now he’s off at and trying to figure out a response.

    It’s hard being Rock.

    As to Rock substantiating his claims via case law, remember back with me….his first posting post-Jesinoski refuted SCOTUS findings with…..

    a 2009 case from a lower court.

    Go figure….

  50. E.Tolle, I just took the http://www.livinglies-I‘ URL. I have it up for auction already with a starting bid of $500k.

  51. @Rock

    Among the stupid thing you’ve said:

    “Factually and legally incorrect…elexqusitor, I take by your comment you want an explanation. I’ve explained things hundreds of times, proved it with case law etc…I’d be more than happy to oblige you and show proof of rciferri’s lunacy…”

    Actually Rock, you’ve posted nothing that refutes the well reasoned law I’ve come up with.

    Do you actually have any cases since the year 2000 that even cite, much less refute, the New York Court of Appeals and California Supreme Court cases in my memorandum?

    Can you find any?

    I didn’t think so.

    Is Jenkins looking so well reasoned now?

    I didn’t think so.

  52. Rock

  53. As to the above post, I spent some time trying to explain at length the above law to our thick-headed friend Rock as to why it’s true, and with sources.

    All he could say is that Adam Levitin is just plain wrong!

    Adam Levitin: A.B., Harvard; A.M., M.Phil., Columbia; J.D., Harvard

    Rock: Antagonist, Troll, Living Lies

  54. The real bottom-line to all of these latest revelations is how the courts, judges and lawyers have manipulated the laws and deliberately changed their meanings in order to rule against homeowners.

    The veil is being torn down and it’s exposing exactly how the courts and their biased judges have performed their “magic act” of being able to make the house disappear ..even when the viewing audience had full knowledge that the criminal banks and servicers had no rights to the property. The audience is aware of the settlements and consent orders with the federal government and states attorneys general ..Billions of dollars were paid by the criminal thugs to the corrupt government elected officials …they in turn send a message to the courts and judges with a nod and a wink, telling them “the homeowners don’t win any of these cases ..regardless of the crimes and illegalities, they must lose”

    The unjust war against homeowners is justified by those who enriched themselves from the billion dollar pay-offs …they have waged a war of mis-information and provided a smokescreen for the judges to operate behind …the smokescreen is effected by them convincing the rest of the population that “those deadbeat borrowers don’t get a free house”

    The judges take their marching orders from the corrupt federal govt , the message was made perfectly clear ..”Do whatever you need to do, to make sure these homeowners do not prevail in court ..they are a danger to the overall national security, if they win these cases, it will undermine the entire house of cards and reveal the ugly truth to everyone”

    Now .. for years we have been scratching our heads asking the question “How did the lender prevail in court when we all know that they broke laws and committed acts that should void the scheme?”

    What we are seeing lately is how the judges abused their positions and intentionally inflicted harm to homeowners via their deliberate twisting and perversion of misconstruing laws that were set in place to protect the borrowers from the thugs who created the ponzi schemes.

    Slowly its being revealed …and in each case it keeps pointing to the judges as the problem .. its the judges who have had it all wrong, not by accident or misunderstanding ..but by design ..intentional acts from the bench to misconstrue laws in order to rule against the victims.

    So the integrity of our judicial and justice system is compromised, this is grounds for an immediate halt to all foreclosure actions, a full scale investigation needs to take place and senate and congressional hearings conducted to reveal how deep this judicial misconduct went and who was behind it, ordering the misconduct to take place. Those responsible need to be put away in prison for their crimes against the citizens of this country.

    Anyone who believes that the courts have just “misunderstood” the statutes ..sound as dumb as the judges , they knew exactly what they were doing when they twisted and misconstrued laws and protections for homeowners. The judges are the problem, just as we have all been saying from the start. And to all the “attack the mortgage” salespeople here who have been mocking homeowners for questioning the integrity of the judges ..we told you so.

  55. elexqusitor, I take by your comment you want an explanation. I’ve explained things hundreds of times, proved it with case law etc.

    I’ve already showed the proof to the people on this blog that haven’t drank Koo-Aid and appreciate the truth not a bunch of misinformation. If you’re one of them, just ask. I’d be more than happy to oblige you and show proof of rciferri’s lunacy,.

  56. Hey Rock! You’re in luck! http://www.livinglies-I’ is available!

  57. @Rock – stop wasting our time with your braying and take it to the website you support with your funds. If you’re not willing to put your money where your mouth is, what insanity makes you think we want to hear it? We don’t.

  58. rciferri’s lunacy on exhibit again. Factually and legally incorrect, but what would anyone expect from someone who’s never tried a foreclosure case, or for that matter any case.

    All you have here is one scammer recommending another scammer; this has been going on since the beginning of time.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: